Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 313

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No.

5) Amendment Act, 2023 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Bill 22 — Strata Property Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. Bernier

Hon. R. Kahlon

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 25 — Electoral Districts Act

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

D. Davies

P. Milobar

B. D’Eith

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Electoral Districts Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2023

M. de Jong

M. Bernier

Hon. R. Kahlon

D. Ashton

Hon. A. Kang

Tributes

Red Robinson

B. D’Eith

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2),

2023 (continued)

Hon. A. Kang

D. Ashton

Hon. G. Lore

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2023

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

T. Halford

Hon. R. Fleming

G. Kyllo

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act,

Bill 13 — Pay Transparency Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Pay Transparency Act (continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. K. Conroy

A. Olsen

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

N. Letnick

T. Shypitka

G. Kyllo

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2023

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 26,

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act.

In committee room A, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 13, Pay

Transparency Act.

In committee room C, I call continued debate to the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Health.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND

VALIDATING (N o . 5)

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

M. Lee: I rise to join the second reading debate on Bill 26, and I

certainly wanted to add to the thoughtful points that the member for

Abbotsford West made before the lunch break.

As the member spoke to, this is a remarkably extraordinary measure

that the government has brought forward. We certainly all recognize the

need to build, in a rapid manner, affordable housing here in British

Columbia. The member for Abbotsford West talked about the ways to do

that. We know that the particular project that is the subject of this

Bill 26 is a specific project in Vancouver at Arbutus near 7th and 8th

Avenue.

[1:35 p.m.]

That project is an example of what B.C. Housing has brought

forward with the city of Vancouver to be supportive housing, housing

that is not all that supportive in the sense of the nature of the

project itself.

In the information that has been provided in the public realm

around the public hearing process around that project, it doesn’t seem

to have the kind of supports that you would expect. We’ve had a lot of

debate back and forth in this chamber about the government’s approach to

warehouse people — to get them off the streets but not to provide them

with the kinds of 24-7 supports that the government has talked about.

When that happens, we have considerations of the broader community,

considerations that have been brought out in that public hearing

process.

For the government to bring forward Bill 26, it is putting front

and square in this chamber legislation, which, under clause 7(2)( a),

for example, says that the public hearings that were held amending the

bylaw that’s relevant to this Arbutus project, as it’s known, held on

June 28, 29, 30 of 2022 and on July 14, 25 and 26 of 2022, is

conclusively deemed to have been validly held. But that is exactly the

subject matter of a claim that’s been filed with the Supreme Court of

British Columbia under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

I must say, as I’ve said, when I refer to the Judicial Review

Procedure Act…. I would say in this case, given the use of the

legislative instrument of Bill 26 that this government is using here,

that it is concerning. The last time we talked about the Judicial Review

Procedure Act, government didn’t allow us to talk about it. The member

for Abbotsford West stood up at the beginning of the committee process,

as I remember, and he was told to sit down because this government

brought closure on that act.

I remember leaving this chamber to go to the Douglas Fir Room to

continue into estimates on Bill 38, Indigenous self-government for the

care of children, to take back responsibility of First Nations for the

care and responsibility for their own children. We weren’t able to talk

about that bill. We weren’t able to talk about the amendments that this

government brought forward to hold First Nations accountable under that

act.

Here we have legislation that brings forward legislation, once

again, to not hold public process accountable under the Judicial Review

Procedure Act. There’s a pattern here. I know that the member for

Abbotsford West…. I’ll probably say this more than once during my

comments here. The member for Abbotsford West invited the Minister of

Housing, in his remarks, as we close second reading debate here, to

address the concerns that the member for Abbotsford West and myself will

be laying out a little further in the second reading debate.

I think this government needs to meet that higher test, as the

member for Abbotsford West pointed out in his remarks, because this is

an extraordinary measure to take. It’s a measure that may well be

subject to a constitutional challenge.

[1:40 p.m.]

We know that there’s a history, under this Premier, when he was

Attorney General of this province, of bringing forward legislative

instruments that have been challenged in the courts and been found to be

unconstitutional.

The heavy hand of this government, under this Premier’s

leadership, is revealing itself again. We’ve seen that throughout

several years, in this chamber, of debate around the ICBC reforms. We’ve

seen a total lack of respect — for the courts of our province, the

procedures, the rules of court — in the sets of ICBC reforms.

Legislative initiatives were brought forward by the Premier when

he was Attorney General of this province as the chief legal officer, as

I’ve spoken to in this chamber on several occasions, in a clear conflict

when then he was also the minister responsible for ICBC, the largest

litigant in this province — changing the rules of court to benefit

ICBC.

We’ll have the opportunity, I hope, to join the member for

Surrey–White Rock in discussion about exactly where the ICBC reforms are

today.

This subject matter for this bill is just as concerning because

what we’re talking about is passing legislation that has this House

making a conclusive determination that the public hearing process, which

is the subject of a Judicial Review Procedure Act application under

provincial legislation, is deemed to be validly held. It is this

government’s responsibility to demonstrate on what basis we are making

that determination.

I’ve had the opportunity to review the filings in the courts and

see that there are serious issues that are being addressed in the

application by the citizen group. Those considerations around procedural

fairness are important. We know that under the Judicial Review Procedure

Act, there is legislation, of course, that sets out that when a

statutory power is exercised, that exercise of that statutory power by

the city of Vancouver in approving in principle its rezoning bylaw is

subject to judicial review.

We know that under the Vancouver Charter — legislation that was

passed by this Legislative Assembly — the public hearing process

provides the opportunity for the public to be heard in matters contained

in the proposed bylaw under

section 566 of the Vancouver Charter. It is

the manner in which the city of Vancouver made their determination in

their approval of the rezoning bylaw that is the subject matter of the

claim.

[1:45 p.m.]

We know that when local governments make decisions affecting the

public, they must be done in a way that exerts in a manner of procedural

fairness. That high degree of procedural fairness would apply to the

manner in which this bylaw was reviewed. We know there are concerns that

have been raised; that the city failed to disclose material information,

as this was under the public hearing process; that there is an MOU in

place, dated July 2020, between B.C. Housing, CMHC and the city of

Vancouver relating to the design, construction and operation of a

minimum of 300 permanent modular homes to house with

supports.

Again, the understanding of supports is important here.

Individuals are experiencing homelessness on sites across the city of

Vancouver. That MOU was referred to when one looks at the transcript of

the public hearings by the former mayor of Vancouver, the former MLA in

this chamber. Sorry, let me just check that: the former Member of

Parliament, federally. There was another former MLA, of course, of this

chamber that was the mayor of Vancouver before him but, in any event, on

the same team — the same team that’s connected to this

government.

That mayor made determinations as to the way the process would

work. There are process considerations around that relating to the fact

that the MOU wasn’t actually provided to the public. The MOU was

referred to by the mayor repeatedly in the context of that public

process, to the point where it suggested that there would either be a

yes-or-no decision and that referring the matter back to staff was not

an option. Addressing amendments to the proposed bylaw wasn’t an option

either, to be considered.

So this is the challenge with the process. There were restrictions

on the ability of council members on the former council of Vancouver

city council from engaging in discussion. There was limitations on the

debate. And we know that’s what’s set out in the charter.

There is specific flow of the procedures, and that flow of the

public consultation process involves the ability of council members to

address questions to the applicant, and that applicant is the city of

Vancouver through Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency. There seemed to

be some lack of clarity as to the ability of those questions raised to

deal with anything beyond the form of the building itself. The

operations and supports in the building, of the tenants, was not to be

discussed, was not to be addressed, was not to be responded to in

response to those council members.

[1:50 p.m.]

This, again, is another example of the concerns that were raised.

Now, I have looked at, as well, the response that has been filed to the

claim, and there are, certainly, as you might expect, responses to these

concerns. I’m only indicating here that the complexity of this change,

this determination, will certainly be the subject at committee stage of

many questions that we’ll need to walk through.

The response I’ve seen from the city to this claim, in my view,

misses the point that there has been a lack of fairness in terms of the

linkage as to, as is termed, “provides an unreasonable chain of

analysis.” Again, the MOU wasn’t present at the beginning of this

process. Council members were not able to ask questions of a certain

nature relating to the operations and supports for the tenants. Public

members in their submissions on the first day of the six-day public

hearing were again blocked from making certain submissions. Their voice

was blocked, and their understanding, because of a lack of information

provided, the lack of responses, that were constrained at the front end

of this process, has led to an unreasonable chain of

analysis.

I know that there will be people who refer to the fact that there

were six days of public hearings, but the whole fundamentals of the

stream of responses and the opportunities was not dealt with in an

appropriate manner.

These are the kinds of considerations that will need to be

addressed by the minister responsible for Housing. I hope that he will

take the opportunity, as we close second reading debate on this bill, to

at least respond to some of the concerns that we have.

I would say that the reason why this is of concern is because we

know, as we look at similar supportive housing projects in communities

across this province that are needed — they are much needed — that the

lack of transparency, the lack of consultation, the lack of

understanding with the local communities undermines the kind of

confidence that we all want to embrace for these important supportive

housing projects.

That’s why, when this government takes this extraordinary step to

cut off the ability of citizens to question the process, which I’ve

given some examples of, that in their view is highly flawed, it’s a

serious step. It says to every other community in this province

something about this government.

Now, maybe this Premier doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about the

public voice. He doesn’t care about the fact that we have a Judicial

Review Procedure Act that gives the ability to citizens to make an

application to review how the statutory decision-making power of the

city of Vancouver was utilized in this case. I’d say, in view of the

serious concerns that are raised in their application, that this

government in this bill will need to address the concerns around the

lack of procedural fairness.

[1:55 p.m.]

This Premier, and this government, is putting this Legislative

Assembly in position, in place of a court — a court that is in place to

adjudicate legal disputes, to hold governments to account, to hold the

public statutory decision-maker accountable for the decisions that that

body makes under, in this case, the Vancouver Charter.

Once again, the Premier is demonstrating his complete lack of

respect for the courts, for the laws of our land. And he risks another

law, another piece of legislation in this province, being found to be

unconstitutional. Now, in this case, this Premier is doing it when he

has been the former Minister of Housing. Once again, there is this

conflict.

I mention, again, when he was Attorney General, he changed the

rules of court. That was found to be unconstitutional. As the minister

responsible for ICBC…. Here, as the Premier of this province, on a

housing project close to the riding that he represents, in

Vancouver–Point Grey…. Once again, he’s exerting extraordinary powers of

this government to take away the rights of citizens that they have under

the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

At a minimum, members of the official opposition will need to

understand from this government, from this Minister of Housing, the

basis under which they’re presenting this legislation to deem what is

being challenged in the courts to have been validly held.

I would invite the minister…. Because we know that there are a few

more bills to be discussed in this chamber in the next number of days.

Don’t know when we’re going to have the opportunity to go into committee

stage. But I do think this government, as it presents this bill in this

House, needs to fundamentally address the basis under which this bill is

being presented, for the reasons that both the member for Abbotsford

West and myself have raised here.

And I know the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, as the shadow

minister for Housing, will also want to have the opportunity to

participate at length at the committee stage. But I would invite, just

like the member for Abbotsford West, the Minister of Housing to at least

respond in this instance to both of our second reading

speeches.

I do look forward to that committee review of Bill 26 and the

concerns that I’ve expressed about how it’s undermining those citizens’

rights to raise their concerns about the decision process that was made

by the city of Vancouver in respect of the Arbutus project.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you so much, hon. Chair. I want to thank the member for

Abbotsford West and the member for Vancouver-Langara. They’ve raised

some questions that we will canvass at committee stage. I look forward

to that exchange. I look forward to the member from West Vancouver being

able to participate in that as well.

As I said in my opening comments, we’re in a housing crisis. We

need to get housing built as soon as possible. We know that…. We hear

often from communities that they understand that we need housing. We

need to have affordable housing. We need to have supportive housing. But

too often, we hear: “We don’t want it in my backyard.” That is certainly

a concern that I know that many members in this House have shared on how

we need to get housing built in a much quicker way.

I appreciate their comments and look forward to engaging with them

in Committee of the Whole.

The Chair: Members, the question is the second reading of Bill

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment

Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I now call second reading of Bill 22, Strata Property

Amendment Act.

BILL 22 — STRATA PROPERTY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the bill now be read a second time.

This bill will improve access to electric-vehicle charging in

residential strata buildings by making it easier for strata corps and

owners to move forward with installation of electric-vehicle charging.

The changes will also encourage strata corporations planning for future

electric-vehicle-charging needs and will support early adopters of

electric vehicles through a user-pay model. The bill would do these

things through three key amendments.

First, the bill will lower the voting threshold for expenditures

and changes to common and personal property that are needed to move

forward with installation of electric-vehicle-charger infrastructure.

Second, the bill requires strata corporations to obtain an electrical

planning report to help understand the buildings’ electrical capacity

and plan for the expansion of electric-vehicle charging. Three, the bill

will require the strata corps to not unreasonably refuse

residential-strata-owner requests for the installation of

electric-vehicle charging on a user-pay basis when certain criteria are

met.

By supporting the switch to electric vehicles in strata

corporations, the bill supports and fulfils several government

commitments, including the 2019 Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which

requires 30 percent of vehicle sales and leases to be zero-emission

vehicles by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040; the 2018 CleanBC plan, which

promised to explore ways to help make sure people living in MURBs can

charge electric vehicles at home; the November 2020 mandate letter of

the Minister Responsible for Housing, which committed to making it

easier to charge electric vehicles in stratas; and the February 2023

throne speech, which also committed to new legislation to improve access

to electric-vehicle-charging stations in condo buildings.

M. Bernier: I was dumbfounded there. I was anticipating a long, lengthy speech

from the minister.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Oh yes. I don’t know where to go with that one.

Anyway, I do appreciate the opportunity to stand up on Bill 22 and

thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, when we

look at the changes in society right now, with the price of gas, the

amount of people who are looking at electric vehicles…. They’re becoming

increasingly more popular in the province of British Columbia,

specifically down in the larger metropolitan areas.

My quick plug in on this one — we could do this all day, couldn’t

we? — is that when it comes to a big part of rural British Columbia,

where a lot of the electrification of this province comes from,

ironically, there are very few opportunities for charging, especially on

the public side of things. There are no quick chargers in a lot of rural

parts of British Columbia.

So as we see more and more people turning…. I know we’re talking

about stratas, but as I quickly talk about just electrification of our

fuel fleets, I do hear that there are a lot of people that want these

opportunities and the chances to be able to do this. On the roadways, we

haven’t been very successful. In light of the push from government to

try to incentivize, in some aspects, we’ve been really struggling

outside of the Lower Mainland.

When I’ve travelled around to see the quick-charging stations….

We’ve got a lot of slow-charging stations, but as you can appreciate,

stopping on the side of the road in the Pine Pass between Prince George

and Dawson Creek, where there’s no cell service, and being told you have

to sit there for eight to ten hours to charge up your electric vehicle

in order to make it all the way through is actually a

deterrent.

When we look at the electrification that’s required, that’s when

people go home in a lot of places. But the challenge that we have right

now with this bill coming forward…. I appreciate and support the fact

that we want to have more opportunities for electrification.

I’ll have questions when it comes to this specific bill when we

get to committee stage, asking the minister specifically around how this

is going to work. I understand the intent when we are talking about

lowering the permitted number from 75 percent from a strata to 50

percent to allow it.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’ll have questions of where they came up with those numbers and

why they’re doing this. Right now we know it’s really difficult and

costly for a lot of stratas to add charging stalls into their units. The

minister should well know this. Depending on the unit itself, it might

not have the electrical capacity to even handle the charging stations

within the stalls. There are a lot of questions I’m going to have for

the minister as we dive into this.

Bill 22 is helping reduce the barriers for stratas to add EV

chargers to their buildings. I understand the intent of what the

government is trying to do with that, especially, as well, around

changing the strata from more than one year, when it comes to assigning

parking stalls. Again, the minister kind of talked about this. This is

something that makes sense if there’s going to be an investment coming

forward from either individuals or the strata.

I do find it interesting, though, that the minister referenced the

throne speech when we talk about this specific bill. This is not and

does not meet the test of what the Premier was announcing with a

right-to-charge piece of legislation. This is dabbling on the fringes of

that by looking at the Strata Act specifically. But this is not the

right-to-charge, as was put forward by this government that they were

going to try to accomplish through legislation that the Premier hinted

about months ago.

I do understand. Again, I’ll ask the minister questions later on

this. It’s all around allowing the changes within a strata council for

looking at the different approvals that’ll be required for EV

infrastructure, electrical vehicles, and how that will work within those

specific stratas, what they will or will not approve. The intent, I

believe, is obviously to still leave it up to the strata but changing

the threshold to try to allow for those changes.

One of the things I should highlight, as well, is that through the

bill, we’re trying to incentivize electrification. But it should be

noted that in 2019, the NDP slashed rebates for electric-vehicle

chargers by half, from $4,000 to $2,000. On one hand, they’re trying to

incentivize, they say, more people to have electric vehicles, while

they’re cutting and slashing the rebates that will actually assist or

help people in stratas to have these charging stations. There’ll be some

questions, I guess, that we’ll bring around that, for the minister to

justify why they’re trying to have it both ways there.

We have to look at, I think, right now those incentives if we’re

going to continue to try to incentivize people to meet the targets that

this government has put forward, which most people will say are highly

unrealistic. When we look at the original announcement of this

government that all vehicles purchased after 2030 have to be electric

only, it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out when we’re talking

about a lack of energy, even, and charging stations for the existing

fleet, let alone this government’s intention of having the whole

province being electrified within just the next five or six

years.

Again, the intent is something we support — the concept of trying

to ensure that we have the steps going forward to incentivize and to

make it possible for stratas, homeowners and whomever chooses to have

the electrical vehicles. We don’t want to have barriers in the way. I

get that. But we are going to have to have a deeper conversation around

not just the intent but the practicality and how we will actually move

this forward on the ground.

Again, it’s one thing for government to bring forward a piece of

legislation that doesn’t quite match what they promised but nevertheless

bring forward a piece of legislation to try to incentivize and help

stratas when it comes to the electrical infrastructure required. But,

again, the intent has merit. During committee stage, we’ll be asking

more questions around the practicality on the ground and the intent on

actually having this come to fruition.

With that, I’ll leave my comments there and look forward to

debating this further during committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member across the way for his comments and also

his advocacy for increasing rebates for fuel-switching. I really

appreciate his comments on that as well. I, too, look forward to having

that exchange when we move to third reading on this bill.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that we now go to Committee of the Whole on Bill 25,

Electoral Districts Act.

If we can just have a minute break for the minister to come in

with her staff.

Deputy Speaker: We will call a recess for the next five minutes.

The House recessed at 2:11 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 25 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 25;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 2:16 p.m.

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole,

section B, together on Bill 25,

Electoral Districts Act.

Hon. N. Sharma: I have the pleasure of introducing my team that’s here with me

today. We have Anita Nadziejko, Tarynn McKenzie and Isobel

McIntyre.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: Greetings to the minister and the team.

This is not the place for us to consider the practical elements of

how to accommodate the additional MLAs that this legislation will give

rise to, but it probably is appropriate for me to ask whether the

minister is prepared to share with the committee the process that the

government intends to embark upon to determine the manner in which those

additional members of the Legislative Assembly will be accommodated

within the assembly. A long-winded way of saying: what’s the process for

deciding what the configuration will be in this chamber, where space is

at a premium?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m glad we’re not going to talk about benches or chairs, like

before, at this stage. I can tell the member that right now I don’t know

the process, going forward. I suspect it’ll be LAMC, but I’m happy to

talk with him afterwards once we figure that out.

M. de Jong: I will make the suggestion to the Attorney that that is the

appropriate mechanism, only to say that in the past…. This chamber looks

not dramatically different, but different than when I arrived almost 30

years ago. The changes that have been made have always been the product

of a cooperative discussion amongst the members and the parties

represented in the chamber at the time those changes have been

made.

Referring the matter to the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee for a conversation where all of those delightful views can be

aired and considered around how to do this is, I think, the appropriate

one, and I commend it to the Attorney and hope she’ll repeat and provide

some measure of assurance to the committee that that is the approach

this government intends to take.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: As I mentioned to the member, I’m happy to follow up after this

meeting about the process, going forward.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On clause 6.

M. de Jong: As commencement provisions go, this one is, by necessity, a little

different than what we usually see in legislation. It says that the act

comes into force, and by that, specifically, the boundaries that are

created, the new constituencies that are created, come into force at the

dissolution of the parliament that presently sits.

My question is this, and it’s not meant to be mischievous, nor is

it fanciful. We have seen in the past that notwithstanding set election

date legislation, elections can occur at any time. Am I correct that

were the 42nd parliament to be dissolved on June 1, and British

Columbians were asked to go to the polls, then by law, following passage

of this legislation, it would be on the basis of the new boundaries set

out in this legislation? When I say June 1, I mean June 1,

Hon. N. Sharma: Correct.

M. de Jong: Has the minister received assurance from the Chief Electoral

Officer and the officials at Elections B.C. that they are in a position

to administer and conduct an election on the basis of the new boundaries

created in this legislation as quickly and as early as that?

Hon. N. Sharma: I have confidence in the Chief Elec­toral Officer that he’ll

be able to administer the Act and the changes to the Electoral

Boundaries Commission in the next election.

M. de Jong: Not to be argumentative, but confidence is a great thing. I’m not

trying to be cute about this. In conversations I’ve had in the past not

just with this Chief Electoral Officer but in earlier versions of these

changes, I have been told that Elections B.C. and the Chief Electoral

Officer need lead-up time to do everything — properly configure and

produce the maps, configure the voters list — once this chamber has

provided its stamp of approval on the new boundaries.

Has the Chief Electoral Officer communicated to the minister or to

the government that it requires a certain period of time in order to

reorganize themselves around the law I suspect we’ll pass later today in

this chamber?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s difficult to know how long it would take to update the

electoral boundaries in accordance with these changes. But the Chief

Electoral Officer has assured us that he’s confident that it will take

less time than it has in the past, and those estimates are kind of

changing. So it’s hard to nail down exactly how long it would

take.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

M. de Jong: Okay, for four election cycles, this probably was a little less of

an issue because they took place at set times and everyone knew when

that was. I will say, for the moment non-judgmentally, that the present

government has shown itself to be somewhat less committed to the

principle of a set election date than previous governments had been. So

I think it is a fair question.

When the minister says, “Those estimates are changing,” what are

they? What are the consequences if, for example, the present Premier

decided that he wanted to dissolve the 42nd parliament and call an

election this summer or in the fall? What are the consequences of

that?

I’m going to press the minister a little bit. It’s an unusual

transitional commencement provision, and I have a feeling that the

minister and the government have received some specific information from

the Chief Electoral Officer, because I did.

[2:30 p.m.]

If I received that information, I expect that they did, so I’m

hoping the minister will be a little bit more forthright and forthcoming

in sharing with the committee what the Chief Electoral Officer has said

about the amount of time required to organize itself around the new

boundaries that this legislation creates.

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ve been in contact through technology with the Chief Electoral

Officer’s office and the staff there. The estimation right now for this

is eight months, but that’s give or take depending on how it goes. So

it’s around that.

To the member’s question about what happens if there’s an election

call in that interim period, which I think was what he was getting at

with the question, the way the process would flow is that the Premier

would request dissolution, the Lieutenant-Governor would dissolve, and

then it would be up to the CEO to make sure that the act is implemented

at that stage.

Since the act has been passed and these are the boundaries and the

Chief Electoral Officer is administering that act, it would be upon him

to make it so, basically, under the current electoral

boundaries.

M. de Jong: That is helpful, so I appreciate it.

I’ll tell you what I hear in that answer — that is, to the best of

their ability, Elections B.C. and the office of the Chief Electoral

Officer believe something in the range of eight months is required to

organize themselves around the law that is passed. That’s

one.

Two, if the Premier opted to request the dissolution of parliament

and an election in advance of that, not­with­standing

whether or not they were fully organized, it is these boundaries as

contained in Bill 25 that would apply. Any move to an election between

now and eight months from now risks a situation in which Elections B.C.

wouldn’t be fully prepared to proceed with an election on the basis of

these boundaries. Elections B.C. believes eight months is the period of

time they require to be fully prepared to administer an election under

these new boundaries. Have I got that right?

Hon. N. Sharma: Like I said previously, I laid out what steps would be taken in

that instance.

I would say the Chief Electoral Officer and the team there have

shown amazing ability to deliver elections under very difficult

circumstances in terms of the pandemic and how they’ve been able to turn

it around. I have confidence in them that in the scenario as described,

they’d be able to deliver an election.

Clause 6 approved.

On

schedule 1.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: The two schedules, as I understand it, operate as follows, as they

have in the past.

Schedule 1 sets out the names of the various

constituencies, the 93 electoral districts that will be created by this

act, and then

schedule 2 incorporates the legal descriptions of the

boundaries of those.

The naming of the constituencies is something that, from time to

time, attracts a measure of attention, sometimes from Members of the

Legislative Assembly, and, when it does, mostly because it attracts

attention from the people they represent. It’s sometimes very difficult

for people sitting in an office here in Victoria or somewhere in the

Lower Mainland to have a full sense of the importance of some of these

names and the symbolism of some of these names. We’ve heard some

discussion around that from other members of the assembly.

I say that by way of

preamble, because in three instances, we have

heard from people who believe, though they applaud and are grateful for

the work of the commission, that in this final aspect of attaching a

name to the electoral boundary, the commission may not have fully

appreciated the unique local circumstances or perceptions.

Not to keep anyone in suspense, I’m going to table an amendment. I

have a copy for the Attorney General as well. The Attorney will see

there are three electoral districts where an alternative name is being

proposed. In a couple of those cases, colleagues of mine are going to

assist in trying to convey to the Attorney the merit of that. The first

is what is presently referred to as Peace River North and a proposed

change to Peace River–Northern Rockies. Secondly, what is presently

named Kamloops–North Thompson, the proposed change being to

Kamloops–​Thompson Valleys.

Then, thirdly, what is presently referred to as Maple Ridge East,

to Maple Ridge–Mission. As someone who resides in the Abbotsford-Mission

constituency, I can tell the minister that people on the west side of

Mission are anxious to have their presence and community reflected in

the name, and that gives rise to the proposed change.

Those are the three proposed changes and the Attorney — I don’t

know if this is helpful or not — can choose to respond now or, if she

would like, I have at least two colleagues who are anxious to make

submissions to the committee in defence of and in advancing the cause of

the changes that relate to the areas that they are from.

I move the amendment.

[ CLAUSE 2,

Schedule 1, by deleting the text shown as

struck out and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Names of electoral districts

2 The names of the electoral districts are

those specified in Sche­dule 1.

Schedule 1

Names of Electoral Districts

Abbotsford-Mission

Oak Bay-Gordon Head

Abbotsford South

Peace River North

Peace River–​Northern Rockies

Abbotsford West

Peace River South

Boundary-Similkameen

Penticton-Summerland

Bulkley Valley-Stikine

Port Coquitlam

Burnaby Centre

Port Moody-Burquitlam

Burnaby East

Powell River-Sunshine Coast

Burnaby-New Westminster

Prince George-Mackenzie

Burnaby North

Prince George-North Cariboo

Burnaby South-Metrotown

Prince George-Valemount

Cariboo-Chilcotin

Richmond-Bridgeport

Chilliwack-Cultus Lake

Richmond Centre

Chilliwack North

Richmond-Queensborough

Columbia River-Revelstoke

Richmond-Steveston

Coquitlam-Burke Mountain

Saanich North and the Islands

Coquitlam-Maillardville

Saanich South

Courtenay-Comox

Salmon Arm-Shuswap

Cowichan Valley

Skeena

Delta North

Surrey City Centre

Delta South

Surrey-Cloverdale

Esquimalt-Colwood

Surrey-Fleetwood

Fraser-Nicola

Surrey-Guildford

Juan de Fuca-Malahat

Surrey-Newton

Kamloops Centre

Surrey North

Kamloops-North Thompson

Kamloops–Thompson Valleys

Surrey-Panorama

Kelowna Centre

Surrey-Serpentine River

Kelowna-Lake Country-Coldstream

Surrey South

Kelowna-Mission

Surrey-White Rock

Kootenay Central

Vancouver-Fraserview

Kootenay-Monashee

Vancouver-Hastings

Kootenay-Rockies

Vancouver-Kensington

Ladysmith-Oceanside

Vancouver-Langara

Langford-Highlands

Vancouver-Little Mountain

Langley-Abbotsford

Vancouver-Point Grey

Langley-Walnut Grove

Vancouver-Quilchena

Langley-Willowbrook

Vancouver-Renfrew

Maple Ridge-East

Maple Ridge–Mission

Vancouver-South Granville

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows

Vancouver-Strathcona

Mid Island-Pacific Rim

Vancouver-West End

Nanaimo-Gabriola Island

Vancouver-Yaletown

Nanaimo-Lantzville

Vernon-Lumby

Nechako Lakes

Victoria-Beacon Hill

New Westminster-Coquitlam

Victoria-Swan Lake

North Coast-Haida Gwaii

West Kelowna-Peachland

North Island

West Vancouver-Capilano

North Vancouver-Lonsdale

West Vancouver-​Sea to Sky]

North Vancouver-Seymour

I’m happy to accommodate, however she sees fit — the Attorney.

There are two colleagues here who would like to speak to the

amendment.

The last thing I’ll say is that I’m given to understand that in

the federal parliament, members of that parliament are provided with an

opportunity to directly involve themselves in the naming process of the

constituencies, which is why I think sometimes we see those hyphenated

names that include three or four areas represented in what are, by

definition, larger geographic areas.

With that, I move the amendment, and we’ll take it from

there.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Chair: The amendment is in order. We’re speaking to the

amendment.

Peace River North.

On the amendment.

D. Davies: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Hopefully, maybe not Peace River North

for long. We’ll see how the amendment goes.

Just to speak to the amendment that my colleague from Abbotsford

West brought forward…. And he also mentioned that the federal MPs have

also looked at some, including the federal riding of Prince George–Peace

River–Northern Rockies. Within the federal riding…. It was 2013 that

Northern Rockies was added onto the federal riding. It was recognized,

by the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission that happened, that

Northern Rockies is a unique part of the region.

The basis of the recommendation…. I brought up a private member’s

motion. I think it was probably in the area of…. I can’t even remember

now. I think it was March when I brought it up. It was the second time

that I brought this motion up. The first time I brought the private

member’s motion to suggest the name change was in 2018. It comes out of

a number of things, similarly to what the Federal Electoral Boundary

Commissions found, that Northern Rockies is a unique part of the Peace

River.

Now, it’s not that we don’t love the Peace River, because

obviously that’s the

section that I live in within the riding. My

community that I live in, in Fort St. John, is seven kilometres, or a

little less, from the mighty Peace River, which gives name to the riding

itself. The Peace River is, of course, not only known for its oil and

gas and forestry and mining, but it’s very well known as the

breadbasket; 90 percent of all grain for the province of British

Columbia is in the Peace country.

When we look at…. You go four hours north of Fort St John; it’s

very different. It’s a different landscape. It’s completely different

industries, or some different industries. There is no agriculture, or

very little agriculture. There’s some haying up there for some cattle.

But there is no typical agriculture that we see in the Peace country —

the South Peace and the lower part of Peace River North in my

area.

In the last few years, folks up in Fort Nelson, in and around the

Northern Rockies, have seen some significant challenges in the economy.

When I go up there and visiting the A&W in the morning…. If you go

to the A&W in the morning, that’s when you find out what’s going on

in the community, because that’s where everybody goes. You go to your

eight o’clock shift, your nine o’clock shift. There’s even a seven

o’clock shift. That’s where you find out what happens in the community.

And I’m sure others who represent smaller communities probably can

relate. A&Ws just seem to be that.

One of the things that has come up a few times is talking to folks

up there that…. While they do feel a connection, obviously, to the South

Peace, they recognize there is a significant difference. Of course, the

Peace River does not run anywhere near the Northern Rockies.

The Northern Rockies, if you look at it…. In fact, it’s the first

and only regional municipality in the province of British Columbia that

basically runs from about, I would say, 100 kilometres south of Fort

Nelson, runs across to the Alberta border to the Rocky Mountains, all

the way up to the Yukon border. A significant tract of land. Well over

half of the riding sits in the Northern Rockies regional

municipality.

While I’m sitting at A&W and the different places, people do

ask: “Why are we Peace River? It just seems so weird that you’re

referring to us as Peace River. There’s no connection to the Peace

River. We’re not near the Peace River. We’re not…. It’s just not who we

are.”

When I introduced the private member’s bill back in 2018, people

were like: “Good. I sure hope it goes through.” Of course, early this

year, or late last year, the provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission

did their tours, did their engagement. I did another private member’s

bill just to refresh everything, had discussions with the

minister.

[2:45 p.m.]

We were kind of hopeful things were moving forward in the right

direction regarding having the name of the riding changed to Peace

River–Northern Rockies. I already refer to it as Peace River–Northern

Rockies when I talk to people, especially when I’m in Fort Nelson. I

would almost always, just now, say: “Welcome to Peace River–Northern

Rockies,” or that would be my introduction, because that’s what people

expect. That’s what people want.

People want to see that recognition, especially in Fort Nelson. As

I kind of alluded to, they are in tough times. The town of Fort Nelson

has had some economic downturn, and there’s something about the

importance of a name that is really relevant in communities.

As the member for Abbotsford West mentioned, the three of them….

When people see that they’re not represented or they’re missing, it

sometimes is kind of a…. “Gut punch” might be a little too much, but it

feels like something is being taken away from them.

I’m really hopeful that we can see the success of this amendment.

As you know, we’ve ascertained that it’s probably not a huge amount of

change that is required within the legislation to recognize this change.

Obviously, I’m very much supportive of the amendment. I know that I do

have another colleague that is going to be speaking on this about his

area, and I’m hoping to hear from some of the other colleagues in the

House that might support this amendment.

With that being said, I do fully support this amendment, and I

hope the rest of the chamber does.

P. Milobar: I’m glad to rise to this motion around the amendment. As you said,

Kamloops–North Thompson — that’s one of the ridings in this

amendment.

I’m not going to take a lot of time, as the previous speaker as

well. This really isn’t about the hard work that the commission had to

do. People across this province with boundaries are questioning maybe

where the lines are, and that tends to happen each time this process

unfolds. Although some people are thrilled with how the new boundaries

went, others, maybe, not so much.

This amendment is very purposeful in that it is not remotely

trying to amend the 93 riding maps. I want to make that very clear. It’s

not changing one boundary. It’s not proposing to change one boundary.

What it’s proposing to do is better geographically represent, by the

names, three different ridings in this province, one of which being my

current riding. I say current because both the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson and myself have had discussions, and I will be running in the

new Kamloops Centre riding moving forward.

Kamloops–North Thompson, moving forward, is not really

Kamloops–North Thompson. This is one of those ridings where, on a map,

the local knowledge did not come into play. Around 85 percent of the

geography of that new riding is actually the existing Kamloops–North

Thompson riding, but around 70 percent of the population is the existing

Kamloops–South Thompson riding.

In addition to that, the South Thompson Valley, which starts in

Chase and ends at the confluence of the Thompson rivers in downtown

Kamloops and on the shores of the Tk’emlúps — that’s the full length of

the South Thompson Valley. That name is no longer reflected in this

riding despite a massive chunk of the population in that riding living

there. It’s a significant geographic marker in our area.

For a city that’s named after the meeting of the waters, to

totally not take into account one of those major pieces of that naming

does a disservice to people. It will confuse people because now you will

have people that live as far south as Westwold not understanding how

they are part of North Thompson. They do understand the South Thompson

connection.

That is the problem with the naming. It is a minor correction that

needs to be made. The commission, when they first proposed it, actually

had changed the name, and they changed the name to Kamloops–North

Shuswap.

We have no indication that they were going to do this when they

came back with the final mapping. Again, we are not trying to move one

line. We’re not trying to move one resident from one side or the other.

This is not about political gamesmanship of one party over another

trying to get a political advantage. This is about trying to make sure

that constituents, when they go to vote, in large portions of areas,

actually understand the geography attached to their name, because it is

important.

[2:50 p.m.]

No one is perfect, and it’s no slight on the commission that in

their flurry of trying to move the lines and reorganize 93 ridings from

one preliminary to another, and trying to then figure out how to change

names again, this might have slipped through. But that’s the purpose of

this chamber. If it wasn’t, what’s the point of bringing forward the

legislation? What’s the point of having committee stage? What’s the

point of having the ability to potentially amend things if that’s not

the process?

I would ask the government members — because, obviously, we need

government support to make this actually happen — to agree to this

amendment, which does not change the boundaries. It is not political

interference. It is three ridings whose geography, in their naming, was

missed because of local nuances by the commission. That is as clear as

we can make it, and that is why we feel it would be

important.

We’ve had discussions with people that live in the South Thompson

Valley. I’ve had discussions with the elected officials up in the North

Thompson Valley. They agree. They understand that Kamloops–Thompson

Valleys instead of Kamloops–North Thompson would be much more

representative, fair and accurate, most importantly, for the voting

public to understand what their riding is.

That is why I support this amendment. I truly do hope that the

government can see why this is really, in terms of legislation, a minor

amendment. It is not actually changing any of the fundamental, core

pieces of this report. It’s simply acknowledging a couple of slight

oversights by the commission when it came to their final naming of

ridings. Thank you for the time.

B. D’Eith: I did want to speak to this amendment.

Appearing in front of the commission was a privilege for all of

us. It is an independent commission. I certainly respect the

commission’s independence in terms of making decisions in regards to the

boundaries and the names. But I did want to say, in regards to,

specifically, the Maple Ridge East name…. I would speak in favour of

having it remain Maple Ridge–Mission.

The reason for that is simply in regards to the fact that, while I

understand the rationale that perhaps the population base may be

primarily based in the Maple Ridge side, geographically, this particular

area of Maple Ridge and Mission is about 50-50. It’s about half and

half. In that respect, half of my riding, geographically, going into the

next election…. The name wouldn’t be part of the riding. Certainly, I

had requested that it stay the same, Maple Ridge–Mission.

I also feel that this is actually the highest growth area — in

Mission. We will see Mission doubling in size over the next 15 to 20

years. A lot of that growth will be on the west side of Mission, which

is, in fact, where we were talking, just to put it into

context,

While I am losing a fair amount…. And I understand the rationale.

I’ve lost a fair amount of houses as the boundary moved west. I still

have a lot of areas within Mission. That would include Stave Lake; a

number of areas like Silverdale, which is the highest-growth area;

Ruskin; and others. So there are some other very important parts of

Mission that are in it.

Therefore, at least in that regard, I would like to support that

part of the amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank everybody for their submission and bringing

forward this amendment. I know everybody cares very passionately about

their community and their riding name. I certainly have some sympathy

about their perspectives and what they see on the ground.

It’s really important that the independence of the commission be

respected, in the sense where they’re given the ability to travel across

the province, hear submissions of thousands of people across the

province.

[2:55 p.m.]

They are tasked with choosing the name and the boundaries. That

choice of a name is also subject to potential political interference. So

in my view, we should respect the work of the independent commission

with respect to the name change.

I understand that there may be other processes that we need to

think about in the future. The member for Abbotsford West mentioned that

in other places, MLAs have more of a role in giving input on the name of

their boundary. But the process that unfolded over the months that it

has to get to this stage, I think, needs to be respected.

For those reasons, I won’t be supporting the amendment.

M. de Jong: I suppose I’m disappointed. The attempt here was genuine — to

reflect some local considerations that it’s really difficult for a

commission that exists for a relatively brief period of time to fully

appreciate, amidst all of the other things on their plate.

The committee and the minister have heard the rationale from three

members. There seems, from that point of view, to be bipartisan support

for….

These are not huge. They are of no consequence with respect to the

boundaries themselves, where that independence is fundamentally

important. But to be fair, I don’t know that the Attorney has offered up

a very compelling case for rejecting good-faith amendments that are

designed to address concerns that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has

heard, and my colleagues from the northern Peace and from

Kamloops.

It’s a shame. We often hear, and we frequently hear it from the

government, this desire to work together, and here’s a case where I had

hoped that that spirit would permeate and prevail. It apparently

hasn’t.

I think the Attorney is being overly doctrinaire, quite frankly,

in rejecting out of hand good-faith amendments that, as I say, seem to

enjoy the support of both sides of the House. But she is the Attorney,

and if that’s the approach the government intends to take, then I expect

this attempt at good-faith improvement will fail. And for the people in

the three constituencies involved, that’s unfortunate.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, on the amendment.

Division has been called.

[3:00 p.m. - 3:05 p.m.]

Members, the question is the proposed amendment to

schedule 1

of Bill 25, proposed by the member for Abbotsford West.

[3:10 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Alexis

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

D’Eith

Doerkson

Halford

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Wat

NAYS — 46

Anderson

Babchuk

Bains

Beare

Begg

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Rustad

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

M. de Jong: I am obliged now to ask the Attorney, because we are confronted by

a circumstance that I don’t think I’ve seen before in this House: is the

Attorney able to assure the committee that

schedule 1 enjoys the

unanimous support of the executive council?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, it does.

M. de Jong: I’m wondering how the Attorney can provide that answer when only a

moment ago, one of her colleagues voted against the very

section we’re

discussing.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: It does have the full support of government. I think that was an

amendment that the member was referring to, but the legislation has the

support of government.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:16 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

Bill 25, Electoral Districts Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:19 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess to get staff in place.

The committee recessed from 3:19 p.m. to 3:24 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill

24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I can advise the committee and the minister that members of the

opposition will begin their questioning at clause 11,

part 4, so we can

move through clauses 1 through 10. But what I’m going to suggest is that

we stand down clause 11 and move to clause 12. So 1 to 10 we can deal

with quickly and then, with everyone’s agreement, stand down clause

Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

The Chair: By agreement, we will stand down clause 11.

Clause 11 stood down.

Clauses 12 and 13 approved.

M. de Jong: I don’t like taking these things too far out of order. If everyone

is in agreement, we can go back to clause 11,

part 4, of the

bill.

On clause 11.

M. Bernier: Thanks to my colleagues, and apologies to the minister and the

House. I got tied up in another quick meeting but appreciate the

flexibility to ensure that we have a few questions on this

section.

I guess my first…. It’s a very simple part, a simple change, that

the minister has put in here in

section 11. I’m just going to read

this.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

It’s changing the Strata Property Act. A

section is repealed and

the following substituted: “Except as permitted by subsection (2), a

bylaw must not restrict the age of persons who may reside in a strata

lot.”

I think I understand the intent. Can the minister tell the House

why this change has to come forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We engaged with stakeholders. Some of their legal department

representatives suggested that it may be easier to clarify the language

to avoid any misunderstandings of the intention of the direction we want

to go, and this is a response to that.

M. Bernier: Well, this is a change to the act, so what is the direction that

government is wanting to go then? Why do we need this change?

Government stood in this House under the Strata Act, under the

previous minister, and made changes to the Strata Act. I will

acknowledge that we do have a new minister in front of us. He was not

the minister at the time, when the previous changes were made to the

Strata Act.

I’m just curious why now they’re bringing it forward, yet again,

in the next session to change it one more time.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question, and I do recall the opposition

voting against the bill but voting in favour of this particular clause.

I think that’s important to note.

To the member’s question, this clarifies that not only can a

strata corporation not pass bylaws setting a minimum age that is less

than 55, but they also cannot have or enforce such bylaws they already

had passed.

M. Bernier: I wasn’t going to spend a lot of time here, but I think we have

to. I think this is important to clarify.

Again, the previous Minister of Housing, under the direction of

the now Premier, brought in changes to the Strata Act, saying that these

changes were needed in order to immediately, it sounded like, according

to the minister, open up 2,900 units by changing the Strata Act to allow

for the age restrictions to be removed.

[3:30 p.m.]

At the time, there was a discussion that we would not target

stratas who had an age limit of 55. I’m just curious. Obviously, this

government got it wrong. We warned them that this would happen and that

they would probably make changes. They specifically and deliberately

said no, they wouldn’t have to. Now we have this in front of

us.

My question to the minister: in reading this, and with the

minister’s answer I just heard, can he just clarify, for the record, and

for people who are a little anxious on this, what about stratas who have

had age restrictions of 55-plus for, some of them, decades?

Is this change in this misc stat bill, rather than an actual full

housing bill brought forward…? It was just one line in a misc stats bill

for a change. But is the minister saying, unless I misunderstood him,

that even if somebody has had an age restriction for the last 20, 30, 40

years, whatever they’ve allowed in their strata…? If this gets passed

and comes into effect, does that mean that their bylaws will ultimately

become non-enforceable?

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. The 55-plus rule remains.

M. Bernier: So has the minister been tracking, since Bill 44…. Bill 44 was the

housing bill that was brought in, the strata bill, last session, last

year. Since that time, has the ministry, government, been monitoring or

keeping track of how many stratas have changed, in the last six to eight

months, whatever it’s been, to an age restriction of 55-plus?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, we canvassed this in estimates in great length. We projected

around 230 out of the 34,000 strata corporations in this province

changed directions.

M. Bernier: If those changes have been made based on the previous bill, Bill

44 — which is why a lot of these stratas did that, 230 — that’s actually

not surprising from this side of the House. It should be absolutely

shocking for the NDP, because the minister stood in this House and said

that nobody would do this.

The Premier publicly said that nobody would do this. “Nobody is

going to make these changes in their strata. Absolutely not going to

happen. We’re not worried about it.” We stood on this side of the House

for hours on Bill 44 and warned the government that this would be the

outcome, the unintended consequence, of Bill 44.

We were reassured by the minister of the time, and the Premier,

that we were completely wrong and that this wouldn’t happen. Now we’re

hearing it’s 230.

Yes, I agree. It was canvassed in estimates. But my question now

is: are these 230 grandfathered? Are they going to be allowed to, if

they’ve changed to 55-plus…? Is this bill allowing them to keep their

55-plus designation, or is this bill taking away that as

well?

I’m trying to understand, from the minister, where this comes into

force and effect. Is he saying that if this passes, going forward,

nobody can do it, but anybody that’s done it up to today can keep that

designation of 55-plus?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not sure if the member fully understands the changes here.

This is clarifying language. Strata corporations have the ability to go

to 55-plus. Nothing changes. They can go to 55-plus. The 16 hours of

estimates debate — we canvassed this at great length.

[3:35 p.m.]

We estimated that 230 out of the 34,000 strata corps decided to go

to 55-plus. That doesn’t mean that they can stop people from renting in

that building. It means that the renters in that building will be

55-plus. That doesn’t change anything. This amendment doesn’t change any

of that.

M. Bernier: Maybe the minister can explain to the House, then, understanding

what the minister just said. So if some stratas are still attempting to

keep their 19-plus bylaws…. We’ve heard the stories of families who are

renting, who are going to possibly have a child, and them being told,

because it’s a 55-plus or even a 19-plus, that they’ll be forced to move

out.

Some of those changes have been made already under Bill 44, which

were the unintended consequences that we warned this government of. Can

the minister explain the intent from this change? If he’s saying it

doesn’t really change much, what does it mean when they say that a bylaw

or a strata corporation cannot restrict the age of a person who can

reside in there? That is the deliberate wording that is within this

section, but if we talk about Bill 44, it actually was

restricting.

I’m just curious if the minister can clarify for me what he means

and what they mean by the restriction of age for a person that can

reside in the strata lot. If the minister can give me some examples of

what he means by the intent of this bill.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The previous language said that the corporation must not pass a

bylaw. Through conversations with lawyers from some of the strata

corporations, they suggested that we clarify the language, and that’s

why we’ve clarified the language to say “a bylaw must not restrict,”

because it’s easier to understand.

M. Bernier: I’m still asking for some more clarity, though, if the minister

could indulge me. Again, I would read that as if a bylaw cannot restrict

the age of a person who resides in the strata lot, if a strata puts

forward a bylaw that says nobody under the age of 19 can live in here,

then the strata has restricted the age.

The minister just said — and I’m trying to understand, so he can

walk me through this — no, they can still have 55-plus age restrictions.

Yes, they can still have 19-plus age restrictions. That’s what I

understand from the minister’s comment, but the bill is saying that they

cannot restrict the age. So which is it? Again, maybe the minister can

explain that to me so I can understand.

Again, that’s back to the clarification and the confusion that

this government created with Bill 44 by allowing stratas…. I know the

minister wasn’t here for Bill 44 in this role, but we had lengthy debate

and discussion on this. We were reassured that stratas could restrict

the ages, but it wouldn’t happen. We’re seeing it happen. I’m trying to

understand how this wording is actually going to change anything if the

minister says they can all be grandfathered and still have age

restrictions.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Maybe I’ll step back a little bit and say that there were some who

thought that the way the language was, that if they had a bylaw already

before the legislation came in, that restriction of allowing, not

allowing people to rent would continue. We disagreed, but we agreed

that, in order to clarify the language, we would change the language as

it is now.

If the member is wondering if people can still go to 55-plus, the

answer is yes. If they choose to, they can. What’s important note here

is that they cannot stop people from renting in buildings. If they move

to 55-plus, they can still have renters in that building, but they will

have to be 55-plus. So that doesn’t change, if the member is asking that

question.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m trying to keep up here, because the language, the rules, keep

changing.

It’s interesting that this government has been targeting stratas

so much. We’ve heard, I think, three times today, in different bills,

the effects and the pressures on stratas. Again, I appreciate the

minister’s comments on this.

I’ll use the real-life scenario that I want the minister to

explain there or say yes or no to. We’re hearing all around the media

that people are saying that because of Bill 44, which was brought in

last year…. A strata has designated a specific unit, and the minister

acknowledged that 230 of them have been changed to 55 plus. So they

can’t restrict renters. It sounds like, from that answer, they can’t

restrict renters, but the renters still have to be over 55.

I do find that interesting, because I thought the previous

minister stood up in this House and said that the whole point of Bill 44

and the changes in the Strata Act at that time was to allow young

families, young people…. So 2,900 units were going to become available

overnight by Bill 44 for young families and young people, starting out,

to be able to rent.

Now, we didn’t distinguish that it could only be young people. But

the commentary from this government was saying that a lot of people are

younger, struggling to get into the rental market, and this was going to

magically, overnight, with Bill 44, create 2,900 empty units. Now we’re

hearing 230 places have gone to 55 plus.

So maybe my question is this: of the 2,900 units that they said

would be available, as of last year, for younger families to rent, how

many have actually materialized? I’m assuming the government keeps track

of that, since they obviously come up with a number.

So did we get all 2,900? Are they all rented? Are they all full?

Are they all young families moving in them? If so, what happens with the

230 units that have now made 55-plus age requirements for all these

young families that are living in them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member wants to go back and look at estimates from all of

last week, we canvassed this at great length.

The member gave a couple of scenarios. He said he was going to

give an example, but maybe I’ll give him an example just to give him

some more comfort around the change. If a building changes to 55 plus,

they cannot stop rentals in that building to people of 55 plus. Now, the

opposition critic, last week, asked me about young families. Yes, there

are more young families able to rent in a lot of these

buildings.

But it was also highlighted that there are seniors who actually

rent, who actually need rentals. So if these buildings, the 230 out of

34,000, decide that they want to be 55 plus, they can still be 55 plus.

But that means that if there’s a rental suite in that building, that

will have to be for somebody that’s 55 plus.

Clause 11 approved.

Clauses 14 to 17 inclusive approved.

[3:45 p.m.]

D. Ashton: I’m waiting for a Municipal Affairs amendment for….

Interjection.

D. Ashton: Starting clause 13.

The Chair: I believe clause 13 has already passed earlier.

It’s up to the members. If they’re okay to revisit, going back

to clause 13.

Leave granted.

D. Ashton: I just want to make sure. We’re in

section 2 of the Vancouver

Charter, regarding fees, clause 13. Am I correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member. We’re just going to have to switch teams to

bring the Muni team in. So if you just give us a quick minute for them

to come in, and then we can go from there.

The Chair: We’ll just take a very brief recess to wait for the staff to

come in.

The committee recessed from 3:47 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order on clause

D. Ashton: To the minister and her staff, second time today, and I apologize.

We were online a little bit earlier. I pushed the panic button to get

everybody over here, and I would thank you for your expeditious

arrival.

On clause 13, I’m fine with what has been voted on. My questions

will go to 14 on.

The Chair: That one has already passed, so we’ll go on to clause

On clause 14.

[3:50 p.m.]

D. Ashton: My understanding is it just changes the wording from “fix a fee”

to “establish and impose a fee” in that particular clause. Is that

correct?

Hon. A. Kang: Just before I answer the question, I’d like to introduce my staff

that are with me today, so we can have them on the record. I have with

me Tara Faganello, the assistant deputy minister for local government

division; as well as Kara Woodward, executive director of policy

research and legislation branch; Miriam Starkl-Moser, manager of policy

and legislation; and in a very nice room in the back, we have Sarah

Greer, the senior analyst, policy and legislation.

The amendment is “establish and impose a fee for a

permit.”

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

D. Ashton: It just adds the word “impose” to the application of fees. Is that

correct?

Hon. A. Kang: Yes.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

D. Ashton: It’s my understanding also on clause 16 that it establishes that

when someone pays a fee they can receive copies of a remuneration report

for the Vancouver council. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Kang: It is just modernizing the language. Nothing in the bylaw has

changed.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

D. Ashton: I do have a few questions on this one. I’d like to also recognize

those in the other room, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to

have you here. Again, please accept my apologies for earlier. I just

thought that things were going to proceed a lot quicker than what they

did.

Clause 17 — why does this

section allow the city to impose a fee

payable that is applicable outside of the city?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: This particular part mirrors the Community Charter. It is pulled

from the broader fee of the authority. These fees tie their services to

neighbouring municipalities that are in other orders of government, but

it’s unlikely to be a city. For example, it could be UEL. It could be

Musqueam land. Take, for example, water services that are provided by

the city of Vancouver, and they’re also extending this water service to

UEL, so they would be able to charge fees for that as well.

D. Ashton: The regional district also has services that are contiguous

through and from the city. That would be another example, because of the

city’s participation in the regional area?

Hon. A. Kang: This agreement would take place where the city and the regional

district have entered into a service agreement.

D. Ashton: So it would be something that the city of Vancouver has control

over that they let or utilize, through rent or fee-for-service, for an

area outside? This would specifically look after that, and allow the

city to charge?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is yes. Vancouver can establish a fee for the service

where the parties have entered into a service agreement.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister. Can the minister clarify: does the

addition of

section 199.01(2)(

c) establish the ability for the city to

charge fees for documents that are currently accessible without a

fee?

Hon. A. Kang: This is simply a rewrite, a modernization of the wordings. Nothing

has changed in this section.

D. Ashton: I know that they’re trying to align this with the Community

Charter. However, does this allow the city to now add additional fees

for documents that are, at this point in time, without a fee?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: For administrative types of fees, such as photocopying, the city

of Vancouver already had that provision to be able to do that. This

this into words.

D. Ashton: You know, for years, coming from municipal government, many of us

were very envious of the Vancouver Charter in some ways, but it seems

now that they’re being funneled into the pen like the rest of the

municipalities and regional districts. I say that politely, Madam

Chair.

Does this enable the city of Vancouver to charge a fee for

freedom-of-information applications?

Hon. A. Kang: Currently the city of Vancouver already charges fees for

FOIs.

D. Ashton: The new

section 199.01(7) says: “The Council may not establish or

impose a toll on the use of streets unless specifically provided by a

Provincial or federal enactment.” If another entity such as Metro

Vancouver or TransLink called for a toll on the use of the streets,

would this be considered a provincial or federal enactment?

[4:10 p.m.]

B. D’Eith: I’d like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Tributes

RED ROBINSON

B. D’Eith: It’s with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a

Vancouver broadcaster, the legendary Red Robinson, who passed away

recently.

Red spent more than 60 years on the city’s airwaves. His impact on

the Vancouver music scene will be felt for decades to come.

Red Robinson began his career in 1954. He was the first deejay in

Vancouver to play the burgeoning and, at the time, highly controversial

rock ‘n’ roll music. Through interviews and dedicated airplay, he

introduced the city to the Beatles, Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly. For

his incredible efforts, Red Robinson was honoured to be voted into the

Canadian Broadcast Hall of Fame, receive the Order of B.C. in 2016 and

the Canada 125 award.

I’d like to end this statement by reading a quote from Red. “You

can’t look back in life. You’ve got to look forward. I never tried to do

that, except when I had the radio show. It’s unbelievable what happened.

It was like a fairy tale come true.”

Would the members of the House please join me in honouring this

titan of the broadcast industry and remembering his impact on our

province.

Debate Continued

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is no, not with this legislation. This legislation is

amendments for the city of Vancouver alone. The city may not establish

or impose a toll.

D. Ashton: For my clarification, would this require a provincial or federal

law to enable a toll on the use of streets or just a directive by either

level of government?

There’s an entity that I had asked you about — i.e., Metro

Vancouver or TransLink, probably non-senior levels of

government.

I’ll just repeat it again. Would this require a provincial or

federal law to enable a toll on the use of streets or just a directive

by either government?

Hon. A. Kang: The member across is asking questions that are outside of the

legislation.

[4:15 p.m.]

What our understanding is, with the Transportation Act…. The

Transportation Act provides authority to the province to charge tolls in

relation to the use of provincial highways. Nothing for municipalities

or regional districts.

D. Ashton: The provincial or federal government does not have any authority

over the city of Vancouver for Vancouver imposing tolls

themselves.

Hon. A. Kang: If the city of Vancouver would like to impose tolls, they would

need to have authority either from the provincial government or the

federal government.

D. Ashton: I would just ask the minister to clarify. The provincial

government or the federal government, not both. So it’s

either-or.

If one was to be opposed to it, can the other dictate that it

would happen? Does it have to be unanimity, or can it be

either-or?

Hon. A. Kang: This particular section, just to clarify…. The city “may not

establish or impose a toll on the use of streets unless specifically

provided by a Provincial or federal enactment.”

This particular section…. It is not within our authority to be

able to say what tolls they want to be using. We are establishing that

council may not establish or impose a toll.

If you would like further information, we could connect you,

perhaps, with the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure.

D. Ashton: I do read in section (7): “The Council may not establish or impose

a toll on the use of streets unless specifically provided by a

Provincial or federal enactment.”

Further to that, I would ask…. This is my

interpretation of it,

nobody else’s. I think of road tolls right away. What I’m asking is:

does this new

section prevent the city from charging a fee for road use

— festivals, parades or other non-motorized vehicle use on the streets —

without an enactment from a higher level of government?

I would give an example. Does this prevent the city from charging

a fee for events such as Vaisakhi, which we’ve just witnessed, or the

Pride parade or other cultural events?

I’m curious, as to section (7), specifically. Does the province or

the federal government have the authority to say yes or no?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The reason why the wording of “federal enactment” is in this

legislation is that the federal government solely owns some road

infrastructure in Vancouver, specifically the Arthur Laing Bridge from

South Vancouver to Richmond and YVR.

The member asked about festivals and it requiring tolls. Road

tolls are tolls to transit across the streets. Those are tolls. For

festivals such as Vaisakhi, the host or the festival organizers would

require different permits. A permit would be different from a

toll.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister for the explanation. So a toll is across

the street or along the street?

Hon. A. Kang: Along the streets.

D. Ashton: Does this

section prevent the park board from imposing fees on use

of roads within their jurisdiction, or is it specifically limited to

council?

Hon. A. Kang:

Section 119.01 only has application to council, not the park

board.

D. Ashton: I want to thank the staff and the minister.

Many places in the world today that are establishing tolls for

people to come to downtown cores are establishing physical impediment

for people to actually get their vehicles into the downtown

core.

[4:25 p.m.]

Whether you’re for it or against it, I just wanted to ensure that

the clarification is that that cannot just come from the city of

Vancouver. It has to be dictated either by a federal or a provincial

agency.

With that answer, my next questions will be on clause

Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive approved.

On clause 21.

D. Ashton: Removing the wording that says that the city can impose fees on

snow and ice removal…. Is this the authority being removed, or is it

enabled through the previously reviewed

section being added to 199.01,

specific to snow and ice removal?

Hon. A. Kang: This particular

section is defaulter’s expenses. The purpose of

this clause 21 is to remove a specific specified authority to remedy an

action at the expense of the defaulter, which would be captured by the

new broad defaulter’s expense authority.

D. Ashton: That’s captured if there’s a fine, and it enables the municipality

to levy those fines and collect those fines. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Kang: This is a cost recovery. For example, if someone did not remove

snow and ice from a sidewalk and the city came and did that job, then it

would be a cost recovery and will be charged to the person who did not

do the work.

D. Ashton: Thank you. My next comments are on clause 23.

Clauses 21 and 22 approved.

On clause 23.

D. Ashton: These sections all strike the phrase “and the fees for which.”

Just to clarify in conjunction with the

section of 199.01. Does this

section prevent the imposition of fees on the following?

Maybe if the minister could just separate out the ones, if what

I’m saying is not correct. I would say: for 23, is water connections;

for 24, is the installation of connection of property to sewer; 25 is

building permits; 26 is depositing soil, sand, gravel or other material

on land in the municipality; 27 is city electrical permits; 28 is public

parking fees; 29 is motion picture festivals and other events; 30 is

public bathing pools; city crew removing rubbish from private property

for a fee in the clearing of brush and weeds; and 32 is

cemeteries.

Just going back to it, these sections all strike the phrase “and

the fees for which.” Just to clarify, in conjunction with the

section of

199.01, do these sections prevent the imposition of fees on the

following that I have just stated?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Clause 23 removes specific fee authority of the list that the

member across has read through. This avoids duplication and redundancy.

It still exists. It does remove specific fee authority, which will be

captured by the new broad fee authority.

D. Ashton: So the addition of the earlier sections allows the imposition of

the fees on these sections?

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is yes.

D. Ashton: My next questions start at clause 29.

The Chair: I wanted to clarify, because my microphone wasn’t on, that

clause 21 was passed.

Clauses 23 to 28 inclusive approved.

On clause 29.

D. Ashton: Can the minister clarify how clause 29, which amends

section

319(1)(

f) of the Vancouver Charter, on the use of streets for motion

pictures, festivals and other events is…? To try and maybe expedite

through a few things, is this reconciled with the newly added

section of

199.01(7), which prohibits the imposition of fees on the roads? I’m just

combining both of those to get one singular answer, if

possible.

Hon. A. Kang: This bill text removes the words “and to levy fees therefor.” It

removes a specified fee authority, which would be captured by the new

broad fee authority.

D. Ashton: Could the minister or her staff define “other events” for the

purpose of this bill? Do they have an example of what other events could

be?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: There’s no difference than the authorities that Vancouver already

has. But in terms of other events, Vancouver would be able to determine

these particular types of events. But I could give you some examples,

such as parades, gatherings on streets, advertising on streets, use of

streets for motion pictures, festivals, parades, block parties,

etc.

D. Ashton: I’m just curious about a clear separation on this. Would this

provide the city to impose fees on road usage by creative — and I’m

being honest —

interpretations of the phrase “other events”? “Other

events” seems to be quite broad, other than specific usage of the

streets and/or roads. Would this allow the city, in its own

interpretation under the new act, to be a bit authoritative on what they

could or could not charge for?

Hon. A. Kang: The council may make bylaws, which are already in place. These

bylaws are quite prescriptive, such as parades; gathering on streets;

sales on streets; advertising on streets; distributing advertising

matter; use of streets for motion pictures, festivals and other events;

fighting in public places; street performers; limiting permits. Events

are events that have a specified beginning and end time.

D. Ashton: That’d be a new one — charging for a fight on the street. I don’t

know about that.

Does this

section in any way allow the city council, through

provincial enactment, the imposition of fees or tolls on the use of the

streets? In this section, is there any way that the city council could

utilize provincial enactment to impose a fee or tolls, etc., underneath

this section?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The answer is no. Section (7), under 199.01: “The Council may not

establish or impose a toll on the use of streets….”

Clause 29 approved.

On clause 30.

D. Ashton: Just quickly, it’s my understanding that it removes the fee

imposition for public bathing pools. Is that correct? And it also allows

the application of costs to people that do not remove rubbish — i.e.,

plants and, I’m assuming, back alley stuff — and to the maintenance of a

property to ensure properties are maintained properly. This clause,

section 30, looks after that.

Hon. A. Kang: Nothing has changed. Council may still make bylaws for public

bathing pools and a standard of maintenance. This

section removes the

specific fees that are captured by the new, broad defaulter’s expense

authority.

D. Ashton: So 30 I’m fine with.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

D. Ashton: Just a clarification. It says that it clarifies the rules if a

property that is not a single-family home is not being maintained with

adequate heat, light, water or similar utilities — that after a notice,

it can be remediated at the cost imposed on the property. However, today

we’re seeing more and more homes that have legal and illegal

suites.

Is there any form of clarification that the ministry could give

that there could be some authoritative remedial action taken for homes

that are utilized as more than just a single-family residence — i.e.,

with a suite and/or an illegal suite attached to it — where the owner or

the resident is not providing heat to the other portions that are being

rented, or the other examples that are given?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The specific defaulter’s expense authority was not removed because

it includes the public notice requirements that would not have been

fully captured by the broad authority under

section 336.

The amendment modernizes the language used in the Vancouver

Charter. The Vancouver Charter was drafted in 1953, so it did not have

the same modern language currently used in other local government

legislation.

D. Ashton: Again, could the minister state…? Is remedial action allowed to

take place on a single-family residence that has a multifamily use or a

multi-individual use? It specifies that it is not a single-family home,

but unfortunately, more single-family residences have additional rental

space in them.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We’re not changing the rule. The substance of the act has not

changed, and any building used for dwelling purposes, other than a

one-family dwelling, is being adequately provided with utilities. This

is really about the change of fees. The content of the act has not

changed.

Clauses 31 to 35 inclusive approved.

On clause 36.

D. Ashton: I’m to glad to see all the cross-references are there. My final

question: is the city of Vancouver in favour of all of these

amendments?

Hon. A. Kang: All these amendments were requested by the city of Vancouver, and

we have also checked with the current new council.

D. Ashton: I would just like to thank the minister and the staff present.

Thank you very much. And maybe those who aren’t in the room but

elsewhere. Greatly appreciated. I’d also like to thank a young gentleman

by the name of Dion, who has been of great assistance to myself. Thank

you very much.

Clauses 36 to 46 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Lore: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2023

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G. Lore: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 23, Motor Vehicle Amendment

Act.

[5:00 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 5:02 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re on Bill 23, Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023.

Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister and, more importantly, the minister’s

staff for being here today.

What other persons are being considered as part of the “prescribed

person” definition for “vulnerable road user”?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Let me just begin, at this early stage of committee debate, by

introducing some staff who are here to assist me to answer questions

from the critic. To my left is Brad Gerhart, who’s the senior

legislative director; to my right is Jeremy Wood, executive director of

policy and legislation; and seated behind me is Nina Bindra, who is

legal counsel.

To the member’s question around a prescribed person in subsection

(

c) of this amendment, it leaves up to regulation other people who

should be included in the definition of vulnerable road user. It

anticipates that it may be desirable to add to that. Some of this was

brought to our attention in consultation with a number of stakeholder

organizations, including the Horse Council of B.C., where persons riding

an animal on an area where they are sharing the road with vehicles may

be a prescribed person.

It could be in the future that things like kick scooters, after a

pilot project, might be added as vulnerable road users, or even those

using motorcycles, depending on where the province may wish to go in the

future. Certainly, there are motor vehicle acts in other jurisdictions

where, in fact, motorcyclists are considered vulnerable road

users.

Clauses 10 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

T. Halford: Specifically on this clause here, can the minister talk about some

of the stakeholders that were consulted, and about feedback received?

Specifically, I’ll point out ICBC. The second part of that question is:

did the ministry consult directly with ICBC, and if so, what was the

overall feedback on this specific clause 20?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Some of the primary organizations that we consulted with on these

changes relating to this clause: first and foremost, the B.C. Trucking

Association; ICBC certainly was, I can confirm for the member, consulted

about this; B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police; a number of mayors

living along certain corridors where there are ongoing concerns about

excessive speeding by the commercial trucking industry.

I have certainly spoken, over the years, with survivors, families

of those who perished in the Humboldt Broncos tragedy of which a number

of British Columbia residents lost loved ones and were part of national

efforts to have a number of safety initiatives brought in, some of which

were passed in legislation earlier in this chamber — the mandatory

entry-level training in 2021.

Of course, the member will know electronic logging devices are now

required, but we didn’t require a legislative amendment to do that. We

were able to do that by regulation.

T. Halford: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Obviously, clause 20 is

kind of the significant part — well, there are a lot of significant

parts — of this bill. But when we talk specifically about the trucking

industry, the minister is right. I think there have been a lot of

examples of tragedy that we’ve seen in this province, and he references

the Humboldt Broncos, which just by the notion of that name, people

refer to, I think, as one of the most tragic days that we’ve ever

experienced as a country.

When we talk about the changes here, we’re talking specifically

about B.C. Does the minister know the other jurisdictions in Canada that

have used this requirement to have these installed and used speed

limiters?

Hon. R. Fleming: The jurisdictions in Canada that have speed limiters in place are

Ontario and Quebec, and they have shared some preliminary data with us

that was compelling and further served our interest in doing the

same.

In the United States, federal interstate highways have speed

limiter requirements. There may be some state highway systems or states

that require it. I could get that information for the member, but it’s

certainly not all of them. But Ontario and Quebec are the Canadian

jurisdictions that we have been in contact with as a ministry here in

British Columbia.

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

When we talk about speed limiters and the data that’s been proved

in terms of them reducing crash rates among trucks who use them compared

to those who don’t, there has been an argument put forward by some that

would say that it does pose a safety risk as they are trying to achieve

a safe passing speed, so to speak. I’m sure the minister and staff have

probably heard this during their consultations with the trucking

industry and ICBC, but I don’t have a general question on that. I just

wanted to put that forward.

Does the ministry know how many trucks right now that are

operating in B.C., that are licensed in B.C., have speed limiters

currently installed?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: In every commercial truck cab that’s a heavy-duty commercial

vehicle built after 1995, so the last approximately 28 years of

manufacturing, it’s been OEM standard to have speed limiters installed.

Therefore, if this was where the member was going with this question, if

there would be a cost burden to commercial truckers, it’s unlikely that

that would present itself to very many.

The B.C. Trucking Association advised that the vast, vast

majority, and we’re talking in the high 90th percentile, of commercial

vehicles operating in British Columbia of this weight class, because

we’re talking in excess of 11,000 kilos or 25,000 U.S. pounds, are what

is being captured here.

There are exemptions allowed in the legislation. We haven’t

contemplated what circumstances would be wise to present an exemption

for. But it has been noted that Ontario has done so in the event for

vehicles involved in providing relief during an emergency. So these can

be flicked on and off. But as we see and as we go through the bill,

there are powers of inspection and enforcement. It’s not easy to turn on

and off by an operator, but of course those adjustments can be

made.

T. Halford: I think what I heard the minister say is that 1995 and beyond,

most of the trucks were already equipped with this specific equipment.

Obviously, my next question is moot. That’s why, going on…. I think it

currently says: heavy commercial vehicles defined as those newer than

1994. Based on the minister’s answer, that is why.

Is that encompassing all those trucks over that weight limit that

would have that equipment already installed, or what is the percentage

of licensed vehicles in B.C. that currently do not have that

installed?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Any vehicle with an electronically controlled engine built and

manufactured after 1995 does have this as standard equipment. The

pre-1994 heavy-duty commercial vehicles are exempted from this

regulation. I don’t have the numbers of how many of them are

transporting goods and using B.C.’s road networks, but I would suggest

it’s a very, very small number because of the age of that vehicle and

the high numbers of kilometres that they would have travelled over an

extensive period of time. Most of those trucks have been long

retired.

T. Halford: Is the minister saying that every vehicle on the road in this

province that is newer than 1994 is equipped with this technology? So

there is no additional cost required to anyone operating a vehicle above

that weight.

Hon. R. Fleming: Going back to the member’s question about consultation earlier,

the B.C. Trucking Association, who are, of course, enthusiastic

supporters of this change in the Motor Vehicle Act, advised us that the

cost to a carrier or an owner-operator would be about $40, just for a

certified technician to activate the speed limiter.

T. Halford: The minister is saying that, probably, the maximum cost to any

truck over the age of 1994 would be approximately $40. There would be no

other financial implications to a 1995, 1996 or 2000 truck, probably. I

know it’s approximately over $40.

Hon. R. Fleming: For most carriers, there’d be, in fact, no cost, because they

probably have a technician on staff. The $40 figure…. I don’t want the

member to quote me exactly, but I am just repeating secondhand from our

consultations with the B.C. Trucking Association that that was the

approximate cost.

There’s also some data the B.C. Trucking Association provided that

suggests that most heavy-duty commercial vehicles are typically

amortized over about ten or 12 years and retired because of the mileage.

So the vast majority, in other words, of heavy-duty commercial vehicles

operating in British Columbia were manufactured from 2012 onwards, that

are currently operating. Of course, fleet replacements advance with each

year going forward.

[5:25 p.m.]

T. Halford: Obviously, the minister has come to those figures through

consultation.

I know with the Trucking Association, with the MOTI staff, there’s

great competency there. But in some cases, if that wasn’t the case, if

it was a much larger amount for unbeknown reasons, whether it’s a

malfunction or something like that, and it was a fairly substantial cost

to implement that technology in that specific truck, would that cost be

the onus of the operator? Or has this ministry, this minister considered

any grants, any financial aid to the trucking industry if it was a

larger cost than what the minister has been quoted as probably not

exceeding $40?

Hon. R. Fleming: There will be a period that allows us additional consultation. But

having done extensive consultation with industry prior to submitting

this bill for the debate and consideration of passage by the

Legislature…. We did consult very extensively and heard any manner of

concern, including anything around hardship or cost.

It does, I’m sure, sound too good to be true that it is quite a

nominal cost, but that is, in fact, the case. What we will do before we

bring this bill into force, should the Legislature pass it, is do some

additional consultation with industry to see — particularly around

legitimate exemptions, where there may be some vehicles where the cost

is excessive or certainly exceeds $40 — if there are legitimate

exemptions that should be noted in the regulations that will bring this

act into force.

G. Kyllo: I certainly appreciate the opportunity that’s been afforded me to

ask a number of questions.

I’ve got a number of commercial trucks and trailers. I’ve got to

admit that I wasn’t aware of this change until this piece of legislation

was actually tabled in the House today.

With respect to the consultation, can the minister share more

specifically: was the consultation only undertaken through industry

associations, or was there work undertaken by ICBC to notify clients or

owners of commercial trucks within B.C.? Then, further to that, was

there any consultation undertaken with other neighbouring jurisdictions,

whether it’s Alberta, Saskatchewan? Washington state has lots of other

commercial trucks that actually come into British Columbia, either

dropping off loads or picking up loads.

I just want to get a better sense of how much actual consultation

was done with smaller independent operators in B.C. and then, also, with

other jurisdictions that might also be using highways here in

B.C.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. We will have a period

here where not every province, as is the case today, has the same

requirement for speed limiters. The two biggest provinces in the country

do — Quebec and Ontario.

That puts an onus, right now, on British Columbia truckers who are

delivering into those markets to have an activated speed limiter

technology. So if you’re taking a trailer load of goods to those two

provinces currently, the speed limiter would need to be activated.

Otherwise, fines, penalties and other enforcement, including the vehicle

being impounded until the speed limiter is activated, are some possible

consequences there.

B.C. will be next. We understand a number of other provinces will

shortly follow thereafter. I can’t speak for Alberta or Saskatchewan,

but I think we are moving towards a national standard. But as with all

things in our Confederation, provinces elect to move at different paces

than others.

I think just to go back to a different experience that’s quite

recent, with mandatory entry-level training for drivers, again, flowing

from the Humboldt Bronco inquiry, British Columbia developed, alongside

a number of other provinces, those new licence requirements for the

issuance of new commercial drivers’ licences. So I think this will go

the same direction. B.C. will be in the first three

provinces.

The member specifically asked about consultation. Most of the

consultation, at this point, has been done with the B.C. Trucking

Association in terms of industry representation. They, of course,

represent a significant majority of trucking activity and companies and

fleets that use B.C. road networks and our interprovincial

highways.

[5:35 p.m.]

We will, at the regulation stage, before bringing this act into

force, consult with some of the smaller independent operators. We will

do that with the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch of

this ministry to get any additional comments and see if there are any

concerns which were not raised by the B.C. Trucking Association. I would

say it’s fair to say we don’t expect to hear very many. Perhaps some

independent operators have older vehicles and would be interested in the

discussion that we’re already contemplating around the need for some

exemptions on engines that do not have the computer systems in them that

have preinstalled speed limiting technology.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much. It appears the majority of the consultation,

if not the only consultation, was undertaken with the trucking

association.

There are many independent operators that are not members of the

association. I think that it would be worthwhile just putting on record

that the consultation likely has not reached many. I know myself, as the

owner of some commercial trucks, we certainly weren’t aware. I reached

out to a few other constituents of mine who were also not aware of this

particular piece of legislation that was forthcoming. Also, I think it’s

important to put on record that there was no consultation undertaken

with other jurisdictions that will be impacted by this

legislation.

We’ve seen with the account of COVID more and more pressure put on

our supply chains with trucking — you know, delivering goods and

services around the province. Any change that may impact the number of

trucks that may or may not choose to come into B.C. on account of a new

regulation is certainly something that, I think, should have some

broader consultation than just right here within B.C.

I know we’re short for time. I do appreciate my colleagues

providing me with an opportunity to ask a few questions. I do have one

other specific question, and that is with respect to…. Once the limiters

are in place, what is the limit that will be assigned?

Assuming that on a major highway, we see speeds upwards of 120

kilometres an hour. If that is the cap, if that is the number that will

be set, how does this provide any protection at all for trucks that

might be driving on secondary roads that have a speed limit of 60

kilometres, as an example?

I know there’s a lot here, but there is one other area that I

think is worth discussing. If, indeed, the intention of the limiters is

to reduce the incidence of collisions, I would hope that ICBC, through

our actuaries, would actually have a look at other jurisdictions and

give consideration to reductions and policy premiums.

If, indeed, these limiters will improve safety, there should be a

corresponding reduction in rate for commercial insurance on these large

trucks and tractors that are operating on our highways. Has ICBC been

consulted? Have they given any consideration to the impacts, the reduced

amount of collisions? Is there any statistical data that can be shared

with respect to the changes that this legislation may bring on British

Columbians?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you. I can assure the member that ICBC was certainly

interested and did engage with other jurisdictions on the experiences,

positive over negative, around where mandatory speed limiter technology

is in place.

The data and the compelling interest out of Ontario was a two-year

study that showed a 73 percent reduction in collisions involving

commercial vehicles. That’s not overall collisions, of course, but

collisions involving commercial vehicles. A pretty significant steep

drop. The member is correct. Again, we will look to additional

consultation about what the limit should be set as. If we were to follow

Ontario’s model of having a maximum speed of 105 kilometres per hour,

that is the limit which produced these quite remarkable accident

reductions.

ICBC, of course, as the member knows, has a role to play along

with other government ministries, this one included, in our commitment

to road safety. It’s not just about the positive impact that it may have

on those who pay premiums. It’s on the lives and families that remain

intact, first and foremost.

[5:40 p.m.]

I would also say at this point in the debate because we haven’t

covered it yet, and I wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to get it on

the record too, that there was additional interest from the B.C.

Trucking Association around fuel safety. The difference between

travelling at, say, 105 kilometres an hour and 130 or 140 kilometres an

hour, in fuel consumption, is quite immense. From an overall interest in

reducing greenhouse gas emissions from hydrocarbon fuels being consumed

in the commercial trucking industry, this is going to make a good

difference.

I think, in totality, the speed limiter at 105…. The member is

correct. If there’s a 90 kilometre an hour posted speed limit on a given

highway, the driver could still be in a position where they’re speeding.

But I would suggest to him that’s a significant improvement on the

excessive speeding rates that we might see and, unfortunately, we have

seen, through recent enforcement activities we’ve undertaken, where 135

or 145 kilometres an hour have been clocked on commercial truckers going

through corridors where that is an absolutely unacceptable, illegal and

dangerous recorded speed.

I would suggest that the safety benefits will be on all major

highway corridors but, specifically, on some of the ones where the speed

limit will still be posted higher. There will be some additional

comments, I’m sure, from those who use the Coquihalla Highway, that the

speed limit is higher than what we may bring into force, in regulation,

for the speed limiter. We’ve already taken a number of initiatives,

especially during winter driving months, that commercial vehicles must

stay in the right lane. Those have had positive safety

benefits.

We’re trying to do a lot of what may seem like small things. We

talked a little earlier about electronic logging devices. The reason

those are important…. Again, these are very inexpensive technologies

that we possess. Very easy to install and very easy to use as fairly

judged evidence when, for example, the RCMP might be looking at

contributing factors to a crash. You can have accurate data about how

long that truck was on the road and whether that was in compliance with

the law.

It’s the same here with the speed limiting technology. It keeps

the industry on a level playing field. It has a number of public policy

benefits — protecting drivers from fatigue and exploitation; protecting

them from their paycheques not being reflective of the hours worked;

environmental benefits, as we’ve just gone over; and, of course,

compelling evidence around crash reductions.

T. Halford: The minister just referred to GHG emissions savings. Does the

ministry have an estimate of what those actually could be once this

legislation is in force?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I want to make sure that

it came off accurate and clear previously, when I talked about the

safety improvements that Ontario observed, that it’s a 73 percent

reduction in speed-related crashes involving commercial

vehicles.

In regards to the member’s current specific question, Ontario has

reported, to date, an anticipated reduction of 4.6 megatonnes of

greenhouse gases owing to the implementation of speed limiter

technology.

T. Halford: Just a few moments back the minister referenced exemptions. Can

the minister define what an exemption would be or give an example of an

exemption? Could it pertain to certain routes, whether it’s on every

highway or if it’s on a particular route? Is that being considered for

an exemption?

[5:45 p.m.]

What would be defined, by this minister, as an exemption from this

particular clause?

Hon. R. Fleming: We are, as I mentioned, going to do some additional consultation

to make sure that we’re not placing any hardship on different types of

vehicles that may require, for legitimate purposes,

exemptions.

This section, the member will see, deals with 1994 and previous

vehicles, which will be exempted. I am advised that there was a 2004

manufacturing year where some vehicles were manufactured with a

mechanically controlled diesel engine. So without this technology. But

that’s one manufacturing year and one manufacturer. How many of those

are in British Columbia? Probably not too many.

Looking at the Ontario legislation and regulations…. They looked

at very large commercial buses for exemptions — also over the kilogram

weight that’s described in the legislation before us. They included

ambulances, a cardiac arrest emergency vehicle or a fire apparatus. For

those, obviously, you would not want to have speed limiters

required.

I mentioned earlier in the debate this afternoon that vehicles

that are deemed to be engaged in providing relief in an emergency

situation would also be exempted and, also, vehicles that need to travel

at rapid speeds to reply to certain situations and that are owned or

operated on behalf of a municipality, road authority, public utility or

other appropriate government services.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

S. Furstenau: I just have a couple of questions on clause 21.

This is about making it safe to pass vulnerable road users. In

here, it identifies one metre as the distance. I’m just curious about

what analysis went into deciding one metre as opposed to, say, two or

three metres.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. One metre was arrived at

in this legislation because it’s a standard, well-understood

measurement. It’s used by the majority of provinces that have this

legislative requirement, and by the vast majority of U.S. states as

well.

I would say one metre is the minimum in law; it’s not the maximum.

When you pass laws, as the member knows, that’s one thing. That’s an

objective standard that allows enforcement. It defines reckless driver

behaviour. It will be a disincentive for people who are not being

mindful of vulnerable road users and all those good things.

But I’m sure the member appreciates that a lot of work has to be

done on the education side. A lot of people who have drivers’ licences

in this province have had them for many, many, many decades — decades

way before comprehensive licence reform occurred, like the graduated

licensing program and those sorts of things.

We recognize that passing the law is really important for

promoting a much safer environment for vulnerable road users. In this

instance, I think we’re talking about cyclists. Changing driver

behaviour of people who don’t necessarily recognize in a manner that

they should…. The law right now is: giving adequate and safe space

before overtaking a cyclist. This brings an objective

measurement.

It was also weighed in relation to B.C.’s tens of thousands of

kilometres in its road network, where the average lane width for a

vehicle is three metres. There is no average width on a shoulder, but I

would suggest to the member that some shoulders are very generously wide

and some are not. Some have exterior median barriers. Some have

ditches.

[5:55 p.m.]

This is about coming up with a standard that will vastly increase

the onus on the driver to be mindful of vulnerable road users, will give

police and agencies like the CVSE enforcement tools that they currently

lack and give us a platform for driver education that can be done

through public campaigns. That was limited previously because there was

no legal standard of which to get people’s attention that they must

adhere to.

The last point I’ll make is that we are also open to looking at

whether they should be changed or changed in certain circumstances.

Maybe the Trans-Canada Highway should be 1½ metres in future, and a

municipal road should remain at one. We will have the ability to make

those kinds of changes in regulation, going forward.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that. Very helpful. I agree that the

education piece is going to be obviously the most challenging, and as

ever, I have ideas. They can be taken or not. But one would be

around….

As a lifelong cyclist, one of the things that I did, especially

when I was a cyclist in the city, was have the flag sticking off the

back of the bike about one metre. One possibility for that education

program would be to provide free flags, little posts with flags. I would

recommend that they could bend, so you could have them out or not have

them out depending on the circumstances that you’re cycling

in.

You could find all sorts of ways to distribute those freely to

cyclists, and then cyclists are part of the education program of

drivers. That’s what one metre of distance is when you’re passing me,

and if you’re too close to the flag, you’re too close according to the

law. The teacher in me can’t help but come up with ways to help educate

people.

The only other question on this

section that I have is….

Apparently, in other jurisdictions — Ontario, for example — cyclists are

not required to leave the one-metre passing distance when they’re

passing other road users. A question around how B.C.’s law will compare:

will cyclists also have to adhere to a one-metre passing rule, or is

that only going to apply to cars?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, I guess the overall answer to her question is that

this is really about putting the onus on motor vehicles to provide safe

passing distance to vulnerable road users because that’s where we see

the most tragic fatalities. That’s where there’s an obvious disadvantage

between a vehicle that’s 2½ to 4,000 pounds and of a certain size versus

a bicycle.

We’re changing the Motor Vehicle Act to account for that and put

that onus on operators of motor vehicles. But cyclists will have to

continue to adhere to the existing Motor Vehicle Act requirements that

they engage in passing at a safe distance as well, albeit that’s a much

more subjective factor. But there will be still a requirement for

cyclists to also adhere to safe rules of the road.

Clause 21 approved.

On clause 22.

S. Furstenau: Clause 22 isn’t about passing distance, but it’s about following

distance, something that everybody who has ever had me as a passenger in

their car will tell you that I am very intensely focused on. I do not

like being in a car that is not following at a safe distance. I’m the

one that’s often counting: “One, two…. You’re not at three seconds. Too

close.”

My question around this…. What this stipulates in this clause is

that it recommends a following distance of 3 metres as opposed to a

following time of three seconds. We know how physics works. Particularly

with something like a vehicle and a bike that can stop very quickly,

three metres is really close. So we’re just curious about why the

decision was to