Bill M226 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025

I rise today to speak on Bill 226, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2). Before I begin, I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing forward such a very important bill. I want to pass this bill and want to acknowledge that Xavier’s family is in the precinct. Before I begin, I need to establish something very important right at the outset. Many members in the chamber will recall my strong and vocal opposition during the debate on Bill 12, when I raised serious concern about weakening the graduated licensing program. I fought very hard and even voted no to the minister’s bill because I think that we need to ensure that inexperienced and unprepared drivers would not be able to obtain their full licence too quickly. We fought hard because I believe road safety must be taken seriously. I fought hard because I believe unsafe driving puts all British Columbians at risk. I say this because I want members to understand clearly that I take road safety extremely seriously. My record shows that. My debate on Bill 12 shows that. I’ve never hesitated to stand up for stronger road safety standards even when it was inconvenient or unpopular. When I speak today, I speak as someone who has consistently supported measures that make our roads safer, and today I want to begin by saying something plainly. I completely understand the intent behind the bill. I, too, want to stop reckless driving. I, too, want to prevent tragedies. I also want to ensure that drivers who are putting lives at risk can be removed from the road immediately. I want to support this bill. I want to work towards any measures that prevent dangerous driving and save lives. But intention alone is not enough. A good idea must be drafted into very good legislation. While the intention behind M226 is commendable, and I wanted to pass Xavier’s law, the way this bill drafts this is deeply flawed. Unless this bill is rewritten, it will harm innocent people, violate rights, create confusion for police and undermine public trust. We must be extremely careful with legislation that gives the state or one police officer the power to take away a person’s driving privilege. For many British Columbians, a licence is not just a card in their wallet; it’s their livelihood. It is the way they feed their family. It’s how they get to work, how they transport their children and how they care for their elderly parents. So yes, we must remove truly reckless drivers from the road, but we must not create a system that punishes innocent people or gives police powers that are so broad and vague that they become arbitrary. Let me begin with the definition of “reckless driving” as this bill describes it. The definition contains many subsections. Unfortunately, some of them are poorly drafted. Many of these subsections use the phrase “in a manner that indicates the driver or operator’s intention.” Intention is extremely difficult to determine at roadside unless a full police investigation has been done. To prove intention, an officer would need statements, witnesses, video evidence and a proper investigation. That is how we normally prove charges, and that’s how we prove mental state. I must ask: how does the government expect an officer to determine intention at roadside? Is this supposed to be at the officer’s discretion? What threshold must be met? What evidence is required? This bill gives no answer, no guidance. It is unacceptable in legislation that allows police to prohibit driving with no appeal. I repeat, no appeal allowed. Several behaviours listed in this bill are already covered under the Criminal Code as stunting or dangerous driving. Here the bill introduces a second system. That might sound like a useful tool for the police, but it is also an open invitation for arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement. Even worse, several behaviours listed here are not offences under the Motor Vehicle Act at all. So if the behaviour is not unlawful, then the officer has no grounds for the initial stop. If the stop is not lawful, then the detention is arbitrary, which violates the Charter. That alone could make the entire regime unenforceable. Either the government must create matching offences in the Motor Vehicle Act or use the existing wording from the Criminal Code or Motor Vehicle Act. But as written right now, this bill does neither. This creates enormous legal risk. Another problem — the bill never states that reckless driving applies only to public highways or industrial roads. It never defines where the conduct must occur. This is serious drafting oversight. Laws must be precise. They cannot be so broad that they apply anywhere and everywhere. Let me give some examples of the poor wording. Section 90.5(j)(iii) prohibits driving “as close as possible to another vehicle, a pedestrian or a fixed object.” What does that mean? One inch? One foot? Ten feet? Police across the province will be interpreting this differently, and a law cannot rely on guesswork. Section (j)(iv) tries to describe a very specific dangerous left-turn manoeuvre, but the wording ends up capturing ordinary behaviour. In fact, I have seen this kind of situation many times. There are two scenarios. First, the bad driver is trying to beat the oncoming traffic. But is this truly reckless driving? Maybe. Secondly, I’ve seen many times an oncoming driver failing to react, perhaps distracted or not noticing the green lights. After some time, the left-turn driver decides to turn. I believe the one deserving the ticket is the driver not paying attention, not the patient left-turn driver. But under this bill, the left-turn driver becomes a reckless driver and loses their licence for 30 days. One of the most alarming lines in the bill states: “No appeal lies in respect of a prohibition issued under section (2).” No appeal. No review. No second opinion. Nothing. This is extremely concerning. We actually have seen this before. The automatic roadside prohibition law passed in 2010 for alcohol had major constitutional issues. Let me remind the House how that went. The lawyer involved said: “The province’s objective was a valid objective, but it needed to be balanced by Charter rights.” The courts were specifically concerned about the unreliable breathalyzer device and the fact that drivers had too few ways to challenge the result. In the end, the law had to be adjusted. Drivers have to be given a second test. The prohibited level has to be above 0.08. Safeguards have to be put in place. In comparison, in this bill, no requirement. No second test. No requirement of proof. No requirement of any criminal charges. No requirement even for a motor vehicle ticket. I must say this again. If someone is truly reckless, if their driving is truly dangerous, why is this bill encouraging police to prohibit them without laying a criminal charge? Why avoid the court system if the behaviour is genuinely serious? This is contradictory and troubling. Let me show how easily this bill can be misused. One section says that reckless driving includes any action that causes tires to lose traction during a turn. Every year, when the first snow hits, thousands of drivers lose traction, especially when turning in an intersection. I have experienced that personally myself. We see ICBC claims skyrocket. Can you tell me whether that rear wheel slide was intentional or not? Some might be, but some might not. Under this bill, the officer has the full power to prohibit anybody, and no charge, no ticket, is needed. Just take their licence away for 30 days and give it back and never lay a charge. Is this the justice system that we want? Clause (g) defines reckless driving as exceeding 40 kilometres per hour over a limit under 80 kilometres per hour. Currently, we have the excessive speeding law for that. Clause (i) states 150 kilometres per hour. But as the member will know, on the Coquihalla Highway, where the speed limit is 120, the 150 kilometres per hour threshold would classify as reckless driving before excessive speeding even applies. Again, this contradicts with our current law right now. Let us compare this to what we currently have in B.C. We have a few laws for street racing, for stunting and for dangerous driving. Many of the offences can be found and are punishable under the Motor Vehicle Act. Careless driving is prohibited under section 144, which states that a person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway without due care and attention; without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway; or at a speed that is excessive relative to roads, traffic, visibility or weather conditions. And excessive speeding, a person who drives a motorcycle more than 40 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, is already addressed. These are criminally chargeable offences, and they’re not arbitrary. They’re based on clear, observable conduct, such as two cars racing each other, deliberate exhibition of speed and deliberate loss of control. These offences require evidence. They require proof, and they require an intention that can be seen and verified. But this bill, unfortunately, sees a simple loss of traction, something that can happen to ordinary drivers every winter, as now reckless driving. We need to strike a balance between innocent drivers and true stunt drivers. Remember, stunt driving and street racing can already be prosecuted as careless driving under the Motor Vehicle Act. There are lots of clauses that I would like to address, but with the ten-minute speaking limit, I cannot. Laws like this require collaboration with the ministry, legal counsel, police groups and safety experts. It requires careful drafting, not a rushed private member’s bill. I hope this bill can actually be introduced by the ministry instead of the private member.

1640 words

Bill M217 — Dashboard Cameras in Commercial Vehicles Act

Thank you to all my colleagues for the opportunity to speak in strong support of Bill M217. I believe this legislation marks an important step forward for road safety, accountability and data-driven enforcement in British Columbia. Let me begin by outlining what this bill actually does. This bill would require that all commercial vehicles have an operating dashboard camera installed and recording whenever a vehicle is engaged in commercial activities. If a commercial vehicle is used for dual purposes, such as personal use, this requirement would not apply during non-commercial operation. The purpose of this legislation is simple and practical: to ensure that in an event of collision, incident or dispute, objective video evidence is available to support investigators, insurance adjusters and law enforcement. Dashcam recordings are impartial, and they provide a clear and accurate record of what actually occurred. Under Bill M217, owners or lessees of commercial vehicles must ensure that a dashboard camera is installed, maintained and unobstructed while the vehicle is in operation. If passed, this legislation would take effect six months after royal assent, giving commercial operators sufficient time to purchase and install a suitable dashcam device. Now, why is this bill so important? First, commercial vehicles travel tens of thousands of kilometres every year across our highways, city streets and rural roads. When an accident occurs, investigations often depend on witness statements or partial evidence. A dashboard camera provides real-time, factual footage, allowing investigators to determine fault quickly and accurately. In jurisdictions where dashcams are already required, the data has led to faster claim resolutions, clearer accountability and safer driving habits. Second, as I mentioned during my debate on Bill 12, our roads have become increasingly complex. Every day we see countless videos online showing reckless or confused driving, often recorded by citizens themselves. These videos reveal the challenges and the dangers that exist on our roads today, especially with inexperienced drivers. More data can help the Ministry of Transportation and road safety authorities make better-informed decisions. M217 institutionalizes this data collection, turning these videos into consistent and reliable tools for improving public safety. Third, dashcams promote a culture of accountability. Many commercial drivers already voluntarily use dashcams because they understand how valuable that footage can be, whether for proving innocence in an accident or avoiding false claims. Fourth, this legislation is proactive, not reactive. Too often, new safety measures are introduced only after tragedy strikes. Bill M217 helps prevent future incidents by ensuring that critical and crucial evidence exists before the next serious collision happens. It empowers investigators to act quickly and fairly, while providing valuable lessons for training, education and enforcement. Some, and I heard some of the members, may raise concerns about costs or privacy, particularly for small operators. These are legitimate questions, but let us look into the facts. Dashcams today come in a wide variety of models and price ranges, with reliable HD or even 4K options costing as little as $30. In fact, my colleague mentioned $36. I just want to correct him. I can see one that is actually on sale for $24.99 because of a Black Friday sale. The potential savings in reduced disputes, insurance claims and investigations time will easily outweigh the small upfront cost. I heard about privacy concerns, which can be addressed through clear regulations on data use, storage and access. Remember, there are already thousands, if not millions, of dashcams on the road, currently, and even online intersection cameras throughout various cities and highways. If there are members on the other side that are very concerned about privacy, does that mean that they want to shut down all the videos that we have showing online right now, currently, on our roads? In fact, ICBC also always asks for a copy of your dashcam footage if you’re involved in an accident. Right now dashcams are in use, and even our own jurisdiction collects this data. So I don’t see why the privacy issue is a problem right now. Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my right to continue and ask to adjourn the debate.

682 words

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

With no further debate, Members, we have an amendment to Bill 12, clause 10. On the amendment, the question is to amend clause 10.

24 words

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

Thank you, Minister. I think I raised this question before already. It is about the LG in Council and also the ICBC power, about giving them that power. That is something that we are concerned about. We spent about eight hours today until now to talk about the changes, which I think is good progress. But once this bill is passed, we technically do not have that power, as an MLA or a member of this House, to talk about any further GLP change, because it will be under the cabinet power, and it will be under the ICBC power. I also understand that the regulations will be published online, likely, and it’s required in the Regulations Act. But again, we will not have that power or time to allocate to talk about GLP change or MLP change anymore. I’m just proposing an amendment to Bill 12 on clause 10.

150 words

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

This provision is not unique to this regulation. It relates to the intent of Bill 12 alone. This regulation will only be used if required for unexpected issues that emerge during the transition.

33 words

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

This is also a question that we received during the consultation process. It’s also something that we’ll look at in terms of the regulation, with an eye to ensuring that any gear that is required is indeed accessible and not a barrier that will be out of reach for the people that we want to ensure have improved accessibility by Bill 12 more broadly.

64 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025.

18 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/21/2025

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

16 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

10/21/2025

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

The question is third reading of Bill 12.

8 words

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Section A reports Bill 12 complete without amendment.

8 words

Hon. Lana Popham

BC NDP

10/21/2025

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

That’s a great question, Mr. Speaker. Continuing Committee of the Whole on Bill 12.

14 words

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

I think, again, this was a question that we did delve into yesterday. Just to refresh, the Motor Vehicle Act is an older piece of legislation that’s structured differently from more recent legislation. It doesn’t set out specifics within the act but refers to regulations. Bill 12 is drafted within the scheme of the existing Motor Vehicle Act. The supporting regulations are developed transparently through engagement with stakeholders, such as the driver training industry, Indigenous partners, public agencies and law enforcement, and that will continue. Regulation drafting can be an iterative process, starting with initial discussions of the intent and then meetings to talk through drafts to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. We’re committed to ongoing engagements through the regulations process, and then, once finalized, all regulations are publicly posted, ensuring transparency and accountability. I’ll just note that this delegated authority that the member refers to has been in place for 30 years. It is nothing new as a result of this act.

165 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, to order. We’re on clause 3.

23 words

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

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

13 words

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act (continued)

In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 20. In Section A of the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

34 words

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Under the current bill, this is the same section that is talking about the licensing program, but in that, it prescribes where you have to present your address on your driver’s licence information. So it does directly apply within this. It’s not part of the changes that are part of Bill 12, but they are within the sections that are being addressed within this. Anybody doing the licensing has to follow the issues around listing your home address at this point or, if we go with the amendment, of changing up where you can place an address at your work address.

101 words

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

I’d like to thank the member opposite for the proposed amendment, especially for sharing his personal experience and also the submission that really speaks to the very real and serious safety concerns of law enforcement and others who dedicate their lives to keeping our communities safe. Certainly, the safety and security of certain people and the need for anonymity is vitally important and a very complex issue as well. It is our view that the proposed amendments, though they relate to something very, very important, are beyond the scope of Bill 12 and should, because of that, be determined to be out of order. The proposed amendments in Bill 12 relate to section 25 of the Motor Vehicle Act and, specifically, the graduated and motorcycle licensing program. The proposed amendment on whether to exempt certain classes of people from the requirements to provide a residential address is not specifically related to the licensing programs that we are looking at in the context of this bill. For this reason, I ask that the proposed amendments be ruled out of order.

179 words

Susie Chant

BC NDP

10/20/2025

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

Good afternoon, committee. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025, back to order. We are on clause 3.

26 words

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

The Constitution Act, sections 91 and 92, deal with the division of powers. In the division of powers for provincial purposes, it says that the purpose of licensing is to raise provincial revenue. Is the purpose of Bill 12 public safety, or is it to raise provincial revenue, as per the constitution?

52 words

Bill 12 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2025

The core purpose of Bill 12 is to improve graduated licensing programs to create safer, simpler and more accessible programs for new drivers and to strengthen safety standards for motorcycle drivers.

31 words