Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

11/24/2025

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

Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, has been read a third time and has passed.

19 words

Raj Chouhan

BC NDP

11/24/2025

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

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025.

17 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

11/24/2025

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

The committee on Bill 21 reports the bill complete without amendment.

11 words

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

Does the Attorney General anticipate that although we’re making this change here right now to modify the Court Rules Act, there may be any further changes needed to the Court Rules Act to make this legislation in Bill 21 fully effective?

41 words

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

Since we are dealing with the Court Rules Act and we’re referencing that and we’re making a change to that…. You know, there are ongoing proceedings that happen in our courts. That may be applying with the current legislation, but now if you want to modify the Court Rules Act….It’s one thing how this change will affect this current legislation that we’re dealing with in terms of Bill 21. It’s another thing how it will affect a substantial provision that deals with court operation. Would there be any effect on the current court proceedings as a result of this change?

100 words

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

I thank the Attorney General for that answer. It’s assuring that, in terms of the entire legislation, the Attorney General is stating that there’s been some legal research, legal analysis done for the whole piece of legislation that we’re dealing with here. My concern here is there’s money involved, and there’s property involved, and a lot of these different provisions deal with a lot of substantive matter. I appreciate that legal analysis, and it would be a similar answer to all the questions, but because a lot of these clauses involve different subject matter, it’s very important to make sure that we go through each of these clauses to make sure that legal analysis, the protections against liability and how they relate to each clause have been dealt with. We are dealing with a fiduciary obligation, we are dealing with proprietary interests, and we are dealing with certain cultural customs as well. We have seen case law. We have seen litigation. This area of law is fairly litigious in terms of involving children, custody and guardianship. We see a lot of this litigation happening in the court. That’s one of the reasons family court is really busy. It’s very important, if we’re seeing this type of trend, this type of litigation that’s happening…. It’s happening a lot, and the courtrooms are seeing it. Sometimes it takes a long time to get a courtroom. We want to make sure that for each of these provisions that are going to touch upon an area that may involve potential litigation, concerns have been addressed to each one of these issues popping up in these clauses. We’ve dealt with the previous bill that was before here. This area of law in Bill 21 does involve a lot of litigation cases before the courts in terms of children, guardianship, property rights, access to children. For that reason, I need to ask these questions, moving forward, just to make sure that we have…. Sometimes the Attorney General’s department could probably say that they have the same answer; that they did a full analysis, did the consultation on this whole bill and they addressed each thing. But something may pop up from just a curious question on one of these clauses and said that might be a thing that we may have missed, or we kind of turned our eyes and ears to it, but we do need a further, more fulsome explanation. That’s why I’m probing these sections in detail, because it does involve fiduciary obligations where essentially the government or the PGT is operating in kind of a blind trust type of setting where the child is just wholeheartedly relying on the PGT. We want to just make sure all of these clauses that are within this bill are specifically dealt with. But with that said, I do appreciate the answer that was provided. I will go on to my next question. We spent a little bit of time in the last session talking about why there was an age requirement to the age of 27 when a child actually reaches the age of majority in this province at 19. What was explained was essentially that that’s an extra tool for children that may want to get some extra help for a number of years to deal with their property affairs. I appreciated that answer at the time, but I have a follow-up question in regards to the explanation that was provided last time. I just want to make sure there was actual precedent for this specific age being a discretionary age existing to the age of 27. The question is: can the Attorney General point to any jurisdiction in Canada where age 27 is used as a standard threshold for state-managed youth financial supports related to property?

633 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

11/24/2025

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

Okay, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we have been contemplating committee stage of Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, and we are on clause 10.

34 words

Hon. Mike Farnworth

BC NDP

11/24/2025

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

In this House, I call committee stage on Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act. Then in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

38 words

Mable Elmore

BC NDP

11/20/2025

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

The committee on Bill 21 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

13 words

Lorne Doerkson

Conservative Party of British Columbia

11/20/2025

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

Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, where we are going to contemplate Bill 21. We’ll be contemplating clause 6 at committee stage, but we’ll start with an introduction from the minister.

35 words

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside

BC NDP

11/20/2025

Bill 20 — Construction Prompt Payment Act

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 21.

9 words

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

Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025, to order.

23 words

Section A reports progress on Bill 21 and seeks leave to sit again.

13 words

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

I rise today to speak to Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. We often look at housekeeping bills as mandatory pieces of legislation. For the most part, they often seem innocuous, but they may actually have some unforeseen circumstances that were completely unintentional. I’m not going to speak to beginning of the bill. My concerns are towards the end of the bill, as this particular piece of legislation has a number of changes in regard to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act in conjunction with a number of other acts, particularly the Child, Family and Community Service Act, Patients Property Act, Infants Act and the Adoption Act — quite a few pieces of legislation that are looking at some changes and are going to be looked at in conjunction with this. As the new critic for MCFD — I’m looking at the minister across the way here — I’m very cognizant of the complications when you start to include and/or transfer roles and responsibilities to First Nations and Indigenous communities. I think it’s extremely positive to see First Nations authorities engaged and willing to take responsibility for both property and financial guardianship of their children and youth in their communities. However, that is a complicated process, as the minister will agree to, and those agreements don’t come lightly and without a lot of conversation and a lot of considerations. There have been a number of additions and deletions regarding the relationship, transference and sharing of authority between the Public Guardian and Trustee and First Nations and Indigenous communities. Although, like I said, this is a positive step, I want to actually make sure, as does this entire side of the House, that those relationships and those changes are positive ones. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is well aware that that doesn’t always happen overnight. There are a number of considerations that should be taken and looked at more closely during this bill’s committee stage. There have been some definitions that have been changed and/or added to this particular piece of legislation. I do want to ensure, during committee stage, that they don’t actually change and/or have different meanings in regard to other pieces of legislation that this one will work alongside. There are some things that are going to be removed or deleted from the Infants Act that I may also have some more clarifying questions for during committee stage. As my colleagues have also mentioned, there are some questions around how this act is actually going to play out. Are these roles and responsibilities going to be completely transferred to First Nations and Indigenous communities? Is this the first step in building a relationship where those decisions will be in conjunction with those groups and then eventually transferred? That is something I would actually like more clarification on during committee stage also. There are some very large complexities around having a new group of individuals. The Public Guardian and Trustee has done a phenomenal job to date. They have a process that works. It is well respected, and it has benefited many youth, children and families across our province. I hope that that continues to be the case, although there are some complexities when we look at the legal, financial, health and education considerations with a child, youth or family in an Indigenous or First Nations community. Those are things that we should look at more closely during committee stage. There is also a section, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, that talks about a particular age — 27 years of age, as indicated in both this and another act. This might be a good time to look and see if that is an applicable age at this junction; 27 years seems a very odd number to me. I would be curious as to where that came from. I think that warrants some investigation as to whether it should remain that high, or if it needs to be removed and/or lowered to 19, which is age of consent. I would also agree with my colleagues that there needs to be a framework set up that is well administered, works respectfully and efficiently and provides fair and competent oversight for the structure of children’s property and financial issues. Is this legislation seeking to replace the duties of the existing and capable body, or is this just the first step in moving towards that goal? We must consider whether these changes are necessary or whether the current system could be adapted in collaboration with Indigenous authorities without a complete legislative overhaul. I would be curious and would like to ask the question at committee if this model has been implemented in other jurisdictions, what their success rate was with that and whether we can learn from those frameworks to make this as efficient and as effective as possible for all children and youth that will be impacted. The question has been raised in regard to capacity and training. Do First Nations communities and Indigenous communities currently have the ability to take on these roles and responsibilities? That is something that should be considered very carefully. Again, as the Minister of Children and Families can attest to, sometimes those are challenges that we don’t originally see. They complicate, and they add challenges and difficulties when moving through these processes. It would be nice to address and to recognize those, ahead of rolling out a piece of legislation that may not actually be realistic at this time. With the parties that are going to be involved in this transference and/or sharing of power and responsibility, I would also like to learn more, in the committee stage, about what collaboration and/or consultation was used in order to come to these changes. Did it include the Public Guardian and Trustee? Did it include child and family services, both in and outside of First Nations and non-First Nations communities? Were there legal experts that were consulted? Are First Nations communities and Indigenous communities familiar with, and do they understand enough about, the fiduciary responsibilities in regard to children’s property? Ensuring that every stakeholder has a voice will be essential for a smooth and effective transition. To sum up, just to repeat and to acknowledge, I think this piece of legislation is positive in its spirit. I’m excited that First Nations and Indigenous communities are wanting to take on more roles and responsibilities in regard to their youth and their young people and their families. I look forward to working with the other side of the House to build those processes out so they are most effective and efficient and they benefit all communities, all youth and all families across the province, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.

1126 words

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

No? Okay. Well, I should shut up then. Thank you. And I will say that no further reimbursements or disputes will occur between the two entities following the passing of this bill. On the surface, this may seem like mere fiscal housekeeping, but it does, perhaps, represent something much larger. By ending the reimbursement model, Bill 21 permanently folds ICBC’s medical payments into the public health care system, thus simplifying the process and ensuring that crash victims’ medical care remains unaffected. I doubt anyone in this House would argue that that is, in fact, a responsible move. However, this government must acknowledge what this actually signals, a permanent entrenchment of the no-fault insurance framework. By retroactively classifying payments as taxes, the bill effectively prevents any future government from reopening these accounts or reconsidering the structure of ICBC’s financial obligations. In other words, it locks in the accounting foundation of the no-fault model. From the perspective of this side of the House, I would suggest that demands scrutiny. We support, without question, fiscal clarity and applaud the government for introducing that into this bill. We also, obviously, support elimination of redundant bureaucracy — again, another foundation of what we would champion ourselves. But we oppose any attempt to restrict the flexibility of future governments to reform a system that remains controversial among ratepayers. The principle of good governance requires transparency, not entrenchment. So while we support this amendment for its technical necessity and its efficiency, we remain critical of how it limits future policy debate. As in part 2, the amendments with respect to protecting vulnerable children, another very important component of Bill 21, deal with, clearly, something that is far more human, an incredibly important component: the rights and welfare of children under public guardianship. Again, no one in this House would question that at all. Part 2 consolidates outdated sections of the Infants Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, modernizing the language, strengthening the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee, PGT, and embedding Indigenous considerations directly into law. Specifically, the bill ensures that when a child has no capable guardian, or when guardianship is shared with Indigenous authorities, the PGT acts in the best interests of the child, considering their development, education, relationships and cultural identity. For Indigenous children, it goes further, requiring the PGT to consider customs, community traditions and applicable Indigenous laws. This aligns British Columbia’s framework with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, both of which affirm Indigenous self-governance in matters of family and community. On this side of the House, we certainly do support these measures. They bring clarity, consistency and dignity to a system that for too long has been administratively fragmented. That said, the concern lies that with such centralization comes a responsibility for transparency. The Public Guardian and Trustee must be empowered and also monitored. With new authority over property, financial management and trust distribution for minors, there must be strong oversight mechanisms, regular audits and public reporting on how these powers are exercised. We support this modernization wholeheartedly but urge that its implementation be accompanied by annual accountability reports to this Legislature, ensuring public confidence in how children’s property and trust assets are managed. Bill 21 illustrates the complexity of modern governance, technical in its wording but impactful in its reach. It simplifies the fiscal relationship between ICBC and the province, a very welcome efficiency, yet we must remain vigilant against the quiet cementing of political models that may restrict reform. It strengthens the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee, a very important step forward for child protection but only if paired with transparency and oversight. Good legislation should streamline without concealing, it should protect without concentrating, and it should reform without erasing flexibility. Bill 21 largely succeeds in that balance, though its implications demand continued attention from both this House and future parliaments. In closing, the Conservative Party of British Columbia supports Bill 21. We do so because it enhances clarity in our legal framework, strengthens protection for children and responsibly updates outdated legislation. With our support, however, comes a professional caution that efficiency must never replace accountability and that fiscal housekeeping must not become political lock-in. Bill 21 is a strong step forward to a more coherent, more modern and more accountable system of public administration. That is something all sides of this House should strive for.

744 words

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

I’m pleased to speak today in support of Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. This bill addresses two distinct but important areas, the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. The first modernizes financial and legal arrangements between ICBC and the provincial government, a change that may appear technical but, indeed, carries significant implications for fiscal accountability and the structure of our insurance system. The second strengthens how we protect the property and financial interests of children, particularly those without private guardians or those under public or Indigenous care. Part 1 of this bill retroactively reclassifies payments from ICBC to the provincial government for health care costs as a tax revenue rather than a reimbursement. This measure effectively closes the book on decades of accounting overlap between ICBC’s insurance funds and the province’s health budget. Declaring this a tax has existed since 1973. For those of you that may or may not admit that your hair is as grey as mine, you might remember 1973. Do you? [Interjection.]

176 words

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

Thanks to my colleague. I’m not going to go through all the clauses, knowing that there’s going to be more than enough time in our general questions when we get to committee to be able to have these conversations. I just wanted to bring a brief overview from my perspective and just go through a few of the items that I see, not necessarily red flags but opportunities for us to talk about. I appreciate what the Attorney General is doing in modernizing so much of the legislation that we have in the province. Much of it is outdated, and much of it needs to be brought into not only the reality of us being able to work government-to-government with our Indigenous and First Nations but also understanding some of the capacity challenges that those Indigenous communities have. One of the things that we talked about is that the new Public Guardian and Trustee Act will be able to modernize and clarify the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee, which we’ll call the PGT, and it talks about the responsibilities of property guardians for children and young adults. That raises another issue that maybe we can discuss when we get to committee. We’ve talked about this whole issue around the age of majority. When we talk about young adults at the age of 27, is that still appropriate in today’s setting, in what we’re trying to accomplish throughout the guardianship of a child? That may be something that we can bring up when we get to committee stage, trying to see if there are some changes that need to be made in that definition as well. Some of the key amendments to the act. There will be broadening authority inasmuch as now the PGT will act as the property guardian for the children in managing the assets on their behalf. Access to information was raised already. Again, there are always flags that go up when we talk about information — how it’s going to be retrieved, how it’s going to be gathered and how it’s going to be shared. I’m quite sure that we’ll have meaningful discussions once we get to committee on what the safeguards are and what the government has planned, for us to be able to ensure that integrity throughout the entire process. There’s another one with the transfer of authority from the Infants Act. Again, that’s going to be just a cleanup. Again, that’s just straightforward stuff. Termination of guardianship. There are going to be clear guidelines that have been established when the guardianship terminates. Again, we’ll have those opportunities in committee to be able to discuss all the language that’s in that portion of the bill, in the act, and determine: is it enough, or should there be changes? I know it seems to take a lot of time for us to have these conversations, but I think we want to try to make sure that we get it right. Particularly, it’s been quite a long time since we’ve even had a review of this act. Another one that comes to mind, of course, which we’ve discussed a lot and I mentioned at the beginning of my conversation, is Indigenous collaboration. I totally agree that when we’re engaged with our First Nations, we’re having the opportunity, particularly from the federal government’s perspective, of making sure that our First Nations are more in control of their own health and well-being in their communities. We’ve seen positive results throughout the province in many of our First Nations building the capacity up so that they can be in control of those services and those systems in place. It’s a positive step for British Columbia. We certainly support those initiatives in moving forward with our First Nations. We also realize that there are going to be some steps along the way that are going to need additional resources from the government. We’re going to have to be able to have that conversation as to what levels of support are going to be needed for us to be able to implement the integrity of this bill. One of the things that I’d like to talk a little bit about is that it should be providing more protection for children under their guardianship. I believe the Attorney General mentioned not loopholes but some things that can fall through the process in whether a legal guardian actually has the ability to be able to look after that child. If circumstances change and now that child has to be put in other care, it obviously makes sense for us, particularly with our Indigenous communities, to be able to make sure that those decisions are made on the ground with the people that are in those communities. From our perspective, that can also cause some other issues because, again, a lot of our First Nations are still building capacity. They’re still having challenges in not being able to have their own health centres, not being able to have some of the wraparound services that they would want to provide like psychiatric care, certainly more substance abuse programs, depending on their needs in those communities. So we need to recognize some of the issues that come across from that and be able to make sure that we are able to do everything that we can to be able to assist those First Nations communities as much as we can. One of the challenges, also, is the centralization of power. I know many of the members on this side are always a little bit leery when we start talking about an increase in bureaucracy. A lot of times that leads to delays. Many times it leads to unnecessary red tape. I’m hoping the intent of this bill is to be able to streamline the process, have it so that we have the opportunity so that we get more community engagement. We have the flexibility. Certain communities are going to react differently, depending on how we apply the new standards and to be able to make sure that we can make those changes in a meaningful and substantial way and not just have to get bogged down in the bureaucracy that we’ve seen in so many other times before. The other one that comes up are the privacy implications. Again, when we start changing authorities, we have to make it crystal clear that these things are done properly, that we have oversight and that if there are issues, they are brought to the government’s attention and they are fixed and not just hidden behind closed doors. In closing, I would like to say that Bill 21 represents a significant shift in the governance of property guardianship for the children of British Columbia. While these amendments aim to modernize and clarify the PGT’s role, we still believe that they introduce new challenges and concerns, particularly regarding the balance of power, privacy and Indigenous autonomy. It is crucial that ongoing dialogue and oversight accompany these changes to ensure that the best interests of the children and communities are upheld. With that, I yield.

1185 words

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on behalf of the official opposition as the Attorney General critic and on behalf of the Conservative caucus of B.C., in my capacity as Attorney General critic, as I just mentioned, to speak to Bill 21, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2025. I’ll do a little bit of overview and commentary from my part. We will not be opposing this bill on second reading because we’d like to see it go to committee, and we’d like to ask detailed questions in regards to this particular bill at committee. This bill has two major sets of amendments. The first is to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the second is to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. In regards to the amendments to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, there are some consequential amendments to some other statutes, but the main amendment seems to be to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. There seem to be two main statutes that are addressed in this particular amendment act, the first one being the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and second one being the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. At first glance, when you look at the changes, it might appear technical in nature — housekeeping, as was mentioned earlier in the House. But as always, technical changes from this government may involve a lot more than just technical changes, so we have to do a deep dive, go into what the legislation is all about and ask the required questions. While much of this bill is framed as administrative or clarifying, it could have a significant impact on policy moving forward. Let me start by getting into the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, in regards to the amendments to this. For decades, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, ICBC, has made regular payments to the provincial government to cover the cost of health care for people injured in motor vehicle accidents. These payments have happened in the form of reimbursements or payments made. That’s the background here. We know that these payments have been made since 1973, I believe. It’s been approximately 50 years since these payments have been made over this period of time. As I mentioned, these payments were considered reimbursements. At no particular time before this bill were they ever called taxes. They were recorded as transfers between ICBC and the provincial government, the provincial treasury. However, I was enlightened in a brief from the government on what transpired, what led to this actual legislation coming to the House today. I was told that payments were made, but there was a particular class action that happened in regards to those particular payments. So this legislation tries to deal with a procedural issue in regards to the payments that have been made in the past. This legislation comes out and sets forward a retroactive tax to deal with the previous payments that were made, and those previous payments are applied to this tax that is now retroactive in nature. Prior to this bill coming about, the legal proceedings that I was told about in a brief created an issue whether ICBC was in fact legally obligated to make the payments in the first place. The payments did happen, and those payments happened over a period of 50 years, as I mentioned earlier, since 1973. They were provided according to reimbursement, a long-established practice over these 50 years. The government has collected these funds, and this was to deal with that situation where funds have been actually collected and what to do with those funds. The other thing about this particular legislation is that it states that the amounts that were paid before would be applied to this retroactive tax. If there’s anything else owing on top of that, it would be a wash in terms of what’s being discussed in this particular bill. Another point of interest in this part of the bill that deals with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act is it also talks about there no longer being further reimbursements to be made from ICBC, moving forward. What I take from reading this bill…. The retroactive tax applies to the situation from 1973 onwards to this particular bill. Whatever was collected from ICBC would be applied to this retroactive tax. Moving forward, there would be a kind of change in system, that there would no longer be reimbursements collected from ICBC. In essence, these changes in this bill retroactively reclassify what ICBC paid in the past. To that extent where there’s no real new money being exchanged, and it’s just a reclassification of old money that has actually been paid, I submit that it is housekeeping in nature, but there could be other consequences as a result of doing that reclassification. That’s going to be the basis for a lot of our questions coming at the committee stage. The fact that we’ve had this reclassification, could that lead to unintended consequences? What does that mean for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia? I know the bill tries to address that ICBC will not have to provide reimbursements into the future. Still, we need to do a deep dive into the framework here. How will it affect the framework? What safeguards are there? What consultation was actually done to make sure that there aren’t any lingering effects as a result of having these changes in this particular amendment in this part of the bill? It is a little bit…. What prompts me to say that there are going to be all these queries and all these questions is that we’re not just dealing with a period of a few years or a few months in terms of what payments were made in the past. We’re dealing with payments that have been made from 1973. I wasn’t even born then. That was a long time ago. A lot has changed with ICBC since that period of time. It started out as an insurer, to become a sole insurer. It has changed in the types of services it provides. It has changed in the type of revenue it generated and supplied such revenue to the government. A lot has happened since these last 50 years. That’s why when we have a technical change such as this, a reclassification, we really do need to make sure there are not going to be any unintended consequences as a result of these technical changes in this part of the bill. It’s important to understand, and it’s important to be clear, this change does not create any new tax. When I had a first look at this bill, I saw the word “tax.” I saw the words “retroactive tax.” Right away that raised alarm bells in my mind. We’re talking about tax, and we’re talking about fiscal policy, but when you do a deeper dive, you realize that there was an issue, and the legislation tries to deal with that situation. Why it did ring alarm bells when I did see the word “tax” or I did see the words “retroactive tax” in Bill 21 is that I started thinking about the fiscal situation of this province. I started thinking about the taxation policies that have been implemented over the last decade in this province. I started thinking about the hardships that British Columbians are going through at this particular time. So when I saw the words “tax,” “retroactive tax,” that’s the first thing that went through my mind. But as I got that briefing by the Ministry of Attorney General…. I’m thankful for that briefing. It was quite informative, so I thank the staff and thank the Attorney General for putting that together. That addressed some of my concerns. I do have further concerns in terms of…. We are dealing with a period of 50 years. We are dealing with a large Crown corporation that has evolved over the last five decades. Although there only seem to be a few sections in the first part of this bill that deal with the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, it makes some huge changes in terms of…. It refers to all this revenue or reimbursement that’s happened over 50 years. That’s a lot of money, and it’s over a very long period of time, and it involves a Crown corporation that is a very large Crown corporation and is responsible for a lot of things in this province in regards to insurance, in terms of licensing now, in terms of dealing with victims of automobile accidents. So we still have to look at it, although some of my concerns were addressed through the briefing as well as reading this bill in detail. As I mentioned earlier, this bill is about the past, not the future. It’s about ensuring that funds already transferred from ICBC to the government remain legally valid and properly classified. In short, in essence, it’s the government closing a loop, a hole, a procedural hole, by formally confirming through legislation that these historic payments were lawful. I’ve already highlighted earlier that I was given the briefing, that I was made aware there was a class action, and that helped me understand why this bill came about. While the intent here seems to be solely administrative, seems to be technical, seems to be housekeeping in nature, the approach definitely deserves scrutiny. The retroactive legislation, also in its nature, is something that the opposition must look at carefully. When we’re applying law to things that happened in the past, there are probably less opportunities of scrutiny because it’s past situations. It’s not like you’re doing active consulting to apply something towards the future. We’re dealing with a past situation, so when we’re saying that a whole period of time is going to be swamped with one paintbrush of retroactivity, it requires some close scrutiny. As we get to the committee, we’ll be looking at what really prompted the government to come up with those specific provisions in the bill. Why those provisions, and why not others? We will be looking at asking questions about: could there have been another way? Could this have been dealt with by, say, a regulation or some sort of administrative procedure? Did we have to come all the way here to have this debate, in terms of Bill 21 and in terms of this retroactivity and dealing with some previous payments that have been made over the last 50 years? We want to be able to understand whether there were any alternatives, because even when you bring a bill to the House here, it requires resources. We want to make sure that this specific issue went through the proper channels and that we are here and spending our time wisely. Then even if there are no significant, let’s just say, unintended consequences, we would still want to know every consequence that could actually happen, even if it’s procedural in nature, because sometimes the government may have not thought about something that, say, the opposition comes up with. So we would like to have our input, in terms of first knowing if there are even any technical or procedural consequences so we can have input on that and make sure we’re acting proactively and acting in a proactive manner rather than a retroactive manner. Then the other part of it is that we would also like to see what…. How does it really affect the dynamics of ICBC, if anything, at all? We can understand what the history is, why these payments were being made and why we have this procedure in place. But what did ICBC think about this whole legislative process, and what was their input? Did they say anything, how this could actually affect their operations, for now or maybe even into the future? Say if they’re having other dealings, are they going to now have to change how they operate? Initially, they were involved in the decision-making process to actually provide reimbursements, provide payments. There may be a similar thought process that has been used by the corporation in dealing with other problems. So we need to know. If we had to make a fix here after 50 years, is there anything else that needs to be fixed in that Crown corporation? That’s an important factor as well. I’ve spent a lot of my time on the first part of the bill. I’d like to just go to the second part of the bill. The second part of the bill essentially deals with totally different subject matter. I would say we’ve dealt with a lot of miscellaneous bills. We’ve dealt with a few from the Attorney General’s office. And many of them…. The nature seems to be there are five different subject matters, or six or four. But this comes down to actually two. That actually raised a little bit of my curiosity, looking at this bill as well. What made the pairing of these two subject matters…? Just two subject matters. What made the government decide to actually put these two together in this particular bill? Part 2 deals with the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. The amendments here are modernizing how the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office, or the PGT’s office, serves children’s property in terms of guardianship. I had a briefing on this from the Attorney General’s department, again, and something was discussed about, okay, the PGT has a detailed legislative framework to deal with guardian decision-making in terms of, like, health decisions, in terms of the actual person, but what was missing is more detail, more of a legislative framework to actually deal with children’s property when they don’t, say, have a parent that can look after them or they don’t have a legal guardian that can look after them. This legislation was brought forward to also fill in a loophole or a procedural misstep. This part of the legislation deals with what happens, how the property of children is to be dealt with, when the Public Guardian and Trustee is in the equation. How does that all work out? I’d just like to say that in my years of practising law, I have dealt with the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office, and I would say they are very thorough in terms of what service they provide. From my experience dealing with them as a lawyer, they were very diligent in terms of making sure they protect children and their property and any sort of proprietary interest that a child may have, in a situation where they have authority on that. They ask a lot of questions, and sometimes if you put forward a proposal. A lot of times that proposal may come back to you with further follow-up questions to address. When I was looking at the Public Guardian and Trustee’s office in terms of the changes that are being made here to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, I had some comfort based upon my experience dealing with that office and how diligent they are. This particular part of this bill deals with modernizing the Public Guardian and Trustee framework around children’s property guardianship rights. It’s a critical role. It’s about ensuring that children without parents or legal guardians have a public authority acting in their best interest to manage their financial or property interests. Currently what we do see is that there are many acts that deal with children and, perhaps, deal with their property as well. Part of what this part of the bill does is it consolidates issues regarding guardianship and children’s property. When you’re consolidating, and you’re trying to have legislation in just one spot, it makes things easier for legal professionals as well. Then you know you’ve got one statute. You can look at that one statute, you’re going to get the proper framework there, and you can proceed forward after that. As I stated earlier, this particular part of the bill, although it deals with the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, does have some consequential amendments to some other statutes as well. Some of the other statutes we see, such as the Adoption Act, the Infants Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act…. As a result of these changes, there may be perhaps even some effects on the Family Law Act and family law, the substantive practice of law, as well as any legal professional that’s dealing with any sort of property, involving whether it’s a financial interest in something or it’s tangible property that a child has or is entitled to. Another important part of this particular legislation is that the amendments here make it explicit that when the PGT acts as a property guardian for an Indigenous child, it must also consider the child’s culture, heritage and community connections and Indigenous laws in regard to Indigenous children. So this legislation specifically deals with that as well in this part of the bill. This bill also provides the PGT with a clearer authority to manage children’s property until the child reaches adulthood — in some cases, as mentioned and talked about in this legislation, to continue providing support into early adulthood. Those are the two parts of this particular legislation. We’re not going to oppose this legislation at second reading because we want it to go to committee stage. It’s important that…. We have certain questions that we would like to be addressed and that we would like to go and have proper scrutiny. Some areas of interest that we have, and we’ll probably have some interest to talk about, are how all these different statutes interact with each other and how they’re going to interact with each other, such as the Family Law Act, the Adoption Act, the Infants Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act. How are they going to interact with this Public Guardian and Trustee Act now that it’s amended? How is it going to work? Could there be any technical issues? Could there be…? We’ve seen legislation here in the past in other housekeeping bills that mentioned that something changed in one legislation, but nothing was changed in a related legislation. And then, like ten years later, there was a change made to that related piece of legislation. So we would have questions along that. Would this legislation amend itself but have a uniformity with these other pieces of legislation as well? Like I mentioned earlier, another important part to address is the consultation. In the first part of the bill, we dealt with a large amount of financial transactions involving a very large corporation, involving a very lengthy period of time that has passed. And the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has its own way of operating, probably has its own operating procedures. Now this legislation addresses one operating procedure that was in force before, prior to this bill, and it’s trying to amend that. Will that affect the Insurance Corporation in that aspect? Have they been consulted? What are they saying? And who else has been consulted other than ICBC? We want to ensure that as a result of this consolidation in the latter part of the bill, like I said earlier, works properly. We have to pay even more attention because it involves children. If you’re a legal professional and you’re going through the court process or you’re practising in that area that involves children, we know that even the court has a lot of questions for legal professionals: “There are children involved in this particular proceeding or in this particular case. What have you done to go the extra mile? What is in the best interest of the child?” In regard to that aspect, the best interests of the child, making sure the child is properly protected, what consultation was done to make sure that any sort of technical amendments that were done are not going to negatively affect children, moving forward? In conclusion, Bill 21 is a reminder of how legislation often works quietly in the background. It shows that at times, we have to come up with solutions to resolve technical issues that have happened in the past or are currently existing, and some solutions need to be applied to them. This seems to be administrative in nature. We will all be having questions at committee stage. We will not be opposing this bill at this stage. We look forward to asking the questions to the Attorney General at that stage.

3412 words

Hon. Lana Popham

BC NDP

10/20/2025

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

I call second reading of Bill 21.

7 words