Contents

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: George Anderson.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

The Speaker: Members, today we are so happy that we have all our wonderful firefighters from all parts of British Columbia here today, so we will not be making any individual introductions.

On behalf of all of us, I would like to welcome all firefighters to be here with us today.

[Applause.]

The Speaker: They’re here to meet with their individual MLAs. We’re looking forward to their meetings.

Thank you so much for all the wonderful work you do every day, 24-7.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’d like to welcome my aunt Cathleen Boyle and my uncle Rich Hall, who are here joining us for question period — a retired health-care-worker-educator and our family’s most talented woodworker and carpenter, which is a low bar in my family, but still we’re delighted to have his skills.

I’m not allowed to have favourites, because I have a large family, but let me just say that Aunt Cathleen and Uncle Rich have been so supportive and fun through my entire life. I’m lucky to live so close to them, and my kids love spending time with them. They’re here with their friend Linda, who lives here locally. I’m so glad to have them all.

Will the House join me in making them feel welcome.

Rob Botterell: It’s my honour this morning to welcome representatives from three affordable housing organizations from my riding: the Gulf Island Seniors Residents Association, the Mayne Island Housing Society’s Salish Grove project and the Galiano Affordable Living Initiative Society.

These organizations have for years worked to bring affordable housing units to their communities, and we are relying on the now paused community housing fund to bring more units to the low-income households in their communities.

Will the House join me in making them feel welcome.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Joining us in the gallery are representatives from the Centre for Family Equity’s lone mothers economic inclusion initiative, led by executive director Viveca Ellis. Founded as the Single Mothers Alliance in 2014, they continue to build leadership and capacity among families impacted by inequality. I am looking forward, as are many of my colleagues, to meeting them later today and discussing their work in the child care sector.

I ask all members to make them feel very welcome.

Korky Neufeld: For those of us who have grandchildren, it makes us realize how quickly time flies. My granddaughter Everlee just turned two today.

I just want to say to you: your smile brightens up my day. Have a wonderful birthday. I love you very much and miss you.

She lives in Wenatchee.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: On behalf of myself and the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I have the honour of introducing one of B.C. Parks’ key partners, the B.C. Parks Foundation. They offer such great initiatives as Healthy By Nature, the B.C. conservation fund, Discover Parks and Spark grants.

I’d like to introduce Jennie McCaffrey, who’s the VP of health and education, and also Cohen Bradley, the director of Indigenous initiatives.

Would everybody please make them feel welcome today.

[10:10 a.m.]

Misty Van Popta: Two of my favourite women in my life are in the House today, my CAs: Leda, who has been introduced here before; and new in my office, Jacqueline. Now, Jacqueline came to me as an intern last summer and made such an impression that the first opportunity and the only phone call I made, when a position came available, was to her. I’m so thankful she’s joined my office.

Just one other thing that I’d like to mention. I know we’re not giving individual recognition to our fire departments, but yesterday in Langley, we had a significant incident at a construction site where a worker fell six metres into a confined space. It was through the immense efforts of our fire department and the work of the safety officer on site that the victim was retrieved within an hour.

I’d like to make recognition of our fire department in that extreme rescue attempt and to wish the worker a speedy recovery.

Statements

Vernon Secondary School Panthers
Senior Girls Basketball Team

Harwinder Sandhu: I stand here today with immense pride to celebrate an extraordinary achievement by the senior girls basketball team from Vernon Secondary School. For the first time in the school’s history, these remarkable student athletes captured a provincial championship banner, capping off a truly historic season.

Last Saturday, the Panthers beat out Langley Christian Lightning, 71-62, led by tournament MVP Chloe Collins, who scored 32 points, including three-pointers. This victory is about more than the banner. It reflects countless early mornings; late practices; the support of coaches, families and classmates; and the resilience these young athletes showed every step of the way. This team’s dedication and tenacity inspire the entirety of Vernon, and we’re all celebrating proudly.

On behalf of this House, may I ask the members to please join me in congratulating the Vernon Panthers senior girls basketball team on their outstanding accomplishment by being also the top team in B.C. for 3A.

Congratulations.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare: I would like to wish my daughter Elise a very happy 23rd birthday, which she just recently celebrated.

Love you, sweetie. All the very best.

I hope the House will join me in wishing her many happy returns.

Lawrence Mok: In the gallery today is my good friend Rick Cameron, who is visiting the Legislature for the first time.

Would the House please join me in giving him a very warm welcome.

Kristina Loewen: Today it is a privilege to welcome back to the assembly one of my constituency assistants and, for the first time, my other constituency assistants. They are more than assistants to me. They are very special women, both of them. They are advisers; managers; vision-casters; proactive, forward-thinking ladies; and incredible advocates for the people of Kelowna Centre.

Please join me in giving a warm welcome to Kathrine Gountas and Debbie Duncan.

Harman Bhangu: My mom isn’t here today, but she’s at home. I just want to thank her for everything she has done for me. Today is a bit of a tough day, for losing my dad nine years ago today.

I just wish the House would give her a virtual hug and make her feel comfort at this time.

Members’ Statements

Recognition of
Prince George Firefighters

Kiel Giddens: Today I want to acknowledge the incredible courage and service of IAFF Local 1372 firefighters in Prince George and the many people who support them each and every day. Every time that bell rings, a team walks into danger so that our families, our neighbours and our communities can be safe.

[10:15 a.m.]

In 2025 alone, the Prince George area experienced 253 fires, including structural fires and other serious incidents that tested our first-responder capacity. Among them were high-profile emergencies such as the CrossRoads Brewing fire and Nechako Bottle Depot as well as many more incidents at homes and businesses, where people and properties needed to be protected.

One particular challenging call came at the Boardwalk apartments, where 24 of the 57 units suffered fire, smoke and water damage. At 5:40 a.m., 19 firefighters from four halls responded with skill and urgency, evacuating dozens of residents to safety before the full force of the blaze could take hold.

Behind every successful response are not only these firefighters but also our dispatchers, who stay calm under pressure, coordinate resources and get help moving when every second counts. Their contribution, too, deserves our heartfelt thanks. Service like this shows what it means to look after one another, and our community has noticed and appreciated it.

On a lighter but still celebratory note, I note that I also want to congratulate the Prince George firefighters on their recent Sirens Cup victory, where they brought home the trophy in the annual charity hockey game against the Prince George RCMP, helping to raise more than $16,500 for local causes, including Cops for Cancer and the Prince George Firefighters Charitable Society.

We are grateful for all of our first responders.

To all the firefighters here today and serving across the province, to all the dispatchers and support teams: our communities thank you for your bravery, your professionalism and your service.

FIFA World Cup

George Anderson: I rise to mark an important milestone: 100 days until the FIFA World Cup kicks off here in British Columbia. Seven matches will be played at B.C. Place, welcoming more than 350,000 fans, while billions more watch from across the globe.

This moment is about far more than what happens on the pitch. It’s about what happens because of it. Major global sports events shape how people see a place for decades. The research is clear that when visitors come to British Columbia, they will return three or four times over their lives for leisure, for business, for partnership.

Between 2026 and 2031, we expect an additional one million out-of-province visitors, generating $1 billion in new spending across our economy. That means full hotels, busy restaurants, growing local businesses and good jobs for workers and communities across British Columbia. This opportunity strengthens our role as Canada’s gateway to the Asia-Pacific, building relationships that will support our prosperity for decades to come.

This moment belongs to the entire province. Residents and visitors will experience the tournament inside B.C. Place, at the FIFA Fan Festival, at community celebrations across British Columbia. We are supporting watch parties throughout the province and working closely with local First Nations and partners to ensure the benefits endure long after the final whistle. This is team B.C., and on team B.C., no community sits on the sidelines.

When the world arrives in British Columbia, they will see our stadiums, skylines, mountains, oceans and cities. But what these visitors will remember are our people — welcoming, creative, diverse and ambitious.

The countdown has begun, so today I invite all British Columbians to join in celebrating 100 days to go, to be part of team B.C. and to help us show the world the very best of this province.

Recognition of Langley Firefighters

Misty Van Popta: It’s a big week for firefighters in Victoria. It’s their 2026 annual conference week, and I, for one, have never felt as safe in this building as I have for the past two days.

Advocacy work is important, and it works. That’s where I got my inspiration for my private member’s bill — which I won’t talk about now, or I’m sure Mr. Speaker would remind me of our parliamentary rules.

I do want to speak briefly of my favourite IAFF, the 4550s. Langley township’s famed firefighters are a staple in our community. You literally see them everywhere, even when off duty — one of the most present volunteer groups in Langley at charitable events, with their big boots collecting cash and their amazing barbecue skills.

Whether they are collecting toys at a Giants game or shooting balls at me — in net, at Tim Baillie’s legendary Toque Tuesday ball hockey tournament — the 4550 is there. Langley has 157,000 people now, but the faces of these members are as familiar and welcoming as my next-door neighbours’.

[10:20 a.m.]

I know I’m not alone in wanting to brag about how awesome my union is, because I know all of us in this chamber feel the same about those up in the gallery today.

It’s an observation I made a long time ago, but there is this innate, intangible trait that firefighters just have — a certain je ne sais quoi. I can’t put my finger on it, but even out of their uniforms, they are the first to put up their hands. They’re there to lend you a hand on a house project. They’re there to help change a flat tire. They’re just helpers, which is why they have signed up to run into burning buildings when we are all running out.

So let’s put our hands together and give a wave and a smile to these men and women who give freely and ask for very little in return. They’re awesome, and we all know it.

Student Achievements
in Coquitlam-Maillardville

Jennifer Blatherwick: There have been some challenges in the world lately, and our hearts go out to all those here, at home and across the world who are facing the most difficult of times. We wish them safety and peace for themselves and their families. We grieve for them and hold harder to the sacred trust to provide welcoming, safe spaces for young people to find their paths in life.

In my riding just this last month, there were so many reasons to be proud of the young people of Coquitlam-Maillardville.

Charles Best Secondary, I have been incredibly impressed with the work of your youth action team and the collaboration in your school to help support our unhoused community members. Not only did the youth action team collect a warm-weather clothing drive, but the culinary program at Charles Best is making two meals a week for the people who are staying overnight at a local shelter and looking to do more.

Congratulations, I think, just like everyone else in this entire House, to my Centennial Secondary grade 9 boys basketball team, provincial champions in their division.

I was just at the Gleneagle Secondary jazz gala, a fundraising event that brings together the musical talent, so strong, and the equally impressive talent in their cooking program. An evening spent listening to an “Orange Coloured Sky” with some fantastic chicken parm. I walked out singing, and I haven’t stopped.

The actions of these secondary school students do us all proud, working hard to achieve their goals, becoming better artists, better athletes, better people. Along with that pride, there is a deep gratitude for the opportunity we have created here in British Columbia, in Canada, for them to have the resources and support to make their dreams possible.

May every bright success make us more committed to ensuring that every child has the same opportunities.

Coldest Night of the Year
Fundraising Walk in Terrace

Claire Rattée: This weekend I participated in the Coldest Night of the Year walk in Terrace. The Coldest Night of the Year is held in communities across Canada to raise awareness and funds for local organizations that are serving those experiencing homelessness. It’s about walking together in solidarity with those who do not have the option of going home to warmth at the end of the night.

For me, this issue is not abstract. I have experienced homelessness myself. I understand, personally, what it means to lack stability, to lack certainty and to lack a safe place to sleep. I know how it feels to try to sleep when you’re freezing cold, scared and hopeless.

Shelter is not simply about a roof. It is about dignity, safety and the foundation that allows someone to rebuild their life. The inability to have a shower and a good night’s rest can be the barrier to employment opportunities, education and good mental health.

In northern British Columbia, the reality is stark. In many of our communities, people are nearly six times more likely to be unhoused than in greater Vancouver. In Terrace, it’s one in 94 people.

This is not just an urban issue. It is not confined to our largest cities. It is deeply felt in small and rural communities, where housing stock is limited, costs are rising and supports are stretched thin.

Homelessness disproportionately affects the most vulnerable — young people fleeing abusive homes, seniors with no suitable housing options, young families who simply cannot afford to make rent, people with disabilities on fixed incomes and individuals suffering from severe psychiatric distress.

Events like this remind us that behind every statistic is a human being. Homelessness can, and often does, affect anyone — a family member, a neighbour or a colleague. Awareness is important. Community compassion is powerful. But it must be matched with serious policy attention and meaningful action from this Legislature.

[10:25 a.m.]

I hope that anybody in this House that hasn’t participated in one of these walks will do so next year, because no British Columbian should be left out in the cold.

Anthony Remedios

Mable Elmore: I rise today with profound sadness over the passing away of a dear friend, Anthony Michael Maria Remedios. Anthony is remembered as a man of faith, a devoted husband, devoted father and lawyer, who embodied generosity, integrity and kindness. He dedicated his life to his family, his community, his profession and to helping others with steadiness and conviction.

Faith guided his decisions. He attended church regularly and encouraged his family and friends to do the same. He regarded spiritual discipline as an integral part of life.

Anthony believed that a professional calling carried personal responsibility, and those who sought his help always found more than legal advice. They found a friend and someone they could talk to. His presence grounded those around him. He did not publicize his efforts. He just got things done, while always putting others first.

Over the past four decades, he did all of these things through his law firm, Remedios and Company. Founded by Anthony in 1989, the Vancouver-headquartered Remedios and Company does more than just deliver top-quality legal services. His law firm also built bridges of friendship and understanding across the seas with its extensive roster of clients in China, Taiwan, Japan, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea and the Philippines.

Anthony believed in the importance of connection, the value of dissolving barriers and fostering lasting relationships. This is the vision that guided him as a founding director of the Filipino Legacy Society, working to build the Filipino cultural centre in Vancouver, and as president of the Indo-Pacific Foundation of Canada. Based in Vancouver, the Indo-Pacific Foundation works to empower diverse communities from the grassroots levels in Canada to global platforms across Asia and the Pacific region.

At home, he was a protector. He approached family life with the same diligence that he applied to his work. He was always joyful and happy. He listened carefully to his children’s concerns and responded with wisdom and assurance. He was deeply grateful for his wife, Christine, and for his children, Isabella, Matthew and Paula.

I loved him deeply. He was deeply loved by the members of the Filipino Legacy Society, Indo-Pacific Foundation and broad community. His legacy will continue, and he will live on through all the lives he has touched.

Ministerial Statements

War in Iran and Middle East

Hon. David Eby: I rise today to address the war unfolding in Iran and across the broader Middle East.

First and foremost, our thoughts are with all of the innocent civilians across the Middle East and in Iran whose lives are in danger as I stand and speak here right now. My thoughts are with the Iranian families, who have suffered under the tyranny of a brutal dictatorship, for the people of Iran, whose only demand was freedom and democracy and who are now facing the horrors of war.

This is an exceptionally dangerous and volatile situation. We pray that they are protected. We pray that all Canadians and British Columbians and all permanent residents who are presently in the Middle East and Iran are safe. As tourist destinations, hotels, airports and other public places in neighbouring countries are being targeted by Iran, I’m thinking of the more than 85,000 Canadians in the region. Iranian attacks on innocent civilians anywhere are reprehensible and must stop immediately.

In this environment, I urge us all to recognize the courage of our armed service members in Canada, who are often called on to protect civilians in situations like this, and recognize the anxiety of their families about possible deployment. For now, Global Affairs Canada is providing consular support to help Canadians throughout the region, and we hope that everyone is able to make it home to Canada as quickly as possible. We pray that escalation does not result in calling on our courageous soldiers, navy members, air force members to sacrifice for our country yet again.

We could see a turning point begin to unfold at the end of December when massive protests broke out across Iran. They were driven by economic collapse, out-of-control inflation and demands for the end of the Islamic Republic. It was, indeed, a moment of hope. Authorities responded with a violent crackdown. It was a horrific atrocity, the mass murder of thousands of protesters, a regime using violence, arbitrary arrests and intimidation tactics against its own people.

When things like this happen on the other side of the world, it can feel far away. But for many people here in British Columbia, it is close to our hearts. For weeks, people attending rallies in Vancouver have been calling for an end to this oppressive regime.

[10:30 a.m.]

For many Iranian Canadians, people in Canada and across the world, the fall of the Ayatollah has come as welcome news. He was a butcher, a tyrant and a coward. But the fallout causes deep worry. People worry for their loved ones in Iran and in the region. They worry for the future of their country. They worry about Iran being plundered by the regime, stealing the future before it even begins.

We stand with them in solidarity. We stand with them with a shared hope for peace, freedom and safety for their families and friends. British Columbia will not be a refuge for war criminals and stolen money. The rules have changed. We will ensure their prosecution and the seizure of ill-gotten gains.

We stand with the Iranian people in praying this darkness will soon end and the sun will begin to rise on a new, brighter future led by the people of Iran.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank the Premier for his words and how poignant they were.

As we walk through the halls of this building, we are surrounded by portraits that remind us of the people and the moments that shaped both our province and our country.

Just downstairs on the first floor of the rotunda, there is a copy of the Canadian Bill of Rights. It isn’t just a historical document. It’s a promise — a promise of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of debate. These are rights we can take for granted in this country, but for those who live under tyranny and oppression, these rights are not taken for granted.

Right now they are dreams and they are aspirations. Freedom, liberty, justice — these have been aspirations of humans around this world for thousands of years.

Nearly 3,000 years ago, Cyrus the Great enshrined a vision of universal freedom in the Cyrus cylinder, in what is often referred to as the first charter of human rights. He declared that all people should live free from oppression, that displaced communities could return home, that religions would be respected and that dignity belonged to every human being.

For decades, Iranians have lived under a regime that has answered dissent with oppression, violence and enforced silence. This weekend, leadership of that regime was removed, and we are grateful for that.

Across the world and here in British Columbia, people took to the streets to celebrate the death of a leadership regime that had brutalized its own people and had exported its tyranny and terror around the world.

As Iranians call for help, let me be clear. We are concerned about the escalation of conflict. War is beyond tragic. History has shown us that, and our present continues to prove the devastation of war.

But I don’t think this moment is about the pursuit of war. It’s about the pursuit of freedom. It’s about the people reclaiming their future. It’s about pursuing freedom for generations. Each time they rose up, they were trampled by tyranny. This time it’s estimated that over 30,000 people were murdered by the regime as they sought to shut down protests.

I attended the Global Day of Action for Iran with the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano, and I want to thank her for the work that she’s done to bring awareness to this global issue; along with members from the other side of the House; alongside an estimated 50,000 British Columbians who rallied for peace, for justice and human rights for the Iranian people. It is startling to think that nearly the same number of people that attended this rally have been killed by their own government.

Today we recognize their courage, their resilience. We celebrate their hope, their inspiration. For when a people rise and fight for their freedoms, it reminds us all the rights we hold dear in this country.

[10:35 a.m.]

I ask all members of this House to reflect on the fact that we all have constituents that are hurting right now, that are scared, that can’t reach family members. We cannot take that angst and that fear lightly.

برای آزادی- پاینده باد ایران

[Farsi text provided by Trevor Halford.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the Premier and Leader of the Opposition for their words of reflection this morning.

I struggle with this feeling of helplessness, making statements on events on the other side of the world, with no jurisdiction, little or no ability to effect positive change.

I just want to recognize we’re in yet another critical moment for Persians and Iranians especially, but also for all British Columbians and people around the world. These moments seem to be arriving fast and furious, with a dizzying rate of change that’s creating fear and anxiety that we also see reflected in our provincial politics.

The people of Iran have been protesting for their rights and freedoms for years, including the nationwide protests of November 2019 and the “Women, life, freedom” uprising in 2022. Protests earlier this year culminated in the deadliest period of repression by Iranian authorities in decades, with a death toll somewhere between 3,000 and 32,000. The uncertainty speaks to a total lack of transparency and democratic accountability.

The regime led by Ali Khamenei was responsible for sweeping mass arrests, torture and repression. Iranian women in particular have borne the brunt of this regime for 46 years. Accordingly, we celebrate the freedom that Iranians in British Columbia and across the world are feeling today. Yet we know that this is an illegal attack under international law, led by the perceived impunity of the President of the United States.

This attack has already resulted in retaliations that have killed, since Saturday, 787 people in Iran, 40 people in Lebanon, 11 in Israel, six U.S. service members and multiple fatalities in surrounding Middle East countries. Warfare is spreading around the Middle East with further rocket strikes and a new ground incursion between Israel and Hezbollah overnight. Dubai, Bahrain and Kuwait have all been implicated, despite playing no role, as far as we’re aware, in the killing of Khamenei.

Open warfare serves no one’s security, least of all the Iranian people. So we look to our federal leaders in Ottawa to be a voice for peace, to call out our allies who lecture us about peace while tearing up agreements and throwing bombs, to support the people of Iran to form a government of their own making in their own way, to do all that they can to stop the bloodshed that we’ve seen for too long in this part of the world — and, for us in this chamber, to think about how we can conduct our work in a way that builds respect for the rule of law, fundamental human rights and ends the cycle of violence and brings peace.

دست شما درد نکنه

[May your hand not hurt.]

[Farsi text and translation provided by Jeremy Valeriote.]

Peace be with you.

Oral Questions

Federal Government Recognition
Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation

Trevor Halford: Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Indigenous Relations stood up, and he said he had no idea about any agreement with the federal government and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm.

Worse than that, the Premier of this province stood in front of the media, with children all around him, and he said: “I can’t say whether or not, at this stage, any public service members have line of sight to it. I certainly didn’t.” Shortly after the Premier made those remarks, a flurry of activity from his office to say: “Whoa, whoa, wait. The Premier was actually at the signing ceremony.”

You would think that the Premier of this province would attend an event and have some idea what the event is about. But then to go before the province and say he had no idea…. He actually sat front row at a signing ceremony and then said he was caught surprised just like everybody else. I’m not buying it, and I don’t think the public are buying it.

A very simple question to the Premier: when did the Premier become informed of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm deal that was signed by the federal government?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Just to be absolutely clear, I received no briefings about the content of this agreement, no heads-up from the federal government. I did receive an invitation from Chief Sparrow to attend an event at xʷməθkʷəy̓əm with the federal government. I regularly attend events at xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. They don’t have a local MLA that represents their interests, so they often invite me as the neighbouring MLA.

I was honoured and glad to be attending. I absolutely sat in the front row. I was glad to see the federal government working with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People, but I didn’t know the content of the agreements until they were released publicly by the federal government. I’m glad they have been released.

I wish we had been briefed in advance, because we would have been able to clarify some of the comments made by the official opposition — that this was a land grab, that people didn’t own their homes anymore in Metro Vancouver, all the kind of nonsense that they said.

It’s an agreement between the federal government and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People to try to avoid court, to move forward in a positive way, in a similar agreement to many agreements that were signed by the guy who was the Leader of the Official Opposition about ten minutes ago.

That work being done by the federal government is a positive thing, and I’m hesitant to point the finger at the federal government about not bringing us in, because I know for our own government, we’re reflecting on how we can do a better job of bringing along key stakeholders in our own Indigenous work.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: This is challenging work…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: …when we sit down government to government, but it’s important work, it’s crucial work, and up until very, very recently, this was non-partisan work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Proposed Changes to DRIPA
and Government Priorities

Trevor Halford: So we are to believe that the Premier of this province just randomly walked into a signing ceremony and had zero idea what was going on. Give me an absolute break. We’re not buying that. Neither is British Columbia.

Either this is one of the highest levels of incompetency we’ve seen from this Premier or, even worse, he has chosen not to be upfront in this House or outside of this House on important issues when it comes to First Nations deals. It’s that simple.

The fact of the matter is that if this Premier is going to go to an event and if he’s going to sit front row with the federal minister in attendance, you would expect the Premier of this province would be briefed on what event he is actually at. If not, we’ve got a way bigger problem with what’s going on in that office, because he sure has enough people in that office to tell him what’s going on on a day-to-day basis.

The Premier talks about the fact about getting information out. I agree with him on that. That’s important. But here we are, March, and nothing regarding any changes to DRIPA. This Premier will not hesitate to run in front of a camera to say: “We’re going to protect houses. We’re going to protect property rights. We’re going to do everything we possibly can.” Yet we’re in March and crickets in terms of what the Premier’s plan is.

Here is, also, the other problem. I am sure that other people have seen the legislation that this Premier is going to, at some point, when he finds it convenient, bring forward to this House.

My question is a direct one to the Premier. When will he make it a priority to actually table and defend the legislative changes that he has told the public he will do with DRIPA? Give us a date. When will this happen?

Hon. David Eby: I make no apologies about our government’s bright lines on reconciliation. We’ll make sure that people’s homes and properties are protected, make sure that their businesses are protected, and in fact, just yesterday….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: Just yesterday, our work with Quw’utsun First Nation resulted in a public statement, a joint statement between us and Quw’utsun, that is, in fact, the case related to that highly controversial case.

This is what happens when we sit down with First Nations and provide certainty to British Columbian homeowners and to businesses. It’s important work.

[10:45 a.m.]

On DRIPA, we’ve also been clear. The work that we need to do to align our laws needs to be done government to government — First Nations and provincial government. So the amendments that we’ll bring forward will indeed be tabled in this House. This House will have full opportunity to debate them and discuss them. We also have an obligation to our Indigenous partners to do that work with them if they choose to do so.

I look forward to tabling that in the House, and we will ensure that there is full opportunity to have debate and discussion about those amendments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Government Land Title Negotiations
with Cowichan Tribes and
Agreements with First Nations

Scott McInnis: As noted on February 20, the Premier was attending the signing ceremony in person, in his riding, in the front row. Now he’s claiming he was there as a local MLA. When you’re the Premier, you don’t get to take a day off from that role.

He also talks about not being briefed on the details of this agreement. He’s had two weeks to brief the public that there was a significant agreement coming down the line. No wonder people are jumping to conclusions.

There are serious times right now when we’re talking about reconciliation in British Columbia. This government keeps going down a dangerous path of hiding information until pressed hard by either the media or the official opposition.

My question to the Premier is a very simple one. What exactly is being negotiated with the Quw’utsun related to their Aboriginal title, which includes the city of Richmond?

Hon. David Eby: The court, as part of the Cowichan decision, requires us to sit down and negotiate with the Quw’utsun. We’re fulfilling that obligation in good faith. The first product of that negotiation with the Quw’utsun is the public statement that was released yesterday, which should provide assurance to private homeowners and business owners that their homes and businesses are not on the line in these negotiations. It was very clear about that.

I realize that the opposition feels that there’s a political advantage in creating fear among people about their homes and properties.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Premier.

Hon. David Eby: We have a very clear and bright line on this matter. We are appealing the Cowichan decision. We’re seeking a stay of that decision. The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement, that they were all over social media saying gave away people’s homes, did nothing of the sort.

I ask only one thing. I think these are important matters of debate, but I ask that they be factual.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: I’ve got a whole bunch of facts here.

What is going on here? We see a reconciliation agreement over here, treaty negotiations over there, maybe DRIPA amendments somewhere else and apparently an important agreement with the federal government that the minister or the Premier either didn’t know or didn’t want to tell anybody about.

Daylight savings time was the announcement yesterday, which was used as nothing more…. I have to point out it doesn’t affect the East Kootenay.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Scott McInnis: This was a smokescreen for the government, when there was very serious business to address with the public.

There are 20 or so MLAs who serve within this claim area between the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and the federal government. Surely, starting last week, somebody received an email, a phone call into their constituency office once this news started to break. We certainly did.

To the Premier, will he stand up today and tell the public what agreement is coming next, or do we all have to find out about it later from the media?

Hon. David Eby: The collective amnesia of the former B.C. Liberals of their time in government continues. The member pretends that agreements with First Nations just started recently and that it’s totally unpredictable that the provincial government would be engaging with First Nations on these important questions.

Here are a few facts for the member. You see a person in the shot when the member is asking the question — the former leader of the Conservatives, who was the leader until about ten minutes ago. During his time with the B.C. Liberals, the Haida Gwaii Management Council was established in 2010 for the purpose of shared decision-making for land and resource management. The council is still working and has been working since 2010.

Their 2009 throne speech included plans to develop…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: …“new statutory framework that will recognize constitutionally established Aboriginal rights and title…

Interjections.

[10:50 a.m.]

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: …and will facilitate partnerships in prosperity through shared decision-making and revenue sharing.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: The very recent leader of the Conservatives signed not one, not two but three agreements with the shíshálh Nation, laying the groundwork for long-term negotiations on revenue sharing and shared decision-making. Here’s what he said about the agreement. Here’s what he said about this: “These agreements provide a strong framework to allow shíshálh Nation and the province to move forward and build vibrant and prosperous communities.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: In March 2017, he agreed….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, be good listeners, please. It’s good to be a good listener.

Hon. David Eby: In March 2017, he agreed to a 25-year reconciliation agreement with Lake Babine Nation, including a long-term plan to implement rights and title. Now, that is just a selection of 400 different agreements that the former Leader of the Opposition claims that he signed — on multiple occasions.

This work continues with our government. It would continue with any government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the Premier has the floor.

Hon. David Eby: I’m hearing calls for accountability and transparency from a party that failed to file their financial reports as a party on time.

This work is important for the province. It is non-partisan, in the sense that it is part of our constitution. We are required to do this work. We will continue to do this work, and it is to ensure the prosperity of our province. We have $50 billion in major projects that are reaching final investment decisions in the next 12 months. All of them depend on strong Indigenous agreements and partnerships.

Affordable Housing and
Community Housing Fund

Rob Botterell: Tens of thousands of British Columbians — seniors, families, people with disabilities, students — spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent. That is why the Greens entered into CARGA, with the NDP government — to build 7,500 units per year of truly affordable, non-market housing.

But wait a minute. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board cut $1.4 billion out of the 2026 housing budget, ending the CARGA commitment and leaving the Minister of Housing with very little to announce in 2026. Here’s the best part: the NDP government say they are not cutting; they are re-pacing. George Orwell would be proud.

My question is to the Minister of Housing. How will re-pacing make housing affordable now for those most in need?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. The CARGA agreement, just to be clear, was ended by the Greens ahead of this budget.

Our government remains firmly committed to housing actions, and I am happy to stand here and speak to them. We have seen 95,000 units delivered or underway as part of this government’s work on housing. Asking rents in this province are down 12.3 percent since their peak in 2023. B.C. has the fastest and most consistent decline in rental asking prices in the country.

Housing prices are coming down. We are investing billions of dollars in affordable housing. Those investments continue. More than 5,900 homes are complete under the community housing fund. More than 4,600 are actively in construction. More than 3,000 are in early stages of development. This is work that we take seriously. We will continue to deliver.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[10:55 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: The fact remains that this government has quashed the community housing fund and, with it, affordable housing desperately needed across B.C. Twenty units at Galiano Island’s forest green, 50 units at Kings Lane on Salt Spring, the first ten units ever at Salish Grove on Mayne Island and 100 units in Squamish are all in limbo, and that’s just mentioning a few.

These respected community organizations have invested thousands of hours of volunteer time and are now left on the hook financially by this government to the tune of over $2 million of their own community money. But it’s not only wasted money. It’s the breakdown of long-term relationships which we may be witnessing.

To the Minister of Housing: what is your plan to repair, or should I say re-pace, these damaged relationships? How long before these organizations secure funding and complete these desperately needed, truly affordable housing units?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m happy to be able to speak to the housing that we’ve been able to deliver in the member’s own riding.

Before that, I would just like to clarify, as I have done before here, that the community housing fund has not been cancelled. It is a $3.3 billion fund. We remain committed to delivering on it. There are, as I’ve said, thousands of projects underway, and those commitments continue moving forward.

I’m happy, again, to speak to the member’s own riding, where we have been able to deliver 51 units of housing for low-income families and 39 units of supportive housing in Central Saanich; in North Saanich, ten units of affordable home ownership; in Sidney, 71 units of affordable rental and ten units of housing for people with disabilities.

In Salt Spring, where I was glad to get to tour the community with the member — and we had a great visit, spoke with local housing advocates and providers — we have been able to deliver 90 units of low-income housing for families, including a Lookout building on Drake Road, which we went to see as it was just opening; 32 units of supportive housing for adults at risk of or experiencing homelessness.

We continue to deliver housing in communities all across this province.

Supportive Housing Facility Proposal
and Concerns of Abbotsford Residents

Korky Neufeld: Well, Abbotsford is the latest municipality to oppose single-room occupancy.

Let me be clear to the government. We are not opposed to affordable housing, but this current model that this government has does nobody any favours. Residents should not be concerned about increased drug use in their communities. Parents shouldn’t have to be concerned about finding a needle in the playground. The Martens Street project in Abbotsford is 100 metres from a middle school, with consumption space.

Will the minister stand up and commit to working more closely with municipalities, which means no surprises, and actually address the concerns these communities have?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m happy to get to speak to the work that we’re doing in partnership with Abbotsford.

I want to be really clear that the project that was proposed was not a single-room-occupancy building. It was safe and dignified housing for seniors who are experiencing homelessness in the community. That is important housing. It’s housing that allows people who are living in an encampment or outside to come indoors, to have a safe place to rest their head.

I want all members of this House to just think for a moment. If you are someone struggling with substance abuse or with mental health challenges and you have nowhere safe to rest your head — you’re sleeping in a tent, or you’re sleeping in a doorway — how hard it would be to access the kind of detox and recovery that members opposite seem to expect of them.

We understand….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, you’re wasting your own time.

Minister will conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle: We understand that people need a place to come inside to reconnect with trusted health services, mental health services, addiction and recovery services, so they can imagine that path forward for themselves and begin taking those next steps.

[11:00 a.m.]

Members of the opposition like to complain about homelessness or encampments. They like to say we’re not doing enough, but, in the meantime, they oppose every solution that we propose.

I’ve been on the phone regularly with the mayor of Abbotsford. We are working with the city of Abbotsford already to deliver important supportive housing, and we will continue to work in partnership with local government.

Funding for Security
at Terrace Emergency Shelter

Rosalyn Bird: Housing for seniors with consumption sites. I’m sure they’re thrilled that their years of work are paying for that.

On March 31, Joe’s Place, a 40-bed emergency shelter in Terrace, will have their security not renewed by B.C. Housing. One city councillor said: “Removing security is ill-advised; unappreciated; and, frankly, not acceptable.” The city will now be picking up the tab for security.

Between July and September of 2025, RCMP officers spent excessive hours at that shelter. An RCMP staff sergeant said: “Before they had security, the number of hours were a lot higher than they are currently, and this last quarter they have gone down significantly.” He expects this number to increase again when the minister cuts funding less than a month from now.

Residents deserve to feel safe when they seek out emergency shelter.

To the minister, will she stand up today and reinstate security funding for Joe’s Place?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m happy to speak to the concern. I was made aware of the question of continued security funding in Terrace and have directed B.C. Housing to work with the provider to ensure that security continues.

We’ve been glad to work with Terrace again, as an excellent local government partner, in working toward solutions in Terrace. We’ve been able to invest in and deliver 92 units of housing for low-income families. We have 43 units of housing for independent seniors, 71 units of supportive housing and 22 units for women and families fleeing violence.

These housing investments make a huge difference in communities like Terrace and across the province. That’s why we continue to work with providers and local governments to deliver them.

Management of
Supportive Housing Sites

Claire Rattée: You know what doesn’t make a huge difference in Terrace? Cutting the security funding for Joe’s Place.

More than three years ago the Minister for Jobs and Economic Growth ordered a review through B.C. Housing to look at the way that SROs are operated and maintained because of the unsafe and inhumane living conditions being reported. That report is still nowhere to be found. It’s been three years.

To the Minister of Housing: where’s the report, and will you table it in the House today?

Hon. Christine Boyle: In case the member didn’t hear me previously, I want to be clear that we’re working closely with the provider at Joe’s Place to ensure that security isn’t cut in the community and that that continues. That’s work we’ll continue to do in partnership.

We understand that single-room-occupancy housing is not a good long-term solution. Just as the member opposite knows from her own experience, I, in my time working in the Downtown Eastside, have been in these buildings. I understand that they are not a good, safe, long-term option. That’s why we’re working so hard to replace single-room-occupancy homes with safe, dignified units that people can call their long-term homes.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: Maybe the minister didn’t hear me correctly. B.C. Housing and this ministry is cutting the funding for the security. You’re working with the provider. You’re working with the community — great. We already know you’re making the community pay for the security, and that’s not the question I asked.

Where’s the report? It’s been three years, and the situation has only gotten worse — homes filled with cockroaches and bedbugs, feces on the wall and discarded drug paraphernalia.

Interjection.

Claire Rattée: Mould, exactly.

Residents scared for their safety, terrified they’ll wake up in the middle of the night to a fire or their belongings stolen. People living on the street have told me repeatedly that they would rather stay on the street than live in government-run housing because of the deplorable living conditions.

When will the Minister of Housing quit acting like B.C.’s biggest slumlord and clean up these homes?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I find it both interesting and frustrating to hear the members opposite complain about the existing SRO housing but then oppose the new, stable, secure and dignified housing that we are creating.

[11:05 a.m.]

We are creating housing solutions that both replace older housing we all recognize isn’t sufficient as well as expand those options in communities across the province, because we on this side understand…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Christine Boyle: …how much that makes a difference. We’ll continue to do that work.

Á’a:líya Warbus: Just to clarify, we’re not opposed to housing anyone. We’re opposed to the style of housing and the way this government provides what they are now relabelling secure, dignified housing.

We know that SROs are being used for a purpose they were never designed for. Many were built as hotels or apartments, not keeping in mind the care environments that people require when they have acute mental illness and substance use challenges. We know that open drug use fuels fires, overdoses, violence and medical emergencies in buildings that were never designed to manage these risks.

Now we’re hearing first-hand testimony from first responders about a troubling trend among these everyday heroes. They are taking their own lives. Unfortunately, this does all tie together. We are hearing a clear outcry from every corner of this province that I don’t think that this government should ignore, and it should send shockwaves to every single person in this House and beyond.

Will the minister stand up today, not give us numbers and facts and read off of a sheet, and finally admit that this government’s approach is a complete failure?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I thought we wanted facts in this place, so I will continue to lean on facts and the clear numbers that point to the work that we’re delivering, because it makes a difference for people.

We are investing in housing solutions that bring people out of encampments, that bring people indoors, that allow them to connect with the supports that they badly need, that help them get their health back on track, that help them get onto a recovery journey, that in so many cases help them reconnect with family members they may have lost touch with.

We know the first step is to bring people indoors, and we’re working with local governments on a continuum of housing so that that first step is just the first step. People get supports, and from a shelter bed or a supportive housing unit, they can move to independent living, affordable housing.

This is important work that we understand makes a difference in people’s lives, and that’s why we remain so firmly committed to it.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table a report from the Auditor General, Governance of Cybersecurity Risk Management at the B.C. Institute of Technology.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, for a grand total of eight minutes, I call the Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Infrastructure.

After that…. Until that’s done…. That’s what will take place for eight minutes.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, will be the Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of the Deputy Premier and Attorney General.

[11:10 a.m.]

In Section C, the Birch Room, there will be the Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Infrastructure
(continued)

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply to order. We’ll be continuing consideration of the estimates of Ministry of Infrastructure.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $420,514,000 (continued).

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister and her staff for remobilizing for a few minutes this morning.

I’ll just speak quickly about rail infrastructure. Within the riding I represent, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, residents and non-profit organizations are concerned about the future of the Sea to Sky rail corridor and, indeed, the North Vancouver to Prince George, a former B.C. Rail line, after CN Rail announced in July of last year that they’d be decommissioning the section of the railway line between Squamish and 100 Mile House.

Although this has opened up the opportunity for regional rail transit between Metro Vancouver and Sea to Sky, creating more cost-effective, safe and climate-conscious avenues for individuals to commute or travel to and from the region, the rail corridor could be lost to salvage value or corporate developers or other interests, in the event the provincial government does not get involved.

Although I understand the passenger rail component likely lies under the purview of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, my question for the Minister of Infrastructure is: how involved is this ministry in planning and executing projects that seek to retain and maintain critical infrastructure such as the rail connection between Squamish and 100 Mile House? And are there any appropriations under Budget 2026 to support this work headed into the next fiscal year?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: The Ministry of Infrastructure is not involved in the delivery of transportation infrastructure, including rail.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you.

The opposition member canvassed Bill 15 quite extensively. I just have one or two questions.

I understand the relationship with First Nations was strained, and the minister has probably lived that. It’s been, I’m sure, quite challenging. Now that we are…. The approach for ensuring First Nations’ constitutional and inherent rights is protected — it carries on beyond the passage of Bill 15.

How has the process been with First Nations since the decision? Can the minister provide some reflections — things that went well and things that maybe could be done differently in the future on this type of infrastructure bill?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I’ll start by sharing some of the work that has been done since, around regulatory development, and then offer some of those reflections that the member asked about.

The ministry began public engagement in the spring of 2025, including focused consultation with First Nations. An online engagement website was set up to inform the public and interest holders of opportunities to comment on the provincially significant eligibility criteria and the proposed qualified professional reliance model.

A total of 667 survey responses were received for the provincially significant eligibility criteria survey and 795 responses for the qualified professional reliance model survey.

Specific to First Nations, consultation has occurred with more than 49 First Nations, many as aggregates with staff or leaders representing multiple nations in an assembly or forum — for example, primarily on the provincially significant eligibility criteria so far, with some initial engagement on the qualified professional reliance model — and more work is to come.

More than 40 meetings have been held with 49 First Nations between July and November. So 211 initial letters on the proposed legislation were sent on March 26, 2025, to First Nations and Indigenous groups and organizations, and 202 initial letters on the proposed regulatory consultation opportunities were sent on July 11, 2025, to First Nations and organizations, with follow-up letters sent on October 2, 2025. Further follow-up letters offering a final opportunity to consult on provincially significant policy proposals and future consultation on the qualified professional reliance model were sent on January 29, 2026.

Consultations have ranged from one-time government-to-government meetings to regular, biweekly and ongoing meetings from July 2025 to the present day. Consultation with the Alliance of B.C. Treaty Nations and engagement with the First Nations Leadership Council are continuing.

I would say that a really important part of all this work, particularly as we began the engagement process for regulatory development, were discussions with First Nations to help them better understand what the bill was and what it wasn’t.

While many First Nations continue, understandably, to be critical of the process that led to the initial development, tabling and passing of the legislation, we also heard, from many First Nations, a significant level of relief and understanding, once it was clarified what the actual tools and the intent of the legislation were and once they understood what their opportunities for further engagement were as well.

Jeremy Valeriote: I didn’t start my stopwatch. I assume we’re very close to time.

Can I register one question that maybe could be followed up in writing?

The Chair: You have the floor.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you.

Just on the auto-permitting tool in Bill 15 for low-risk permits. I’m hoping the minister and staff can provide further detail regarding what the tool might look like in practice, how the tool determines which projects are considered low risk and how it ensures that these projects will be compliant with environmental regulations, both now and in future.

With that, I thank the minister.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, would the minister like to make closing remarks?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I appreciate all of the questions that were raised by members of the opposition. I appreciated the extensive conversation we had with the member for Langley–Walnut Grove, as well as questions from the Leader of the Third Party. I understand that there is a lot more work for us to do together, and I look forward to doing that.

I do want to also confirm that we will provide a follow-up response to the Leader of the Third Party on his final question.

Vote 37: ministry operations, $420,514,000 — approved.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:25 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:27 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I call, in this House, second reading on Bill 8.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Civil Forfeiture
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Kristina Loewen: I rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026. At its core, this legislation is about a simple principle. Crime should not pay.

British Columbians work hard. They pay their taxes. They follow the law. They expect that those who profit from organized crime, drug trafficking, fraud and money laundering will not be permitted to live in luxury off the proceeds of harm inflicted on our communities. Common sense, right? Civil forfeiture exists to uphold that principle.

Since its establishment in 2006, the civil forfeiture office has generated over $221 million for the government. Of that, $93 million has supported crime prevention and community safety grants, and $1.7 million has gone towards victim compensation. That money has been redirected from unlawful activity back into strengthening communities and supporting those harmed by crime.

[11:30 a.m.]

This is a good thing, taking something that was ill-gotten and doing good things in the community. With $221 million, $95 million back to the community — those are significant figures.

But this bill is not simply about revenue. In fact, government has not estimated how much additional revenue these changes may bring in. This bill is about improving fairness, clarity and efficiency and ensuring that the system functions properly and justly.

The amendments before us aim to modernize the Civil Forfeiture Act, streamline litigation, update timelines, reduce unnecessary costs, preserve asset value, improve information-sharing with safeguards and strengthen fairness in record-gathering.

Money laundering and organized crime remain significant and pervasive challenges in British Columbia. The recommendations flowing from the Cullen commission made it clear that we must equip our institutions to proactively identify and pursue complex financial crime. Expanding the proactive capacity of the civil forfeiture office, including independent investigations and the pursuit of high-value assets, is a step forward that we support.

But support is not blind. It does not mean a blank cheque. True support involves understanding, questioning, curiosity and endurance of accountability. So today I want to walk through both the strengths of this legislation and the areas where greater transparency and accountability are needed.

Crime should not pay. Civil forfeiture is a civil, not criminal, mechanism. It does not require a criminal conviction. It is focused on the property, whether that property is the proceeds of an unlawful activity or an instrument used to commit unlawful activity. That distinction is important because civil forfeiture, properly applied, is a powerful tool against organized crime networks, which are often difficult to dismantle solely through criminal prosecution.

We know that organized crime adapts. It exploits loopholes. It launders funds through complex schemes, shell companies and cross-border transactions. If we are serious about combatting money laundering in this province, we must ensure that enforcement tools are modern and effective and continue to evolve.

Bill 8 seeks to address litigation gaps that have caused delays and increased costs. It seeks to prevent assets from losing value while proceedings drag on. It seeks to clarify procedures that have, in some cases, created confusion. Those are worthwhile objectives.

Clause 1 requires respondents to clearly set out the particulars of an interest they claim in property subject to forfeiture proceedings. This change promotes clarity from the outset. It prevents vague claims and forces parties to articulate their interests precisely, including the extent of that interest.

From a procedural fairness standpoint, clarity benefits everyone. The court understands the issues. The director understands the claim. The respondent has defined their position. Litigation becomes more efficient. Costs are reduced. Time is saved. We support measures that streamline the process while preserving fairness.

Clause 2 introduces the ability for the court to grant forfeiture orders in default when a party fails to file and serve a response. Courts already have jurisdiction in many areas to issue default judgments when parties fail to participate. The addition here formalizes that mechanism within the civil forfeiture framework.

Importantly, this does not remove judicial discretion. The court still retains the oversight. The court must still consider whether forfeiture is in the interest of justice. Efficiency cannot come at the expense of justice, but when parties simply do not engage, the system should not grind to a halt.

Several clauses amend timelines within the act, particularly around notices of dispute and the director’s obligation to commence proceedings or withdraw. In practice, rigid timelines have sometimes created procedural bottlenecks or technical challenges that increase litigation costs without advancing justice. Updating timelines can improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary expense, particularly where public bodies are holding personal property pending a decision.

However, as we adjust timelines, we must remain vigilant. Speed is valuable, but fairness is paramount. Individuals must have reasonable opportunity to understand proceedings and to assert their rights.

[11:35 a.m.]

Transitional provisions in clause 14 and others help ensure that individuals caught in ongoing proceedings are not unfairly prejudiced by procedural changes midstream.

Clause 4 clarifies when property is forfeited if no notice of dispute is received. This, again, is about procedural certainty. If the dispute period expires without action, the status of the property should be clear, but with clarity must come proper notice. Individuals must actually know that forfeiture is being pursued. Procedural efficiency cannot override the foundational requirement of proper service and awareness.

Clause 5 amends the circumstances under which a claimant may commence proceedings if they failed to deliver a notice of dispute. The original framework required a claimant to establish that their failure was not wilful or deliberate and that the proceedings were commenced as soon as reasonably possible after learning of forfeiture.

Refining this section is delicate. On the one hand, the system must not be easily manipulated by bad actors who intentionally ignore proceedings. On the other hand, genuine administrative mistakes, misunderstandings or barriers should not permanently strip individuals of property rights without recourse. This is where fairness safeguards matter most.

Clause 6 provides for examination for discovery of the director. This is an important fairness enhancement. When the state seeks to seize property, the respondent must have meaningful procedural tools to test the case against them. Allowing for examination supports transparency within the litigation process itself. If we’re empowering the civil forfeiture office with greater proactive authority, then procedural fairness mechanisms must move in parallel.

Clause 7 introduces a presumption that motor vehicles decrease in value over time. This may sound technical, but it addresses a real issue. Assets can sit tied up in litigation while their value erodes. That erosion ultimately harms the public interest. Recognizing depreciation allows courts to make more practical interim decisions and can reduce disputes about valuation. It is a practical amendment grounded in economic reality.

Clauses 8 and 9 are among the most consequential changes in this bill. They authorize the director to collect information and disclose specified information to certain jurisdictions, persons and entities. They also amend the non-disclosure period regarding requests for personal information, removing the previous six-month limit, while requiring the director to provide notice to the affected individual within a specified period.

This is where the balance between enforcement and civil liberties becomes the most delicate. On the one hand, effective anti-money-laundering efforts require interagency cooperation and confidential intelligence-gathering. Premature disclosure can compromise investigations. On the other hand, indefinite secrecy raises legitimate concerns.

The removal of a six-month cap on non-disclosure must be carefully monitored. The added requirement to provide notice to the affected individual is an important safeguard, but implementation will matter. Transparency delayed must not become transparency denied.

Clause 11 expands regulation-making authority regarding notice or service of orders. Flexibility can be helpful in adapting to evolving circumstances, but expanded regulatory power must be exercised carefully and transparently. We will be watching closely how this authority is used.

This bill contains extensive transitional rules covering responses, identifying interests, default judgments, time periods, innocent failure provisions, examinations, depreciation presumptions and non-disclosure requirements. These clauses may not be headline-grabbing, but they are essential. When we amend procedural law, we must ensure that those already within the system are not unfairly disadvantaged by mid-process changes. A fair justice system respects continuity and predictability.

Clauses 19 and 20 make consequential amendments to other legislation, including the unexplained wealth order provisions and the Unclaimed Property Act. Unexplained wealth orders, particularly where property exceeds $75,000 and lawful income appears insufficient, are a powerful tool. They are especially relevant where politically exposed foreign persons are involved.

[11:40 a.m.]

Again, the principle is clear. If assets cannot be reasonably explained by lawful income and there’s a serious question to be tried regarding unlawful activity, the state must have tools to investigate, but these tools must be applied carefully, consistently and transparently.

While we support modernizing the civil forfeiture office and strengthening its ability to target criminals, we believe more must be done in one critical area — transparency in how recovered funds are returned to community.

Criminals are not transparent, but government should be. We know that $93 million has gone to community safety and crime prevention grants. We know $1.7 million has gone to victim compensation. But British Columbians deserve detailed, accessible reporting on where the funds are distributed, which communities benefit, what measurable outcomes are achieved and how allocation decisions are made.

If civil forfeiture is justified in part because it reinvests proceeds into the public good, then that reinvestment must be visible, measurable and accountable. Transparency builds trust. Trust strengthens legitimacy. Legitimacy strengthens enforcement.

When we speak about civil forfeiture revenue, we are not simply talking about numbers on a balance sheet. We are talking about real dollars flowing back into communities, proactively strengthening them before crime takes a deeper route.

The civil forfeiture grant program has funded important initiatives across British Columbia, particularly in areas of gender-based violence prevention, domestic violence intervention, youth crime intervention and Indigenous healing programs.

In speaking to this bill, though, this was the first time I actually got to read about some of these grant programs. I was really impressed with some of the work they’re doing. I think British Columbians would be thrilled to know what’s going on. These are not just abstract categories. They represent front-line organizations doing deeply human work.

In communities like Kelowna, where we continue to confront complex social challenges, these grants have supported initiatives focused on preventing gender-based violence and strengthening supports for women and families at risk.

We know that domestic violence is often intertwined with substance abuse, financial exploitation and coercive control. Funding prevention programs, transitional supports and survivor-centred services are not only compassionate. It’s preventable justice. It stops cycles of harm before they escalate into further criminality.

We cannot speak about domestic violence in the Okanagan without remembering Bailey McCourt. Her tragic death shook Kelowna and reminded us, in the most painful way, that early intervention and sustained support systems matter.

When civil forfeiture funds are directed towards domestic violence prevention, risk assessment programs and survivor outreach, they are not simply funding services. They are investing in safety awareness and the possibility of preventing the next tragedy.

These grants also support innovative crime prevention programs such as the Roots Bike Club mentorship program in Victoria — right here. Programs like Roots provide youth with mentorship, structure and belonging, often reaching young people who may otherwise drift towards gang involvement or street-level crime.

A bike repair shop may not look like crime prevention at first glance, but mentorship, accountability and community connection are some of the most powerful tools we have to disrupt pathways into criminal networks. This is proactive public strategy and safety. It addresses root causes instead of waiting for courtrooms and corrections.

Similarly, Indigenous-led initiatives, such as the Peaceful Warriors program in Salmon Arm, demonstrate how culturally grounded healing can transform lives. Indigenous healing programs, funded through civil forfeiture grants, focus on restoring identity, strengthening connection to culture and land and addressing intergenerational trauma. These approaches recognize that justice is not only about punishment; it is about restoration, accountability and healing.

That is the power of this grant structure when it works well. It redirects money from exploitation and harm into mentorship, prevention, healing and community resilience.

[11:45 a.m.]

As a youth leader myself and a mother of teens, youth engagement, connection and a sense of belonging and purpose are an incredible predictor of successful young adulthood and upward trajectory in life. This is a proactive model. It does not wait for another crime statistic. It does not wait for another victim. It invests upstream.

That is why transparency matters so deeply. When British Columbians see clearly how forfeited assets fund gender-based violence prevention, youth mentorship, Indigenous healing and crime prevention in their own communities, confidence in the system can grow. Civil forfeiture must not only remove profit from crime; it must visibly strengthen the very communities that crime seeks to undermine. This is the standard we should aim for.

In conclusion, Bill 8 seeks to improve fairness, clarity and efficiency in civil forfeiture proceedings. It responds to identified litigation gaps. It modernizes investigative capacity. It protects asset value. It introduces certain fairness safeguards, and it aligns with the broader effort to combat money laundering and organized crime in British Columbia.

We will support the modernization of tools that ensure that crime does not pay. We will also continue to press for transparency, accountability and careful protection of civil liberties, because the fight against organized crime must never erode the rule of law, because efficiency must never override fairness, and because when government takes property, it must do so with clarity, integrity and openness.

Criminals should not profit from harm. Communities should benefit from justice, and British Columbians should be confident that the system works not only effectively but fairly.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Today I rise in this House in support of the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, Bill 8. These legislative amendments will improve fairness, clarity and efficiency, along with supporting the pursuit of illegally acquired criminal assets.

People in this province work hard. They build businesses. They raise families. They follow the rules, and they expect one thing in return: that their government will keep their communities safe, with action.

Today I want to talk about that action, because organized crime and money laundering are not abstract issues. They are not headlines that come and go. They affect housing prices. They fuel crime. They hurt small businesses. They threaten families.

For too long, criminal organizations have operated on one basic idea. If the money is good enough, the risk is worth it. This government is here to change that calculation. This government is here to take the profit out of crime. This government is doing this by strengthening B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Act through the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026.

This is not about expanding power for the sake of power. This is not about cutting corners. It’s about being smarter, faster, fairer and tougher. It’s about making sure that crime does not pay in British Columbia.

Let’s be clear about what we’re up against. Organized crime today is not what it was 20 years ago. It’s sophisticated. It’s international. It’s technologically savvy. It launders money across borders in seconds. It hides assets behind shell companies, nominees and layers of paperwork.

Because of our government, the days of the duffel bag full of cash are largely gone. Today criminal proceeds are parked in luxury vehicles, real estate, corporate accounts, cryptocurrency and high-end goods. When those assets sit untouched in storage, for months or years, while cases wind through the courts, they lose value. Storage fees pile up, legal costs rise, and court time is consumed.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

As the MLA for Surrey-Newton, I’ve met with constituents from my community who see this progress being made but also ask: “Why are these prosecutions taking so long?” The answer I give my constituents is that the law needs to keep up with the times. This is exactly what this legislation does, and I’m glad that we are delivering for people across British Columbia.

Before I go further, I want to talk about what civil forfeiture actually is. Civil forfeiture is not a criminal conviction. It does not change the criminal standard of proof. It does not eliminate court oversight. Every forfeiture still goes before a judge.

[11:50 a.m.]

What civil forfeiture does allow is to give the province the ability to go after property that is proven on a civil standard to be the proceeds or tools of unlawful activity.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to resume the debate and move to adjourn the debate.

Hon. Jessie Sunner moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Committee of Supply, Section A reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Ravi Parmar moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Attorney General
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.

We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $742,545,000 (continued).

Teresa Wat: I just want to make a record that I have 45 minutes for this anti-racism and multiculturalism debate. I guess we have to continue after lunch.

I want the minister to provide an update on the anti-racism action plan as part of the implementation of the Anti-Racism Act.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We are currently on target for the June 1, 2026, deadline for the first action plan. MARB has been working with PCAR. PCAR is our advisory group that was established through that act that we passed, along with cooperation and consultation with Indigenous partners, to develop the plan internally, including other ministries.

Once that work is complete, we will involve the public in public engagement so we can have a final plan to be released, like I said, on target for June 1.

Teresa Wat: The action plan will be made public by its legislated June 1 deadline?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, we’re on target for that.

Teresa Wat: It has been nearly 20 months since the Vancouver police department provided a report to Crown counsel that recommended charges against Charlotte’s case. While I understand the Attorney General cannot comment on individual cases, is the minister able to explain why cases related to hate crime see such long delays?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Every case is different, and every case has a different timeline with respect to investigations or things that need to happen and the pace at which it goes forward. Like I said, every case is unique that way.

I had a chance to talk yesterday about all the good work that the B.C. Crown prosecution service has done on being leaders nationally related to prosecuting hate crimes and having the skilled workforce needed to do that job. So although I can’t comment on particular cases….

That’s really important for the public to know why I can’t. It’s because we can’t compromise the work of our justice system related to the work that has to happen through the prosecution and/or investigation process.

I had a chance to talk about the leadership of the BCPS yesterday.

Teresa Wat: The next question is: how will the removal of AG consent from Bill C-9 affect the work of this ministry and the B.C. prosecution service?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Although it’s obviously a national bill, it won’t affect any of the work in B.C. It was already, through our own laws in B.C., delegated to the head of the prosecution service to make those decisions.

Teresa Wat: But I recall the minister did comment when this bill was brought into the parliament.

The Chair: Member, would you care to repeat the question, please.

Teresa Wat: The minister was saying that this is a federal bill. But what I recall is that the minister, the Attorney General, did issue a news release commenting on this bill. The news release was issued on September 19, 2025.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to comment on that news release that the member asked about. My comment earlier was specifically about the change in decision-making related to decisions to prosecute or not. That was different in this bill. I thought that was what the member was asking about.

Just to go back to our position on the whole bill, it’s that we are glad that the federal government has stepped forward to strengthen our hate crime laws under the Criminal Code and that that work…. We were calling upon them for a long time to update some of the tools that are needed for our system here to help better respond to any hate crimes that exist in the province but also the country.

Teresa Wat: Given the minister’s response, will the minister again respond to my question? How will the removal of AG consent from Bill C-9 affect the work of the ministry and the B.C. prosecution service?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, to my answer before, it doesn’t change in B.C. because B.C…. We had laws here that already had that decision-making not done by the AG but by the head of the prosecution service.

For years in B.C., the AG has had no role in approving hate crime prosecutions in the same way that other jurisdictions may.

[11:25 a.m.]

Teresa Wat: How will the new definition for hate crime charges under Bill C-9 impact the work of the ministry and the B.C. prosecution service?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The updated definition of hate crime…. The benefit that it provides to the country is that it brings clarity to the law and it codifies jurisprudence about how courts were handling it. That clarity in the law will help all jurisdictions when they bring forward these prosecutions or defend them.

Teresa Wat: The Attorney General’s mandate is to ensure safe access for British Columbians of all religious backgrounds to their places of worship. Will the Attorney General fulfil her mandate?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. I think that is a very important aspect of my mandate. I’m really grateful that the Premier directed me to do that work. We’re hearing from communities, places of worship across the province, that have seen issues show up at their places of worship that are impeding access or doing things to really go against the meaning of that place for individuals.

I guess what I would say in the context of estimates is: stay tuned. I will be fulfilling my mandate, and we’re doing a lot of work related to that.

Teresa Wat: “Stay tuned.” So when can we expect the Attorney General to take really tangible, real action to ensure safe access for British Columbians of all religious backgrounds to their places of worship?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I just would tell the public: stay tuned, because work is coming.

Teresa Wat: In British Columbia, hate crimes targeting religion surged by more than 50 percent. The Attorney General already had the tools from previous legislation. Why has there been a delay in bringing in this critical legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are different tools that provinces had and the federal government have with respect to the Criminal Code and/or legislation. What has been happening over the last little while is that the federal government…. We knew this when they formed government, that they were going to be updating their Criminal Code to circle around and expand the number of offences that were related to obstructing places of worship or those kinds of things — to make them criminal offences.

That’s important work, and that bill was just introduced, I think. I’m sorry. I don’t know the exact date. But it was a few months ago that they brought that work forward. So the work that we’re doing is to try to work in concert with the federal changes that are hopefully coming into force soon, because we have different tools in order to balance that.

I’ve been meeting pretty regularly with heads of places of worship to understand the challenges, to understand how we can step in to address our portion of that. That work is underway.

Teresa Wat: I’m glad to hear the Attorney General say that work is underway. Can the Attorney General give us a sense of when this will come about?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, I think I’ve answered that. Just stay tuned. It will be coming soon.

Teresa Wat: Hopefully soon, meaning a couple of months.

Now I would like to turn to the racism hotline that was launched in May 2024. I’m glad to see a news release was issued on June 4, 2025, one year after it was launched.

[11:30 a.m.]

According to the news release, the help line received calls from 807 people, more than double the number of racism-specific calls reported by the state of California for the first year its hate help line was operational, in 2023-24, despite California’s population being seven times the size of B.C. But actually, this shows that racism is still a very serious issue in B.C., that more government efforts are needed to tackle it.

In last year’s budget estimate debate, I recall the Attorney General was very proud to say that $300,000 was allocated in the budget for marketing the hotline. Given that the budget for the anti-racism and multiculturalism branch has been cut this fiscal year, what’s the ministry’s plan to put in more efforts to promote anti-racism education and this hotline?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I really appreciate this conversation, which seems to be the yearly estimates check-in with the member opposite on the racist incident help line, because I know she really cares about this work. I’m really grateful to be able to provide the update of the progress. I know that the team has been working really hard on this.

As of yesterday, we’ve had 1,310 calls and 3,331 referrals. So, on one hand, it is, as the member talked about, a clear indication that racism in our communities across the province is alive and well and that people across this province are experiencing incidents of racism. This help line really highlights or shines a light on that across this province.

Then, on the other side of that, I’m really glad that they’re calling and getting help, that instead of just going home or not understanding what to do with this experience, there is a whole team of people that are there to receive them and to provide referrals. Over 3,000 referrals. It’s quite an exceptional number. That’s them going to, depending on the story…. Whether it’s resources they need for legal supports, whether it’s the police, whether it’s community organizations, that is part of the response that we’re giving.

The $300,000 that the member was asking about, from last year, was to set up a marketing campaign for the launch of the help line. During that campaign, a series of assets were made, whether they’re pamphlets or posters or things that were part of our promotion. That is now in the hands of…. We have a great network, through Resilience B.C., of organizations across the province that are really the grass roots of the work. All of those materials are out there in the hands of all of those organizations and constantly being promoted into the communities through that work.

With the number of calls that we’re getting, I think we’re showing up in some ways. I mean, there are probably always more ways that we can connect with schools or other organizations to promote the supports that are out there, but that’s the way that that money has been used, and it’s still out there in communities.

Teresa Wat: It’s good to learn of that progress. But the $300,000, I assume, has been spent already. That’s why it has been quite effective in promoting the help line to the general public.

Moving on. If there’s no promotion, no education, then people might not even realize that there’s a help line available. What’s the plan for the coming year?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Obviously, part of my job and our team’s job is to monitor the usage and how the community is receiving it. So we’ll keep watching to see who we need to reach out for.

One of the advantages we have is a Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism. She has been really travelling the province and meeting with different groups, along with her predecessor, to get the community groups to understand that these resources are out there. We have posters. We have pamphlets. They’re hitting the ground.

I’ll continue to watch to make sure that it’s a used resource. If there is a need for further promotional or marketing materials, then we’ll make those decisions.

Teresa Wat: Can I assume from the Attorney General’s response that there’s no funding allocated to the promotion of the help line?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The $300,000 that the member was talking about was the marketing money for the help line. It created a range of assets that we have as marketing tools that we can get into the community. They’re out there right now all across the province, and we have continued the work to get those materials out there.

Teresa Wat: But that $300,000 was the last fiscal year, so there’s no new money. Okay.

According to the news release, four out of ten requests to the racism hotline were for justice and legal services. How many of these calls were related to reporting hate crimes? If they are, my follow-up question will be: does this point to the need for a standardized hate crime reporting system?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to recap the origins of the racist incident help line, it was called upon from the community to be an alternative to police reporting. One of the things we heard from the extensive community consultation at that time was that sometimes people can feel unsafe reporting to the police. So the racist incident help line would be a low-barrier, trauma-informed reporting process for people to then figure out where they want to go.

The number that I think was asked in the question about four out of ten…. We don’t have granular data because privacy is protected in each individual story. We just have high level. You can see in the report where the issues are and where they’re getting referred to. It could be a range of issues.

You’ll see in the report there are a lot of workplace-related incidents. In that situation, it’s not necessarily a referral to the police. They don’t necessarily want to go to report to the police. Instead, it’s to organizations like Access Pro Bono, access to legal supports or legal advice. Those kinds of things are asked for.

[11:40 a.m.]

The racist incident help line has become, I think, and will continue to be, a resource that is kind of a comprehensive way to report a racist incident and then understand what your next steps are. So it could be the police. It could be many other things, depending on what the incident is.

Teresa Wat: I totally agree with the Attorney General that this racist incident help line has its role to play. That’s why I’ve been advocating for the setup of the help line for a number of years.

Just correct me if I’m wrong. This help line is just to give the victims an avenue for them to voice their fears, their frustrations or their cries for help. Then they will refer them to the appropriate resources, but it doesn’t really refer the cases to the police.

Since it looks like racism is still alive, does the Attorney General think there’s a need to really set up a crime reporting system?

Right now every city is different. Only a couple of cities have the hate crime reporting system specifically reporting hate crimes. I would like the Attorney General to comment on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is a portion of people that call in and say: “I want help reporting to the police.” I think out of the most recent report, there were about 52 of those such cases. When that happens, the racist incident help line plays an important role in helping that person with the interaction with the police, if that’s the path that they would like to take.

I think we see the help line as an intermediary between the next steps of the individuals and, actually, as an important resource to understand the reporting requirement to the police, if that’s the step that they want to take.

Teresa Wat: I’m glad to know that this help line does receive calls in which the callers want to report the cases to the police. I wonder if the Attorney General or your ministry has any information about how many of those 52 cases were really taken up by the police to follow up with prosecution?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think the best place to put that question would be with the Solicitor General. Their ministry collects the reporting on that aspect of hate crimes.

We are very careful with the data and how we track people through this racism help line, because the primary goal is to make sure that they understand that it’s a safe place that’s not going to do anything with their information unless it’s guided by them. So we don’t necessarily track it after there’s a handoff to the police.

The goal of the help line is to give us provincewide, high-level data that helps us understand where the incidents are happening and what kinds of incidents, to address policy. I know that PSSG tracks reporting and those kinds of things.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order.

We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $70,806,000.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I do have some beginning remarks to introduce the team and give you a bit of a broad lay of the land.

I want to first off acknowledge the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking Peoples, the Songhees and the Esquimalt. Thank you to Chief Ron Sam and Chief Thomas for their leadership and their councils’ leadership.

It’s good to be here today, and I look forward to hearing from my opposition critics. It’s such a big ministry with so many issues that it takes two of them to take me on. But it’s good to see them, and hopefully we’re able to focus on the budget and leave the politics, as best as we’re able, outside of the room. But we shall see.

I want to acknowledge, from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations, Mary Sue Maloughney, my deputy minister. I’ll be joined by Ranbir Parmar, assistant deputy minister; financial officer Carolyn Kamper; Julia Iwama; Richard Purnell. Over here, of course, I’ve got Priscilla Sabbas-Watts, acting deputy minister of the Declaration Act secretariat. Should there be questions, we’ll have Tracey Herbert, CEO of First Peoples Cultural Council, on those issues there.

A quick budget overview. I think the members have probably seen the blue book, but basically, as members know, our job is to forward the action of reconciliation in B.C., to make agreements with Indigenous nations and Indigenous Peoples and to find that path of working shoulder to shoulder, to lift up and to build a brighter future together.

The budget, I believe, protects programs, services and revenues that First Nations governments and Indigenous Peoples need to build resilient, self-determining, prosperous communities, and the budget is set, as I mentioned, around $182 million.

I’ll just say quickly…. Just to be clear, there are some issues that folks, I’m sure, will want to get into. Of course, we will focus on budget, but there will be questions related to our budget that come out of these works.

The Declaration Act, of course, and work we’re doing to update the action plan — that work continues on. There have been some great successes recently around section 7 agreements we’ve made with Tāłtān and others — ʼNa̱mǥis — which have unlocked billions of dollars in investment, new jobs, new opportunities in those regions.

Quw’utsun, of course. Members, I know, raised this in that other room in this building. I’m sure most of those political questions will be reserved for that room. But in terms of budget and budget implications, the Supreme Court declaration recognizing Quw’utsun Nation Aboriginal title over their historic village site in present-day Richmond…. It’s a complex case. There are important questions, and I know some of that’s Attorney General, some of that’s here, and some of that’s the Premier’s office. So we’ll do our best to get the information to members as they have questions around that.

To be clear, we recently released a statement, a joint statement with Quw’utsun, which is clear that they did not seek to invalidate any fee simple lands, private lands. Upon receiving the ruling, of course, we disagreed with the court’s treatment of private property, and we announced our intention to appeal and to seek a stay, which remains the intention.

At the same time, we did agree that we need to — and were instructed, indeed — work with the Quw’utsun Nation Alliance on the implications of the decision.

[11:20 a.m.]

We have retained Doug Caul, who will lead negotiations on behalf of the province, as mentioned earlier, and of course, we’ll maintain open communications with the city of Richmond and affected private landowners. But that’s still very much in the early stages.

Much of that action will take place in courts, but we want to keep an open line of communication.

Treaty. Of course, we’ve got some upcoming treaties, and I’m sure there may be questions around that, with Kitselas and Kitsumkalum. That’s legislation that will eventually come, but we’ve initialed those treaties — with K’ómoks as well. We’re continuing to work with the Te’mexw Treaty Association around their interests for treaty and other discussions.

I look forward to taking questions and doing my best to respond to members when I’m able. Of course, we will welcome questions from our critics. It’s always nice to be a critic, isn’t it?

Harder to do the work, but hopefully members are able to offer good suggestions and approaches that better the prosperity of all people and reduce the simmering tension and the outright attacks on Indigenous people, as that is a challenge we’re seeing in communities across B.C. right now.

Thank you, everybody, and I look forward to the questions.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Nechako Lakes. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

John Rustad: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the minister: thank you for your opening comments.

To the staff: thank you for the work that you’re doing. It’s nice to see some of you that I’ve seen from many years ago and some fresh faces as well.

It’s a ministry that is near and dear to my heart. I was involved, obviously, in many things, many components. One thing I liked about that ministry, actually — it’s kind of leading towards the first question — is that the ministry was so involved in everything that was going on.

I mean, it was involved with Children and Family. It was involved with Health. It was involved with Mining and Forests. It was involved with everything, simply because the Indigenous file touches on so many things.

Just as a first question…. First of all, we’ll be sharing the time between myself and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. We’re sort of split in terms of this, so we’ll be going through just a few basic things this morning, and then we’ll get into much more interesting stuff this afternoon, I suspect, as we get into it. We’ll be going back and forth in terms of questioning.

Madam Chair, I hope you don’t mind, but we’ll be going back and forth a little bit, depending on how the questions go.

Just as a first question to the minister…. I wonder if the ministry can confirm. Back when I had that file, we did work very closely with many other ministries. We would provide staffing support to many other ministries, in terms of how they would engage with First Nations. In many cases, other ministries would take the lead in negotiations, and we’d be in a support role. In many cases, the Minister of Indigenous Relations would take the lead, with support from other ministries.

I just want to confirm that that’s the same structure for the current minister, in terms of the involvement with all of his colleagues and the various files that they have within government.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess the short answer would be yes. But the longer answer would be that, certainly, ministries outside of ours have increased their capacity to do consultation, to do negotiation, to work more directly with First Peoples, Indigenous Peoples.

We do provide a supporting role in many cases, but in other cases, we do take the lead. It kind of depends on the file, depends on the nation, depends on, obviously, treaty. Much of that would be us, but we also work with other ministries on their key line items that relate more directly to their responsibilities.

John Rustad: I’m just curious. Are there any negotiations or agreements that are reached without the involvement of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, we do our best to know what’s happening in other ministries. That’s not always the case. There are sometimes agreements that might be made — let’s say Children and Family or something like that — more relevant to that ministry, in a more direct relationship.

We do our best to keep apprised of what others are doing. But in the end, if the responsibility is theirs, sometimes that is held exclusively there.

John Rustad: It’s interesting because I remember when I was there as minister, there were many ministries that were taking leads, but we would always have some component, whether it was the staff person who was involved or briefings or we would provide support in terms of that negotiation. I’m assuming that’s the same with what the minister just said in terms of an answer, but if it’s different, perhaps he can clarify.

That would also include…. I remember one of the files that I was involved in with the Attorney General’s office, actually, which was quite interesting, because they’re legal matters and the lawyers and all that kind of stuff. But we would always have staff that were involved, in terms of how those cases were put together and discussions.

I’m just wondering if that is still the same case for the ministry here today.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member will know that it’s not always cut and dried, black and white, as much as we might like it to be. But I would say that, certainly, the civil litigation directives held in AG were created to prioritize and promote resolution, innovation, negotiated settlement and to narrow or avoid potential litigation. We support negotiated resolution as a preferred mechanism for advancing reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

We generally are involved in these decisions. However, sometimes other ministries might be the lead on that file. They might be the instructing officer and so on for litigation and how that’s resolved. Certainly, we try to be involved where we can, and we are involved in most things. But I can’t say that every piece of decision that another ministry might be involved in with a First Nation, we are involved in, as in some cases, it very clearly is just that ministry to that nation.

John Rustad: Similarly, I always found it interesting that the AG’s office always wanted its fingers in the negotiations inside, because they were always worried about: “Is this going to create some legal ramifications or legal precedent down the road?” But that’s not a question for this minister to answer.

The other thing I found interesting in the file…. Many times, I travelled out to Ottawa, or I travelled to conferences and those sorts of things, and I know the minister has done the same with regards to his file and his engagement. But we would always have open communications.

I had an ADM at the very minimum, sometimes the deputy, who would have weekly briefings, weekly discussions with their federal counterparts to learn what they’re engaged in, to tell them and inform them of what we’re engaged in. Often files overlap, but sometimes they don’t overlap.

I just want to confirm that that is still happening within the ministry in terms of their engagement with their federal counterparts.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, the province does attempt to work collaboratively with Canada in negotiations, particularly in the context of treaties under the Treaty Commission.

In other circumstances, when it is appropriate — I’m sure the member saw it in his time as well — Canada may negotiate bilaterally with First Nations and not involve the province. That has happened in a number of cases — but still working generally towards the common outcomes.

Certainly, my preference is no surprises, if we can attempt that. That’s not always the case, but that’s certainly my expectation in how we try to work together. But as I say, a nation is totally within their rights to work bilaterally with Canada, without B.C. at the table. Even if we say we want to be at that table, if they want to work directly, government to government, nation to nation, with Ottawa, that is their choice. I’m sure it happened under the member as well.

John Rustad: To the minister’s point, yeah, there were numerous negotiations that Ottawa had directly with First Nations where they didn’t want us at the table. There were some that we had and we didn’t want them at the table. I get all that. But we still had the communications back and forth. We knew what they were working on or that they were at least engaged with some nations on particular files. That sort of confirmation went back and forth.

I just want to confirm. Are there weekly briefings that somebody within the ministry, ADM level or director level or even up to the deputy level, would have with their federal counterparts? That’s sort of what we had. As part of my communications, obviously, with my staff, I would always get those briefings to come through to me.

I’m just wondering if the minister can confirm that they have that kind of relationship and engagement with the federal government.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, meetings and back-and-forth with staff and federal ministry staff do occur. That hasn’t changed.

I don’t want to be too specific in that. In some cases, it might be often as the issue might be really hot and we’re working very closely together. In other cases, it might be more spaced out because we do not have involvement in the issue, and maybe it’s even a separate ministry that has relations.

The staff team does their best to stay in touch with counterparts in Ottawa, but sometimes decisions get made in Ottawa which we are not involved in because they are, as I say, Ottawa-to-nation specific. But certainly, my expectation and my hope is that as much as possible, we are kept apprised of what’s going on as it relates to impacts that could affect British Columbians and our people.

John Rustad: One of the things that I remember from back when the federal Liberal government was first elected was that we had engaged with them at that point, talking about UNDRIP and the process and things that they were thinking about doing. We had some conversations back and forth. If I’m right, if I’m correct, we’ve kind of gone forward with DRIPA in British Columbia before the federal government has gone forward.

Did the federal government engage the ministry at all with regards to their experience of UNDRIP and the implementation as part of how they implement UNDRIP nationally? I’m just wondering how that conversation has gone back and forth, because B.C. has been a leader on that file.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If I might ask a clarifying question, is the member asking if Ottawa consulted with B.C. as they developed their UN Declaration Act, I think, in 2021? That’s kind of outside the ambit of these budget estimates, but I’m just curious. Is that what the member is asking, or is he asking if we have staff currently discussing…?

John Rustad: Yes, I was wondering about that part of it. But also, in the current budget, there are ongoing issues, potential changes coming to DRIPA in British Columbia, and obviously, there may be some overlap or there may be some impact in terms of what the federal component is.

So that’s what I’m asking. How much engagement was there when the federal government brought in, and what did that engagement look like going forward, with potential changes coming?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In terms of the first part of the question, I think the member was asking about 2021, the federal introduction of the UN Declaration Act. That probably would be a better question for the federal government in terms of the consultation that they did at the time.

Probably, for budget estimates, as we’re looking at 2026-2027, we should stick to the budget estimates. I can’t get into what happened five years ago in terms of these budget estimates and what the federal government process was. We are not currently in consultation with the federal government around the UN Declaration Act.

John Rustad: I find that interesting, just from a perspective, obviously, that this act in British Columbia has been a very defining act. It has been a very divisive act. There have been lots of issues. We’ll get into that far more in the coming hours of our estimates, but I find it interesting that there wouldn’t be an ongoing conversation between what has been going on in the experience of British Columbia and the federal government. Maybe that’s the federal government that just doesn’t want to reach out. That’s fine, but I just find that curious.

I just want to get a few other budgetary things out of the way, since we’ve got a limited amount of time this morning, before we get into anything really more meaty.

When I was the minister responsible for the file, we went to the Treasury Board many times. Many of the agreements that we would reach…. We would go into contingencies to fund those agreements because, obviously, you didn’t know whether you needed that or not, so there was money available for that.

I wonder if the minister can just maybe give an example of how many times they went to Treasury Board last year, if that’s the process that they’re going to be doing going forward into this fiscal year in terms of going to Treasury Board, and whether he can give an indication as to, notionally, how many resources may be available through contingencies for the various types of agreements or settlements that may be reached.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member will know that going to Treasury Board could involve any matter of thing. It’s not just contingency votes. It could be release of existing budget. It might not even necessarily be a financial matter in some sense.

I don’t know that it would be helpful for me to provide the total number of times that I’ve been to Treasury Board because, as I say, the matters may be different and not just contingency-related. If the member has a more specific question, I’m certainly happy to take it.

John Rustad: Specifically, I was wondering about…. In the years I was minister, we would always have at least an idea of what was going to be required because of the negotiations that we had ongoing in terms of Treasury Board. Now, that doesn’t mean that Treasury Board doesn’t approve everything, because that may not be available, because contingencies may be used on other things.

The reason, specifically, for asking this is that with the Haida legislation from previous years, there was a requirement, if I remember correctly, that the government would be negotiating accommodation to the impacts on the title declaration, as according to the Tŝilhqot’in case and the requirement by the province to provide an accommodation where there’s an alienation to title or where there’s a loss of that opportunity.

If I remember correctly from that agreement, it was required to have those negotiations completed by the end of this year, 2026. Obviously, that could be a significant amount in terms of a potential ask on contingencies.

That’s why I’m asking the minister if he could provide some sort of idea in terms of what may be notionally available out of contingencies for the agreements that are going to be required to be reached by this ministry. Some of those, for example, like the Haida negotiations, could be very significant.

I know we’re just about out of time, so just to let the minister know, there will certainly be many more questions coming on the Haida agreement and the situation there after lunch.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess, to be clear, contingency is just that. It’s contingent. I’m not going to provide the number — that this is exactly how much will be required over the next year — because there are a whole lot of reasons why an agreement might happen this year, or it might be in next budget year. There are cases and things that come up that may not have been predicted, so it is contingent.

It does get, of course, publicly released in the public accounts, so the member can see the total number that we ended up with in that sense. Also, of course, as the member pointed out, just because you go to Treasury Board doesn’t mean that you get approved for the amount of money that you might’ve been seeking.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.