Contents

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply on the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills. Just for the information of members, when that is done, they will report out and then, after that, it will be calling the committee stage on the Supply Act.

I was looking at the second half. I wasn’t quite looking at the top part.

In this chamber, Section B, it is Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Attorney General and Deputy Premier.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Attorney General
(continued)

The Chair: Thanks, everyone. We’ll call this chamber back to order, where we are contemplating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General today.

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

Teresa Wat: The minister was saying that in 52 cases, they were asked by the callers to report to the police. I know that the minister told me that this will be handled by the Solicitor General.

I still want to ask. Of these 52 cases, how many of them are actually hate crimes, and how many of them are just discriminatory in nature?

Hon. Niki Sharma: First of all, we don’t track that information. The second part is that the determination of what is or isn’t a hate crime under the Criminal Code would be by police and in turn, if there was an RCC, by Crown counsel about pursuing it and eventually by a court of law.

Teresa Wat: I guess I’ll see whether the Attorney General can answer the next question. In the last year, were there any prosecutions of hate crimes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just stemming from the 52 number that the member asked — again, we wouldn’t track — we don’t know the link between those and any reports to Crown counsel or to prosecutions.

Teresa Wat: How much money is the ministry spending on investigating hate crimes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That wouldn’t be under our ministry budget. We don’t investigate hate crimes at the AG. The investigation is the police side of it, so it would be in police budgets under the Solicitor General’s ministry.

Teresa Wat: Back to the budget itself. Why was the budget for the multiculturalism and anti-racism branch cut by $187,000 for this fiscal year? There’s still a lot to do on the multiculturalism file and on the anti-racism initiatives.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: That reduction of $189,000 was specifically for specialized projects, the two that were kind of in the completion stage so not needed. One of them was the historic Doukhobor payment that was made for historic wrongs to the Doukhobors. The work of the ministry had completed largely, on our side, last budget. The other one was a Japanese historic wrongs settlement and apology.

The reason in the reduction is not to do with the work of anti-racism in response to the Anti-Racism Act. It’s for these specialized projects.

Teresa Wat: Does that mean that the two projects are completed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I misspoke. It was $187,000, not $189,000.

The thing that I…. Yes, our component of those projects is what has wound down now. With the Doukhobor settlement, we used partners to get the money out to the community. With the Japanese historic settlement, our portion of that for the AG is now done and completed.

But the work of Citizens’ Services for the monument and other things happening are with other budgets.

Teresa Wat: Last year I didn’t have enough time to ask this question. The government brought in the Anti-Racism Act in 2024 to replace the Multiculturalism Act of 1996. Can the minister update us on the transition from the Multiculturalism Act to the Anti-Racism Act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Multiculturalism Act remains in place, and we use it for granting programs. The portion that we repealed, as a result of putting in the Anti-Racism Act, was to do with the advisory committee.

The advisory committee that was under the Multiculturalism Act transitioned to PCAR, which is the advisory committee under the Anti-Racism Act. They’ve been helping us develop the anti-racism action plan.

Teresa Wat: Actually, the minister for multiculturalism was established since 1991. It was really robust and very impactful. At that time, there was a full-time dedicated minister. But now it seems to be downgraded to a minister with the support of parliamentary secretary to handle the anti-racism file only.

Multiculturalism was not even mentioned in the minister’s mandate letter nor that of the minister’s parliamentary secretary. The portfolio of the parliamentary secretary is just for anti-racism initiatives.

[1:45 p.m.]

The only mention of multiculturalism is in the section of the purpose of ministry in the service plan of the AG Ministry, which said that the ministry is also responsible for promoting multiculturalism and leading anti-racism initiatives through the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives. The parliamentary secretary doesn’t even have the mention of multiculturalism.

I’d appreciate if the minister can tell this House how she is going to promote multiculturalism. It was not even mentioned in the Attorney General’s mandate letter nor in the parliamentary secretary’s mandate letter nor in the service plan.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m trying not to take it personally that I’m a “downgrade as a minister to the file” comment, but I take the point.

The alignment of the work of anti-racism and anti-hate and all those things in the AG makes a lot of sense, because it is with the justice system. And creating a fair and just society — that is a lot of my role in my ministry. Putting the anti-racism work and the multiculturalism work under that ministry, I think, makes a lot of sense, and we have a parliamentary secretary to help with the work.

Multiculturalism is supported in many ways in my ministry, whether it’s through the Multiculturalism Act, which is still in place, and the grants and the work with Resilience B.C. What the community has asked for is work on anti-racism.

We’ve heard in the last few years that what the response of government should be is to work in removing what is sometimes like systemic racism that’s experienced by communities with our government services, which is a big project — you know, when you think about the In Plain Sight report and our health care system and various reports that have come out.

Our focus has shifted on us doing that very important work. It is under the whole work of creating a just and diverse society, where people’s backgrounds are honoured and they can live a life free of barriers and have a fair shot at things.

Teresa Wat: I just want to thank the minister and her staff for their work.

Hon Chan: I just want to thank the AG for your time, and we’ll move on to ICBC.

Do you need, like, one minute to move…?

The Chair: We won’t go into recess, but we’re just changing out a team for different questions.

All right. It looks like we’ve got the team in place.

Hon Chan: Thank you, AG, for your time and your staff here.

I just wanted to ask about the financial situation for ICBC first. I can see the budget for ICBC indicates quite high investment earnings in 2024-2025. That was due to stronger-than-expected equity markets and improved bond prices for lower interest rates.

Can the minister actually clarify how much ICBC finance improvement this year is attributed to investment returns rather than operational performance?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. Primarily that $800 million is from investment income.

Hon Chan: Can you tell us: would ICBC still be reporting positive financial results if the investment market had performed at the historical average instead of above expectations?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If you take a look at the Q2 outlook, what ICBC booked was in line, same as the outlook showed there. It was, I guess, projected or predicted that it would be around that.

Hon Chan: Can the minister tell us how sensitive our ICBC premium is to investment volatility, and if markets underperform next year, will drivers face rate increases to offset their losses?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay. The way that rates are set is forward-looking. What that means is what happened with the net income at this period, at this time, doesn’t impact future rates. When they’re setting the rates for future, they’ll look at the portfolio and the investment income projected for that year to set the rates. So the past doesn’t influence the future directly.

Hon Chan: I just want to seek clarification on that. What you meant is: in this coming year, the market fluctuation does not actually change any rates in the future because it’s in the past? I just want to clarify on that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct. If you look at this year’s net income, it’s based on how the market performed in the past. So to set the rate for the…. It’s future-looking, so then, you would look at the projected performance. There are many indicators for that of how the market is going to do in the future, to set those rates.

Hon Chan: Can the minister confirm whether ICBC’s improved financial position is primarily due to policy change like the enhanced care, or is it because of the favourable investment markets in the past few years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The enhanced-care regime that was put in place for ICBC has been transformative, specifically when it comes to base rates. Since 2021, there was a 15 percent immediate drop in the flat rate, and that was specifically because of the transformation to enhanced care, particularly when it comes to the claim costs and the legal expenses that would go into each claim.

Then we’ve had seven years of flat rates, and it’s all due to the enhanced-care model being a more cost-effective way for a resolution of disputes. There was a big chunk of money that was going to legal fees and lawyers, and it was driving up costs for everybody and taking a long time for claims to resolve and for money to flow to the customers, from ICBC’s perspective, that needed the care.

Not only is the service delivery faster, but it’s also way more cost-effective, and it’s led to flat rates for seven years and an initial drop of rates by 15 percent.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. I just have a question because the minister mentioned a 15 percent drop because of the enhanced care. But when we look at the budget and what the minister actually just mentioned, the investment portfolio attributes for $800 million of revenue for ICBC.

My question was: was that actually because of the investment market or because of enhanced care or both? From the minister’s answer, it seems like it’s because of the enhanced care.

What does that $800 million investment do to ICBC? I think that would actually help the financial situation of ICBC. Can the minister clarify on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think it would help to answer this question by helping to explain why insurance providers are regulated to hold capital. It makes sense that if you’re an insurance company, you need to hold a certain amount of capital. The capital can be looked at as a liability, so what’s owed to that customer based on all those projections that go into the number of accidents that might happen in a population, the injuries and the payouts that you may need to make to that person for the lifespan, up to 40 years from the time of their injury.

[2:05 p.m.]

The capital that’s held is regulated, and then there’s a buffer. So in case you are wrong or off on your analysis, you know that the insurance company is holding enough capital for all of its liabilities.

The base rate is different. The base rate is set for ICBC as a break-even. If the base rate is set as a break-even, the primary driver for the affordability of our rates is the legal costs and claim costs going down because of the enhanced-care model.

Hon Chan: Let’s get to something easier. Can the minister confirm the government is not taking any money from ICBC, directly or indirectly, channelling back to the government in the past few years?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. In fact, it was our government that changed the law to make sure that that was never possible again, because of past practices that were using ICBC’s revenue streams as a piggy bank to fund other services in government at a time where, also, ICBC was doing really badly financially. That was resulting in higher rates for people and a financially unsustainable corporation.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister. I told you that’s an easy one.

Another one. Can the minister tell us that the basic rate is going to be frozen beyond March 31, 2026, or should drivers be prepared for a rate increase next year?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The basic rates are frozen till March 2027.

Hon Chan: Can drivers be expecting another round of rebates like last year?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The times that rebates were achievable — it’s great for British Columbians to know that your insurance company is working so well that it can give some money back — are determined at year-end when we know finally….

Right now ICBC is projected to go as forecasted at the $800 million, and the decisions about a rebate or if that’s possible will have to come at a later date and at least after year-end.

Hon Chan: The minister mentioned that the basic rate is to break even. Can the minister actually clarify whether the optional insurance rate has also been frozen, or has the optional premium increased over the same period?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The optional is quite a bit different than the basic rate. The optional is part of the competitive market. ICBC prices its optional insurance at competitive rates based on the marketplace. Although there may be modest increases to that, based on the conditions of the market, ICBC doesn’t reveal those in the same way as basic insurance, as it is competitive and based on the market. Primarily, the optional portion of them, their portfolio, is for theft and vandalism and collision, and it’s for material damage related to that, so not for personal injuries.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister. The minister explained what optional insurance rates were set. However, she did not answer my question. Were there any increases of the optional premium over the past years? Just want to make sure that was answered.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ll attempt again to answer. It hasn’t been frozen in the same way as basic rates. It’s competitive in the industry, so the ICBC sets their rates based on the competition. Because it’s a competitive marketplace, they don’t reveal those rates publicly, and that depends on the product.

Hon Chan: Can you tell us about the current status of a collective agreement between ICBC and COPE 378?

The Chair: Member, just a reminder the questions should always come through the Chair, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Currently under negotiation.

Hon Chan: From what I know, I think it has expired. The government actually has a timeline where this can be actually renewed.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Parties are at the table right now. We have to respect the collective bargaining process. That’s an important process that’s led primarily by the parties at the table, so it’ll be done when they come to an agreement.

Hon Chan: I’ll move on to a system that the minister was mentioning, about the enhanced care and the no-fault system. There were actually many increasing reports of seriously injured individuals struggling to obtain adequate support, raising concern about whether the system is actually delivering as intended.

We all understand ICBC is saving a lot because of the enhanced-care system. It promised a faster access to treatment under the enhanced care. Can the minister tell us what is the current average wait time for extended-care — including physiotherapy, counselling and specialists, etc. — approval after the initial 12-week treatment package?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: After those 12 weeks, whatever the care provider is for that individual sends a care plan. Although ICBC doesn’t control how long it takes for that care provider to submit the care plan into ICBC, once it is, the average is 92 percent are approved within five days.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

My next question will be: how many injured British Columbians are currently waiting for approval of the extended treatment beyond the initial 12-weeks package? Also, how many have been denied?

The Chair: Not sure if Hansard got that last phrase, but that was “in the past year.”

Hon. Niki Sharma: The stats that ICBC has, to answer the question as best as I can, is about…. Since the stat of 92 percent are approved within five days, at any given time, about 8 percent are waiting beyond those five days.

With respect to the number of claims over the last…. I’m assuming we’re in the category of after the 12 weeks. How many are denied? That’s not a stat that ICBC has right now, but we can take that away.

Hon Chan: Thank you, Minister. I will just wait for that answer, eventually, for the no stats for the people who were denied.

We’ll move on to catastrophic injuries victims. Recent tragic incidents such as the Lapu-Lapu festival attack where families lost loved ones due to intentional criminal actions have raised serious concern about whether the current no-fault system provides adequate compensation in the most severe case.

Can this minister tell this committee what the maximum compensation would be under the enhanced care for a child who actually lost both parents in that incident like that?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The answer is complicated in the sense that obviously each case is different. The assessment of what the person is eligible for is going to be dependent on the case.

For example, in a tragic incident where a child has lost their parents, if the child is also injured, then they are of course a customer that is eligible for benefits for that injury or payments related to that injury. Without a specific case, it’s hard to get a total of what the person might be eligible for.

With respect to just specifically losing both parents — and we’re not adding on top of the other benefits you might be eligible for or the grief counselling or the funeral expenses or anything else that might fit the category of that — it would be a maximum of $720,000 for that child if they lost both parents.

Hon. Anne Kang: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:25 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Anne Kang: I recognize that in the gallery today we have some special guests from Japan — from Morioka, Japan. They’re from Morioka First High School.

I would like the House to please make the teacher, Masato Takao, and also the grade 10s and 11s feel very welcome in the B.C. Legislature.

Welcome to Victoria.

The Chair: Indeed, welcome to everybody in the chamber today.

Debate Continued

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister for that question.

I’m just curious because last year the minister responsible for ICBC said that the child who lost both parents will be eligible for…. The death benefit in that case would be as much as $581,000 on top of additional benefits, including care and treatment. Not sure why it is different this year, with $700,000, but I do want to carry away that the Premier mentioned that when there is a criminal conviction, an exception does allow victims additional legal options.

So can the minister confirm whether families affected by incidents like Lapu-Lapu can actually hire legal counsel and pursue damages beyond ICBC benefits?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If there is a criminal conviction, then the person can choose to hire a lawyer to seek non-pecuniary or punitive damages against that individual that is the subject of that conviction.

Hon Chan: I just want to move on. This government has been a very strong proponent of EVs. However, last year B.C. Ferries stopped transporting EVs that cannot propel themselves onto the vessels.

Has ICBC tracked how many EVs have required alternative transportation due to this restriction? How much did that cost ICBC to arrange barges or other special arrangements to move non-operational EVs back to the repair facilities?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m told by the ICBC reps here that it’s only been about 50 cars that have been caught up in this policy, so pretty nominal in terms of expenses of finding a different way to get the damaged vehicle off the Island or vice versa. Right now ICBC is working with B.C. Ferries to try to work through and problem-solve that.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

Can the minister also provide an update on the status of the revised GLP program? The model drivers now don’t have to have a second road test if they have no infractions. What specifically qualifies as an infraction? Does that mean minor speeding tickets or excessive speeding or distracted driving or fault collision or any violations? Can you clarify on those changes?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These details are being worked out in the regulations, and the regulations are being held by PSSG. It’s only the implementation side that falls to ICBC, but that policy work is held by that ministry.

Hon Chan: I guess we can only ask the GLP questions to the PSSG.

Last year we broke out this question to the minister who was responsible for ICBC. Collision repair shops across the province reported that electronic payments that once took ten to 20 business days now take over 45 to 90 days, or even longer, leaving shops to carry tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid invoices and forcing some to rely on credit lines.

Can the minister provide the total value of outstanding collision repair invoices as of the start of this year?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have data from January 2026 related to this. The average payment-cycle time for a member of the glass and collision programs has been reduced from the data provided in 2024. Six days was the average payment cycle for ICBC’s glass program partners, and 5.7 days was the average payment cycle for ICBC’s collision program partners.

In terms of the proportion of vendors receiving payments, ICBC’s goal of paying within 15 days, 98.5 percent of glass payments and 98.7 percent of collision payments in January 2026 were made within 15 days of the date of invoicing.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I just want to loop back to the question that was actually asked previously, because I’m running out of time soon. You mentioned that legal action can be possible if there are criminal activities involved. Can the minister actually specify which types of damages could be pursued? For example, past income losses, future income loss or other compensation not covered under the enhanced care.

Hon. Niki Sharma: If there is a conviction, a person can hire a lawyer to pursue non-pecuniary or punitive damages.

Hon Chan: I’ll talk about complaints, transparency and accountability. Can the minister tell us how many complaints ICBC has received annually since 2021? Also, does ICBC track client satisfaction among injury claimants? What are the results of that?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve got some comprehensive stats here for you. First of all, in terms of “satisfied” or “highly satisfied” and that customer satisfaction, 74 percent of all claims report that they’re satisfied or highly satisfied with the service they received.

In terms of the number of complaints, I think the question was since 2021. Since 2021, out of the about 250,000 claims that ICBC has received in that time, 600 of them have filed a complaint. The complaints go to the CRT.

Of that, since 2021, which was in the question, there have been 187 decisions made by the CRT based on those claims, and 93 of them were upheld, so the position that ICBC had was upheld. Sixty-nine were mixed, nine were overturned, and 16 were dismissed.

Hon Chan: Thank you to the minister.

I think I will give the time to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to continue the questions.

Thank you, and thank you to all the staff.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the Deputy Premier and Attorney General and her staff for the opportunity to ask a few questions.

I’d also like to just start off by thanking the employees, the government workers, who work under this ministry. A particular shout-out to B.C. Crown prosecutors because I think that the work that they do can often be really complex, can be traumatizing for those prosecutors to deal with some of the most serious criminal complaints and prosecutions that our province has.

I think sometimes we often think about first responders and the kinds of situations they deal with on the front line. They’re the first responders. But when they’re dealing with prosecutions, they’re also experiencing that vicarious trauma. I’m grateful to the work that they do.

I’m grateful to everybody who actually decides to dedicate their life, as a prosecutor or a lawyer, to working in the B.C. prosecution service. I think it goes unrecognized at times, too, that lawyers can make a lot of money, probably a little bit more than they make at the B.C. prosecution service, in certain jobs, but it’s a dedicated calling to want to work in our justice system. I thank every member out there who is doing this work on behalf of the province.

I have only a few different topics here, and I think I want to start off by asking a little bit about bail reform. In December of 2023, the first set of federal bail reforms — Bill C-48, the bail and sentencing reform act — received royal assent and came into effect in January of 2024.

Bill C-48 of 2023 was supposed to fix catch-and-release justice in B.C. The act was going to make bail stricter and harder to get, including cases of repeat and violent offending. It would also create new circumstances of reverse onus.

[2:45 p.m.]

When considering whether to grant bail, the amendments would direct police not to release an accused when it’s against the public interest or when detention is needed to protect victims or witnesses. Courts would be required to consider specific factors, including if the allegations involved random or unprovoked violence and if the accused had any outstanding charges, and set stricter conditions, including weapons bans.

The changes would make clear that in reverse onus cases, the courts must scrutinize the bail plan of the accused who would be required to clearly demonstrate that their plan was reasonable and credible to be released on bail.

This act was also supposed to toughen sentencing laws for repeat and violent crimes, including car thefts and extortion, meaning those found guilty could spend more time in prison. Proposed amendments would require consecutive sentences for violent auto thefts, break and enter, extortion and arson and allow them for violent repeat offending as well, meaning that one person could serve their sentence one after another, instead of serving their sentences for multiple offences at the same time.

In March of 2024, the B.C. prosecution service released a report with further data on bail. They reviewed 4,800 bail hearings between November 2022 and December of 2023.

They found that Crown counsel sought restrictive bail conditions in nearly three-quarters of these hearings and sought detention in a quarter of the hearings. Judges ordered detention, however, in less than half of these hearings, approximately 41 percent. Crown counsel sought pretrial detention in less than a third of bail hearings for violent crimes, and judges ordered detention in less than half of those cases, approximately 43 percent.

Those stats came from the media statement and the information that was released at the time by the B.C. prosecution service. The stats were compiled for the period of time actually just prior to the bail and sentencing reform act of 2023 taking effect. And since that time, another bail reform bill has been introduced in Parliament, and Bill C-14, I believe, has passed its third reading.

So my question, based on this information, is: has a subsequent review of bail hearings in British Columbia been conducted by the B.C. prosecution service, similar to the one that was conducted in the period I just described, to gauge the effectiveness of bail reform? Are there funds allocated in our 2026 budget to do this type of assessment, given that we have further amendments coming?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the question, and I appreciate the beginning of a shout-out to all the work that Crown prosecutors do. The head of the prosecution service got to hear it and will, I’m sure, pass it on to that team across the province that does do a lot of work and, as you point out, faces the trauma of that work too.

Okay. Data in the justice system — I’m sure the member knows this — is always a big question mark because of the different parties that hold the data and how it’s owned and how it’s collected.

The report that the member talked about, in March 2024, required Crown to divert resources from prosecuting to actually pulling files and recording how those files were going. In all of the FPTs that I’ve been at, it’s been a topic of federal discussion about how we make sure that we’re aligning data. The federal government has come to the table to provide grants to prosecution services to better, I guess, align the data and make it easier to collect data.

I’m told by the head of the prosecution service that they’ll be applying for that grant. There’s nothing in the budget here, but that grant will be available for them to do that, to standardize the type of collection of data that we need to have.

Definitely after the first bill that the member talked about, we, through discussions with what was happening in files in B.C., pushed for further reforms to the bail. I think a key component that is in the Senate right now — hopefully it’ll pass — is the principle of restraint, so that principle of restraint that was embedded into the Criminal Code after certain case law that talked about the court only holding somebody unless it was necessary and instead exercise restraint.

This is the first time that the federal government has amended that principle within the Criminal Code. We didn’t have that with the first round of amendments. We were asking them in this round just to tackle that issue because we thought that was kind of central in why people that we felt shouldn’t be released were being released.

By those most recent amendments, amending that principle of restraint to put in aspects of community harm or repeat offending as factors the court should consider, I guess we’re really hopeful — and that was from B.C.; we recommended those changes — that that will make the Criminal Code stronger and the system better. Then with that federal grant, the prosecution service should be able to collect the data better.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you very much, and I appreciate the response. Actually, I’m very happy to hear that for that type of data collection, a grant might be available from the feds to the province for us to undertake that work.

I would hope, too, just sort of, I think, for the public interest, seeing how the changes of the first bail reform that came into effect in 2024 and then what the changes were incrementally….

Two questions based on this data analysis that could take place. Will this be publicly available like the first one was? Also, does the Attorney General anticipate that there will be a significant shift, for example, in some of what was seen in the report that was done prior to even the bail reform act of 2023?

Interesting to bring up the principle of restraint. I also agree this has been a significant barrier in some ways to what we’re trying to achieve for public safety in B.C. I’m not convinced 100 percent yet that the adjustments that are made are going far enough, but I’m hoping that the data collection and analysis are something that will actually help inform the way forward on that.

[2:55 p.m.]

The question again is: will the data be publicly available? Could it include checking the previous data in the interim period? What types of metrics does the government expect to see that would be indicators of these reforms being effective?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, I think, definitely, I will confirm that as…. Just like we did before with releasing public data, once we get the grant and the work at the prosecution service is done, absolutely it should be released.

Just to say to the member’s question about whether or not our reforms go far enough or that the reforms that the federal government made go far enough…. There’s one aspect of it, I think, through the work that we did in B.C., that we did ask for which was further, which was the time-served sentencing.

When you move tighter on bail, what could happen is that people would get time served and then released. It ends up being kind of a problem showing up in another space.

We did ask, in the letter that I sent to the federal government, for them to tighten up that — if we were seeing repeat offending that was using time served as kind of the scapegoat to get out, that that was tightened up and that it would be kind of commensurate with the offender and the repeat nature of their offences. We didn’t get there. We didn’t get there with the federal government, but we’ll keep at it.

In terms of the data and the metrics, I think a really good example of how we would collect this data or show it is through the ReVOII results. If you look at our report that we released in December about the repeat violent offending program, it talks about the difference between that group and a control group and the control group being not in the repeat violent offender program.

Some of the ways that we measured it were how we compared detention sought by the Crown in that control group versus the ones in the program and whether there was a difference. I mean, every case is so different, but I think that was a good way to kind of track it.

Another measure that we had there was accused detained before trial or remand and compared the ReVOII group with the group not in ReVOII. That helped us see if the intervention of ReVOII was making a difference.

Now that we have that March data that was released in 2024, it’ll be really interesting to see, once we can put the right measures in place, what the changes are in the system.

Elenore Sturko: I’m going to now move on to just a couple of questions about post-decriminalization.

On February 1, the government ended the decriminalization pilot. The government has stated in its directive to Crown counsel that it will not entertain charges for possession alone. In my opinion, this essentially continues decriminalization on a de facto basis.

Can the minister please outline for British Columbians under what circumstances a person would be charged for drug possession in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: All of the drug-related prosecutions are federal Crown, so their directives and their policy would be decided by them.

I can tell you some of the investments that we’ve put in this budget that I think get at some of the issues that we’re hearing about in communities.

I talked a little bit about ReVOII and how ReVOII was really hitting a mark when it comes to circling around a problematic public safety issue with a population of the most repeat violent offenders.

[3:00 p.m.]

This budget expands to C-POII. C-POII is the chronic property offenders. Those are the ones that I hear about from mayors and councils when they come to me saying that they’re causing the most issues but aren’t at that level of violent crime where we would expect the system to hold them for longer as a result of that.

That intervention will hopefully help with the street disorder component of those populations showing up in the communities.

Elenore Sturko: One of the recommendations of the 2022 LePard-Butler report was to create an opportunity to divert people away from the criminal justice system. Can the Attorney General speak to how the government is following this recommendation and any recent results with respect to recidivism from this program?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thank you for that question. I think there’s…. We’ve done a lot of investments in the justice system related to a diversion or lessening criminal justice impacts on people that could find an alternative path.

It shows up in various ways. A couple years ago, the PSSG invested in restorative justice programs, which is a component of that.

Recently we’re working with the federal government, the First Nations Justice Council, which is a body that we stood up to implement the Indigenous justice strategy and stood up a diversion centre in Prince George — the Prince George diversion centre.

If you ever want to hear stories about how that is so impactful for people…. It has some focus on young people with their first offence. Instead of the escalating criminality that might come from a life of being tied to the criminal justice system, that intervention and connection to culture is changing the pathway for those individuals.

We’ve stood up Indigenous justice centres across the province that are doing this type of work on the ground, including getting Gladue reports to the right place at the right time for people that are caught up in that system.

We’re also working through, with the Stanton report that I’ve received on sexual assault and intimate-partner violence, restorative ways to resolve that, of course led by the victim in the ways that they would want to pursue that.

I see a really high interest in the justice system right now to try to figure out that path. I think that’s really exciting for a lot of people working in the system. There are so many different decision-makers and actors, but if we can come together at the right time and try to intervene in a way that helps lessen the impact of the justice system not only on that person’s life but also on the communities around them, then there can be some really powerful things that come from that.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you for that answer.

I’m actually going to skip my next couple of questions about community courts. That was a very comprehensive answer. I appreciate it.

I do think that there’s definitely more room for us to use community court programs, therapeutic court programs and other community-based justice programs to help deal with our addictions crisis but also street disorder. So I’m encouraged to see investment taking place in those areas.

In December of 2023, the government added reverse onus for an accused person charged with an offence involving intimate-partner violence who had been previously convicted or received a discharge for an intimate-partner-violence-related offence. These changes, which of course we already discussed, took place in January of 2024.

On July 4, 2025, a young mother from Kelowna named Bailey McCourt was bludgeoned with a hammer in a parking lot. She died in hospital, leaving behind daughters aged three and nine.

[3:05 p.m.]

The accused in this case was her estranged husband, James Plover, who had been in a Kelowna courtroom earlier on the day of the attack. He was convicted on that day on three counts of threatening and one count of assault by choking McCourt. He was released to await his sentencing.

Reverse onus was already in effect when Bailey McCourt was murdered. Did the minister direct a review of the circumstances of this case, and were there any areas of improvement found that were later implemented at the provincial prosecution level after this incident?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes. This very tragic case of what happened in Kelowna, I think, was shocking to everybody in the province, including myself in the position that I have in the justice system, about how that could happen.

We did. We looked very specifically at the facts of this case so that we could work to see how we could prevent it from ever happening again. There are certain key things that were involved here that I think will help with the transformation that we made.

One is that the time between conviction and sentencing, under the current Criminal Code, will hopefully change soon. It’s in the Senate. But at that time, it was that once there was a bail order, it wasn’t revisited at the time of conviction. Then it was the time between conviction and sentencing that the horrible incident happened.

Two things have changed since then — or will change. One is that the Crown policy was updated. Now if there’s a fact of intimate-partner violence at that conviction, they will ask for revisiting of the bail conditions and ask for detention at that point. That’s the Crown-directed part of it.

The other one is the changes to the Criminal Code that we advocated for to make it so that the system operated like that and the laws operated like that. What’s before the Senate right now is a specific change that says that if there is that time of conviction with intimate-partner violence, if Crown asks, then the person will be held. That would be the reverse onus kick-in until there is a reason for release.

I’ve been following the cases since then. I’ve been following how it’s been showing up even since the Crown directive, particularly cases in Kelowna and other parts of the province. There are examples of courts now making different decisions, particularly when there’s suffocation and levels of really severe intimate-partner violence, where courts are responding by holding that person.

We’ll do everything we can to make sure what happened to her does not happen again, through the best tools that we have as a government, even if we have to advocate to the federal government, to make sure that system does change.

[3:10 p.m.]

It’s one of other things that we’re working on when it comes to intimate-partner violence, but I think that’s a very key one. When somebody comes to the system to seek safety, whether it’s that police officer that they talk to or whether it’s further down in the criminal justice process, they need to receive that safety. It’s a heightened time for them because they are most at risk for retaliatory actions by their accused and the person that’s traumatizing them and harming them.

We have lots of work to do on that. It’s something that you’ll see continual improvements on in the justice system.

Elenore Sturko: I really appreciate that answer from the Attorney General. That was such a horrific, awful thing that traumatized our province in many ways — to see a beautiful, young mother taken in such a brutal and violent and preventable way. So I’m very appreciative of the work done by the Attorney General and her staff.

The directive…. Hearing that it’s having a positive impact already, that it is having an impact, perhaps, on decisions to detain someone is really important.

There is a lot more work to do. It’s unfortunate that it took such a tragedy to spur this type of change. But I hope that, in some regard, knowing that these changes, in Bailey’s memory, have been made brings some measure of comfort to those who still miss her and love her today.

There are a lot of changes happening with the Criminal Code that Canadians have been asking for.

With respect to the 2026 budget and all of the new information that B.C. prosecutors have to absorb and to learn, can the minister please talk about any parts of the budget that are tied to professional development to help our prosecution service to navigate all these changes and to make sure that they can hit the ground running when they come into effect?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The Crown has a budget of about $1.9 million, a little bit higher than that, that’s specifically for training for the Crown. As the member points out, there are updates to criminal law, there are changes on the ground that, constantly, the Crown has to keep updated — the Crown and all the staff in the prosecution service — so that’s a pretty healthy budget to make sure that they can do that work.

Elenore Sturko: I’m going to ask a little bit now about solitary confinement. Also, I’m going to probably tie into that the Review Board of British Columbia.

A settlement worth $60 million was approved by the Supreme Court in a class action lawsuit against the province of B.C. concerning the use of separate confinement or segregation in B.C. correction centres. October 22, 2025, is when the Supreme Court approved that settlement.

This was now…. A claims period has just been opened for people who were placed in segregation for 15 days or more or for people who were placed in segregation while suffering from a mental illness — or what they should have known was a mental illness — without treatment for a sustained period while in B.C. correctional centres.

My question to the Attorney General is: can she speak to what resources might be allocated or what the steps are going to be with regard to this class action lawsuit to ensure that there’s meaningful human contact in segregation or other services that will prevent further harm to people who are being held for 15 days or more or those, particularly, with a mental illness?

[3:15 p.m.]

I guess I’ll just say…. I know we have the ten beds at Surrey Pretrial, and we have forensic psych. The ten beds added to Surrey Pretrial are beds that can be used for mental health treatment under the Mental Health Act. They’re designated for treatment spaces.

Other jurisdictions outside of Surrey do not have these beds allocated, which means…. I’ll just remind people that in the fall or summer, when they announced the Surrey Pretrial beds were open, at that time, the Premier’s chief scientific adviser, Dr. Vigo, had actually said that before these beds were available, they often segregated people with mental illness.

They couldn’t treat them. They had experienced cases where people were actually banging their heads and causing themselves brain injuries as a result of not having the ability to send people to forensic psych, because it was full, often waiting two to three weeks or more for a space in forensic psych to open up.

In the meantime, that person could be held, depending on what’s happening with their behavioural health or mental health, in segregation that entire time without any access to the medical treatment they require.

The ten beds are a good start. But what is going to be done in 2026, especially in light of this class action lawsuit the government is settling, to ensure that we don’t treat people this way?

Just to be clear, there is a role to play for isolating people at times, if they’re a risk to self or others or if they’re violent. But there are certain parameters that we can operate under, as a civilized province and a kind and caring province, so that we make sure that we’re keeping people under humane and safe circumstances, for all people who are in our custody.

Hon. Niki Sharma: To the member’s question. It’s a good question. I think it’s better asked with the Solicitor General and the PSSG because a lot of the insight or capital expenditures or things that are related to correctional facilities would be held under her ministry. I couldn’t give a complete answer when it comes to the upgrades or the changes. That and Health. I think those are the two ministries that would hold the budgets for the forensic psychiatrists and the extra beds and any changes to correctional facilities related to that.

We, as the lawyers for the government, of course, represented the ministry in the lawsuit that was settled and provided legal advice. That’s kind of the extent of our role.

Elenore Sturko: Is there anything beyond the $60 million that was approved for settling the class action? Were there any other agreed-upon conditions in that lawsuit that would stipulate changes that would be made — for example, with respect to segregation reform?

[3:20 p.m.]

I don’t necessarily need the number of beds or facilities. But with respect to that lawsuit against the government, as the government’s attorneys, is there anything more you can share about the way in which the government may have agreed to reform segregation in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just in the interest of time, I’m asking the legal team that worked on that file about the settlement agreement, and I think there were portions of it that were related to policy reforms that I can get an answer for the member about. I just didn’t want to…. I know she has limited time, so if she wants to go to the next question, we can get back to her.

Elenore Sturko: Yeah, sure. Thank you. We can come back to it. I actually don’t have that many questions left, to be honest. But I am interested in having that, so whether it comes today or whether they get back to me, to my office, I’m very keen to see how those changes might be carried out and that we could make sure that we’re taking good care of individuals with sometimes severe mental illness that come into our criminal justice system.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

This is related to the Review Board of British Columbia, but I’m not necessarily, in this case, looking for a resourcing answer, and I probably will take these questions also through a lens of resourcing to the Solicitor General. What I’m more looking for is about the sort of view of the Attorney General’s office with respect to some of these concerns that were raised in the 2024-25 annual report by the Review Board of British Columbia.

[3:25 p.m.]

For my constituents or anyone that might be watching, the Review Board of British Columbia is responsible for overseeing and making recommendations and deciding the path for individuals who come into the criminal justice system who are not criminally responsible because they have a mental disorder or for people who are unfit to stand trial — people who are in the custody of the forensic psychiatric system.

Each year their chair and their board put forward an annual report. For the last three years, sadly, their report has not been very positive. A lack of resourcing in the forensic psychiatric system has been noted. In this last report, actually…. This is probably one of the most significant reports in terms of how bleak the former board chair had made the situation sound.

I’ll just read one passage, and then I’ll ask the Attorney General to comment. Then I have another section here.

The first section says: “Resource shortages in the past fiscal year have meant that the board continues to be challenged to meet its mandate to protect the public and meet the needs of mentally disordered individuals in B.C. In my view, these shortages put the safety of the public and the rights of individuals at risk.”

My question to the Attorney General. Is there work going on between the Attorney General’s office in consultation, perhaps, with the Ministry of Health and with the Solicitor General to ensure that we are protecting not only the public but we’re talking about people’s rights?

We have people who are, essentially, incarcerated in a mental hospital. They, obviously, have met the criteria for being kept in this place. We’re talking about some of the most complexly ill and, sometimes, dangerous individuals.

What work is going on between the AG, the Sol. Gen and the Ministry of Health to ensure that the rights of these individuals are being respected while they’re in our care?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I do recognize that the annual report that the member refers to recently talks about the issues that they’re having at the B.C. Review Board. I just want to assure people that I’ve been meeting…. There’s a new chair now. I’ve been meeting with the chair to try to talk through how we can help. Whether it’s getting appointments done on time so that they have those resources or those people in place….

The other very key one that I heard from them was the inability to do virtual hearings. In these types of hearings, the travel and also the security and how it’s set up can actually be very resource-intensive. Because of the way the Criminal Code was structured, there was, especially in our province because of the way the law is developed, an inability to have virtual hearings.

[3:30 p.m.]

One of the many things we pushed for in the bill that’s before Senate right now is a change specifically related to that, so they could have virtual hearings. I hope that that will come through from the Senate. Hopefully that part will be untouched at least. That’s going to be a big change in the number of resources that they need to direct towards travel and the other kinds of things.

The uptake of virtual hearings was something they asked me to help advocate for. With that change almost on the books, I’m hopeful that will help their processes. On my end, getting their appointments as quickly as they can when they need it, changing the virtual hearings so they can have those, so they can use our resource more efficiently. And I’m meeting with that chair to try to understand.

When she took on the role, she was in the assessment phase of what the needs were. So I committed to her that I would continue to meet with her to understand how I can support from our ministry side.

Elenore Sturko: I appreciate the answer.

One more excerpt I’m going to read from the ’24-25 Review Board annual report. It says:

“As I’ve discussed with you and reported previously, British Columbia has only one psychiatric hospital for treating and assessing forensic patients and many competing demands for that hospital’s services. The forensic psychiatric hospital in Coquitlam provides assessment and treatment services to in-custody accused persons either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. The Forensic Psychiatric Hospital also provides services to inmates who are temporarily absent from correctional centres because they require assessment for court or treatment under the Mental Health Act.

“At times this year, the demand for admission has exceeded the supply of appropriate beds. When this occurs, court-ordered admissions are delayed and the board cannot convene a hearing to review the matter. This leaves many mentally ill, disordered individuals without psychiatric care they require, potentially endangering themselves and those around them and in the case of unfit accused, delaying judicial proceedings before a verdict is reached, which can be deeply distressing for victims seeking closure.”

So my comment first is…. This is the situation that I had discussed in the previous question, about the number of beds available for people who come into our correctional facilities who might need some type of mental health intervention — the ten Surrey Pretrial beds.

People potentially being held in isolation were segregated as a result of exactly what the Review Board chair talks about in this report, which is that they don’t have demand for admission exceeding supply of appropriate beds.

Given that we have here an indication that it’s delaying judicial proceedings and that court assessments under the Mental Health Act may also be delayed, is this a priority for the Attorney General and her ministry to push and to advocate and to ask for more resources in terms of infrastructure and more forensic psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses to be on the ground here in British Columbia to expand those services? Is this a priority for the AG?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to the answer to the question previously from the member. The settlement agreement contained a requirement for quarterly meetings to discuss potential segregation reform, so that was part of the policy side of that settlement.

The short answer is yes. I think that, obviously, the number of forensic psychiatrists and nurses is a major gap in a lot of places across the province. I see that through the justice system.

We were having discussions about how to open up the ability for forensic psychiatrists that are outside of the province to be able to work here in B.C. and within our justice system. There’s a lot of talk about interprovincial trade and dropping of labour barriers.

That’s something that I’ve been interested in pursuing or thinking about. If we can think about that…. I’ve had discussions with the chair of the B.C. Review Board about this, about how we open up the number of people that are able to be part of the system. It’s going to have benefits in so many parts of my side of it, which is the justice system portion of it.

[3:35 p.m.]

I would say that the member should also talk to the Ministry of Health, which I’m sure she will, and the Solicitor General. It’s one of those issues that intersects between various ministries, as the budgetary items of this wouldn’t show up in our budget. If it’s forensic psychiatrists, it would be Health, and then some of the correctional aspects would be PSSG, but she probably knows that already.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer. I guess I knew already that the building-the-jails part and building-the-hospitals part isn’t within your ministry, but this is where the interconnectivity of the ministries is at play. If the Attorney doesn’t push and the priority isn’t that we need to make it a priority to fix some of these….

These are pretty bad issues that they’re talking about — breaching people’s rights, not potentially caring for some of the most seriously mentally ill and potentially dangerous people that exist, that have rights to be treated fairly and to be free under certain circumstances within our province.

I guess I will be asking further questions about the infrastructure side of it, but if we don’t have people pushing from other ministries where the money isn’t coming from…. Ministries have a lot of priorities of their own — especially health care, for example. They have a lot of competing interests because there are all kinds of branches of health care.

When it comes to people under the forensic psychiatric system, I often feel that they don’t have a lot of people rooting for them because there’s a lot of stigma attached with some of the very serious crimes that some individuals in the system have been accused of or were part of and some of the very significant mental illnesses that they also are suffering from.

I’m glad to hear that the Attorney General is speaking with the Review Board chair. I hope that it continues to be a priority and that that interministry cooperation and push to…. It’s a great idea, actually, to have other provinces’ forensic psych doctors come and help us, because that’s a rare specialty. There are not actually a lot of forensic psychiatrists, and they’re in high demand, so finding those avenues is great.

But we also need places to treat those people and to keep them. When the Review Board chair says there are not enough spaces, it doesn’t matter if you have extra doctors if there’s no bed expansion either within pretrials or within other correctional facilities with live-in mental health units — within Corrections or at the Forensic Psychiatric.

I just have one last question here. I thank you so much for your time, and I thank the ministry staff also. I look forward to receiving the further information about the lawsuit as well.

On February 9 of this year, a provincewide survey from Save Our Streets coalition showed that British Columbians continue to live in fear in their communities, with 73 percent saying crime and violence were impacting their quality of life, and 37 percent said that they were a victim of a recent crime.

Some of the other notables were 53 percent of people say they fear for the safety of their family and their community. Over half of British Columbians, 56 percent, said that there are areas in their community that they actively avoid because they fear for their own safety. For 87 percent, addiction and mental illness contributed significantly to crime and public issues in their communities.

Ninety percent said that they believe crimes go unreported in the province, and 48 percent of those were victims who confirmed that they hadn’t reported. Again, 90 percent of people in this survey said that they believe that crimes are not being reported, and 48 percent of those people in this survey actually were victims of crime and confirmed that they didn’t. And 71 percent of those people in this survey said a lack of confidence in the justice system was the reason that they didn’t report.

A significant portion and a foundation of our justice system and law and order and safety is people’s trust. In fact, having our justice system fall into disrepute is one of the reasons that we’re supposed to keep people…. To maintain the trust. I do appreciate the work that is going into bail reform because trust has been broken in many cases in many communities.

[3:40 p.m.]

As my final question, can the minister please outline, hopefully beyond just the bail reform part of it, what this government is doing to restore that trust that…? At least according to this survey, 71 percent of people in this survey lack confidence in our justice system.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the question. I think it’s a really important one. It’s something that I think about a lot and I think everybody in our ministry thinks about a lot.

It’s true. A foundation of our democracy is our justice system being trusted by the people that it serves.

A lot of it is my job, to make sure that we have courts that are running on time; that we have enough judges; that we have enough sheriffs, which was a big investment and push of our system; that the courts run in a way that can be more modernized, which is another component of my budget, so we can do things in faster, quicker ways that people expect.

Also, that we can transform laws to make it easier for people. All the work that we’re doing on transforming the family justice system, transforming…. Not just the Criminal Code changes but that when people come to the courts or a justice process for resolution, that it’s done in a way that reduces the level of trauma that they experience going through that very adversarial process.

All the interventions in the family justice system that are showing up for people in different ways — like the early resolution process; the justice access centres that are funded; the changes that we’re doing in the family law, which is the legislative component of it — to make it a better process. Those are all, hopefully, parts of it.

Also, I think showing up for people where the harm is happening is also part of it — the online safety work that we’re doing with the CRT. Making sure that people can access court orders on their phone, or try to get them on their phone, for something that’s happening to them right now is another intervention that I think is funded in the budget and, also, is really important for people.

The member mentioned people not reporting. One of the reasons that they don’t is the barriers to access to that system or the lack of trust in it. The more we can bring down those barriers, the more we can support people through a trauma-informed way to access a justice system. And then changing the actual processes so they’re not so burdensome for people once they’re in the system is something that we’re definitely committed to.

A lot of the work that we’re doing with the Stanton responses — the report that’s about why people don’t report sexual assault…. Those numbers are way worse than the numbers that the member quoted, right? The number of people that have experienced it and the number of people that actually report it is very low. We need to change that.

Of those 21 recommendations that Dr. Stanton has given me, 13 of the 21 are now underway or being actioned or completed. We’re going to get to the ones that we think are going to change the system effectively.

With respect to safe streets, I think that’s another aspect of it. Some of it is my job, and some of it is a combination of other jobs. One is, like I mentioned, the justice system working as it should — running on time, the effective laws. We can control those components of it. I’ll keep at that work.

Another component of it is interventions within the system, like the ReVOII and the C-POII programs, that are showing that all those really capable and brilliant people that are in the system — those Crown counsel, those police officers, those corrections officers — when you give them the space and resources to circle around the most prolific repeat violent offenders, our data shows it works, right?

Those interventions work — the number of times that those people are interacting with the police; the stability of their mental health; their incarceration, if needed, if they’re not safe for society, increases the rates of that.

So expanding to C-POII, which is in the budget right now. That’s the chronic offenders. The Save Our Streets, I know, have been asking for more interventions on that level of crime that is repeated but doesn’t reach the violent level like the ReVOII population. That investment is in here.

It’s a big thing to make sure that people trust the justice system, that we can keep making it better. Crimes are going to change. Laws are going to change. The way people experience the justice system is going to change. We always have to be changing with it.

It’s something that’s been a focus of myself and the ministry. I’m just so grateful for the ministry staff. I come here representing them, and hopefully I do it okay. But they do the work every day to make sure that the justice system is a strong one in B.C. and that we continue to adapt to make it strong.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the Attorney General: would you like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just thanks for the questions. I appreciate all the questions that we got. I think it was a really good debate for British Columbians.

[3:45 p.m.]

I just want to also thank all the teams, some of them sitting here and some of them in a room somewhere, waiting to see if there’s a question. The amount of work that goes into making this process go with the information collected is astonishing every year. I’m always impressed by that, and I’m just thankful for everybody’s work.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call the votes.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $742,545,000 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $115,950,000 — approved.

Vote 16: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 17: independent investigations office, $13,983,000 — approved.

The Chair: Attorney General to move the motion.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 3:47 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:48 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Anne Kang: I now call continued second reading on Bill 8.

[3:50 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

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

Bryan Tepper: Today I rise on behalf of the official opposition to address Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026.

Let me be clear from the outset. British Columbians deserve a government that relentlessly pursues criminals, money launderers and organized crime so that crime does not pay.

The civil forfeiture office has, since 2006, forfeited more than $221 million in ill-gotten assets. That money has funded $93 million in community safety grants and $1.7 million in victim compensation. Those are real dollars taken from drug traffickers, gangsters and fraudsters and, in theory, put back to work for law-abiding families. We support strengthening those tools.

The Cullen commission laid out the scale of money laundering in our province and called for a more proactive civil forfeiture office.

The core objective of Bill 8 — expanding the office’s ability to investigate independently, target high-value assets and streamline litigation — is something British Columbians and, certainly, British Columbia Conservatives can and do support. But support is not blind endorsement.

This bill also hands the NDP government even more power over seized assets while doing nothing — absolutely nothing — to increase transparency over what happens to the money afterward. And that is the heart of the matter, because under this government, the most secretive administration British Columbia has ever seen, civil forfeiture risks becoming just another slush fund mechanism, another pot of cash funnelled through opaque grant programs, staffed by party insiders and spent with minimal public scrutiny.

Let us first walk through what the bill actually does by comparing the current Civil Forfeiture Act with the amendments before us.

Section 5 now requires anyone filing a response to a forfeiture proceeding to set out particulars of the nature of the interest, including the extent of the interest. The current act simply says you file a response. The new requirement is a technical hurdle. Innocent owners — a grandmother whose car was stolen and used in a crime, a small business whose rented premises housed a grow op without their knowledge — will now face immediate procedural traps. One missing detail and their claim can be dismissed.

I think I should say that I did reach out to some subject-matter experts on this to get their opinion on some of these things. I have included that in my comments.

Clause 2, new section 7.1, introduces default forfeiture orders. If a party fails to file and serve a proper response, the court can forfeit the property without a hearing on the merits. The current act gives the court discretion, under section 7, to refuse forfeiture if it is clearly not in the interest of justice. That safeguard is now bypassed by default.

The government’s own explanatory note calls this “streamlining litigation while preserving fairness.” But I say, fairness for who? Certainly not for respondents who miss a deadline because they are in hospital or out of province or simply unaware.

Clauses 3 and 10, sections 36 and 73, extend key timelines from 30 days to 60 days. Under the current law, after a notice of dispute, the director must decide within 30 days whether to commence court proceedings or withdraw. After notice of intent on personal property held by a public body, the same 30-day clock applies. The bill doubles that window. The director now has twice as long to sit on assets, let them depreciate or decide at leisure whether to proceed. Meanwhile, legitimate owners wait longer for their day in court.

Clause 5, section 39, tightens the rules for innocent owners who miss the dispute window. The current act already requires them to prove that their failure was not wilful or deliberate and that they acted as soon as reasonably possible. The amendment revises the circumstances in which they may even commence proceedings. The government calls it updating dispute rules. Innocent British Columbians will call it moving the goalposts.

[3:55 p.m.]

Clause 6, new section 45.1, does provide one genuine improvement. It allows examination for discovery of the director. Claimants can now question the very official seeking to take their property. That is a fairness safeguard we welcome.

Clause 7, section 59.1, adds a presumption that motor vehicles depreciate over time. When the government eventually has to return value to a successful claimant, it can now argue that the car is worth less. Again, the explanatory note frames this as “cutting costs and preserving asset value.” Preserving whose value?

We have clauses 8 and 9, sections 67.01 and 67.1, that expand information-sharing with other jurisdictions and entities while removing the six-month gag order on organizations that receive a director’s request for personal information. The director must now notify the affected individual within the specified period. Broader powers to collect data across borders are reasonable in the fight against transnational crime, but the permanent removal of the time-limited non-disclosure rule tilts the balance further towards secrecy.

Clause 11, section 95, adds regulation-making authority over notice and service of certain orders — more rules written behind closed doors.

Transnational provisions, which is clauses 12 to 18, ensure the new rules apply immediately to ongoing files.

The net effect of Bill 8 is clear. Easier defaults for the government, longer decision windows for the director, higher procedural bars for claimants, broader information-gathering powers and one or two modest fairness concessions.

These changes will almost certainly increase the volume and speed of forfeitures. The government has given no estimate of additional revenue, but with the office now explicitly mandated to run proactive investigations, the inflow will rise. The 2023-24 grant report already shows $8.2 million distributed in a single year. More seizures mean more money flowing into the civil forfeiture account.

Here we reach the most critical issue, the one the government refuses to address. Under the current Civil Forfeiture Act, part 8, all cash and sale proceeds go into the civil forfeiture account — a special account inside the consolidated revenue fund. The director first pays the office’s own operating costs. It remains self-funding. Then comes compensation to eligible victims, capped at net proceeds from the specified unlawful activity. Then grants for prevention of unlawful activities and remediation of the effect of unlawful activities. Finally, other prescribed purposes, but only with the approval of the Minister of Finance.

That’s a mouthful. In plain language, after the office pays itself and a few victims, roughly half the money, according to the government’s own report, is funnelled into the civil forfeiture grant program, which could be a great program — it has had great results — but that program is run entirely by the government. Streams are chosen annually by the ministry. Applications are scored internally. Awards go to community groups, Indigenous organizations, police departments for equipment, restorative justice programs — all worthy on paper. But the decision-making remains opaque.

In the grant selection process, there are a few questions to be asked. Who exactly makes these decisions? Can we provide the organizational chart of the decision-making body, the names of current members and their biographies? Are they public servants, political appointees or independent experts?

[4:00 p.m.]

What is the detailed weighted assessment rubric used to score applications? Committee members should be provided with a copy of the full application and scoring manual. Are minutes kept of grant adjudication meetings, and if so, would the government commit to publishing redacted versions to show the rationale for funding decisions?

So there’s a little heads-up on some of the questions that may be coming.

The annual report gives totals and feel-good project summaries, not line-by-line accountability showing exactly who received what, whether outcomes are measured or whether any recipients have political connections to the NDP. This is not ring-fence trust money. It sits inside the consolidated revenue fund. Any unspent balance, any other prescribed purpose, can ultimately be directed by cabinet.

Beyond the annual report’s list of recipients, will the government provide for the past five years a line-by-line data set showing the application organization, the amount requested, the amount granted, the stated purpose of the grant and the reported outcomes or deliverables? What is the follow-up audit process? How many grants are audited for compliance? What are the consequences for misused funds?

Why is the compensation for victims of crime, a paramount and morally unambiguous issue…? Use of these funds is only $1.7 million since 2006 — a tiny fraction. It’s less than 1 percent of the total generated. Does this not suggest the primary function of the fund has become community grants, not victim restitution?

The Cullen commission itself recommended transitioning the office away from self-funding precisely to remove the incentive to chase revenue. This ignores that recommendation. Instead, this bill is expanding the office while keeping the same perverse incentive structure.

British Columbians have every right to ask, where is the rest of the money going? Why no independent oversight board? Why no requirement for audited outcome reports on every grant? Why no public database showing every dollar?

Because this is the most secretive government British Columbia has ever seen. We have watched the axing of the independent Office of the Merit Commissioner, the very body tasked with ensuring public service jobs are awarded on merit, not connections. Just last month there was a move to dissolve it, despite a documented spike in flawed hirings and complaints of favouritism. We have seen grant programs across housing, climate and community safety repeatedly directed towards organizations with government ties. We have seen freedom of information responses delayed or redacted.

Now we are being asked to hand the same government even more untraceable cash from civil forfeiture without a single new transparency safeguard. The pattern is unmistakable. This government loves slush funds. They hate independent watchdogs. Bill 8 feeds that machine.

Let me be explicit. We are not opposed to community grants. We are not opposed to victim compensation. We want victim compensation. I think everybody does. But we are opposed to a government that treats seized criminal assets as general revenue it can sprinkle around with minimal accountability. Criminals are not transparent; government should be.

Yet this bill contains zero amendments to part 8, zero requirements for detailed public reporting, zero independent audit provisions, zero fenced-in funds outside the consolidated revenue fund. If the government truly believes these amendments improve fairness and efficiency, then it should have no problem adding real accountability measures.

Here are the minimum changes British Columbia deserves before this bill passes.

[4:05 p.m.]

Amend part 8 to create a truly independent civil forfeiture oversight board with representatives from all parties — law enforcement, civil liberties groups and victims advocates — to approve all grants above a modest threshold.

Require the director to publish, within 90 days of each fiscal year, a fully auditable schedule of every grant recipient, amount, purpose and measured outcome.

Move the civil forfeiture office to core government funding, as the Cullen commission recommended, ending the self-funding model that incentivizes revenue chasing.

Prohibit the use of forfeiture funds for any purpose not directly tied to crime prevention, remediation or victim support — no other prescribed-purposes loophole.

Mandate that any regulations made under the new section 95 powers be tabled in the Legislature and subject to affirmative resolution.

Without these changes, Bill 8 is not modernizing civil forfeiture. It is supercharging a secretive revenue tool for an already opaque government.

Colleagues, organized crime does not respect due process, but neither does unchecked government power. The fight against money laundering must never become an excuse to erode the very rule of law we claim to defend.

British Columbians expect us to take criminals’ luxury cars, cash and mansions and then expect us to account for every dollar afterwards with forensic precision. This government wants the first part, as do we all. They resist the second part. That resistance tells us everything about the priorities.

We will support the principle of a stronger civil forfeiture office, but we will fight at every stage of this bill for the transparency British Columbians have every right to demand.

I will say, while I wasn’t a subject-matter expert, I did work with them in my time with the police. This was always on the top of everybody’s mind, where we still need to protect the innocent.

I call upon the minister to approach committee stage not as a defensive exercise but as a collaborative one. Bring the data. Bring the policy rationales. Be prepared to discuss amendments that strengthen safeguards. The shared goal of dismantling criminal enterprises is too important to be undermined by a process that is seen as unfair, secretive or politically self-serving.

Again, when working with the police, I was a very large proponent of this act. Everybody that’s involved in it has used it to great success. But if we allow this money to disappear into the NDP’s favourite black box labelled only “community grants” and administered by party insiders, then we have not defeated organized crime. We have simply created a new state-sanctioned version of it.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Everyone deserves to live a life of dignity with the services and supports that they need not just to survive but to thrive. Addressing poverty and inequality is the right thing to do for people, for families and for communities. We’re stronger when we take care of each other.

We are working to build a province where everyone feels safe, welcomed and included in their communities, where people can find and get the help that they need. We brought in a lot of change for people, but there is more to do.

Violence and related trauma can lead people to lose their homes, their jobs, their support systems. This loss of resources and stability is a real factor in poverty. I’m going to speak to Bill 8 from that perspective.

The Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act makes changes to the Civil Forfeiture Act to streamline processes and ensure more funds are returned to community.

[4:10 p.m.]

Since its inception, the civil forfeiture office has seized over $221 million from the proceeds of crime. Approximately half the funds from all forfeitures go back directly to B.C. communities and community-serving organizations. The civil forfeiture grant program provides one-time funding to support community-safety-related initiatives throughout the province. Funding is allocated through streams chosen on an annual basis that align with government priorities.

These grants have been used to help support those struggling with intimate-partner violence and sexual exploitation. We’re taking broad action to address gender-based violence, including through providing stable funding to sexual assault response services.

These acts of violence can cause traumatic brain injury, damaging the part of the brain that can organize tasks, remember important events and control emotions and impulses. I’m particularly grateful to the Nanaimo Brain Injury Society for bringing in academics and forums to raise the profile and understanding of the links between gender-based violence and brain injury. Ending violence, supporting survivors and creating safe communities are crucial.

In the 2023-24 year, over $2.3 million was provided to programs to end gender-based violence. This includes programs to support victims of gender-based violence, like Warmland Women’s Support Services Society’s project called Calling Ourselves Home. It’s located in the Cowichan Valley, and it delivers Indigenous-informed, culturally competent outreach programming for young, street-entrenched, equity-deserving, perinatal Indigenous women — survivors of intimate-partner violence — through 35 strength-based weekly group workshops.

Another program funded through the proceeds of crime is the Covenant House in Vancouver’s Supporting Homeless Exploited Youth project. It engages 70 trafficked and exploited youth, aged 16 to 24, homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Projects from United for Literacy in Surrey to VI Counselling Centre for Immigrants and Refugees on Vancouver Island provide supports for mothers and children living in transition homes while fleeing domestic violence.

During the same period, the civil forfeiture office provided nearly half a million dollars to programs designed to prevent domestic violence and to intervention programming. Nicola Family Therapy’s men’s counselling program delivers trauma-based counselling sessions for men who have used or are at risk of using violence in their relationships.

As part of my ministry’s poverty reduction strategy, we recognize that Indigenous people are disproportionately impacted by poverty, due to intersecting colonialism, historical and ongoing practices and impacts of colonialism. That recognition is foundational to our updated poverty reduction strategy, and it will help ensure that British Columbia is a place where the inherent rights of Indigenous people are recognized and where Indigenous Peoples thrive by leading the way forward.

The updated poverty reduction strategy includes actions that were identified by and for Indigenous people, reflecting their priorities and unique needs related to poverty reduction, including economic, social and cultural development.

The civil forfeiture office has an Indigenous healing funding stream that awarded $1.43 million in the 2023-24 year, for 37 projects. The Indigenous healing fund provides grants to support healing of Indigenous people from the impacts of intergenerational trauma, crime or victimization. Projects focused on healing approaches are reflective of or aligned with Indigenous cultural and world views, including healing for the individual, the family and the broader community; the emotional, mental, physical and spiritual aspects of healing; and other culturally identified practices that contribute to healing.

One example is the resiliency program, a provincewide program delivered by Pacifica Treatment Centre Society. It provides people from Indigenous communities who are undergoing treatment for substance misuse with essential skills and coping strategies. In ’24-25, they integrated resiliency practices into their Indigenous treatment services through the 2024 resilience project. The project engaged 68 clients in biweekly healing circles led by Elders and Indigenous alumni, emphasizing strength, connection, harmony and cultural renewal.

[4:15 p.m.]

Another example, in Nanaimo, was funded through a grant to the Island Crisis Care Society, an organization that just has such enormous capacity and reaches their arms around people in so many ways. They operate several supportive housing projects for us in community and do a lot of employment and skills development work. This particular program is called Lifeskills.

Indigenous Women’s Healing Centre offers culturally rooted support for Indigenous women ages 19 to 79 in Nanaimo and Oceanside, people who have faced homelessness or housing insecurity. They have weekly one-hour workshops led by an Indigenous facilitator or Elders, and they reconnect with cultural practices, building skills to support well-being and integration to the broader community. That’s just a $40,000 grant, but I hear it has a real impact on people’s lives.

Not only does the civil forfeiture office return money through grants, but it has also developed a victim compensation package to provide financial assistance to people who have suffered a financial loss due to unlawful activity linked to property forfeited to the civil forfeiture office. To date, almost $1.7 million has been distributed to support eligible victims across B.C.

Now, Bill 8 introduces new measures to cut costs and protect asset value, including a presumption of vehicle depreciation to allow for earlier liquidation. This means greater value for forfeited items and more money can be returned to the community through grants. About half of the funds recovered from forfeitures go back into B.C. communities, but there are ways to find more efficiencies so that more of the dollars go directly to serving people.

Currently about 85 percent of civil forfeiture cases are uncontested and result in a default judgment. Even though most cases are uncontested, they still require, right now, a full hearing, consuming valuable court time and legal resources. Bill 8 changes that default-order power to quicken uncontested cases while preserving judicial discretion. This change will speed up the process so that the province is able to liquidate forfeitures before their value depreciates, while simultaneously reducing labour costs associated with long, uncontested hearings.

Bill 8 also introduces a presumption of vehicle depreciation. Cars often sit in storage for months or years, losing value and costing the programs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Currently the act does not require judges to consider depreciation or storage costs, so by the time a case concludes, the vehicle’s value may well be very low or gone.

This presumption is consistent with the best practices in other jurisdictions internationally. The presumption prompts courts to consider early liquidation, and this is intended to reduce storage costs, preserve value and ensure that proceeds can be reinvested in community safety. That doesn’t mean that judges lose authority to decide on sale of forfeited vehicles. Presumption simply informs the court’s decision so that judges retain full discretion to refuse sale where fairness requires.

While Bill 8 streamlines liquidation of forfeited assets, it also extends statutory timelines from 30 days to 60 days. This will be helpful to the system, because the current 30-day window is too short for complex cases, leading to rushed filings and errors sometimes. Extending timelines will align British Columbia with other provinces and improve accuracy. Mistakes in the proceeding can result in longer cases or reversal of the forfeiture, and our goal is to reduce errors and ensure lawful retention of property.

The amendments improve fairness and reduce procedural challenges, ensuring property is held under lawful authority, while giving people a fair chance to respond.

Providing supports to victims in the community is just one aspect of civil forfeiture. The civil forfeiture office is giving our province one more tool to combat crime in our communities. We’ve gone after drug dealers and organized criminals, seizing the proceeds of crime, like in Nanaimo, where the Hell’s Angels clubhouse was seized and then demolished. The Hell’s Angels clubhouse had been used to coordinate criminal activities. It leaves the courts to seize illegally obtained assets. That was a very long court case. I’m so glad the Attorney General’s office pursued it with such diligence.

This action today is possible thanks to the brave undercover officers, anti-gang officers and police agencies who referred their case files to the civil forfeiture office and worked tirelessly to see justice done. The province seized not only the Nanaimo Hell’s Angels clubhouse but also Hell’s Angels clubhouses in Vancouver and Kelowna.

[4:20 p.m.]

Our government will continue to go after gangs, guns and toxic drugs that are hurting loved ones and will continue to take away their illegally acquired assets and protect British Columbians.

Funds gained from liquidated assets are distributed to the crime prevention funding stream from the civil forfeiture office. It awarded $1.643 million to 44 projects dedicated to crime prevention.

Far too often young people are lured into gang life with tempting images of fast cars, glamorous homes and luxury goods. These initiatives focus on preventing criminal activity through direct interventions for vulnerable people at risk of criminal activities or behaviour.

This includes a program that we’re funding in Nanaimo, the youth early prevention program run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Vancouver Island. I visited this place. They’re doing child care and after-school programming across the whole range of children’s lives. I love how they’ve identified here delivering programming on crime prevention, reducing bullying and improving social connections for participants ages eight to 12. They invite into their centre at the boys and girls club positive adult role models and RCMP officers.

In closing, we can’t know what the future will bring, but together we will build a stronger future that is ready to respond to new and emerging drivers of poverty. The Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act introduces practical changes to reinforce the province’s ability to disrupt organized crime and money laundering. With these changes, British Columbia’s civil forfeiture office can continue to take the profit out of unlawful activity, prevent property from being used to cause harm and support victims and crime prevention. For these reasons, I fully support Bill 8.

Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2026, which proposes amendments to British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Act.

Let me begin clearly. Criminals and money launderers should not be allowed to live in luxury off their ill-gotten gains. Crime should not pay. In British Columbia, where money laundering and organized crime have caused real harm to our housing market, our economy and our public confidence, we must ensure that illegally acquired assets are pursued, seized where appropriate and returned — to support communities and victims.

At the same time, we do need accountability and transparency, as my colleague for Surrey-Panorama was talking about. We need accountability and transparency to make sure the civil forfeiture funds and assets and the funds from those assets get to proper community safety groups and victim supports. That’s absolutely crucial.

The principle of the Civil Forfeiture Act and making it more efficient is something that I support.

British Columbians have lived through consequences of weak enforcement and slow institutional response. The Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia, the Cullen commission, made it clear that organized crime and money laundering were significant and pervasive problems in our province. One of the recommendations was to strengthen proactive investigations — from the Cullen commission — and give the civil forfeiture office the tools it needs to independently identify money-laundering schemes and pursue high-value assets.

Budget 2026 proposes expanding proactive operations of the civil forfeiture office in line with those recommendations. Modernizing the civil forfeiture office so that it can more effectively target organized criminals and money launderers is a step in the right direction, and it’s a step forward.

[4:25 p.m.]

The government has framed this piece of legislation as improving fairness, clarity and efficiency. Specifically, Bill 8 aims to streamline litigation while preserving fairness, update timelines and dispute rules, cut costs and preserve asset value, improve information-sharing with safeguards and add fairness safeguards for record-gathering. These are reasonable objectives.

Since 2006, the civil forfeiture office has generated over $221 million for the government. Of that, approximately $93 million has gone towards crime prevention and community safety grants and about $1.7 million towards victim compensation.

Now, the intent of allocating funds towards community safety grants and towards victim compensation…. That’s a well-served purpose, and that should be facilitated, especially in today’s time.

In today’s time, we are seeing an increase in the amount of victims as a result of crime that’s running rampant throughout British Columbia. We are seeing victims as a result of repeat violent offenders. We are seeing victims as a result of repeat property offenders. We are seeing victims in the form of businesses that are just trying to keep up and stay afloat. We are seeing victims being re-victimized, and we are seeing the extent of victims increase throughout our province.

This is the time that we need to actually do more for victims. We need to make sure…. We need to step up the process to go after these criminals and seize their property that they’ve gotten from illegitimate purposes. We need to help fund proper community safety grants as well as victim supports.

But with the same token, we also need to have accountability and transparency, to make sure these community safety grants are properly allocated and victim supports are properly allocated so these are reaching the individuals and the groups of victims that actually need these supports.

I just briefly went through some numbers in terms of how much has been generated through the civil forfeiture office. These are meaningful numbers. Recovered criminal assets should be redirected to strengthen community safety and support victims.

However, it is not estimated…. Something that we don’t know as a result of these amendments is: how much will these actual amendments generate further? How much of a difference will they make?

It would have helped to actually know the research behind this so we could, in a more fruitful way, debate this bill. The purpose seems to be that we need to get more funds to community safety grants and victim supports and that we need to really deal with these criminals that are profiting off their illegitimate business. But a crucial fact and a piece of information and research that would help us in this purpose would be to actually know what sort of revenue would be generated as a result of bringing forward these amendments — by having more efficiency and clarity in this legislation.

That raises an important point. If the government is going to expand the powers and efficiency of civil forfeiture, transparency about how those funds are used must increase as well.

We must make sure that the proper research is done. We must make sure that these funds from the civil forfeiture are actually making it to the proper recipients that it’s going to benefit the most in terms of victim supports. Criminals are not transparent. Government should be transparent.

Let me now walk through some of the major clauses of Bill 8.

[4:30 p.m.]

Clause 1 amends section 5 to require that a person filing a response must provide full particulars of the nature and extent of their claimed interest in property. The original provision required particulars, but this amendment clarifies and strengthens what must be included.

Now, I have a background in law. I’ve been a lawyer for approximately 19½ years. I know when you bring clarity to statutes, that takes away a lot of ambiguity, and it really affects the efficiency of how to interpret a statute. That really helps you to streamline problem-solving.

To the extent that these amendments now bring efficiency and they bring more clarity, that’s something that I support. We need to have more clarity. We need to have more efficiency in our statutes and in our regulations because that really helps the legal profession. It really affects anybody that is relying on statutes to further the purposes of the statutes that we look at.

Going back to this clause that I’m looking at, clause 1, this brings some changes, brings clarity for litigation. It ensures that the court and the director know precisely what interest is being claimed and on what basis.

Clarity brings a lot of benefits, as I just touched upon. Clarity reduces delay. Clarity reduces legal costs. Clarity reduces gamesmanship.

Just to touch upon legal costs, one of the ways that we do see legal costs increase in litigation is that when someone attempts to bring a solution to a problem but it’s not the proper solution, the litigants have to keep trying to get to a safety spot where they can actually solve the problem. But if the legal tools were clear and the parties really knew exactly how to solve the problem and exactly which technique to use, that would actually save a lot of time.

We know with the wheels of justice, they kind of move slowly. As they move slowly, that takes a lot of time, and as a result of the time, that’s where…. The legal profession bills based upon the time, and that’s why the legal costs accumulate. If there’s a way to make the process more efficient, to understand the legislation better and to get to the root of the problem better and to supply the solution to that problem, that would make the process simpler and more efficient in terms of reducing legal costs.

Again, when I see words used such as “clarity,” “efficiency” and “reducing ambiguity” in statutes, that’s something that really triggers me because I know it can really make a difference if we deal with these items within our justice system.

Going back to clause 1, if someone claims an interest in property, they should be able to explain what the interest is and how it arose. This all promotes fairness on both sides. So clause 1 does add some value here in terms of Bill 8.

Clause 2. If we go further into clause 2, clause 2 introduces a new default judgment mechanism where a party fails to file and serve a response. So a new mechanism where a party fails to file and serve a response — when you know there’s a claim but there hasn’t been any response filed in relation to that claim.

[4:35 p.m.]

The original section 7 in the original act allowed a court to refuse or limit forfeiture if clearly not in the interests of justice. That protection still remains, even with this amendment in clause 2, but this new provision allows the court to proceed where parties simply do not respond. If there’s no good reason and there’s no response filed, the court can proceed. And if the court can proceed, that allows for more efficiency in terms of dealing with civil forfeiture of criminal assets and illegitimate funds.

Clause 2 really addresses a real litigation gap. When respondents fail to engage, proceedings stall, assets sit, value deteriorates and costs rise. This amendment streamlines the process while maintaining judicial oversight.

The court must still be satisfied that the requirements are met, so this is a safeguard as well. There is still the ability to set aside or vary orders. Under this provision, orders can still be set aside, so that’s an important safeguard, although if a party without good reason doesn’t file a response, action can be taken. That allows streamlining civil forfeiture.

Then going a little bit further into clauses 3 and 10, there is some updating of timelines. The original statute talked about 30 days, and now these particular clauses talk about 60 days. Clauses 3 and 10 extend certain timelines from 30 days to 60 days for the director to commence proceedings or withdraw notice.

The original 30-day window may have been too tight, given the complexity of modern financial investigations. We know sometimes criminals can get a little bit creative in how they hide assets, so investigations have to get even more significant. As the investigations get more significant, they may take longer. Increasing the time period from 30 days to 60 days makes sense.

Money-laundering cases are not simple. They involve layered transactions, shell entities, cross-border components. That’s a little bit of the gist of what could happen when we’re dealing with criminals that are trying to hide their money from illegitimate sources.

Extending to 60 days improves administrative clarity and reduces rushed litigation. It ensures better preparation and more efficient proceedings overall.

Now getting into clause 4 of this bill. Clause 4 clarifies language. As I stated earlier, clarity, taking out ambiguity, in statutory language is very important. Clause 4 clarified some language. This is a drafting clarification that improves precision. Precision in legislation improves fairness and reduces interpretive disputes.

I’ll move on to clause 6 next. Clause 6 formalizes how the director may be examined for discovery. For the people listening to the word “discovery,” discovery is an examination under oath. It could be kind of a proceeding akin to something happening in court. Usually examinations for discovery are done under oath, just like court proceedings are done, and usually before a court reporter. This clause 6 talks about examination for discovery of directors. Clause 6 formalizes how the director may be examined for discovery, limiting examination to one knowledgeable representative.

We often see…. When we are looking at court rules and you want to examine, say, a company or, say, an organization, usually that organization or company exists with a name but there are many people behind that organization or the company. It’s not just that you’re dealing with one person.

[4:40 p.m.]

So you have to have a person who’s a representative or a person that is an authoritative voice from that organization or company that you can ask questions to under oath. This clarifies who one would be asking questions to.

This clause 6 formalizes how the director may be examined for discovery, limiting examination to one knowledgeable representative. This promotes efficiency and reduces duplicative examinations, while still preserving the ability to test a director’s case. It’s a practical litigation modernization.

Now moving next to clause 7 of Bill 8. This clause 7 adds a presumption that motor vehicles depreciate over time in interim preservation applications. Although many people know that vehicles are usually depreciating assets, there could be some vehicles that are collectibles that accumulate value over time. Most vehicles do depreciate over time.

It’s important for legislation to put this presumption in the legislation because if you don’t have the presumption in there, you may have to resort to experts to decide what the value of that vehicle asset is. So this is an important tool in terms of clarity and taking out ambiguity, having this presumption.

A presumption, essentially, is a term used when…. Rather than presenting evidence to prove something, you have a term such as “presumption.” The statute actually states that is the evidence if you have that fact scenario.

If you have vehicles, the presumption is that vehicle is depreciating, without having to actually prove that. That’s a legal term that is brought forward into this legislation. To have this type of presumption for clarity purposes is just common sense.

Allowing timely disposition preserves asset value so that proceeds can support community safety grants. We really do need to know about whether there are vehicles. If they are being confiscated and they are being forfeited, we do need to know that they are depreciating.

Why it’s important for civil forfeiture purposes is we need to get the maximum value to community safety grants, to victim supports. If we wait too long and a vehicle asset depreciates, loses all its value, there may not be much there to actually give in terms of a community safety grant or a victim support. So this particular clause serves a very important role. It’s about preserving public value, and it actually serves a crucial purpose.

Moving next to clause 8 of Bill 8. This clause authorizes a director to collect and disclose specified information to jurisdictions inside or outside Canada where reasonably required. Money laundering, as we know, is transnational. Criminals don’t really operate within borders. They try to expand where they’re operating. Money laundering flows with those criminals and is a transnational crime as well.

If the civil forfeiture office cannot share information effectively with other jurisdictions, it cannot effectively pursue high-value organized crime assets. There needs to be an element for the director, under the civil forfeiture office, to be able to collect and disclose information across jurisdictions, inside or outside Canada, for this legislation to be effective in terms of getting at criminal illicit funds — in order to forfeit those funds and in order to get those funds and assets and values from those assets to community safety grants and victim supports. Clause 8, again, serves an important purpose.

[4:45 p.m.]

Clause 9 talks about removing the fixed six-month limit on non-disclosure of a director’s information request but adds a requirement that notice be given to the individual as soon as practical after the six-month period expires.

Now this talks about information that the director is trying to get in terms of civil forfeiture. The original act had a time limit on it. But sometimes a time limit may not make sense because if the investigation is taking longer, if the process is taking longer, if the director is not able to comply with a certain time limit, that may kill the efforts to actually conduct civil forfeiture.

This clause is important in that it moves away from an actual time period, but it actually creates a different form of a safeguard — this particular clause does. It adds a requirement that notice be given to the individual as soon as practical after the six-month period expires. So although the six-month period expires — now you’re not operating within the six-month period — there is still a requirement on the director to provide disclosure of the director’s information request as soon as practical after the six-month period.

As long as the investigation doesn’t get jeopardized, if it’s not getting jeopardized, that disclosure should be happening. This balances investigative integrity with eventual notice. Investigations cannot succeed if subjects are tipped off prematurely. At the same time, individuals are entitled to notice once secrecy is no longer required. That is a reasonable safeguard.

There are also some transitional and consequential clauses in this bill, as many bills usually have, towards the end of the bill. The transitional clauses ensure procedural consistency across ongoing matters. The consequential amendments to the Offence Act and the Unclaimed Property Act align timelines and definitions to reflect the updated 60-day framework. These are technical but necessary to maintain coherence across statutes.

In conclusion, money laundering and organized crime are not abstract policy discussions. Money laundering distorts housing markets. Money laundering funds drug trafficking. Money laundering empowers transnational criminal networks.

Strengthening the civil forfeiture office so it can proactively identify and pursue high-value criminal assets, as recommended by the Cullen commission, is a step forward. Reducing litigation delays lowers taxpayer costs. Clarifying processes improves fairness for respondents. Preserving asset value ensures more funds are available for crime prevention grants, community safety initiatives and victim supports. These amendments move us in that direction.

While I support these changes, I believe there must be greater transparency in how recovered funds are allocated and returned to communities, as I stated at the outset. As the member for Surrey-Panorama was stating earlier, there needs to be some accountability and transparency to make sure the funds collected from civil forfeiture do end up addressing victim supports and real community safety grant initiatives.

[4:50 p.m.]

It can’t be based on a partisan basis. It has to be based upon the victims that need it. As I stated earlier, the amount of victims that we are seeing in this province is increasing. More and more crime is being committed. As a result, there are more and more victims, and there’s a diverse extent of victims right across this province.

We need to make sure that the civil forfeiture funds are actually reaching victims that actually need it. With that, we need to have proper transparency and accountability to make sure that those funds are getting where they need to get.

Over $221 million has been generated since 2006 through the civil forfeiture office. That is significant. But British Columbians deserve clear annual reporting on amount recovered, clear breakdowns of where funds are distributed, measurable outcomes tied to community safety grants, transparent criteria for allocation. If we are expanding efficiency and investigative power, we must expand public accountability. Criminals operate in secrecy; government should not.

All in all, civil forfeiture of funds and assets that criminals have accumulated from illegitimate activity is a good thing, and we should make the process more efficient. But at the same time, there needs to be more transparency to make sure the funds from civil forfeiture are getting to the victims that actually need those funds.

George Anderson: I rise today to speak in support of the proposed amendments to B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Act.

At its core, this legislation addresses a simple but profound principle of justice, that crime should never pay. Organized crime, money laundering and illicit financial networks do not survive on ideology. They survive on profit. They depend on houses used to grow drugs, vehicles used to transport illicit goods and bank accounts used to hide illegal proceeds.

If government fails to disrupt the financial incentives behind unlawful activity, then we leave intact the very engine that drives crime. Civil forfeiture exists to remove that engine and allows our government to pursue property connected to unlawful activity as a means to provide a preventative legal remedy designed to protect the public interest.

I might first begin with a bit of a legal foundation regarding civil forfeiture.

It’s important to understand what civil forfeiture is and what it is not. Civil forfeiture is not a criminal prosecution. It is a civil proceeding brought before the courts under the well-established balance of probabilities. The focus is not on guilt or innocence. The focus is on whether property is the proceeds of an instrument of unlawful activity, and that distinction matters.

Our courts have repeatedly recognized that governments have a legitimate interest in preventing property from being used to facilitate crime. Civil forfeiture operates alongside criminal law, but it serves as a distinct public purpose — preventing future harm, disrupting criminal enterprise and removing the economic rewards of illegal conduct. This approach has become an important tool used not only in British Columbia but across Canada and internationally in efforts to combat organized crime and financial crime.

[4:55 p.m.]

Why are these amendments necessary? The reality is that criminal organizations evolve, they adapt, and they exploit procedural gaps. Over time, litigation has revealed areas within the civil forfeiture framework that require modernization.

After years of court proceedings and operational experiences, several challenges have become clear: procedural inefficiencies that create unnecessary delays, gaps in information-sharing, increased sophistication in financial crime and rising costs associated with complex litigation.

Organized crime today does not operate in isolation. It operates through networks that cross provinces and international borders. Money moves digitally. Assets are hidden through shell companies and intermediaries. Information flows between agencies become critical to ensuring enforcement is effective.

If government does not adapt, we risk creating a system where criminal proceeds remain protected by procedural obstacles, and that is not something that British Columbians expect of us.

What do these amendments do? The amendments before this House aim to strengthen the act in several ways.

The first area that I will talk about is civil litigation. These amendments help streamline the litigation process. Civil forfeiture cases can be complex, involving multiple parties, assets and jurisdictions. Just starting at a point of multiple party litigation, you have individuals who could be in British Columbia, Alberta — anywhere in the country, the United States and internationally. But actually going through the process of ensuring that they are treated fairly under our systems, of ensuring that proper notice is given, of ensuring that we go through the proper litigation processes even before getting to the point of discovery….

To clarify the point of what a discovery is, it is essentially a deposition where individuals are able to have a discussion, at least an examination, for discovery of the pertinent pieces of evidence.

By moving forward with the amendments that are suggested, I don’t think that I’m debating the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education. But that being said, perhaps I will be later on.

Civil forfeiture is focused on reducing the procedural inefficiencies, lowering litigation costs, reducing court burdens and allowing cases to be resolved more efficiently. We know that our court systems are overburdened. There are several cases that are going through the courts, and whatever we can do to ensure that we are reducing costs is important.

Importantly, if we allow the justice system to focus on resources where they matter most…. I think of the responses to civil claims where individuals…. In this case, you would have the director actually putting forward the case where they see property that has been derived from illicit proceeds and then seeing general responses that don’t actually help advance litigation in any type of way.

That is not how an efficient legal system is to move forward. An efficient legal system requires particulars to be given. It requires both parties to be able to properly defend their cases. That requires individuals properly detailing areas in which they feel they need to defend or what the case is and where they actually believe that there is a claim to be made.

The civil forfeiture office continues to disrupt organized crime and invests those proceeds into community safety.

[5:00 p.m.]

What do we see? As I mentioned earlier, when you have material facts that are clearly laid out, you see litigation move forward. Where you have vague, obfuscated responses, which I have seen in my practice as a lawyer, you see litigation drawn out for significant periods of time.

The amendments that this bill provides ensure that everyone is on the same playing field by requiring parties to identify their interests in properties and whether or not they are holding them for others. I believe that is one of the most integral parts of this piece of legislation. It will give us the ability to really have that legal discussion about where pieces of property came from and how an individual came to acquire them.

I think many British Columbians can think of situations where there’s an individual who is living in a multi-million-dollar home, yet on their income tax, they say they only make $5,000 a year. Or they’re driving luxury vehicles which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s what British Columbians would say they are concerned by. It’s the fact that individuals who go to work, who work hard and pay their taxes expect everyone to play by the same rules.

What do we see as a problem with the current default judgment process? You will even see uncontested cases requiring full hearings, which require significant time in the courts — you have lawyers; you have clerks; you have the judge who is in the courtroom for a significant period of time — not advancing the issues that involve everyday British Columbians.

Let’s move on to the second point, which is improved information-sharing. The amendments enhance information-sharing tools, which are critical in modern financial investigations. Law enforcement and regulatory bodies often hold different pieces of the same puzzle. Allowing appropriate sharing of information strengthens the investigation, prevents duplication and supports coordinated responses to organized crime.

At the same time, this particular legislation includes safe and clear safeguards regarding the type of information that can actually be shared, which ensures transparency and accountability and additional privacy considerations.

Third, the amendments clarify and strengthen procedural fairness for property owners. This is essential to maintaining confidence in our legal system. Civil forfeiture must always operate within the boundaries of due process, fairness and judicial oversight. These amendments provide clear procedures and protections that ensure respondents have appropriate opportunities to participate in these legal proceedings. That balance matters because when laws are both effective and fair, they ensure public confidence throughout the province.

From some members, we’ve heard that there may be concerns, but what I would say when we’re talking about these concerns…. Sure, there may be legitimate questions that are brought up, but some asked whether civil forfeiture risks undermining the presumption of innocence. That concern misunderstands the nature of civil proceedings.

As I mentioned earlier, civil forfeiture does not determine criminal guilt. The courts are solely assessing property, not criminal liability. That distinction, again, has been recognized repeatedly by Canadian courts.

Others worry about the fairness to property owners, and that’s why judicial oversight remains central. Every forfeiture order must ultimately be reviewed and authorized by the courts. Respondents retain the ability to challenge claims and present evidence, and that is not arbitrary power. It’s structured, civil legal process governed by judicial scrutiny, and the amendments before us reinforce those safeguards.

[5:05 p.m.]

Now I would like to turn to the public benefit of civil forfeiture. A component of this legislation that I would say is partially and often overlooked is that the funds recovered through civil forfeiture do not just disappear into the general revenue. In British Columbia, these resources support community safety initiatives and victim services. That means that proceeds of unlawful activity are redirected to supporting victims, funding crime prevention programs and strengthening communities. There is something profoundly just about that idea.

I can speak to the riding that I represent, with the boys and girls club, where Nanaimo youth early prevention program aims to help with crime prevention, bullying, improving social cohesion. These are not small things, and I think it’s a positive benefit, at least from what I know of speaking with members in the community which I represent. That money which was tied to criminal proceeds and ill good actually ends up supporting the public good and the public interest.

British Columbia has faced real challenges related to organized crime and money laundering. We have seen the impacts in real estate markets, casinos, illicit drug networks. And these responses require more than criminal prosecution alone. It requires a whole-system approach. Civil forfeiture is one of the tools that allows the province to disrupt financial incentives behind these activities, because when the profits disappear, the incentives to operate also diminish.

At the heart of these amendments is a simple principle that the law must evolve alongside the challenges that we face. If criminal networks become more sophisticated, our legal tools must become more effective. If litigation reveals gaps in legislation, we must address them. If public confidence in the justice system depends on fairness and transparency, we must strengthen those protections.

These amendments do precisely that. They modernize British Columbia’s civil forfeiture network. They improve efficiency. They enhance fairness, and they strengthen our ability to disrupt the financial incentives behind unlawful activity. In this province, we believe in something very clearly — that crime should not be profitable. Laws like this ensure that it isn’t.

As I’ve mentioned, the process of discovery is one that can take up significant amounts of time, increase costs dramatically. We as a province need to do what we can to ensure that those costs are limited. I know that legal fees are significant and the individuals who are profiting from crime…. We as a province can use those assets and goods to end up delivering the public good.

In closing, the Civil Forfeiture Act and the amendments that are being brought forward are rooted in the public interest. They’re rooted to ensure that our communities are ones that end up looking at the best interests of everyone across this province. That means making real amendments that address the speed in which those who are involved in criminal activity recognize that they cannot proceed in that way in this province, because should they do that, those assets will be collected.

On that note, I appreciate the fact that the minister has brought forward these timely amendments, and I look forward to the discussion at committee and the passage of this bill. It is necessary in order to ensure that our communities can be safe and that we build the best British Columbia possible.

[5:10 p.m.]

Darlene Rotchford: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act.

The CFO seeks to obtain the forfeiture of property that is either the proceeds of unlawful activity or an instrument of unlawful activity. Since its inception, the CFO has forfeited over $270 million. Approximately half of the funds from all forfeitures go back into B.C. communities. The civil forfeiture grant program provides one-time funding to support community-safety-related initiatives across this province. Funding is allocated through streams chosen on an annual basis that align with ministry priorities.

Since the program’s inception, over $86 million in funding has been awarded to support community-based projects here in B.C. These grants have been used to help support the community and those struggling with intimate-partner violence or sexual exploitation. This includes programs to support victims of gender-based violence, like Covenant House Vancouver’s Supporting Homeless Exploited Youth project, a project that engaged 70 trafficked and exploited youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

Projects from Unity for Literacy in Surrey and VI Counselling Centre for Immigrants and Refugees provide supports for mothers and children in transition homes while fleeing domestic violence. Projects like Nicola Family Therapy men’s counselling program deliver trauma-based counselling sessions for men-identified people who have used or are at risk of using violence in relationships.

Not only does the civil forfeiture office return money through grants, but it also established the victim compensation program to provide financial assistance to individuals who’ve suffered a financial loss due to unlawful activities linked to property forfeited by the civil forfeiture office. To date, approximately $1.7 million has been distributed to support eligible victims across British Columbia.

Bill 8 introduces new measures to cut costs and protect assets’ values, including a presumption of vehicle depreciation to allow for earlier liquidation. This means greater value for forfeited items and more money can be returned to the community through the grants.

As I mentioned earlier, about approximately half of the funds covered from the forfeitures go back into B.C. communities. But there are ways to find efficiencies. Currently about 85 percent of civic forfeiture cases are uncontested and result in a default judgment. Even though most cases are uncontested, they require full hearing, consume valuable court time and legal resources. Bill 8 changes the default order power to quicken uncontested cases while preserving judicial discretion, quickening the process so we get higher value for forfeitures while reducing costs on the system by not having to dedicate resources to uncontested hearings.

Bill 8 also introduces presumption of vehicle depreciation. Vehicles often sit in storage for months or years, losing value and costing the program hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Currently the act does not require judges to consider depreciation or storage costs, so by the time a case concludes, the vehicle value may be gone. This presumption is consistent with best practice in other jurisdictions internationally. The presumption promotes courts to consider early liquidation. This is intended to reduce storage costs and preserve value, ensuring proceeds can be reinvested in community safety.

This doesn’t mean judges lose authority to decide on sale of forfeited vehicles. Presumption simply informs the court’s decision. Judges retain full discretion to refuse sale where fairness requires. This is a win-win for British Columbians.

While Bill 8 streamlines liquidation of forfeited assets, it also extends statutory timelines from 30 days to 60 days. This is beneficial to the system because the current 30-day window is too short for complex cases, leading to rushed filings and errors. Extending timeline aligns B.C. with other provinces and improves accuracy.

[5:15 p.m.]

Mistakes in the proceedings can result in longer cases or reversal of the forfeiture. The goal is to reduce errors and ensuring lawful retention of property. The amendments improve fairness and reduce procedural challenges, ensuring property is held under a lawful authority while giving people a fair chance to respond.

For the improved fairness and support to our communities, I support this bill.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I am rising today to support Bill 8, the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, and I want to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for bringing this forward and her staff for making such careful amendments.

This change to the Civil Forfeiture Act will streamline processes and ensure more funds are returned to the community. Since its inception, the CFO has forfeited over $221 million. Approximately half of the funds from all forfeitures go back into B.C. communities.

The civil forfeiture grant program provides one-time funding to support community-safety-related initiatives across this province. Funding is allocated through streams chosen on an annual basis that align with government priorities. These funding streams include priority areas that matter deeply to me in my role as Parliamentary Secretary of Gender Equity.

The civil forfeiture office’s largest funding stream is focused on preventing and responding to gender-based violence. The gender-based violence funding stream provides grants that develop or enhance culturally relevant, culturally safe and trauma-informed responses to gender-based violence in communities across our province. This includes projects that address domestic violence; sexual assault; sex trafficking; sexual exploitation, including online child sexual exploitation; sex worker safety and helping those who are wanting to exit from sex work; and taking broad action to address gender-based violence, including through providing stable funding to sexual assault response services.

This includes programs to support victims of gender-based violence, like No Pet Left Behind, run by the Paws for Hope Animal Foundation in Maple Ridge. This program provides crisis foster care for pets of women fleeing domestic violence. We know that animal abuse is present in nearly 90 percent of domestic violence cases. The fear is real and so is the love people feel for their pets, and abusers will use that fear to control their target.

Recognizing that pets are a vital emotional support but that the fear for the pet and the worries around finding a new living situation that’s appropriate for their whole entire family, including their four-legged friend, can pose a barrier to leaving abusive situations, the program offers free, confidential foster placements for pets while women access shelter, rebuild stability and secure permanent housing, so women and their families can escape violence without having to worry about their animals.

If you live in Metro Vancouver or the Fraser region, Paws for Hope is looking for foster homes. Operating provincewide in partnership with the Ending Violence Association of B.C. and the B.C. Society of Transition Houses, the program will cover all pet-related needs, including food, supplies and veterinary care. Since its inception, No Pet Left Behind has supported nearly 300 women, 425 children and 400 pets across British Columbia, offering critical peace of mind and empowering women to seek safety and healing.

Amy FitzGerald, executive director of B.C. Society of Transition Houses, has this to say about No Pet Left Behind: “Women who once thought they couldn’t leave violence as they would never leave their pets behind now can leave safely, knowing that their companion animals will accompany them and find shelter.”

Let me speak about another project that’s making a direct impact on exploited youth. In Vancouver, Covenant House’s Supporting Homeless Exploited Youth project is making a real difference. It’s making youth safer. The project engaged 70 trafficked and exploited youth ages 16 to 24, who were either unhoused or at risk of being unhoused. A social worker connects with every single one of the youth and supports their needs across a continuum of care.

Projects from United for Literacy in Surrey and VI Counselling Centre for Immigrants and Refugees provide supports for mothers and children living in transition homes while fleeing domestic violence.

During that same time, the civil forfeiture office provided nearly $500,000, half a million dollars, to the domestic violence prevention and intervention program, providing grants to support the direct delivery of group-based programming for individuals who use violence in intimate-partner relationships.

[5:20 p.m.]

The focus is on offering programming prior to the charge, conviction and sentencing stage of the criminal justice process. These initiatives aim to enhance the safety and well-being of victims who have experienced or who are at risk of experiencing domestic violence.

Projects like Nicola Family Therapy’s men’s counselling program deliver trauma-based counselling sessions for men-identified people who have used or are at risk of using violence in their relationships.

Also, including the Become the Change project, run by the Canadian Mental Health Association in Williams Lake. BTC is a psychoeducational group program for adults aged 18 plus who are at risk or have previously perpetrated domestic violence. The program helps participants recognize harmful behaviours, develop healthier relationship skills and foster accountability in a supportive group setting.

Delivered in partnership with organizations like the Ministry of Children and Family Development and First Nations communities, BTC continues to grow in demand, with wait-lists forming before sessions are posted. Many participants encourage others, including partners, to attend BTC or its companion program, Growth for a New Beginning. The program’s growing regional reputation has led to recent outreach to First Nations women, setting the stage for further expansion.

The updated strategy includes actions that were identified by and for Indigenous people, reflecting their priorities and unique needs related to poverty reduction, including economic, social and cultural development.

In Smithers, the Northern Society for Domestic Peace operates the domestic peace program, which helps break the cycles of violence by offering counselling to adult clients who are at risk to use violence.

The program’s goal is to assist men in making choices that lead to a healthier, more respectful way of living and being in relationships with others. The program’s goal is to help men who wish to change. They can choose to stop their abusive behaviours. The program can also support with coping with separation and divorce, healing past abuse, and parenting.

It’s so important to ensure that services are available across this province. Organizations like Agassiz-Harrison Community Services provide support services, service navigation and therapy services to the underserved area of Agassiz and Harrison — a rural location with no transition houses, hospital, legal or established victim services.

The civil forfeiture office has an Indigenous healing funding stream that awarded $1,430,156 for 37 projects. The Indigenous healing fund provides grants to support healing of Indigenous people from impacts of intergenerational trauma, crime or victimization in communities across British Columbia. Projects focus on healing approaches reflective and/or aligned with Indigenous culture and world views, including healing for the individual, the family and the broader community; emotional, mental, physical and spiritual aspects of healing; and other culturally identified practices that contribute to the path forward.

One of these programs is the resiliency program, a provincewide initiative delivered by Pacifica Treatment Centre Society. It provides individuals from Indigenous communities who are undergoing treatment for substance use disorders with essential skills and coping strategies. In this last year, they integrated resiliency practices into their Indigenous treatment services through the 2024 resilience project. This engaged 68 clients in biweekly healing circles led by Elders and Indigenous alumni, emphasizing strength, connection, harmony and cultural renewal.

In Salmon Arm, Rise Up Indigenous Wellness Society was awarded funds for their Peaceful Warriors program, a decolonized, trauma-informed mentorship program designed to prevent sexual and domestic violence by mentoring Indigenous boys aged 8 to 11 through traditional teachings that foster kindness, empathy and respect.

Grounded in Indigenous knowledge and social-emotional learning, the nine-week program delivers culturally relevant lessons. Focused on youth working together to set up tents in a forested area, they spend that time out in the woods, out in the wilderness, out on the land, connecting in real time, fostering social development, emotional accountability and identity.

Developed in collaboration with Indigenous community members, sessions are guided by local traditions and values. Early outcomes show strong participant engagement and growth in empathy, self-awareness and cultural connection. The program envisions broader impact through future expansion into other Indigenous communities, promoting healing and violence prevention across generations.

The impact is felt by participants and their families together. One mother said: “I’m so happy for my son to have participated in Peaceful Warriors. As a single mom, it’s difficult to share what it means to be a respectful man for my son.”

[5:25 p.m.]

Peaceful Warriors facilitator Scott had this to say about the program: “I wished I had something like this when I was a kid, especially because I didn’t have a father figure. Peaceful Warriors taught the boys life skills, and as a facilitator, I was able to model those skills.”

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Not only does the civil forfeiture office return money through grants, but it has established the victim compensation program to provide financial assistance to individuals who have suffered a financial loss due to unlawful activity linked to property forfeited by the civil forfeiture office. To date, approximately $1.7 million has been distributed to support eligible victims across B.C.

Bill 8 introduces new measures to cut costs and protect asset value, including a presumption of vehicle depreciation to allow for earlier liquidation. This means greater value for forfeited items and more money returned to the community through grants.

As I mentioned earlier, about half of the funds received from forfeiture go back to B.C. communities. So how do we maximize the benefit to British Columbians? How can we improve this process? Currently more than eight in every ten civil forfeiture cases are uncontested and result in a default judgment. Even though most cases are uncontested, they require a full hearing, consuming valuable court time and legal resources.

Bill 8 changes the default order power to quicken uncontested cases while preserving judicial discretion. This change speeds up the process, and the province is able to liquidate forfeitures before their value depreciates while simultaneously reducing labour costs associated with long, uncontested hearings.

Bill 8 also introduces the presumption of vehicle depreciation. Vehicles can sit in storage for months or years, losing value and costing the program hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Currently the act does not require judges to consider depreciation or storage costs, so by the time a case concludes, the vehicle’s value could be gone. This presumption is consistent with best practices in other jurisdictions internationally. The presumption prompts courts to consider early liquidation. This is intended to reduce storage costs, preserve value and ensure proceeds can be reinvested in community safety.

This doesn’t mean that judges lose authority to decide on sale of forfeited vehicles. Presumption simply informs the court’s decision. Judges retain full discretion to refuse sale where fairness requires.

While Bill 8 streamlines liquidation of forfeited assets, it also extends statutory timelines from 30 to 60 days. This is beneficial to the system because the current 30-day window is too short for complex cases, and we need more time. Extending timelines aligns B.C. with other provinces and improves accuracy. Mistakes in the proceedings can result in longer cases or reversal of forfeiture. The goal is to reduce error and ensure lawful retention of property. The amendments improve fairness and reduce procedural challenge, ensuring property is held under lawful authority while giving people a fair chance to respond.

Providing supports to victims and the community is only one aspect of civil forfeiture. The civil forfeiture office is giving our province one more tool to combat crime in our communities. The province will continue to go after gangs, guns and toxic drugs that are hurting loved ones, taking away their illegally acquired assets and protecting British Columbians.

Funds gained from liquidated assets are distributed to the crime prevention funding stream from the civil forfeiture office. The civil forfeiture office awarded $1,643,328 to 44 projects dedicated to crime prevention.

No one should be able to lure young people into criminal activity with promises of material goods and quick money. These initiatives focus on preventing criminal activity through direct interventions for vulnerable individuals at risk of criminal activities and behaviour. We know that many can see criminal activities as a way out of poverty.

In my home city of Coquitlam, the Low Entropy Foundation was awarded $40,000 to run the thrift and thrive youth internship program. This initiative targets approximately 30 youth aged 16 to 24 who are at risk and equips them with practical job skills, soft skills and financial literacy through hands-on experience at a thrift store.

I want to recognize the hard work of the volunteers and the staff. I have spent many hours with you and really appreciated the work that you do with the youth, bringing them forward into a new life where they can choose their path.

As you can see, the Civil Forfeiture Act already makes a big impact in supporting the community, and this legislation will ensure B.C.’s civil forfeiture office can continue to take the profit out of unlawful activity, prevent property from being used to cause harm and support victims and crime prevention.

For these reasons, I wholeheartedly support Bill 8 and thank the minister and her team for bringing it forward.

[5:30 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call on the minister to close up the bill.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’d like to thank all members in the House who contributed to this debate.

Civil forfeiture is a relatively simple idea with powerful implications and impacts. Crime should never pay. When it does pay — when criminals accumulate cash, cars and property through violence and exploitation — we take it back and we put it to work for the good of our communities.

British Columbia’s civil forfeiture office does exactly that. The funds we recover go directly into communities across this province: school programs that steer young people away from gangs, victim support services for people who deserve to rebuild their lives, crime prevention initiatives that make neighbourhoods safer and equipment for the police officers on the front lines keeping us all safe.

What does this look like in practice? A criminal loses their car, their cash, the house they use to manufacture toxic drugs; and a community gets a youth program, a victim service, a better-equipped officer walking their streets.

What does this look like, specifically, for the people in our province? I’ll share one powerful example.

One of the civil forfeiture grants programs’ streams is for child and youth advocacy centres. One of the nine funded projects in the last grant cycle is the safe kids and youth, SKY, coordinated response. The SKY coordinated response serves six rural communities across the West Kootenay region, providing child- and youth-centred services and advocacy without a physical centre. Instead, it coordinates localized, multidisciplinary teams to support children and youth from birth to the age of 19 who disclose abuse, violence and neglect.

SKY collaborates with police, child protection services, Crown counsel, health care providers and schools to ensure trauma-informed, culturally safe care. Specialized child-friendly interview spaces and remote court testimony rooms reduce re-traumatization.

One key support is Trusty — an accredited, facilitated support dog, who I had the pleasure of meeting on a trip to Nelson — who provides comfort during interviews, court proceedings and counselling.

Serving up to 50 children and youth annually, SKY has become a model for rural child and youth abuse responses in B.C. — and in fact, in Canada — recognized for reducing system-induced trauma and minimizing repetitive retellings of traumatic events.

British Columbia’s civil forfeiture program is incredibly, incredibly important. Bill 8 builds on our existing foundation with practical fairness and focused improvements — stronger tools to disrupt organized crime and money laundering, clearer processes that respect due process and property rights and a more effective path to recovering illicit wealth before it causes more harm.

We are taking the profit out of crime and putting it back into the very communities that crime harms. Crime does not pay, and what criminals lose, communities gain.

I ask all members to support Bill 8 at second reading so we can move into Committee of the Whole for further discussion. Together we will tackle illicit wealth in our communities, and we will ensure that recovered proceeds continue to support public safety and victims of crime across British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 8.

Motion approved.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[5:35 p.m.]

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Josie Osborne: In Section C, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 4, the Supply Act.

Here, I call second reading on Bill 6.

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: We will call on our Attorney General to introduce and begin debate on Bill 6.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 6. This bill proposes to amend the Motor Vehicle Act to allow for the first phase of the modernization of driver’s licensing.

Over the next ten years, modernization will enable more flexible, responsive, accessible and streamlined experiences for customers, employees and businesses.

As part of the first phase, amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow for online applications by eligible customers for simple driver’s licence renewals where only the expiry date changes and online applications for replacing driver’s licences that have been lost, destroyed or damaged.

Online renewals and replacements in the first phase will include combination driver’s licences with the B.C. Services Card as well as stand-alone photo B.C. Services Cards and B.C. identification cards. This is going to have a big impact when it comes to people, particularly, that live in rural and remote communities.

I think we’ve all had the experience — I certainly have — when you have to renew your driver’s licence. The last time I had to do it was on my birthday, and I had to do it that day because it was expiring that day. It was the only time that I…. I got myself down to the driver’s licence renewal office at ICBC, sat in line and did it.

The service was great, at the location that was there, but it’s that extra step of having to disrupt your life, sometimes take time off work…. Especially if you’re living in an area where you have to drive long distances perhaps. In order to do that, it’s a necessity to have your driver’s licence.

We want to make services across this province easier for British Columbians, to make it so they can access those things that they rely on, that are vital to their work, to their life and to their livelihood in an easy and fast way.

These online renewals and the system that ICBC will set up in place to support it…. My hope is that this piece of legislation will move through the House and pass. After that, they will move to the implementation and setup phase. What that will mean is making sure that their systems are in place in order to do this.

One of the questions that I’ve been asked, a couple of them, since we introduced this bill is: “What about fraud, and how are you going to prevent it?” That’s the time that ICBC will take before it’s available to the public.

Obviously, your identification is very crucial not only for licensing but also we want to prevent any kind of identity theft. So when people have their licences and they’re using them to access whatever services and drive or to show their ID, that nobody can impersonate that.

So you have an online renewal or replacement system that will be safe and easy and available to British Columbians across the province.

Of course, I also heard that some people do like to show up at the office. They like to go down to the office to get their licence renewed. My mom’s like that. She likes to go to the bank. She likes to deal with cash. I think that’s just a normal, human thing for some people. So customers will continue to have the option to apply in person. But it’s a new and expanded option to allow British Columbians to avoid wait times, obtain services at their convenience and more easily access services from remote locations.

[5:40 p.m.]

I recently had the opportunity to visit the ICBC driver’s licence renewal office just in Burnaby, close to my riding. It was great to see the staff there. They have automated systems they have set up. They’ve done a lot to modernize their offices. Grateful for the staff for welcoming me and showing me around.

I had the opportunity to set up as me getting my driver’s licence. I did a driver’s test with a person that worked there. I don’t know if everybody remembers when they took their driver’s test, if they have a driver’s licence, but it’s a very nerve-wracking experience.

I remember I was sweating buckets when I did it when I was younger, and for me, it was the parallel park. I grew up in a very small town, so it was the parallel parking. We actually didn’t have a stoplight in Sparwood, so we had to practise how to do it at a stop sign. We had one stoplight, I guess. I remember that nervous feeling.

And we had this really fun experience at that ICBC office, where somebody who was a driver’s licence tester sat in shotgun as I drove around the office and kind of mimicked what a driver’s licence test is like these days.

Another thing about cars these days, like mine…. It beeps, so I very rarely shoulder-check — maybe I shouldn’t be saying that on the record — to the level that I probably did when I was doing my test.

So we have this really interesting, engaging and fun experience of driver’s licence testing and how they do that process at ICBC, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think I had it on the record at the end that the driver’s licence individual that tested me said that I passed and did a good job. I don’t know if they were just saying that because I’m the minister, but I’m going to take it. It was a really fun experience.

I really appreciate the work that they do with that office and for them hosting me that day that I showed up.

ICBC is going through a modernization process in general. Ever since enhanced care came in, in 2021, they’ve been able to turn themselves around from what was, as the Premier called it, a dumpster fire, where they were really losing money, which was affecting the base rate and the premiums across the province. Also, governments were using the revenue for other reasons. Since that — and I think you can credit it to the leadership at ICBC and the change to no-fault — they’ve turned their operations around in some pretty significant ways.

For about seven years, base rates have been solid and steady and not increasing. They’ve also been able to do things like what we’re talking about with this bill, which is managing, expanding, modernizing their services, including investments that will make it easier for British Columbians to access things like driver’s licence renewals.

Also, just clear to say to everybody…. A question that I also get on this is: is it just driver’s licence or is it other services? Some people just have their B.C. service card or B.C. identification cards, and the intention is for that to be also part of the online renewal and replacement.

It will not be available to people that have infractions or some kind of fines related to their driver’s licence because, obviously, I think, there’s a drive to get those people in so they can pay their fines and clear their record in whatever way that’s necessary for ICBC to be able to renew their licence.

ICBC is going to continue this process that they’re on right now, of expanding their services and modernization process, including with this step, so this bill hopefully will get the support of everybody in the House. We’ll move along through the process, and then we will charge ICBC with doing the implementation work that they will take to get this up and running for British Columbians.

The amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act also make some minor amendments related to driver’s licensing and clarify the authority to provide exemptions from fees under the act and regulations. It’s often something that happens. When we open up an act, we find things that also need to be updated or fixed. That usually is the case, and that’s the category of those amendments that we’ll be bringing in as well.

As we debate this bill, I think it’s also an opportunity to talk about what it means to have a public insurance company in this province. I have already talked about the benefits when it comes to base rates, and now we’re talking about the benefits when it comes to providing better services to people.

I think it’s an example of how, when government takes action on making a service public for the people — like public insurance, and setting that kind of system where ICBC is the public insurer — what that can do for drivers and what that can do for rates, cost of living and services.

[5:45 p.m.]

Other provinces are now looking at similar models as ICBC. There are a couple of provinces that do have a model that’s similar to this public insurance model that also has really low rates.

I know Alberta is looking at a model that will be similar or looking at our model to see how they can use this concept of having a public insurer to drive down the costs and move away from a fault-based insurance model that was, essentially, driving up costs in ways that meant that a big chunk of the expenses went to legal fees. People had to wait before they received any benefits at all, and that process could take years.

I think ICBC…. Even though no-fault insurance ended in 2021, ICBC still has — I don’t have an updated number off the top of my head — about 10,000 litigation claims that are still lingering from that time period. It just goes to show you how slow it was for a lot of people. These are people that had claims that haven’t been resolved yet — at least seven years since that’s been something that they’ve been able to resolve.

This idea of no-fault has really transformed the way insurance is in this province, including the costs, and now with bills like this, the services and the way that services can show up for people across this province.

I’m really pleased to be speaking about this in second reading and to have introduced this bill. I’m really grateful for all the work that ICBC does. They touch every corner of the province. Everybody, probably, that has a driver’s licence has entered one of these offices.

Another thing that I got to see when I was in that office is the people that were stepping out that had just passed their tests. That was something too. They had a young person that was running towards her dad saying: “I passed. I passed.” It’s quite a thing in somebody’s life to pass that step into being able to drive and have your driver’s licence. It’s a really important part of people’s livelihood and their lives.

I’m really pleased to bring this bill forward, and I look forward to the debate.

Steve Kooner: I rise today to speak to Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026.

This is a practical bill. It is a modernization bill. Frankly, it is a bill that is long overdue.

At its core, Bill 6 finally brings British Columbia’s driver licensing system into the 21st century by allowing eligible drivers to apply to renew their drivers’ licences online, rather than requiring every single person to attend in person at an ICBC office.

As the Attorney General was just mentioning earlier, this piece of legislation also allows to renew your B.C. Services Card or your B.C. identification online as well. This is an important change in terms of modernization in this province in driver licensing and ID, but it should have been done years ago. It shouldn’t be a revolutionary thing here in 2026.

For years, British Columbians have asked a simple question. “If I can file my taxes online, renew my passport using more technology, manage my banking online, why can’t I renew my driver’s licence online? Why can’t I do it?”

We went through COVID, when a lot of government departments were shut down and access to government services were minimized. A lot of people were asking to have accessible services. If we had this online service way back before COVID, we could have assisted many British Columbians.

[5:50 p.m.]

Although this is a good thing — to modernize and to allow online renewal of drivers’ licences and government ID — it should have been done a long time ago. Other jurisdictions moved in this jurisdiction years ago…. Yet in British Columbia, drivers were still required to physically attend a licensing office — take time off work; arrange child care; drive sometimes long distances; and wait in line for what, in many cases, is a straightforward administrative renewal process.

Like I said earlier, this reform should have happened during COVID. It should have happened when government offices were restricted. It should have happened when we saw massive service backlogs. But, I guess, better late than never.

One of the things I hear consistently from constituents in my riding of Richmond-Queensborough and across British Columbia is this. Government processes take too long. People are busy. They are raising families, running businesses, working shifts, commuting long distances. Every unnecessary in-person requirement is a hidden tax on people’s time. Bill 6 acknowledges that it’s time for modernization.

Section 25 is amended in this bill so that applications may be made in person, through an online platform or by another prescribed means if the applicant meets a criteria set by regulation. This is common sense. Like the Attorney General mentioned earlier, it does not eliminate in-person services because there are still many people that prefer to visit a government office to actually get service.

This piece of legislation, also, for the most part does not remove safeguards. There are some concerns, though, and important points raised. How will it prevent fraud? The Attorney General was speaking to this earlier and said that the safeguards will be shown as this program is rolled out by ICBC. But that’s an important concern.

British Columbians deserve transparency to actually know how this program will be rolled out and to make sure their personal information will be protected. At the same time, they will be able to get their drivers’ licences and government ID in an efficient manner.

Then there are the concerns that the Attorney General mentioned earlier in terms of how people want to make sure they’re protected from identity theft. This is a good thing. It’s a good thing, and it’s long overdue. But we should make sure there are safeguards in place and make sure that this program is rolled out in an efficient manner and also in a manner that protects British Columbians as well.

This bill requires information to be stored. Bill 6 seems to be careful in regards to safeguards, because there are some things that are discussed in this bill. The bill requires information to be stored electronically in a secure database. That’s a good thing. It requires verification of accuracy and allows ICBC to request additional evidence of eligibility at any time. The bill establishes clear rules around electronic signatures and digital photographs.

[5:55 p.m.]

Also, in the new section 33.2, that section ensures that signatures and photographs supplied electronically can only be used for limited statutory purposes. Those purposes are as evidence of the application, for applying the signature to a licence or for comparison under an enforcement provision.

That’s appropriate. We’re not lowering the standards here when we have these types of safeguards in the legislation. We are updating processes.

This bill, Bill 6, also creates a regulation-making authority under the new section 33.1. Under this section, it allows for criteria to be prescribed for who qualifies for an online application, what verification methods are required, how signatures and photos are captured and criteria for mailing addresses for licences as well as criteria for interim licences.

Some may express concern about regulation-making power, but here’s a reality. Technology evolves quickly. Hard-coding technical standards into statute would make the law obsolete within a few years. As I mentioned earlier, this type of legislation or regulatory framework should’ve been adopted years ago. It would’ve helped during the COVID era.

One good thing about this particular bill is that it allows for a regulation-making power. So if there are sudden changes and we need to adapt this legislation and the online framework for renewing drivers’ licences, that can be done through regulation, and that could be more of an expedient process.

Allowing flexibility by regulation ensures security standards can evolve, fraud prevention tools can be strengthened and identity verification methods can be updated. That’s responsible governance, when you can have these types of safeguards in place. We need to make sure that as the implementation happens for this online renewal process, these types of safeguards are preserved moving forward.

Bill 6 also modernizes the way that we handle interim and duplicate licences. It clarifies information around these types of licences as well. It requires individuals who recover an original licence after receiving a duplicate to notify ICBC and destroy the original. It closes loopholes and strengthens accountability, so there are some practical improvements throughout this piece of legislation.

The bill also requires licence holders to notify ICBC within ten days if their email address changes. In a digital system, contact information matters. If services are moving online, communication must be reliable. This provision supports that transition.

Let us be clear. The success of this reform depends on the capacity of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia to implement it properly. The bill and the subject matter of the bill appear to be something that should have been adopted a long time ago.

The concerns, I guess, are in terms of how this new process for renewing drivers’ licences online will be rolled out and how it will be implemented. I think some information is missing still, and some of that information will probably be coming forward when this process is actually implemented moving forward.

The success of this new online platform will really depend on how ICBC implements this process. ICBC must ensure cybersecurity protections are robust, identity verification tools are strong, fraud detection is proactive and service standards are maintained. This House expects nothing less.

[6:00 p.m.]

Online access should mean improved service, not new frustration. One of the lessons of recent years is that government modernization cannot always lag behind society. We have to be cognizant of what’s happening amongst our surrounding environment. We have to know how fast society is moving forward, and with that, we must adapt. We must have the proper technology.

Like I mentioned earlier, in the COVID era, when a lot of services were shut down or minimized, it would have really helped if we had this type of technology. We can take that as a lesson that we can’t be reactive. We need to always be thinking proactively when we’re looking at government services and tools of accessibility.

In terms of the COVID example, when the pandemic hit, we saw how vulnerable outdated systems were. Service backlogs grew. Appointments became scarce. People waited weeks and sometimes months for service. Had the online renewal been in place earlier, much of the pressure could have been alleviated back then. Once again, this bill reform should have come much sooner. The government should not need a crisis to modernize basic services.

It’s important to emphasize that online services must not replace in-person services for those who need them. That’s an important point. I’m glad that this legislation talks about that as well. As the Attorney General alluded to, there are certain people…. Despite the technology, they like to deal with in-person services. This legislation seems to strike a balance, still keeping the existing system as well as adopting a newer system.

Not everyone is comfortable online. Not everyone has reliable internet access. Seniors, rural residents or vulnerable populations also must not be left behind if they have sparse internet access or sparse access to online platforms. Bill 6 maintains in-person options. That balance is important. Modernization must expand access, not restrict it. So we must keep what we currently have, but we must expand on that.

If this system is implemented properly, online renewal will reduce lineups, shorten wait times, free up in-person staff for complex cases, improve customer service.

To add to the point of freeing up in-person staff for complex cases, the Attorney General is giving examples of people going into ICBC for driver’s licence examinations or other services. Now, if certain time is freed up for people that are providing service within ICBC, wait times could be cut down for providing other complex services, when, say, driver’s licence renewals or government ID renewals are allowed to be done online. That’s an important point.

The online renewal process will improve customer service. It will lower administrative overhead, overtime. This is all good for drivers. It’s also good for ICBC, and it’s good for taxpayers.

This bill broadens regulation-making authority regarding fees and fee remission. This allows government to provide exemptions and to deal with fees in an efficient manner. This type of flexibility can support fairness, particularly in hardship-types of situations.

[6:05 p.m.]

Now getting into this bill, clause 1 makes some minor housekeeping amendments. As you get further into this bill, there are other things that are lumped into here that don’t specifically talk about renewals of drivers’ licences or government IDs, but I guess, like the Attorney General mentioned earlier, once legislative changes open up, sometimes there’s a new can of worms you’ve got to worry about and you might as well fix those as well.

Otherwise, we’d be back here talking about another amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act. And that would just take a lot of time from, say, other bills we have to debate here in the House.

Once again, I’ve seen many bills come through this House. I’ve always stressed clarity is very important. Getting rid of ambiguity is very important. And part of this bill — it does that as well. It brings a little bit more clarity to the Motor Vehicle Act. That’s very important.

At the heart of this bill is a simple principle. The government should be as efficient as the people it serves. British Columbians live digitally. They expect secure online platforms, clear communication, reasonable timelines and modern systems.

It is not unreasonable to expect that renewing a driver’s licence should take minutes online, not hours in a waiting room. At times, when people are visiting government offices, they are waiting. They’re waiting, they take a number at ICBC and they sit down and then they wait through a timeline. A lot of people have to go to work. A lot of people have to drop their kids off at school.

Literally — because technology is moving faster and we see the economy moving faster; we see everyday life moving faster — government service technology cannot lag behind.

In terms of this legislation, the intent is good, but it’s to be seen what the safeguards will be in the implementation. A serious focus should be put on that because we have never had this type of change before where we’re dealing with identification being brought online. This should be a very important thing for the government to make sure that the process moves as smoothly as possible.

Once again, we have to have strong cybersecurity safeguards and clear eligibility criteria for who qualifies for an online renewal of their government ID. We must have transparent implementation timelines.

It’s a great thing that we’re debating this legislation, but the thing is implementation. This service was needed a long time ago, so we need to make sure that this online renewal system is up and running as soon as possible as well. We need to make sure there’s adequate funding for secure digital infrastructure and also efficient continued in-person access, although this renewal process will be available online as well.

The expectation will be that this modernization will not be delayed further by a regulatory lag. There is a part of this legislation that will be requiring regulation and will be requiring implementation as well.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hopefully the technology does not get delayed through a further bureaucratic process. Hopefully it happens as soon as possible.

In conclusion, this bill reflects a necessary shift, one that aligns government services with modern reality. It is practical. It is overdue, and it is welcome. Online renewal of drivers’ licences is not a radical reform. It is a basic modernization step that should have been delivered years ago.

Today we’re finally moving in that direction. Let us implement it properly. Let us implement it securely. Let us make sure that we can ensure that British Columbians see real improvements in service.

Harman Bhangu: I rise today to speak on the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026.

I want to start off by highlighting that there is some good in this bill and there is some bad. I’ll give you the good first.

One thing I’ll share, a personal thing about myself. I actually have to renew my licence this year. I wish this bill was on the floor years ago so that it can speed up that process. Especially being in the trucking industry, working for the family business — it’s busy. Life is busy. There is less and less time, more and more, for more and more British Columbians. This could really speed up the process. That is something that I just want to highlight.

Moving along with a new digital age is very important, especially when you’re going to be able to speedline things, especially being in this line of work. When you’re here, our time is limited. It really helps when people can access services and move on with their lives in an adequate amount of time. Waiting in lineups at ICBC, going to the DMV…. Everyone knows the lineups, how long it takes.

You know what? It’s not just the stress on the consumers, the people going there for this service. It actually helps the workers a lot. A lot of the abuse they face when they’re dealing with situations…. People are in a rush. They’re always pushing them: “Hey, can I get this process done faster?” This will help mitigate a lot of those issues, and a lot of the workers at ICBC will have a lot more stress-free time at work.

The big thing here is the reduce in wait times. I really think that is going to be something that will really help a lot of industries and be convenient for families with busy schedules — like myself; like my wife at home.

She’s at home right now, and when she has to get a renewal, this would really help her. Having the kids around the house, you have to take them to the DMV, wait in the lineup. Kids are getting upset, crying, and the whole office is up in arms saying: “Hey, calm down over there.” This could really help a lot for a lot of people.

Also, travelling British Columbia…. I’ve had the honour of travelling this province, and one thing we need to wake up and realize is that the life here in the Lower Mainland isn’t the same in the rural parts. A lot of people would have to drive for hours just to get a renewal. They’d have to set appointments. Sometimes there are traffic delays, road closures, weather. Those are some issues that will be mitigated through this process, and that’s why I support this program for that cause.

This can actually really help modernize how ICBC can focus on road tests and complex cases. It could really help maybe modernize some of the trucking ways — the way they do the pre-trip inspections — and a lot of things that they could focus on and adapt and bring up to standards. This bill will apply to use some of that workforce in areas where it’s really needed.

Another thing I like with it, too, is when we implement a system that modernizes things online, we can always develop on it and add things to it with the scrutiny. That’s why we’re in this chamber here today discussing these bills. We talk about the good, we talk about the bad, and that’s the best way to actually come up with a bill that’s balanced for British Columbians.

[6:15 p.m.]

One thing I would like to say is that some of the stuff I was reading in the bill…. I do feel there is a sense of safeguards in there for proper identity verification and security safeguards, but there are some shortfalls as well. That is something that I look forward to and our caucus looks forward to discussing at the next stage, when we’re in the debate stage.

There are a few things that I just want to touch upon that have been a little…. You know, I like the way that it modernizes the BCID system and the service system, and I think we can actually use this in other areas.

Right now we’re seeing extortion cases climbing. One thing that I had talked about was an identification system right here in British Columbia that we can implement, where we can have people go into online verification, get that facial recognition, so our CCTV cameras can pick them up in the future. That could help the police services solve some of the crimes. That is something that I’m really passionate about — getting some support systems in there.

One thing we can also do if people are here in this country, in this province, with foreign IDs…. This could be a simple way to speedline that process, where they can actually get a BCID so we have them in our database.

Talking to police officers during this extortion crisis, they say, “We can run across a criminal. They’ll have one ID. The next day they’re released,” or whatever it is, “and they can have three different IDs with different names on them for a different country,” which makes it hard for the police to actually identify and see if it is a legitimate ID.

That is a way that we can roll out this service to maybe have it added on for temporary foreign workers who are here or students on permits and visas. It could actually help us track some of those situations.

Something that I do have a little bit of concern about is how are….

Noting the hour, I reserve my place to continue at the next sitting and move adjournment of the debate.

Harman Bhangu moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Stephanie Higginson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section C reports Bill 4 complete without amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Now.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 4, intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2026.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Bill 4, intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2026, has been read a third time and has passed.

Hon. Josie Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. The House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:18 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation
(continued)

The Chair: All right. Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of Supply, Section A, 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 (continued).

John Rustad: Before lunch, we had a little bit of time. We talked about a few things.

I just want to clarify one sort of thought, because reconciliation is what we’re trying to achieve. We’re working with First Nations. We’re trying to reconcile the past, the differences and the issues that have gone on and find that path forward.

Perhaps I should ask for the ministry’s definition of what reconciliation is to the minister. More importantly, how do you know when you’ve achieved it? When is it completed?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s kind of a philosophical question, I suppose.

I know we’re in budget estimates here with hard numbers and talking about how many full-time-equivalents, etc. But I do appreciate the member’s question around what we are trying to accomplish, what reconciliation is.

Looking at that word, I said: “Okay, so what are we reconciling?” I think the definition or a description of reconciliation, actually, to my understanding, came from First Nations people — the idea of coming back to a place of togetherness.

The idea is that in the early days of colonialism, when folks like Simon Fraser, James Douglas and others were arriving, there was, at least with James Douglas, an initial attempt to find some sort of peace, of working together with nations, acknowledging village sites, acknowledging their way of life, acknowledging rich culture, rich traditions and working together.

Now, there were, as the member knows, many, many years where B.C. and Canada did not work in a way that respected Indigenous Peoples, did not work in a way that respected their rights, their homes, their villages, their communities — in a large way. I see the objective of reconciliation as getting back to living in the right way together.

As the member knows, I’m in a long-standing marriage. The member is in a long-standing marriage. There can be times when things get bumpy, but you work it through. You listen to each other, and you’re still here to stay.

We’re here together. I think as Chiefs will say, as I say, we’re all here to stay. We want to find a path together that we can walk honourably, respecting the history and respecting the future.

I don’t see reconciliation as “here’s one day we tick a box, and boom, we don’t have to do anything together anymore.” I think, in fact, reconciliation together is a journey together. Will you find it? You’ll find it when you know it. I think it’s a matter, again, of respect and ongoing relationship, not “we’ve met a relationship, and now we don’t work together anymore.” It’s an ongoing commitment to each other to work respectfully.

A treaty is probably one of the best examples of how we do that work, finding that path together of respect under the law in a government-to-government relationship — or tripartite, I should say, relationship — including Canada.

John Rustad: The reason for asking that question is that, obviously, it’s the core of what you do. It’s your budget. You’re spending money to try to achieve this, so it’s more than a philosophical question. It’s, if you want to call it, a deliverable. It’s a measurement of success, or not, of a particular ministry, of the particular ministry’s engagements in everything that it does.

Is it achieving reconciliation? That’s also why I asked the question about how you know you’ve achieved it. If there isn’t a definition, then it’s always a moving target. You don’t necessarily achieve it.

I appreciate the minister taking a stab at talking about this path, this journey that we walk together, in terms of it. But once again, if there isn’t something that is measurable, then you don’t know if it’s achieved.

Part of the reason for asking this question is out in the public…. It’s fine to have government-to-government-to-government relations. But reconciliation has to be about bringing people together. It wasn’t just Douglas working with a nation. It was the people working together on the ground.

[1:40 p.m.]

That, to me, is what reconciliation is: bringing the people together. Governments set the stage for that to happen through the agreements and discussions.

It also means: what does that look like when it is done? Obviously, it isn’t done and you go your separate ways. This is a marriage, not a divorce, in terms of it. But it still has to have a conclusion in terms of how it’s achieved. That’s why I’ve asked the question.

I don’t know if the minister would like to spend any more time elaborating on that, but it’s how you need to measure success as your ministry. How is that path together looking? How do you know when you’ve achieved it so that, quite frankly, the public can understand what government and nations are trying to achieve in terms of reconciliation?

I don’t know if the minister wants to expand on that at all. If not, that’s fine. We’ll pass it over to my colleague in terms of the next questions. But that was the reason for it, and that’s sort of what I was wondering about in terms of how we can actually see an achievable.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member will know — certainly in his time and in his region and, indeed, in his time travelling across the province — that no one nation is exactly the same as another. The objectives and the desires that you see in the northwest may be different than in the northeast or the southeast or Vancouver Island versus a very dense urban Metro Vancouver.

In terms of the objectives and how you measure…. In an ongoing relationship, things do change too, and situations change. So maintaining that relationship is also about reconciliation. It’s finding that path of being together. If you’re not together anymore because you’ve gone your separate ways and you disagree and you’re not listening to each other anymore, obviously you’ve got to do some reconciliation. You’ve got to reconcile your differences and find a way, a path, together.

The successes. Certainly, I see them every day across the province. I see them in small ways, and I see them in big ways. You can see it in a larger-scale treaty-style agreement. You might see it in a smaller agreement.

I think of Semá:th Nation and the work they were doing around Lightning Rock and how that work progressed — just as important in that journey of reconciliation as an agreement like Lake Babine, which I know the member was involved in. Each one is a bit different, and you can measure them, I think, based on: is the relationship improving? Are you finding ways to lead to greater prosperity, better opportunity, better support for the kids in the community, safety, health care, etc.?

It’s not just a…. How do I put it? You find that path by walking together, and that work benefits everybody. I think that’s where the true path of reconciliation is. It’s about lifting everybody up and, as the member mentioned, ensuring that we’re bringing the broad public with us on this journey together as well. It’s not just government to government to government because the nations also have their own constituents and their own members that they are working with as well. So it really is about leadership together from the ground up.

Scott McInnis: I just want to thank the minister and the staff here for the opportunity to ask some questions about this file. I genuinely respect the minister and the work of the ministry that is taking place. This is hard work, and I think it’s critically important that we get this right.

I firmly believe that in referring to my colleague for the next five, ten, twenty years, whatever it is, we certainly have to work hard to make sure that we are on a positive path here when we’re talking about reconciliation.

[1:45 p.m.]

I know my biggest advocacy piece that I’ve been vocal about is transparency. I think it’s critically important that the public is brought along on this reconciliation journey, because it ultimately involves all British Columbians in this work.

Just for the staff’s sake, I’m going to steer and look at some section 7 stuff here. It appears that, specifically perhaps in the northwest, we’re moving toward an industry standard of section 7 agreements in order to proceed with various resource development projects.

Just a really simple question to get started off. With the most recent section 7 agreement that was announced between the province and the Tāłtān around Eskay Creek, would the minister just be able to provide a number value as far as how much actual provincial money in cash will be transferred to the Tāłtān Nation as part of that section 7 agreement under DRIPA, please.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, section 7s are a tool in the toolbox. I wouldn’t say they’re the industry standard. Certainly, they have been used. They’re relatively new.

Now, the section 7 agreement signed with Tāłtān was signed a number of years ago. It was not just signed this year, and there is no funding associated with that signing of the section 7.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the answer. I think it is linked to the approval of the environmental assessment under that component of that section 7 agreement. It has been documented. We’ve heard numbers of $1.2 billion, plus another half a billion dollars in work contracts and things like that.

I’d like to get an answer from the minister if I could. Under the umbrella of the section 7 agreement, again, what transfer of cash was given in order to approve that environmental assessment?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member was talking about the environmental assessment process, and that office is not held within this ministry. The Ministry of Environment would probably be the best place for questions around the environmental assessment, in terms of potentially mining critical minerals, and around the mining aspects of that agreement.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that answer, and I’ll circle back either to Environment or Mining for the specifics or the details of the mineral tax revenue that will go to the Tāłtān as a result of that agreement.

Could the minister describe to me what criteria are used in order to, let’s call it, initiate or kickstart a section 7 agreement? We’ve seen other projects proceed without section 7 agreements. In the northwest, with the Tāłtān and other First Nations that reside there, why is a section 7 agreement necessary in this case?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the interest. I think we have a small staff team that does focus on how we make different kinds of agreements together, how we find pathways to working together, getting stuff done and getting stuff built.

I think the Eskay Creek decision obviously just demonstrates how working in good, collaborative partnership can lead to great results. I think we’re going to start to see those results. Certainly, Tāłtān Nation is very keen and has a proven track record.

I guess that’s part of the answer: a nation has to express interest. There has to be proven administrative capacity. Obviously, these are not easy agreements to find, so they have to be able to demonstrate that they have the administrative capacity and governance strength to be able to participate as a full partner in these sorts of processes.

I think we’ve only done a few section 7 agreements. I know some people are saying: “Oh, they’re everywhere. They’re all over the place.” Well, the reality is that it’s a fairly new tool. It’s one of a number of tools for how we find agreement, how we find forward action together.

Certainly, it’s also around administrative fairness, ensuring that there’s a process that could, if need be, go through the courts, stand up to administrative fairness principles and those kinds of things as well — because you want to make sure that if you’re doing this, you’re doing it right — so that companies know what they expect, so that groups that you’re working with understand what the expectations are and that there is a fair process for everybody.

In the end, as I’ve heard nations express it and I’ve heard companies express it, their desire is, of course, to get more stuff done — not to slow things down but to get stuff done in a way that respects the needs of the neighbourhood, the needs of the community — just as, I think, the member would expect for how you make decisions. You’ve got to work with the community that is impacted by those decisions.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that answer from the minister. I think what I’m trying to get to the root of here is beyond administrative capacity, because I think there are ways to address that.

When we’re looking at something like the Eskay Creek with the Tāłtān Central Government and then, say, Centerra’s Blackwater Mine, there are, I believe, five nations that are involved in that project that didn’t require a section 7 agreement.

What are the different consultation standards between these various agreements, that one would require a section 7 agreement and one doesn’t? I want to get to the root of that.

I understand there are administrative capacities of nations. We’ve seen that with various projects and undertakings around the province. Again, I think there’s a fair way to address that which doesn’t burden First Nations with having to navigate through the legalities, the paperwork, all those pieces.

That’s what I’m trying to get at: why we have projects that can move forward, specifically, with various consultation standards, and then we have one that can’t move forward without a section 7 agreement. What’s the difference?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Can I just ask the member for clarity? Is he asking: “How do you get more section 7s?” Is he wanting…?

I understand this administrative thing. He’s saying that you don’t need to worry about that; we can do a whole lot more of that.

Is that the question?

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for asking that question. I think what I’m asking….

Again, we have other projects that have progressed and that haven’t required a section 7 agreement, and we seem to have some that do require a section 7 agreement, as in the case with the Tāłtān Central Government.

I understand that administrative capacity is one of those challenges, perhaps, but how is a project able to get done in one corner of the province, either with a single nation or a group of First Nations, without an agreement, while some seem to require them, as we’ve seen with Eskay Creek?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just wonder if the member might be able to tie this a little bit more closely to the budget estimates, because we can, and it has happened in this room, go quite a ways off into another realm of debate. I’m just interested if the member can show me how that exactly relates to the ministry estimates, the budget that we’re looking at today.

Scott McInnis: Yeah, I’m happy to. Section 7 agreements are under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which is a direct component of this ministry. That’s why I’m asking the question.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Normally, my understanding is that, with estimates, you would more closely focus on how budget is being expended. That’s what we’d normally focus on.

I can say that, specifically, different nations have different desires, and there are different approaches based on what the project is; location; how many nations might be involved; history with the nations; nations’ intentions; their interests; and then, of course, what the projects are. So really, it is a case-by-case basis, specifically.

I’m not sure…. In terms of the Tāłtān, I can say that it has allowed us to proceed with, really, what’s going to be a world-class mining project that will help sustain thousands of people’s livelihoods, and I think it’s something we need more of.

Scott McInnis: Let’s circle back then. When we’re talking about section 7 agreements and their drafting and implementation, let’s look specifically at Eskay Creek. How much of the ministry’s budget has been allocated to those section 7 agreements?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There’s nothing specific in our budget line items currently dedicated to the section 7 Eskay Creek agreement for this year.

John Rustad: Just to further along the question and the conversation. It sparked an interesting question in my mind as we were talking about section 7 agreements versus some agreements, for example, in other areas that didn’t come out of section 7. I understand that there are different tools, and you’re using different tools depending on which work well with a particular nation.

But I guess if I can ask the minister to try to explain what the difference is between, say, a section 7 agreement and an agreement that isn’t section 7 that achieved the same results, assumedly, about getting a mine opening and operating.

What are the differences between the two, and why did it require that type of an agreement in the case of Tāłtān versus some of the agreements that achieved the same results outside of Tāłtān?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess it’s sort of a similar answer. There are many different ways to get to a decision, and I think we have a number of different approaches within the ministry, partly through what the nation is interested in, partly what the provincial interest is in and how we find ourselves to come together to get forward action.

Obviously, we’re interested in building prosperity, interested in environmental protection and community cohesion. The list is long of things that we’re trying to accomplish as a provincial government. The nations also have their own interests in terms of what they’re seeking for their membership and for the land in and around where they’re based.

So to say that one is superior to another is not true. I think each agreement and each arrangement has its own benefits based on the context of the situation you’re working in.

John Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that.

What I’m saying…. I’m trying to understand the differences of these two tools — the differences of section 7 versus other tools — and why there would be a preference to use one over another. That’s all I’m asking for.

I mean, I get the differences between nations and the different approaches and what they’re all trying to achieve. I’m just trying to understand why that was required here versus somewhere else and what exactly the difference was that made section 7 successful for Tāłtān versus a different approach.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, I’ll reiterate that each nation is different. I think in this case, Tāłtān has expressed and demonstrated a longtime interest in reconciliation with the province of B.C., a longtime interest in development and in mining in their jurisdiction and a long-term interest in partnership with B.C. So all those factors considered….

Some of this, certainly, is held with the Ministry of Mining, and some of this is held with people who went before me, as I wasn’t there when the initial discussions were happening. But my understanding is that they’ve demonstrated — through their work — capacity, strength, understanding and a desire to look after their backyard and our backyard.

That’s how we came to the decision to work together in this way, to unlock billions and billions — that sounds like an exaggeration, but it isn’t — up in the northwest. This will pay off for everybody in this province and clearly demonstrate how working in close partnership with a nation who has that long-term interest and support for these processes works for everybody.

[2:15 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister highlighting just the Tāłtān themselves. I agree they’re fantastic people who are very forward-thinking and, let’s call it, pro-development. Couldn’t agree more.

Just circling back quickly for a second here. The minister noted there’s nothing specific in the budget related to section 7 agreement drafting and implementation, pieces of that nature. Can the minister just kind of give me a yes-or-no answer as to whether the drafting and implementation of a section 7 agreement is directly funded by his ministry?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I should clarify that there are staff expenses and that there might be incidental travel expenses related to some of these discussions and decisions but also that a large amount of the cost or staffing will be held in other ministries. If it’s Mining-related or Forests-related or potentially Children and Family–related, there would be work happening within those ministries, which wouldn’t be in our budget. It would be within the staff complement that we have currently within the ministry.

I guess there’s a lot of discussion of section 7s, but I should be clear that I think, in the last budget year anyways, there were two. I think maybe there has been a grand total of three — I’m just going from memory here, so apologies if I got that wrong — in B.C.’s history. So two in the last year. One was Forests-related, and one was Mining-related. If the member wants to follow up with more specifics around staffing costs within those ministries, he certainly can.

It would be challenging a little bit for me to go: how many FTEs, exactly, to the half-hour or to the hour? Did you stop for lunch at Harvey’s or anywhere else? I wouldn’t, but you know.

No, never mind. I’m getting myself in trouble. I had lunch already. Why am I talking about food?

Scott McInnis: Just for the record, I love Harvey’s, and I’m glad the minister brought that up.

No, the reason I wanted to talk about that is just to get it on the record that, yes, we can dig into section 7 agreements here, because there are expenses within the budget. Could the minister…?

I guess what I want to ask here is specific to the Eskay Creek project. Was a section 7 agreement necessary to finalize that project?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not going to play a game of theoreticals, of what-ifs, in estimates, but I would say that I believe it was necessary. I think the proof is in the pudding; the proof is in the doing. I think, in this case, the agreement was signed, actually, several years ago, certainly before the member was on the file, before I was on the file. Certainly, the intent was clear then, and I think it has proven itself in the doing.

Scott McInnis: I apologize, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick housekeeping items. If we take a break in this committee, do we get that time reserved back to us in these budget estimates?

[2:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Any timing agreements that are made are between you and your House Leader.

Scott McInnis: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there was some confusion yesterday. I appreciate that.

Maybe just circling back. Could the minister just define what a section 7 agreement is, please.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: A lot of this is available on the website and online. Certainly, I know the members talked about transparency, and I think, if I remember correctly, some of these questions may have been asked last year. I was reviewing the Hansard. Maybe we’re doing the greatest hits.

Anyway, I like Harvey’s too, Member. Don’t worry. We won’t have an argument about that. The burgers, oh boy.

Back to the notes here. The staff told me to stick to the notes, less freelancing, and that’s probably good advice.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: You’ve got a problem with Harvey’s, Minister?

Anyway, section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act provides a mechanism for the negotiation of joint and consent-based decision-making agreements with Indigenous governing bodies.

Declaration Act decision-making agreements help address the challenges of a province without treaty by allowing the province to work with Indigenous governing bodies on matters and decisions that affect them directly. We’re bringing together respective government processes — acknowledging Indigenous government bodies and their processes and acknowledging ours — and ensuring that we can build predictability through these agreements — clarity for business — and encourage investment in B.C.’s economy through that certainty.

I think if the member talked to…. I saw him up at the Natural Resources Forum. Quite a few of the companies, if you talk to them, are very interested in ensuring that they’re proceeding in a good way with nations. In some cases, it’s consent-based kinds of models. In other cases, they’re saying: “Well, we actually don’t need the province here because we’re doing that directly with the nation.”

You’re seeing that happening across B.C. as well. I’ve actually heard of examples of it — of course, in Australia, New Zealand and the United States — where mining, in particular, has been looking at these kinds of agreements and these kinds of approaches.

That being said, as I mentioned, in B.C. last year we had two of these agreements, one in Mining and one in forestry.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that answer from the minister. It actually brings up a question I had sort of had in the back of my mind.

I’ve been wondering for some time. In the instance of this section 7 agreement for Eskay Creek, which is a consent agreement, whose duty is it to actually receive that consent? Is it up to industry, or is it up to the Crown?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear — and sorry if I gave the member any different ideas of what section 7s are — they really are between government and an Indigenous governing body. They’re not between a company and a government. It really is government-to-government.

I guess what I’m referring to is companies wanting to work in good partnership with nations in the best way that they know how. They look at how we work — and how we’ve worked, in particular, in this one example of Eskay Creek — and they say: “Oh, that’s a good thing to aim for.” Although that’s not all companies, to be clear. But certainly at the Natural Resources Forum, that’s something I heard from some companies.

But the other side, too, of course, is just ensuring that the First Nation is clear that they have a strong claim to the area, that they have a strong history, strong presence, strong involvement in that region, and that’s why it has got to be their backyard. It has got to be very much that role for them to take part in the way that Tāłtān has.

Scott McInnis: I thank the minister for that.

The minister will know, because he has seen the Hansard from last year, that, I think, one of the challenges that we’re really having difficulty getting to the crux of is the word “consent” and what that means.

Section 7 consent agreements. The minister last year, and I’m not quoting verbatim, had said that it’s a working relationship and we come to an agreement together. I want to dig into that a little bit.

In the province’s terminology, does a consent-based agreement, such as a section 7 agreement like we’ve seen in Eskay Creek, mean a project cannot proceed unless both the province and the Indigenous governing body agree to it?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess I would refer the member to the Hansard of the Declaration Act debate which took place. I know the member’s colleague certainly was there and supported it at the time. We did go through this for hours upon hours of: what does the law mean? How is it being used? How can it be used?

We are here for budget estimates debate. We’re not reopening legislation. Certainly, if the member wants to get into reopening legislation and debating legislation, there is a chamber for that. I’m sure the member will have his chance.

But to be clear, this is a policy debate the member is looking to have, and we are here for budget estimates.

Scott McInnis: I know exactly why we’re here. Right now we’re talking about section 7 agreements, which are, as the minister has alluded to, funded in part at least by his ministry. So I think it’s very appropriate that we dig into section 7 agreements here.

I’ll just be frank. Is a section 7 consent agreement…? I’ll use the Eskay Creek agreement as an example. Do the Tāłtān have a veto as to whether that project proceeds or not?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, I think we’re treading into policy debate, largely, but I would say that…. It’s right there online. It’s in the Hansard. I think it has been repeated in this House. I don’t know how many times now.

Consent is a meaningful expression of Indigenous jurisdiction self-determination, but it does not constitute an unconditional, unilateral or absolute power. It’s part of a shared governance model that requires governments to work together in decision-making. Where parties disagree, there are mechanisms contemplated in section 7 agreements to resolve disputes and seek a collaborative path forward.

Finally, if people disagree, they can challenge the decision. They are judicially reviewable. It’s not a veto. A veto is a decision which is made without a process, without a structure, often predetermined. In this case, very much there is a judicially reviewable decision there. They have to be backed by administrative fairness principles and by the laws of the land.

If the member is interested in how our team is using these and kind of getting into how the ministry is actually budgeting for them, how we’re planning for them, we can do that. But I don’t believe it’s probably useful for the House to re-litigate legislation which has been litigated quite extensively in this House in chambers for years when we are here for budget estimates for 2026-2027.

Scott McInnis: Again, I think these questions are quite appropriate, as we’re discussing agreements under the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which is funded and supported by this ministry.

It was interesting to hear what the member said and that there’s a consensus agreement that moves forward here.

Is the minister, then, saying, like with the Eskay Creek section 7 agreement or potentially other consent section 7 agreements, moving forward…? Would the province move forward anyway, without consent of a nation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As I mentioned earlier, I’m not really big into playing hypothetical games in this room. I think it’s about the budget. It is about the existing projects.

In this case, we have a successful agreement with Tāłtān, which, as I’ve mentioned, is unlocking thousands of jobs, billions in activity, billions in resources for the province of B.C., and that will benefit everybody.

I’m not going to go down a road of “what if we disagreed together?” because we agree together. And as I mentioned in my earlier answer, there is a process should you find yourselves at disagreement.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that. I’m not a lawyer, so I’ve got to be, I guess, more clear with my language. I asked: would the province move forward without consent? Do they have the authority, legally, to move forward without consent?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As I mentioned, and I’ll read it again, where parties disagree, there are mechanisms in section 7 agreements to resolve disputes and seek a collaborative path forward. Of course, there are also the courts.

I’m not going to get down into a theoretical path of what a court would say, what the fact pattern would be, what nation here, what nation there, what piece of land, what waterway.

The member knows he’s not a lawyer. I’m not a lawyer either. But if he wants an absolute answer, he has to provide an absolute question. Asking questions in the theoretical, hypothetical, without a fact pattern to back them up, won’t lead to a good answer.

Scott McInnis: I beg your pardon, and perhaps my colleague could help me.

The next upcoming section 7 consent agreement…. It has escaped my mind what’s next on the docket here if there isn’t consent reached in the next section 7 agreement.

Red Chris. Does the province have the authority to move ahead with the project anyway?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll say it again. Where parties disagree, there are mechanisms in section 7 agreements to resolve disputes and seek a collaborative path forward. Again, they are judicially reviewable decisions.

Scott McInnis: I’m really glad that the minister brought that up, because I have in front of me, from the Tāłtān Central Government, the Eskay Creek revitalization project section 7.

On page 4 of that — I’ll read this into the record — it’s talking about…. It says for both mining projects, which are Eskay Creek and Red Chris: “If the TCG board, Tāłtān Central Government board, decides to consent, the project can go ahead if B.C. also decides to approve it, subject to any additional conditions the TCG board has identified.”

It also says that if the TCG board decides not to consent, the project cannot go ahead. There is a process that B.C. can use to ask the TCG board to reconsider its decision. However, if, at the end of that process, the TCG board still does not consent, the project cannot go ahead.

My question is: is the permission of the Tāłtān required for this section 7 agreement, yes or no?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Our decision to work with Tāłtān reflects a strong government-to-government partnership that we have built over many years, grounded in respect, collaboration, stewardship. It respects the needs that they see for their people, our people. It respects the need for environmental strength and support, resilience. It respects timing, pacing and finding a better path together, as opposed to a top-down, “we’re not listening to you” kind of approach. I look forward to continuing to work with Tāłtān in finding success, in finding an approach that works for everybody and lifts us all up.

I think, again, to be clear, these agreements are not made easily. They’re not made in most places and most cases. This is a form of agreement which comes through respect and comes through understanding and, I think, as well, requires a level of administrative fairness, judicial reviewability, that requires both parties to act in an honourable way as they review these decisions that have major impacts in the home community of the Tāłtān People.

[2:45 p.m.]

Again, I’m not going to go down a hypothetical too far, beyond saying that the process is set up in such a way that you actually have to defend your decision. It’s not a random decision that somebody gets to make. You have to be able to defend it, and you have to be able to show your work. And that’s on both sides.

Scott McInnis: This isn’t hypothetical. This is talking about section 7 agreements for the Eskay Creek revitalization project and the Red Chris mine. These are not hypothetical resource projects. These are happening in the here and the now, so I’m just trying to clarify with the minister.

Lookit, I’m not here to try and cast a negative light in any way, shape or form on the Tāłtān People. I’m trying to understand the thinking behind the government here as far as setting up an agreement with a First Nation that — it’s plain as day here — has the ability to say: “No, this doesn’t move ahead.”

When we’re in a time here where…. You know, we’re struggling financially in British Columbia, and we desperately need our resources to be responsibly and ethically extracted and sold in order to improve and build upon the service delivery that we want and expect in this province.

My question to the minister, based on that understanding…. It was the Attorney General who said, at the launch of the successful approval here of the environmental assessment with the section 7 agreement, that Red Chris is coming as a section 7 agreement.

My question is very simple. If the Tāłtān do not give their consent, whatever the reason is — whether it’s something missing on the environmental stewardship side; perhaps there’s not a threshold met that satisfies the Tāłtān with mineral tax revenue; whether it’s not satisfied with the number of employees that are offered on these projects — will the province move ahead anyways?

The Chair: Could you just clarify for the Chair? That is the same as your last question. Is there something that you would like to add or a different line of inquiry you would like to pursue so that it’s different from the last question?

John Rustad: If I could just ask for some clarity. When a question was not necessarily answered to its full extent and the requirement to do an additional question…. I’m just wondering if you may give us some direction in terms of how much latitude we may have, because, obviously, a minister may avoid a question, in which case, if we couldn’t ask it again, we can’t get it on record.

I would like a little bit of latitude, if I could — an understanding for latitude from this Chair as to the extent that we are allowed to do our job.

The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that.

The similar question…. We have pursued a similar line of questioning for several questions. The minister has asked and answered. You did pursue slightly different avenues of the question, but this one is the same as the last one.

So you can certainly…. I am suggesting that it might be more productive to lean into a different line of questioning.

Scott McInnis: Thank you for the clarification on that.

Currently how many section 7 agreements are in negotiation between the government and various First Nations? I’m not asking for a location or the various nations that are involved. I’m just asking how many section 7 agreements the government is currently under negotiation with.

[2:50 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess to say that when you’re in the negotiation phase, obviously those negotiations are typically confidential, as you’re not negotiating in public. I would say that, of course, there have been nations that have expressed interest in shared decision-making, but that doesn’t mean that we’re in negotiation with them on those issues.

My understanding is there is one letter of understanding signed around a mining project where there’s an interest in shared decision-making but that we haven’t entered into substantive negotiations. In fact, in some cases, and I’ll have to clarify with the team, that would probably be a better question for Mining, around how they’re doing that work specifically.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Just to clarify, there is currently one additional section 7 agreement. I worded the question very carefully, because I know the minister won’t want to disclose details of with whom or what’s being disclosed. I totally understand that. But there’s one current, active section 7 agreement under DRIPA that’s currently underway.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Dr. Google will give the member his prescription.

But there is, if the member wants to look, a current letter of understanding with Simpcw First Nation specifically. It is public knowledge. We did share that around that one additional…. I think, as the member mentioned, that’s the additional. The member already mentioned the Red Chris project.

John Rustad: We’ve been talking about section 7 and DRIPA. I know the minister has got a lot of staff and resources that are being used for the implementation of DRIPA. We’re seeing projects like Eskay Creek go forward with this, and it makes me wonder.

When the Premier came out just recently and talked about some changes that were required for DRIPA…. “Unintended consequences” I think he might have used, in terms of language. I’m just wondering if the minister could perhaps talk a little bit about what may not be working in DRIPA and what may need changes.

The reason for that, of course, is because obviously there’s a lot of ministry staff that are involved with DRIPA and the implementation, so this is part of what his ministry would be doing on a day-to-day basis.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d say that I think the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has had huge successes, and I think it has brought forward cultural change and understanding with people in a way that’s very valuable.

I think there are certainly learnings and there are things that we can do better. I think that as a province that started with very few treaties, and here we are 150-plus years on, it’s a challenging environment. The member will know it.

I think some of the member’s colleagues certainly seem to support pushing division and furthering mistrust, not all that helpful in terms of building understanding or trying to understand.

If you seek to not understand and if you seek to divide, that’s what you’ll do. If you seek to understand and you seek to try and find a path together, that’s what you’ll do. I think what we’re trying to do is seek a path together.

The action plan is up for review. Certainly, looking at the action plan…. The member can find it online, in terms of the actions across government that we need to take. It’s not this ministry alone that’s learning lessons on how we work in a better way with Indigenous Peoples, with First Nations governments. I think every ministry has a job to do there.

Indeed, as we see with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, they have expressed their commitment to finding that path of reconciliation together, working government-to-government, learning the lessons as they do it. I think one thing that really heartened me at the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference was the number of municipalities that came forward to me — mayors, councillors — to say: “We want to do a better job with the local nations in and around our communities.”

I think I see the former mayor of Telkwa here. Certainly, the folks in Telkwa asked me that question. How do they work better, work in closer alignment with nations? How do they stand up to racism? How do they stand up to people trying to sow division and trying to make claims about people coming for your home, when that couldn’t be farther from the truth? They asked for a path together to do that.

So we are reviewing the action plan. We are reviewing the action plan with stakeholders, industry leaders, municipal governments, First Nations leaders, First Nations communities, and we’ll be sharing as we go.

It’s a work in progress. Sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we get it wrong. But I think the objective is still clear. If we can own up when we make mistakes, if we haven’t been as transparent or we haven’t brought people along as we should, we should understand that.

I don’t think it stops the project or it should lead to stopping all agreements and arrangements with First Nations people, as I know some people have argued. I think, in fact, it means that we need to lean into it and do better to understand each other, do better to work together and give each other the grace and the space and not go to — as I know some members of this House have shared recently — the “First Nations are coming for your home.” Well, they’re not, and I want that to stop.

It doesn’t lead to reconciliation if we have elected leaders making allegations which are not based in any fact and leading to unfortunate circumstances. When you talk to nations, unfortunately, the amount of hate that they’ve had to face recently in their offices, in their communities, at high school, in elementary school, at the store…. A hate that they hadn’t faced five years ago, hadn’t faced ten years ago.

I think we all need to reflect on that. I’ll own my part in that, that I need to do a better job as a minister to lower the tension, do what I can to lead to greater understanding and questions. Just because you don’t know doesn’t mean you’re hateful. To be clear, there are people who don’t understand what’s going on and have serious questions, and we should respect that.

[3:05 p.m.]

But then there are people who do know better, who have made allegations and made suggestions which foment greater division amongst us, increase hatred amongst us, which does have real-world consequences. So I certainly would ask all to think about how we approach this work in a way that builds togetherness as opposed to division.

John Rustad: In danger of violating the direction the Chair gave, I just got a five-minute answer from the minister, and he didn’t want to answer the question. It was a simple question: what’s not working in DRIPA?

Their government has clearly said that there are changes coming to DRIPA because there are changes needed. The Premier has clearly indicated that there are issues. I’m asking the minister a simple question. I need to ask it again because it was not answered.

What is not working in DRIPA, and what changes need to be considered?

The Chair: Sorry. If I may, I’m just reviewing the regulation. We have to be very careful about asking about changes to legislation when we’re discussing Committee of Supply. We can certainly ask about budget. We can ask about planning. But it’s not within the scope to ask about change to legislation. If you’d like to review this section, it’s open here.

John Rustad: Thank you very much. I’m not asking about legislation. I’m asking about what is not working. I didn’t ask about what changes were being afforded. I didn’t ask about the expected legislation. I’m asking about what is not working in DRIPA. That is why I’ve asked the minister this question. I haven’t asked about specific changes.

Clearly, the minister has talked about this legislation from a perspective of what’s being implemented. We’ve talked about section 7 agreements. We’ve talked about these types of approaches.

The government has indicated that there are some issues, and I’m just asking the minister what is not working. I didn’t ask the minister about legislation changes.

The Chair: Thank you for the clarification.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I believe in the member’s first question that he did speak very specifically about the Premier and the Premier’s remarks around the legislation and the court ruling. So he was asking about the amendments and the legislation.

If he has now changed his question to a different one, that’s fair. But the record probably will show that he was speaking specifically about the amendments and the legislation.

John Rustad: I appreciate the little dance we’re doing. I’ll re-ask the question in a simple way.

It’s very clear the Premier has said that there are problems, there are issues, with DRIPA. What issues has this ministry found associated with DRIPA that need changes?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ve found many good hours looking into that blue book. There’s lots there. I recommend it to members. It’s a page-turner — well, maybe.

Anyways, in terms of the member’s questions, I guess our intent with the adoption of the Declaration Act…. I know the member was there and voted to support it — or the former leader of the party, anyways. It is to provide a path forward that doesn’t include court battles over legislative reform but rather reaches agreement on the prioritization, alignment and timing of the work that needs to be done.

Being cognizant of the Chair’s direction, if we’re not talking about the legislation and we’re not talking about that and aspects of challenges with the legislation, as that certainly relates to the advice from the Chair….

If we’re talking about implementation, I can share that one of the concerns that I hear from nations, in specific, is that we don’t move fast enough. I’m sure the member heard it. The government moves too slow. We don’t align things enough. We don’t move fast enough in terms of implementation. We don’t move fast enough in terms of getting mandates to work together. Negotiations and agreements take too long.

One of the things I’ve certainly heard from nations is: “We’re here. We’re ready. Why aren’t you?” I do understand that. They want to get moving on decisions that relate to their people, relate to community wellness and improving life in their communities. They want to make sure that we’re there, ready to go too.

Certainly, if a nation is ready to reconcile any aspect with the provincial government, I want to make sure that we’re ready. I can’t speak for other ministries, but certainly, I understand that they want to make sure that they’re ready to start the work too.

That might be one area that I’ve heard concerns about in the Declaration Act that is very much around the implementation, not the legislation and amendment discussion, which the Chair pointed out wouldn’t be appropriate for this forum.

John Rustad: Actually, it’s interesting. I’ll have to go maybe have a little look at that book too, because I actually think it’s referring to legislation that might be before the Legislature, as opposed to existing legislation. The reason why I suggest that is because we don’t even have a ministry without existing legislation. So obviously, that would rather mute being able to ask questions at all.

In any case, I’m not going to ask another question about it, so you don’t have to worry about flipping through the book and looking for the page. I’ll do that as some nighttime reading, myself, in the future.

I find it interesting, particularly because some of the comments made by the Premier were because of legal action and how DRIPA was interpreted in the court — which is against the very discussion — when DRIPA was brought in, in terms of what its intent was. But I’m not going to go into that either, because I suspect I would get the same rebuke from the Chair and the same dodge from the minister.

Instead, I want to ask about the DRIPA action plan, in which there were 89 priority actions to be completed. The last report had, I think, 78 of those 89 that were either completed or that we’re working on, which is one way of saying they’ve at least opened the book and looked at them, as opposed to actually implementing the recommendations associated with that.

But there were 11 other actions that have not been completed. I’m wondering if the minister would care to provide us with a little bit of detail as to why those action plans have not been completed — why the 11 haven’t even been started and why the other 78 have not been completed.

[3:15 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair. I remember sitting in that role, and all of a sudden, the room goes quiet and you realize everyone’s staring at you. So, it’s good to see you.

Anyways, I would say that across government, steady action and steady progress has been made to implement the action plan. Details, as the member will know, in the latest annual report show that it really is a cross-government priority. It reflects the huge efforts of public servants made to put those words into action.

We’re continuing. Ministries are continuing their actions in a thoughtful, coordinated and strategic way while working, specifically, shoulder to shoulder with Indigenous Peoples to develop mechanisms for cooperation and co-investment in things like housing, infrastructure, economic development, job creation, community safety, sustainable development, natural resources, energy. These benefit all British Columbians when we’re successful.

As the member mentioned, as of March 2025, 78 actions were reported as underway or complete. It is a five-year action plan, 2022 to 2027. We are still early in 2026, and certainly, there was no expectation that all items would be complete in year 1 or all items would be complete in year 2.

I should mention that some of the changes, some of the progress…. It’s not small. It’s not little. These are systemic changes that do take time to roll out, to work across government.

If the member has specific questions for specific actions, this is a cross-government approach. So specific questions related to specific action plan items, if they are outside of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, certainly, the member would be welcome to asking each ministry or ministers around specific items pertaining to their ministry as it relates to the action plan.

I’m certainly happy to take more questions around the action plan review and how we’re working that through.

John Rustad: I just want to get some clarity. There were 89 items to be completed, not to be substantially underway, by the end of the five-year action plan. There’s little over a year to go, as we get into 2027, for this to be completed.

Obviously, the 2026 budget is what we’re here to debate, so there are resources that are being applied towards this. Perhaps the minister can just confirm to me, because this is what I think I heard, that all 89 will be done, implemented and completed by the end of the five-year action plan.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, I didn’t say what the member said, but we hear what we think we hear. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

The intent of the action plan, and it was specific, is to initiate the actions, not necessarily to complete, within the five years. Some of these are really systemic, generational changes, which will take time and will take ongoing effort.

The commitment is to initiate the actions between 2022 and 2027. Certainly, we’re a good way there now, and I appreciate the effort of all ministries and Indigenous governments and Indigenous Peoples, because it’s not just government. We have to work with our partners on these actions. It’s not a fiat, a top-down kind of approach.

It really is, again, about reconciliation, about working together, shoulder to shoulder, on these things. Sometimes those conversations take longer. Sometimes that work requires extra effort. But it’s work we’re committed to.

I certainly appreciate everybody who has put their work into developing that initial action plan and those who provided advice to us and will continue to provide advice to us on how we renew an action plan and how we develop the next stages, going forward, as this action plan takes us up till 2027.

And 2027, of course, ends on December 31, 2027, not January 1. To be clear, it’s a little bit more than a year. It’s closer to two years.

John Rustad: Likely it ends March 31, 2028, but anyway, let’s not quibble over a few months.

However, the minister’s mandate letter does talk about reviewing and updating the declaration plan. There’s obviously work that must be going on this year as part of it.

The reason for asking the questions about this…. It’s always a language that I’ve been used to over the years in many, many reports that have been introduced. For example, Auditors General reports, etc. Government says: “We’ve reviewed, and these recommendations are substantially started or on their way.” Well, the bottom line is they have never been concluded or completed, and it’s just a measuring stick.

That’s why these action goals are so critical. Clearly, the minister is confident in terms of what this means. I’m wondering about the completion of these and what the measurables are. Obviously, where there are 89 recommendations, it’s one thing to say they’re substantially on the way. It’s another thing to actually show measurables, how they’re completed, what progress they’re at in terms of where they’re at and what the expected completion dates of these are.

Can we expect that work from this minister in this fiscal year? Certainly, as he works to renew the next five-year period, whether we can expect any of these existing ones to be bumped into that next five-year period for various reasons or whether or not we’re going to be able to have those measurables from the existing plan…?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In terms of transparency, I’d say that the action plan is probably one of the more transparent documents and approaches that the government has every year. We are required to do regular reporting to the Legislature to monitor progress on the alignment of laws in the action plan in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.

The annual report will be tabled by June 30 each year. For example, the 2024-2025 action plan annual report was released on June 25, 2025, in cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.

I think this is systemic work. It’s interrelated work, so some work can’t proceed until earlier work has proceeded. It’s sequential. It takes place over time. Some of the actions may well show up in future reports as future work is required, as I mentioned earlier. It’s not a one-and-done, easy kind of thing.

There are other items that are more finite and more…. You can say they’ve been completed. Certainly, the member will know, in speaking with different communities, that one person’s perspective on this work is it’s complete and all solid. Well, if they don’t work in that field, they may believe that. But if you talk to somebody else who works in the field, they may say: “Well, no. Actually, I think there’s more work to be done.”

This is an action plan that’s developed in consultation with nations. Really, working with them, they’re pretty darn clear about if we’ve completed the work, if we’ve just started the work, if we are just talking about the work. They let us know pretty quickly if we are following true to the words of the action plan or if, as the member suggests, it’s just talking about talking.

I know both he and I sat on public accounts before and have looked at those Auditor General’s reports. There are a variety of reasons why things take longer than they do, but I’m certainly happy to hear from the member if he has specific concerns around specific action items in the action plan through our ministry. Or, certainly, I would encourage him….

As reconciliation and the action plan is a responsibility of all government, you’ll see it in the mandate letters for other ministers, as well, that they have an obligation to do their work in the best way they can with nations to fulfil action plan requirements.

The Chair: The Chair is calling a five-minute recess. It is now 3:26. If everyone could be back here at 3:33.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. I call the committee back to order.

John Rustad: We’ve been talking about DRIPA, obviously a pretty significant piece of legislation. And we talked about the benefit to the Eskay Creek project and the Tāłtān.

Has the minister or this ministry or anybody in government connected with the ministry actually done any economic analysis on DRIPA in terms of what it would unleash for potential or what it would potentially hold back in terms of economic investment in British Columbia?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’d say the impact of working with First Nations People through a framework like the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has already demonstrated huge results and huge returns to British Columbia.

I think the member referenced the Eskay Creek mine decision — billions of dollars in the region. I think the Mines Minister is so excited about it, he’s talking about it right now, very interested in this project.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No, he can’t stop. He’s very interested.

Anyway, I appreciate the member’s intervention. The Minister of Critical Minerals is really excited.

The Chair: Members, we’re having some difficulty hearing the conversation. Thank you.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you, and thank you to the Minister of Mines. I know those are loud work environments.

Anyway, I’d say that whether it’s forestry, ʼNa̱mǥis First Nation and Western and how they’ve found a path together to develop more logging in that area, more forestry in that area…. You look at a whole lot of decisions that have been reached that are not in section 7 at all. Those are, I think, actually the exception, not the rule, in terms of how we’ve done our work.

Children and Family decisions, decisions relating to children being able to be in community, with community, with that jurisdiction — again, huge opportunities.

I’m kind of going by ministry. There are so many opportunities that we could talk about. First Peoples Cultural Council. You could look to the B.C. Arts Council. You could look to tourism.

But to be specific, we are not currently engaged in, I guess, an economic development study looking at the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and all the untold wealth and opportunity it has unleashed and created. We don’t have that in our budget this year to do kind of an economic analysis on the impact of DRIPA, but I can say that I, certainly, am speaking with quite a few folks.

[3:40 p.m.]

Certainly, nations will tell you what a difference working together in this way has meant for them. But you also hear people saying: “We need to do more. We need to do better, and we need to make sure that respecting human rights, respecting nations and respecting the history of this province leads to better results. So lean into it. Don’t pull it away. Don’t tear it up. Don’t run away from working with nations. Sit down and do that hard work together.” That’s certainly within our budget. We do that work.

I’d say that, again, we don’t currently have money dedicated to an economic analysis. Does the member think that would be a useful expenditure of public money at this stage? Does he think that supporting DRIPA…? I’m just curious where he’s hoping to go with this line of questions.

John Rustad: Hopefully without too much rambling on either side, I’ll rephrase this.

There are many people who invest in businesses who have decided to leave this province. There is a perception out there, right or wrong, that British Columbia has become uninvestable.

I think there’s an opportunity for this minister to show lead and do an economic impact assessment of its policies, particularly of DRIPA, to be able to show to the people in British Columbia the benefit of going further or full implementation.

Ultimately, British Columbia can only be successful if we see the investment come into British Columbia that can help to build and get the revenues for the government and build that quality of life that people want to see in this province.

All policies and approaches that government does should be looked at from that lens. Is it going to improve that environment, or is it going to hinder that environment? If it’s going to be hindering, what could be changed to help? If it’s improving, great. We should be talking about it. We should be encouraging people to see it and have the investment.

I think it would be well worthwhile if this minister and this ministry would consider doing an economic impact assessment of its policies, particularly of DRIPA, from a perspective of what it could unleash.

I’ll just state that it was many, many years ago now when there was a question put to economists with regards to resolving the Indigenous issues in British Columbia. This was long before the minister of reconciliation even existed. They put this question forward and said that there would be the unleashing of tens of billions of dollars if there could be some resolution to some of these differences. Obviously, that created a huge spark of interest and allowed government to be able to do some significant investments.

When I was minister, the business community came and said that we need to be doing more of these types of agreements we’re doing to unleash more of the economic opportunity and did some analysis in terms of what that benefit could be.

I just think it’s prudent of any government to be able to show the numbers, do the assessment and say, “This is what it will unleash and unlock in British Columbia,” or if it comes out and says the numbers aren’t that way: “What could be done to be able to improve the situation so that we could create this?”

Is there the opportunity, whether it’s through his ministry or whether it’s through work with one of the other ministers, through the work that his ministry does, to do that kind of an impact assessment and to make it public so that we can dispel this notion that British Columbia has become uninvestable? Or if it proves it out, at least we can then show that there are changes that are needed.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I should be clear from the top. B.C. is very investable. I know the member said: “Well, some people say, rightly or wrongly, that B.C. is uninvestable.” I think we all need to be clear, and I hope the member is clear, that B.C. is investable and is highly investable. We’ve all got to get on Team B.C. here.

I don’t think we can be playing the game of “oh, nobody can invest here,” because people are investing here in huge numbers. I don’t want to steal from the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals, but last year, I think, was one of the best years, if not the best year, for mineral exploration in B.C.’s history. I think, in terms of the record-setting pace of new mines and expanded mines, the minister, it seems like every couple of weeks, is up announcing a new mine or a new investing opportunity across B.C.

I see the Minister of Energy. Massive investments in clean energy, with equity partnerships with First Nations Peoples. Huge opportunities.

B.C. is an attractive place to invest. Certainly, I’ve had companies coming from Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., Europe saying: “We want to come invest here. We like what you’re doing. We like your high environmental standards. We like your work with Indigenous Peoples. We like your labour standards, that you work well with the unions and that you found a pathway together to get to certainty. We’re interested in investing in B.C., and we want to come here.”

I know some members…. I think it was the member for Richmond-Queensborough. I’d asked the member to maybe speak to his colleague. He called B.C. a toxic hellscape. That’s not how we attract investment. That’s not how we attract good opportunities to B.C. — talking down our province. I think we need to talk up our province and seek more ways to attract investment rather than trying to encourage it not to come here. We need to be working to make sure it can come here.

We’re seeing that the proof is in the doing — massive investments, in partnership with nations, in support of nations, in support of B.C., in support of all of us. That’s something that I think we need to continue to do. In terms of if there is a question of whether or not working with nations in this way is a good thing, clearly it’s a good thing. It’s a major project in itself.

On the Treaty Commission. The Treaty Commission recently published a report, which I think is certainly instructive, that talks about the opportunities in treaty to find that certainty, to find that path, so that nations are also unshackled from the Indian Act and really given that rightful opportunity that they should have always had and certainly would have had, had the Indian Act not set in, in the way it has. It’s a major project. It’s billions-plus dollars to the provincial economy.

[3:50 p.m.]

When you think about it, we talk about billions. These are good jobs for people. These are opportunities for families to grow. These are opportunities for them to see their future and their dreams come about — secure housing that we are doing together, shoulder to shoulder. It’s an opportunity.

I don’t think it’s a question of if it’s right or if it’s wrong. I think it is right to work directly with nations and to support investing in B.C. It’s a very investable place, and we’re encouraging everyone to come and look west, so to speak. I guess if you’re in the east, look a long way west, and eventually it’ll come here.

But I’d say that we’ve got to get this going, and we’re supporting it through the work we do in this ministry, with all ministries.

John Rustad: I find it interesting. We’ve been talking about this, and I’ve just got a few words I need to read into the record.

In the Court of Appeal case with the Gitxaała against British Columbia, it essentially ruled that DRIPA incorporates UNDRIP into B.C. law with immediate legal effect. That was never the intent when it was debated in this House.

To that point, the Premier himself now concedes that this created real confusion and that this actually needs to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s creating lots of stability, I’m sure, for a mining sector which ranks quite poorly, quite frankly, compared to many other jurisdictions in this country.

I also think it’s interesting, just in terms of it…. How is it that a law that’s supposed to clear up enough in the past — unanimous, and all this kind of stuff — needs to have emergency amendments in the Legislature and be appealed to the court, the Supreme Court of Canada, for clarity? Yes, this has really created an environment that people just want to jump in and say: “Give me some of that. Yeah, I want some of that certainty that we have in this province.”

DRIPA has its values. UNDRIP has its values. But there are, certainly, issues that have clearly been created. The Premier himself, the court said, is having to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarity, having to do, quite frankly, a constitutional challenge on what this means and how it’s being implemented in this province.

I’m going to move on. I don’t have a question associated with this, because there’s no point, clearly, in asking a question. It has been very clear in the other questions I’ve asked that the minister isn’t interested in going down and answering this, and I don’t want to further waste our time in this thing. We’ve got only seven hours to go into many other topics that need to be gone into associated with the Indigenous file.

With that, I will pass it over to my colleague.

Scott McInnis: I’m just curious what measures, what funding, what structure, if any, the ministry has around public engagement when it comes to the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, specifically relating to sections like section 3, which has the alignment of all B.C. laws within the Declaration Act itself. Is there a mechanism within this ministry to engage with the public on these very specific issues?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Every ministry is responsible for their own engagement work in relation to section 3. They may choose to engage in a variety of ways. I couldn’t give the member a budget figure for what each ministry does because, of course, each ministry is responsible for its own budget and how it’s allocated in relation to this question.

Scott McInnis: I specifically asked about this ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and what their budget is for that.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the question specifically was on this ministry. Does it have a specific public engagement line item for public engagement as it relates to the Declaration Act? The answer would be no.

Scott McInnis: Perhaps, again, because I think public engagement around these issues is quite important….

I think my next question would be: has the ministry considered a public engagement fund within the budget in order to have a public ad campaign, something to engage the public and inform them on specific sections of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act? If that’s something that they are considering, why don’t they currently have that?

Obviously, the Declaration Act is far-reaching, and it touches all of our lives. Certainly, why the ministry doesn’t have that public engagement fund…. Are they considering something, moving forward?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I understand, I think, where the member is coming from here.

It’s rare that the opposition would argue that the government should spend public funds on advertising what they’re doing and promoting the work, but I do certainly share the member’s enthusiasm for spreading awareness of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the benefits it has.

Maybe that’s not what the member was referring to, but I certainly think that there is room for me and for all of us to do a better job. There’s a lot of misinformation being spread about what DRIPA does. I’ve seen tweets that people have put out that DRIPA means that the nation can take your home. I’ve seen tweets put out that certainly scream out for public education, including within this House.

We’re doing a number of things to, hopefully, bring people together around what these things are and what they’re not. I think, if the member is willing, I’d certainly be happy to work with him around public education within this building, to ensure all members of the Legislature understand what the Declaration Act is, what treaty is.

I think the member had the benefit, hopefully, of attending treaty 101 with the B.C. Treaty Commission to go through what treaties are and what they’re not. I think there’s certainly room for improvement there.

I’ve heard from nations across the province that they believe there needs to be stronger public education because of the amount of racism that they’re facing, because of the amount of misinformation that’s being spread at the local political level, and they don’t want to see it continue.

Some of them certainly have stepped up in a big way to lead on public education. They’ve reached out to members. They’ve offered education sessions. They’ve offered to share. I believe the member mentioned at one point about the work he has done with some of the local nations in his area, in a previous conversation we had.

The more we can lean into this, the better. If the member has a proposal of how we should do this, what we should fund and so on, I’d be interested.

But at this stage, certainly, public engagement largely is run through the government communications and public engagement division, which is outside of our ministry. Further questions around what they’re choosing to spend and how they’re choosing to spend it, of course, would be appropriate within that ministry.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that.

I think what I’m getting at is that this government doesn’t necessarily have a great reputation when it comes to transparency around, let’s call it, reconciliation in general. I know the Premier alluded to that yesterday in his press conference, that they need to do better.

I’m wondering. The minister mentioned that they’re doing a number of things in order to talk to the public about what the Declaration Act is about and what it isn’t. I’m just looking for specific examples of what those are.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we all have a duty to answer the questions that our constituents have. One thing that we do a lot of in this ministry is having those person-to-person conversations, having those discussions with industry groups, with municipalities and with other associations to share how we do this work. We engage directly to hear concerns, to hear questions and to hear ideas for improvement.

I think that if we want to improve the public’s understanding of reconciliation and the work we do, we all need to take it on ourselves not to share things that are untrue, not to torque up agreements and decisions for political gain when the facts don’t bear them out.

I would, certainly, urge members, with what influence they may have, to speak with colleagues who shared things like: “The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm are coming for your land.” They’re not. Sharing stuff like that is inflammatory. It doesn’t lead to greater understanding. It doesn’t lead to greater cohesion or harmony. It leads to distrust. It leads to racism. It leads to aggression. It doesn’t lead to greater understanding.

The member, I know, as a former teacher, would want to make sure that people had the facts. It’s totally fair to ask questions. I think the concern is that in some places, questions are being asked in such a way as to make people believe that they’re going to lose their homes when it comes to reconciliation, when that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

I think that’s really where I draw my line in terms of what I’m doing. I’m taking on the misinformation very directly. If that’s debate on radio shows, if that’s on TV shows, if that’s in person, if that’s in discussion, it’s something that we need to do.

We’re doing that, as I mentioned, directly with industry, directly with local governments, so that we can answer the questions, put the concerns to rest and endeavour to do better with people, bringing them along with us — together. That’s what reconciliation is. It’s really about us coming together to reconcile past differences and challenges in the relationship and to find that path of respect together.

Scott McInnis: I have to push back a little bit here, because I’ve heard the minister revert several times to misinformation. Yes, there is some of that out there, absolutely, but ultimately, that falls on this government.

If we want to go back to 2024, we have the shíshálh foundation agreement signed in August, conveniently shelved during the election and released to the public in January. People draw their own conclusions. I received a copy of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement yesterday afternoon. I had calls to my office and emails to my office all weekend about this. The government said nothing about it.

Naturally, people do draw their own conclusions when we have a situation where the public is nervous and anxious about what happened with Cowichan and the relationship between Aboriginal title and fee simple title. I can’t say that the government was overly forthright in communicating to the public what was happening there either.

I think that when people tend to draw their own conclusions, I would say that it’s because the government is not telling them what’s going on. I’m getting a little bit frustrated with the minister insinuating that it’s somebody else’s fault. When, in fact, we have numerous examples here of major agreements taking place, we hear nothing from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and we hear absolutely nothing from the Premier.

Naturally, when we see something like the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement, which on the surface, until we got a public copy of it yesterday, said that in the traditional territory of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, they have declared Aboriginal rights and title, in an agreement they came to with the federal government….

The Premier was sitting there when this was signed. I have a really hard time believing that this government is hiding behind: “Well, we didn’t know about anything, and we couldn’t tell the public about it.”

[4:10 p.m.]

I’m getting a little frustrated with the minister saying: “Well, it’s not our problem, and these divisions are coming out of nowhere.” That, frankly, is a lack of accountability and leadership.

I can go on and on about agreements that have been signed with this government and this ministry where they haven’t told the public for a period of time. That’s extremely frustrating. Yes, people are upset, and people are angry. People are nervous. Yes, they are drawing their own conclusions.

Tell them something. Tell them anything. The Premier was at the signing of this Musqueam Indian Band and the King of Canada’s agreement. He could have said something like, “There’s a major agreement coming to the public. Here’s what we think it’s about,” if he didn’t know what the details were.

I’m not going to sit here and get lectured, I don’t think, anymore from the minister about misinformation when government has information they’re not sharing with the public.

Section 3 of DRIPA talks about alignment of laws, obviously in statutes. I’m just going to start with a simple question, because the Declaration Act falls on the plate of this ministry.

Is it up to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to make recommendations on section 3 alignment to other ministries, or do other ministries make recommendations to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation on section 3 alignment priorities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The Declaration Act secretariat, which, as the member rightly points out, is within our ministry…. Their job and the staff’s job — they’re good, hard-working folks — is to provide advice to ministries that are looking at legislative changes on their obligations for consultation and cooperation. We provide advice to those ministries, but each ministry is responsible for the obligations in terms of that work.

Scott McInnis: I’m just hoping the minister can walk me through how specific statutes are prioritized to become in alignment under section 3 of the Declaration Act. What kind of rubric do they use or discussion frameworks do they have in order to determine that, okay, for this law, it’s time that it gets put through a section 3 lens under DRIPA?

I’m just wondering if the minister can enlighten us a little bit on how that process works.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, each ministry is responsible if they are looking at potential for amendment of laws or introduction of new laws. Certainly, they have their relationships directly with nations and will have heard from nations around areas of priority, just as they hear from any British Columbian about areas of legal improvement or change that they want to see that would improve their lives. That’s no different.

I think each ministry has that obligation to listen and hopefully act when they need to, to improve those laws and legislation in a way in cooperation with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples.

I’d say it in terms of the action plan as well, of course. There are a number of laws that were seen to have the highest interest from nations for a potential change or amendment to bring them into alignment. Certainly, listening to nations and looking at the work government wants to do and is set up to do is how we come to agreement around which ones take the priority on a ministry-by-ministry basis.

Scott McInnis: I think we’re getting there, Minister. I just want to be clear in my mind here.

So an individual First Nation would recommend a change to a statute to the corresponding ministry, who then brings it to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, who then, if they have four or five different ones coming at them, prioritizes which one actually gets drafted. Can the minister just clarify that? I think we’re getting there, but just for some clarity.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t think we’re quite getting there in a sense that the member might have heard me or understood me in a different way than I intended.

What I’m trying to express here is that we’ve worked with many First Nations and First Nations leadership organizations. Through that work, they’ve identified a few key pieces of legislation that they think need work.

We on the provincial side look at what we need to do and where our priorities are, and we find that agreement together. Just because somebody has said that this needs to change now doesn’t mean that it will change now. I think we try to do the best work we can in the time we have with the people we have.

Now, that’s not speaking to the work of other ministries. That’s speaking to the work specifically within the Ministry of Indigenous Relations. But if a different ministry had heard from nations or Métis People that they needed a change, they wanted a change in legislation, that would be something that they would take up with that ministry to make the case for why they felt that needed to be changed.

[4:20 p.m.]

That wouldn’t stop them from coming to us and arguing that it should be something that should be on an action plan. But in terms of each ministry, each ministry looks at what they need to do, what their priorities are, what tools they have, what staffing, etc., to make decisions in terms of whether they proceed to legislation. Do they forward that work? Do they do that work?

That’s held in those ministries, but the action plan certainly is with us. Developing a list of laws that we were seeking alignment on over time — and I should say again: “over time” — is something that we do here. But in terms of each ministry, that would be held at the ministry level.

Scott McInnis: I thank the minister for that answer.

Does it ever work the other way around, where a ministry or the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, which I should use in this context, being that this is the budget estimates here…? Do they ever recommend, whether it’s the leadership council or other leadership organizations, that they may want to look at aligning statute X for this reason? Does it ever work the other way around?

The minister was very clear in explaining that it usually comes from nations to government. Does that ever work in the other direction?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think, in an earlier answer I gave, I spoke about interests of nations but also interests of the province and that certainly we are at those tables. We work in partnership, and we have objectives. We have goals.

As I mentioned, in the same way a constituent can come and knock on your door at your constituency office and argue that a law needs to be changed, we hear that too. Other ministries hear that too. It could be a constituent or it could be a First Nation coming to say…. It could be a business coming to make arguments. That’s how laws get changed.

I think the idea that only one group could say “this is the way” is, of course, not correct, because the province also very much puts on the table our interests and what we’re needing to do and objectives we have that we hope nations share. We make the case for why they would need to be involved in that work and what we’re doing and what our intent is.

Scott McInnis: I think we’ve seen two somewhat recent examples of attempted alignment of section 3 with two important statutes — one being the Land Act and the other being the Heritage Conservation Act, which has failed due to what appears to be a lack of public engagement.

I’m just wondering if the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has provided recommendations across ministries or specific to those ministries, either WLRS or Forests, as to how to engage more productively on that piece. I’m just wondering if the ministry has provided any guidance on that.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, the Heritage Conservation Act, I’d say, is still a live document. It’s not failed and finished.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think the work is ongoing, to my understanding, with the Ministry of Forests, who is leading that work in public engagement and in work with nations but with municipalities, with industry and others. Certainly, the member could ask questions around that with the Forests Ministry, around that question as it relates to their budget, I’m sure. And he probably will.

I’d say that we provide advice, as I mentioned earlier, to other ministries in terms of how they can do cooperation and consultation, how they can do that work in relation to Indigenous Peoples. In terms of the broader…. We’re not the government communications and public engagement arm, so I can’t speak to other public engagement and other work other ministries should do or should not do in terms of public engagement. That would not be advice this ministry would provide.

We would provide advice specific to working with Indigenous Peoples.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister.

I think my last question on this specific section, around section 3, is…. I actually don’t have the Declaration Act in front of me, but there is language around making every reasonable effort to align British Columbia’s laws and regulations with the Declaration Act.

Just a simple question to the minister: is the end goal here to align all existing statutes with the Declaration Act?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, clearly the alignment of laws is a complex process. It does take time. It takes a lot of work, and it has got to be done in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples.

But it has also got to work for laws that meet the needs of all British Columbians. We know that there has been frustration on the speed of this work. We know that some want it to go faster, and some want things to go slower. Some want to be more involved, and some want to be less involved. We need to and we will continue to provide support and guidance to ministries and ensure consistent approaches are taken.

The work continues to unfold in a number of ministries and, certainly, through ongoing commitments that the member could reference in the action plan.

John Rustad: I’ve talked many times here today, so far, in terms of estimates about the importance of consultation with First Nations on so many different things and working in partnership with First Nations.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hopefully a relatively simple question. As the Premier has talked about potential changes to DRIPA, what consultation has this minister undertaken with First Nations around the province with regards to potential changes to DRIPA?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m just reflecting on the Chair’s guidance earlier around legislation and specifically around amendments. I didn’t forget that guidance, and this is budgetary estimates. This is focused on how we are spending the people’s money. I wonder if the member might be able to draw the question more closely to budget as opposed to legislation.

John Rustad: How much money has the minister spent on consultation with First Nations around DRIPA and the potential changes that may be coming or that may not be coming? Associated with that, which nations has the minister engaged with? Has the minister asked those nations to sign a non-disclosure agreement?

If the minister could provide a list associated with it and, also, how much money has been spent out of his ministry or is planned to be spent out of his ministry associated with engagement on DRIPA.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think this is a similar answer to the question which was also similarly asked earlier — almost the same question, really. This is staff time. Staff time is engaged in this question.

There’s no extra funding currently from this ministry for hiring outside bodies dedicated to this that has been spent at this time.

John Rustad: In discussion with the desk, I’d like to go back to my question to the minister, which is for a list of First Nations that have been engaged with regards to DRIPA and potential changes to DRIPA as well as whether NDAs have been signed by those nations associated with those changes.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I wonder if the Chair might be able to provide a little direction, because I’ve heard the member has engaged with the desk and I wasn’t privy to that discussion. I just want to make sure that I’m able to fulfil the budget estimates as best as I can. So if I’m able to get some direction around that question.

The Chair: The vote under consideration is Vote 34, which includes a variety of activities. It does include cross-government coordination of engagement with First Nations.

We’re going to try to keep this focused on the estimates and the monetary estimates and make sure that we’re not going to stray too far. I think we’re walking really close up to the line here about what we can and can’t cover, but it is focused on Vote 34. There is some room in Vote 34 for this conversation, but we’re paying close attention to how close we’re walking to the line.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair.

It’s no question and no surprise. I think that we have engaged with First Nations leadership, Métis Nation B.C. We’ve engaged with modern treaty Nations to talk about the work we are doing.

I think the member talked about DRIPA. I talked about the action plan earlier and work that we’ve been doing in that field to engage and understand what their priorities were and what their objectives are in how the act works for them or if they have suggestions for improvements to that act in terms of legislation.

John Rustad: So I take it, and maybe the minister can clarify this, that no actual nations were actually engaged, just the leadership council and various other bodies representing interests of First Nations of B.C. But actual First Nations themselves weren’t engaged with regards to the changes in question.

Maybe the minister could just clarify if that’s what the minister actually said.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear — I’m sure the member didn’t intend it — modern treaty Nations are nations. Certainly, they’ve been engaged, as has an invite to all Chiefs and councils to be engaged if they should so choose.

John Rustad: I’m glad to hear that all Chiefs, 204 nations in B.C., have been…. Letters went out to them offering opportunity to engage.

Perhaps, if that’s what I heard the minister just say, he can confirm that and, also, with regards to that, whether or not they were required to sign NDAs before they had an opportunity to see what the minister would like to have shared with them.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes. All First Nations Chiefs were sent an invitation for engagement on this.

John Rustad: The second part of it was: were they required to sign an NDA before they received any information?

Just for those who are playing along at home, we like to use these acronyms. A non-disclosure agreement.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, as the member would be aware, understanding his former time in cabinet, development of legislation is typically done in a confidential manner. I’m not going to get into a “which Chief signed what” kind of debate around this, but the member would understand that legislation is developed in a confidential manner.

John Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s answer on that.

I want to move on to talk a little bit about the recent agreement that has been in the news with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation. I’ll maybe just start with a simple question. At this particular point, as of today, has the minister received a full briefing on this agreement?

Maybe I’ll just start with that.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My ministry received copies of the agreements last night, or I received a copy last night after the House rose. Certainly, I have done my best to review it in the short time I’ve had between bedtime and getting home from the House and then waking up and coming right back here — so not a lot of time. Sleep is important. I certainly would recommend it, but we don’t get enough these days.

But, I guess, what I can say…. Certainly, my staff team is reviewing the documents. We are now in the middle of estimates, so that work is, I guess, underway, but much of that work stops as we focus on trying to answer the members’ questions.

I can say, from what I’ve been able to glean from the agreements that the federal government made with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm in a bilateral way, they’re meant to be incremental — a step-by-step approach, really, for future discussions between the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm.

Canada has indicated that the agreements provide general recognition of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm rights, but no lands are included, and there’s no recognition of Aboriginal title, to my understanding, to any particular parcels of lands. They’ve indicated “within” means they don’t know where, so then they would work towards negotiating an agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm.

But again, it’s between Canada and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. We weren’t party to that decision or agreement. The only reference to the province is: “xʷməθkʷəy̓əm or Canada may propose to the other to include the province in scoping discussions or negotiation. However, both parties must reach agreement before the province can be included.”

[4:45 p.m.]

From that, it seems to be pretty clear to me that we were not at the table, and we’re not involved in those discussions as of yet. No party has invited us in this, as the agreement was recently signed.

But hopefully that’s somewhat useful. I have reached out to the federal minister to certainly share my displeasure at learning about this through the news. I think that we should try and proceed in less of a surprises kind of environment and more of an approach that we’re all here together. But again, the federal government can make what decisions they make with nations on a bilateral basis, as is their right.

Scott McInnis: Just trying to tease out some timeline stuff here because the Premier said yesterday that he had no line of sight on this agreement when, in fact, he was sitting in the front row on February 20 when the agreement was signed. So he certainly did have line of sight on this.

I had an exchange yesterday with the minister about this agreement. The minister conveyed to me that he hadn’t seen the text of the agreement, and I believe him. But I think my question is: between yesterday and going back to February 20, was the minister aware that an agreement had been signed?

The Chair: Member, given that Vote 34 is before the committee, I want to ensure that the question is relevant to the consideration of ministry estimates. Could the member please illuminate myself, the Chair, as to how the question that you’re asking relates to Vote 34?

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the direction. I think money will be spent from the ministry on this, so I’d just like clarification around that timeline.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As this is an agreement between Canada and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, it does not relate to financing through this vote. We are not spending money on a Canada-xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement, as it’s wholly held between those two parties.

John Rustad: Just to clarify for the minister, the minister just explained that the staff are reviewing it, which means money is being spent out of his ministry today to look at this agreement. If the minister has an opportunity, it would be great to hear his perspective on that question that was asked.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member answered his own question in terms of expenditure relating to this. Reviewing a decision by another level of government, it will take staff time. The member is correct. In terms of going forward, sure.

But we were not engaged in any sense, and the budget wasn’t engaged, because we were not engaged by Canada or xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. I think that speaks to the answer to the question.

Scott McInnis: Just to clarify, there was no money spent in the ministry on staff that was reviewing this agreement before yesterday.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As I stated earlier, we didn’t get a copy of the agreement until yesterday, so no. There was no staff expenditure prior to receiving that agreement, as we were not involved in that agreement.

John Rustad: I just want to read into the record, for those playing at home, just one verse here from this agreement as part of the preamble, “xʷməθkʷəy̓əm has unextinguished rights and title within the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm territory. xʷməθkʷəy̓əm continues to exercise rights and title within its traditional territory,” which I find kind of curious. How do you exercise your title when title hasn’t been defined? But needless to say, it’s an interesting way of putting it within this particular agreement.

[4:50 p.m.]

“The existence of xʷməθkʷəy̓əm unextinguished rights and title within xʷməθkʷəy̓əm territory is not contingent on recognition by court declaration or any agreement.” That’s the one that has me wondering.

I understand this is a federal agreement with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, but land, land decisions and land parts of agreements are the sole purview of the province. The feds come in on it, but it is by our constitution, to my understanding, that the land component is, certainly, the requirement of or under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

But this is why I want to ask this question. I understand the minister is not involved in this, and the ministry is not part of this. But I’m very curious on how a level of government could be agreeing to rights and title not contingent on recognition by court declaration or any agreement.

I believe earlier we talked about working through, whether it’s through treaties or whether it’s through other agreements, how to recognize title and wanting to do this through agreements and through that whole process. Obviously, the courts are another way that title is recognized.

How is it that the province, first of all, was not at the table? But how is it that a government could actually agree that the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm have the right to the title without any court declaration or any agreement?

Like I say, I recognize this is not the minister’s agreement, but I think this is a very disturbing statement for a federal government to make, given the land jurisdiction of the province. Whether this minister plans to actually push back against this type of an agreement being signed by the federal government outside of its own jurisdiction….

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member again answered his own question. It’s not our agreement. I can’t speak to what a minister or what a staff member or what a team at the federal government level would have decided, how they came to decision, why they came to decision, what certain text meant versus what other text meant.

Really, I think the member’s question would be more appropriate for the federal government. Certainly, we’ve reached out to the federal government to better understand their thinking here. But again, it’s not our agreement, so I can’t answer for what the federal government may or may not have been thinking.

John Rustad: In fairness to the minister, that wasn’t the question I actually asked. The question I asked is whether or not this minister and this ministry was planning to push back against the federal government for including that kind of language around that sort of ability of the nation to have that recognition of title without going through agreement or court declaration, which is the process by which this province has worked on. It is the province’s jurisdiction and ability, solely, to deal with the land question.

For example, when we did incremental treaty agreements, that needed to be addressed, associated with Treaty 8. It was the province that had the right and ability to come forward with the land, not the federal government. The province had to be there. The federal government comes forward with the money side of things. When treaties are signed and treaties are reached, it is the province that has the sole jurisdiction of agreeing to the land that is in these agreements. The federal government is on the other side.

Now we’ve got an agreement that has come forward by the federal government which is recognizing that xʷməθkʷəy̓əm title is not contingent on recognition by court declaration or agreement, which means it can bypass the provincial government.

Does the provincial government, this ministry, plan to actually push back against the federal government and say: “That’s not your jurisdiction. You should not have entered into that agreement without the authority and without the agreement of a provincial government”?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It probably doesn’t surprise the member, but as he knows, we got the documents last night, so we are reviewing the decision. Staff are doing that work. They would be doing that work and having the conversation with me if we weren’t here right now doing this work, I’m sure, but we are here doing ministry estimates.

There is a full legal review looking at implications and possibilities so we can get a better sense of what Ottawa is thinking and what xʷməθkʷəy̓əm are thinking. That review will take place to better understand where they want to go and what they see this agreement meaning and how, potentially, it might play out between the two of them.

As the agreement says, and the member mentioned it, the province is not involved, and only if both parties want us to be involved would we be involved. There are lands that are not provincially held, and I speak specifically to reserve land. That may be some of the conversation the federal government is having with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. I’m not sure. Again, I’m not at that table.

John Rustad: Like I say, I just find it interesting that that kind of agreement could be in place, but perhaps that’s something that will have to be further pursued through other avenues. Obviously, if the minister doesn’t have staff capable of being able to answer those questions today within his ministry on that, I guess I accept that.

Quick question, or maybe not-so-quick question. Obviously, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm is one of the 204 nations in our province, one of the important nations for the Lower Mainland, being very involved with all kinds of things, whether it’s a wide variety of agreements, housing projects, etc.

Could the minister perhaps indicate to us or explain to this House how many different engagements the ministry has with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, on various levels, just to give us a sense of how much engagement work this ministry is doing with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm on a day-to-day basis?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Probably no surprise to the member if he has been following some of the work the government has been doing, but we’ve worked fairly consistently with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ — MST Nations — on a range of projects.

Looking at the attainable housing initiative, how we support major events and looking at issues, as many nations do, they raise issues in terms of housing, in terms of the needs of their members.

I know that xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, for example, is very interested in the environment and the waterways and ensuring that the fisheries are healthy. Now, that’s largely held at the federal level, but they engage with other ministries. I can’t speak to their engagement with other ministries and how often they meet.

But I can say that they’re an important partner that has helped us achieve a lot in Metro Vancouver in terms of support for housing and support for dealing with issues in terms of tourism, working with them in terms of engaging the broad public in the rich cultural histories that exist in our province.

Chief Wayne Sparrow has been a good partner. He has been very clear. I think he’ll tell you right up that he’s not interested in coming after people’s private property. That’s not something that he supports. He doesn’t want what was done to First Nations People done to others, in terms of having homes taken. That’s not the spirit of reconciliation.

Certainly, in that sense, we’ve developed a good relationship and with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm council, as well, in their work in Metro Vancouver.

John Rustad: I remember my time working with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. We had lots of engagement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. Chief Sparrow has been a very good and effective Chief, I think, for the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People.

I’ve met with them and talked with them many times, both socially as well as professionally. It does seem to me, from what the minister said and, certainly, from the evidence that I’ve seen, that there has been continuous and ongoing engagement, whether it’s FIFA, whether it is housing, whether it is children in care, whether it is health, whether it is the airport lands, whether it is Quw’utsun decisions going on. There are all kinds of things that this government has been involved in on a regular basis with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People and should be.

So xʷməθkʷəy̓əm are obviously one of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh in the Lower Mainland, where the vast majority of the people live. Lots of overlap, of course, with the others, Coast Salish Nations, etc. So lots of issues have come up.

Perhaps just a quick question. Can the minister honestly say that through all of those engagements, through all of that time, through all of those points of contact between the ministry staff and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People, and the length of time it would have taken for this kind of agreement with the federal government to have been reached, nobody mentioned a single thing to the ministry staff associated with this agreement until it was put in front of the Premier witnessing it being signed on February 20?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I know we covered this earlier, but I know sometimes in estimates it’s useful to ask the question again in a slightly different way and hope you get a different answer.

I can say clearly that I didn’t get a copy of the agreement until last night. I learned about it in the press, as the members did. So no, it didn’t cross my table. There was not a conversation where xʷməθkʷəy̓əm just let slip, “Oh, we signed a bilateral,” or: “We’re about to sign a bilateral with the federal government.” That was not something that came up in the conversations, as we focused on specific work with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm with specific outcomes. It was not a conversation that was had, certainly.

John Rustad: I believe the minister. I take the minister at his word with that.

Just to clarify that question, can the minister please confirm that nobody else in his ministry staff that would have been working with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm on a wide range of agreements, staff that would have been engaged with the federal government on a wide range of other things…? Nobody else within his ministry was aware that there was a bilateral agreement that was being worked on between Canada and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, we knew — and I think the members knew, if they looked at the record — that Canada and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm signed a bilateral agreement around self-government. I think it was over a year ago. So they have been engaged in bilateral discussions.

We knew that they were engaged in those discussions, but as for the content of those discussions, we weren’t party to them. In that sense, that’s about all I can say. We understood they were having discussions in a separate room. I’m sure we would love to be in that room, but they didn’t invite us into that room to be part of those discussions.

Scott McInnis: I have to say that if I was the minister and, in fact, this was the case that the minister really had no idea what was going on here when it comes to the agreement between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band, I’d be outraged. I think the public…. I think the opposition is having a real hard time believing that, to be honest with you.

[5:10 p.m.]

We haven’t really seen a bilateral agreement like this, to my knowledge — and if the minister can correct me, I’d welcome that — of this rights and title magnitude or this rights and title framework, I don’t think, in British Columbia history. So the fact that the federal government did an end-around, essentially, on the provincial government on this is really startling.

I find that really hard to believe, and I hope that this provincial government expresses their extreme displeasure with what appears to be being left out of the conversation entirely on what’s a very, very significant framework agreement here.

Obviously, as I mentioned yesterday, a very prominent First Nation in B.C., whose asserted traditional territory includes Metro Vancouver, an agreement that recognizes rights and title within that asserted territory, including Metro Vancouver, and the federal government didn’t bother to pick up the phone or send an email to the minister or the staff and say: “Hey, this is what we’re working on. Do you have any thoughts, any input? Could you direct me to a meeting with somebody within the Musqueam Indian Band that maybe we don’t know about?”

I just find that either incredibly insulting or maybe not entirely the case. I’m not sure which it is. The fact that the minister is unwilling to address in estimates here whether between February 20 and yesterday he knew about the agreement…. I believe him 100 percent that he didn’t see the agreement. But that he didn’t know….

Again, if I were the minister, I’d be furious with my leader, the Premier, because he was in the front row at this signing agreement. He didn’t bother to pick up the phone or send an email and tell the minister what was going on here? Boy, I would be quite upset, to be honest with you, if that were the case.

Again, this is a very significant agreement. Like I said, because we had a section of time that passed between when anybody said anything, either the federal government or the provincial government, and the public got a hold of this and started to draw their own conclusions….

You know what? In some cases, the public doesn’t always understand this stuff. This is complicated, right? Again, the public does draw their own conclusions when they hear the word “title,” especially in the heightened awareness environment after what happened in Cowichan.

I just think there was a real missed opportunity here for the government, again, to let the public know what was going on here. I’m quite disappointed in that, to be frank, because this general lack of communication in addressing some of these very significant agreements after they’ve been put in front of the public — sometimes a long time after they’ve been put in front of the public — I just think is really not helpful in the overall scheme of this reconciliation plan.

I’m quite disappointed in several ways here. Because yes, it does lead people to draw their own conclusions and realities of what’s going on here, and we can’t blame people for that when they’re not told what’s going on. That’s human nature, although I disagree wholeheartedly with comments that are made which are deeply racist and other things. I don’t think that’s fair and that’s right.

But when it comes to, “What’s happening with my private property in this red circle of an agreement that has been signed? Do I own my land anymore?” I think that’s sometimes a fair conclusion for the public to draw when nobody has told them anything.

[5:15 p.m.]

I would just like to say, to wrap up this bit here…. Just to be clear, leading up and until this agreement got into the hands of the minister — which I think he said was yesterday afternoon — and his ministry, they had no involvement whatsoever in the drafting of, in the negotiation of, in negotiation with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm of or the federal government…? They saw no iteration of this agreement whatsoever?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I shared this in the House yesterday. I shared this in this chamber multiple times. We were not involved in the drafting. We were not involved in the negotiation. So no, there was no involvement in helping create this agreement between xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and the federal government from our ministry. It’s right there in the agreement. If we were involved in the agreement, it would have said so.

They don’t come to us. The federal government doesn’t come to us to say: “Hey, is there someone in xʷməθkʷəy̓əm you know that we can talk to about an agreement?” No, they have a direct government-to-government relationship. In fact, they have a direct responsibility as the federal government to work directly with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm.

I don’t know how to be any clearer that I wasn’t sitting there at the table, that I didn’t have a pen, that our ministry didn’t have a pen writing out the policy. This was a decision between the federal government and the Musqueam Indian Band. I don’t know about the member, but I can think of a whole lot of times that Ottawa hasn’t really understood British Columbia.

I appreciate the chuckle, Member, because this is not the first time that it has been lost in translation as you get across the Rocky Mountains.

John Rustad: For the time being, I’m going to move on from the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement. I want to talk for a minute about title. I touched on this a little bit when we first started out with questions here in estimates.

In particular, I’m thinking about the Tŝilhqot’in case or, as it was known when it was first done, the William case. That was — what? — 12 years ago now when that case was done.

There was a requirement by the Supreme Court of Canada for the province and federal government to engage with the Tŝilhqot’in, particularly the Xeni Gwet’in, with regards to accommodation for impact to title where title had been alienated or where there had been other activities associated with it.

The ministry has, obviously, got people engaged with the Tŝilhqot’in People. I’m just curious as to whether or not, after 14 years, there’s any progress being made on the accommodation that will be required for that alienation of title.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If I might, I just want to give a shout-out to those watching at home. I understand my nine-year-old decided to tune in.

Sorry, it’s not quite as exciting as those other shows that you like to watch.

Phineas and Ferb is his new favourite one.

The province is working with Tŝilhqot’in National Government and Canada to implement the renewed Gwets’en Nilt’i pathway agreement, which was signed in 2024. We share an interest, obviously, in the long-term and orderly transition in the declared title area, including the negotiations of additional lands subject to Tŝilhqot’in ownership, management and control and supporting shared decision-making throughout the territory.

Implementation is being conducted. We’re doing the best we can to ensure it’s done in a transparent manner by engaging with local governments and affected stakeholders so there is a common understanding of the process as it goes forward.

John Rustad: That’s all fine and dandy, in terms of the engagement stuff. The question was around the accommodation, which would be required for the impact on Aboriginal title, as required by the Supreme Court decision, and how those negotiations are going. It has been 12 years. Can we expect that to be concluded this year?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not sure if the member was the minister when this court ruling came out. Certainly, I know he was there for part of it and, certainly, the outcomes.

All that to say, I’m wondering if the member might be able to provide a little bit more clarity around what accommodation, specifically. Is there a specific area that he’s interested in? As he knows, it’s a vast territory with lots of potential impacts and to-and-fros that need to occur.

John Rustad: Yes, I was the minister in charge of that ministry at the time when that court decision came out, and I remember reviewing that court decision and looking at it.

One of the things that’s required in there was an accommodation. As the minister is more likely aware, when you have a declaration of title, whether it’s through courts or by agreement, First Nations, Indigenous People of that nation, have the right to go onto that land, the right to utilize that land, the right to benefit from that land — and not just current but historical or future benefit as well.

If that right has been impeded by some activity of the Crown, whether that might be logging or mining or other activities that could have impeded that right, there is a requirement for an accommodation to the alienation of that title declaration.

The question to the minister is…. This has been a process and discussion that has been going on now for 12 years. Are we getting close? Is the ministry going to conclude those accommodation discussions with the Tŝilhqot’in in terms of that impact on title land?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Earlier I mentioned the Gwets’en Nilt’i pathway agreement, which was signed in 2024. It’s a five-year agreement, which takes us through to 2029. Really, the focus is, again, responding to that court decision and finding a way to work together.

The member used the terminology “accommodations.” Might he be meaning something else? Is he meaning land returns or impact on the nations themselves? My understanding was that it was very much a title declaration and that it was up to us now to negotiate and work with them around a lands package. Is that what the member is referring to?

John Rustad: There are many nations within the Tŝilhqot’in Nation. This agreement was just Xeni Gwet’in. The agreement that you have entered into was about extending further recognition of title and how to implement the title agreement, plus going beyond that. I get all that. That’s not the question.

The question is…. There is a financial impact to title in the Xeni Gwet’in area for the recognition of title from the William case — originally known as the William case, now known as the Tŝilhqot’in case.

That was a requirement by the provincial and federal government to negotiate with the Tŝilhqot’in with regard to what that financial impact would be and to find that accommodation — financial or some equivalent accommodation — to resolve that alienation of title.

To put it in simpler terms, if somebody comes and steals your car, you’re compensated by your insurance for stealing that car. It’s the same type of principle, except this is with regards to title.

That is the question I’m asking. Has that negotiation been advancing, and can it be expected to be completed after 12 years?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, the GNPA, the Gwets’en Nilt’i pathway agreement, is public. The member might want to look at that and some of what’s discussed there.

We are working on a broader set of issues with the Tŝilhqot’in National Government, not focused just exclusively on the question of infringements that the member mentions and the accommodations around that, feeling that we’ll get to a better place and more success if we think a little broader than just that one element.

John Rustad: The reason for asking this is, obviously, it has been 12 years. It’s a big price tag. Every year that price tag would go up. The accommodation for the infringement on title has not been addressed.

But the reason for asking the question is because of the Haida agreement. There has been title now declared over the entire island, including private property and power lines and roads, as well as across all the other activity that has been happening on Haida Gwaii for many, many decades.

There is a requirement, if I remember correctly from that agreement, that this ministry, that this government, negotiate an accommodation for any impacts on those title lands.

Clearly, private property would be an impact to title, because the First Nation wouldn’t necessarily be able to go on to utilize and to benefit from that land because it is owned by somebody else.

The minister is being very clear that private property is not going to be just handed over. So that means there is going to be a requirement for an accommodation — financial accommodation or some other type of agreement — with the Haida People by this government for the impact on title that has now been defined by this government through agreement.

Now, if I’m right about that, that negotiation has to be completed by the end of this year, 2026, or Haida reserves the right to go back to court and ask the courts to provide direction to the governments for that accommodation.

I can understand why Haida would do that. Looking at Tŝilhqot’in, it has been 12 years. They still haven’t got their accommodation, which is why I was asking about it.

The potential accommodation here on Haida could be very significant in terms of the number. Not only that; it will set an enormous precedent in terms of other title cases such as Quw’utsun or others that could be happening in British Columbia.

The question is with regards to accommodation. The ministry is obviously involved. This ministry is at the table in terms of those negotiations in one way, either directly or indirectly, with regards to what that may be.

We’re trying to figure out: where is this going? Is this going to be completed by the end of this year? Can we expect this to go back to court? Obviously, negotiations could go sideways at any time. I’m not saying that this has to be a perfect record, but I’m trying to understand what liability is now being created for the province by this type of agreement and what process the ministry is going through this fiscal year as part of that engagement to resolve this.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just in terms of Haida, and I think the member has moved now from Tŝilhqot’in to Haida in terms of his question, it’s important to remember that positive, lasting change takes time.

The agreement came into effect on July 5, 2024. Now, we aspired to a two-year goal. I think the minister might remember that when the treaty tables were set up, they said: “Oh, we’ll have them all done in ten years.” Well, that has not been the case.

But to say that we have a positive relationship with Gaagwiis, with the Council of the Haida Nation, certainly in early transition discussions with them….

During the transition, of course, existing tenures, permits, licences, leases from the provincial government will continue, established by the province and the Council of the Haida Nation under that current system to make decisions. I think it might have been referenced earlier in the House, going back many, many years. This last year we’ve been focused on listening and working collaboratively with the Council of the Haida Nation, with local governments.

I’d recommend, if members haven’t had a chance, to engage with local governments and the Haida on how they’re finding a pathway together. As one of the local realtors said to me, they’ve got the most certain private property rights in the province, under his view, and that people have been purchasing homes in Haida Gwaii in part because of this agreement. That’s what he argued to me.

So the priority for the transition process is to reconcile jurisdiction in protected areas and forestry first. Addressing issues associated with hunting, fishing lodges and mining is also a priority for the Council of the Haida Nation. For some matters, this, of course, will be a shorter timeline, and for more complex matters, the timeline may be longer.

But I think I reflect on one of the conversations I had where it was reflected back to me that it’s easy to criticize, but once you become the government, it’s a heck of a lot harder. Certainly, that’s being felt in terms of the complexity, in terms of doing this work in a good way with local government; with the Council of the Haida Nation; with the province; and, of course, the federal government.

John Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer.

Reading between the lines with what the minister said, and maybe the minister can confirm or deny it, he basically just said that they won’t reach agreement in terms of that. But they’re going to trust the relationship that they’re building to be able to carry on those discussions in terms of it, which may or may not avoid Haida going to court to find a task for a legal resolution to what that accommodation would be.

I’ll just allow the minister to either confirm or change his statement accordingly.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yeah. To be clear, the two-year timeline was an ambitious goal that both the Council of the Haida Nation and the province of B.C. wanted to meet, but we haven’t been able to meet it. That’s because of work on both of our sides, further work that needs to be done.

I think the cooperation, the collaboration, has been useful, has been fruitful. I think we’re learning from each other and finding that pathway towards an orderly transition, but I don’t think that two-year transition period that was announced related directly to the other part of the member’s questions around compensation. I think the relationship continues to go well, and I’m looking forward to further work with the Council of the Haida Nation.

[5:40 p.m.]

John Rustad: I seem to remember having a briefing from the deputy, back the day after this agreement was brought into the Legislature, which is what creates that sort of concern. I think that was when I’d asked the question with regards to accommodation, and that was when the issue came up about two-year time frames.

Maybe I’ll just ask the minister if he can confirm that Haida have the ability to go to court to resolve accommodation for impacts to title after the two-year period is concluded, should they not be satisfied about the progress.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just double-checked, and yes, the two-year transition period is not connected to that question of court action, infringements and that other piece. That is a piece that Haida is able to work on as they want.

But the two-year transition was very much…. Both of our objective was to try to get there within the two years, and I think we both reflected on it that the work was greater than either side thought it would be.

John Rustad: It’s always great to hear the rate that that’s moving along.

I want to clarify then that the Haida Nation is in a position where, if they are not satisfied with progress on accommodation, they’re able to go to court at any time to seek a ruling on an accommodation for the impacts on title.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, it’s probably pretty clear to the member that nations have the ability to use the courts if they feel that their rights are not being reflected, if they feel that they have not been dealt with fairly. That would be the court process.

Scott McInnis: I’d like to spend a couple of moments, if we could, just on this recent summer’s consent order that was granted in the B.C. Supreme Court. A few questions. I’d just like to clarify around that piece relating to title on Haida Gwaii.

I think it’s important to remember…. You know, I take people at their word. I completely and wholeheartedly believe that. Whether it’s the Quw’utsun or the Haida or now the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm saying, “We don’t want people’s private property,” I fully believe that with all my heart and soul.

But I think that’s a separate issue. Then we see the relationship between title and private property, since the Quw’utsun decision, has become unclear. It has changed. We’re seeing that Justice Young had said that Aboriginal title is a prior and senior interest in the land and that the Land Title Act, which is a protection and gives owners indefeasible sole ownership over their private property, no longer applies. That changes that relationship. It’s not part of the discussion as to the intent of First Nations wanting private property or not.

The fact is that the rules are not clear that in the future, they couldn’t…. That’s the crux of the issue. Again, I fully stand in 100 percent agreement with the minister that there certainly would be no intent today to expropriate anybody from their private property. But these decisions and the relationship around title and private property are very serious ones. We don’t know with certainty and clarity as to what that relationship is between the two and we certainly need it.

I think our province really depends on that clarity and that certainty that, yes, if I purchase property or I purchased property that was then declared to be found to have Aboriginal title pre-existing…. It has to be made clear. Do I own that property outright or not? Right now that’s not clear.

We’re struggling with that, I think, as a province, to figure that out. I think that’s where a lot of this fear and uncertainty is derived from in the public conversation. Sometimes it does get a little off course at times. But I think, genuinely, the concerns that people have are very valid ones. It’s not about, again, intention of First Nations. It’s about the law and what the certainty is around private property. So I want to dig into that.

There is some relationship here between the Quw’utsun decision and Haida Gwaii, which I’d really like to get some explanation on. So just really simply, and to sort of introduce a line of questions here….

This past summer it happened quite quickly, where the province went into court with the Haida Nation to have constitutional protection, a consent order over the title agreement. It happened. I just found the timing to be peculiar, because we had just had that judgment come forward from Cowichan, which, again, put the indefeasibility of title up in question.

[5:50 p.m.]

I think we do need to unpack that a little bit, looking at that specific relationship. When the government did appear before Justice Giaschi of the B.C. Supreme Court seeking a consent order to judicially declare Aboriginal title over all of Haida Gwaii, why did the ministry not give any notice of that hearing to private landowners on Haida Gwaii?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There was a lot in the member’s speech to talk about, to debate, perhaps, and to go through a lot of the different arguments he made.

But what I can say very clearly is: you go talk to local governments, you go talk to local landowners in Haida Gwaii, and they were supportive of the agreement. They were supportive of what we did. I didn’t meet one person in my visits…. I queried people at the restaurant. I queried people at the hotel. I queried people wherever I went. “What do you think?” And they said: “Well, jeez, it’s about time. You guys sure took your time to do this, to acknowledge what we already knew.”

The questions the members have asked about private property…. Well, there are Haida people who are private property owners, and they’re very clear that that private property is their private property. It’s nobody else’s. It’s not the Council of the Haida Nation’s. It’s nobody else’s. It’s theirs. I think that’s very clear. You talk to the local real estate association, and it’s very clear.

People have questions. They have the right to ask questions, yes. But once it’s clear what the answer is, I think to continue to ask those questions as if they haven’t been answered isn’t fair. The member knows. I’ve said it directly, and I’ll say it again, that private property is protected.

It’s not a matter of: “Oh, Haida can just go change their mind and take the land.” No, they can’t. The Supreme Court is very clear. We were very clear in the consent agreement that we made with Haida that private property is protected, and they’re very darn clear that it’s protected too.

Because, as I say, there are Haida people. There are their neighbours. There are their friends. There are their co-workers. They want a strong economy on Haida Gwaii, and that involves private property and following the system as set up under the B.C. system. They’re quite comfortable with that and continue to work with that.

The court has reinforced that through the consent order. They’ve clearly consented that private property — and clearly argued that private property — is protected. So I hope the member will take that and understand it and not continue down the line of: “We don’t know if private property is protected or if anyone’s home might be not theirs.” Because it is clear. It is still theirs. The courts are clear. It’s still theirs. It’s not anyone else’s. That is clear.

I think, including the other statement the member made…. The property rights are clear that these are still private properties. They’re still held, fee simple, by private actors, and they will continue to be. The member did refer….

Sure, I will always say that private property is off the table unless it’s a willing seller and a willing buyer, and that continues to be our approach. That continues to be Haida’s approach. That continues to be most First Nations I’ve talked to. That is their approach. I haven’t heard the other arguments.

I know the member did refer to that and say that, yes, he takes them at their word. Well, if he takes them at their word, then I hope that he would say that, that he would be clear to his colleagues and clear when he talks about this stuff that people’s homes are not on the table.

[5:55 p.m.]

They’re not going to lose their property rights because Haida just decided to expropriate. That’s not lawful, and that’s not how the system is set up in this agreement.

Scott McInnis: I did say that I believed wholeheartedly that whether it was Quw’utsun or Haida or xʷməθkʷəy̓əm or whoever, they do not seek to expropriate anybody. I made that quite clear in my opening statement, and I stand by that.

I think we’ll get back, maybe, to Cowichan a little bit later. But my question was around informing private landowners, whether they were Haida or not, on Haida Gwaii about the province moving to a consent order before the courts. I didn’t hear an answer from the minister about why they didn’t provide that formal notice.

I’d like to be able to ask that question again. Why didn’t they provide notice in advance of that consent order to private landowners, Haida or non-Haida?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, to be clear, I don’t know what’s more public than having a signing ceremony, bringing a law to this chamber, having Haida council, Haida Chiefs here, putting it out in all the media. I believe the former Leader of the Opposition at one point said he was in favour of this agreement.

This was well understood. This was well known. The federal government had similar process. You get up to Haida Gwaii, and you talk to people there. There were community meetings as this was going on. People saw the text of the agreements. They were able to ask questions of the Council of Haida Nation. They were able to ask questions of the provincial government. There was a pretty consistent and continuing, and there still is today, collaboration across Haida Gwaii.

It’s a big island, lots of islands, but not a massive population. Everybody knows everybody, so it’s not like there’s some sneaky, secret thing going on here where the private property owners, all of a sudden: “Surprise!” They knew what was going on. They were involved in those discussions.

In fact, many of them were arguing we should move faster. Why was it taking so long? That’s not just Haida people. That’s folks who live on Haida Gwaii who are not Haida who were making these cases.

There was not some secret thing that the people of Haida Gwaii woke up one morning and: “Surprise!” They were involved from the get-go, and it was part of the conversation on those islands for a long, long time.

Scott McInnis: With all due respect to the minister, I think, probably a year ago, sitting here, I would have kind of moved on, because I wouldn’t have known any better. But I feel like I’ve gained quite a good understanding of this stuff in the last year.

I wasn’t talking about the Rising Tide agreement — the original agreement. I was talking about the consent order before the B.C. Supreme Court, which constitutionalized Aboriginal title over the entire archipelago, including private property.

My question, again, and this is the third time I’m going to ask, is: before going into that consent order agreement, why did the government not inform private landowners, whether they were Haida or not?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We are talking about a consent order. We’re talking about the role of the Attorney General. It was her ministry that took action on that one, so if the member wants further details around that, that would be the appropriate place to ask.

[6:00 p.m.]

But to be clear, the Rising Tide agreement is what was implemented through the consent order, so it’s not like it’s something different, surprising. This is what we told the people of Haida Gwaii we were doing, which was protecting private property, and it is through the consent order, just as it was through the Rising Tide agreement.

I would suggest that if the member has further questions relating to court action and what lawyers did, he should take it to the Attorney General. But to be clear, treaties are constitutionally protected, which is the same as this agreement.

Scott McInnis: The minister said something really interesting at the end of that. This is the same as a treaty. We can go back in the Hansard, if we can get somebody to look at that. Unless my….

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I could clarify, if the member would like.

Scott McInnis: Sure. Would you mind, Minister? Because I’ll leave it alone.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I was just saying that treaties are constitutionally protected, and that’s what we’ve done here, but they’re not the same thing.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that clarification, Minister. I do.

Can we circle back just for a second to the original Rising Tide agreement then? The minister talked about everybody being on board and everybody informed and it’s about time. Just to clarify that. It was well understood by residents on Haida Gwaii, whether Haida or non-Haida, that the government would be entering into an agreement which would include Aboriginal title over the entire island, including private property?

Or is the minister talking about…? It’s my understanding that folks on Haida Gwaii thought they were entering into a reconciliation agreement and that it wasn’t clear that, in fact, the entire archipelago would be declared Aboriginal title, including private property.

I’m not trying to frustrate the minister on this, and I will have one more question which could put this all to bed after this. But just to reiterate, before the Rising Tide agreement — because it does fall directly into the context of the consent agreement; the minister has made that clear — were residents being made aware that in fact, yes, there was a negotiation for Aboriginal title over the entire island, which included private property?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Can I seek some clarity just around how the member is hoping…? We could go to agreements from five years ago, three years ago, two years ago — debate those agreements. But we are here for budget estimates debate, which does involve the finances of the province and the finances of the ministry. I do want to be clear about what our obligation is here and that we’re fulfilling that duty, because that is indeed what we are doing — the budget estimates for this ministry.

If I can ask for either…. Maybe the member is able to ask about what we’re doing this current year, how we’re doing that work with Haida, what is our…. Just because we can go through who said what in the past quite a bit.

Again, and certainly on the consent agreement, that is, as I mentioned, held through the Attorney General.

The Chair: I want to also stress that the Vote 34 is before the committee. So if the member could help me understand how these questions relate to Vote 34 that’s before the committee.

Scott McInnis: Sure, I could help clarify that, Madam Chair. When I was referring to the consent agreement, which constitutionally recognized, I suppose, you could say — if that’s the right way to put it — Aboriginal title over Haida Gwaii, confirming constitutionally the Rising Tide agreement…. That falls directly under this ministry’s purview.

Okay. If we can’t talk about the Rising Tide agreement…. Okay, that’s fair game. It’s too bad the Attorney General’s estimates are already over, so I can’t ask about arguments, I suppose.

I’ll put this to bed if the minister could answer this simple question. I think it would probably answer the question and put it to bed for anybody else who’s wondering, whether it’s somebody who has experience in Aboriginal law or the average person on social media, whatever it is.

Can the minister, then, just clearly say today on the record that there is absolutely no legal mechanism which exists for which the Haida could expropriate private property owners on Haida Gwaii?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t know how I can be clearer or how the Haida can be clearer. These are not nefarious people trying to sneak around and steal people’s homes. We’ve been clear about it. They’ve been clear about it. The law is clear about it. The court order is clear about it.

For the member to continue down this route of, “Oh, can you confirm they really, really, really aren’t going to come and take your home after you’ve really, really, really confirmed that they aren’t…?”

It’s just too much, Member.

I would ask him to say it to a Haida person’s face. Go up to Gaagwiis. Try and make this argument that he’s sneakily trying to take people’s property.

I’m sorry. Maybe my blood sugar is low, but the member keeps coming back to this. “Is there a sneaky route that they could come and expropriate people’s homes?” There isn’t.

It’s very clear, and I’ve made that clear. For the member to continue down this route, it’s not respectful to the Haida People. He wouldn’t accept it if they were coming after him in the same way, throwing shade on them and casting aspersions that there’s some sneaky way that they can come back for people’s homes.

Let’s just have some respect for a people of British Columbia who are working hard, who have worked very respectfully and in a good way with this province.

Apologies if I’ve been a little hot and if I’m hot on this member. It’s just that it’s frustrating when you say the same thing a gazillion times and then we’re asked yet again: “Can you confirm you said the thing you already said?”

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister’s passion for this, and I’m in no way trying to be disrespectful to the Haida People. I’m just trying to get some clarity. The minister stated it clearly that absolutely no, there is no mechanism. So we can put it to bed. That’s good enough for me.

John Rustad: Knowing that we’re going to be out of time…. We’ve got a few hours tomorrow. There are a number of topics that we want to go into tomorrow in estimates. But there’s an issue that has been age-old, as long as I’ve been involved in politics and long before then, which is the issue of overlapping claims by First Nations.

It’s particularly pertinent when we start talking about the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement that has been brought in, and obviously, the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh People and maybe the səlilwətaɬ People might have some say about that. The Quw’utsun decision that has done….

Obviously, there are many First Nations that have a say about how that shouldn’t have happened. Or: “They shouldn’t have had that because it’s not really their area. It’s our area.” These issues are going to be predominant all over the province. There are lots of places where there is core territory, which is fine, but there are lots of places where there are overlapping concerns.

Somebody once stated, and I think the number is true, that about 120 percent of B.C., in terms of all the overlaps, is what is out there and claimed.

Why I’ve got to ask the question with regards to how this is going to be addressed, in particular, is because you’re going to have early adopters of agreements, and there will be overlaps. There will be challenges. There will be issues.

I guess I’ll start off with one question on it to the minister, which is: what is this ministry doing — certainly, under this fiscal year but strategy, in general — to address the serious concerns of overlapping interests, particularly when it comes to agreements that are going to be entered into or that have already been entered into?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No question. Territory overlaps — it’s an ongoing challenge. I think it speaks to why, thinking of yesteryear and the things that could have been and how, when you work in a better relationship with people, you get better outcomes. But here we are years later, work hadn’t been done, and it’s a challenging discussion to have around boundary disputes.

Certainly, you talk nation to nation. There can be great outcomes when they’ve found ways to work with the neighbouring nations, and they found that pathway to agreement together. Then there are those cases where sometimes, like family, the fights are the worst. That’s just a reality. But it doesn’t have to be, and I think there are solutions to these challenges.

From what I’ve seen…. I’m sure, maybe, the member has advice to offer on approaches through his time as minister. I know these issues weren’t solved then, not that that was the expectation, although I’m sure he gave it his best shot. I think these issues continue today. A lot of the solutions do really lie with First Nations themselves.

You can see it where a nation is able to develop…. I’ve heard them called protocol arrangements. I’ve heard them called peace treaties. I’ve heard a variety of approaches that nations are making to develop that nation-to-nation approach or that neighbour-to-neighbour approach to find cohesion and to find agreement.

We certainly have a role in supporting solutions and doing what we can not to incentivize or to create more harm or to create more division, if we can. That’s not always easy. It’s not always clear to begin with. We are working with First Nations partners to do our best to resolve issues related to overlap and boundary disputes. We’re committed to continuing collaborative work.

We’re supporting this work through direct dispute resolution services in some cases. Sometimes things get too hot and a mediator is required. Look at the Chair. Sometimes things get too hot and we need a mediator between these conversations. Certainly, we have played that role and will continue to play that role in a number of contexts.

Through the Declaration Act action plan and my mandate letter, there is certainly a commitment, and I know this existed for the government previous to ours, to try and work out a process around boundary resolution. There’ve been different suggestions around how we can land that and how we can get there. I’d say that it’s a collaborative approach that we are seeking with nations to get their buy-in, to get their support.

Sometimes the incentives seem to support not working together. We’ve got to make sure that the incentives are there to show that we are stronger when we work together, just as we’re looking across Canada now and going: how do we develop an economy that involves all provinces?

Yes, that’s outside the ministry, so I should get back to the budget. Sorry, hon. Chair.

But we’ve got to do that within B.C. as well and, certainly, work to build up partnership as opposed to division in this work.

I’m certainly happy to take more questions on this. It’s an ongoing process that we’re seeing some success in through how we do strategic engagement agreements and other sorts of agreements with nations, which help build collaboration and can lead to greater reconciliation between nations as well. There are sometimes disputes between neighbours that can go back many, many years, as I’m sure the member is aware.

The Chair: Noting the hour, I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Post-Secondary Education
and Future Skills

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We’re mandated to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Post-Secondary and Future Skills.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $3,580,561,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I do. Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to start by acknowledging that this afternoon we’re gathered on the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking Peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, whose lands I’m grateful that we’re able to live, work and play on.

I’d also like to recognize my ministry staff who are present with me today and will be supporting me through the estimates proceedings. With me in the room today I have Trevor Hughes, my deputy minister; Kim Horn, our EFO and Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance; Chris Rathbone, the assistant deputy minister of post-secondary policy and programs division; Joanna White, the assistant deputy minister in labour market development and immigration division; and Tony Loughran, the assistant deputy minister in governance, legislation and engagement division.

Since I became the Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, I’ve had the privilege of visiting a number of post-secondary institutions and connecting with trainers, employers and industry leaders from around the province.

While our province continues to face challenges and uncertain times, our government continues to support high-quality, relevant and sustainable post-secondary education and training and ensure that the system gives people the skills that they need for good-paying jobs in every corner of our province.

We’re helping to address workforce gaps and continuing our commitment to workers, employers, economic development and service delivery in key areas, including health, technology and the trades.

Our immigration policy and program delivery helps newcomers integrate socially and economically into British Columbia, and we continue to improve the credential recognition process for professionals with credentials issued in other jurisdictions.

We remain committed to working with Indigenous partners to ensure that Indigenous learners can achieve their higher-education goals.

I acknowledge that post-secondary institutions are facing tremendous financial challenges, including federal reductions to international study permits, global inflation and an overall decrease in domestic enrolment across not just the province but the country and more widely as well. This is why our government has launched an independent review to provide a clear path for stabilizing the post-secondary system in the short term as well as the long term, to ensure the sustainability and the resiliency of the system.

It’s my privilege to be the minister responsible for delivering post-secondary education and training for our province, and I’m proud of my ministry and of the many positive impacts that our efforts continue to have on the lives of so many British Columbians across our province.

I look forward to our discussion on very important issues and the programs that the ministry supports us with, with my colleagues here today.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, and your staff, for this opportunity to discuss the important investment in post-secondary education in Budget 2026. I want to congratulate you personally for your newly appointed position as the Minister of Post-Secondary and Skills.

My colleague from Maple Ridge East is the critic for skills training and international credentialing, and I represent Abbotsford West and am the critic for post-secondary. We’ll be sharing the four hours allotted during this estimate time today.

Our discussion today is about the investment in post-secondary education, which goes to the heart of British Columbia’s future. Our colleges, universities and institutes are more than institutions of learning. They are engines of our economic growth, centres of research and innovation and gateways of opportunity for students across our province. From the universities to the regional colleges to the technical institutes, these institutions shape the workforce, shape the economy and shape the communities we rely on every day.

These estimates are not simply about dollars and line items. They’re about whether funding keeps pace with enrolment growth, whether supports match student needs, whether our institutions have the stability required to plan for long term. They’re about affordability for students, sustainability for institutions and accountability for taxpayers.

[1:40 p.m.]

At a time when our province faces economic uncertainty, labour shortages and global competition for talent, the choices reflected in these estimates will determine whether British Columbia leads or falls behind.

This discussion is our opportunity to examine whether government investments are strategic, transparent and aligned with the needs of students, employers and communities across the province. Let us approach these discussions with the seriousness they deserve, because the future of British Columbia’s workforce, innovation, economy and next generation depends on it.

I just want to ask the Chair for a few clarifications. The estimates breaks that we’re having — will that be taken off of our time, or will we get the full four hours?

The Chair: The Chair has no role to play in that.

Korky Neufeld: Okay. I will be submitting questions to the Clerk — questions I do not get to ask with my allotted time here today.

To the Minister. In the Premier’s letter to you on your new appointment, dated July 17, 2026, he stated: “In order to protect key services that British Columbians rely on, you” — the minister — “are to work with the Minister of Finance to review all existing Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills programs and initiatives to ensure our programs remain relevant, are efficient, offer meaningful training opportunities for British Columbians, grow the economy and help keep costs low.”

That’s a big mandate. I couldn’t agree with you more.

But let’s look at some of the budget numbers. Last year’s budget showed an increase of funding of $112 million. Is that correct?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Our budget in 2025-2026 was $3,509,837,000, and this year’s budget is $3,580,561,000, which is an increase of $71 million. If you’re asking about the previous year’s numbers, we don’t have that currently, but we can get that for you.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you for that.

What I was getting to…. There was an increase of $112 million from Budget 2024-2025. Now, on this year’s budget, page 61, the total budget amount for this year is only $70.587 million. If that’s correct, that’s $40 million less with this ambitious mandate.

The question is: how will you fulfil this mandate with a considerable amount of less money?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: From the 2024-2025 budget to the next year, 2025-2026, it was a $112 million increase, as you stated. And then in this year, from previous year, it’s an additional $71 million increase on top of what was already increased last year. So we’ve continued to invest in this ministry even in a time when there have been significant global challenges and challenges in the province. It’s across the country, as we’ve seen with financial challenges.

This is a ministry that’s continued to increase. So that $71 million increase this year adds to the additional increase last year, and we’re proud to make this investment. We’re proud that in our government, since forming government, we’ve continued to invest in the post-secondary sector. We have not made cuts there, and it really speaks to this ministry being the core of everything we want to do with Look West and building our economy and not being able to do any of that without the people — the skilled, trained people — to do all that work.

[1:50 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: I don’t disagree that we need to invest heavily in post-secondary, but the mandate that the Premier gave the minister in that letter is very, very ambitious. Here we see, in the minister’s first year, a $40 million decrease in a mandate that is a massive mandate. With our workforce depleting, our skilled people depleting, I guess I’m just trying to understand how that will be met with $40 million less this fiscal year.

Let’s move on. I have this estimates book here. On page 160, there’s a line item there that says, “private training institutions”; it has a 1. Can you explain which institution that is, and maybe why we’re not investing more in private institutions?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: That line item that you’re looking at refers to the private training institutions regulatory unit, and the 1 there refers to a $1,000 vote in our estimates.

What that means…. It indicates to us that it’s a cost recovery program where institutions that are regulated under this branch, the private training institutions…. It’s a cost recovery. The institutions pay those fees, and it’s through that that the regulatory process happens. It’s not through funding from the ministry.

Korky Neufeld: That’s exactly my point. There’s no investment in private institutions, or very little. That’s actually my point.

Let’s go to skills training — $283 million in funding over three years; $240 million to double skilled trades over three years; $12 million over three years to enhance the employer training agent, helping to double apprenticeship seats by ’28-29. That’s 5,000 new trade seats in 2026-2027. Note that the cost per seat, excluding tuition, is $48,000. So 1,000 of those will be B.C. Building Trades.

I have a question for the minister. How much of the money that’s going to SkilledTradesBC is for administration, versus apprenticeship seats? Another way, maybe, of stating that question is: how much of the $241 million will be absorbed by SkilledTradesBC as a cost to deliver on seats?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to thank the member for giving me an opportunity to talk about our government’s historic investment into the skilled-trades training program. This investment of $241 million over three years is going to double the funding to SkilledTradesBC. This is the first major increase that skilled trades have seen in nearly two decades. This new funding will stabilize and modernize the training system, ensure that apprenticeship training is available for people throughout our province when and where they need it.

The first year of investments will increase per-seat funding, reduce immediate wait-lists across our province and continue to increase the skilled-trade certifications, beginning with tower and mobile crane operators. The second and third year will continue to build on this work by increasing the capacity to support our Look West strategy over the longer term.

SkilledTradesBC continues to keep its costs low related to supporting delivery of seats, apprenticeship supports, regulatory responsibilities and other internal functions that support front-line training. These are well under 10 percent of their budget.

I just would take a moment to say that that support they provide apprentices is so deeply important, noting that, prior to our government coming in, the apprenticeship program was broken down by the previous government. They stripped away skilled-trade certifications, reduced apprentice supports to three advisers to over 15,000 apprentices across our province.

[2:00 p.m.]

We are so proud that we have been able to build up our system again in trades training, support the critical work and the critical trades that we have that are building our province and are going to ensure that the economy of B.C. is thriving, that we are running the Canadian economy and that we are able to capture the over $50 billion of projects that are coming to our province.

Korky Neufeld: So you’re saying 10 percent of the total amount is for administration. You’re not giving me an amount, so I’m assuming that’s what you’re saying. But what I’m hearing in the field from institutions is that the administrative costs for SkilledTradesBC have grown ten times compared to only two times the apprenticeship seats, compared to Alberta. Our neighbouring province is getting way more bang for their buck.

I don’t doubt we need more training. I don’t doubt we need more money for trades, but it’s got to go for seats, not administration. We are losing our competitive edge in British Columbia to our closest province, and it’s no wonder that students are moving from here to there to get their training.

My question to the minister is: is SkilledTradesBC a provincial Crown agency?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to note, the cost delivery for SkilledTradesBC is well under 10 percent currently, so I want to clarify that. SkilledTradesBC is a provincial service delivery Crown corp.

I would just note that what the member is hearing…. I’d love to chat a bit more about what you’re hearing, because that is not what we’re hearing. We currently have a record number of apprentices in our province, nearly 50,000 apprentices across the province, the most we’ve ever had. So we are seeing significant increases, actually, throughout our province.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister. Yes, I’ll get you that report that I got it from, comparing our trades to Alberta’s trades.

I’m also hearing in the field, from institutions, that students are not completing certificate degrees. They acquire only what they need for specific jobs.

The question to the minister is: has the ministry considered mandatory completion to certification?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to clarify, do you mean in relation to trades training?

Korky Neufeld: Absolutely. I’m still in trades, and I’ll let you know when I get off that platform.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The work that our government has done since forming government has really been to invest in the system and make sure that we are providing every support possible for apprentices to complete their journeys. We reintroduced skilled trade certifications, with seven certifications currently, increasing those with mobile and tower cranes this year, with additional in the years to come. We’ve increased greater supports for apprentices throughout their apprenticeship process through SkilledTradesBC, to ensure that they have what they need to get to completion.

Through this historic funding of $241 million, we are opening up more seats and reducing wait-lists so that individuals are able to get the information they need and are able to get the training they need to get to completion.

We’re investing in everything possible to help them get to completion. I think by removing these barriers and investing in the system, that is how we encourage further completion of their programs. Everyone has a different journey, and we’re here to support them in that journey.

Korky Neufeld: Well, thank you for that. Maybe I would ask that you would have that conversation with institutions about what it would look like for mandatory completion to certification.

In the Premier’s letter, he instructed the minister: “Support schools in identifying structural solutions, new revenue streams and cost reductions to ensure strong, sustainable public post-secondary schools and training providers who offer British Columbians the training and skills they need to be successful and help grow our provincial economy.” I couldn’t agree with them more.

What is the minister or the ministry — the minister hasn’t been there long, but I see some familiar people around the table, so the ministry has been around for a while — doing to identify structural solutions, new revenue streams and cost reductions?

[2:10 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As the member is aware, public post-secondary institutions in our province have vested management and administration and control, and their revenue and business is with the institution of the board of those institutions. This includes program and human resource decisions.

But, as the mandate letter that you mentioned was issued to me, the ministry has issued similar mandate letters that reflect those instructions to look at structural solutions, look at cost reductions and look at revenue streams too — post-secondary institutions, in their mandate letters as well. As I’ve met with them, this is the work that they are doing.

I know that institutions are making very difficult decisions amidst these financial times currently. What I’ve said to them is it’s my expectation that we’re looking at opportunities to reduce duplications, to ensure that where there’s opportunity for shared services, we’re looking at that, looking at ways to work together across different institutions.

Much of this work is also being done through our post-secondary sustainability review, which I’m sure we’ll have a chance to dig into further. This review is a holistic review of our post-secondary system to ensure that institutions are making tough decisions every single day. How do we ensure those decisions are cohesive and that they work for our sector as a whole, not just for individual institutions?

This is work that is looking at short-term as well as long-term solutions for the sector that ensure the sustainability of our public post-secondary sector and maintain the integrity of the global education destination that B.C. is and the top-quality education that we provide. This work is being led by Don Avison, and we are awaiting his recommendations at the end of this month. We’ll have more to say when that comes.

Lawrence Mok: In January of this year, the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills increased the application fee that is charged to skilled immigrants who want to work in B.C. Prior to the change, the fee was $1,475. It was then increased by $275 to $1,750. This is an 18.6 percent increase in the fee in one year.

The fee for skills approval means an application in which the applicant indicates an intention to enter the labour market in B.C. Does the minister believe that B.C. has a skilled worker shortage?

[2:20 p.m. - 2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: The 2025 B.C. labour market outlook is a ten-year forecast of the job market trends in B.C. that are designed to help current and future students, organizations, workers and employers make decisions about career and skill training and education needs for their future.

Just over one million job openings are expected between 2025 and 2035, in the next ten years. Over three-quarters of this, almost 80 percent of these jobs, will require some kind of post-secondary training. These jobs will be filled by people that are graduating, people that are looking for work or mid-career changes and, also, through immigration and newcomers to our country.

With the information we have, there is a general balanced outlook, generally looking at the labour market outlook, but there are significant impacts that we’ve faced from the federal immigration changes as well. Along with international student limitations, there have also been significant impacts on our PNP nominations and a reduction in how many PNP nominations we can have as a province, which is having an impact on our ability to attract in certain areas. This program, the PNP program, is a cost recovery program that’s been impacted by the federal government’s changes there. But I will say that, overall, things look balanced.

We do know that we have a shortage when it comes to skilled-trades workers, especially given how many priority projects we have here in B.C. We have 40 percent of the federal government’s priority projects. We have clean energy projects, mining, shipbuilding and so many different things that are covered under our Look West strategy, in addition to the infrastructure in each and every one of our ridings across the province that is being built every day.

To do that work and to ensure we have the workforce there for the next years to come, we need a skilled-trades training workforce. That is why we are making such significant investments, after almost 20 years of lack of investment in the skilled-trades area, that will help produce the skilled tradespeople we need to work on these priority projects and infrastructure projects throughout our province.

Lawrence Mok: Is the minister saying that during an affordability crisis and a skilled worker shortage, a massive application fee hike of about 20 percent will increase the amount of people wanting to work in skilled trades in B.C.?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I just want to be clear that we’re talking about two separate things. The skilled trades shortage that we see and the training and the moneys that we provided to train up skilled tradespeople is separate from what the streams for PNP are used for when we’re looking at immigrants that are coming, so they’re not the same.

The interest in our PNP program continues to be significant, and the program continues to be oversubscribed. The PNP program, as I mentioned, is a cost recovery program. So where we, as a government, had asked for 9,000 PNP spots from the federal government, we were only allocated 5,254 spots, a significant reduction from what we’ve seen in the past and what our need has been.

We currently, as of February, have had interest of over 11,000 applicants to this program, despite only having 5,200 spots. We have advocated to the federal government that this stream is one of the only economic streams of immigration that our provincial government has and we need to have a greater number of allocation but also greater control over the immigration that comes to our province.

We’ve advocated on that. I’ve spoken with the federal minister, and we continue to do so, but I would just reiterate that this is a program that continues to be oversubscribed and have significantly more folks interested than we can provide for. I wish we could have more of them, and I wish that the federal government would give us those spots.

Lawrence Mok: Thanks for the answer, Minister.

Back to the question of the skilled application fee. What actions is the province actually taking to increase skilled workers trained abroad coming to B.C., in light of this fee increase? I’m talking about the skilled application fee increase.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to reiterate from my last answer that with the PNP program, it is a cost recovery program, and that’s why these change, as the number of spots has gone down significantly of our allocation from federal government.

Again, this is a program that is oversubscribed. We have more than double the number of interested folks that want to come through PNP than we can actually accept, due to the federal government’s significant and drastic cut when it came to PNP.

[2:35 p.m.]

Just on the note of supporting newcomers in their ability to be skilled labour and talent here for our province, we know that immigrants come in many different streams, not just PNP. And when they come here, we know, also, that many immigrants come from backgrounds and professions that we have a significant need for here. We want to make sure that they can have their credentials recognized as easily as possible.

That’s a lot of the work that our government has led on, across the country, with our International Credentials Recognition Act, which came in two years ago. With that, there are over 18 different professions, including engineers and teachers. When they come here, it outlines and makes it easier for immigrants to be able to have the skills recognized that they come to our country with and that we have such a desperate need for.

Frankly, it fixes a lot with a system that has historically discriminated against individuals that haven’t been able to have their skills recognized. I don’t know a single family that has immigrated to this country and hasn’t been affected, knowing that their family members were engineers, teachers, doctors or professors back home and then haven’t been able to have the skills recognized.

I’m proud that our government is doing the work to advance that recognition, so that as immigrants come here, they can work to their fullest potential and serve our province to the fullest potential as well.

Lawrence Mok: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

Can the minister explain why funding for student services programs, on page 161 of the estimates, increased by zero dollars this year, versus a $95,000 increment last year? How does the minister justify this zero-dollar increase, when this support covers the very supports that make education accessible and survivable for vulnerable students?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This subvote largely speaks to aspects of student financial services, which are the responsibility of my ministry and the Ministry of Finance jointly to administer — things like student aid.

I’m constantly working with my colleague to look at opportunities to enhance and strengthen student aid, and we are proud that we haven’t seen any decreases in that, that we’ve been able to maintain that funding, as it is core to the ability for students to partake in post-secondary education. It is different and separate and apart from the individual services that institutions provide on the ground as student-facing services.

I would note that as a part of the sustainability review that we’re doing, a key component of that is to ensure that as much of the funding — the $3.1 billion operating funding that we give to post-secondary institutions — is going to students and ensuring accessibility and affordability for students. That includes institutions looking at the student services that they’re providing and maintaining services that students require.

Lawrence Mok: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

In 2024, the federal government announced measures to reduce immigration, as we all know. This leaves B.C. in a precarious position, as we seek to expand access to housing and health care but lack the skilled workers needed to make this happen.

[2:45 p.m.]

In light of these numbers, how does the minister justify a decrease of $1.78 million in the budget for immigration and strategic planning, on page 162?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Like all ministries across our government, as in our mandate letters, we are finding opportunities to improve system efficiencies, reduce administrative costs and prioritize funding to core programming and front-line services. We’ve made good progress within the ministry in doing this and continue to work as a part of the effort across the sector.

[2:50 p.m.]

I would just note that the number you note has not impacted any delivery of services on the front line to front-line folks. These are from working with our partners and working within our ministry to see where we can find efficiencies and how we can reduce duplications to find those budgetary efficiencies and reduce administrative costs where we can.

But on the ground, for newcomers that are here and looking for program supports, this has not impacted any of the delivery of services that we provide through our ministry.

Lawrence Mok: I want to thank the minister for the answer.

Given that thousands of skilled immigrants and professionals are waiting to work in health care, education, construction and trades in B.C., can the minister explain how the reduction of the budget for immigration and strategic planning will actually reduce credential processing times or increase approvals this year?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just again to confirm that that specific reduction that you’re seeing and that we’ve been able to find is by reducing duplications and finding efficiencies within our ministry.

When it comes to supporting skilled workers when they come here to Canada, and to B.C. specifically, we’ve done a lot of work to help reduce barriers and to help make sure that they’re able to, in a timely manner, have their credentials recognized.

As I said, through our International Credentials Recognition Act, 18 different professions are able to have their credentials recognized in a timely manner, including architects, biologists, engineers and teachers.

In addition to that, we have equivalent programs, through our Ministry of Health, when it comes to the health care sector, of having doctors and nurses recognized here in a timely, very quick manner, depending on the jurisdiction you’re coming from. Reducing those barriers that individuals faced is what’s helping them come here and be recognized.

Also, we know that when you come here, there are still challenges to navigate. Our career paths for skilled immigrants program is a program that helps individuals navigate the process of getting their credentials recognized. That’s a program that has not seen any changes in funding. It is funded at where it was before and will continue to support immigrants in their journeys to help make sure that their skills can be recognized. We can recognize that we have a need for their skills and talents right here in B.C. as well.

Korky Neufeld: I want to move on to the PAL program. I just want to explain the PAL program for the public. Provincial attestation letters, PALs, are mandatory documents, for most international students applying for Canadian study permits, to verify their spot within the provincial caps.

Here are some numbers. A 27 percent decline from December 2023 to November 2025. That’s 270,000 less new students. Targets show only 155,000 new study permits for 2026, roughly half of the 2025 cap, signalling a continued, deliberate decline. This cap was implemented in 2024. These letters are required for undergraduate and postgraduate diplomas and specific certificate programs. Students must secure an admission offer and pay tuition deposits before the institution issues a PAL.

In Abbotsford, we have a huge aerospace training program at our Abbotsford Airport. One of the providers states this: “It was very frustrating to be informed that we would not receive a provincial attestation letter for 2026.” This company had asked, in 2025, for ten spots. They only received five. They asked for five; they got zero.

The question to the minister: is it true that companies without active PALs may not be considered for future allotments?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As we all know, the post-secondary sector is a critical aspect of a workforce development and ensuring a strong economy for our province and country. I echo the member opposite’s comments about the PALs and the significant decreases, so if I can just speak to that.

The specific decreases we’ve seen here in B.C. have been substantial over the past two years, since the federal government implemented the unilateral cap on student study permits. We saw a 40 percent decrease in 2025 and a further 57 percent decrease this year. That is a significant impact not just to our ability to allocate PALs but also on institutions and their ability to plan for what’s going to happen next year and the year after.

We have spoken with the federal government, articulated our disappointment with the lack of involvement that we’ve had as a province but also as institutions’ ability to plan for their future revenues and knowing how many international students they have. So I would just want to articulate that that allocation has significantly been reduced.

With that, we’ve had to look at how we are going to allocate this reduction of numbers that we have. There’s been a significant…. Our allocation this year — 80 percent of those PALs were allocated to public post-secondary institutions to meet the needs that they have. We know that we have a mandate and desire to support our public institutions, especially as they face such significant revenue challenges. We will do everything we can to support our public post-secondary sector, and we’ve done that here.

Then when it comes to just the specifics of the member’s question, as we allocated the PALs, the criteria is different year to year. So no, it does not leave the ability of them getting PALs in the future years. We will look at the criteria on a yearly basis, looking at what our number and our allocation is next year.

Also, I would just recognize that aviation space is a very critical space across our province. It’s very important, especially to our Look West strategy, as we look…. This is a program…. These numbers we’re looking at are just international students, so we are hopeful that they are able to enrol domestic students, as we have that need.

I’ve had the opportunity to meet with many schools and different aviation groups in Abbotsford and have this conversation with the institutions as well. I really thank them for the work they do and encourage students that are interested domestically in these programs to check them out and apply.

Korky Neufeld: Yes, Chinook Helicopters, Cascade Aerospace are great providers of training for students. I also went to OK College on February 20, an exciting private college partnership that’s going to be developing there shortly at the airport as well.

The question to the minister is: will the minister review the allotments…? Allotments should be based on IRCC approvals rather than initial applications. In other words, if you get a rejection, can you have a replacement PAL?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As much as I’d like to say that there’s any flexibility in this, this is something that’s not allowed by IRCC federally. I would just take that note to say that this is something we wish overall…. Whether it comes to PALs or PNP or anything else, we always welcome greater collaboration from the federal government and have not been very happy with either numbers that have come out.

We will continue to advocate to them for meeting the needs of our province, whether it’s the immigration needs or the international student needs. B.C. needs to have a greater role than what we do, as we have a greater understanding of what B.C.’s needs are than you could from sitting in Ottawa.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for that. I think all aerospace providers and trainers would echo that you should continue to advocate.

Some of the rules punish just because their application is incorrect. It punishes them, and then they have no recourse. There’s no replacement PAL. They don’t get any PALs, and that’s unfortunate.

Next question. Will the minister consider student transfers? Should the students already established in a program be able to transfer institutions without affecting the new school’s allocation?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Member, this is yet another point on which we agree. It’s something that the federal government does not allow — for PALs to transfer from one to another institution. It’s something that we’ve advocated on, for that greater flexibility, and we will continue to do so and encourage your MPs in your areas to do the same as well.

Korky Neufeld: Then maybe I’ll give you a list of questions, because it’s all relating to this.

If institutions cannot meet student needs, should not the student have the flexibility to switch, if it’s about students?

Another one is: when IRCC rejects the application, often due to clerical errors, why does that negatively affect future PALs allotments? I know you’re going to say IRCC rules, so I’m not even going to ask that question.

[3:10 p.m.]

Here’s the question I will ask. Should the institutions not be able to return unused PALs to the ministry for redistribution to schools requiring additional capacity?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As I said, this year we’ve allocated our allotment for the year — the much-reduced allotment that we had — and we have told those institutions that should they not need those PALs, they’re able to return them to us without impacting their ability for the numbers next year.

Should those come in, we would determine a process with which to reallocate them based on the needs of the sector and government priorities, labour market needs, to reallocate those. But we have made it clear, in that way, that institutions are able to return unused PALs and not impact their ability for the following year to obtain the allocation that they need.

Korky Neufeld: Well, that’s all well and good, assuming that they will return them. I’m wondering if the ministry could be a little bit stronger and make it mandatory. If you’re not using the PALs, to move it on, because there are schools that don’t have any, and that there would be no punishment for them to return PALs. Just to do it, leaving it up to them…. I think there could be more direction from the ministry. That’d be my plea on that. I’m sure the institutions in Abbotsford that didn’t get any PALs would really like to have that opportunity.

Under the education quality assurance framework, an imbalance exists where some institutions have more PALs than training assets while others have assets and lack allocations. This leads to overselling, where students arrive but cannot receive timely training, wasting PALs and risking British Columbia’s reputation.

My question to the minister is: will the minister implement a ratio of training assets to students?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’m not quite clear on what we mean by “training assets” here, but I would just note that every institution, private or public, since the federal caps came into play — all of them — is receiving far less international students than they received previously. So they would have been serving more than they are now, in their ability to do so.

All of the institutions that are hosting international students fall under EQA, or the education quality assurance framework. It’s the expectation that they meet the standards of those policies. I’d just note that we look forward to strengthening that framework and policy through the legislation that’s before the House. I won’t talk about that here, but I look forward to talking about that, ensuring that we have this strengthened legislation in place, to make sure institutions are meeting the needs of students, before they’re able to host international students.

Korky Neufeld: I think we can all agree that for certain trades training, the expense for the provider, in some, are extraordinary, especially in aerospace and the amount of investment it takes — those are the assets I’m talking about.

I think what’s happened is they’ve asked for students. They got their number of students but did not have the capacity to train the students because they hadn’t put the infrastructure in place. If you balanced the ratio between assets and students, I think it would fix some of the problems that we just talked about, of people not getting allocation.

We could lose Chinook Helicopters in Abbotsford because they’re not receiving any PALs. They are a great community leader and have invested heavily in what they’re providing for our community. I would implore the minister to continue to press IRCC for changes to PALs, on behalf of all the institutions but especially aerospace.

The PAL system was expected to be a temporary two-year program, yet its long-term-duration impact remains poorly understood. Many aviation schools are reducing staff and scrapping projects due to these restrictions, while the need for aerospace training workers rises across the country. Furthermore, international students are either avoiding Canada or choosing other provinces over British Columbia.

I do not have a question — I said to her I would make a statement before our next break — but I do think 80 percent of the allocations have gone to public institutions and only 20 to private, and that’s a concern as well.

The Chair: Okay. We’re going to take a five-minute bio break, and then we’ll be back in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:31 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I would like to call the committee back.

Korky Neufeld: I just want to remind the members, for quorum. We wanted five minutes, and we spent almost 12 minutes on a break. That’s time off my clock, and I’d appreciate it if we are punctual. Thank you.

Can the minister confirm the PALs allocation — 80 percent went to public and 20 percent to private?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Yes, I can confirm that 80 percent went to publics and 20 percent went to privates.

Just to speak to that a little bit, as we said, the numbers have gone down significantly, of the allocations throughout the province, and it is critical, in a time when our public post-secondary sector is seeing significant revenue losses and pressures, that we are doing everything we can as a government to support them and the needs that they have. This includes international students. As we said, the cuts were made without notice to them, as well, and without the ability to plan for what’s happening.

The allocation that’s been made now is still less, even to public institutions, than what their needs are and what they would have received last year or the year before. It’s just really an unfortunate situation, across the sector, that these numbers have been cut down so much by the federal government. But in doing so, we have to make difficult decisions and prioritize our public post-secondary institutions.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister.

I guess my heads-up to the minister would be if you could monitor how many PALs the public institutions did not use this coming year, because next year during estimates, I will be asking that question. Thank you very much.

A little bit of background on…. I just want to talk a little bit about private post-secondary education funding philosophy and policy alignment. Can the minister clarify the government’s formal fiscal policy position regarding support for private post-secondary institutions in British Columbia?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to confirm, we do not provide operating grants or funding that way to private institutions. Public dollars are for public institutions, and that is where the funding from this ministry goes. We do, in very limited circumstances, provide it for targeted seats in programs like the HCAP, the health care assistant program, so care aides.

When there are trusted private institutions that can fill a need that our public institutions cannot fill, we do have targeted limited seats there, but overall, our funding from this ministry goes to the public sector, because that is where the need is and the need to support. That’s where public dollars should go.

Korky Neufeld: Given that private institutions educate thousands of our own domestic students annually in high-demand workforce sectors, how does the ministry justify a funding formula that exclusively prioritizes public institutions?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As we know, public institutions throughout not just our province but our country provide a public service, and they have a mandate from the province to deliver higher education as a public service and as a public good. This isn’t something that’s unique to B.C. You can see it across provinces in our country. And this approach is not unique either.

We know that private institutions have a role in providing educational programming, and we thank them for providing this role. They’ve also shown that they can be viable commercial enterprises, as they are a business and operate as such.

Korky Neufeld: I think this is where clarity is needed because, like I said earlier, there are probably tens of thousands, if not more, domestic students in private institutions.

Because we’re in such fiscal dire straits, as was mentioned by the Finance Minister during the budget introduction, has the ministry conducted a comparative fiscal impact analysis between supporting students in private institutions versus expanding equivalent capacity within public institutions? I think the dollar amounts would be considerably less, but I was wondering. Has the ministry done this, and would they think of doing this?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just to answer your question about a review, we are not undertaking such a review. We know that the private institutions have a critical role to play in our post-secondary system. However, there are significant programs that cannot be delivered by private institutions the way they are in public institutions, and we need a strong public post-secondary system.

That’s not something just our government agrees on. Governments before us, for generations, have agreed that a strong public post-secondary system is the backbone of our post-secondary sector in B.C. and for the prosperity of our province.

We will always invest in public institutions. When you’re looking at moving funds from one to another, you have to make decisions, and we will always invest in public institutions. Whether it comes to our education system, our post-secondary education system or our health care system, we will always choose to invest in our public good and our public systems.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

I think the concern here is that we’re seeing private institutions closing. Once they close their doors, they’re gone, especially in smaller communities and, probably, in remote areas and a little bit up north. Public institutions are in deficits. Some of them — I think it’s nine out of the 25 — have accumulated deficits. We have, obviously, a financial shortage here.

[3:50 p.m.]

Why not make use of the private sector? If they disappear, we have less spaces, less students, a less-trained workforce. How are we going to meet the demands that the Premier has put on you as the Minister of Post-Secondary to meet the seats, the trained people, the workforce, the sustainable economy? I think it all fits together, and we can’t do either-or. I think we need to do both.

Would the minister agree that eliminating private capacity could increase public system operating pressures and deficits?

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I think this articulates much of what I’ve said already, but when we’re looking at a system where across the system, whether it’s privates or publics, we’re facing significant financial struggles and challenges, we need to look at what the long-term sustainability of the sector is.

[3:55 p.m.]

It doesn’t make sense to move money from our public system, which is in significant need, to our private system. We, again, believe that the public good is in supporting our public institutions, our public post-secondary institutions, to meet the needs of our students. This is something governments for generations have agreed upon.

It’s also important to note that we recognize that private institutions play a large role in the training atmosphere of B.C. We regularly engage with them, and we have conversations about where needs are. Believe me, they are very entrepreneurial, and they know how to adjust their business model to attract the students that they need.

Right now and in general, what we need to do is ensure our public post-secondary system is supported and meeting the needs of our students. On that, our post-secondary sector review that we’re doing….

An element of that, which is outlined in the terms of reference, is also labour market outlooks and how our public post-secondary institutions can align with those labour market outlooks for today, tomorrow, ten, 15 years into the future so they can be nimble and quick to meet what the needs of students are and ensure that long-term sustainability. That’s really our goal of supporting our sector, supporting our students and supporting the public education system that we have in the province.

Korky Neufeld: Many private institutions focus on high-demand sectors such as health care, aviation, trades and hospitality. What is the ministry’s plan to address labour shortages if private sector training capacity declines?

You have a huge mandate before you — a certain amount of doubling seats and doubling capacity. If the private sector doesn’t meet their quotas, how will this ministry meet the capacity declines?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: When it comes to private institutions across our province, we don’t have quotas for our private institutions on what programming they need to provide or create. They create their programming based on market demand. As we’ve said, these are entrepreneurial business enterprises that look at the market to see where the needs are.

Here we’re talking about domestic students, because the international student market is something that has been impacted by the federal government’s changes. When institutions are looking at the domestic need, they’re looking at where students want to go. I promise you that they are very entrepreneurial and able to make those adjustments quickly and look at what the labour market needs are.

You mentioned investments in health care, aviation and trades and how we’re going to meet these needs. I welcome that, because I want to talk about the investments that we’ve done in our public sector to meet the needs that we have here.

As we’ve talked about much today, in their trades system, we’ve invested $241 million to double trades training in the province. This will bring online tens of thousands of seats across Red Seal trades, to make sure that we can meet the needs of tomorrow and today of our economy and of the projects that we are growing.

When it comes to health care, we have invested in health care programs over $250 million, doubling the amount of funding, and are seeing significant increases in direct patient care priority areas. We’ve seen a 366 percent increase in nurse practitioner seats, a 250 percent increase in diagnostic medical sonography seats, a 100 percent increase in physiotherapy seats, a 71 percent increase in midwifery seats, a 40 percent increase in licensed practical nursing seats and a 24 percent increase in registered nursing seats.

We’ve graduated 2,500 medical doctors from our province since forming government, with an increase in seats to UBC, as well as something I’m very proud of: the new medical school at Simon Fraser University in Surrey, which is the first medical school in over 60 years in western Canada. That is going to have its first intake class in September of this year.

These are significant investments into the core priority areas, the labour market needs that we have in our province, and I’m very proud that we’ve been able to do so much of this work through our public post-secondary-system investments.

Korky Neufeld: I’m not suggesting for a second that I’m against public sector institutions. I’m not. What I’m trying to highlight is that there’s absolutely no way that this government is going to meet their required needs and their projections without the private sector backing health care, aviation, trades and hospitality training. There’s no way.

What I want to do is not to bring the public sector down. I want to bring the private sector up.

[4:05 p.m.]

My question to the minister is: what risk assessment has been conducted regarding the impact on health care staffing if private HCA and allied health programs were reduced?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: While I understand the premise of the thought that we can invest in both, when we’re looking at a finite pool of resources here, inevitably if you were investing into privates, you would have to take money out of the public system. That is something that our government and governments before us do not believe is what the value of the public sector is.

Public post-secondary is a public good. We need to continue to ensure our public post-secondary system is strong and continues to deliver and meet the needs of students across our province, and we will continue to invest in the public post-secondary system. Again, public post-secondary, education, health care — wherever we can invest in the public system, we will do so.

Having said that, I recognize the importance of private institutions and the role they play in this sector. The corporate model that these institutions have is to meet labour market demand, and they are nimble in changing the programming they deliver to meet those labour market needs and what domestic students’ needs are.

I’m confident that they will continue to do this. I have no reason to believe that this isn’t what’s happening and that they aren’t developing their programming in a way that meets whatever the domestic student needs are that they’re seeing.

I’ve actually heard of ones that are expanding programming — private institutions that are expanding to meet that domestic need. I think the challenges that we see are on that international student level, and that’s something we see across the entire sector, not just the private sector.

Lawrence Mok: In November of last year, the government launched an independent review into funding sustainability for the public post-secondary education system. My question is: is the government open to lifting the 2 percent annual tuition cap, which has been in place since 2005, if the review report, which will soon be released on March 15 of this year, recommends that?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This review that you mentioned, our sustainability review that we launched in November, is something that is really significantly needed. This is something we heard from partners across the sector — students, staff, faculty, administration.

[4:15 p.m.]

Institutions are making decisions, tough decisions but decisions that they need for their institutions. What we want to ensure is that we are having decisions made for the betterment of the entire sector, not just one institution, and ensure that long-term sustainability of the sector.

Currently Don Avison is in the process of conducting this review. We’ll have recommendations from him before the end of this month. In outlining the terms of reference of that review, we didn’t presuppose anything. We didn’t put anything on the table of what to look at. We want to ensure that he looks at the sector holistically. We can analyze those recommendations and make the best decisions possible.

I will emphasize that any decisions we make will centre students, student affordability and student accessibility so that students, no matter where you live in the province, are able to access quality public post-secondary education throughout the province in an affordable manner. Those will always be our guiding principles, and we look forward to the recommendations and reviewing those once they’re in hand.

Lawrence Mok: I thank the minister for the answer.

With hardly any budget increase, about 2 percent to the post-secondary sector, how does the government plan to address the funding challenges that institutions face in light of the international student cap and insufficient government spending?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’ll just pick up on a point. The international student cuts that have happened have significantly impacted post-secondary institutions. The federal government’s unilateral cuts in this have impacted our entire sector.

[4:20 p.m.]

That’s work that we are doing, also, to make sure that we are advocating to them that these are decisions that should be made with provincial government at the table, noting that institutions prepare budgets years in advance and that these have significant impacts on them.

When it comes to investments in this sector, I am proud to talk about the investments we have made in the post-secondary sector. We have invested into this sector year over year and never reduced funding to this sector. We’ve increased operating grants by $1.2 billion annually, for $3.2 billion that goes annually to our public post-secondary sectors. This is in contrast to the governments before us that cut $70 million out of post-secondary education when they were in government. We’re proud that we continue to invest, and this is why public post-secondary institutions are so important, that we’re investing into.

As we’ve put this money into the system, we want to make sure that it’s going to students and that it’s going where it needs to go. That’s why a part of this sustainability review is to look at duplications across different institutions, look at opportunities for shared services, look at where there’s program growth that’s been unsustainable that doesn’t actually meet the needs of the students that we have, given that we know that domestic enrolment is declining and international student numbers have gone down.

We’re really hopeful to see that there are opportunities in this review that will make sure that the money that we’ve continued to put in the system, continued to invest in the system, is being optimized to support students.

Korky Neufeld: The Don Wright funding formula review was completed in 2022 and was to be released to the public.

When I asked the previous minister why it was not released, this is the answer I got back. I realize it’s the previous minister, but I see, at the table, that most of the ministry staff is still here. The minister said, and I quote: “The landscape in B.C.’s post-secondary sector dramatically changed due to the federal government’s unilateral changes to study permit visas, approval process and the number of international students admitted to B.C.”

Here’s the problem. The federal changes did not come into effect until ’24-25. That’s two to three years between the review being finished and the federal international student allocation changes. So I’m going to ask the question again. Why was the Don Wright funding formula review not released during that time frame?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As the previous minister in this role said, the report…. At the time that it was commissioned versus when the changes to the IRCC came in, it changed the landscape that we were operating in. By the time that the IRCC changes were implemented, we did not have a final report. Due to the changes in the landscape of what we were working with not being the same as the conditions in 2022, to where we were when the changes were made in 2024, a final report was never submitted due to the changes in the environment. So we didn’t have a final report to submit, which is what the minister before articulated as well.

[4:30 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: At the outset of the review, it said clearly that there was a date when that review would be revealed. I know institutions that have seen it — the review, right. You guys took a year to put this review together. You had hundreds of people involved, and you promised them that it would be made public. What would be the harm in making it public even now?

Now you’ve started a new review. I know that your funding formula is only for public institutions, but I think there would have been value to include the private sector in this. Why did you consult only with the 25 public secondary institutions in this new review and not private institutions? I think they would be able to give some perspective that might have helped the post-secondary sector in seeing its sustainability.

Going down the road, there could have been more partnerships, more collaboration, more thought given, instead of just the 25. Why only the 25 and not the private sector?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: This review that we’re currently conducting is a review of the public post-secondary sector. That’s why it’s only looking at the 25 institutions. Our mandate is to ensure the prosperity and ongoing public good that public post-secondary institutions provide. That is where our funding goes, to public post-secondary institutions.

Looking at the challenges that public post-secondary institutions are facing and at the long-term sustainability that we want to ensure, to make sure that not just in this generation but in generations to come, British Columbians will be able to get a good-quality education in our public post-secondary system. That is why we’ve launched this holistic review.

We’ve even put constraints on what Don Avison is looking at. We want him to come back with recommendations that are holistic and to look at that long-term and short-term sustainability as well. As I said, it’s to maintain the prosperity of our public post-secondary system and to intervene in some of the difficulties that they’re facing and to see how we can best support them, moving forward.

[4:35 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: It’s unfortunate that you’ve put guardrails on post-secondary education, from the minister’s side to the 25 public institutions, when we know full well that the private institutions hugely impact the economy and all the needs that we have across the province. I think it would have been so insightful for you to include some of their input so that you could get a better understanding of what the future looks like in post-secondary, from their viewpoint.

But now my question is: will this new review be made public, and when?

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Just on the previous points that the member has made, I want to articulate that this review…. It’s important that it’s on the public post-secondary system because we provide operating funding to public post-secondary institutions. Ensuring that they’re able to use that funding in a sustainable manner and meet their needs moving forward is very important.

That’s not to say that we don’t have constant communication with private institutions, have conversations with them about what labour market demands are. They are also regulated through our ministry, and there are other ways that we are able to have those conversations.

But this review — it’s very important that we are looking at the public post-secondary system and ensuring that it is here to serve students today, tomorrow and well into the future. That’s the goal here.

With the recommendations, as we’ve said, Don Avison will have the review recommendations to our government by the end of this month, upon which we will be reviewing the recommendations, making…. This is going to be…. We don’t know what the extent of these recommendations will be, so we’ll need to review and have careful discussion and make sure that we are able to look at those recommendations before moving forward. Our goal is to make it public. Once we’re able to actually review and discuss on this, we’ll be able to take those steps further on what that looks like.

The Chair: Just one moment. Just a reminder to all members to direct your questions through the Chair.

Korky Neufeld: Here’s…. I need a date. The public needs a date. In fact, all those people who participated in the review need a date, so that we can hold the government accountable because previously we had a date, and nothing happened. It didn’t go public.

We need to be able to know. Is it going to be this year? Is it going to be next year? Is it going to be the year after? Why would anybody in their right mind participate in a review when on the outside you say it’s going to be made public and it’s not been made public?

I’m going to ask the minister again through the Chair. Please, would the minister tell us approximately the date? Give us the year.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As I said, it is our goal to make this public, to review the recommendations, to do so with due diligence and to make sure we’re doing this expeditiously. It’s very important to also remember that we commissioned this review, in an expedited manner, for a reason. We know that the post-secondary system is going through difficult times and financial challenges right now, and this is a need that we heard from students, staff and faculty.

That is why we’ve come in to look at the sector holistically, and that’s why the intention is to review the recommendations with due diligence, to make sure that we are taking the time we need to put forward the right direction here and to make the changes that our sector needs to be sustainable. We cannot make decisions in haste when we are trying to make decisions for the long-term sustainability of the sector. That is the priority, and we’ll take the steps necessary to ensure exactly that.

Brennan Day: Before I get to the question, I just want to acknowledge the leadership at North Island College. They’ve made some extremely challenging decisions, over the last several months, to cut 15 programs, including coastal forestry, furniture design and joinery, fine arts, human services and several digital technology programs that all support workforce development in the North Island, whose economy is currently struggling dramatically at the moment.

My question. Is there any specific stabilization funding in this budget? We know we didn’t see it in last year’s budget.

It has now been a year and a half since I’ve taken office. One of the first things I was briefed on were the challenges that they were going to be facing with the changes. They seem like they were hung out by this government. We know it’s critically important to have a rainy-day fund when events like this happen that are out of the control of this ministry, but what is in your control is stabilization funding.

Will they be looking at cuts next year, or is this government going to be providing the requisite supports for them to maintain programs?

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Thank you to the member for the question.

As you’ve noted, these are very difficult decisions that institutions, like NIC and also institutions across our province, are having to make every day. I really do appreciate the leadership of the staff and faculty, students, everyone across the administration as well, that are putting the time in to make thoughtful decisions, knowing they’re difficult decisions.

These are impacts that institutions are facing, which they did not budget for, because of the federal government’s unilateral cuts when it comes to international study permits and their inability to prepare for that. Not only were they not informed, but we were also not consulted in the process. That’s something that we’ve raised to the federal government — that we need to be a part of those discussions and the impacts that this has on our institutions.

When it comes to NIC, there was a significant impact by the international student cuts. Where they had up to over 600 international students, they have less than 100 currently. I just would note that this is one of the reasons why, when we do have a reduced allocation on PAL numbers, it is so important that where we can support public institutions, we are doing so, so that we can mitigate the financial impacts that they’re feeling. That is a key priority that guided our PAL allocations this year.

These are tough decisions, and this is a sector where we’ve continued to invest year over year. We’ve invested an additional $1.2 billion in operating grants annually. There’s $3.2 billion in the sector right now, and we need to make sure that the sector is working for the students that are in the sector now, recognizing that international students have gone down significantly and domestic enrolment has stagnated, if not declined, in recent years.

Seeing that, there is an eye to: what is the programming being delivered, and what are the needs of students? That is a careful look that institutions are doing.

We’ve put money into the system. We’ve continued to invest in the system.

The sustainability review — what it’s here for is to make sure it’s working, to make sure that the programming that institutions are delivering meets the needs of students. That’s the work of this review. That is what we are doing to help ensure that institutions can support themselves on a long-term, sustainable basis.

As I’ve said to them, if there was a magic something that we could do to help them solve these issues, we would. But right now what we can do is work with them to make sure that the funding in the system that has increased year over year, even when there’s been stagnant domestic enrolment, is there and working in the best way for students, for the programming that our domestic students need.

We will continue to do that work and await the recommendations of the review and implementing those recommendations.

Brennan Day: It is very convenient to blame it on the federal government’s problem, but this is a long-standing problem. I won’t even pin it on your government. This is a long-standing problem that’s gone back several governments now, where we’ve frozen tuition fees and the other side of the budget has grown exponentially.

Most of the increases in post-secondary this year, just like most other ministries in this government, are going to be eaten up through collective agreement increases.

The fact of the matter is that after nearly 18 months now since we knew this was going to take place and the scope of the problem…. What reforms is the ministry proposing to stabilize the post-secondary funding model, going forward? You cannot freeze one side of the ledger for 20 years and expect the other side not to continue to grow with just basic inflation and labour cost agreement increases.

If there’s no reform coming, how does the minister expect institutions like North Island College not to cut again next year if this isn’t fixed?

We’re now into another fiscal year. I’m pretty disappointed that there’s no solution coming, because small institutions like this are going to be looking at red ink again next year and have to do the same thing unless you can come up with a model.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: Thank you to the member for your question.

The member is right. These are challenges that have really brewed for decades in the system, and what has really heightened it and fast-tracked all of that is what the federal government has done here.

These are multi-year programs where institutions have budgeted, looking years in advance, and the federal government has made changes without consultation, unilaterally deciding that the provincial government doesn’t have a say in this, that institutions don’t have a say in this and that they’re going to face significant reductions that inevitably are going to affect the revenue resources that institutions have.

This is not something that NIC is facing alone. These are complex challenges that we’re seeing across institutions, across not just our province but across the country.

I really, truly want to thank and appreciate the work that institutions are doing. These are not easy decisions they’re making. There’s a lot of thought put into it. There are a lot of impacts being felt by faculty, staff, students, administration through these.

I just really emphasize that this is the reason we’re doing the sustainability review. We know that we have continued to invest in the system. But looking at what the needs of the system are now, looking at the domestic enrolment being stagnant and not growing, international student numbers being reduced, where are our opportunities to make sure that the dollars in the system are going as far as possible to support institutions?

Especially institutions like NIC that are more than just a college to the region. They are a core hub to the region and one of the reasons why students in that region will get a post-secondary education.

That’s something I recognize. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the board and leadership there, and I thank them for their work. I’ve had the chance to visit them and speak with them directly, and I really thank them for that work.

Through this review, we will have the opportunity…. What they’ve had the opportunity to share through conversations with Don Avison is: where are there opportunities to reduce duplications? Where are there opportunities to engage in shared services, to align programming with other institutions so that we can cut down on any kind of cost that can be reduced to make sure that we are funding the programming that’s needed and that students need there?

We’ll continue to do this work with them, alongside them, and also ensure that with this work, by taking a sustainable look at how we fix our system in the long term, we’re not susceptible to changes of the federal government or anyone else in this way ever again. That’s the work that we’re committed to doing.

Korky Neufeld: That’s why I pressed on the question about the review being made public, because I think it is an important review. That’s why I wanted to get a date so that the public can understand what is at stake.

The minister mentioned that domestic student enrolment keeps dropping. We know that seats are empty in different sectors like health care and so on. So what is the minister thinking is contributing to that drop in domestic student enrolment?

[5:00 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: When we look at the domestic enrolment across the sector, it really varies across the province. Although it’s stagnant across, generally, when you’re looking at the sector, there are certain areas of the province where we’re seeing it decrease. We’re seeing certain ones where it modestly increases. There are a number of factors that are at play there, and I’ll talk about that in a second.

I do want to note that when we’re looking at health care and those seats, we don’t see a reduction in those. We do actually see…. We saw a moderate drop around COVID and then an increase in that, so that’s actually really promising.

When it comes to the differences in different areas of the province, there are a number of factors. Demographic differences exist: population growth, immigration — not just the international student piece but overall immigration levels. Limits on that have impacted having students of post-secondary age to go to post-secondary institutions.

As well, the big part that is a part of our review is looking at institutions that are in different areas of the province. Do they have the programming that students are looking for? Are there accessibility challenges? Is there a challenge in the relevance of programming that’s being provided? Those are things that we’re looking at to make sure that we are reducing barriers for individuals that want to access post-secondary institutions so they have this access and we can ultimately increase that domestic enrolment number.

Korky Neufeld: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

Under performance measures, the service plan contains several performance-measurable targets. So 5.1 says, “Tuition as percentage of median income, TBD,” which means “to be determined.” The tuition affordability target for 2026-2027 is to be determined.

To the minister, why is the affordability target not defined at the same time of publishing the service plan, and do you have those targets now?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: When we look at the affordability target there for 2026-27, there’s a footnote in the service plan that just says: “Undergraduate tuition and fees as a percentage of median household income targets are based on the Canadian average and are determined each reporting year. In accordance with the ministry’s accountability framework, targets are calculated based on Statistics Canada data released annually. The data needed to calculate the 2026-2027 target were not available for inclusion in this service plan.”

Knowing this, we know that this does create a bit of a lag and a challenge in service plans. This is something that in future service plans, we’re going to take a look at to see if that’s something that we should target if we’re including or if we’re looking at other aspects.

Korky Neufeld: From the information that I’m reading, 19 out of 25 post-secondary institutions will file an annual deficit, and nine of those 25 public institutions have an accumulated operating deficit. Why is there no explicit performance measure tied to institutional financial sustainability in operating margin, stability reserves and debt ratios?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As I said, there are things in the service plan that we will be looking at in future years to make sure we have the data on things, but this isn’t something — the financial sustainability of individual institutions — that would end up in a service plan. The service plan contains government goals there.

When it comes to the individual financial situation of institutions, this is something that they report quarterly to our ministry and to the Ministry of Finance and that my ministry gets regular information on, and they monitor the financial health of all institutions.

Korky Neufeld: Minister, I want to make some closing remarks, because I think we’re going to run out of time if I don’t do it now.

To the Minister of Post-Secondary and all post-secondary institutions across British Columbia, I want to share some thoughts on education I’ve gleaned from my 16 years in the K-to-12 system and from discussions I’ve had with presidents, leadership teams, faculty and post-secondary students over the past few years.

We need to think about delivering education differently in British Columbia. We stand at a defining moment for post-secondary education. Across our province, from the lecture halls of universities to the regional institutions for skills and technology training to colleges, both public and private, we are witnessing a profound shift in priorities. The question before us is not whether change is occurring. It is whether that change is strengthening our institutions or hollowing them out.

The crossroads in post-secondary that we have arrived at should guide meaningful reform — reform rooted in academic excellence, in intellectual courage and a renewed commitment to the core mission of higher education.

Post-secondary institutions exist for a clear and noble purpose: the pursuit of knowledge and the cultivation of competence. They are meant to discover truth, refine skill and prepare individuals to serve their communities with excellence. Yet increasingly, our institutions appear distracted from the mission.

Administrative growth has outpaced instructional investment. Symbolic initiatives have eclipsed scholarly rigour. Identity-based frameworks now dominate mission statements, hiring strategies and campus programming. Offices dedicated to diversity, inclusion and equity, often well intentioned, have expanded rapidly even as institutions announce layoffs, larger class sizes and reduced course offerings altogether.

At the same time, K-to-12 literacy and numeracy outcomes raise serious concerns. Post-secondary institutions are inheriting students who are less prepared in foundational skills. Instead of doubling down on academic standards, too many institutions have adopted a “meet them where they are” philosophy that risks lowering expectations rather than raising achievement. If standards fall at both ends of the pipeline, the entire structure weakens.

When a single ideological framework becomes dominant, whether to the left or to the right, academic life suffers. We are seeing a growing tendency to interpret all social relationships through a simplified victim-oppressor lens. Complex historic, economic and cultural realities are reduced to moral binaries. Immutable characteristics like race, sex and identity are elevated as primary determinants of perspective and authority.

The result is not greater understanding but greater division. Worse still, dissent becomes risky. Faculty and students hesitate to question prevailing narratives for fear of reputational or professional consequences. But an academy that cannot tolerate disagreement cannot fulfil its purpose. Universities are not temples of orthodoxy. They are arenas of contestation. We are meant to institutionalize disconfirmation, to test claims, to challenge assumptions, to refine ideas through arguments and evidence.

[5:20 p.m.]

When intellectual safety is conflated with physical safety, when disagreement is framed as harm, inquiry itself becomes constrained. When inquiry is constrained, progress halts. Education must return to first principles.

Imagine an academic plan that centred on the pursuit of truth, the cultivation of excellence, the formation of character, the encouragement of innovation, the preparation for service. These are not partisan values. These are civilization values.

When students pursue truth, they learn to distinguish evidence from ideology. When they pursue excellence, they develop competence and confidence. When they cultivate character, they learn responsibility alongside rights. When they innovate, they strengthen the economy and solve real problems. When they serve, they bind communities together.

This is not a rejection of compassion. It is a deeper form of it. The greatest service we can offer disadvantaged students is not symbolic affirmation. It is rigorous education that equips them to thrive. Meritocracy, properly understood, is not cruelty. It’s clarity.

Positions in academia and professional life carry profound responsibility. Hiring and admissions decisions must prioritize competence, preparation and potential. Mentorship should lift students upward, not dilute standards downward.

Across North America, institutions are reconsidering policies that inadvertently undermine access by removing objective measures of preparation. The lesson is clear. Lowering standards does not create equity. It often obscures disadvantage and reduces mobility.

True accessibility means ensuring students are prepared to succeed, not merely admitted to struggle. This requires investment in foundational skills, smaller class sizes where needed, robust tutoring and early interventions. It requires mentorship networks that connect students to professionals who model excellence, raise the bar and provide ladders to reach it.

Education, nursing and medical programs carry extraordinary responsibility. Teachers shape the next generation’s literacy and numeracy. Nurses and physicians safeguard life itself. These programs must prioritize core competencies above political activism. Cultural awareness matters, historical understanding matters, but they cannot replace mastery of subject matter and teaching skill. A teacher must know how to teach reading. A nurse must know how to deliver care. A physician must know autonomy, pharmacology and diagnosis. Government’s role is not to enforce ideology but to safeguard standards.

We must also elevate the trades. A province cannot thrive without skilled workers in aerospace, carpentry, electrical, welding and machinery. Strengthening trades education requires early exposure in K to 12, clearer pathways and a partnership between secondary, post-secondary institutions and industry. Academic and trade streams should not compete. They should complement one another. A healthy society needs both engineers and poets, physicians and plumbers. We must replace narratives of resentment with narratives of responsibility.

We’re not merely products of history. We are agents within. Yes, injustices have existed and persist. Yes, reconciliation and inclusion matter. But the guiding story of our institutions cannot be permanent grievance. It must be shared aspirations.

We who study in British Columbia do not do that as oppressors and victims but as citizens preparing to contribute. We pursue beauty in art, in design, in craftsmanship. We pursue truth in science, in scholarship, in debate. We pursue meaningful work aligned with our abilities and affinities.

We are more alike than we are different. Our differences should provoke curiosity, not hostility. This calls for re-centring institutions’ priorities on academic excellence, reviewing administrative growth relative to instructional spending, protecting viewpoint diversity and academic freedom, grounding policy definitions, biological and scientific clarity where appropriate, reforming professional programs to prioritize core competencies and strengthening both humanities and trades through diplomization and high standards.

These are serious proposals. They require debate, but they deserve the consideration. If we continue down the current path, where ideology crowds out inquiry, where symbolism displaces substance, where standards quietly erode, we risk graduating students less prepared to lead, to build, to heal, to teach. But if we change course, if we restore confidence and excellence, courage in debate and clarity in mission, we can renew British Columbia’s post-secondary system.

Post-secondary education is not merely a training pipeline. It is a civilization institution. Its purpose is to cultivate capable, responsible, thoughtful human beings. Let us choose a story of agency over grievance, excellence over mediocrity, courage over conformity, responsibility over resentment. Let us reform not to exclude, but to elevate.

[5:25 p.m.]

If we do, our graduates will not enter the workforce as fragile participants in ideological struggle. They will enter as competent, curious, resilient problem-solvers ready to contribute to the flourishing of British Columbia.

This is the vision before us. Let us have the courage to pursue it.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Chair.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: As we close out the estimates of our Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, I just would like to say a thank-you to my team for support.

I would like to thank the member for his passion for education and for the lively conversation we had today.

As we know, the public post-secondary system and the post-secondary system as a whole in B.C. is the backbone of a thriving economy. It’s what will allow young people to get good jobs, build a life right here in B.C.

I am grateful that our government, since forming government, has recognized the value of post-secondary education by continuing to invest in this system, including in times that are difficult, recognizing that even in difficult times, it is our education, our young people, the work that we are doing there that is going to strengthen the economy of tomorrow and make British Columbia a better place to live every single day.

This is a system that we need to work for everyone, to continue to be a top global education destination for students here and around the world. We will continue to work to strengthen it. We want to make sure this system is as great as it is for generations to come. We will do everything in our power to do that work, and we look forward to doing that work with students, staff, faculty and administration across the sector.

I really want to thank all of the passionate advocates when it comes to education — from our institutions, our students, our staff and our faculty — that do such great work to educate the next generation here.

I’m grateful for the work you do. I’m grateful for the diversity of thought that you encourage, and I’m grateful for the leaders of tomorrow that you are developing. So thank you for being a partner in this work always.

Thank you again to my critic, and to my team for supporting me today.

The Chair: The question is the vote on 41.

Vote 41: ministry operations, $3,580,561,000 — approved.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 5:44 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 4, Supply Act (No. 1), 2026, to order. I ask the minister if she has some opening remarks.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I am happy to bring forward Bill No. 4, 2026, Supply Act (No. 1), 2026.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Sorry about that. I just realized that there’s a member online.

Minister…. Member for Kamloops Centre, do you have any remarks to any of the clauses?

Peter Milobar: Just that I’ll take the original introduction as minister. But in all seriousness, no, thank you. I have no questions on this bill. It’s pretty straightforward, a typical supply bill.

Clause 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I appreciate the staff being online today and the member opposite and that we should…. I’m sorry.

The proper sentence is: I move that the committee rise and report this bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.