Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Sunita Dhir.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld: This morning we had the 20th anniversary of the MLA prayer breakfast, and we had 40-plus MLAs in attendance from across political lines. The speaker’s, Dr. Gordon Smith’s, message was resilient hope.

Let’s thank Leading Influence and Jason and Anna, our Leg. chaplains, for hosting such an exceptional event.

Claire Rattée: I have two different introductions that I want to make today.

One of them is that we have, somewhere here, Bobby and Karla from Union Gospel Mission. They were at the prayer breakfast this morning, but I also had the opportunity over the lunch hour to go and visit them at one of their recovery houses, as they’re kind of breaking into the space here in Victoria and providing some really great service for people that really need it.

I want to thank them for the work that they do and welcome them here to the Legislature.

The other introduction that I want to make is, really, somebody that needs no introduction here. It’s somebody that’s known well across party lines because he does the hard work of advocating for our communities, and he does it well. It’s someone that I look up to and that I respect a lot, and that’s our mayor, Sean Bujtas.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I am honoured today to introduce the Alzheimer Society of B.C. and Yukon.

Dementia is something that touches every part of our health system. It touches the core of our communities. Addressing this requires research; education; clinical leadership; compassionate, community-based support; and listening to people with lived experience. It’s challenging but important work, and we’re partners in doing this work together.

I want to say thank you to the members of the board and staff, who are here with us in the gallery today, for your leadership, for your advocacy, for the work that you do not only for people living with dementia but those who walk alongside them.

I would ask all members of the House to please join me in welcoming them and making them feel very appreciated for the work that they do.

Peter Milobar: I have three people to introduce today.

One is Michelle Reith from Kamloops. She is a newly retired nurse who — I found out today when I bumped into them on the grounds — actually worked with my father back in the day in the hospital. But of more interest is, apparently, that her grandmother Mary English was the galloping grandma that went across Canada in the 1960s gathering signatures in favour of the legalization of lotteries to fund health care.

Joining Michelle is her mother from Revelstoke, Elaine Ralph, and her brother from Creston, Michael Ralph.

Will the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to recognize an individual today who, as a young man, left India. He was destined to be in Bollywood. He had the opportunity of being in Bollywood, but he chose to leave that opportunity and instead immigrated to Canada.

He became an organizer in the farmworker movement, an organizer in the labour movement. Today we call him the Speaker of the House.

Hon. Speaker, I want to wish you a happy birthday.

Some Hon. Members:

“Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday to you,

Happy birthday, dear Speaker,

Happy birthday to you.”

[Applause.]

Statements

Financial Reporting Award
for District of Sooke Staff

Dana Lajeunesse: A few years ago, while I was an elected member of the district of Sooke council, after having presented their latest audit results to council, KPMG staff suggested that the district’s finance department deserved an award for their work. So today I wish to recognize and congratulate the district of Sooke staff on receiving the Canadian Award for Financial Reporting.

[1:40 p.m.]

This is a national honour that reflects rigorous standards, transparency and unwavering commitment to public service.

I want to thank you for your professionalism, your care, your dedication to serving Sooke with excellence. This award is a testament to your extraordinary work and is truly well deserved.

Introductions by Members

Bruce Banman: Happy birthday, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce two guests joining us in the gallery today, Mr. Neil Dobson, director for British Columbia with Clean Prosperity, and Mr. Adam Sweet, vice-president for western Canada.

For those who don’t know, Clean Prosperity is a Canadian organization focused on advancing practical solutions that reduce emissions while supporting economic growth. Their work contributes to important conversations around climate policy and innovation right here in British Columbia and across Canada.

Would the House please welcome them.

Harwinder Sandhu: Since the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth has beat me to it, but I had my hand up, I, too, would like to acknowledge an extraordinary individual who’s very inspiring, a trail-blazer and a champion of human rights and workers rights.

He is a favourite among children to adults to seniors and also across the world, in the South Asian diaspora and beyond.

I, too, would like to take a moment to wish you, Mr. Speaker, a very happy birthday. Thank you for all you do.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Minister of Environment.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and happy birthday.

I’d like to welcome representatives that are here from the Northwest B.C. Resource Benefits Alliance. In the House today are Mayor Sean Bujtas, the mayor of Terrace; Mayor Gladys Atrill, the mayor of Smithers; and Mayor Herb Pond, the mayor of Prince Rupert. As well, joining them is Ron Poole, the project manager for the RBA.

We’re looking forward to meeting with you and the Premier later this afternoon.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them here.

Larry Neufeld: Today in the gallery we are joined by a large contingent of members from the Canadian Hydrogen Association.

The Canadian Hydrogen Association is a national non-profit association, comprising industry, academia, research agencies and end-users, focused on advancing the use of clean hydrogen and hydrogen technologies to help create a prosperous net-zero world.

For those of us in this place of honour that have not yet done so, please do take an opportunity to visit the hydrogen-powered vehicles that are out on the front step at this time.

Please help me make them feel welcome.

Tony Luck: Today I was pleased to welcome the grades 6 and 7 French immersion students from Ecole Collettville Elementary School from Merritt. This is a school that my wife recently graduated, and she had a great time teaching there.

They were accompanied by their teacher Jory Berthelet, their principal Brandon Sambrook and parent helper Tobey Loeppky. They toured the Legislature and said meeting Mr. Baldrey was one of the highlights of the tour today.

Anyway, unfortunately, they are headed back to Merritt, and they’re not going to be able to sit with us today.

Would you please join me in offering them a safe trip home.

Sharon Hartwell: Today I was invited to hear the presentation on the Resource Benefits Alliance in the northwest and what it means for communities. It was a pleasure to welcome people from home.

Joining us today is Mayor Gladys Atrill from the town of Smithers and also a person who, at least for me, needs no introduction and has worked in municipal government in the northwest for most of his career. Please welcome Ron Poole and the guests to the chamber.

Janet Routledge: I’m very pleased today to welcome 30 grades 5, 6 and 7 students and their teacher Crystal Smith from Aubrey Elementary in Burnaby North.

Please join me in making them feel very welcome and to have a really good time here today.

Korky Neufeld: Two quick introductions.

Our caucus welcomed 11 presidents and leaders of private institutions from across B.C. to the precinct. I’d ask them, please, to stand on the far end upstairs. Thank you so much.

We had a sobering discussion with our caucus this morning. There’s a handful of representatives in the chamber.

Members, let’s make them feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

We all know how important our constituency assistants are. I’d like Isaac Byrd to stand up, please. Let’s be honest. They run the office. They’re in charge. I show up where I’m supposed to, and they make all the things happen.

I want to thank you, Isaac, for all you do for the residents of Abbotsford West.

His wife, Ella, is here for the first time. Would she stand as well.

Let’s make them feel welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’ve got some incredible guests in the precinct today and tomorrow, meeting with members, I believe, from both sides of the House. The United Steelworkers Wood Council is here in Victoria advocating for forestry workers in every corner of our province.

We have Wood Council chair Jeff Bromley; Mike Duhra; Josh Moraes; Brett Barden; Keith Carson; Aman Chumber, who’s the new president of Local 2009 — great to see him in that role; Kelly Gulka; Jason Cox; Nolan Paquette; Andrew Deley; Rod Park; Grant Farquhar; Gord Haine; Eli Anderson; Phil Ducharme; Ryan Wilson; Dylan Gulak.

These guys do outstanding work in their communities, standing up for forestry workers in every corner of our province.

Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Rohini Arora: I am thrilled to announce and introduce, of course, many folks that the minister just spoke to, but there are three staunch advocates of workers and the forestry sector, and they are members of my union Local 2009. I want to give a shout-out to Aman Chumber, who is the newly minted president, and thank Al Bieksa for his time as president. His retirement party is coming up this Friday, so get your ticket.

I’d also like to shout out my friends Kelly Gulka and my union pops, Mike Duhra.

Thank you so much for joining us today, and I wish I could be there with you.

Please join me in welcoming them.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Happy birthday.

We don’t have folks down from Prince George very often. It was my pleasure today to meet up with and have lunch with Chief Dolleen Logan, from Lheidli T’enneh, and Todd Corrigall, the senior vice-president of Central Strategies.

Would the House please welcome them here today.

Jeremy Valeriote: Happy birthday, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to welcome Jatinder Sidhu and Paige Calvert from my constituency office who are visiting today. They continue to do impressive work out of our Squamish office and across the riding, and they’re not discouraged by tough problems and the occasional grumpy constituent.

I also want to repeat the welcome to the Canadian Hydrogen Association delegation. Check out their hydrogen vehicles on the front lawn.

A special nod to my friend of 30 years, Ron Klopfer, who is the CEO of Hyfluence, a Burnaby-based company that makes hydrogen fueling systems.

Please make them feel welcome.

George Anderson: Happy birthday, Mr. Speaker.

First, I’d like to welcome a constituent from Nanaimo-Lantzville, Jim Dickinson. He’s a rancher. He’s a builder and just a great British Columbian. He’s also volunteered for the past 23 years with the Vancouver Island Military Museum. It’s also his first time ever in the Legislature.

I hope the entire House would make him feel welcome.

Rob Botterell: And many more, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to welcome Julie Luna, Theresa Coles and Deborah Bowman, my constituency team, to the Legislature. They’re visiting the Legislature for an all-day training session with an amazing client care team we have and are attending QP to watch us in action.

Please, may the House join me in making them welcome.

Jordan Kealy: I would like to welcome to the Legislature Brad Sperling and Leonard Hiebert. They are from the Peace River regional district. Brad Sperling is the chair of the regional district, and they are here for some minister meetings.

I wish you luck.

Larry Neufeld: My colleague from Peace River North has embarrassed me for not making the exact same introduction.

Thank you very much.

Please help me welcome them for a second time.

[1:50 p.m.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Statutes
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 10, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2026. This bill amends the Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act to improve efficiency in the complaint and dispute resolution process under both acts. The Employment Standards Act and the Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act set the floor for the minimum standards for compensation and conditions of employment and help protect workers from exploitation.

Workers who believe they’ve not received the rights and protections they are entitled to under these acts may file a complaint with the employment standards branch. The complaint process at the branch offers valuable support to vulnerable workers. These workers often lack the power to advocate for themselves when employers or foreign worker recruiters do not meet their obligations under the acts.

The proposed amendments will help with ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of complaint resolution at the branch. It is important that workers who file complaints receive the wages and other remedies owed to them as soon as possible. Efficient and timely complaint resolution is also important for employers, who rely on the branch to administer fair proceedings. These amendments will support both workers and employers with improved service while maintaining the rights and protections under these acts.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 11 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Christine Boyle presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2026.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act. This bill achieves a key legislative outcome. Bill 11 proposes amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act to improve health and safety in supportive housing.

Through increased investment in supportive housing, more British Columbians have come indoors from encampments or have avoided homelessness altogether. We’ve also been able to support people with more complex needs. At the same time, supportive housing providers have experienced challenges related to rare but serious safety incidents, including problematic guests and tenants who may pose a risk to the well-being of others.

Based on insights from engagement that began in summer 2025, changes are being proposed that strike the right balance between effectively promoting safety in supportive housing and maintaining protections under the RTA for people who call supportive housing home. Everyone deserves a safe place to live and work. To achieve this, the right tools are needed.

This bill will create provisions tailored to the operational realities of supportive housing, including addressing urgent challenges related to weapons and de-escalation of serious health and safety risks. Beyond supportive housing, amendments will also strengthen existing eviction provisions to better protect guests and workers across all forms of rental housing.

Finally, the amendments will clarify the jurisdiction of the RTA related to transitional housing. This bill is a significant step toward improving safety and stability for people who live and work in supportive housing.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

[1:55 p.m.]

Members’ Statements

Community Work of
Options for Sexual Health

Janet Routledge: Options for Sexual Health is a non-profit charity established in 1963. It champions and celebrates the sexual health of all people in B.C. by supporting, providing and promoting inclusive and accessible health care and education.

Options’ school-based education team delivers comprehensive sexual education. To quote UNESCO:

“CSE empowers young people to make informed decisions about relationships and sexuality and navigate a world where gender-based violence, gender inequality, early and unintended pregnancies, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections still pose serious risks to their health and well-being. It also helps to keep children safe from abuse by teaching them about their bodies and how to change practices that lead to pregnancy before they’re ready.

“Equally, a lack of high-quality, age-appropriate sexuality and relationship education may leave children and young people vulnerable to harmful sexual behaviours and sexual exploitation, including online violence, bullying and misinformation.”

Options operates clinics in rural and remote areas, and the Sex Sense information and referral line provides confidential services to anyone in B.C. for free through a toll-free phone number or by email.

Options does preventative health promotion through their community engagement team — both in person at events, sharing information and safer sex supplies; and digitally, combatting mis- and disinformation through blogs, social media and knowledge platforms.

In a world increasingly influenced by fake news and uncertainty, it is reassuring to know that there is a place like Options for Sexual Health, where everyone in B.C., regardless of age, ancestry, ability, gender identity or sexual orientation, can get non-judgmental, evidence-based support for their sexual health.

Quesnel Community Support
Roundtable

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and many happy returns.

I rise today to acknowledge and thank the dedicated members of the Quesnel community support roundtable. Last year my office brought this round table together to unite the many organizations and individuals in Quesnel that work tirelessly to support those who are often unheard, unhoused and unfed. By strengthening communication and collaboration, this group has enhanced coordination of care and support for some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

One powerful example of this cooperation is the community meal initiative, hosted each Monday at Northstar Church. Since its launch at the end of January, the initiative has served an average 180 meals every week. Just as importantly, it has created a welcoming space of connection and belonging for those living in isolation.

The Quesnel community support roundtable includes the city of Quesnel, the Cariboo regional district, the Quesnel Shelter and Support Society, Canadian Mental Health Association of Northern B.C., the Nourish food bank, GreenHope Society, the Quesnel Women’s Resource Centre, Amata Transition House Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, Foundry Quesnel, Northstar Church, St. John the Divine Anglican Church, Two Rivers Church and many passionate individuals who give their time and energy to help others.

The challenges facing our communities are significant. One in eight British Columbians lives below the poverty line. Food bank use has surged 79 percent since 2019. In Quesnel, the homeless count has risen to 131 in 2025. In Williams Lake, it has increased 96 percent since 2020. Compared to the previous decade, intimate-partner violence has risen sharply — up 32 percent among adults aged 25 to 64 and 42 percent among seniors. Intimate-partner sexual assault is 163 percent higher. Paramedics have responded to 256 overdose and poisoning calls in a single day.

It’s important that this House recognizes those who are filling these gaps, offering compassion and helping people when and where most needed.

Thank you to the members of the Quesnel community support roundtable for your leadership and dedication. I look forward to continuing our work on these essential efforts.

Support for Small Business

Paul Choi: A strong economy is built from the ground up. In B.C., that foundation is our small businesses. Across our province, more than 98 percent of businesses are small businesses. There are cafés on our main streets, the family-run stores in our neighbourhoods, manufacturers creating local jobs and entrepreneurs turning ideas into opportunities.

[2:00 p.m.]

This is not just a statistic to me. It is personal. My family ran a small convenience store after we immigrated to Canada. Like many small business families, we worked long hours behind the counter. We learned quickly that success depends on resilience, hard work and collaboration.

That experience shaped my understanding of the economy long before I studied law or tax policies and long before I had the privilege of serving in this chamber. Those early lessons shaped my understanding of how important small businesses are to our economy and to our communities.

Today, as Chair of the Finance Committee and as Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, I have the privilege of engaging with business leaders, entrepreneurs and industry groups across B.C. And I hear a consistent message: when we work in partnership with small businesses, our entire economy grows stronger.

Supporting small businesses means helping them navigate new markets through our trade and invest reps around the world, strengthening trade opportunities through export navigator and trade accelerator programs, reducing barriers to growth through the Look West strategy and ensuring our policies create the conditions and innovation for job creation.

Our role in this chamber is to continue championing the businesses, workers and innovators who power our economy, so let’s keep our communities thriving.

A Night to Shine Event for Inclusion
of Youth with Special Needs

Linda Hepner: Recently I had the absolute privilege of attending an event called a Night to Shine at Horizon Church in my riding. What an extraordinary evening it was, a true celebration of joy, inclusion and community spirit honouring individuals with special needs.

A Night to Shine is an unforgettable prom night experience centred on God’s love, designed specifically for people with special needs age 14 and older. It all began a decade ago as a simple idea from the Tim Tebow Foundation to mark their fifth anniversary and as a way to shine a light on those often overlooked in our society.

Tim Tebow and his team prayed for just 25 churches to simultaneously host the event that first year, but 44 stepped up, creating the first magical prom experience that has since become and blossomed into something truly remarkable.

A Night to Shine has blossomed now into a worldwide movement involving over 600 host churches in 56 countries. Seeing the walk down the red carpet, the smiles, the dancing, the balloon drop and the crowning of kings and queens, on young people often overlooked or not as easily engaged but getting to experience an amazing prom night, was a real highlight of my year. It showcased the best in our province, with compassionate volunteers, supportive families and a shared commitment to equity.

I want to give a special thanks to Horizon Church, who brought joy to so many young people dressed in their prom-night finery. It was uplifting to be there.

Metro Theatre in Vancouver

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to recognize the incredible Metro Theatre in my constituency, a historic and cherished non-profit organization that has enriched the community through the magic of live theatre since 1963.

Thanks to the hard work of the 15-person volunteer board of directors, the Metro Theatre has become a vibrant community hub in the Marpole neighbourhood, dedicated to producing high-quality performances. I had the honour of meeting Matt Ramer, Mary Cleaver, Steve Dotto, Alison Schamberger and Jo Sears of the board, who shared the great work they do.

I have also had the pleasure of attending three live shows at the Metro so far: Lend Me a Tenor, Miss Bennet: Christmas at Pemberley and Nunsense.

[2:05 p.m.]

Behind every production is a remarkable group of local artists, musicians, creatives and volunteers whose dedication has helped Metro Theatre thrive for decades. This past fall one of my constituency advisers, Kayla Charchuk, was in the cast of Metro’s production of Rent.

Metro Theatre also encourages community-building with its upstairs lounge, complete with a licensed bar and piano. The Metro holds occasional post-show receptions and singalong events where patrons can connect with each other and the cast and crew after shows. During the opening night reception of Nunsense, I met their talented all-women cast, as well as the director, Shel Piercy.

I look forward to continuing to support the Metro Theatre. I’d love to see some of my fellow MLAs join me at a show there sometime soon.

Private Property Rights

Dallas Brodie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and happy birthday.

Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right of all. United with the right of personal liberty, private property has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race.

To my mind, these statements are a given, impossible to contradict or even challenge, statements that are so obviously true that it would seem impossible that they need reinforcing or that this Legislature would need reminding. But alas, it is time that these fundamental concepts be once again proclaimed. Personal liberties and private property rights are being everywhere infringed by government.

Why is this dangerous to our way of life? Why should we care about private property? These questions may seem silly, but my observation in this Legislature is that, more and more, private property rights are not being as forcefully defended as they must be and that, although much lip service is paid, very little is actually being done to draw a bright line around this cornerstone of our entire system.

The great economist Milton Friedman said: “Nobody spends someone else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.” But on the other side of the spectrum, Karl Marx said this: “The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence: abolish all private property.”

We find ourselves drifting or being pulled towards land collectivization and communism. We must fight this trend with all we’ve got.

I am speaking to thousands of British Columbians who are deeply concerned about their ability to retain full control over the property they bought with their hard-earned money. We, as legislators, need to dedicate ourselves to fighting for these British Columbians who are losing faith in the government’s ability to protect their private property.

This should not be about partisan politics. Property rights are so fundamental they should transcend the political persuasion of reasonable people. I invite all members of the House to unify in a renewed and forceful defence of private property.

Oral Questions

Federal Government Recognition
Agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Nation

Trevor Halford: Another day we learn more, and another day the NDP’s credibility is less. Let’s be clear. This government has a problem with the truth — a big one.

On Monday, the Premier said: “To be absolutely clear, I received no briefings about the content of this agreement, no heads-up from the federal government.” He doubled down again and again.

Then we find out that the Premier was not only invited to the signing ceremony with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm; he attended. He sat in the front row.

Then we find out yesterday…. The federal minister says: “The federal government did brief the provincial government, and it was a number of weeks ago.”

I have a very simple yet difficult question to this Premier, and I hope…. Well, I know that the public is owed an answer.

[2:10 p.m.]

Is this government so incompetent on one of its most important files, or is this Premier or this minister knowingly deceiving the public?

Hon. David Eby: I had a call from Chief Sparrow of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm yesterday. I want to thank the Chief for the call. He wanted to apologize to me for inviting me to their community celebration of the agreement they’d signed…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: …with the federal government. He said that he had done his best to explain that I was attending the function, in his tradition, as a witness, to see what they had done with the federal government.

I was frank on the first public occasion I was asked about it, a media event. I was not briefed on this. I was not aware of the content of the agreements. If the member had continued the quote, he would have read: “It’s possible that somebody in the public service received a heads-up or knew about it.”

We followed up with the federal minister to say: “What are you talking about?” There was a staff-to-staff call, public service to public service. The Deputy Minister of Indigenous Relations received no notification. The Minister of Indigenous Relations received no notification. My deputy received no notification, and I received no notification. There are established channels for communication between us and the federal government. For whatever reason, they didn’t use them.

Now, to be generous, I imagine that they assumed that sitting down with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm to talk about title was not controversial and that it was not something that was worth bringing up to those levels, but definitely, we are in a heightened environment around these issues in the province.

I know our own government has taken hard lessons about needing to be more proactive in reaching out to key stakeholders. We’re taking those lessons. The federal government is taking those lessons too. We can all do better on this, but this is work, actually, that we have to do.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Let me be clear. It’s not the Chief of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm that should be apologizing. It’s the Premier of this province. Give me a break.

Is there anybody in this room, or anybody outside of it, that this Premier has not blamed already for his incompetence on such an important file? Give me a break.

From the Premier directly, and I quote: “I was glad to see the federal government working with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People, but I didn’t know the contents of the agreement until they were released publicly by the federal government.”

The Premier…. Now he’s saying that he was at the event because there’s a photo of him there. But the Premier was at the event. You would think, if he’s at a signing ceremony, he would leave that signing ceremony and say: “I should probably figure out what I just witnessed. If I don’t have a briefing, I should probably ask for one, or I should call my Minister of Indigenous Relations.” Neither of those happens.

So the Premier wants us to believe, based on his answers…. Honestly, not a lot of people are giving a lot of faith right now. But the Premier wants us to believe that all those channels of communication that he just cited all magically broke down and created this perfect storm, where he randomly accepted an invitation, walked in with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, sat there in the front row of a signing ceremony, zoned out the entire time, and was caught off guard when this announcement came.

I’m not buying it. Nobody else is. Why won’t this Premier be straightforward with the public, stand up, take some responsibility and stop lying in this House today?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, shhh.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I’m pretty sure the Leader of the Official Opposition knew that that kind of wording is not allowed in this House. I would ask him to stand up and withdraw and apologize.

Trevor Halford: Sorry. Can I use the words “misleading the House,” Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker: Just withdraw.

Trevor Halford: I withdraw the line, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Then in your next question, you can do whatever you want later on.

Mr. Premier.

Hon. David Eby: Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

I mean, the theory is bizarre. I don’t know why….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: First of all, the member is absolutely right. I told the Chief: “Thank you for inviting me. It was an honour to attend the event. You have nothing to apologize for.” And I congratulated him on the work that he’s done with the federal government. This is work that we have to be doing together.

I can advise the member that if I had known of the content of the agreements, we would have been faster out of the gate to push back on the absolutely ridiculous claims that the member and his colleagues were making about this agreement — that it was a land grab, that people’s private property was being handed over. All false.

The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm had to put forward a public statement on Facebook: “xʷməθkʷəy̓əm’s approach to private property has not changed. As stated by Chief Sparrow in December 2025, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm is not coming for anyone’s private property. Our approach to traditional unceded territory is one of partnership and relationship with our neighbours, not trying to take away our neighbours’ private property.”

They have had death threats at the band office about this. This is the kind of work that, just 22 months ago, the Conservatives said we had to do. This is their then leader — April 22, 2024. The member can look it up. “I think it might come as a surprise to some people to know that I support Indigenous title. We need to discover title.”

Talking about the Haida agreement: “This is an important step. I think that we need to be thinking about it right across the province as we engage with First Nations that want to see this title, that want to see the return of land and that want to see them to be able to have pride and to be able to build their futures.”

That was the nature of the agreement entered into between the federal government and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People. The member should be clear. Has he changed the position of the Conservative Party? Does he believe that First Nations title exists? If not, what did he think the court awarded across the entire middle portion of the province of British Columbia to the Tŝilhqot’in People?

The Speaker: Member, second supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Desperate times for the Premier, it looks like.

Let’s quote the Minister of Indigenous Relations, who said, with force, I might add: “I have reached out to the federal minister to certainly share my displeasure at learning about this through the news.”

I feel bad for the minister because he could have actually learned it through the Premier, because the Premier was actually at the event. Then the federal minister says: “No. We actually briefed the province. The province has been briefed, and we did it weeks ago.”

There seems to be a disconnect with executive members or staff, whatever, and the Premier wants us to accept that at face value. We’re not. I don’t think the public is. But it’s been 48 hours since the Premier magically just learned of this agreement, and I’m assuming the Premier has read the agreement.

So I’ll ask the Premier this very directly. Does the Premier support everything that’s in this agreement?

Hon. David Eby: We’ve been working for a long time to get the federal government more at the table with First Nations to have these important conversations.

Members will know that about ten years ago, a court found title in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area, awarded a large swath of the province to the Tŝilhqot’in, in terms of recognizing their First Nations title. Now the work that comes from that, that recognition of the court of First Nations title in the province, is significant. We have First Nations across the province that claim title in overlapping areas across the entirety of British Columbia. We have to sit down and work out title.

That was the position of the Conservatives 22 months ago. In the words of their leader at the time: “I think it might come as a surprise to some people to know that I support title. We have to do this work. I know it’s uncomfortable, but we have to do this work right across the province, and we have to do it with the federal government.”

Of course I support the federal government sitting down with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm to figure out the content of Indigenous title. I support Chief Sparrow in being clear to this House, to the public, that he’s not coming for people’s private property, no matter what the opposition says.

This is about sorting out a very serious legal matter that involves the province, the federal government, the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People and First Nations across the province. So we’re going to do that work, and I absolutely support the federal government being involved in that work. It is crucial.

[2:20 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: The Premier must have been a really good dodgeball player, because he’s exceptional at dodging the questions.

This is a dire situation. We have seen that this Premier has not been forthright and honest with British Columbians and this House when it comes to his knowledge of a major rights and title agreement between the Musqueam Indian Band and the federal government.

It’s a new day, where we have new information, and we see the Premier backtracking to cover what appears to be his full understanding of this agreement for some time. There’s either a dangerous lack of communication within this government, or there’s more they’re not telling the public.

My question to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. Did he know about this agreement in any way, shape or form from February 20, when the Premier was there at the signing ceremony?

Hon. David Eby: I’m not sure that we can be clearer. There was no briefing of the Deputy Minister for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations. There was no briefing for the minister. There was no briefing…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: …for my deputy minister. There was no briefing for me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. David Eby: I’m listening to the member across the way saying: “You don’t know what you’re saying.” This was an agreement between the federal government and the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm First Nation. The federal government is the government of Canada, for clarity. I was honoured to be there to witness the event.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Members, come to order, please.

Members, the Premier has the floor.

Hon. David Eby: This is work that the Conservatives believe the government had to do 22 months ago. I’m not sure that they still believe that it’s work that needs to be done, but our government is doing that work, and we will continue to do that work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis: It’s a tough day in question period. We see that the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation has stated their concerns. Again, another important voice is blindsided by this government’s negligence.

The agreement says, and I quote: “Nothing in the agreements or the Musqueam narrative shall be construed as prejudicing, limiting or restricting either party’s position with respect to rights and title, including the nature, scope or content of geographic extent of Musqueam’s rights and title or the geographic extent of Musqueam territory or the secondary use area.”

We need leadership on this file, for a change. Will the Premier stand up in this House today and tell us a specific date when this government, the Musqueam Indian Band and the federal government will have a meeting, and when will the public know exactly what’s going on here?

Hon. David Eby: I can sympathize with the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh First Nation, who also didn’t receive a heads-up about this agreement. They should have been involved and received a heads-up from the federal government. The xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and the səlilwətaɬ work closely together. In Metro Vancouver, they have overlapping claim areas, and that’s important.

The member says that he wants leadership on this file, while the previous leader of the Conservative Party was quite clear where he stood on this file. He said: “I think it might come as a surprise to some to know that I support title. We need to discover title.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: Then he advocated for exactly what our government is doing and, in fact, what the federal government is doing with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People: “I think that we need to be thinking about, right across the province, as we engage with First Nations that want to see this title, that want to see the return of land and that want to see them be able to have pride and be able to build their futures….”

That is the work that the federal government is doing. That is the work that our government is doing with nations in this province. It is challenging work.

We’re sitting down with the Quw’utsun right now, following a court decision around title that has serious implications for private property owners, and we managed to get to a joint declaration that those private property owners are protected — that their properties are not up for grabs in this court case or discussion.

We’ll do that work, but it is not easy work. It is challenging work. We’ll do it with our partners, the federal government and First Nations.

The Speaker: Members, before we take the next question, I am advised that somebody is wearing unauthorized lapel pins. Please, if you do, remove it. Thank you so much.

[2:25 p.m.]

Regulation of Artificial
Intelligence Technology

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to move us along from the repetitive anti-reconciliation gotcha politics.

Yesterday I spoke about the dizzying and increasing rate of change in our world. Artificial intelligence is now integral to this change and urgently requires our attention. That’s why governments around the world are setting out clear frameworks, guardrails and priorities.

This caucus is concerned there’s too much focus from this government on the electricity requirements and economics of the AI boom and not enough on the profound ethical, philosophical and public safety considerations.

The public deserves to be involved in shaping AI’s future. We need to know how the AI industry will be governed, where it will be deployed and how the public will be protected.

We’ve heard quite a bit from the federal AI minister and the Premier recently, but frankly, we haven’t heard much from the Minister of State for AI and New Technologies in this House.

To that minister, will this government release its work program so British Columbians can understand its plan for artificial intelligence?

Hon. Rick Glumac: I thank the member for the question. We are doing a lot of work on many fronts with AI. We’ve had conversations with the federal minister about guardrails. He has said that he wants to bring in legislation that’s light, tight and right.

But in light of what’s been happening recently, what we’ve discovered around OpenAI and their involvement in the tragedy that happened in Tumbler Ridge, it’s a very important topic right now. The Premier will be meeting with the head of OpenAI to talk about this.

We are advocating for regulation to the federal government to have a standard that can apply to all companies, so it’s very clear, for example, when reporting is necessary when a situation like this might come up so that we could avoid it in the future.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Mental Health Services and
Use of Artificial Intelligence
for Mental Health Support

Jeremy Valeriote: This House knows that big tech companies have not earned our trust, especially when it comes to our most vulnerable thoughts, feelings and personal information. When access to in-person mental health support is limited — for example, through budget cuts to mental health services like the community counselling fund — people turn to whatever is available, such as AI tools.

We deserve clarity on this government’s AI strategy, particularly when shrinking public services push vulnerable people towards private tech companies. We know the tech sector prioritizes clicks and enables disinformation.

Is the Minister of State for AI comfortable with people receiving mental health support from AI?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question, raising a really important topic, which is how we support the mental health of youth.

I just want to correct, for the record, that there have not been cuts to community counselling grants. In fact, the community counselling program is one where we are able to invest in community-based services that are delivered by organizations that understand the people they serve best — underserved populations; more vulnerable, marginalized members of our society; people who can fall through the cracks and end up in crisis. That’s why we’re going to continue that work, because we know just how important that face-to-face interaction is.

At the same time, there are technologies, like virtual services, where counselling and other mental health supports can be provided. Of course, as members in this House are well aware, in order to reduce the inequity that rural people feel and face on a daily basis, we have to continue this investment.

That’s why Budget 2026 sustains and protects the investments that we’ve made in youth mental health, in community-wide mental health services, and continues to build on that.

Access to Obstetrics and Trauma
Care at Vancouver General Hospital

Brennan Day: In the Interior, even when they call for virtual health support for a closed ER, the phone just keeps ringing.

B.C.’s largest hospital, Vancouver General, is now the latest in a growing list of maternity service failures across B.C. For four days, this government hid the fact that VGH was not accepting pregnant trauma patients.

[2:30 p.m.]

Expectant mothers suffering injuries were turned away from the province’s flagship hospital because the system couldn’t staff the service for four days. My wife has been one of those people. It is terrifying to think.

How did B.C.’s largest hospital turn away expectant mothers in trauma for four entire days while this government hid it from British Columbians?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I can assure the member that absolutely nothing was hidden from British Columbians, because patient safety is first and foremost in everybody’s minds, which is why plans are put in place to make sure that the services people need and depend on are in place.

Now, I’m surprised that the member doesn’t understand that VGH is not an obstetric site. It is not a place where people go routinely to have babies.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: In fact, in 2025, there were 41,557 newborns in British Columbia. There were none in Vancouver General.

I want to be very clear though. People should always call 911 in the event of a health emergency, whether they are pregnant or not, and the people there will determine what the best site is to go to. Sites like Lions Gate, like St. Paul’s, like B.C. Women’s, like Richmond General continue not only to deliver babies on a routine basis but also to deliver the services that people need.

At this time, we know that we’re facing an issue with respect to obstetric on-call services. We are working through Vancouver Coastal Health to close that gap, but every pregnant patient who calls 911, who needs the ER, will have the services delivered for them.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day: We’ve heard this before from this minister, scripted responses every time. Thank the workers. Talk about patient safety.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Brennan Day: But the facts remain — four entire days. For four days, the largest hospital in B.C., the third-largest hospital in Canada, would not accept pregnant trauma patients. If you were in a car accident, you would be on diversion.

The minister said: “This is not a place where babies are routinely delivered.”

That wasn’t the question, Minister. So don’t try to conflate the two issues.

When an expectant mother is in trauma, she expects the largest hospital in the province and our only quaternary facility to be there. If the minister can’t answer how this happened, she should resign, because if she remains in this role, she’s not falling on her sword. She’s falling on his.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Well, I guess a scripted response also comes from a scripted question, because the member is standing reading from a sheet of paper too.

It’s absolutely vital that the services are in place for people, and they are in the Lower Mainland and everywhere in British Columbia. In the event of a trauma in which somebody who is pregnant needs that service, it is there. I want to read into the record the fact that from January 2024 to December 2025 — that is a 24-month period — a total of 15 patients presented fell into the trauma category.

Every single case matters. That’s why a plan is in place so that people can get the help they need — whether it’s at St. Paul’s, B.C. Women’s, Richmond General or Royal Columbian Hospital. These services are incredibly important. We’re going to continue to deliver them in the Lower Mainland and do everything to restore this service at VGH.

Access to Obstetrics
Care in Hospitals

Lawrence Mok: Ridge Meadows Hospital is yet another case of mothers being left in limbo by this government.

Between February 26 and March 2, this hospital experienced a maternity ward closure for 96 hours. Yes. This isn’t the first time. This is the fourth time in less than three months.

How many more maternity ward closures does this Premier allow in my riding before he fires the Health Minister?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: It’s a very challenging thing for anybody who is expecting a child to know that the hospital that they hope they’ll be able to deliver their baby at may be on diversion. That’s why Fraser Health Authority and all health authorities in British Columbia that have experienced this issue take every action they possibly can to prevent this from happening.

We are facing a strain. We are facing a challenge in our workforce. We know that we need more ob-gyns. We know that we need more family doctors who are able to deliver babies. That’s why we are doing the work to train more doctors in this province; to attract more doctors to this province who deliver this service because stable, predictable service is in everybody’s best interest. During this time, we will always do everything we can to keep it stable.

I urge all pregnant people, expecting people, to work with their care providers, because again, patient safety comes first. Protecting mom and baby comes first. That’s why we will, through the health authorities, continue to let people know if this type of service interruption happens so that we can continue to deliver the safest possible health care for all British Columbians.

Gavin Dew: NDP now stands for no doctors present.

Yesterday we heard of yet another four-day maternity ward diversion at Ridge Meadows, set to start tomorrow. In the last two weeks, that maternity ward has only been open for two days.

When will this Premier fire his Health Minister and find someone capable of delivering health care for British Columbians?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Each and every day, I get up dedicated and committed to working hard to strengthen health care service for British Columbians. That is our universal public health care system here in this province.

I am proud of the work that we are doing in creating more doctors, building the first new medical school in 60 years, something that members of the opposition, when they were previously in government, said no to.

We have the highest number of physicians per capita here in Canada, but we know there is more work to do, which is why we will continue to fast-track credentialing, speeding it up for American-trained doctors, nurses and other health care workers to come here. That’s why we’ll continue the work, recruiting. That’s why we are going to continue to welcome Americans in our inclusive, open communities that are happy to have people come here.

This work will continue each and every day.

Anna Kindy: I am going to stand here and try not to script anything, because I think this is really important.

I have been a physician for over 40 years, so I understand the system. I’m actually truly shocked that there is no accountability to what’s happening when the biggest hospital in British Columbia, the leading level 1 trauma centre in British Columbia, doesn’t have obstetrical coverage.

The other side tries to spin it, saying: “Well, you know, VGH doesn’t do maternity care.” We’re talking about level 1 trauma. We’re talking about women who are pregnant that get into car accidents and need timely care. It’s about life and death for woman and child.

The spin continues, but I’ve got my tentacles on the ground. I’m a physician. I know what’s happening. What’s happening is a communication breakdown. There have been staffing issues for over a year, and this hasn’t been addressed. The front lines have solutions, and they’re not being listened to. That’s the issue. That’s mismanagement.

Let’s not script anymore, because we’re talking about life and death. We’re talking about the only level 1 trauma hospital in Canada without obstetrical care.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Anna Kindy: My question. Because it’s never been more dangerous to be a woman looking for access and care in this province, will this Premier do his job and stand up for pregnant women in B.C.?

Hon. David Eby: It’s hard to think of a health event that is more important to a family than the birth of a new child. The Health Minister and her team, the health authorities, the front-line hospital staff — everybody is working hard to ensure that people have access to the highest quality maternity care across the province.

We have a shortage of health care professionals that we need. That’s why we opened a new medical school, which has its first class coming in, in September.

Now, I hear the members saying: “Oh, that’s your fault.” Well, 17 new or expanded hospitals had to be built by this government to respond to….

But I cannot allow people not to know who just asked that question and who her network of doctors is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: At the We Unify conference, the member for North Island, the Health critic for the Conservatives, sat with a doctor who believes that the COVID vaccine causes AIDS.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, come to order now, please.

Hon. David Eby: As measles rips through populations, where previously it had been extinguished, because people are not getting vaccines, because of advocacy and endorsement of people…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: …like the Health critic for the Conservatives…. I can’t let her stand up here and pretend she cares about women and babies, because it simply isn’t true.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Anna Kindy: Point of order to the statement the Premier made about my not supporting measles vaccination, which is false. That is actually untrue. Because I cannot say “lie,” I will say “untrue.”

I want the Premier to retract his statement.

Hon. David Eby: Thank you for the member clarifying which vaccine she does and doesn’t support.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members. Let’s hear.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, please. The Chair would like to hear the reply, please.

Hon. David Eby: If the member supports the measles vaccine, I’m glad to hear it.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. I withdraw.

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby: Hon. Speaker, I did withdraw. I withdraw.

Interjections.

Hon. David Eby: Well, you can look at the transcript, Shouty.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh. Member, there are young children in the lobby upstairs in the gallery. Please be careful.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, we heard you, Member. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. David Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker. My point on the COVID vaccine stands, though.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have the honour to present the British Columbia Utilities Commission’s annual report for ’24-25.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Thank you.

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 on Bill 3, the Business Measures Implementation Act.

In Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates, Committee of Supply, for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[2:45 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Motor Vehicle
Amendment Act, 2026
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: We will call this chamber back to order. I ask you to take your conversations into the hallway so that we can continue our debate on Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act of 2026.

Brennan Day: I seek leave to move my motion M204.

Leave not granted.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re going to carry on with second reading of Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act of 2026, and we will call on our member for Langley-Abbotsford to carry on from where he left off.

Harman Bhangu: I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

Let me begin by saying clearly that I plan to support this bill as long as there are the right safeguards in place.

At its core, Bill 6 is about modernizing how British Columbians renew and replace their drivers’ licences and identification cards. It introduces a framework that will allow many of these services to be completed online rather than requiring people to go and visit an actual ICBC office. That is a positive step. But as I mentioned yesterday, it is also a step that is coming a little too late.

I have to renew my driver’s licence this year. Quite frankly, I wish I could, after this speech, walk into my office, log in and have that renewal approved within a couple minutes. That is the kind of convenience British Columbians expect in 2026.

Government services should evolve with the times. People bank online. They file their taxes online. They manage businesses and finances online. It only makes sense that straightforward services like licence renewal should also be available digitally.

For many British Columbians, this will save time and reduce frustration. Right now something as simple as renewing a licence can require people to take time off work, arrange child care and sit in long lineups at ICBC offices. For families with busy schedules, those hours matter. For workers who are paid by the hour, that lost time means lost income. Bill 6 recognizes that reality and moves towards a system where routine renewals can be completed quickly and efficiently online.

Another benefit of this legislation is that it could reduce pressures on the ICBC service centres. By moving routine transactions online, staff will have more time to focus on services that genuinely require in-person interaction — things like road tests, things like complex licensing issues, things that cannot simply be handled through a digital form. That could help reduce bottlenecks and improve overall service for the public.

This bill also has the potential to improve fairness across the province. For people living in rural and remote communities, visiting an ICBC office can involve long travel times. In some areas, residents may need to drive significant distances simply to complete a basic renewal. Allowing online renewals makes those services more accessible and more equitable for the people across British Columbia.

On the principle of modernization and convenience and efficiency, this legislation makes sense. While I support the direction of this bill, there are also important concerns that deserve attention.

[2:50 p.m.]

The first concern is transparency. Bill 6 establishes a legislative framework for online renewals, but many of those key details are left to future regulations. Those regulations will determine who qualifies for online renewals, what conditions apply and the safeguards that will be put in place. At this stage, those details are not fully clear. As legislators and as representatives of the public, we should have clarity about those rules before the system is fully implemented.

Another concern relates to the digital divide. While many people are comfortable with online services, not everyone is. Not everyone has the access to the internet and also the level of digital literacy involved in making and completing those forms. Seniors, for example, may prefer in-person services. Some low-income households may not have consistent internet access. In rural areas, for those individuals, it is essential that in-person services remain accessible and adequately staffed.

Security and identity verification are also important considerations. Drivers’ licences are a primary form of identification used in banking, travelling, employment and many other aspects of our daily lives. That means the identity-verification process for online renewals must be robust and secure.

The bill also introduces a requirement for individuals to notify ICBC if their email address has changed. While that may sound straightforward, the practical implications should be considered. People change email accounts frequently. Some people maintain several email addresses. Others may not regularly monitor them at all. The government should ensure these requirements are reasonable and clearly communicated.

Finally, the implementation timeline is another factor. The government has indicated that the online renewal system is expected to launch around 2027. That means the full benefits of this legislation will still be some time away.

Modernization of government services is something most people can agree on. Bill 6 has the potential to move us in the right direction, but modernization must come with transparency, strong safeguards and continued access for those who rely on in-person services.

While I will be supporting this legislation, I will also be watching closely to ensure it is implemented properly. The goal should always be better services, greater convenience and a system that works for all British Columbians — and that they can trust.

Steve Morissette: I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill 6, legislation that will amend British Columbia’s Motor Vehicle Act and take an important step towards modernizing driver licensing and identification services in our province.

At its core, this bill is about something very practical: making it easier for people to renew or replace their driver’s licence or provincial ID without unnecessary long trips, long waits or time away from work and family. This is critical for rural British Columbia.

If passed, Bill 6 will enable the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia to offer simple renewals and replacements online through its secure website. That means that renewing a driver’s licence, replacing a lost or damaged card or renewing a stand-alone BCID, a stand-alone photo B.C. Services Card, or the combined driver’s licence–B.C. Services Card will become more convenient for eligible British Columbians.

This is the first step in a long-term modernization plan to make ICBC’s services faster, easier and more accessible. It is also part of our government’s broader commitment to modernize and improve access to the services that people in British Columbia rely on every day. This does not preclude in-person services for some seniors or others that don’t have access to internet services.

[2:55 p.m.]

Bill 6 amends the Motor Vehicle Act to enable ICBC, once development work and regulations are complete, to accept online applications for replacing a valid driver’s licence that has been lost, destroyed or damaged, and simple renewals for the majority of driver’s licence classes where no changes are required, other than extending the expiry date.

These changes will apply to eligible drivers with full B.C. driver’s licences. Drivers with a class 7 learner’s licence will be able to replace a lost or damaged card online, but renewals for learner licences will continue to require an in-person appointment because of testing requirements.

Renewals involving changes to a driver’s personal information, such as a name change or a new medical condition, will still require an in-person visit. Individuals with outstanding fines, tickets, remedial program requirements or other violations will also need to attend an office to address those matters before renewal.

All existing safety requirements and eligibility rules will remain in place. This legislation does not weaken standards. It simply allows straightforward, uncomplicated renewals to be completed online.

Once an eligible customer submits an online application through ICBC’s secure digital portal, and once that application is approved, ICBC will issue an interim licence electronically. The new card will then be mailed directly to the customer at no additional cost.

These changes will save people time and transportation costs. They will eliminate the need to stand in line or schedule an in-person appointment for simple paperwork. People will not need to take time off work or arrange child care for a routine renewal.

This is the first step in many upcoming moves to make access easier for people. This will be particularly meaningful for people in rural and remote communities. This is close to my heart, because in many parts of rural British Columbia, renewing a licence can mean travelling long distances to reach the nearest ICBC office. That may require hours on the road and additional expenses, simply to extend an expiry date or replace a damaged card.

By enabling online renewals for eligible drivers, we are recognizing the geographic realities of our province. We’re reducing barriers and making services more equitable across regions.

These changes will also benefit those who continue to require in-person services. By moving simple transactions online, ICBC offices will have more appointment availability for road tests and other services that must be delivered face to face. This is a smarter use of public resources and a more efficient way to deliver service.

If passed during this spring legislative session, amendments will be implemented once development work and regulations are complete, with the online service expected to begin operating in 2027. This phased approach ensures that systems are built carefully and securely and that regulations clearly outline eligibility criteria and program requirements.

Road safety remains a top priority. Only eligible existing drivers in good standing will be able to renew online. Current conditions for renewing a licence will still apply. Anyone with outstanding violations or program requirements will need to resolve those matters in person before renewal.

ICBC is working closely with the Ministries of Health and Citizens’ Services to ensure that high standards of fraud prevention, identity verification and residency verification are in place. ICBC has also consulted with the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police Traffic safety committee to ensure law enforcement perspectives are incorporated into the design of these systems. Protecting against identity fraud and ensuring public safety are foundational to this modernization.

[3:00 p.m.]

These changes will also bring British Columbia in line with eight other provinces and territories that already offer some form of online driver’s licence services, including Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories. British Columbia should not fall behind when it comes to service modernization. We should ensure that our systems reflect the realities of how people live today.

I would also like to briefly note that Bill 6 concerns the renewal of existing licences. It does not change how new drivers obtain their licences.

Separate improvements to the graduated licensing program, coming into effect in this summer of 2026, will remove the requirement for a second road test to obtain a class 5 licence. That second test will be replaced with a new extended 12-month period of driving restrictions during which drivers must demonstrate safe driving behaviour before earning their full unrestricted licence. Research shows that maintaining a clean driving record over a longer monitoring period is a reliable predictor of future driving behaviour.

Most provinces and many countries have not required a second road test for decades, and there is no evidence that having one improves safety outcomes. These improvements will lower barriers to licensing for drivers in rural, remote and Indigenous communities, where travelling to complete a second road test can be particularly challenging, while continuing to prioritize road safety.

Bill 6 is practical, responsible legislation. It saves people time. It reduces unnecessary travel. It improves access in rural and remote communities. It frees up in-person appointments for services that truly require them, and it maintains rigorous safety standards and strong fraud prevention measures.

Government services should reflect modern expectations. British Columbians conduct many aspects of their lives online, and it is reasonable that simple driver’s licence renewals and replacements be available online as well. This is thoughtful, staged modernization that improves access while safeguarding public safety.

For those reasons, I am proud to support Bill 6 and encourage all members of this House to do the same.

Hon Chan: Let me begin by saying this clearly. We support efficiency. We support modernization. We support using technology to make life easier for British Columbians. In fact, on this side of the House, we have consistently called for the government’s service to be faster, to be smarter and to be more accessible. We want less red tape. We want fewer lineups. We want people to spend less time waiting and more time living with their lives.

In principle, we support the intention of modernization. But intent alone is not enough, because what British Columbians have experienced over the past several years is not efficiency. It is backlog. It is delay. It is reactive policy-making.

Let us take one example that is directly related to the driver licensing system, and I think the member just before me actually used the same example. On the other hand, we feel like the government removed the second road test under the graduated licensing program. The stated reason was to reduce backlog and wait times. Instead of fixing the system, instead of hiring more examiners, instead of making tests more efficient, the government eliminated the safeguard.

Rather than strengthening the capacity, they just lowered the bar. That’s not modernization. That is managing backlog by cutting requirements. So when we see another bill that claims to streamline and digitize processes, we must ask: are we truly improving the service, or are we simply adjusting rules to accommodate administrative limitations?

We love efficiency. We have always advocated for technology to make government services more seamless. But efficiency without security can be dangerous.

[3:05 p.m.]

That brings me to a serious concern that I do not see adequately addressed in the legislation — identity theft. As government services move online, as more documents are submitted electronically, as more processes rely on digital verification, we must ask: what safeguards are in place to ensure that the person submitting the information is actually who they claim to be? What specific identification, verification methods or mechanisms will be required? What authentication standards are being used? Will there be multi-factor authentication? What fraud detection tools are being implemented? What audit trails will exist? Who is monitoring suspicious activities in real time?

Modernization without robust identity protection will expose British Columbians to significant risk, and we do not have to look far for examples of vulnerability. Several major data breaches have affected British Columbian ministries over the years, exposing deeply personal information and undermining public confidence.

In 2015-16, the Ministry of Education lost an encrypted hard drive containing approximately 30 years of student records. And even when technology improved, recently, in ’24 and ’25, Interior Health confirmed that police discovered a document containing personal information, including social insurance numbers and addresses, for approximately 20,000 people — SIN numbers, names and addresses.

When social insurance numbers are exposed, the consequences can last for decades. Credit can be destroyed. Fraud can follow someone for years. Identity theft can take enormous efforts and costs to repair.

In addition to these breaches, in 2024, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association reported that hackers had accessed 22 B.C. government inboxes containing data on 19 employees, including personal information like the personal employee IDs, job details, etc.

These incidents underscore that even internal government accounts are vulnerable to unauthorized access and highlights the very real risk that sensitive data can be exposed through cyber intrusion. If basic government email systems are being targeted successfully, it raises serious questions about the readiness of this government’s technology infrastructure to protect the personal information of millions of British Columbians as service moves online.

In 2024, reports by some media revealed leaked internal documents from the Ministry of Forests suggesting that the ministry had at times bypassed or sidelined its own science advisory panel in decisions related to old-growth logging. According to the reporting, recommendations from independent scientists were not consistently reflected in final decision-making, raising concerns about transparency in governance and refusal to establish progress.

When internal safeguards and advisory mechanisms are not fully respected, it undermines public confidence in government oversight. While this incident was not a traditional data breach involving personal information, it also demonstrated another kind of vulnerability — institutional integrity risk. When internal processes can be bypassed, when advisory systems can be overwritten without full transparency, it raises the legitimate question about governance control.

These are not isolated incidents. They represent the systematic risks that come with managing large volumes of personal information. So when governments propose to expand digital processes to allow more submissions online, to digitize more identity-linked transactions, we must ask whether the lessons from these breaches have truly been internalized.

Have we upgraded the encryption standards? Have we strengthened our internal access control? Have we limited employees’ access on a strict, need-to-know basis? Have we conducted penetration tests by independent cybersecurity experts? Have we ensured that any third-party contractors handling data meet the highest security standards?

British Columbians deserve clear answers, because identity theft is not theoretical. It’s real. It’s growing, and the government databases are prime targets. So when we move towards greater digitization, we must ensure that the verification systems are not only convenient but also resilient.

If someone intercepts the mail — as the member opposite mentioned, they can get the driver’s licence by mail — they may obtain a sticker to update a licence, and that’s concerning enough.

[3:10 p.m.]

But if someone intercepts digital credentials, gains access to an account or exploits other weaknesses in identity verification protocols, the consequence can be far more severe. Once data is compromised, it cannot be uncompromised.

Modernization without security creates exposure. Public trust is fragile. Once lost, it is difficult to rebuild. British Columbians must have confidence that their driver licensing information, their personal identifiers and their records are protected with the highest possible standards. But in this bill alone, it did not mention any of those.

Efficiency is important. Convenience is important, but security is fundamental. When we debate this legislation, I ask the minister to address these concerns directly. What identity theft protections are built into this bill? What authentication measures will be mandatory? What encryption standards will be applied? How will the government monitor and respond to potential breaches? Will there be independent oversights to ensure that modernization strengthens rather than weakens the integrity of our public system?

Let us talk about something very simple, something physical, something that every driver in British Columbia has experienced. When a person changes their address, what happens? They receive a sticker in the mail, a sticker that applies to your driver’s licence.

A sticker can be damaged. A sticker can peel. A sticker can be duplicated at home. A sticker can be intercepted if the mail is stolen. This is 2026, and we’re still relying on adhesive labels to update our primary identification documents.

I recall renting a car outside of Canada. I handed over my driver’s licence. The rental company looked at it and asked: “What’s up with this sticker?” They said: “It looks amateurish. Did you just put it on yourself?” I actually felt embarrassed. This is one of the most important identification documents issued by this province, and we update your address with a sticker.

That seems minor, but it reflects a broader issue. If we are serious about modernization, it cannot simply be moving the forms online. It must also be strengthening integrity, security and public confidence.

When a sticker can be easily damaged or misused, what about digital submissions? What about scanned documents? What about remote verification? Has this government actually conducted a comprehensive risk assessment on identity fraud under this new framework in this legislation? Have they consulted cybersecurity experts? Have they modelled worst-case scenarios? What happens if somebody intercepts the mail? What happens if somebody impersonates another individual online? What happens if the database is breached? All these questions are not answered in this legislation.

Modernization without protection creates vulnerability. I do not see in this bill clearly strong provisions that address identity theft prevention, digital authentication standards or enforcement mechanisms — none.

We must also look into and consider the consequences. If someone’s identity is stolen and used to alter the records, who bears the responsibilities? If a fraudulent submission led to a licence being issued or modified improperly, what recourse does the victim have?

These are not hypothetical concerns. Identity theft is one of the fastest-growing crimes in North America, and government databases are high-value targets. When we speak about efficiency, let us remember that efficiency cannot come at the expense of trust. Public trust in government symbols is fundamental. If British Columbians do not believe that their information is secure, if they fear that their identity can be compromised or impersonated by others, then no amount of administrative streamlining will restore confidence.

I want to raise a specific concern about the language in the bill that states one must “deal with the last driver’s licence or duplicate of it, as directed by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.” I ask the minister: what does “deal with” actually mean? Does it mean to surrender it? Does it mean to cut it? Does it mean to damage it, or does it mean to discard it in your garbage can?

[3:15 p.m.]

It’s not a membership card. This is the most important piece of identification that many British Columbians carry in their wallet. It is used for banking, for travel, for employment verification, age verification and countless identity-related transactions.

If a person is instructed simply to dispose of it, how do we safeguard against misuse? What prevents someone from keeping an old licence and using it improperly? What prevents it from being retrieved from household garbage? What safeguards ensure that it is securely destroyed? If duplicates exist, how is ICBC tracking and invalidating them? If duplicates exist, is there a centralized deactivation process? Is there a real-time database update to prevent fraud?

I want to draw you into some examples in other jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions, when you have to reapply for update or to get a new or updated driver’s licence or ID card, the driver must actually appear in front of the clerk at least once, either when you submit your documents or when you receive the document, which is the ID card. But in our jurisdiction, according to this bill, you do neither. You submit it online — nobody knows that it’s actually you — and you receive your card in the mail.

When we talk about modernization, identity protection must be precise. The language, like I mentioned, dealing with it is very vague, and vague language in identity legislation creates risk.

I would like to ask the minister to clarify what exactly is required of applicants, what specific destruction or surrender protocols are mandated and how ICBC ensures that cancelled or replaced licences cannot be misused. This is not an ordinary card. It is a fundamental, very important, identifying document. British Columbians deserve clarity and security, not ambiguity.

We must ensure that this bill is not another example of solving administrative challenges by weakening safeguards. As we mentioned, we want to streamline it. We want less red tape. We want more efficiency. At the same time, we need security. We must ensure that this bill is not an example of weakening safeguards.

We should be asking: are we investing in proper verification systems? When somebody submits documents online, can we actually verify that person is that person? Are we building a modern digital identity framework that is secure, encrypted and resilient? Are we ensuring that the modernization strengthens integrity rather than weakening it?

We support technology, as I mentioned. We support making service faster. We support reducing backlog, but we do not support cutting corners, because British Columbians deserve a system that is both efficient and secure. They deserve modernization that protects them from fraud. They deserve identification documents that are doable, professional and credible, not like the stickers example I just mentioned. They deserve a government that anticipates risks instead of reacting after problems emerge.

As we review this legislation, I urge the minister to address these concerns directly. What specific identity theft protections are embedded in this bill? What authentication standards will be used? How will the government ensure that every submission truly comes from the individual that it claims to represent? Will the minister commit to reviewing outdated practices, including physical identification updates, to ensure the B.C. system reflects modern standards of professionalism and security?

We want efficiency. We welcome modernization.

George Anderson: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, which will enable British Columbians to renew or replace their driver’s licence and identification cards online.

At first glance, this may appear to be a modest administrative change, but when we look more closely, what we see before us is something far more significant. This legislation is about how government adapts to the world that people actually live in. It’s about whether public services evolve with technology and deal with the daily realities of working people.

[3:20 p.m.]

Ultimately, it is about whether government removes unnecessary barriers that stand between people and the services they rely on, because if government exists to serve people, then those services must be designed around the lives of the people we represent, not the other way around.

Let me begin with something simple. Almost every British Columbian who drives has had this experience. Your driver’s licence is about to expire, so you check the calendar. Then you check the ICBC office hours. You try to figure out whether or not you can get there without missing work, without rearranging child care, without having to drive across an entire city or region.

Then you book an appointment. You get there, and you say: “Wow, there’s a lineup.” You wait, and then you wait some more and then wait even longer. Then you say: “Maybe it’s time for me to just leave and go home.” But then you decide that you’ll keep on waiting because otherwise you’re going to have to find another time to actually have an appointment and, interestingly, which is what this piece of legislation is going to do, accomplish something that could actually be done in minutes.

That experience may seem small in isolation, but there are millions of residents across this province who have had to experience this kind of issue. We begin to see something important — that time spent navigating bureaucracy is time taken away from families, time taken away from work, time taken away from community life.

Government should not create friction where none is necessary. That’s why this legislation before us today matters. It recognizes that in many cases, the most responsible modernization of government is also the most practical.

Let me be clear about what these amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act actually enable. If passed, the bill would allow ICBC to introduce online renewals and replacements of drivers’ licences and identification cards for eligible residents of British Columbia. That includes renewing an existing driver’s licence when no changes are required; replacing a licence that has been lost, destroyed or damaged; renewing or replacing identification cards; and renewing the combined driver’s licence/B.C. Services card.

In other words, the legislation enables something pretty straightforward. Simple transactions should be simple to complete. This is not about changing driver qualifications. It is not about lowering safety standards, and it is not about bypassing oversight. All the existing eligibility requirements remain in place. Drivers with outstanding violations, fines, medical conditions or other issues that require review will still need to attend in person.

For millions of British Columbians who simply need to extend their licence due to an expiration date, the law will finally reflect a simple reality. That reality is that not every governmental service requires a physical lineup.

I sat on the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform, and I often had to hear from the member for Prince George–North Cariboo about how expansive the size of his riding is. He’d say it was the size of Switzerland, I believe. When we think about the size of the province, I think we have to recognize that British Columbia is quite vast.

Driving from Victoria to Prince George to Castlegar…. Maybe not Castlegar, actually. I’ll leave the Castlegar example for later. Specifically, from Victoria to Prince George is roughly the same distance as driving from Toronto to Chicago. That’s quite a long drive, if you’ve ever made it before. From Vancouver to Fort Nelson, we are talking about approximately 1,600 kilometres.

[3:25 p.m.]

That geography matters, because for many British Columbians, accessing services is not just about waiting in line. It’s about the travel to get to those locations. In many rural communities and northern communities, residents have to drive significant distances to access governmental services. This is something that the MLA for Kootenay-Monashee talked about earlier.

I had the great fortune and opportunity to visit Castlegar, Nelson and Fruitvale. Fruitvale is a wonderful community, by the way. What I found was that with the distances to actually get to certain services, it took a while. If you need to get to certain services by transit, that’s going to potentially take you even longer. In communities such as in Kootenay-Monashee, you will see transit as a social service. So here’s an opportunity to try to make the lives of many British Columbians easier and much more accessible.

Then we have to think about things such as winter highways, sometimes requiring time off work simply to complete an administrative task. That is paperwork. These amendments before us recognize that reality, because when someone in a small community must travel hours simply to renew a document that could have been processed digitally, that is not efficient government. That is policy that has failed to keep up with the pace of modern life. This legislation begins to correct that.

As someone who spent time with a career in law prior to being in this House, I often think about legislation in terms of principles. One of the most important principles in administrative law is the accessibility of public services. Government authority carries with it a corresponding obligation. Services must be accessible, predictable and fair. That principle doesn’t just apply to courts and tribunals. It applies in everyday interactions between citizens and the state.

When someone renews their licence, they are engaging with the administrative machinery of government. Our obligation, as members of this House, is to ensure that the machinery of government works as efficiently as possible to deliver results for everyday British Columbians.

When government processes are cumbersome, the burden falls not on government. Rather, it falls on the public. That’s what we’re all here to do — to try to make the lives of everyday British Columbians better. That is what this legislation recognizes. It removes friction from a process that should be simple.

Let me tell you. There’s an opportunity here in that we actually get to learn from other jurisdictions across this country. British Columbia is not the first jurisdiction to move in this direction. In fact, eight other provinces and territories already offer online driver’s licence services. They include Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.

What that tells us is something very important. This isn’t an experiment. It has happened in real life. It’s a proven service delivery model across Canada, and British Columbians deserve the same convenience and accessibility that residents in other provinces already enjoy.

I’d like to use a few examples to just highlight the tremendous changes that this particular bill is going to make for everyday British Columbians. This is a real-life example.

[3:30 p.m.]

I did say “real-life,” but I want you, specifically, hon. Speaker, to imagine a construction worker in Nanaimo whose licence is expiring. That construction worker works long hours on a jobsite. Their shift starts pretty early and, unfortunately — almost similar to this House, in some ways — ends quite late. The ICBC hours overlap directly with his or her workday.

To renew their licence today, what is that worker going to need to do? They’re going to need to take time off work. I don’t think that’s what we want to have happen in this House. We want British Columbians going out, doing the work that they enjoy, showing up, delivering the benefits that they need for their families, without having to lose wages — especially just to get a driver’s licence. I don’t think anyone wants that to happen.

The worst part about that example that I’ve mentioned to you is that this example hasn’t ended. It’s the fact that that construction worker, who could be helping build a hospital or a school, is now having to drive across Nanaimo.

Let me tell you. To drive from one end of Nanaimo to the other takes about half an hour, maybe a bit longer. Then you’d spend that half an hour driving to the ICBC location to just wait in line, and who knows how long that could be. Could it be five minutes? Could it be ten minutes? Could it be 20? Could it be half an hour? There are times where I’ve waited in the ICBC lineup, and it’s been an hour and a half.

That’s all just to extend a document that already exists in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia’s system.

With online renewal, that worker could complete that process in minutes, going back to participating and doing a job that they actually enjoy, which is building homes, building schools, helping build British Columbia.

What this legislation says is that we’re not just looking at convenience here. This legislation says that through Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, we respect the time of British Columbians.

If that example was not good enough for you, I have another example. Let’s consider a senior in Fraser-Nicola. There is a senior there who is living in a remote part of the community, and travel is not as easy as it once was. Driving longer distances is a bit difficult, or using transit. That senior might actually have to depend on a family member.

Under the current system, that senior may need assistance simply to attend an appointment. Online renewal changes that dynamic. It restores independence for that senior. It allows that senior to manage essential documents from their own home, and that matters.

As people age, you want to be able to ensure that they have that independence, to be able to control their lives, to be able to dictate how they’re going to move around their community. As someone who has contributed very much to the overall fabric of British Columbia, having to figure out how to get to an ICBC location, when it’s not as easy to move around, is unfair.

That’s one of the great things of this piece of legislation, that we care about fairness and will be delivering fairness.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Speaker, you didn’t seem very convinced or compelled by my last example, so I have another example for you.

Interjections.

George Anderson: You’re welcome. I will give you more, just because you asked for it. That’s what the people in this House have asked for.

Another real-life example, which you’ll have to think about, is residents in northern or remote communities, communities where access to government offices may require travel across significant distances, again, needing to plan an entire day around that ability just to renew a document. Online renewal, again, removes that barrier. It ensures that people living outside of major urban centres….

I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Nanaimo-Lantzville before, but there is a community outside of the great urban centre of Nanaimo, which is called the district of Lantzville. For them to go into the community, it’s going to take a bit of time, depending on where you are, because it is a bit rural.

Again, this bill — Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act — demonstrates fairness in action.

I’m sure you don’t want more examples, so I’m going to move and start talking about….

Interjection.

George Anderson: I would give you more, but I’d like to get on to the safeguards and security, because I think that’s equally as important for the seniors and young people and the various examples that I’ve already talked about so that they understand how this bill safeguards them and provides security.

Whenever government services move online, legitimate questions are raised. You know, my friend on the other side brought up a variety of questions — questions about verification, fraud prevention, data security, data breaches, issues that we’re actually seeing a real rise in. Those questions are important, and they must be addressed clearly.

I think we’re very fortunate to know that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia has already begun working with the Ministries of Health and Citizens’ Services to ensure strong safeguards are built into the system. Those safeguards include identity verification tools, fraud prevention protocols and secure digital authentication systems. Those are real, tangible safeguards that British Columbians can rely upon.

Those measures are also being developed in consultation with the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police Traffic safety committee. If there’s a group of people that I’m going to trust, it’s going to be our police, individuals who go and stand up in protection of everyday British Columbians. They’re having those conversations about how we can better develop policy. I think, really, it’s the people who are dealing with crime, who are ensuring that crimes are prevented, that can actually provide the answers as to how we deal with security issues.

In other words, this system will not sacrifice security for convenience. It will actually deliver both.

There is another point I’d like to highlight. That is that this legislation takes a measured approach. It begins with simple renewals and replacements, ones that are deliberate, a policy that doesn’t attempt to transform the entire system overnight. It begins with transactions that are straightforward, then builds the systems outward as they’re demonstrated to be proven and reliable, something that we have seen in other provinces.

I’m not going to list them again because I know that you were paying attention to all of the provinces and territories that have already implemented this modernized system.

[3:40 p.m.]

That’s how responsible modernization works — step by step, evidence-based and carefully implemented.

It’s important, through this discussion and debate today, that we also look at what this legislation is not. There may be some who suggest that enabling online renewal somehow reduces road safety. I can tell you that claim doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. The legislation does not change any standards with respect to an individual obtaining a licence. It doesn’t allow a person, through the graduated licensing program, to bypass testing. And it doesn’t allow unsafe drivers to evade review.

If someone has outstanding violations, medical issues or other conditions requiring assessment, they will still need to attend in person. There will be no online renewal that’s available for that individual. And all the safety rules remain fully intact. This legislation is focused on how paperwork is processed, not how safety is regulated.

While the legislation that we’re talking about today focuses on renewals, it’s part of an overall modernization of drivers’ licences in British Columbia. We know that transportation systems are evolving, we know that vehicles are changing, and we know that digital infrastructure is expanding.

Public expectations of government are also increasing. They expect that in a highly digital world, they should be able to navigate the world of government in a way that they’re able to navigate on their cell phones — to be able to get the services that they need in a reasonable time frame, not being upheld by cumbersome paperwork and rules that were made for a different time period.

Hon. Speaker, you will know that, as you’ve been sitting in the chair, we often debate laws that deal with complex regulatory frameworks. But at the core of Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, law exists for a simple reason, and that’s to serve people. We are all here for the purposes of serving British Columbians and delivering the results that they expect of us.

A law that simplifies people’s lives, I would argue, is a good law. A law that reduces unnecessary bureaucracy is a good law. A law that respects people’s time, which Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, does, I would say is a good law. And that’s what this legislation accomplishes.

I’d just like to reflect on modernization in government a little longer, if that’s okay with you, hon. Speaker.

In my time working in the legal profession, I’ve seen firsthand how institutions can evolve. Court filings are moving in a more digital way. Legal processes have modernized. Public services across many sectors are adapting to new technologies.

I think that government should also be looking to adapt and become more agile so that we, again, are delivering the results that British Columbians expect of us. Government cannot remain static while society evolves.

When I was in law school, we talked about the idea of a living tree, and here’s government as well. You might recall, during a debate, where Barack Obama talked about how we don’t use bayonets and horses for different warfare and fights, and so on. We use modern technology.

[3:45 p.m.]

Similarly, as we advance our society in British Columbia, a way that we’re leading is by looking at the systems that we have in place. This is a great example of how we can modernize for British Columbians and deliver the results that they expect.

But let me tell you. In my community, people are going to be happy to know that they don’t have to wait in a lineup at the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia when this bill passes, or should this bill pass.

What this bill would do is actually create more trust in government institutions because this gives time back to people, and it also demonstrates competence. It shows that the public service can actually be efficient and responsive. We often hear that, no, there is no solution. There is nothing that can be done, and this is the best that we can do.

Through Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, we are demonstrating that government can act. Government can be agile. Government can deliver results for everyday British Columbians by ensuring that they can do something that should be so simple as renewing their driver’s licence online. I’m proud to be part of a government that is moving along and streamlining in a way that delivers results for British Columbians.

Some people will say that legislative changes such as this aren’t going to make the headlines. I think this is one that should make the headlines, because this change quietly improves the lives of millions of people in our province and even improves the lives of people who won’t even know that this debate happened in this House.

We’re moving into the 21st century with this change, with Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. I would say that the impact should not be underestimated when this is actually saving the time of millions of people.

Rural residents getting access to services faster, seniors managing essential documents without unnecessary travel…. I said it earlier. Good law makes improvements in the lives of everyday people. And this is good law because the small improvements do add up over time.

In closing, the amendments before us represent thoughtful modernization. They demonstrate that we can actually advance our society in a way that improves lives for British Columbians and doesn’t change safety standards in any way. It actually incorporates safeguards.

Most importantly, we demonstrate that government services can be more accessible to everyday British Columbians, and that is something every single member of this House ought to be proud of. Good legislation solves problems. It reduces barriers, and it respects people’s time. It reflects the world that actually exists. For those reasons, I am proud to support Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act.

Macklin McCall: I rise today to speak to Bill 6, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026. At its core, this legislation is about modernizing how British Columbians interact with ICBC when it comes to basic licensing services.

The bill proposes to establish the framework that would allow people to renew or replace certain drivers’ licences and identification cards online through ICBC’s website and digital services platform. On the surface, that sounds simple, and in many ways, it is.

[3:50 p.m.]

For many people in British Columbia, renewing a licence should be something that can be done quickly and conveniently without needing to travel to an ICBC office, wait in line or take time away from work or family obligations. If we can make routine services more accessible and more efficient, that is a positive step.

For people living in rural and remote communities, this is particularly important. Many residents in smaller communities have to travel long distances just to complete what should be a straightforward transaction. In those cases, the ability to renew a licence or replace a damaged or lost card online can make a meaningful difference. It saves time, reduces travel and allows people to access services that urban residents often take for granted.

The intent behind this legislation is understandable. The government is trying to modernize ICBC services that bring British Columbia more in line with other jurisdictions that already offer some form of online driver licensing renewal.

Other provinces have moved in this direction, and there is value in ensuring that our systems keep pace with modern expectations. However, modernization always comes with responsibility. A driver’s licence is not just another government document. It is one of the most commonly used forms of identification in this province. It contains a person’s name, address, date of birth, licence number and photograph. In many situations, it is used to confirm identity, verify age or access services. In other words, it carries some of the most sensitive personal information that individuals have.

When government proposes to move parts of that system online, the conversation cannot be limited to convenience alone. We also need to consider security, privacy and how personal information will be handled once it enters the digital systems.

As the Public Safety and Solicitor General critic and as someone who has spent many years working in law enforcement, I approach legislation like this with two priorities in mind. First, we should absolutely support improvements that make services faster and more accessible for the public. Second, we must ensure that any modernization protects the personal information of British Columbians and maintains public confidence in the system.

Technology can improve service delivery. It can make government more efficient. But technology also introduces new risks if it is not implemented carefully. If we are going to move licensing services into a digital environment, we need to be clear about how that system will operate, how personal data will be stored, who will have access to it and what safeguards are in place if something goes wrong. These are not minor questions. They go directly to public safety, privacy and trust. Those are the questions we must examine carefully as we consider Bill 6.

Before getting into some of the concerns I will raise later, it is important to clearly explain what this bill actually does. Bill 6 proposes amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act that would allow certain driver licensing services to be completed online through ICBC’s digital platform. In practical terms, it means that many British Columbians would be able to renew or replace their drivers’ licences without having to attend an ICBC office in person.

Under the framework proposed in this bill, eligible drivers with full licences — classes 1 through 8 — would be able to apply online and renew their licence when the renewal simply involves extending the expiry date. In other words, if nothing has changed about the driver’s identity or licensing status, that renewal could be completely digital. The same applies to replacing licences that are lost, damaged or destroyed.

The bill also allows ICBC to offer online replacement or renewal for B.C. identification cards, for stand-alone B.C. Services Cards and for the combined driver’s licence and B.C. Services Cards. These are everyday transactions that thousands of people in this province complete every year.

There are still limits built into the system. Learner licences, for example, will still require in-person visits. That makes sense, because those licences are tied to testing and progression through the graduated licensing program. Renewals that involve changes to personal info, such as a change of name or address, would also require a visit in person. That is appropriate. Identity verification still matters, and certain transactions should continue to be handled face to face.

The legislation also provides authority for ICBC to establish rules about how applications can be made. Applications could be submitted in person, online or through other prescribed means. It also allows for regulation-making powers related to how licences may be mailed and how interim licences can be issued.

There are other housekeeping amendments throughout the bill that update language in the Motor Vehicle Act and align certain provisions with other legislation. Taken together, the changes are intended to support ICBC’s broader modernization program. ICBC has been working toward expanding digital services for some time.

[3:55 p.m.]

This bill is part of that longer effort to move routine services online while keeping more complex services available in person. If implemented properly, this could reduce wait times at driver licensing offices, particularly for services that require staff attention, such as road tests or licensing reviews. By moving basic renewals and replacements online, the government hopes to free up appointment capacity for those more complex transactions.

In theory, that is a reasonable objective. Anyone who has spent time waiting for an appointment at a driver’s licensing office understands the frustration that can come with delays. If routine services can be completed online safely and securely, that could improve the experience for many people. But that is where the word “safely” becomes important, because once these services move online, the system will rely heavily on digital records, digital photographs and digital verification of identity.

That is where the discussion must be moved beyond convenience. Modernization is good. Efficiency is good. But when identity documents move into digital systems, the security and control of that information becomes a much bigger issue. That is the part of this bill that deserves careful examination. Once we move licensing services into a digital environment, the discussion changes. We are no longer talking about convenience. We are talking about identity information, how it is stored and who has access to it.

The driver’s licence is one of the most widely used identifying documents in the province. People use it to verify their identity when opening bank accounts, accessing services, boarding flights, picking up prescriptions, renting vehicles and completing countless everyday transactions. It contains a person’s name, address, date of birth, licence number and photograph. In many cases, it also links to other services or identity systems.

When that information exists on a physical card, the risk is relatively contained. A person controls the card. If it is lost or stolen, the loss is localized to that single item. When the same information exists inside large digital systems, the risk changes. Instead of a single card, you now have databases. Instead of a physical document, you have images and personal information stored electronically, transmitted through networks and accessed through computer systems.

That is not inherently a problem. Modern government services depend on digital systems, but the risks that come with those systems need to be taken seriously. As someone who has spent many years working in law enforcement, I have seen how valuable identity information can be to criminals. Identity theft is not rare. Organized groups actively look for ways to obtain personal information that can be used to impersonate individuals, open accounts or commit financial fraud.

When large collections of personal information are stored in one place, they become attractive targets. The more complete the data set, the more valuable it becomes. If a database contains names, addresses, dates of birth and photographs, that is essentially a complete identity profile. That is why security matters.

When government asks British Columbians to trust a digital system with that information, it has to be confident that the safeguards are strong enough to protect it. People will reasonably ask questions. Where is this information stored? Is it stored within Canada? Is it stored on ICBC systems, or does it rely on outside service providers? How long are digital images retained after a renewal or replacement transaction is completed? Are copies created in backups or archives? What happens if a breach occurs?

These are not minor technical questions. They go to the core of public trust. When identity information is compromised, the consequences are serious and long-lasting. Unlike a password, a date of birth cannot simply be changed. A photograph cannot be replaced the way a credit card number can. Once that information is exposed, the damage can follow a person for years.

That is why digital identity systems require careful design from the beginning. Security should not be an afterthought. It should not be something addressed later through policy adjustments. If the province is moving toward online driver licensing services, then the architecture of that system — how data is stored, protected and accessed — must be clear and robust from the start.

British Columbians should not have to assume that everything will work out. They should be able to see that the safeguards are in place. That is where this bill leaves some important questions unanswered.

[4:00 p.m.]

There is another part of this conversation that deserves careful attention, and that is the handling of digital images. Driver licensing systems rely heavily on photographs. That image is a central part of how a driver’s licence functions as identification. It allows police officers, businesses and other officials to confirm that the person presenting the licence is actually the person to whom it was issued.

In the traditional system, that photograph is captured during an in-person visit to a licensing office. It becomes part of the physical card and part of ICBC’s internal records.

When services move online, the handling of those images changes. Instead of being captured and controlled entirely within a licensing office, photographs and signatures begin to exist within digital workflows. They may be transmitted through online systems. They may be stored, copied, backed up or processed with multiple layers of infrastructure.

Anyone who works with digital systems understands a simple reality. Once an image enters a digital environment, control over that image changes. It can exist in multiple places at once. It can be stored in backups. It can pass through systems that handle authentication or verification. It may remain in records long after the original transaction is complete. None of that is automatically unsafe, but it does mean the responsibility to protect those images becomes much greater.

A photograph tied to a driver’s licence is not just a picture; it is part of a person’s identity record. When combined with a name, address and date of birth, that photograph becomes part of the complete identity profile, in that if that information were ever compromised, it would be extremely valuable to someone engaged in identity fraud. This is why the security around those images matters so much.

British Columbians want to know how those images are handled in a digital system. Are photographs stored permanently in the same database as other personal information? Are they stored in multiple locations for redundancy? Are they encrypted? Are they ever transmitted outside Canada for processing or storage? If a person uploads or confirms an image through an online process, does that image remain in the system indefinitely, or is it removed once the licence renewal or replacement is completed?

These questions are not about opposing modernization. They are about making sure modernization is done properly.

If this bill passes, and if ICBC begins offering online renewals and replacements, the government will effectively be asking millions of British Columbians to trust a digital system with more of their most sensitive identifying information. That trust cannot rest on assumptions. It must rest on safeguards that are clearly understood and consistently applied.

People should know where their information goes. They should know how long it is stored. They should know what protections exist if something goes wrong.

The reality is that once identity information enters digital systems, the consequences of a breach become much larger than the physical card. A stolen wallet affects one person. A compromised database can affect thousands. That is why these questions deserve careful attention before the system is fully implemented. Modernization should make services easier for everyone, but it should never make their personal information vulnerable.

There’s another issue that needs to be discussed when we talk about moving driver’s licensing services into the digital system. It is not just about where the information is stored. It is also about who inside the system can access it.

ICBC is a large organization. Thousands of employees interact with licensing systems, customer files and internal databases every day. Most of those employees are professionals who take their responsibilities seriously. But when you build a system that stores identity information for millions of people, you have to design it with the assumption that access must be tightly controlled.

That means asking some basic questions. Who inside ICBC can access the information? Can any employee who works in the licensing system search for a person’s record and pull up their photograph, or is access restricted to a limited group of employees with specific roles? Are those accesses recorded? Are they audited? Are there systems in place to detect unusual or unauthorized searches?

In policing, we deal with these issues constantly. Police officers work with extremely sensitive databases — criminal records systems, police information systems and intelligence databases.

[4:05 p.m.]

Those systems contain personal information, photographs and investigative records. Because of that, access is tightly controlled. Officers cannot simply search those systems out of curiosity. Every query is logged. Every search can be reviewed. Supervisors and auditors can determine who accesses a record, when they accessed it and why. Those controls exist because the information is sensitive, and the potential for misuse must always be taken seriously.

When we talk about a digital driver’s licensing system, the same principles should apply. A driver’s licence database contains the identity information of millions of British Columbians. In many ways, it is one of the most complete databases in our province. If that information is accessible internally without strict controls, it creates risk.

Across Canada and internationally, there have been cases where employees within organizations accessed personal information without authorization — sometimes out of curiosity, sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes for criminal purposes. This is why internal safeguards matter. If ICBC is going to operate an online system, British Columbians deserve to know what controls exist.

Are employees limited to only viewing records if it’s necessary for their job? Are there automatic alerts for unusual search patterns? Are access logs reviewed regularly? Are employees trained and monitored to ensure the system is used properly? These are the kinds of safeguards that protect both the public and the institution itself. Without them, even a well-designed digital system can become vulnerable.

This bill sets the groundwork for moving driver’s licensing services online. That may be a positive step, but the success of that step depends not only on the technology but on the discipline around how the technology is used. Protecting personal information is not only about defending against outside threats. It is also about ensuring that access inside the system is controlled, monitored and accountable.

British Columbians should have confidence that their identity information is treated with the highest level of care. That means strong systems, clear rules and real oversight. Those are the kinds of questions we need answers to as this legislation moves forward.

Bill 6 moves British Columbia toward a more modern licensing system. It reflects the reality that people expect services to be accessible online. They expect routine transactions to be simple and efficient, and government should be working toward that where it makes sense. Allowing eligible drivers to renew or replace licences online could reduce lineups, improve access for people in rural communities and free up appointment spaces for services that truly require an in-person visit. Those are practical improvements, and they are worth pursuing, but modernization cannot come at the expense of security.

A driver’s licence is not just another piece of plastic. It is one of the most important documents people carry. It contains the core information that confirms who someone is — their name, their address, their date of birth and their photograph. When that information is moved into a large digital system, the responsibility to protect it becomes greater, not smaller.

Government is asking British Columbians to trust that their identity information will be handled safely in this system. That trust cannot rest on assumptions. It has to be built on clear safeguards, strong security practices and strict control over who can access that information. People will want to know where their data is stored. They will want to know how long their photographs are retained. They will want to know who inside the system can view their information and what protections exist if someone attempts to misuse it.

Those are not unreasonable questions. They are questions responsible people ask when their identity information is involved.

Modern digital systems can improve service delivery, but they also increase the consequences when something goes wrong. A lost card will affect one individual. A compromised database will affect thousands. That is why safeguards around this system have to be strong from the start.

The questions raised today are not arguments against modernization, but it’s about doing it properly.

British Columbians should not have to wonder whether their identity information is protected. They should know that it is. As this legislation moves forward, those are the questions we need answers to. If modernization is the goal, security and privacy must move forward at the same time.

[4:10 p.m.]

If we get that balance right, this system can improve service delivery while protecting the personal information of the people who rely on it. That is the standard British Columbians expect, and that is the standard we should insist on.

Darlene Rotchford: Today I rise on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, known as Songhees and xʷsepsəm Nations. I’d like to thank them for their stewardship on their land, as someone whose office is also located on their lands.

I’m pleased to rise today in support of the legislation to amend the Motor Vehicle Act, legislation that represents a practical, thoughtful step toward modernization of services that British Columbians rely on every day.

At its core, this bill is about something simple: making it easy for people to renew or replace their driver’s licence, their BCID card or their B.C. Services Card. If passed, these amendments will enable the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia to offer online applications for simple licence renewals and replacements. This means that for the majority of eligible drivers, those who simply need to extend an expiry date or replace a lost or damaged card, this can be done through ICBC’s website without a trip to an office.

This matters. It matters most to parents who cannot easily take time off work. I will use a different example. People here know I have two little ones. To all new parents who are extremely sleep-deprived, have been up all night with their little one, and let’s just say they ran out of diapers…. It’s the middle of the night. The poor second parent needs to go get them, because that’s just how things are. Can you imagine realizing your ID has expired? That horrible feeling?

Not only are you going to feel bad it has expired. Now, with your crazy schedule with kids and potentially the second parent working, you need to find time in your schedule to somehow get to an ICBC office to get it renewed. That is a lot of pressure and anxiety on new parents.

I’ll give another example. It matters to our seniors who are finding travel challenging. We heard a lot about seniors in the Legislature this week and how we need to ensure we’re taking care of our seniors.

Seniors are very resilient when it comes to using online technology, contrary to some people’s belief. If you have a senior who doesn’t maybe always have accessibility to transportation, but they have access to a computer in their home or their phone or, say, the library in their community or their senior centre, they will be able to go in, if this legislation is passed, and renew, say, their health care card or their ID.

It matters to workers in rural communities, who currently must drive long distances for what amounts to simple paperwork. Again, we hear our colleagues on both sides of the House saying we need to support rural communities better. We need to simplify things for those people. This is a great first step.

You hear them go: “They’re going to have to drive five towns over to get this.” Totally. The cost of gas is expensive. People’s time — we want to make sure people have time in their lives to do the things they love, not having to go and do a task that now will be done online.

Then I’m going to talk about shift workers. You’ve heard me get up here and say I was a shift worker for many years. Anyone who has done night shifts for a long period of time….

People are shaking their heads like: “We’ve all been there.”

You’ve worked 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. You’re tired. You want to go home. And again, it’s just another task. Now, do you really want to go home and then go: “Oh wait, I can’t go home. I now need to go wait in line at ICBC after a 12-hour night shift to go get my ID renewed or my driver’s licence renewed or my CareCard renewed”? Absolutely not. What you want to do is go home and go to bed because you’re exhausted. This will make that easier for them.

It also extremely matters to our Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans I represent and advocate for every day. The world is a very scary place right now. We’ve talked a little bit about what’s going on in the world.

Here in Esquimalt, home to one of the largest naval bases in our country, members of our Royal Canadian Navy deploy around the world, sometimes at a moment’s notice, sometimes for months. They serve on ships in the Pacific, in the Atlantic and in international waters. They deploy on humanitarian missions, security operations and joint exercises. They serve Canada with dedication and professionalism. But while they’re deployed overseas, life goes on. It does not pause. Expiry dates do not pause.

[4:15 p.m.]

Under the current system, a service member deployed abroad may face significant difficulty renewing their licence before it expires. If you’re over doing some type of peacekeeping mission, doing some type of support, and you realize it expires and you’re going to need to say, “Get home….” It can cause a lot of anxiety. This new system will ensure that we can make it easier for them again to renew those cards.

This legislation moves us towards a solution. Once implemented, expected in 2027, following development and regulatory work, eligible drivers will be able to submit an online renewal application. Upon approval, an interim licence will be issued electronically, and the physical card will be mailed.

I’m going to use an example. I’m not going to tell you her name, because that’s awful. But I had a friend recently…. We had to fly to Vancouver for work. We put our IDs in — no problem. Well, we go to come back here and realize her ID expired.

We had the same person on both sides. So now we have to figure out: well, how do we get her home? Do we drive to the ferry to get her home? And we were just like: “Well, you know it was us.” We had to plead this big case. It took a bunch of time. Thank God someone was sweet enough to ensure that: “Okay, we’ll let you go this one time.”

In this new system, she could have pulled up her phone, could have had it done, could have had it digitally and could have had it ready, and this wouldn’t have been an issue. This is modernization in action.

For a sailor being deployed overseas, this means renewing a licence digitally instead of worrying about returning home to an expired document. It means fewer administrative headaches during an already demanding period of service. It means peace of mind. I think everyone on both sides of this House can agree that whoever is leaving to support our country, to keep us safe…. We need to put every tool in their toolbox to make sure that they can have what they need to take a little anxiety off them at home.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Armed Forces Development and Veterans Affairs, I believe we must be constantly asking ourselves: are we removing barriers for those who serve? Are we making everyday life simpler for them and their families?

Some of the work I do on Seamless Canada is to actually look at how we’re taking down barriers between each province, coast to coast, ensuring that when military families and their serving member move here, we make it easier for them. And I believe this legislation is actually a good step. This legislation answers a question with a clear yes.

I want to be clear what this bill does and what it does not do. It applies simple renewals and replacements. It does not eliminate requirements for in-person visits where they are absolutely necessary. If a driver needs to change their name, report a new medication or address outstanding fines or remedial requirements, they will still be required to find a local ICBC office and go in there, just like they would with the previous process, and get what needs to get done.

Let’s be very clear. This is not about lowering the standards. It’s not about putting unqualified drivers on the road. All existing eligibility conditions will remain in place. Those with unresolved violations or program requirements will not be able to renew online until those matters are addressed, because road safety remains paramount.

I know some may ask: “What about fraud? What about identity protection?” ICBC is working closely with the Ministries of Health and Citizens’ Services to ensure robust security measures are built within the system. High standards for identity and resilient verification will be maintained. Law enforcement perspectives have been incorporated, including consultation with the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police Traffic safety committee.

We can modernize while maintaining integrity. We can improve convenience while preserving security.

I’m going to give you another example. If you come to a detox facility, you want to get on your feet. Everyone’s like: “I want to get on my feet. I want to better my life. I want to start my road to recovery.” If you come to the detox facility without your CareCard, it actually causes a whole list of problems.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m going to start at the beginning of the first problem. Say you need income assistance. You need some form of identification so we can look at how we can support somebody to get on income assistance, which may not seem like a big deal but is really the first step to be able to afford treatment, to afford 30-day programs in recovery houses.

In theory, under the old system, if it were to stay the same, as a detox worker, I’d have to find that person, someone in the community, to drive all the way to detox and pick up the person. Then they’d have to do a urine and breathalyzer before they went. It’s time of the staff who work there. We let them go to ICBC with this worker.

Now, keep in mind that they still need some form of identification, to prove it is who they are, to do this, to get this. It can cause some problems. Hopefully, they can get it worked out. Then they have to drive all the way back to detox. We have to, again, do a urine screen and breathalyzer to make sure things are good, just to get the little piece of paper.

All of that just to get an ID and make sure we’re helping somebody get where they need to go. It seems a bit silly, right?

As a detox worker now, if we were to put this in place, I would be able to take someone within a program, sit them down and help them do this — some of our most vulnerable, who are out of place mentally, that don’t know that two plus two is four. They’ll tell you two plus two is 30, because they have no idea what’s going on in the world.

We want to simplify their life. We want to make their life easier. This legislation would actually do that, because we want to help people. We want to make sure that we make things easier for everyday British Columbians. Again, this is a first step to doing that.

In fact, eight other provinces and territories, including Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories — shocking — already do this. They’re already offering some form of online driver licence service. These amendments bring British Columbia in line with those jurisdictions.

I’ll go back to that other work I’m doing with Seamless Canada. We want to make sure, whenever possible, where anyone has moved in the country, that we’re making it easier. We want to make it easier for them to come to British Columbia.

We don’t want to put something like this, which could be a sillier barrier, in place. We want to make sure it’s easier. This is, again, the first stage of modernization, not the final stage. We are starting with simple renewal, with the expectation that more services will be offered online in the future.

You will often hear me say we need to baby-step things. We need to take it one step at a time. We need to take a little baby step to get to a place so that we can fix systems that are broken. That way, when we’re doing that — and we’re doing it along the way, at a reasonable pace — on some of the concerns that were flagged, we’re making sure that we’re staying on top of that. We’re working with other ministries to get that work done.

I would be remiss if I did not address the graduated licensing program changes that are forthcoming.

Some people may not know about this, but I have massive anxiety when it comes to tests. I hate them. They will cause me panic. I have no desire to do them whatsoever. What other people in this House may not know is that I actually don’t have a driver’s licence. Because I have such anxiety around tests, I haven’t gotten there. I know, right?

You know what? We’re going to do great things that are going to make my anxiety way less, and other British Columbians’ less. Again, we’re making it easier to access services. We’re taking away red tape and barriers to access.

Affordability. You know, when we talk about that second driving test, there are a lot of costs associated for people — younger people, new immigrants to Canada, people who are trying to get ahead. We again want to make it so much easier for them.

In this summer of 2026, here in British Columbia, we’ll be removing the requirement for a second road test to obtain a class 5 licence.

I know my husband’s watching right now. I promised him that before 2027, this will be done. Now I don’t have an excuse, to say: “Oh, there are two tests.” That’s real anxiety. He can actually thank the ministry for doing that.

You’re welcome, Joey.

The second test will be replaced by a 12-month extension period, during which new drivers must demonstrate safe driving behaviours, under restriction, before a learning licence.

You know, we talk about those two steps. Again, when we’re looking at making access and things easier, other provinces don’t do that. This is going to be a really good step in that direction.

I remember moving here and saying: “What do you mean that you need to take two tests?” I come from Nova Scotia, where, literally, if I just had gone and got a tractor licence, I could have got my licence. For the record, I’m not saying that’s the best way to do it, but you could technically do it.

Research shows that maintaining a clean driving record over a longer period is a reliable predictor of future safe driving behaviours, often more so than a single road test. Road safety remains a priority, and these changes are grounded in evidence.

[4:25 p.m.]

As someone who has two young kids and is a pedestrian, I’m extremely invested in road safety. The amount of times, on crossing roads, where we’ve had near misses…. It’s really important that we’re working with all people and all levels of government to ensure that road safety is a priority for everybody. I thought about that when I was in local government, and I say that now here in the Legislature.

Importantly, these improvements will also lower barriers for drivers in rural, remote and Indigenous communities. Again, travelling long distances for a second road test can also be challenging. It can be challenging not just for the travel. You talk about the time of year, for our friends in the North. We’re grateful here on the south Island to not have snow, and I will say that before something happens.

It’s not just about the distance. It’s about: what’s the weather there? Is there staff going to be available? How far away is it? Do I need child care to go take that test? There’s a whole list of those things. Again, by looking at how we’re going to get rid of those barriers, it’s making access more accessible, especially for our friends in rural areas.

Taken together, these forms reflect a broader commitment to making services faster, easier and more accessible. For the residents of Esquimalt-Colwood, that means fewer unnecessary trips and more effective service. For families juggling work and child care, that means time saved. For rural and remote British Columbians, that means reduced travel and expenses. That means one less thing to worry about for those members who are serving our country. Government should work for people, not the other way around.

Modernization may not have flashy headlines, but it is about removing friction in everyday life. You will quite often hear me say: “I respect people’s time more than anything else, because time is invaluable.” It’s about respecting people’s time. It’s about recognizing that in 2026, we should not require an in-person visit for tasks that can be completely and securely done online. This legislation reflects that commonsense principle.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I am proud to support the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act. I believe they strike the right balance between convenience, accountability, modernization and security. Most importantly, they demonstrate that were listening to families, to people in our rural communities and to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who serve our country with honour.

I would be amiss not to give a shout-out to my past colleagues at MoveUP, our good union members at ICBC. Again, people know in this House I always stand and talk about my time on the labour council and about the good work that those people do. I want to give them a shout-out and thank them for giving good public service to our people at ICBC, in renewing your health care card, your CareCard and all those things that come with it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, everyone, and have a good time.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We have heard a lot in the House about support for Bill 6, the way that it will increase efficiencies and ease of access to government services. I won’t belabour the point. It sounds like we’ve got consensus on this, which is terrific to hear.

I wanted to take the opportunity, though, to get on the record some of the really good work that we’ve been doing in partnership to actually get more young people getting driver’s licences — particularly, people that have been alienated from this work.

Through my Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, we’ve been funding, on the commercial side — for example, commercial truck driver licences — lots of programs there. These have been great, especially in the North, filling in-demand jobs and having really terrific outcomes.

For people that had faced barriers moving into a higher-paying job — with the support of our WorkBC programming, being able to get them a training wage and helping support them with training that was really specific to the region — we’re able to get more people into the sector. That’s not what this legislation is about, but I wanted just to name it.

In partner ministries, it’s directly applicable to getting people with a licence to be able to drive a car that haven’t been able to do that before. Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills has been funding driver’s licence training through the Indigenous skills training and education program.

Approximately $300,000, which is not a big expenditure, through 12 different agreements supporting First Nations of MÁLEXEŁ, Stz’uminus, Yuułuʔiłʔatḥ, Ts’il Kaz Koh, K’ómoks, Sq’èwlets, Tsawwassen, Neskonlith, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, Songhees, Snuneymuxw and Skeetchestn.

[4:30 p.m.]

I also have a really great list from Nanaimo. Hands raised to Nanaimo Youth Services Association, which is doing similar kind of work but in a more urban setting. If you follow NYSA, the Nanaimo Youth Services Association, and their Facebook feed, you will see regular reports on young people, especially Snuneymuxw and other Indigenous youth, who have been able to access driver training and coaching.

The program is called Get the ‘L’ Out!, which is a knowledge-test prep workshop, and then also learners-to-novice L2N Driver Practice program. This is a free program with one-on-one driving coaching to help youth overcome barriers to obtaining their full licence, which can make future employment easier.

Over 165 young drivers have completed the program since this started in May of 2021, with a first-time road-pass test rate of over 80 percent. This is a really strong partnership with Snuneymuxw First Nation, who’s really committed to removing barriers to clearing the path for youth to be able to access employment.

You’ll see just regular shout-outs and congratulations. Brooke and Ben are twins who got their drivers’ licences in February. Luis got 95 percent on his ICBC knowledge test. That was January 15. Justice from Snuneymuxw First Nation got a perfect road test on December 8.

On and on, we’ll see, one at a time, these young people being celebrated and elevated. They got access to this free training program, again an example of a partnership clearing the path for young people to be able to get a driver’s licence that they would not have been able to otherwise.

Then, of course, the link to Bill 6 is when they get to the point of renewal of their licence, it’s easier to do, removing barriers also to keeping people’s credentials afresh and legitimate.

With that, thanks for the opportunity for me to add my voice to the chorus of support for the passage of Bill 6, modernizing our system, bringing British Columbia into line with the majority of other provinces around how this program is administered. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Members, the question is second reading of Bill….

Oh, sorry.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Recognizing the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

Susie Chant: Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Sorry. I snuck in.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, the legislation of Motor Vehicle Act amendments.

I, as always, will start by acknowledging that we are on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm. I am very grateful to be here, working and learning.

Of course, when I’m at home, in North Vancouver–Seymour, I am working with the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations.

Again, I keep looking at our beautiful, beautiful inlet in North Van that is so much prettier than it used to be because of the work of the nations that are cleaning the water up, making the shoreline much more reasonable. The work that our various non-profits are doing around the shore is amazing.

Anyway, I digress. Here we are talking about the Motor Vehicle Act and the amendments to it.

Because I’m at a certain point in my life and a certain age in my life, I’ve had the opportunity to renew my licence quite a number of times now. I got my original licence when I was 17. My brother was kind enough to give me the car he was finished with, because he felt guilty. He had wrecked my mother’s car a couple of times, and because of that, I wasn’t allowed to drive until I was 17. He and my other brother had been able to start driving at 16.

Anyway, regardless of that, I got driving at the age of 17. I fondly remember my first car, but I also fondly remember my first licensing experience, which was significantly less complex than it is now.

[4:35 p.m.]

As time progressed, the complexity grew. The lineups grew. The getting down to the ICBC office and taking your number and getting in line and going through whatever this time’s process was for renewing your driver’s licence just was a real challenge.

So when I was doing that…. You know, you just took it for granted. You just did it. You just went through. But you realize, as you look back on it retrospectively, how much time you actually lost in renewing your driver’s licence. Some days you would…. I mean, I can literally remember booking a day off work, a vacation day, to go and renew my driver’s licence.

Then you got your six-week yellow piece of paper that you would have in your pocket and you would hope like heck you wouldn’t lose. And then when it came back and you got your next driver’s licence, you were very excited. Then all of a sudden, five years would go by, and you’d look at your licence, and it’s time to do it again.

The other scenario is: “Oh dear, here we are in Desolation Sound.” We’ve tied up, and we’re going from boat to skiff to go ashore, and my wallet went overboard. We didn’t have any divers handy. We didn’t have anybody useful handy, and I couldn’t get after it. Therefore, I had lost my driver’s licence, and the process to go through that, with all my other lost ID, was quite painful.

From both of those sets of experiences, I am very happy to support this legislation.

The other piece of this is the BCID card. Now, my mother passed away at age 94 after having quite a good life, thank you very much. But when she had to give up her driver’s licence at age 80, it was a real loss for her. Not only that, but the loss of her driver’s licence as a primary source of ID was very distressing to her, so getting the BCID was at least some help to her, to make sure that she at least had that primary source of identification.

Yet again, to go and get that…. I think she gave up her licence when she was 84. Here’s my mother, 84 years old, and if you think I’m difficult to get along with, you should meet my mother. We go down to the ICBC place, and we take our number in the line. Then we go up to the desk, and they ask her how old she is, which was a mistake. She’s trying to renew just her BCID, and they’re telling her she can’t renew her driver’s licence. Well, she’d already given up her driver’s licence, and she knew that. However, there was an interchange of interest. So it took quite a while for her to get her BCID for a couple of reasons.

Now to see that these amendments will make it easier for our seniors to get their BCID, or for other people who don’t have the joy of a driver’s licence or don’t want the joy of driving, parking, moving in traffic, trying to get across a bridge and all those other things that are associated with driving…. It’ll be a lot easier for folks to get those various IDs.

Also, to be able to do it online is a real bonus to a lot of people. I’ve already spoken several times about making the trip down to the driver’s licence office. And I’m lucky. I live in an environment where the driver’s licence office is within, basically, my community, whereas in the rural environments, there are some places that there are not driver’s licence offices, and they have to go somewhere else or be somewhere else.

I was able to take a day off work, take a vacation day. Well, when you’re working on a farm, sometimes you can’t do that. You can’t take a day to go and do that, and Lord help you if you need to renew your licence sometime when it’s a really hard time to work on the farm as well.

So again, saving people time, saving people the trip to the office — absolutely marvelous stuff.

The other part of this is the modernization. This is part of the work that ICBC is doing to modernize the work that they do and to make their services faster, easier, more accessible, and that benefits all of us. There’s nothing more positive you can say about that, because services are really, really important to people, and in this day and age, time is such a critical factor.

[4:40 p.m.]

It seems we have so little time to achieve things, and if we can make these services more accessible and make it so that we go through quicker, we’re doing quite well.

I think I will stop at that point. I don’t think anybody wants to hear any further history of my driving in the last many years. I’m not going to say a number because that would embarrass me. On that note, I will take my seat and support this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 6, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2026.

Motion approved.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I move that the bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House to be considered for the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I call second reading of Bill 9, entitled the Freedom of Information Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy
Amendment Act, 2026

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act.

For over 30 years, FOIPPA has played an important role in protecting democratic governance in British Columbia. It gives people the right to access to information held by public bodies, and it protects people’s privacy by setting clear rules of how personal information must be protected. Those principles remain unchanged.

What has changed is how people interact with government and how government must work if it’s to meet the modern expectations and maintain people’s trust.

People in British Columbia do not experience government as a collection of ministries or programs. They experience it through moments in their lives — welcoming a new child, launching a business, navigating illness, supporting family members or recovering from hardship.

Too often those moments require people to move through disconnected systems that treat one life event as many separate transactions. People are asked to provide the same information multiple times, complete overlapping processes and repeatedly share personal details. What may seem like administrative duplication can, for some people already under stress, add unnecessary burden and, in some cases, cause real harm.

These amendments are about changing that experience for people. The connected services provisions in this bill create the legal foundation for government to work as one unified system.

It’s creating a legal framework that allows us to offer systems without duplication for people who are under stress already and reducing that unnecessary burden and, in some cases, harm that gets done with duplication.

Connective services places a responsibility for that coordination and navigation and integration where they belong, with government, so that our systems can talk to each other in the background, and, on the outside, people’s experiences of our services will be simple, trusted and responsive to their needs.

These amendments will support the delivery of connected digital services across government by enabling information to flow between program areas on people’s behalf with their permission.

Right now people are often required to provide the same information repeatedly in different programs. Behind the scenes, public bodies frequently need to verify people’s information manually, even when it exists elsewhere in government.

These amendments will allow public bodies to securely and responsibly share that information with the appropriate safeguards so that services can be delivered in a more seamless, ask-me-once way that gives individuals more control over how their information is shared.

The amendments establish clear authorities, standards and ministerial oversight to ensure information sharing for connected digital services is done in a privacy enhancing, transparent and accountable way. They provide proven models already in FOIPPA, building on those with examples like the B.C. Services Card.

This framework is essential to delivering modern digital services that are inclusive, efficient and worthy of the public trust. The public’s right to access to information is fundamental to democracy in B.C. That right is not being reduced by this information.

[4:45 p.m.]

The second major focus of the bill is on improving how freedom-of-information services operate. However, the reality is that the FOI requests today are larger, more complex and far more resource-intensive than when FOIPPA was introduced over 30 years ago. Public bodies across the province, from ministries to school districts to municipalities and health authorities, are struggling under the administrative pressure of maintaining timely and equitable access for all FOI applicants.

These amendments are intended to make FOI processes more transparent and workable for everyone involved. They will allow public bodies to better communicate with applicants, including seeking clarification when a request is unclear, so that people receive the information they’re actually looking for.

They will support more proactive disclosures, including new ways for individuals to receive their own personal information without always needing to go through the FOI process. They will also address the rare but highly impactful situations where FOI is being used inappropriately, such as duplicating legal discovery or subjecting staff to abusive behaviour, while preserving the oversight of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Importantly, these changes do not alter legislative response timelines. They do not reduce access rates and do not diminish the commissioner’s independent oversight role. They are about balance, ensuring that transparency and accountability can be sustained in a system facing growing pressures.

The bill also includes targeted technical amendments to clarify interpretation issues and reduce administrative inefficiencies. These include changes requested by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and recommended by the previous Special Committee to Review FOIPPA.

Taken together, these amendments strengthen FOIPPA for the future. They protect privacy. They uphold access to information. They enable better services for British Columbians, and they support a more transparent, efficient, and people-centred public sector. I look forward to the thoughtful debate ahead and to discussing the details of this bill further during committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I’ll ask you to move second reading of Bill 9.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I move second reading of Bill 9.

Jody Toor: I rise today to speak on Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

There is one word that sits at the heart of the Canadian promise: freedom. Freedom is the word that draws people from every corner of the world to this country. It is a word that has defined generations of Canadians who believe that in this land, individuals could live openly, speak honestly and take part in shaping their future.

Freedom is not simply the absence of control; it is the presence of rights. It is the ability of citizens to ask questions without fear. It is the ability to take part in decisions that affect their communities, their families and their livelihoods.

But freedom cannot exist in darkness. Freedom requires knowledge. Freedom requires transparency. Freedom requires the ability of citizens to understand how power is exercised in their name.

That is why access to information matters. When citizens can see how decisions are made, they are not simply observers of democracy. They are taking part in it. Freedom of information is, in many ways, the practical expression of that larger promise of freedom.

It ensures that the citizens of this country are not kept in the dark about the decisions that shape their lives because democracy works best when citizens are informed, engaged and free to see the truth of how their government operates. That is why the principle behind freedom of information must always be protected.

At a first glance, this bill — Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 — appears procedural. It updates language. It introduces certain administrative authorities. It adjusts how the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act operates in practice.

[4:50 p.m.]

But laws concerning access to information are never solely technical. Access to information laws define the relationship between citizens and their government. They determine whether people can understand how decisions affecting their lives are made. They determine whether public spending can be examined. Ultimately, they determine whether citizens can trust the institution that governs them.

Freedom of information belongs to the people of British Columbia. It belongs to parents seeking answers about decisions affecting their children’s education. It belongs to seniors trying to understand changes to health services. It belongs to small business owners seeking fairness in public procurement. It belongs to Indigenous communities reviewing decisions that affect land agreements and governance. It belongs to journalists, researchers and citizens who want to know how the government operates.

Freedom of information was never designed to make life easy for governments. It was designed to make democracy stronger, and that principle must guide our examination of Bill 9.

The purpose of access-to-information laws. Access-to-information laws exist because democratic societies recognize that power must be accompanied by transparency. When governments exercise authority, they do so on behalf of citizens. That record, created through those decisions, belongs to the public.

Unless there is a legitimate reason for protection, access laws allow citizens to see how decisions are made. They allow journalists to investigate public spending. They allow people and ministries to perform oversight. They allow communities to understand policies that affect their lives. Transparency protects democracy. It encourages responsible decision-making. It ensures that mistakes can be identified and corrected. It ensures that government remains accountable to the people they serve, those people of British Columbia.

When we amend regulations governing access to information, we must always ask whether those amendments strengthen transparency or weaken it. Let me illustrate what that means in practical terms.

Imagine a community association trying to understand how a major transportation decision affecting their neighbourhood was made. Residents may hear that studies were conducted, consultations occurred and recommendations were provided to government. Without access-to-information laws, those residents would have no way of seeing the documents behind those decisions. They would be forced to rely only on summaries or public statements. Freedom of information allows them to review the studies, the briefing notes and the recommendations that shaped that decision.

That ability to see the public record strengthens trust because citizens know decisions are not hidden from view. Transparency is not an inconvenience to democracy. It is a requirement of democracy.

Responding to the language in Bill 9, let me refer directly to the text of Bill 9. Bill 9 proposes amendments to provisions governing response timelines within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Particularly, the bill replaces the obligation for the public bodies to respond to requests “without delay” with the phrase “without unreasonable delay.” This change appears within the operational provisions governing access requests.

At first glance, the change may appear subtle, but legislative language shapes the forecast. The phrase “without delay” communicates urgency. It sets a clear objective that the public bodies should respond immediately to citizens requesting information. Replacing that phrase with “without unreasonable delay” introduces explanation. It creates flexibility in defining what composes a timely response.

You can add a simple, everyday illustration like this so people in the chamber immediately understand the difference in language.

[4:55 p.m.]

Precisely, Bill 9 replaces the obligation for the public body to respond to requests without delay with the phrase “without unreasonable delay.” At a first glance, that may sound like a small change in wording, but words matter in regulation. Words matter in this House. Words matter because they shape the outcome.

Let me offer a simple example that everyone in this chamber can relate to. Imagine you take your car to a local body shop for repairs. You ask the mechanic: “When will the work be done?” Just a very simple question. They should be able to tell you. The shop’s policy says the work will be completed without delay. You would reasonably expect that the mechanic will begin the repair immediately and complete it as soon as possible, because it’s supposed to be without delay.

Now imagine the policy instead says the repair can be completed without unreasonable delay. Suddenly, the belief changes. Your thoughts change. The repair might begin later. The timeline becomes flexible. The shop may determine that waiting several days is still reasonable because they’re busy, because parts need to be ordered, because other jobs are ahead of yours or because they’re not working today. The words have changed, and with them, the prediction of urgency has changed.

Or consider something even simpler. Imagine going to a restaurant where the menu says your meal will be delivered without delay. Most customers would assume their order will arrive quickly. If the policy instead says your meal will arrive without unreasonable delay, the restaurant now has much wider room to decide what that means. Ten minutes may be reasonable. Thirty minutes may be reasonable. Even longer may be considered reasonable, depending on the circumstances.

This may seem like a small shift in wording, but it illustrates a larger point. When this government replaces clear urgency with flexible definition, the balance suddenly shapes away from the citizens and towards the institution holding the information. When it comes to transparency, clarity matters.

No government should be afraid of clear timelines for transparency, because accountability is not a burden of democracy. It is the proof that democracy is working. Clear timelines re-form the idea that responding to citizens is a priority. Flexible language risks weakening that projection. And when urgency fades, transparency can gradually weaken as well.

Let me illustrate what this change could mean for an ordinary citizen. Before this change, a citizen submitting a request would know that the law required a response without delay. That wording set a clear belief that the process would move quickly. The existing law says that they are supposed to get back to the applicant without delay. The amendment changes that to “without unreasonable delay” and makes the officials themselves the judge of what is and is not reasonable.

For example, imagine a small business owner in Langley who submitted a request for records related to a provincial procurement decision. They wanted to understand why a contract had been awarded to another company and whether the scoring process had been applied fairly.

Under the current projection of responding without delay, the public body would immediately begin to process that request. There would be a clear understanding that the request should move forward as quickly as possible.

But under the new wording of responding without unreasonable delay, the experience for that same business owner could become more complicated. The request might enter a longer review process. Officials might determine that additional internal consultation is required. They may determine that a longer processing time is reasonable, given internal workloads.

[5:00 p.m.]

Instead of expecting a prompt response, the applicant may now face a longer period of uncertainty. For a business owner trying to understand procurement decisions that affect their livelihood, time matters.

Why timelines matter in practice. Imagine a parent in Langley whose child has lost access to a specialized educational support at school. That parent wants to understand how that decision was made. They file a freedom-of-information request seeking internal communication, briefing notes and policy documents that lead to that change.

Before changes like those proposed in this bill, the prediction of responding without delay would push the request forward quickly. The parent would receive the information while the school year was still underway. The information could allow the parent to meet with administrators, advocate for their child and take part in a meaningful decision-making process.

Now imagine the same request process under a more flexible standard of responding without unreasonable delay. The request may move through longer internal reviews. The school year may continue. Weeks may pass. Months may pass. Eventually the documents may arrive but, by then, the school year may be nearly finished. That’s why that matters.

The parents may finally learn why the decision was made, but the opportunity to influence that decision may already be gone. That is why timelines matter.

The importance of timelines and access to information cannot be overstated. Information often has value because of when it becomes available.

Consider a small community requesting records related to environmental impacts of a proposed development project. If those records arrive after permits have already been issued and construction has already begun, the opportunity for meaningful public engagement may be lost. That’s why timelines matter.

Consider a journalist requesting records about government spending on a major infrastructure project. If those records arrive after the public debate has passed, the opportunity for research demolishes.

Consider a parent requesting records about change to educational services affecting their child. If those records arrive long after the decision has been implemented, their ability to advocate effectively may be limited.

In each case, the information may eventually be released. But if it arrives too late, the right to know becomes less meaningful. Timely access is meaningful access. Delays are not simple administrative matters. They shape real outcomes for citizens of B.C.

Record creation and documentation. Another critical issue related to access to information is record creation. Freedom of information can only work if records exist. If important decisions are not documented, there is nothing for citizens to access.

Modern government operates in an increasingly digital environment. Communications occur through emails, messaging platforms and various digital systems. These tools allow for rapid communication, but they also create a challenge for record management. Important decisions may occur informally. Decisions may be made quickly, and unless those decisions are properly documented, the public record becomes incomplete.

Consider how recordkeeping itself can affect transparency. Imagine a community group requesting records about decisions that occurred before a major housing decision was announced. They want to know what options were considered. They want to understand which concerns were raised by officials and what advice was given to decision-makers.

In a system where recordkeeping is strong, those decisions would be documented. Briefing notes would exist. Emails and reports would show how the decision evolved. The community group could review those records and understand the reasoning behind the policy.

[5:05 p.m.]

But imagine a different situation. Important conversations took place through those informal messaging systems. Meetings occurred where notes were not taken. Key decisions were never formally documented. When the freedom-of-information request is submitted, the ministry responds that few records exist.

The decision may have involved months of discussion, but the official record appears thin. The citizens asking questions are left with only fragments of the story. This is why record creation matters.

Transparency depends not only on access laws but also on the quality of the public record itself. Transparency begins long before a request for information is submitted. Transparency begins when decisions are recorded.

When documentation practices are strong, access requests become easier to fulfil. When records are incomplete or poorly organized, delays become unpreventable.

Improving record creation practice would strengthen transparency remarkably. Clear records protect citizens, but they also protect institutions. They ensure that future governments, researchers and recorders can understand how decisions were actually made. Administrative consistency across institutions matters.

Another issue worth examining is consistency across public institutions. Most public bodies in British Columbia are subject to freedom-of-information obligations: (1) ministries must respond to requests, (2) health authorities must respond, (3) school boards must respond and (4) various public agencies must respond.

Let me offer one final example that speaks to consistency across institutions. Imagine a citizen trying to understand how public funds were spent on a government initiative. They may submit a freedom-of-information request to a ministry responsible for delivering the program. The ministry must respond because it is subject to the act. The citizen may also wish to understand administrative decisions related to how the program was organized within other parts of the government.

If transparency standards differ between institutions, the citizen may receive detailed records from one public body but be unable to access similar information from another. This bill is unclear how this would operate seamlessly.

To the citizens, the difference between those institutions may not be clear. From their point of view, they are simply asking how public money was used. When transparency standards appear uneven, it can create confusion. Consistency across public institutions helps ensure that citizens can follow the public record wherever decisions are made. Transparency should not depend on where inside government a decision happens. It should follow the public interest.

These obligations exist because these institutions exercise public authority and manage public resources. Citizens expect transparency standards to apply consistency across the public sector.

This raises another important question about administrative functions within this ministry. This decision is not about debate in this chamber. Parliamentary privilege protects legislative speech. However, administrative matters such as procurement, operational spending and internal policies are similar to administrative functions carried out by other public bodies. When transparency standards vary between institutions performing similar administrative roles, it can create the understanding that openness is applied unevenly.

Consistency strengthens trust. If transparency strengthens accountability in ministries, it strengthens accountability in institutional administrations as well.

Transparency is a democratic principle at its core. This debate concerns a simple democratic principle that this government fails to model. Information held by government does not belong to the government. It belongs to the public. Quite honestly, I think this government has forgotten this.

Government institutions hold information in trust on behalf of citizens, on behalf of British Columbians.

[5:10 p.m.]

Citizens rely on transparency to understand policy. They rely on access to information to evaluate government actions. They rely on public records to take part in meaningfulness in democratic debate.

Freedom of information was never designed to make life easy for government. It was designed to make democracy stronger. Governments change. Political parties move between government and opposition. But democratic institutions endure. Strong access to laws protects those institutions, regardless of who’s in power.

A forward-looking vision for modernization. Modernization can strengthen transparency if it is approached thoughtfully. Digital tools can improve record management. Governments can proactively publish regularly requested information. Public reporting systems can provide clear insight into response times.

I believe modernization could include several improvements: (1) clear service benchmarks for responding to access requests, (2) public dashboards reporting response times and backlog levels, (3) proactive publication of commonly requested documents, (4) an improved digital system for managing records, and (5) training programs to support public servants responsible for processing requests. These improvements would strengthen transparency while improving effectiveness. Modernization should expand access rather than narrow it.

Trust and public confidence. It comes down to a very simple principle that hints at this bill. Public trust is one of the most valuable assets a government controls. Transparency helps maintain that trust. When citizens can see how decisions are made, they are more likely to accept those decisions, even when they disagree with them.

But when transparency appears to weaken, suspicions start to grow. Democracy works best in the light. The moment government begins to dim that light, even slightly, public trust begins to fade. Maintaining transparency requires laws that reinforce openness. Access-to-information regulation is one of the key tools that protect the openness.

In closing, Bill 9 may appear technical, but the principles behind access-to-information regulations are anything but technical. What is at stake here is not administrative language. What is at stake is whether this government is prepared to defend transparency or quietly dilute it.

This debate is about whether citizens can see how decisions are made in their name. It is about whether the public can follow the paper trail behind billions of dollars in government spending. It is about whether transparency will remain a cornerstone of governance in British Columbia or whether it will slowly be replaced with language that gives government more control and the public less certainty and access.

Instead of improving transparency, the government is rewriting the rules around how and when the public can access information. British Columbians deserve a government that is open and accountable, not one that controls what information the public can see. Freedom of information is not an inconvenience for government. It is not a bureaucratic hurdle to be managed. It is a safeguard that protects the public from secrecy.

Yet with Bill 9, this government is asking that Bill 9 accept softer language, broader options and clear projections for how quickly citizens can access the information that belongs to them, that belongs to British Columbians. That should concern every member of this House.

Freedom of information reminds governments of something very important. Authority is temporary. Governments come and go. Parties rise and fall. But the public record lasts. Transparency is what allows citizens, journalists, researchers and future governments to understand how decisions were made and to hold those decisions up to audit. Strong access laws strengthen institutions because they ensure that government operates in the light. Weakening those laws does the opposite.

[5:15 p.m.]

It invites suspiciousness. It erodes trust, and it sends the message that transparency is optional rather than essential. So as we consider the amendments contained in Bill 9, the question before this House and this chamber is simple. Are we strengthening transparency for the people of British Columbia, or are we weakening it for the convenience of government?

Transparency does more than release documents. Freedom of information only works if government can decide which requests they will answer….

The bill’s proposed changes to B.C.’s FOI laws risk making it harder, slower and more expensive for British Columbians to access information about this government. Transparency protects democracy itself.

Darlene Rotchford: I rise today in strong support of Bill 9, amendments to British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, legislation that is foundational to both government transparency and the protection of people’s personal information.

I will take a moment to say hi. My girls watch us debate as they have dinner, for anyone in the House. They quite enjoy it. Dad may joke, though, that it helps them go to sleep some days, but I think they’re learning lots. I like to think so.

At its core, this bill is about balance. It’s about strengthening access to information while modernizing how government serves people in a digital era. And it is about ensuring that privacy rights remain robust as we improve the way services are delivered across ministries.

In my constituency of Esquimalt-Colwood, I hear regularly from residents who want two things from our government. They want transparency and they want services that are simple and responsive. Bill 9 advances both.

First, let me speak about the freedom-of-information system itself. Over the years, the volume and complexity of FOI requests have grown significantly. I really saw this during my time on Esquimalt council. During my two years in the Esquimalt council the growth in percentage of FOI and the more complex cases actually caused us to get to a point where we needed additional workload, just to keep up with the demand.

If that’s in a small township like Esquimalt, of about 19,000 people, you can imagine what it’s like for multiple ministries across the board. Public bodies, ministries, municipalities, school districts and health authorities are working hard to maintain timely, equitable access for applicants, but the system is under strain.

These amendments are designed to relieve administrative pressure without diminishing anyone’s right to access information. They do this in practical, commonsense ways. For example, the bill will minimize duplication closure processes.

When records are already being released for another legal process, such as court discoveries, it does not serve anyone to duplicate that work. Reducing duplication means staff can focus on processing new requests quickly.

The amendments also expand the ability to proactively release personal information back to individuals who are seeking their own records. Today roughly 60 percent of our FOI applications are for personal information. By creating better mechanisms to proactively provide the information, we take pressure off the formal FOI system and improve services for applicants, including former children in care who are seeking access to their very own history. This is not a reduction in access; it is an improvement in service.

This bill also introduces a more structured process for clarifying requests. Currently the act requires applicants to provide enough detail to allow records to be identified without a reasonable effort. However, when a request is unclear, there is no formalization process to seek that clarification.

As you can imagine, that can be very frustrating. Bill 9 creates that process. It’s not about forcing applicants to narrow their request, it’s about ensuring that when clarification is needed, there is a clear, predictable way to obtain it. This benefits everybody. When requests are precise, public bodies can locate records more effectively and applicants receive the information they’re actually seeking. This is saving time and costs on both sides.

[5:20 p.m.]

Some have raised concerns about allowing the 30-day response clock to pause while clarification is underway. This is not about stalling; it’s about accuracy. It does not serve applicants to have the clock ticking while the public body is uncertain about what records are being requested and the applicant is not responding. Pausing the clock during clarification provides realistic timelines and encourages prompt engagement.

Another important amendment addresses extremely rare but highly disruptive situations involving abuse and malicious conduct. Let me be clear. There is already a process underway in which a public body must apply to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, or the OIPC, for approval to disregard a request. That oversight remains. Bill 9 simply adds additional circumstances under which a public body may apply to the OIPC for such approval.

Abusive or malicious behaviour refers to a pattern of conduct intended to harass, intimidate, threaten or overwhelm staff. Examples have included death threats or the mailing of suspicious substances. Even though these are rare incidents, they need to be taken seriously. When they occur, they are very disruptive and divert resources away from processing legitimate requests from other British Columbians.

The OIPC retains full oversight and must approve any decision to disregard a request. There is no unilateral authority being granted here. In fact, I would note that these amendments respond to recommendations and requests from the FOIPPA special committee and from the OIPC itself. The ministry has consulted extensively with the commissioner, and the commissioner has indicated comfort with the proposed changes. We value the OIPC’s unwavering commitment to both privacy protection and access to information.

Bill 9 isn’t only about FOI efficiencies; it’s also about modernizing service delivery through Connected Services B.C. People do not experience a government in departmental silos. They experience government based on their needs — whether they are applying for benefits, updating an address, registering a business or accessing our health services here in British Columbia. Connected B.C. will enable a single, more seamless digital gateway for individuals and businesses to apply for and receive services and to update information across government programs. It will make further use of the B.C. Services Card so that people can access more complete digital services in one place.

The amendments support this by enabling secure and responsible information-sharing within government on people’s behalf and, most importantly, with their permission. Instead of asking someone to provide the same information repetitively to different programs and ministries, public bodies will be able to securely share information, where appropriate, with safeguards in place. This reduces duplication, reduces administrative burden and reduces the amount of personal information collected overall.

To be absolutely clear, Connected Services B.C. does not create a centralized database that consults all personal information into one massive place. It enables security sharing between existing systems. Personal information remains protected within programs and ministries, and FOIPPA’s strong security requirements continue to apply.

Furthermore, the minister will have the authority to establish additional privacy and security specific to Connected Services. There are also built-in safeguards. When a Connected Services provider is established, notification must be provided to the OIPC, and the commissioner has discretion to review the associated privacy impact assessment. Privacy is not an afterthought; it is embedded in the design.

As the MLA for Esquimalt-Colwood, I represent a constituency with a strong public service presence and a deep commitment to our institutions. Residents expect government to be accountable and transparent, but they also expect it to be functioning effectively in security.

[5:25 p.m.]

Again, I believe Bill 9 delivers on those expectations. It improves transparency by making the FOI process more workable and by expanding proactive disclosures, including the proactive disclosure of personal information back to individuals. It improves efficiency by reducing duplication and formalizing clarification processes. It protects staff and applicants alike by addressing rare but serious cases of abusive conduct with continued oversight from the OIPC. It modernizes service delivery through connected digital services that reflect how people actually interact with government.

This legislation does not change application fees. Individuals seeking their own information will continue to pay no fee at all, and Indigenous governing entities are not required to pay an application fee. At the same time, proactive disclosure efforts continue to expand to commonly requested materials, without the need for an FOI request.

Ultimately, government has the responsibility to support both access to information and effective service delivery for British Columbians. These are not competing goals. They are complementary. By strengthening connected digital services and improving FOI efficiency, Bill 9 ensures all information requests, regardless of size, can be responded to within appropriate timelines and in an equitable way. This is thoughtful, measured modernization. It reflects consultation, oversight and a commitment to both transparency and privacy.

For those reasons, I am proud to support Bill 9, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.

Jordan Kealy: I rise today as an independent member of this House. That matters in this debate. I am not approaching Bill 9 from a party strategy perspective. I am not measuring it against partisan advantage. I’m measuring it against a single standard: does this legislation strengthen or weaken the public’s ability to hold the government accountable?

In many parts of British Columbia, particularly in rural and northern communities, the freedom-of-information system is not abstract; it is not academic. It is often the only meaningful tool that ordinary people have to get answers from institutions that feel very, very far away. When you live in Fort St. John or Fort Nelson, decisions made in Victoria can feel distant, sometimes disconnected.

When hospital services change, when an energy project is delayed, or when regulatory bodies make a determination that affects someone’s livelihood, people want to know why. When phone calls do not return answers, and emails generate automated responses, they file an FOI request. That request is not an attack. It is a request for clarity.

That is what this legislation governs. When I look at Bill 9, I look beyond the language of modernization and administrative efficiency. I look at the substance, and I see several changes that deserve very careful consideration.

First, the change from responding “without delay” to responding “without unreasonable delay.” Some may consider that minor wording, but legislative language shapes institutional culture. “Without delay” establishes a clear expectation. “Unreasonable delay” introduces interpretation, and interpretation, more often than not, favours the institution over the individual. When government timelines are already a source of frustration for many British Columbians, lowering the clarity of that obligation raises legitimate concerns.

Second, the bill expands the authority to disregard requests where responding would interfere with operations, including the operations of the government of British Columbia. That is broad language. Government operations are always under strain. They are always managing workload. They are always balancing priorities.

[5:30 p.m.]

If operational inconvenience becomes a justification to refuse disclosure, then the default shifts. Transparency moves from being a presumption to being conditional, and that is not a small shift. This is not a tweak. It makes it easier for government to decline and harder for people to insist.

Third, the bill increases discretion around whether a request contains sufficient detail in the opinion of the head of the public body — in the opinion of. Discretion accumulates over time. Each expansion of discretionary authority may seem minor in isolation, but together they shift the balance of power.

That balance matters because the freedom-of-information system exists to rebalance power. It exists because the government holds information that the public has the right to see. When the right becomes increasingly subject to interpretation, confidence erodes.

I also want to address something broader. In rural and northern communities, trust in institutions is not automatic. It must be earned and maintained. People already feel that decisions are centralized. They already feel that policy is developed far from the consequences it creates.

The FOI process acts as a pressure valve in that environment. It allows citizens to say: “Show me the record. Show me the reasoning. Let me understand what happened.” When that valve tightens, pressure builds.

This is about whether access to information is a right in practice or only in principle. It is about the health of our democratic institutions. If the FOI system is strained, then we should ask why. If it is under-resourced, are records poorly organized? Is documentation inconsistent? Are requests increasing because public communication has declined?

Those are operational questions, but tightening access is not the natural answer to administrative strain. Strengthening capacity is. Improving documentation is. Enhancing proactive disclosure is. Those reforms would build credibility.

When the government says this bill improves efficiency, I understand the administrative intent. But efficiency cannot come at the expense of public confidence.

Transparency is not supposed to be convenient. It is supposed to require effort. It is supposed to require the government to pause and account for its actions. That is not a flaw in the system. That is the design.

From a northern perspective, this debate is not about ideology. It is about distance and trust. When citizens feel distant from power, the tools of accountability become even more important. If this bill narrows those tools even incrementally, it deserves scrutiny.

As an independent member, I evaluate each piece of legislation on its merits. I do believe that when reforms to access-to-information laws are proposed, the burden is on the government to demonstrate that access is being strengthened, not softened. At minimum, we should ensure that response standards are clear and measurable; refusal powers are narrow and well defined; discretion is limited, not expanded; and public reporting on delays and refusals is transparent.

If the purpose of this legislation is to restore credibility, then credibility is built through openness, not through broader administrative authority.

In closing, I return to the standard I began with. Does this strengthen accountability? In its current form, I am not convinced it does. That is why I am speaking against this bill.

[5:35 p.m.]

For communities that already feel far from the centre of decision-making, that uncertainty matters. It matters for my community.

Just recently a local news outlet ended up doing an FOI when it came to Northern Health. Through that FOI, they figured out that over 80 people died waiting for health care. Without this system and without being able to hold the government accountable and actually being able to obtain answers, how do we know how many people might be dying at home waiting for a specialist? How do we obtain these facts?

If anything, we need to be strengthening the accountability.

Stephanie Higginson: I want to start by recognizing I am giving this address on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I want to recognize that debate in this House has become quite difficult, and it may have been difficult for members of the First Nations locally, or any First Nation, to be watching debate. It has been hard. I just want to acknowledge that. I feel and my heart feels and recognizes that we are talking about people’s rights when people are screaming and yelling and banging on desks, and I just want to acknowledge that. It would feel insincere to acknowledge the territory without acknowledging what’s happening right now in this House.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act. This is actually something that I know quite a bit about. In fact, I might be able to trace my pathway to this podium to a terrible experience with an FOI request to a public body.

Many years ago — 2013, maybe 2012 — I was part of a grassroots group of people in my community that were trying to save all the schools in the small community I live in from being closed and having the students bussed out of the community.

The member opposite talked about how these decisions are decisions that impact your life and how you have a right to see how those decisions are being made and the information that is being used to make those decisions. Boy, I couldn’t think of a situation that impacts people more than their children’s schooling, that gets people more excited and more active than your children’s schooling. And this particular decision that started my path to politics affected every family in our community with a school-aged child.

Local representation, through the process, refused to answer any questions. The engagement was, in my opinion, a kangaroo court. Then decisions were made, and an entire community lost its schools, and we didn’t know why. I didn’t have one email returned through that process.

When we lost all our schools and we wanted to better understand why, by that point, the only option that we had was to submit for an FOI request, which we did. We submitted an FOI request.

The process was repeatedly dragged out, waiting until the very last day to respond, putting up enormous fees in hopes that we would back down, restarting the clock with every back-and-forth. All the power in the process was held by the public body.

It was actually just a combination of community organizing and fundraising. There was a floor hockey tournament to raise money to pay for the FOI fees that they were asking us for. It was sheer tenacity that we were finally able, after months of requests, to receive the documents that we were after. In fact, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner ruled that our fees were exorbitant and that they had to be returned to us.

This process led me to run for school board, win, reverse the decision and reopen the schools. My son graduated from that school last year.

I tell you that story because obfuscation — which is a word I like to say a lot; I should be able to say it better — with regards to freedom-of-information requests is something that I am familiar with and something that I care deeply about.

[5:40 p.m.]

These proposed changes are not made to obfuscate people’s access to information. None of the changes proposed here impact the oversight of the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

That’s really important for people to remember. The independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner — none of the changes impact their oversight.

In fact, these proposed changes are part of a much-needed move of modernization that is being led by the Minister of Citizens’ Services and her team to create efficiency and accessibility to many of B.C.’s processes, including freedom of information and protection of privacy laws and access.

It’s time that we, as a province, embark on this path of integrated services, one that matches the world our citizens are living in, the world the next generation of decision-makers is way ahead of us on. We can’t back down from these necessary steps because of, in my opinion, political dog-whistles about weakening access and unreasonable authority.

None of these changes impact the oversight ability of the independent Office of the Privacy of Information Commissioner. I’m going to say that a lot in this speech because it’s a really important point.

The public should expect that their government will utilize the most effective and efficient processes available to serve them. The public should also expect that as service levels change, government will adjust processes to ensure improved productivity in order to meet increased needs and changing demands. That is exactly what Bill 9 does.

In this digital era, and in this era of increased distrust in government, we have seen increased requests for information along with increased complexity of these requests. As the minister stated, the data and evidence shows a 28 percent increase in the number of pages of information processed over the past four years and a tripling of the size of each file that’s processed.

In 2024-25, freedom of information operations processed 2.18 million pages, up from 1.64 million pages in 2021. Between 2020-2021 and 2024-25, the average general request grew from 146 pages per file to 508 pages per file. As demands change, so too should the processes used to meet those demands. Anything other than an attempt to improve efficiency and productivity would be wasting taxpayers’ time and money.

Change is not always bad. I think about the fact that as a kid, my dad — well, I guess until he died — had this huge scar across his belly from having his appendix out. And then when my sister had her appendix out, her scar was this teeny, tiny scar. My sister didn’t go to the doctor and say: “That process where you sliced open my dad worked fine enough for him, so I want that one.” She expected improved service based on knowing how to do things better. That’s what Bill 9 does.

The opposition bangs on the tables every day about the size of the public service. Evidence shows that we have an increased demand, and we are looking to improve efficiency and improve productivity with this bill. And they cry foul. It’s hypocritical.

That’s what Bill 9 does. It improves productivity. It improves efficiency. It is the evolution of service.

The proposed amendments can be grouped into three categories. The first is connected services to streamline information-sharing and create the ability to issue directions and standards with the end goal of providing the applicant with a one-stop-shop approach to getting the information they need.

What does this mean? The minister earlier spoke about how the general public doesn’t see the government as a series of ministries that they have to go to. They experience the government through events in their lives, moments in their lives — welcoming a child, navigating an illness, launching a business.

[5:45 p.m.]

Recently, my family, going through the process of trying to acquire death certificates…. I can’t tell you how many times my mom was going from door to door trying to get death certificates. Too often these moments require people to move through disconnected systems that treat each moment like it’s a separate transaction. That’s what we experienced recently in my family.

Connected Services creates the legal foundation for government to work as one unified system behind the scenes, enabling a more predictable and supportive system from government for people. These amendments enable a single government gateway for people to apply and receive their government services and update their information across multiple government programs. Connected Services will improve service delivery by ensuring that information is shared appropriately across programs, using existing systems.

While Connected Services is designed to enable secure sharing of information between public bodies, the legislation does not consolidate all personal information into one central place. This allows for increased efficiencies while still maintaining appropriate privacy levels and — maybe by the end, everybody will be saying it with me — oversight of the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The second category is FOI efficiencies. These are amendments to improve process efficiency and transparency for applicants and to enable public bodies to better manage the administrative workload associated with processing the changing nature of FOI requests.

What does improving efficiency mean? With these amendments, we’ll be able to limit duplicate disclosure processes so people’s time and taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted processing records that are already being released through other processes, such as legal discovery.

These amendments enable the proactive release of information to individuals who are seeking their own personal information, including improving access for applicants — especially, the one that tugs at my heart, former children in care. Imagine trying to seek your own information and having to repeat your story over and over again. This creates huge efficiencies within the system when you note that 60 percent of FOI applicants are for personal information.

That’s what improvement looks like. In any field, in any sector, it’s expected that you review data, you understand the issues, and you respond with better processes. That’s what this bill proposes to do.

The third category is miscellaneous efficiencies and clarifications, which allows for minor miscellaneous and clarifying amendments that are needed to address operational inefficiencies caused by the current Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements or misinterpretations of them.

That happens a lot. It’s like when you have a form at school, and it keeps coming back when you’re filling out those forms, and every single time it comes back, and over half the families are filling this form out incorrectly. You look at the form, and you think: “Wow, maybe we didn’t design a form very well, so we should change the form to make it better for people.”

That’s what miscellaneous efficiencies and clarifications does. It clears up those misinterpretations that have contributed to administrative burdens.

We hear a lot these days from the opposition about red tape and unnecessary delays. Here we have amendments that actually address the issues of productivity, making the process smoother and faster, and the other side pulls out their dog-whistles and cries foul. I find it exhausting, and I find it hypocritical.

Some people have expressed concern that allowing the ability to disregard requests based on abusive or malicious behaviour is simply an opportunity to disregard some requests. This concern does not take into account that there is an existing process where the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner must approve a request to disregard an FOI process. I’m familiar with this because the public body I mentioned earlier attempted to have part of our request dismissed, and it was denied by the commissioner.

All these proposed changes do is add an additional circumstance in which that denial can occur by the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

[5:50 p.m.]

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner retains oversight over whether the body can disregard the request. Any public body must seek approval from the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner before disregarding a request.

Let’s be clear. The evidence and data show that these requests are rare. While they are rare, repeated, abusive or malicious requests are disruptive, and they are costly. Most importantly, they take time away from processing other, valid requests for people such as, as previously mentioned, a former child in care who’s trying to seek out information about themselves.

Any legislation is only as good as the consultation undertaken. In this case, the ministry received praise from the province’s expert, from the actual Information and Privacy Commissioner himself, who said:

“I appreciate the consultative approach government has taken to drafting amendments to FIPPA. My office has had many discussions with government in a coordinated way to ensure the amendments keep to FIPPA’s core purpose, and I am encouraged that the proposed changes will be one step forward to getting FOI records into the hands of applicants faster.”

He also said:

“I also support the privacy protection provisions government has included in the design of connected service provisions and appreciate the government’s commitment to continue to work with my office throughout the implementation.”

I mean, that’s a pretty great endorsement.

In addition to working with the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the ministry undertook extensive consultation with key sectors, including health, post-secondary, K to 12, local governments and Indigenous Peoples on these proposed amendments.

While there have been, in my opinion, unnecessary accusations that these amendments are an attempt to weaken the FOI laws and to try to keep the public in the dark, nothing could be further from the truth.

FOIPPA plays an important role in protecting democratic governance. I think the member opposite actually spoke really eloquently about the importance it plays in protecting people’s democracy and protecting people’s privacy — in a digital world, it gets more and more important — by setting clear rules for how people’s personal information must be protected. With these amendments, those principles remain unchanged.

What has evolved is technology and, more important, how people interact with government. Government must evolve as well if we are going to meet modern expectations and continue to be able to serve the public. These amendments are essential to delivering modern, digital services that are inclusive, efficient and, most importantly, worthy of the public’s trust.

I want to finish by reading the rest of the statement given by the independent Privacy Commissioner in response to these proposed amendments.

“Today government has introduced amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that strive to address operational pressures and clarify specific sections of the act. It also grants my office the ability to enter into collaboration and information-sharing agreements with other regulators in Canada, which this office has advocated for during multiple statutory reviews.”

Then there’s a whole part that I already read earlier about being consulted.

Then they go on. The commissioner goes on to say:

“In addition to the proposed amendments and to further address operational pressures, my office has worked with government to realize administrative efficiencies, streamline the release of records and increase transparency” — that’s a quote from the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner themselves — “in the process for applicants through changing how time extensions are requested for certain types of requests.”

Increase transparency. I’ll say that a lot too.

They also said:

“I’m pleased that government has chosen to work with us on statutory and administrative changes to the FOI system and public sector privacy.”

[5:55 p.m.]

They also said:

“As British Columbia moves forward into the information society, broader statutory reform will be necessary” — they might be asking for more changes in the future, folks; they’re giving you a little heads up — “under FOIPPA and beyond on matters such as private sector privacy, health sector privacy and comprehensive and thoughtful approaches to regulating artificial intelligence across all sectors.”

It came up today in question period. Look at that. The independent office is asking for that.

“I am encouraged by the approach” — still a quote — “the government has taken here, and I am optimistic about the opportunity to share our perspectives on those topics over the coming months and years.”

That’s a pretty great endorsement. If you look at it, it actually takes up an entire page.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

With an endorsement like that, along with recognition that the world is rapidly changing around us and that government must as well, these amendments are critical to ensuring that government has the tools necessary to meet the moment we are at.

I want to thank the minister and her team for their diligent work on this. I’m so glad that she actually happens to be here right now. I don’t think I’m supposed to say that.

These changes protect privacy, they uphold access to information, they enable better services for British Columbians, and they support a more transparent, efficient, people-centred private sector. None of these changes impact the oversight ability of the independent Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and they are clearly supported by the expert in the area.

Rosalyn Bird: I rise today to address Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Second reading is the stage at which this House turns from introduction to examination. At first reading, legislation is placed before the assembly in title, and a short description of the bill is provided.

At first reading of Bill 9, the Minister of Citizens’ Services said a lot of nice things about this bill. She spoke about the importance of public trust, transparency and accountability. She said: “At their core, these amendments are about improving how people experience government, making services easier to access, reducing duplication and enabling more transparent, people-centred service delivery.”

Well, if all I had to go on was her word, I would think this was a very beneficial bill. This is a good example of why it is important to keep first reading a formality and to vote all bills to pass to second reading. Voting yes on first reading is not an endorsement of a bill but a procedural step to move to the next stage, where members can examine the bill’s contents.

And it is very important to examine the contents of this bill because, as it turns out, the description of the bill, as the minister provided, does not accurately reflect the contents.

Bill 9 is far from promoting public trust, transparency and accountability. This bill drastically weakens access-to-information rights, and I believe Bill 9 warrants serious concern.

Access to information is not an administrative courtesy extended by government. It is a democratic right exercised by citizens. In a parliamentary democracy, transparency is not optional. It is foundational. It is what allows journalists to investigate, researchers to evaluate, opposition members to scrutinize and the public to understand how decisions are made on their behalf. When access becomes narrower, more discretionary or subject to vague thresholds, democracy itself becomes less informed.

In 2022, the Legislature struck a special committee to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That committee heard evidence, consulted experts and produced 34 recommendations in a report entitled FIPPA for the Future. Those recommendations were not casual suggestions. They were considered advice of the Legislature itself.

Yet Bill 9 does not meaningfully implement them. There is no statutory duty to document. There is no extension of access provisions to the administrative functions of the Legislative Assembly. There is no comprehensive update reflecting the evolving relationship with Indigenous governing bodies. Instead of acting on the 34 recommendations aimed at strengthening transparency, the government has introduced amendments that expand discretion and soften standards.

[6:00 p.m.]

When a government commissions advice and then legislates around it rather than through it, the public is entitled to ask why. Freedom of information is not a work flow inconvenience. It is not a burden the government must manage. It is a legal right held by the public.

When this government, one with a documented record of delay, comes forward with amendments that expand its discretion to delay, refuse and disregard requests, this House has an obligation to scrutinize those changes carefully.

In a parliamentary system, the public delegates authority to this House. Delegation is not abdication. Citizens retain the right to examine how power is exercised in their name. That examination is not possible if information does not flow.

An informed electorate is not a luxury. It is the foundation of legitimate government. Without timely access to records, debate becomes speculative, scrutiny becomes delayed and accountability becomes reactive instead of preventive.

Democracy depends not only on elections but on continuous access to the facts that shape public policy. I recognize that the government faces administrative burdens. I recognize that systems can be overwhelmed. But administrative convenience must never become the justification for narrowing public rights.

If requests are burdensome, the answer is better resourcing, clearer guidance and improved systems, not expanding refusal powers through broad and undefined language. Efficiency is important; accountability is essential.

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s most recent performance review is clear. Government met the 30-day statutory benchmark barely more than half the time. The average response time reached 85 business days, the highest in 13 years. More than 5,100 requests were delayed beyond legal timelines without authority.

In those unlawful delays, applicants waited nearly 200 additional business days beyond what the law allows, and nearly one in five requests were unlawfully delayed. That is not a rounding error. That is a system out of compliance.

The question before us is simple. When a system is failing to meet the law’s standards, does this bill strengthen law’s discipline or does it relax it? This Legislative Assembly is expected to model informed, reasonable debate. But informed debate requires information.

Members on all sides of this House rely on freedom-of-information legislation to scrutinize decisions, test claims and understand administrative action. The public relies on it to hold all of us to account.

Our job in this House is to debate, to scrutinize and to hold government to account. That work depends on information. It depends on timely access. It depends on clarity. If access becomes more limited, even incrementally, the quality of debate suffers, the public’s ability to evaluate policy suffers, and confidence in institutions erodes.

Democracy does not weaken all at once. It weakens through gradual normalization of reduced transparency. When statutory language becomes elastic, when standards become subjective, the clarity necessary for informed debate diminishes. Vague language does not simply affect applicants; it affects the quality of deliberation in this chamber.

Let us begin with language. The current act requires public bodies to assist applicants and respond without delay. Bill 9 replaces that with, “without unreasonable delay.” That change is not cosmetic. “Without delay” signals urgency. “Without unreasonable delay” signals negotiation. And who decides what is unreasonable? The very public body being asked for the records.

There is a meaningful difference in law between “may” and “must.” “Must” creates obligation; “may” preserves discretion. Bill 9 repeatedly relies on discretionary language. The head of a public body may disregard a request. The head of a public body may determine interference. The head of a public body may refuse processing.

[6:05 p.m.]

That drafting choice matters because when a statute prioritizes discretion over obligation, it becomes significantly harder for citizens to challenge non-disclosure, and it makes it significantly easier for the government to defend it.

We have seen this pattern before, legislation that formalizes broad administrative discretion without embedding clear guardrails, independent triggers for review or measurable standards.

When legislation says, “if the head believes” or “if the director considers,” without defining the evidentiary threshold, it creates a compliance shield. Government can say it followed the act even if transparency has materially diminished.

That is not technical drafting. That is structural design. When response times are already at historic highs, the Legislature should be tightening expectations, not softening them. If the problem is volume, hire staff. If the problem is digitization, modernize systems. If the problem is backlog, clear it. But do not rewrite the standards to match underperformance. That is not reform; that is accommodation of failure.

Legislation matters not only for what it says but for how precisely it says it. When laws use clear standards, citizens understand their rights. Public bodies understand their obligations. Courts and oversight bodies can enforce them consistently. When language becomes vague — “unreasonable,” “in the opinion of,” “interference with the government as a whole” — the balance shifts toward interpretation by the powerful.

Ambiguity in access legislation does not expand freedom. It expands discretion, and discretion without clear limits can erode confidence, chill scrutiny and weaken the culture of transparency that democracy requires.

“In the opinion of” — again, discretion expands. Enough detail according to whom? Reasonable effort according to whom? Reasonable time according to whom? That is a shift in balance, and we should be candid about what that means. It gives government more leverage to push back an intake, to narrow requests, to stall requests or to challenge requests before the clock even properly begins.

Freedom of expression and access to information are inseparable. The right to speak freely is hollow without the right to know. Journalists cannot report. Researchers cannot analyze. Opposition members cannot scrutinize. Citizens cannot meaningfully participate.

Access to information fuels public discourse. It strengthens media independence. It allows disagreement to be grounded in fact rather than suspicion. When access is delayed or narrowed, public conversation becomes less informed, and trust in institutions declines.

The most concerning change is in section 43. Public bodies may now disregard requests if responding would unreasonably interfere not merely with their own operations but with the operations of the government of British Columbia as a whole. That is a significant expansion. It moves from localized operational interference to a governmentwide threshold.

What does it mean to interfere with the government of British Columbia? Does scrutiny during a politically sensitive file qualify? Does a request that spans ministries qualify? Does investigative reporting qualify?

This bill expands the authority of the government to refuse requests it considers vexatious, abusive or made in bad faith. But now in this legislation, do we see precise statutory definitions that clearly define those thresholds? Instead, we see language that relies heavily on interpretation. While the term “bad actor” does not appear in this legislation, the structure reflects a similar premise that the problem lies not in government performance but in the conduct of those seeking access.

When legislation is built around filtering out so-called vexatious requesters rather than fixing a systemic delay, we should ask whether we are addressing the right problem.

[6:10 p.m.]

When legislation relies on subjective determinations rather than objective standards, it shifts power away from the public and towards the administrator. It replaces measurable accountability with discretionary authority. No government remains in office forever, and laws drafted to protect one government will one day apply to another.

The people of British Columbia expect this assembly to debate legislation openly and transparently. They expect that when we speak about policy, we do so based on accessible records and accountable decision-making. If statutory language becomes opaque, if rights are defined by what is reasonable in the view of the very institution scrutinizing, public confidence weakens. Trust in democratic institutions is not maintained through messaging. It is maintained through measurable transparency.

Under this bill, the practical burden shifts. The citizen must now anticipate whether their request would be deemed unreasonable. A journalist may consider whether investigative persistence could be labelled as interference. An academic must wonder whether broad data requests might be characterized as excessive.

When citizens begin self-censoring their access requests out of uncertainty, that is not modernization. That is contradiction. If the government believes abusive requests are a serious systematic problem, then define them clearly in the statute. Establish an objective test. Require independent approval before refusal. Mandate public reporting on how often these powers are used. Transparency about transparency should not be controversial.

We have heard repeatedly that requests are more complex, files are larger, page counts have increased, but access delays are often symptoms of upstream recordkeeping failure. British Columbia already has the Information Management Act. It requires adequate records for decision. It requires approved schedules. It requires compliance with record creation duties. Has the act been fully implemented? Has it been independently audited? Has government publicly reported ministry-by-ministry compliance?

If records are inconsistently created, poorly classified, unevenly digitized or inadequately retained, delay is inevitable. Weakening access standards does not fix recordkeeping failures. It conceals them.

Freedom of information legislation is one of the few statutory restraints placed directly on executive power. It exists to ensure no government, regardless of political stripe, may shield itself from scrutiny through ambiguity. When access standards are clear, government operates within visible guardrails. When standards become vague, those guardrails blur. The Legislature must be cautious whenever language shifts from objective obligation to subjective judgment, because the long-term health of our democracy depends on the clarity of those limits.

In my riding of Prince George–Valemount and across northern British Columbia, access to information is not theoretical. When resource policies shift, health care delivery changes, infrastructure commitments are altered and environmental decisions affect livelihood, communities rely on timely access to understand the decisions that are being made here in Victoria. If timelines stretch towards 85 days on average and are nearly 200 days beyond the legal limits in unlawful cases, scrutiny becomes delayed beyond relevance. Justice delayed in information is accountability denied.

Northern British Columbia contributes enormously to the provincial economy. It deserves transparency equal to that contribution.

When a government is already failing to meet the law’s timelines, the answer is not to soften the law. When thousands of requests have been unlawfully delayed, the answer is not to expand the power to disregard them. When public trust is strained, the answer is not broader discretion. It is stricter accountability.

Bill 9 lowers the standard from “without delay” to “without unreasonable delay.” It shifts objective requirements to subjective opinion. It broadens the government’s authority to refuse scrutiny.

This bill may be framed as modernization. It may be described as administrative refinement. But when you strip away the language, what remains is expanded discretion to withhold information under thresholds that are not clearly defined.

[6:15 p.m.]

When discretion expands, while definitions shrink, public trust rarely grows.

A government confident in its decisions does not fear disclosure. A government committed to accountability does not rely on ambiguity. A legislature that values informed debate should insist on clarity when drafting laws that govern access to information.

Transparency is not a burden to be managed. It is a duty to be upheld. For all the reasons that I have laid out throughout my speech, I do not support the amendments proposed in this legislation, and I will be voting against Bill 9 at second reading.

Deputy Speaker: We are going to turn to a member participating online. Recognizing Burnaby East.

Rohini Arora: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the lands on which Burnaby East, where I am speaking from, is situated. I want to express my deepest gratitude for the fact that I get to live, work, be in service of and reflect on the lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, səlilwətaɬ and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm Nations. It is my commitment to move on these lands with integrity.

I speak today in strong support of the amendments to British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I’m not speaking simply because this is sound public policy. I am speaking because I deeply understand how this legislation will shape the experience of people I love right now, in this very moment.

When we talk about FOIPPA, it is easy to default to language focused on systems, access to personal information, efficiencies and timelines. Yes, this is a very important aspect, but today I want to focus specifically on the fact that 60 percent of FOI requests in this province are for access to personal information. People reach out for so many different reasons — needing health records, participating in research studies, especially if someone is dealing with a disease where the study might make a material difference in their lives or substantially change their ability to live a long, healthy life.

That means that most people engaging with this system are not corporations, and they’re not media outlets. We have to ask ourselves a question. Who is impacted by the changes? They are mostly individuals trying to access their own records, their own histories, their own truth.

Someone really close to me did exactly that. This person experienced significant harm as a child, harm documented by multiple systems across multiple ministries — health care practitioners, social workers, foster care providers, school counsellors, the list goes on and on.

Some records showed compassion and understanding. It’s a form of healing in and of itself. This was only possible because of their ability to access their personal information. Other records revealed racism, ableism, cold clinical observations that failed to see a child as a child. I’m really talking about 30 years back, more than 30 years back. A necessary truth that lifted up barriers in areas where continued advocacy is needed.

For years, this person was not ready to access those files, because accessing their files required something profound. Barring serious urgency where choice in when you make the request is not possible, you must be safe, consistently in the present moment, to confront the past. People often don’t recognize just how dysregulated their nervous systems are, and that impacts their capacity to act.

Eventually, this person reached that safe and secure place. They had stable employment, a salary they could depend on, confidence in their own judgment, faith in their healing and a readiness to hold those who hurt them accountable.

[6:20 p.m.]

So they filed for their records, and they received them, boxes of paper — every recorded harm; every decision made about their childhood; every diary entry from a foster parent; every comment, whether supportive or discriminatory, written by professionals.

It was painful to read. It was a massive file. But it was empowering to know what was being said in this person’s most vulnerable moments, because truth grounds you.

Around that same time, this person decided to move out on their own for the very first time, as a strong, secure adult with faith in themself. For many of us, moving out on your own is a normal milestone. For someone who has never known the safety of a permanent family home, it’s revolutionary.

Here is something many of us take for granted. When we move, we often leave precious documents and things somewhere safe — at a parent’s house, in a family basement, with someone who will keep them secure.

This person has never known that safety so to protect those precious FOI records, their history, they rented a storage unit. The unit was still in their name. Everything was paid on time. A worker at the storage place mistook those boxes for garbage — somebody’s entire life. They were thrown out, and then it rained. Every page documenting harm, every clinical note, every piece of evidence, every diary entry, destroyed. It was left soaked, left exposed and left for strangers and random people walking by to see.

I remember the call. I remember the exact moment. The grief was not about paper. It was about what the paper represented. It was about how quickly someone who has never had stability can feel it vanish again. It was the sound of someone reliving the truth that there has never been a safe place to put their things.

This is why connected service provisions in this bill matter. This is why enabling proactive digital access to personal information matters.

When we modernize FOIPPA to allow better digital service delivery through connected services and secure information-sharing, we’re not just streamlining processes. We’re reducing fragility. We are acknowledging that not everyone has a stable filing cabinet in a family home. We’re recognizing that for former children in care, for survivors, for people rebuilding their lives, access to their records must not depend on cardboard boxes.

These amendments enable government to work more cohesively. They allow secure, responsible sharing of information with safeguards and oversight by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. They introduce the ability to proactively disclose personal information to the individual it belongs to. They strengthen clarity in requests so people receive what they’re actually seeking. They improve timelines, they reduce duplication and they do so without weakening access rights.

For people with stable housing and strong support networks, this might just feel like administrative modernization. For those who have never known the safety of a permanent address, this is security. For those who are finally safe enough to confront their past, it’s empowerment. And for those who have spent their life navigating systems that documented them but did not protect them, this is dignity.

This bill says your information belongs to you, your history should not be fragile, your access should not depend on whether you have somewhere safe to store a box.

I support this bill because I have seen firsthand what it means when access to personal records is interrupted, destroyed or made harder than it needs to be. I support this bill because modernization done thoughtfully with privacy safeguards, with oversight, with care, can reduce harm. And I support this bill because I believe government has a responsibility to design systems that recognize not everyone starts from the same place of stability.

[6:25 p.m.]

This legislation strengthens transparency. It strengthens service delivery. It strengthens privacy protections. Most importantly, it strengthens people. For those reasons and for the people in my life whose healing depends on systems working better, not harder, I am so proud to stand in support of this bill.

If I can just take a moment to say this, I think it’s so important to lift up. It’s not very often that you come across a bill that might look technical or procedural to the people outside. We as MLAs get really caught up in the bubble of our lives inside the chambers but for some people….

Just knowing that I have someone in my life who’s life…. They could’ve not faced that harm that they did, reliving the pain and the trauma of not having access to safety and a place to stay, had they had access to digital files. To be part of a government that is working to make it possible to reduce harm in that manner is really profound for me.

I know, for many other folks that stood up to speak to this bill whether in support or against, that there were particular reasons for what they were passionate about.

I’m just glad I got the opportunity today to speak about what really matters to me when I look at this bill, knowing personally that maybe that phone call wouldn’t have happened, and maybe that person wouldn’t have had to relive every single time they felt alone, in a moment, simply because of a phone call they got that said: “The boxes you left in this unit are now outside.”

David Williams: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 sounds great, but the bill is nothing like the title indicates.

First reading allowed us to see the entire bill, and this debate provides the opportunity to review the bill in detail, which I intend to do. I would like to point out many of the overarching aspects and note numerous general risks.

First off, unlike the people across the way, I cannot support this bill. I find that there’s a lot of…. I don’t see the bill, certainly, in the same way they do. They must be reading something different.

I see that it shifts power away from the citizens and tilts toward government discretion. It normalizes delay, refusal and gatekeeping of freedom-of-information requests. It weakens independent oversight by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It creates vague, undefined thresholds that favour government convenience.

It disproportionately harms the average citizens in my riding; journalists, who we depend on for information; researchers, who we depend on for data; and watchdogs, who we depend on for everything. It erodes trust by quietly expanding refusal powers without transparency. This bill does not modernize freedom of information; it justifies obstruction and delay.

I got into politics to be a voice for those who demand open and transparent democratic values. I believe it is the responsibility of each elected MLA, as well as the government of the day, to be held to account to the people they represent. This bill fails this value and that objective. I honestly believe that freedom of information is not a bureaucratic luxury. It is a democratic necessity.

We need more freedom not less. Yet over time, many freedoms have been restricted, and information that belongs to the public has been delayed, obscured or quietly withheld. That trend must stop.

[6:30 p.m.]

Freedom of information is not about politics. It is a matter of trust and respect for taxpaying citizens. It is about the fundamental right of those citizens to understand what their government is doing in their name with their money and how it affects their lives.

For the residents of Salmon Arm–Shuswap, this right is not theoretical. It is extremely important. In rural communities, such as the many within my riding, decisions made behind closed doors have very real consequences. They affect whether a permit is approved or stalled for years. They affect whether a health service remains local or quietly centralizes elsewhere. They affect forestry workers, farmers, small business owners, volunteer fire departments and families trying to build a home.

When information is delayed or denied, residents are not just inconvenienced; they are disadvantaged. Rural communities already face challenges that urban centres don’t often have: longer travel times, fewer services, limits to staff capacity and thinner margins. When transparency breaks down, the usual outcome in rural British Columbia is that it’s the residents that always pay the price.

Freedom of information exists to level the playing field. It allows citizens, journalists and elected representatives to ask simple but essential questions. Why was this decision made? Who was consulted? What alternatives were considered? Why did this project move forward or not? And when responses take months or years, when documents arrive heavily redacted or when fees and delays discourage legitimate requests, the spirit of transparency is lost. Accountability delayed is accountability denied.

Governments do not own information. They are temporary custodians of it. Public records belong to the public, to the farmers in the North Okanagan managing land under challenging regulations, to the families in Salmon Arm navigating health care wait-lists, to the smaller municipalities trying to plan infrastructure and to the rural taxpayers funding all of it.

In rural British Columbia, people expect straight answers. They expect decisions to be explained, not hidden behind process, and they expect their government to act with openness, not defensiveness.

Transparency is not a threat to good government. It reaffirms responsible government. A confident government does not fear scrutiny, a competent government does not suppress information, and a democratic government does not restrict freedom unless absolutely necessary and never without explanation.

Yet we have seen a gradual normalization of secrecy under this NDP government. Key decisions announced without supporting data. Policies implemented before consultation results are released. Oversight offices weakened or eliminated completely. Information requests treated as nuisances rather than a right.

This is not healthy for democracy. Freedom of information empowers citizens to participate meaningfully in public life. It allows rural communities to advocate for themselves with facts, not rumours. When you live in a small place — lots of rumours — you want facts. It strengthens confidence in institutions, and it reminds government who, ultimately, they serve.

Freedom is not something we slowly surrender and then hope to regain later. We’ve seen that picture. Freedom of information is no different. Once transparency erodes, rebuilding trust is far harder than preserving it.

[6:35 p.m.]

Rural British Columbians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal respect, equal access to information and equal accountability. They, as I do, believe that openness strengthens democracy and governments work best when they remember to answer to the people, not the other way around.

It is time to stop restricting freedoms. It is time to stop suppressing information. It is time to recommit to transparency, accountability and the democratic principles that built this province — in every community, rural and urban alike.

I’ll take a little time here and I’ll go through clause by clause, just to go over this bill, just to explain it to everybody in layman’s terms what it really means.

We’ll start off with clause 1. This applies part 2 of the FOIPPA to records connected to proceedings. It creates a large exemption loophole where records tied to proceedings are shielded from access. Government can strategically link records to proceedings to avoid disclosure. It reduces transparency around litigation strategy, settlements and administrative actions.

Now I’ll put it in layman terms. This clause strikes at the heart of public accountability. Government records do not cease to belong to the public simply because litigation or administrative proceedings are underway. In fact, scrutiny is most important when government actions are being challenged.

By carving out this exemption, the bill creates a pathway for politically sensitive material to be shielded under the context of proceedings. That’s kind of scary. Transparency cannot depend on whether government is comfortable being examined.

Let’s move on. Clause 2, section 5. This gives the head of the public body sole authority to judge the request adequacy. It removes objective standard for whether a request is sufficiently detailed. “Reasonable amount of time” is undefined, subjective and unenforceable. It enables gatekeeping and arbitrary rejection, especially for complex and historical records. Penalizes ordinary citizens who don’t know internal filing systems. It all sounds kind of scary to me.

This provision fundamentally alters the balance of power between the citizens and the state by granting sole discretion to the head of a public body to determine whether a request is sufficiently detailed, and tying it to “reasonable amount of time,” the bill converts an objective right into a subjective gatekeeping exercise.

The act was designed to assist applicants, not to test their drafting skills. Public access should not depend on insider knowledge of government filing systems. It should be simple, easy and transparent.

Let’s move on to clause 3, section 6. “Changes without delay” has been changed to “without reasonable delay.” That normalizes slow responses with no clear benchmarks. It encourages bureaucratic delay as a standard practice. It weakens enforcement. What is reasonable becomes debatable and contestable.

My concern would be replacing “without delay” with “without reasonable delay.” It doesn’t sound like much. It’s just a word, but it makes a big difference. It lowers the statutory standard for responsiveness.

Words matter. The original language imposed, implied urgency. The amended language invites interpretation and delay. When access timelines become elastic, accountability is weakened. For journalists, rural advocates and citizens seeking time-sensitive information, delay can effectively amount to denial. That’s not democratic.

[6:40 p.m.]

Let’s move on. Clause 5, section 10. This allows deadline extensions by an applicant’s consent. What does that mean? Well, applicants maybe feel pressured to consent or risk retaliation or refusal. It creates unequal power dynamics between citizens and government. True consent requires equality of power.

In the revised freedom-of-information process, that balance no longer exists. Applicants often depend on the very institution they are requesting the information from. Introducing the consent mechanism for extensions risks indirect intimidation, where citizens feel compelled to agree to delays to avoid conflict or disadvantage. Administrative convenience should not override procedural fairness. It never should.

Let’s move on. Clause 6, section 10. It removes a lack of detail as an extension reason, because it’s now a refusal tool. It confirms a policy shift towards rejection rather than assistance and undermines the act’s original duty to help applicants refine requests. The original framework encouraged collaboration between government and applicants to clarify requests. Instead of allowing time extensions to clarify requests, the bill now allows the public body to determine whether that request is sufficiently detailed in the first place.

This amendment signals a shift from assistance to avoidance. Instead of helping refine unclear requests, the government now gains the stronger tools to reject them outright. That’s not modernization; that’s a reduction of service. Government is supposed to be here to help its citizens, not to refuse them.

Let’s move on. Clause 7, section 16.1, expands the secrecy around policy influence and advice. It blurs the lines between judicial independence and executive secrecy. It prevents scrutiny of how policies are shaped behind closed doors. Have we heard that? Too many times.

Judicial independence must be protected, but independence is not synonymous with secrecy. By broadly exempting policy communications involving judicial officers, the bill risks concealing policy influence under the banner of independence.

Public confidence depends on transparency, on how policies are shaped, particularly where branches of governments intersect. I think that’s foundational for democracy and a transparent government. I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me.

Clauses 8 and 9, sections 26 and 27. This has to do with personal information collection, expanded collection and indirect collection of personal information. It broadens personal data collection without proportional safeguards. It enables data sharing without direct consent. Increased risk of data misuse and breach will be the result.

The expansion of personal information collection powers without proportional safeguards erodes public trust. Government must collect data only when necessary and with clear limits. When collection authority broadens while oversight mechanisms shrink elsewhere in the bill, citizens are left to trust assurances rather than protections. Privacy must be strictly defended, not an administrative promise.

Let’s move on. Clause 10, section 33. This removes the requirement for the commissioner to approve the research purpose itself. For what it’s worth, it weakens independent oversight of research use of personal data. It allows government-aligned or poorly defined research to proceed unchecked.

[6:45 p.m.]

In layman terms, an independent review by the commissioner provides confidence that the personal information used for research meets the genuine public interest standards. Revision to that approval step weakens oversight at precisely the point where sensitive data may be repurposed. Good intentions do not substitute for independent scrutiny.

Clause 11, section 33. This allows the disclosure of personal information for connected services. I’ll explain. It’s a vague scope for disclosure. It expands data use without clear consent or limitation.

The term “connected services” lacks precision. Vague authority to disclose personal information creates uncertainty about scope and limits. Without explicit guardrails, disclosure creep becomes a real risk, where information shared for one purpose gradually expands into others without meaningful consent or awareness.

Clauses 12 and 14. Information-sharing with other jurisdictions. British Columbians lose control over where and how their data is used. Accountability weakens once information leaves provincial oversight.

Once personal information leaves provincial jurisdiction, accountability mechanisms weaken and recourse becomes much more complex. British Columbians deserve clarity about where their data travels and under what protections it remains safeguarded. Far too often we have seen privacy breaches with secure information. Privacy becomes a concern when information crosses a border.

Clause 13. This expands grounds to disregard FOI requests. That doesn’t sound good. Major risks. It introduces undefined terms: abusive, malicious, unreasonably broad, interference without government. It allows government to label inconvenient scrutiny as “interference.” It creates a chilling effects on journalists, researchers and citizens.

This clause introduces expansive and undefined language: abusive, malicious, unreasonably broad, interference with government — which can be subjective. Vague standards invite selective enforcement. When government gains authority to characterize scrutiny as interference, the chilling effect on investigative journalism and citizen oversight is immediate and real.

Clause 15, section 56. This allows the commissioner to extend review timelines beyond the current 90-day limit. Here are some of the risks and the adverse effects. It weakens the 90-day safeguard by allowing timelines to be extended beyond that limit. It allows reviews to stretch indefinitely. It reduces confidence in the compliance process.

Timelines are essential to justice. Revising the 90-day limit for the commissioner reviews could result in indefinite delays that undermine confidence in the oversight process. Reviews without time-constraint considerations become a right without a practical remedy.

Clauses 17 to 19. This has to do with changes to privacy impact assessment notification. Here are some of the risks and the adverse effects of that. Modifying early-stage notification potentially reduces early scrutiny and proactive oversight. Commissioner involvement becomes reactive, not preventative. Proactive oversight prevents harm before it occurs. Early-stage notification requirements shift the commissioner’s role from preventative to reactive.

Once privacy breaches occur, damage is often irreversible. My former occupation in loss control was to anticipate risk. Good governance does not manage fallout. It’s usually proactive, not reactive.

Clause 20, section 69.3. This has to do with connected services provider, a centralized platform. Centralization may reduce transparency, create single-point failure, distance decision-making from local realities.

[6:50 p.m.]

It is unclear whether Crown corporations’ agencies will be forced into the system. Again, a little bit of clarity would be nice.

Centralization can improve efficiency, but it can also concentrate control. A single, centralized platform may reduce transparency, create single-point vulnerabilities and distance decision-making from local realities. For rural British Columbia, where service access is already strained, centralized digital systems often fail first and hardest.

Clauses 21 and 22, sections 71 and 71.1. This has to do with fees for records made available without an FOI. It introduces paywalls to information. It discourages informal access. It penalizes low-income applicants.

Access to public information should not depend on one’s ability to pay. Introducing fees for records that would otherwise be made available without formal FOI requests creates a paywall around transparency. When transparency carries a price tag, low-income citizens, small community groups and rural residents are disproportionately affected.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate, and I reserve my time.

David Williams moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 3 and requests leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Amna Shah: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Diana Gibson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until ten o’clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

[Dana Lajeunesse in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 3 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to start by thanking the Minister of Finance, who is online, but I’ll be taking the lead on this portion of the bill.

This is obviously a historic opportunity for British Columbia not only to be able to leverage federal dollars but to be able to land some critically important investments in British Columbia, investments that will, of course, lead to good-paying jobs and help us with economic development and also have the potential to be strategically important.

As the Prime Minister noted in his speech internationally, there’s a bit of a rupture happening around the global world order. So it’s more important now than ever that we have the right tools available to us to be able to respond to that.

This fund, the way we’re structuring it, is similar to partner jurisdictions — Ontario, Quebec. Of course, the federal government’s new strategic investment fund is very similar to this, and now the U.S. government has also launched a fund with all the similar provisions.

I look forward to the exchange today. With that, I’m ready to go.

[2:55 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Hopefully, this will be the easiest question of the day for the minister, because this appears to be a bill with two clauses and a commencement. I want to clarify, just so we make sure we’re all speaking the same language here, that 9.9(1) through (18), which is in clause 1, will all be considered clause 1, before we move on to clause 2.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: I’m making sure I’m reading the bill correctly. Thank you. That’s what I figured.

The first question, then. The minister touched on it as a preamble. That sounds a lot like the justification needed for InBC. Why do we need this legislation when there’s already a $500 million high-risk venture capital scheme that the government created several years ago? I believe this was actually the minister responsible for that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My friend across the way is right to note that InBC was created. InBC has a different function than this fund. InBC is focused on early-stage companies, focusing on investment funds.

We also have the manufacturing jobs fund, which is slightly different because it offers grants to manufacturers to modernize their equipment to help them innovate and grow.

This is different than that. This allows us to be able to support projects that are further advanced, significantly larger investments. It gives us a broader array of tools that we can have at our disposal to be able to land some significantly larger investments.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m a little confused by that answer. InBC was $500 million. This is $400 million. Unless you were going to put all $400 million in as an investment in something that is a bit further moved along — we’ll get into how that’s contradictory to some of the language in this bill — how can the minister explain that a $400 million fund would actually be available and be for larger investments than what InBC was actually envisioned for?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: InBC supports in the $1 million-to-$5 million range and is very focused on specific sectors. This new fund allows us to invest, most importantly, alongside the federal government and leverage federal dollars, and it also allows us to look across the entire economy.

Peter Milobar: Many have characterized this as a $400 million slush fund for the Premier. Why does this fund not have a proper board or oversight or structure like InBC had, given it’s on the same scale and scope of dollars? Instead it is off to Treasury Board to make decisions on a whim. They may choose, upon direction of the Premier’s office, as to where the money goes.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, first off, the member asserts that many people…. I think the member himself has used those terms as well. That being said, this is important for us to have the funds to be able to partner, in particular, with the federal government and leverage those dollars.

InBC was set up as a Crown corporation. The chief investment officer is completely independent of government. They can make investments independent of government.

This is a response to (a) a fund that the federal government has, (b) the fact that many of our partner jurisdictions across the country have similar funds. Federal government has indicated to us that they definitely want to see us in this space so they can partner alongside us.

It’s important to note that not only do projects that are of national significance come through a full federal process, they still have to go through our complete analysis as well and go through our treasury process. So a lot of levels of due diligence are in place to ensure that anything that comes through meets the test and meets the moment we’re in.

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s not just me that thinks it’s a slush fund.

Senior citizens that are now going to pay more in income tax to fund this slush fund think it’s a slush fund. The same senior citizens that live outside of the 604 area code, that will see their $200 extra homeowner grant removed to help pay for this slush fund, think it’s a slush fund. The same senior citizens that are now going to pay on their knitting supplies feel it’s a slush fund. Those are the same senior citizens that will pay PST on basic cable and on land lines and feel it’s a slush fund.

The list goes on and on. What other…? Oh, the property tax deferral that senior citizens are now going to pay compounded monthly interest on, with an extra 4 percent boost to the interest rate. They feel that that’s helping fund a $400 million slush fund that didn’t previously exist, despite the fact that we have contingency funds that are ever in the billions of dollars by this government, compared to previous times when it was much lower.

So I guess the question is: why Treasury Board? Can the minister confirm whether or not there are any non-cabinet members as part of Treasury Board currently? There used to be considered private members of government that were part of Treasury Board. I’ve looked up the membership. It appears that there is only cabinet at the Treasury Board table now, but I would seek confirmation from the government on that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m surprised a member as learned as he is hasn’t gone onto Google and just searched “Treasury Board link” to find all the members on that, but I’m happy to have someone print off the list and share that with him.

Peter Milobar: Well, I did reference in my question that I did a search. I was seeking confirmation from the government to make sure it was an accurate cite of membership. I didn’t need a 30-second turnaround. It would be refreshing if that happened every time we ask government questions, frankly, so I do appreciate the minister doing that. Perhaps his staff can do the Google search while I continue on, and we can get the answer.

The reality, the reason I’m asking these questions, is that Treasury Board does not have any openness and transparency. There is no line of sight on how decisions are made. There is no line of sight how/if anything gets brought forward to Treasury Board in terms of business cases being reviewed, the process that it is.

Is the minister suggesting, then, that I shouldn’t be wondering if it’s only cabinet at the table? Does that mean that there will be open and transparent communication to the public about decisions around this $400 million slush fund and the decisions on where the money is being spent, or is this going to follow under all the same rules Treasury Board currently operates under?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The benefit of having a fund like this is that, in fact, because of this fund, there will be greater transparency. Now when we do make an allocation to this fund, not only will it be public but members will be able to ask questions specifically on this fund and know that it’s all in one location. So it’s actually greater transparency.

The member may not know this, but governments, for the last 30 years, have made investments to support companies. It has led to great economic growth opportunities — all political parties. This puts it in one allocated place so that we can be more transparent with the public.

It is our intention, through regulations, to put out clear guidelines for partners to understand how they can get access to it, where the priorities are, what the pathway will be, going forward. Of course, that will be made public as well.

Peter Milobar: While I appreciate the minister being magnanimous enough to allow the public and opposition to ask questions of decisions that are being made, there has never been a problem with the public and the opposition asking questions.

The problem has been with the lack of transparency. The government actually providing an answer to the questions is the problem. And now when we’re staring down the barrel of Bill 9, which will make it even harder to FOI…. That is why there are concerns around Treasury Board.

Is the minister committing today — and, if so, can I be pointed to where in the bill this commits Treasury Board — to providing background and answers to questions and detail into the decision-making that is being made? Or is it simply the minister saying we have the right to ask questions but not to expect an answer?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve already said to the member, there will be a clearly laid out process. Happy to take the member’s questions and happy to provide him the answers.

This account will be, of course…. Any investments made through this account already go through the public account process. The member will have any ability to ask questions.

If he’s asking, which I don’t think he is, whether we’ll release confidential business analysis and reports from companies, no. That is sensitive information that we have to be careful with, but there will be a transparent process around how decisions are being made. I think section (14) (h) lays out some of the considerations and frames out how we’ll be laying out regulations around this.

Peter Milobar: Well, (14) (h) relates to eligible recipient, which is actually…. I’ll get into that later because it means a person, not a strategic investment, which is a different definition.

Can the minister, then, point me to any type of Treasury Board decisions currently that, when they’re made, if the opposition or the public ask for detail into how that decision was rendered and the background that led to the decision, either a yes or a no…? Can the minister point to anything that Treasury Board is actually eligible and able to publicly talk about other than to give the answer: “I can’t talk about it. That was at Treasury Board”?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ve got the membership list for the member. Thanks to the team for turning that around in a couple minutes. I’ll pass that through.

I know the member is running for leadership of his party and hopes, aspires, one day to be a Premier. If he does have that privilege, he’ll understand the importance of cabinet confidentiality and the rules in place to be able to protect sensitive information.

As the member knows, when decisions are made, we will make that information public. There’s a special account now where all the funds that will be allocated will be in one location, which I believe creates a greater level of transparency for the public as well as for the opposition.

Peter Milobar: I appreciate the minister’s fascination with our leadership race, but those aren’t why I’m asking these questions. Frankly, he didn’t answer the question that was asked. I think the public would be better served if we spent our time with questions being answered. This is actually highlighting the line of questions I have where the government is always trying to evade and not actually answering the question.

As I said earlier, the minister said that of course we’ll have the ability to ask all the questions we like under this new fund. That’s great. I’ve acknowledged that we get to do that. We’re doing that right now. The minister is actually highlighting what my response to that was. Questions are the easy part of asking. It’s the answering part the government has problems with.

I do appreciate the information back about the membership of Treasury Board because the search I saw that popped up wasn’t including private members. I’m glad to see that that membership mix hasn’t changed, but they’re all still held to confidentiality.

The minister indicated that this new $400 million Premier slush fund that we’re setting up with this bill would actually have transparency and that people would be able to not only ask questions…. I’m assuming he said that answer with the asking of the questions to make it seem like people, through regulation, would have access to a depth of information when they actually ask the question.

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, can the minister point to any decisions of Treasury Board that are currently allowed to provide any depth of detail other than “school project X was approved”? I have sat in estimates trying to get out of ministers detail of even a date a decision was made out of Treasury Board, and they won’t offer that.

Can the minister point to anything in Treasury Board, any type of decision-making, that is subject to transparency of the level that I’m pretty sure the minister and his staff know I’m getting at? We can’t rely on the fact of, “Trust us, future regulations will suddenly, magically create a level of transparency on a $400 million slush fund that has just been created,” when nothing else Treasury Board does has any of that transparency.

That’s not a partisan statement. I fully recognize that’s how government has operated for decades in this place. It’s not a judgment of right or wrong; it’s a judgment of how the system actually works.

If the system actually works that way, how can the minister try to tell us that this new slush fund is going to have a level of transparency coming through Treasury Board that, quite literally, not one other decision of Treasury Board is legally allowed to have? And if so, why is it not already in the bill?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My comment earlier about the member seeking leadership was only to imply that if he aspires to be in the role of Premier, if he has that privilege and that opportunity, he’ll understand the importance about cabinet confidentiality. That was the only point I was trying to make, and he knows that.

He has debated this, probably, same issue in every single debate with Treasury Board for the last many years. I’m happy to talk about the bill, but if the member wants to just spend time relitigating an issue that he has had for the last few years, we can keep doing that.

What I’ve said to the member is that when decisions are made, they’re going to go through the process. They’re going to go through a federal process — same due diligence in the federal level. It’s going to go through our process, a high level of due diligence, going through Treasury Board process.

We will not be releasing commercially sensitive information. We will be protecting that. Through regulations, we’ll be laying out the priorities of the fund and making it clear.

This is a strong signal to Canada that we are there. We’re ready to partner. We want to see the billions of dollars that they’re investing around our sovereignty. We want to make sure they understand that we are able to partner with them in those investments and create a lot of jobs in communities throughout the province, create a lot of economic activity.

I think that’s the exciting part of this fund, and it’s certainly, I know, going to have a big impact in British Columbia. It’s going to be a transparent process, in that this fund will clearly lay out, years ahead, where money is being allocated. And the member is very open…. Any member has the ability to ask questions when that fund becomes available and when those decisions are made.

Peter Milobar: There, again, we have asked the questions, and it’s very clear there will be no higher standard of disclosure. I don’t think I’ve once asked about commercially sensitive information. I asked about the Treasury Board decision-making process, not commercially sensitive information.

The minister mentioned, though, in his response there, in terms of partnership with the federal government, that this is a fund set up specifically because of the federal government, specifically to partner in with projects around the federal government. I do see reference around amounts received in subsection (3)(e) referencing the federal government, but that’s about it.

Can the minister point to where this $400 million slush fund has to be directly tied to federal government projects and federal government partnership in any way, shape or form?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for giving me a second just to get the different funds.

When we say we want to partner and leverage federal dollars, we know that there’s ISED. There’s the strategic response fund. There’s Canada Infrastructure Bank. There’s PacifiCan. There’s EDC. There’s NRCan. A whole host of federal agencies.

We want to leverage as many dollars as we can from the federal government. This program that we have structured, the way we’ve structured it, is very similar to the way the federal government has structured theirs as well — same process, same level of transparency, same level of information being made available. All those pieces are very similar.

There may be the odd occasion where there’s an opportunity for the province that is strategically important that we look to make an investment ourselves. But our goal here really is to leverage the federal dollars, and that’s going to be their priority.

Peter Milobar: That can be a priority, but there is, hearing the minister’s answer, nothing in this that says the fund has to action partnerships with the federal government, be aligned with federal government strategic initiatives and/or any other interconnection with the federal government whatsoever other than well wishes and thoughts.

I say that because I think the minister is probably sincere in what he just said, but ministers come and go. Governments come and go. The legislation stays. What one minister might think is the use for a fund, another minister or Premier might not. That’s the way legislation works. That’s why it’s important to find out what is actually written in the legislation, not what the best intentions of a minister, any particular minister, are.

In terms of “eligible recipient,” it seems that it’s establishing that an individual person would be eligible under this — not a corporation, not a late-stage investment of a company, but, in fact, just an individual person.

Can the minister confirm that, in fact, an individual person can qualify under this program?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s opening comment, but I would just argue that any government that comes in can completely change this fund and change the law. A new Premier could come in and change the law. This can be changed at any time. That’s part of our democracy, and that’s the process it goes through. Maybe I’ll just respectfully disagree on the assertion there.

I will say that the reason why the language in law is that way, as the member described it, is because it allows us to prescribe through regulation and be broad. Is it an individual? Is it a corporation? Is it a not-for-profit? Business entities can be structured in so many different ways, and having it described this way in law gives us the ability, in regulations, to be more prescriptive.

Peter Milobar: Well, who knows? Maybe the member opposite will be Premier before we know it, and he can deal with this how he likes it too.

The reason I’m asking is “eligible recipient” with “a person” is…. Under subsection (14) — it tells you to go to subsection (14) — it says that Treasury Board may make regulations for an eligible recipient, and it establishes a whole bunch of things to qualify for a person to be an eligible recipient. I do understand that a person can also be a corporation in the legal terms.

It goes down further and further, and then it refers you back to (6) because we have to always make things a little bit of a twisting road. Again, that’s how drafting works. That’s not even a partisan shot. It says in (6): “despite sections 21(3) and 45(1) of the Financial Administration Act, the minister may pay money out of the special account for the following purposes.” It provides grants for eligible recipients, and we now know an eligible recipient can be a person, to get that grant.

That is despite 21(3): “If a supply act and another act each contain an appropriation for the same purpose, money must not be paid out under the other act unless the amount appropriated by a supply act has been exhausted.” So that seems fairly straightforward.

Then on 45(1) — you jump forward — “a power under the enactment to make loans, advances or direct equity investments from the consolidated revenue fund, despite any other enactment, must not be exercised by the government except by order in accordance with the directives of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the recommendations of the Minister of Finance.”

So those two are wiped out. “Despite.” That means that despite those two provisions, the government can provide grants to eligible recipients in respect to strategic investments.

Can the minister confirm, then, that I’m reading this correctly, that an individual, not in the legal sense of a corporation but just an actual individual, is eligible, if Treasury Board deemed to be eligible, to receive a grant — not a low-interest loan, not a debt repayment plan but an actual grant — under Bill 3 and the $400 million slush fund?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member cleverly asked the same question in a slightly different way, and the answer is still the same as last time. The regulations are where these things get laid out after the Treasury Board process happens, and we will be making those regulations public.

Peter Milobar: Again, I think it’s important, though, for the public to understand that the way this legislation is written, there is every expectation for anyone reading this to think and read into it, and there’s nothing that would indicate otherwise, that a person could lobby the government and be eligible, as long as Treasury Board deemed, in deliberations that no one will be privy to and decision-making that no one will be privy to, for a grant out of this $400 million slush fund.

Can the minister point to something in this — the way it’s written, not future regulations but anything in this legislation — that would prevent that from happening, or the mischaracterization of how a decision would be made at Treasury Board, where there would be no actual public scrutiny of that decision-making to explain or justify, with any depth of detail, exactly how an individual qualified for a grant?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, respectfully, the answer is still the same. The law prescribes, as individual, and gives us a broad scope through regulation to be more definitive. I’ve said that answer already twice. I can say it again a third time. I guess the details the member is looking for come in regulation.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister.

“Strategic investment” is defined as a prescribed strategic investment. Can the minister provide additional details on which types of investments will be considered strategic?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Welcome to my friend across the way.

He may have missed the answer previously, which is that in regulation, we’re going to lay out — for the public, for entities, for the federal government — where those priorities will be.

Our intention is to try to leverage this fund and get maximum benefit, like Ontario has with their fund, like Quebec has with their fund — leveraged federal dollars. But those parameters will come in regulation.

Jeremy Valeriote: I strive to avoid repetition, but I might have missed a thing or two.

I didn’t miss extensive discussion of the Treasury Board. But on clause (4), Treasury Board may direct funds received by government into consolidated revenue. How will the Treasury Board make this determination? Is it setting the stage for hypothecated funding?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Good question from the member.

This section allows for Treasury Board to look at broader benefits of the investment — income taxes, other types of revenues that may be created — to be able to draw into the fund for additional investments. It’s basically looking at the investment and seeing what the benefits are beyond just the benefits that we know, income tax, etc. It gives them the opportunity….

They still have to go through a complete process at Treasury Board, but it allows it to add additional revenue to the fund.

Jeremy Valeriote: Is there any limit on the total amount of money that can be directed into this account?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Like most funds, it’s up to the Treasury Board to decide, so it’s in their hands.

Jeremy Valeriote: Subsection (6) (g) allows for the administration costs of the special account to be paid out of the special account balance. Does the minister foresee administrative costs being a large portion of the use of this strategic fund?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There may be some modest admin-related costs, but it is our intention to ensure that any investment we look at creates the revenue to be able to offset that minor admin cost. We do expect to be able to recover any admin costs that would be associated with it, but we expect it to be very modest.

Jeremy Valeriote: In spite of its modesty, will some administrative costs be paid directly by applicants to the fund?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, that is correct. We will be charging some form of fee.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can I ask for details on that, or will it be by regulation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Can the member just ask the question again, please?

Jeremy Valeriote: Just looking for…. You mentioned that some admin costs would be paid by applicants. Does the minister have details on what that proportion might look like?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As we build out the program, we will go to Treasury Board, and we will be making that information available.

Jeremy Valeriote: Under section (7), just Treasury Board approval is required. What guardrails or limitations or guidelines are placed on the Treasury Board in making approvals for use of this fund?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Section (7) essentially says that I can’t, as minister, look to use these dollars without Treasury Board support. That’s what section (7) says. The parameters around what we will target, what kind of investments — those things will come in regulation, and we’ll be making those public.

[3:50 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Coming in regulation…. What assurances does the public have and what transparency provisions will be applied to these Treasury Board approvals?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All the regulations that will come forward, that will be prescribed…. All of it will be public. I think that’s what the member is referring to. Will the regulations be made public? Yes, all of the regulations will be made public once they’ve gone through the process.

Jeremy Valeriote: On section (9), my question is: why is the decision-making threshold for a guarantee different than for some of the other financial instruments that are specified?

The Chair: We’re going to call a five-minute recess here.

The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 3:56 p.m.

[Dana Lajeunesse in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 3 back to order. We are on clause 1.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, Chair, for the quick washroom break.

To the member, on section (9), loan guarantees are a more complicated financial instrument and require a deeper level of due diligence. It’s not changing the due diligence, but it requires a modified level of due diligence. So that’s what the section is talking about.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ve skipped over subsection (7), but I do want to note for the committee that I have some potential amendments to discuss about guardrails and guidelines that will come later. I’ll wait to hear some of the other members’ questions.

My question is…. I’ve heard that a lot of this will be set through regulation. Under (14), why are all the criteria for this bill to be set through regulation? Why hasn’t the work been done to determine this before introducing legislation?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll give an example of why it’s important through regulation. We’re having this discussion of things moving so fast, let’s say, from a national defence and sovereignty perspective. In law, you could say: “These are the things that we want to focus on.” Then you could get a call from the federal government saying: “We have to move really quickly to be able to get investments in” — I’m just using a random example — “drone technology.”

For us to have the ability, through regulation, to be able to move quickly, to be able to expand the types of investments we want to look at — that flexibility is important.

The law here is the bones, and then we’ll have to do some work to put the muscle around that bone. And we’ll be making all those regulations public.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the example of something that’s economically fast-moving. What I’m really getting at is trying to find the comfort that we can take as legislators about how decisions will be made with public money.

Even the reporting on activities will be set by a regulation. How does the government intend to report, even, on the activities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it may be helpful just to get a sense of how the strategic funds have been rolled out in other jurisdictions as well, how the federal government has partnered with provinces around the strategic investment fund.

The two examples I have, the most recent ones…. One is with Quebec, Honco Group in Quebec, which is a steel-processing company. They partnered with the federal government and Quebec to be able to expand steel processing. When they make the announcement of the fund, they release a whole bunch of information about the company, what the expectations are, what kind of economic results this might mean for the province.

The other one that just happened was that the federal government invested in an equity commitment agreement to finance small modular reactors and nuclear projects in Ontario.

My point is that every project that we’re potentially invested in will be made public because of this fund. All of them will be in one location so that you can ask questions and people can see what’s happening. With that will be information about the companies, what the goal is, what the objective is, and people can ask questions if they choose to at those points.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m going to move on to the last three subsections.

[4:05 p.m.]

Can the minister explain how subsection (16) is intended to work? March 31 is 27 days away, and this bill is not yet law. So why was this section necessary?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This allows us to…. This is a level of transparency, in that investments that we make all will be in one place now.

I’ll give you an example. In 2023, the province partnered with the federal government. We committed up to $75 million. We tied it to achievements of project milestones. Commitment moved the project. We leveraged $225 million from Canada, $400 million from the private sector.

AbCellera is a company that is a spinoff of UBC. We saw the promise of the company. Between Canada and B.C., we wanted to make sure we kept them here. Now it’s a billion-dollar company.

The section the member refers to ensures that investment will now be in this fund, so that you’ll be able to see the investments the province has made all in one location.

Jeremy Valeriote: Well, I guess I’ll preface the next question by asking about the relevance of April 1, 2018. Presumably, that goes back to previous investments made, including AbCellera.

Can the minister just detail what the relevance of that date is, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, Member.

The first one…. In 2018, there was an investment made, so that’s about bringing that investment into one place so that…. Again, for transparency’s sake, it’s something that Treasury Board wanted. They wanted to make sure that it was available, that people could see it in one location. So that’s the 2018 reference.

Jeremy Valeriote: Section (17) allows Treasury Board to designate, on or before June 30 of next year, agreements that have been entered into by the minister to be designated strategic investments. That goes back to April 1, 2018.

[4:10 p.m.]

There are two or three questions in here, but I’ll lump them all together. We can do them one by one if preferred.

Has the minister been entering into financial obligations that have not yet been agreed to by the Legislative Assembly? If so, before this legislation goes through, what’s the current status of those agreements? What is the plan if the legislation doesn’t pass?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, Chair, there was a little bit of confusion on the question. Maybe I’ll just try to articulate what I think I heard.

Is the member asking if we have decided where the $400 million is, and we’re just ready to announce it, but the legislation hasn’t passed? I’m just trying to get an understanding of it because there was a little bit of confusion from our side on what it is that you were requesting.

Jeremy Valeriote: Yeah. I understand the desire to put this all in one place and bring investments forward into that place.

My question is: have agreements been made before this legislation that…? Are investments coming from a different fund that will be lumped into this legislation after it passes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s the example I was sharing with a member around AbCellera, where it was a decision made a long time ago. Now all of those types of decisions will be all in one place, in one account.

If the member is asking if we have gone out with the federal government and started making agreements on new things going forward, I would say that I’m not aware of any kinds of discussions there. But we have an example here which is the one I referenced, the reason why it’s coming to this account.

Jeremy Valeriote: I think my question is…. I understand the AbCellera example in 2022, if I’m not mistaken. Are there other agreements in the last several months, in the lead-up to this legislation, that have been entered into?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member has asked if we’ve entered into any agreements over the last few months, and the answer is no.

Jeremy Valeriote: If, for some reason, this piece of legislation doesn’t pass, what happens to the previous — for example, AbCellera — investment? What changes?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mean, I certainly hope everyone supports this, but if it doesn’t pass, then we won’t have the tools that Canada has. We won’t have the tools that Ontario and Quebec have. We won’t have the tools the U.S. government has, which is going beyond just giving a grant to a company but seeing an opportunity to either structure it in a different way, whether it’s taking equity, whether it’s a loan…. All these additional tools are why this is coming forward.

I certainly hope we have support for it, because it’s important when we make investments that the public can see some benefit from that and for revenues to come back to the province. I do encourage everyone to support it, but if it doesn’t, we won’t have those tools.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m just going to ask this in a different way. Until this legislation passes, where does the minister get the authority to spend this investment money or to make these investments?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If this doesn’t pass and an opportunity comes forward, say from Canada, we would have to go individually, one by one, back to Treasury Board and make the case. We wouldn’t have the tools to be able to take equity or give loans or structure in different ways like other provinces are doing with these investments.

Jeremy Valeriote: Last one on this topic. Is my understanding correct that this legislation needs to be retroactive solely for the $75 million, the AbCellera investment?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, the deals that we’ve made we’ll have to continue to honour as long as the companies meet the milestones. Some of the deals are structured, as in they have to hire a certain amount of people, have to make certain types of investments.

If the legislation isn’t passed, I have to go back to Treasury Board. I have to do the updates to Treasury Board of where that’s going, and Treasury Board would have to honour the agreements we’ve signed.

The Chair: Just a general reminder. When people are asking questions, you’re not to use electronic devices.

Jeremy Valeriote: I promise that was the last one I needed to investigate.

The minister said: “The deals that we’ve made.” That suggests agreements have been made already.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mentioned AbCellera. The commitment we made to AbCellera is tied to milestones that they must reach.

The member’s question was, as I understood it: if this fund doesn’t exist, what does that mean for agreements that we have in place? What it means is that I would have to continue to provide Treasury Board with the updates, whether the company has fulfilled their obligations, before any additional dollars are released to them.

So it’s a regular process — we’d have to go through Treasury Board — that I’d have to continue to follow.

Jeremy Valeriote: Last one before I yield to other members. In subsection (18)…. I’m finding that an engineering career is really terrible for reading some of this legalese.

For past investments, no balance adjustment of the strategic account is required on investments before March 31, 2026.

Can the minister confirm this section means any spending committed before the end of this month, March, is in addition to the $400 million set aside for the — I won’t call it a slush fund — strategic fund?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The money that has already been spent would not be coming out of the account. I think that’s what the member is asking.

Peter Milobar: Perfect segue then. I’ll jump to that section of the questions.

It was touched on around, I believe, (4). “Treasury Board may direct that an amount in respect of amounts received by the government and paid into the consolidated revenue fund be transferred to the special account.”

The government, in this upcoming fiscal year, is designating $400 million. But we’re in the current fiscal year right now. We’ve seen this Premier decide at the last minute, at the end of a year, to suddenly make movements of money, most notably when he tried blowing out $5 billion. Even when B.C. Ferries didn’t ask for half a billion, they got it. Agriculture didn’t ask for the money they got. A wide range.

Anyway, the point is that year-end is coming up. Is there the ability for the government…? This fund will be retroactive as of (16), essentially. Money is paid out.

Can money from contingency funds be allocated by Treasury Board to go into this fund?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member is talking about the year-end. No, it can’t because of the fiscal year-end. It’s old fiscal year, so it wouldn’t be possible.

Peter Milobar: Moving forward, how does more than the $400 million get allocated into this special fund? I thought I heard the minister say that it can be higher or lower.

In any given year, can that, moving forward, come from contingencies?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a similar question to the member, which is that if the fund creates revenues, and it goes into, say, general revenues, this allows for us to take the additional revenues that are associated with the fund and bring them back.

It’s possible. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but it is possible for Treasury Board if they choose to do so.

[4:25 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Well, this bill establishes the initial balance of $400 million. I’m asking how it gets funded, moving forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We thought we’d answered it, but we’ll just try a different way. For example, if a loan has been structured and we make revenue from the loan, then this section that the member refers to allows us to take the revenues from that loan and bring them back into the account if Treasury Board decides. I hope that answers the member’s question.

Peter Milobar: No, it doesn’t, but I don’t think the minister is trying to be obstructionist, so I’ll try to rephrase it.

I fully get that. And congratulations. Apparently, the government is going to be the only angel investor out there that always gets a return on their investment and never sees their fund diminish, according to the minister’s answer. But that’s not the real world, if you’re talking about high-risk venture capital schemes that the government is talking about, in addition to InBC’s high-risk venture capital schemes.

The language is all nice, strategic investment and targeted strategic investment and everything else, but if it’s high risk, it’s high risk. If it wasn’t super high risk for some of these things, they wouldn’t be needing the government to backstop it. They would have funders, no problem, especially late stage, as the minister indicated earlier on.

I’ll cut to the core of it. This only sets up an initial $400 million. It says nothing about year 2, year 3, year 4. It doesn’t spell out what it’s trying to leverage in terms of a 5-to-1 investment ratio or anything like that, which I can understand why.

The question is: how does it get funded after this initial $400 million other than…? If you’re successful with angel investing, that typically takes years before it starts to return.

I was one of the heads of Southern Interior Development Trust, and we did this exact thing with the $50 million that was created by the province. But it’s not an immediate return. It takes a long time. Even with the best of success, you start to see the initial funds start to dwindle down.

So I understand what the minister is saying, but that’s not at the root of what my question is. The root of my question is: where does top-up money come from, and does Treasury Board have the ability to designate contingency funds, unallocated contingency funds in the budget, into this fund?

[4:30 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I guess the member’s question is…. Let’s say year 3, year 4, year 5, we’ve allocated the $400 million. Could we go to Treasury Board and get more money allocated in different ways? Yeah, of course. Treasury Board has the ability to do that. They can allocate dollars in whichever way they want, if the $400 million has been expended. Yes, they have the ability in future years to do that, if they find that we don’t have enough dollars in the account.

Peter Milobar: To be clear, not March 31, 2026, but March 31, 2027, assuming this passes…. I say “assuming” because it is a confidence vote, according to the government.

So March 31, 2027, comes. This fund still has $200 million — we just use this number — sitting in it. That stays in the fund. That does not get used to go against any deficit or debt repayments that the government would have at year-end.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If money is not used in this account, I think the member is saying, can we use it for other things? The answer is no, we can’t use it for other things. The money remains in the account for us to use in future years.

[4:35 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Well, maybe my estimates vigour is catching up to me here. That’s not why I was asking. I actually wanted clarification that it would be a rollover fund, not that it would…. It’s the exact opposite reason, why I’m asking.

By extension of that, if there is no…. I guess I’ll ask this question first. So it’s a rollover fund. The fund does not extinguish if there are still funds left in it at fiscal year-end, which is what I had assumed, and there’s no ceiling on the amount, either by interest or direction of Treasury Board for funds to go into the fund.

In other words, it doesn’t cap out at $400 million, at $500 million. It could be $1.5 billion if the government chose to make it that way, either by interest or other actions in terms of Treasury Board approving other funds within the budget to be allocated into this special account.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I would direct the member to section (5), which gives the Treasury Board the ability to basically put a cap on and say: “It can’t continue to grow. Here’s the limit.” That information is in section (5).

Peter Milobar: Yes, thank you. I appreciate that, but there is no cap. That’s at the Treasury Board’s discretion. It’s not a legislative cap. Treasury Board, on a whim, can decide to make it $1.5 billion. Treasury Board, as they did with this….

I’m assuming Treasury Board approved this amount to be in the budget and said it would be $400 million. No magic. I guess we could ask the minister if he could provide the Treasury Board minutes in which they arrived at the $400 million, but I think we all know what that answer would be.

The point being the government can choose, if they would like…. Again, we’re in a weird space here. We have an NDP government that is fully embracing the military-industrial complex, so that is interesting. Once again, from walking away from carbon tax and being full-throated in with the military-industrial complex, it’s interesting times to be in the NDP party.

I personally support, of course, trying to get after shipbuilding and other military-type spending that’s going to be spent anyway. But I’ll leave that for the next NDP convention, for them to discuss the merits of that or not — and I guess for the Green Party shout-out and all the oligarchs that are connected with the military-industrial complex out there.

In terms of this fund, though, again, I go back to…. There is nothing, then, preventing…. It looks to me like not only if there are surpluses from other provisions in the budget…. The Treasury Board can decide, if other ministries have unspent funds at a year-end, that they could push those in too. Now, I would welcome the day we see this government with unspent funds for ministries, but let’s go into the hypotheticals.

Treasury Board has the ability — especially if there are unspent, unallocated contingency funds — to take that at year-end and push it into the special account, as opposed to using those unspent contingency funds for debt reduction and deficit reduction. Is that correct?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important for the member not to fall into stereotypes of what the NDP is and what we believe in. I think when it comes to national defence and sovereignty, we all are there. We have members that have served, as well, in respect to those that have served on the other side. I think when our defence of our country comes on the line, yeah, we’re all patriotic. I don’t think that’s a partisan issue. I think that’s something we all should be responsible to be able to do.

So perhaps the member should alleviate himself of the notions and the false stereotypes of what he thinks the NDP is. The NDP are proud Canadians, and we’re proud of our country. We’ll do whatever we believe needs to be done to defend it.

That’s what our Look West strategy is. It says that, yes, our national defence and sovereignty is going to be a priority. We believe that by making investments in our sovereignty, in our defence, there could be economic benefits to communities throughout the province beyond that. I don’t think that should be hard for anyone to believe. We say it all the time, and we’re proud of it.

Now, I think I’ve answered the member’s question multiple times. We have the money. That’s what the fund is here. It’s hard to go into hypotheticals. Treasury Board can make many decisions. They do have the ability to give us additional dollars, as I’ve highlighted, and they have the ability to put a cap on, as well, which is in a different clause. I’ve said that answer multiple times, and I’ll say it again.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m glad that the NDP, not to stereotype, will now embrace not stereotyping political parties in this House. That would be a welcome change.

Again, I’ll take the minister’s answer as a yes, that unallocated contingency funds can go into this fund. Again, when we’re talking about a bill…. First off, we have the backdrop of Bill 9, with FOI being further restricted.

These aren’t meant to be catch-the-government-out questions. These are actually pretty straightforward, trying to figure out how this is going to be funded moving forward and what abilities the government actually has to fund it or not.

The question was pretty direct: can the government use unspent, unallocated contingency funds before a fiscal year-end to top up this special account, which would avoid those funds going against debt or deficit? Could I just get a clearer answer that, specifically, unallocated contingency funds actually can be used to top this up, at the discretion of Treasury Board?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I feel the answer is pretty straightforward. I feel I have given the answer multiple times, which is that this in front of us gives the Treasury Board the ability to add additional revenues if they feel it’s needed and warranted. It also gives them the ability to put a cap in place. I’ve said it three times. I’m happy to say it again.

Peter Milobar: Okay. Well, the government, the minister, doesn’t want to acknowledge unallocated, unspent contingency funds in the answer, ever. Again, I have no idea why. It’s part of the budget. But I’ll take that as yes, they actually have the ability to take unallocated, unspent contingency funds before a fiscal year-end and top up this fund.

Would that be considered a substantive decision by Treasury Board or a housekeeping decision by Treasury Board?

[4:45 p.m.]

I ask that because Treasury Board decision-making was adjusted during the COVID years because it was deemed to be too onerous to try to get Treasury Board all together to meet on a regular basis to make decisions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Whether it’s myself or whoever the minister is in this role, we’ll have to follow the same process around Treasury Board that has been in place for as long as I know — and before us as well, as I’m told — which is every year providing Treasury Board an update of what we’ve done and how it’s performing. Then those decisions are always available to Treasury Board from there.

Peter Milobar: Then can the minister confirm whether the provisions that were changed…? I believe it was back in 2021 or 2022. I can’t remember when. I’m sure the staff will remember the exact year — Minister Robinson, I believe, was the minister at the time — when Treasury Board was given the power that the chair and the vice-chair could make decisions on behalf of Treasury Board.

It was undefined on what scope that decision would actually be or not or was considered…. That was left for regulation. We’ve never quite understood what the regulation would be.

Do those provisions still, in fact, apply to Treasury Board, where the chair and the vice-chair can make decisions on behalf of the board, in the absence of a board meeting, and then just inform the board afterwards that the decision has been made?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I get it. The member is fired up and gearing up for his estimates on Finance, but we’re not here on Finance estimates. We’re here on this bill.

If the member has questions about how Treasury Board decisions are made and what their process is like, those are questions I would request he ask at the Ministry of Finance estimates. What I would like to talk about is the bill that we have here in front of us. That’s what I can answer to.

Peter Milobar: Well, the Minister of Finance introduced this bill. It says Minister of Finance on the top right-hand corner of the bill. It’s the Minister of Finance staff that are advising the minister, and it’s the minister that has chosen and the government that has chosen to not have the Minister of Finance answer questions on this bill.

[4:50 p.m.]

It’s the government that has made it a finance bill that is subject to a confidence vote. In fact, it’s called Budget Measures Implementation Act, and the minister’s name is on the very front of it. I’m not sure how much more I need to confirm that this is a finance bill.

I’m the Finance critic, and I’m asking questions about decision-making that this bill allows Treasury Board to make, because this whole bill is about Treasury Board being the sole group that gets to decide where a $400 million slush fund gets invested or not or given out as grants or not and whether it gets top-up money at the end of the fiscal year or not.

So respectfully, these are the questions. If the minister does not feel equipped to answer them or want to answer them, we can pause this and wait until the Minister of Finance is feeling better. I get that people get ill, and I don’t take issue with that at all. If that’s the impediment to this bill getting proper scrutiny from government, can the minister please advise, or would he like to continue on today?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Treasury Board goes through a full process, and I expect they would go through a full process with this as well.

Peter Milobar: Again, back to the actual question though. The actual question was: had anything changed, or are those provisions still in force and effect with Treasury Board where, in fact, Treasury Board, the chair and the vice-chair, can make unilateral decisions on behalf of Treasury Board that are binding and then inform Treasury Board after the fact, after the decision has been made?

The staff know what I’m talking about.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the member is asking, “Can the Minister of Finance and the vice-chair go away and change this account without full Treasury Board?” the answer is no.

Peter Milobar: I’m not asking that. I’m asking if the Minister of Finance can unilaterally decide that a $50 million grant or a $5 million grant or a $5 million or $50 million high-risk angel investment scheme can be approved and, basically, Treasury Board is notified after the fact.

Under the provisions that were changed under this government…. Not this minister. This minister was not there in that role when it changed. I want to be clear about that.

But it sounds like those provisions are still in place, because I’ve asked a couple times if they are, and I haven’t gotten that answer. So I’m assuming that means the provisions are still in place. That means that the minister would be able to make disbursements out of the $400 million. I’m not asking about anything other than that.

Now, the reason I ask that is because we never did get a clear answer and waited on the regulation as to what would be defined as a “significant decision” by Treasury Board, when government made the changes to how Treasury Board operates. So we need to try to figure out a scope and a scale that the chair and the vice-chair of Treasury Board…. It doesn’t have to be the Minister of Finance. That’s why it’s deemed to be chair and vice-chair, as a rule. In this case, it would be the Attorney General or the Finance Minister.

Have those provisions changed, or do they still have that overarching power over Treasury Board where they could make a disbursement out of this fund and just simply inform Treasury Board after the fact?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It took me a second to try to understand the context of the member’s question.

There’s a whole host of checks and balances in place. One, it would be our ministry that would take a proposal forward. It wouldn’t be the Minister of Finance bringing a proposal or the vice-chair bringing a proposal.

Second, every decision that’s made by Treasury Board, even in cases of minor decisions that are made by Treasury Board, gets reported out fully to Treasury Board. So the entire membership gets an understanding of the decision that’s made. As well, decisions go to cabinet for cabinet to give an approval, as well, before they’re made public.

Peter Milobar: So those decisions go there before decisions are made public but not before a decision could have been made by the chair or the vice-chair.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll say it again. The process is that if a decision is made in the case of a minor situation by the Minister of Finance or vice-chair, it goes to full Treasury Board. Treasury Board gets the full decision. Then it goes to cabinet. Cabinet gets a full decision before the decision is finalized.

Peter Milobar: Sorry. I’m truly not trying to be problematic here. But the first answer was that Treasury Board and the cabinet would be informed before it’s made public. Now the minister, the second time, said: “before the decision is finalized.”

My understanding was that those decisions by the chair or the vice-chair are final. It’s simply an information process at that point for Treasury Board and cabinet.

Can I now get confirmation on that?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the answer was the same as what I gave the first time, which is…. We’re going down hypotheticals here, but if a decision were made by chair and vice-chair, the decision would go to the full Treasury Board, where they’d be able to overturn it.

It would also have to go to cabinet, where decisions can be overturned. There are a lot of checks and balances, plus the ministry has to bring the proposal forward after they’ve done their due diligence. So there’s a whole host of layers of checks and balances in this.

Peter Milobar: With (3)(c), I’m assuming…. I believe this was touched upon earlier. I touched on contingency funds being transferred over, unspent contingency funds, and that phrase was avoided, but it seemed to be that yes, in fact, funds can get transferred over.

So in (c), when it says, “amounts transferred from a vote, as defined in the Financial Administration Act,” that means that if there is a ministry or if Treasury Board decides that a ministry has a project or funds that they would rather reallocate to this fund instead, they have that ability to do that.

In other words, if there was a project that the government, for whatever reason, decided they didn’t want to proceed with, instead of having that money just filter back off at the end of the fiscal, they could say, “Well, we’re not proceeding with a certain program or project; we’re not funding something all of a sudden,” and Treasury Board could deem that those funds get put into this fund as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This section the member refers to allows for other ministries that have allocated dollars to be able to partner with the fund.

[5:05 p.m.]

An example would be, let’s say, the Ministry of Mining. They have a proposal that they want to support. They’ve got some dollars in a specific program. They would be able to partner in with the fund. That’s what this section is.

Peter Milobar: Over the years, there has been a lot of discussion. I would note that at Economic Forecast Council presentations, for the first couple years, there was a big focus — in fact, separate presentations — on ESG. Then it has kind of just filtered off in the last couple of years. There has been, really, no discussion with government and ESG and the importance of that to this government in terms of what they’re doing.

I’m just curious why, when we’re starting something from scratch in terms of the special account inserting into an existing piece of legislation, there are no parameters at all around potential investment decisions needing to have an ESG lens — none of that factor. Is that because there’s an anticipation that it’ll be tied to military spending, or is that because the government has walked away from ESG completely?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, my friend is trying to wedge the Greens not to vote in favour. It’s a little too transparent.

I would say that — I’ve mentioned this already several times — this is something that will come in regulations, the parameters, so everyone understands what it is we’re trying to fund, how we’re expecting the business community and Canada to know that we’re serious. That’ll be something that comes at that time.

Peter Milobar: Well, given that grants can qualify, and low-interest loans and things like that, how would…? Would the situation that happened with LNG Canada qualify under this situation? The specific situation I’m talking about is the forgiveness, the $600 million worth of PST.

How would that fall into this program, if the government realized that to get an LNG project going they needed to have components like were in the original LNG components that, I believe, at the time, Minister Mungall, Minister Heyman and, I believe, Minister James were the signatories to, where there was significant PST relief given to LNG Canada, not the rest of industry in B.C. like they’d been asking for but just to LNG Canada?

Would that qualify? Would the government be able to fund those types of initiatives to spark investment, based on the preamble the minister has given on the front end of this? Or has that been restricted with this, and if so, where has it been restricted?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mean, we can play hypotheticals. I guess we can run the clock with hypotheticals, and the member can come up with all different types of scenarios. The reality is that any government in the country could look at any project and make any types of decisions.

[5:10 p.m.]

This fund was envisioned to leverage federal dollars. I gave examples of how, in Quebec, they’re using this fund to expand steel production in their province. I used an example from the similar fund, how they’re using this to expand nuclear reactor technology in Ontario.

I haven’t heard from anyone asking for a strategic investment fund for LNG, but I have heard from people who say: “Maybe we can expand steel capacity in the province. Maybe we can advance AI technology or quantum technology.”

That’s what the federal government has indicated to us. If the member wants to go into hypotheticals of what a government could do with funding, that’s not what this fund is about.

Peter Milobar: Respectfully, that’s not a hypothetical. I asked if, under the parameters of this agreement, that’s something that the government can fund — someone asking for an investment decision.

We have the business community out there begging for PST relief on equipment inputs. That was largely ignored in this budget, but those PST inputs were granted a PST exemption for LNG Canada as a one-off.

The question was whether or not provisions like that are enabled under this legislation. It might not be for LNG specifically. It could be tax relief or other measures that an industry would like to see happen, to make their investment happen.

Whether or not that’s a provision under this, because you’re allowed grants under this legislation, you’re allowed low-interest loans…. You don’t have to have an equity stake in things. You don’t have to be an angel investor. It can be as simple as “we’re waiving governmental fees or taxes to make a project happen, and we’ll make up the money out of this fund.”

So it’s not a hypothetical. It’s actually whether or not the government, under this legislation that they wrote, have given themselves the ability to do that.

I asked specifically. If not, if it’s restricted, can the minister point to where in the legislation it is restricted?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: PST and tax measures are not part of this bill.

Lastly, we are going to define, as I have probably said seven times now, the parameters of the fund through regulation.

The Chair: Recognizing the Leader of the Third Party.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to move an amendment. With your permission, I’ll read it out and then hand it over.

Picking up on my colleague’s ESG comments, particularly the (e) part.

[CLAUSE 1, in proposed section 9.9 (7), by adding the underlined text as shown:

(7) An amount may only be paid out of the special account under subsection (6) if prior approval of Treasury Board has been obtained and the government has published on a publicly accessible website maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry, confirmation that the spending is in line with British Columbia’s legal obligations under section 2 of the Climate Change Accountability Act.]

The Chair: The committee will take a short, five-minute recess, returning at 5:18 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:13 p.m. to 5:20 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening, committee members. I’m calling the committee back to order.

We’ve distributed the amendment, and it’s deemed to be in order. We’ll wait for the minister to be able to speak to the amendment or if there’s any other member who would like to speak to the amendment.

On the amendment.

Jeremy Valeriote: This is reflecting the answer that the guardrails and the guidelines will be published under regulation. This is an attempt to put some boundaries on what this investment fund can be used for. A prudent one, from my point of view, from an environmental point of view, is to make sure that it conforms with our obligations and targets under the Climate Change Accountability Act.

I believe it would be prudent for the public to know that there are at least some general directions for what can be invested in, and it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that we would strongly prefer not to see this invested in fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.

Peter Milobar: I rise to speak to the motion as well.

We’ll be supporting the amendment, not necessarily so much because we 100 percent align with the Greens on this. Obviously, we fully support LNG and other resource development in the province. But given the wide range of….

I actually think I might have mentioned that. I lose track of which bill. I might have said: “Watch, everything will just be…. The answer in committee stage will be: ‘Well, we’ll leave that up to regulation. We’ll leave that up to regulation.’”

I’m pretty sure I said that as a preamble in Bill 3 as well, that we were going to come in here and be told: “Well, you just have to wait for regulation.” So if nothing else, on the principle of getting a little bit more definition in this bill than less, we will be supporting it. Certainly not under the same reasons, but that’s the interesting thing of this building. We don’t always have to have the same reason for agreeing with something.

I’m reasonably confident the government will defeat us in this anyway. But I think a point will be made very clearly that these types of bills, with so much ambiguity in them, being left to regulation creates a lot of problems for not just opposition but for the general public as well.

For that reason, as well, we will be supporting the amendment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member bringing this forward, and I appreciate the Conservative Party supporting the climate change element of it as well.

I have said this multiple times. There are going to be parameters put in place in regulation. The reason why it’s in regulation is that we’re in an unstable world environment right now, and we may get proposals from the federal government that need us to act quickly. Regulation allows us to make the changes.

I know that there may be projects…. I suspect all the projects that come through this fund will have unanimous support. I think everyone will understand why these projects should be invested in between us and Canada and partnering with other proponents.

Of course, if they don’t, every member of this House will know about the fund and know about the projects and will have the ability to critique us on that.

We won’t be supporting this amendment, but I do appreciate the members’ comments.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, we have an amendment on clause 1. The amendment is moved by the Leader of the Third Party.

Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

[5:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Back to clause 1.

Peter Milobar: Back to what this can or can’t do. I can appreciate the minister may be getting frustrated that we keep asking questions and he has to keep answering, “It’s up to regulation,” and feels that these are all hypotheticals.

Again, this is about our only opportunity to try to figure out what the mind of the government is on this bill unless we’re going to be invited into Treasury Board or cabinet while regulation is being discussed. I guess it would be cabinet, not Treasury Board, actually making the regulations, and then Treasury Board would have to follow.

We have a bit of a problem with that. Can the minister say whether or not a draft of regulations has already been created?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Let me assure my friend across the way that there’s no frustration from this side. I’ve been here for weeks and haven’t had a chance to stand up and speak. I enjoy this moment and enjoy the exchange and appreciate having an intellectual discussion about this. So no frustration here. I appreciate him asking whatever questions he feels he needs to raise.

And no, there are no regulations that have been drafted.

Peter Milobar: The regulations…. Well, I guess I’ll get to that on 2.

Nothing has been drafted. This comes into force during royal assent. What is the timeline, then, for regulation? If this is supposed to be an investment fund, it’s supposed to be fast-moving, hard-hitting, get the economy rolling, get it moving.

We’ve heard that storyline from this government quite a bit, yet we don’t see regulation come forward — Bill 15, Bill 14, Bill 7, which has now had to be amended instead of regulation. What is the timeline, then, for regulations?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We will now, we hope, pass this bill. We’ll then proceed to finalizing the business case and providing all of the analysis that Treasury Board requires. Then we will move forward with drafting.

Of course, I want it to happen, like, yesterday, always. But I appreciate that this process takes time and Treasury Board needs to do their due diligence.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister point to specific areas in clause 1 from subsection (1) to (18) where the outline of what is in those subsections is contingent on future regulation being developed?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Can my friend just repeat the question again? I appreciate it.

Peter Milobar: I’m trying to not jump ahead in this weighty bill of three clauses. But clause 3 is the commencement clause. Everything in it says it starts…. Section 1, which I’m assuming is clause 1, starts April 1, 2026, and anything else is the date of royal assent.

Normally, in a piece of legislation that’s going to have a whole bunch of detail come later on how it’s going to functionally operate, it would say “on regulation.” Or in the bill, there would be a smattering of “future regulation to come” and referencing regulation.

[5:30 p.m.]

I’m not seeing a whole lot of the word “regulation” in clause 1 from subsection (1) through subsection (18). So I’m just wondering. What exact provisions cannot be actioned the way they’re worded that would have to hang up and wait after April 1 for regulation?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m hoping this legislation passes. I’m hoping we get support for this. The reason why it’s structured….

So (a) it’s not abnormal. There is legislation that has been structured like this in the past.

Second, I’m unable to access new dollars until the things that are in here that need to be defined by regulation are done and my business case is approved from Treasury Board.

It’s almost like an emergency valve to ensure that we don’t start accessing the dollars until such time as I’ve been able to go to Treasury Board with the business case, get my regulations passed, as well as go through cabinet.

Peter Milobar: Well, I asked that question because (14) and (15) do lay out some language around regulation, but it also says “may.” There’s a big difference in legislation between “may” and “must,” I think we can all agree.

If section (14) said, “Treasury Board must make regulations as follows,” that would be much different. But it doesn’t.

[5:35 p.m.]

It says: “Treasury Board may make regulations as follows.” That means…. If the minister had a project, if the Premier had a project that they wanted to advance under the current way this legislation is written, is there anything in there in the absence of any further regulations being created after April 1, or the date of royal assent, that would prevent that project from getting the green light from Treasury Board if the Premier and the ministers responsible were pushing it and Treasury Board agreed?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question, but section 1 is pretty clear that eligible recipient and strategic investment must be prescribed before getting access to any new dollars. It’s the emergency valve to make sure that there will be regulations before any dollars can be used for new investments.

Peter Milobar: Well, under definitions, “eligible recipient” applies to subsection (14), not strategic investment. Can the minister explain how a strategic investment that hasn’t been, in the definitions, referred to in subsection (14) as eligible recipient is…? They are different things.

One could actually be a physical person. It could be a person in the context of the corporate world. It could be anyone who satisfies that. But a strategic investment can be just about anything at the same time because it doesn’t mean one is the same as the other.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’ll go back to section 1. The term “prescribed” is not a maybe. It’s a must. Even in subsection (14), where it refers to recipient and strategic investment, it can’t be done until they’re prescribed through regulation in section 1.

Peter Milobar: Will regulations developed for Bill 3 be published publicly before any investment decisions are made or grants are made or any disbursements of any kind are made, or will it be a case of an announcement and having to dig around for that?

These would be Treasury Board. These are not OICs that have to be released. These are Treasury Board regulations attached to Treasury Board. Now, they’re OICs, because it has to be cabinet, and I get that. But they’re specific to Treasury Board, and as we found out, Treasury Board is a nebulous place where all things go to be never talked about again until the government wants to talk about them.

[5:40 p.m.]

I’m trying to get a sense of: when these regulations are created, are there provisions that the OIC has to be made public, or are there workaround provisions with OICs — admittedly, I’m not as familiar with that side of the world — that they can actually be held confidential for competitive business reasons and everything else to go to Treasury Board?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The regulations to Treasury Board are made public in the same place as OICs in government.

The member is correct if he’s suggesting that we can’t access new dollars until the regulations are made public.

Peter Milobar: On lucky number (13). “The total outstanding principal amount of loans guaranteed under subsection (8) must not exceed the amount of prescribed….”

Oh, sorry. I was meaning (12). It has been a day already. Thankfully, we only have an hour to go, Minister — or to the minister through the Chair.

On (12). “Treasury Board may direct the minister to exchange or dispose of a loan, equity interest, financial interest or right referred to in subsection (6).” I take this to mean that because there is the potential to go into high-risk, angel-investment-type scenarios, the government, at its Treasury Board’s discretion, could essentially turn what was supposed to be a loan into a grant by just forgiving the loan and saying it’s no longer payable. Is that correct?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Two things. The member asked about this section, whether it gives us the ability just to do loan forgiveness. No, it does not. What this section does is allow Treasury Board to come to us and say: “Well, you have a loan, and you want to turn it into equity. Maybe it’s the right time.” Or they say: “Hey, you’re at your max. It’s time to dispose of some of the investment that you’ve made.”

That’s what this section does. It gives the freedom for Treasury Board to say to us: “That’s what you need to do.” It provides flexibility for us, over time, to be able to make adjustments.

Chair, if I can ask for a short recess.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess. We’ll be back shortly.

The committee recessed from 5:46 p.m. to 5:51 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the committee back to order on Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026.

Peter Milobar: A couple of questions around how this is going to function. Again, I can appreciate that this will sound hypothetical, but, in the realm of government contracts and procurement, not hypothetical at all.

How has it been identified in this legislation if the government is now an investor in a company that may now be bidding on province of B.C. contracts? How does that not create a conflict where the government would stand to actually gain by providing a contract to the company it’s an investor in versus a different company that’s bidding on the same services within that realm?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, that’s a really good question. This is something that the federal government had to put their heads around, that Ontario and Quebec had to put their heads around as well. That’s why the investments are very much focused on an activity or a project. So it’s not the entire company. It’s not everything that a company might do, but it’s something specific.

The member is raising hypotheticals. I’ll do a hypothetical, which is always a tricky thing to do. But let’s say we….

[Interruption.]

The Chair: I’d just ask that members keep their conversations down.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A hypothetical would be that we get some sort of food product that comes from another jurisdiction. There are fears that we’re going to be vulnerable, and there’s a company that may be able to get us that same product. The federal government and us can strategically partner up to be able to get that specific line here. That’s circling around the specific product, as opposed to the whole company.

There will be protocols put in place so that those things are protected. Again, through regulation, through the guidelines, all that information will be there.

Peter Milobar: I can appreciate that. But some of the areas that were referenced earlier on by the minister…. I think he might have said drones even, as an example, earlier on. That starts to get pretty specific, especially specialized uses. I think of Hummingbird that was out of Kamloops and started piloting drones for firefighting use. It starts to get pretty niche.

On the front end, some of these cutting-edge technologies and companies and uses can be explained away for sole sourcing, but not as they become more marketable and other competitors get into the way.

I’m trying to get a better understanding, then, of what the government is saying. It’s a wonderful concept to say we’re just trying to have a box and try to keep things separated, but that’s not how the corporate world works.

If you’re a company that the government has invested in, and it deals with drones and other activities, you might be able to silo off and say: “We’re only advancing one form of technology.” But if it’s impacting the overall bottom line of that company, and the government contract is going to impact the overall bottom line of that company, there’s still that potential of being accused.

I’m trying to get a better understanding of how much thought the government has actually truly put into the impacts of the government. Now, it’s one thing for the government to provide grants. It’s one thing for the government to provide, even, loans. We’re into the equity stake side of the angel investment, $400 million slush fund, high-risk scheme — any phrase you like. I’m in opposition, so I’m going to use them all.

That angel investing side…. As soon as we’re hearing that there could be equity stake, as soon as we’re hearing…. It would be hard enough to try to explain away that the government is working with a company that they’ve given a low-interest loan to and that that company is now bidding on government work.

[6:00 p.m.]

There’s a bit of a firewall there. I don’t know how credible of a firewall, but there would be a bit of one. I don’t know how the government could reasonably stand up to a challenge and say that you’ve firewalled things sufficiently if you’re actually literally a shareholder, essentially, of a company.

Will companies that the government is a shareholder in be barred from bidding on B.C. government work and contracts, or is that still something that is possible under this government’s view?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s always tricky using hypotheticals because then it becomes the whole discussion about hypotheticals. But I would say a couple of things.

Yes, there has been a lot of thought put into this, and there are a lot of learnings as well. The federal government has had a SIF fund since 2017. So have other provinces. We have some insights on how they have rolled out their products and how they can do it.

The benefits to the public beyond jobs and investments, all that, can be in other ways as well. It doesn’t always have to be monetary. For example, AbCellera is doing oncology research. As they expand, they may end up finding some sorts of cures for cancer. In that case, us getting the end product at a discounted price might be the benefit for the province.

The member’s question was: have we put thought into it? The answer is yes. What I would say further is that because funds like this have existed for some time in other provinces, we have learnings from them as well on how they put protections in place.

[6:05 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: The problem is that everything does have a potential conflict, though, in this. Even if the oncology research is promising, and everyone would hope it would be, if there’s a competing company that comes out with a similar breakthrough at around the same time, you’re going to have two companies wanting their pharmaceutical to be picked up by B.C. medical services for coverage. One the government would be a shareholder in; one the government is not.

Again, I’m not trying to stifle. I’m trying to highlight the dangers of when government starts trying to become an investor outside of the typical pension funds or investment funds, which are kind of well established and understood.

You have to have investment vehicles somehow, for government, through bonds and everything else, but you don’t directly have a specific corporation where you are now not just a shareholder through a mutual fund but a shareholder of what, in practice, people would consider more of an ownership stake than normal.

In terms of subsection (5) of clause 1…. “Treasury Board may direct that the balance of the special account be reduced by an amount equal to any part of the balance that Treasury Board considers is not required for the purposes of the special account.”

Now, earlier on, when I was asking about unspent contingency funds actually increasing the fund, the minister jumped to: “Well, no, we can’t just empty it out to try to balance the books.” Subsection (5) of clause 1 seems to indicate that, indeed, you actually can empty the tank of the special account, if the government would so choose, to try to balance the books.

Am I misreading that, or is that not actually the provision that does say that they can do that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This section allows for Treasury Board to set an appropriation limit. If, in future years, they say, “Hey, you haven’t used your $400 million; we want to lower it to $300 million,” I suppose they could. But that’s what the appropriation limit is, and that’s what the section is about.

Peter Milobar: But there’s nothing that spells out that that’s what it has to be used for. In other words, we don’t have a capped amount of what the fund can be.

We’ve established that contingencies or other votes can be transferred into the special fund to increase it to whatever dollar figure Treasury Board deems to be acceptable. We’ve established that the fund rolls over, that it doesn’t get clawed back and taken to zero every fiscal year and then start fresh. It is understandable for an investment fund not to have that provision.

The government could say, “Well, that’s fine. We don’t want it to grow anymore than it already is,” or “We want to claw back some of the investment growth” — as the minister optimistically was referring to — “and take that back into general revenue.” But again, as we saw with the booking of an 18-year tobacco settlement in year 1, there’s nothing that would prevent the government, in a year that it decided….

[6:10 p.m.]

Now, don’t get me wrong. Frankly, clawing back $400 million on a $13.3 billion deficit probably isn’t going to move the needle on public opinion. So I’m not suggesting the government is going to do this in year 1, by any means, but this provision does allow for that.

Should Treasury Board deem it politically worthy or worth doing, they could draw it down to next to nothing in one year and turn around and refund it again in the very next fiscal year with unallocated contingencies, either in the budget or actually just put a new line item in the next year’s budget as they did in this year.

Is anything I said there not actually possible? I’m not suggesting the government is going to action it on April 1 this year or March 31 this year. I guess April 1, because it wouldn’t even be funded till then, or March 31 next year. But it is in this provision that Treasury Board could indeed take those measures, drain the account down and then just simply replenish it with whichever measure they would like, moving forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Man, I don’t want to go into hypotheticals, but I will. This section allows for…. Let’s say we have ABC doughnuts, and we invest. We’ve got an equity in that, and all of a sudden it makes a lot of revenue. We get a good, solid return for the province.

Treasury Board may see those revenues and say, “Hey, that’s great. Keep investing,” or they may say: “Listen, we have a whole bunch of other priorities, and that revenue that you’ve made needs to be used for other purposes.”

In the end, that’s what we want. We want to get some additional supports from the investments. We don’t want to just write cheques to companies. We want to be able to get a value back. If there’s a value back that’s substantial, Treasury Board may want to use that to support health care or support other things. So that is why that provision is there. It’s to provide the flexibility for those things.

[6:15 p.m.]

But in the end, Treasury Board will have to go through their process and make that assessment.

Peter Milobar: Then I’ll take the hypothetical out of the question. Can Treasury Board, under its discretion, take the account down to any amount it wants, to push it back in to the general side of the budget to deal with any debt, deficit or any other areas within the budget that it may feel it needs to reallocate some of this special fund to on any given year?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member knows this, but Treasury Board has the ability to lower the appropriation of any ministry wherever they want. That ability is always there if they choose to.

There’s no point in creating this type of fund unless you want to make investments in not only our sovereignty or security but to encourage economic development. I don’t see the case, but Treasury Board has the ability to do that. They can go to any ministry and say: “We want to lower your appropriation level” or “We need the dollars for something else.”

Peter Milobar: If the government under subsection (8) decides to guarantee the repayment of all or part of a loan by an eligible recipient if the loan is in respect of a strategic investment, can that loan exceed the value of the fund or is it capped at the value of the fund that they are guaranteeing?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There will be a limitation, a limit or a cap on loans. I refer the member to section (13). That will be prescribed in regulation and made public.

Peter Milobar: Will any loans that are guaranteed…? You have a loan guarantee, but that’s just assuring a bank that you’ll make good on the debt if the company is not able to make good on the debt. Is the minister saying that if a company needs a $300 million loan guarantee, the fund has now been accounted for, for $300 million all tied up because of a loan guarantee versus the payment on that $300 million of what it would be?

You could run out of money in this fund very, very fast with loan guarantees. With a guarantee, you’re not paying the full amount. You’re not necessarily paying anything if they don’t go bankrupt. You are just simply assuring a lender, so that the company can continue on, that they’re backstopped, essentially — by their parent, if you’re a young kid trying to buy a house and need someone to sign on as a guarantor.

I’m trying to understand the exposure for the government here and how quickly this fund could be limited if it’s how it’s calculated, as to how it’s going to be counted against the special fund.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Loan guarantees won’t have an impact on the prescribed amount we have here. As I mentioned to the member earlier, in regulations there is going to be a limit on what loan guarantees can look like. Those regulations, of course, will be made public. It’s not a draw on the account when it’s being used.

If, let’s say, there’s a loan guarantee, and if the company has a problem or whatever, then of course that’s something we’d have to consider. But with the amount of due diligence that we’re going to be doing, that other provinces have been doing, there are ways to ensure that that protection is in place.

Peter Milobar: Well, most companies only want to do business with government for one of two reasons. Either they’re getting a sweetheart deal of incentives that makes the headache of having the government as a business partner be the reality, or they can’t find lending.

I’m sorry, but in the real world, innovators and entrepreneurs aren’t clamouring to have government, at the speed of government, hindering themselves. So the investments the government is going to have people looking for are going to be either government inducements of tax breaks, low-interest loans or grants or the ability to get a loan guarantee because they weren’t able to get lending institutions to guarantee that loan, short of higher interest rates. Let’s be clear about that.

Subsection (13) says: “The total outstanding principal amount of loans guaranteed under subsection (8) must not exceed the amount prescribed under subsection (14).” But there is no amount prescribed under subsection (14), except for, it says: “Prescribing types of grants, loans, equity interest, financial interest or rights permitted under subsection (6).”

You jump back to subsection (6) and the “paying amounts required to be paid by the government in relation to guarantees given under subsection (8).” But that’s the principal on the interest being paid, not the full amount of the loan at any one shot. That’s the guarantee, which is why the government would guarantee a loan.

So there’s no, it doesn’t sound like, current cap. There’s nothing preventing the government from taking out and backstopping, let’s say, a $1 billion outstanding loan. The government has a small equity stake in an angel investment. Part of the deal is they get a good deal on that because they’re going to put in a guarantee on the $1 billion of debt outstanding by the company that they’re in.

Now, that might sound far-fetched, but if we’re talking about the military-industrial complex and projects like that and others, these can be companies that have a lot of exposure out there. So we can’t presuppose, because we don’t know what the regulations are. We don’t know what the caps are, we don’t know what the ceilings are, and we don’t know what Treasury Board will or won’t agree to. Even if they agree to that first set, we don’t know what they would agree to moving forward.

I’ll give you a good example. Back when Kamloops had unemployment probably around 14 percent — I believe it was similar members in government then — there was a big push, and we got Convergys call centre into Kamloops. They got at the time, which was a big subsidy from government, a $1 million grant loan from the government to operate, in Kamloops, their call centre. They had to operate it for ten years.

They were decent jobs. They actually provided for a lot of families and got them through a pretty bad economic time while the city got its feet under itself and we got moving again.

[6:30 p.m.]

Year 10, and one day, Convergys was gone. They went to the next jurisdiction that was offering up a call centre incentive to locate. Point being, companies know how to seek these types of programs out, and there are sometimes big dollars attached to them.

Where I’m going with this preamble and why I’m curious…. It’s a significant question in the overall scheme of all of this. I get that the principal and interest due on that guaranteed loan will get paid out of the $400 million, but the loan backstop, the value of the loan that has been guaranteed, is not accounted for in this $400 million. The limit will be set by the Treasury Board and cabinet sometime in the future.

The question is: will that loan guarantee count on the government books for bond-rating agencies and debt-servicing? I’m using $1 billion because it’s a round number. In other words, in the fiscal plan, we’re looking, in year 3, at a $234 billion debt. Will it be $235 billion if you are loan guaranteeing $1 billion of loans under these special account provisions in this bill?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A couple things.

One, guaranteed loans don’t affect the balance of the $400 million.

The second part is that any of…. Through regulation, the amount of loans that we can provide will be prescribed, so you’ll be able to see what the limit is.

Third, any loan will be reported as part of Public Accounts.

Peter Milobar: Mindful we’re probably going to note the hour very shortly, but I’ll do a quick follow-up on that.

Just to be abundantly clear, then, that means that the guarantees of the loans will be backstopped by the full provincial treasury, not the special accounts fund by itself.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member…. We were talking so loud over here, he has probably heard the answer already. But I’ll just give it to him again from the staff, which is that if a loan has to be paid out, then that portion of it would show up in our account. I think that answers that question.

Peter Milobar: I didn’t get clarification on whether or not the value of the loan guarantees will count against the overall provincial debt or exposure, in terms of those calculations. I understand it’s not a calculation of the debt, in that you’re actually making a payment in that here and now. But will it be seen as a potential liability on the books, I guess is what I’m saying, versus for the purpose of bond-rating and all of that out there?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It would be recognized as taxpayer-supported debt by bond raters.

Peter Milobar: Well, good to know that’s just going to keep going up.

In terms of (17): “For the purposes of subsection (16), Treasury Board may designate, on or before June 30, an agreement (a) entered into by the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth, or that minister under the former title, on behalf of the government, and entered into on or before April 1, 2018, and on or before March 31, 2026.” My colleague from the Greens asked some questions around retroactivity. Anything within that clause, or (16), where it is back to ’18 till now…?

Does that give the government, if the terms or conditions of any previous agreements between 2018 and 2026 that’s cited in this need to change, the ability to change that? In other words, if you’ve done an agreement already and that company now says, “Actually, we need a loan guarantee,” are they able to actually have those provisions changed of the agreement they have, because, as of 2018, under these pieces, as I read it, the force and effect of this piece of legislation can be used?

Is the government able to retroactively start making loan guarantees from agreements that were previously in place from 2018 till March 31, 2026?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mean, it’s hypothetical. I suppose a company that has an agreement could come in and say, “We need something additional. We want to do some further expansion,” and they want to come in. But they would have to be considered under the new rules, and they would go through the same process that anyone that would be coming through this fund would have to go through.

Technically, I guess, they could come through that and request it, but they’d have to go through Treasury Board. They’d have to go through a full process.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:43 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

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

John Rustad: Just a simple question to start off. How frequently does the minister get briefed by deputy and senior staff? Is it a daily occurrence? A weekly occurrence? Maybe just to let us know how often the minister is actually briefed.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, there’s a set weekly meeting that we have, and then, of course, there are briefings as the needs arise based on agreements. Sometimes that’s with the senior staff, and sometimes that’s other ministries. The member probably knows the process, as he was there doing, probably, similar briefings.

John Rustad: I was. Actually, we had daily briefings when I was minister. We had time set aside for updates. We had a major briefing on a weekly basis, but I was always in contact on a daily basis being briefed, which is why I was just curious about that. So at the very least, it’s weekly briefings, as according to what the minister has just provided us.

Perhaps the minister could let us know which individual within his ministry was briefed by the federal minister with regards to the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm event.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, if I left the member with any impression otherwise, I have briefings every day. I think the member knows that the work is unrelenting. I even have briefings on the weekends and in the evenings and in the early mornings.

My son asked the other day: “When do you sleep, Papa?” It’s a lot, and sleep is valuable, as the member will know. But it doesn’t happen as often as it used to when I was in opposition.

[2:55 p.m.]

Anyway, I’d say no senior official was briefed from the minister of Indigenous relations at the federal level. We did not have a briefing from the federal ministry on the content in that fulsome way of understanding what was happening, understanding the text of the agreement, as I stated yesterday.

John Rustad: I’m fully aware of the hours. I remember the worst week I think I worked when I was minister. The busiest week, I guess I should put it that way. It was about 84 hours in one week, so I’m fully aware of the time commitment.

The reason why I’m asking…. Obviously, I mean, when I was the minister, it was either a senior ADM or the deputy who was always in contact with the federal government. Occasionally it was manager to manager, depending on when there were projects that we were working on. But when a briefing came in, when something important came in from a federal minister, it was somebody within the ministry. This is the reason I asked the question.

I understand the minister has just said it wasn’t one of their senior people. That wasn’t the question I asked. Who within the ministry was in contact with the federal government and received a briefing weeks ago on the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is there was a meeting around other issues, and a negotiator was informed that something was coming with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm in a few days in terms of the text of the agreement, the agreement being involved in that. None of that occurred. It was very much perfunctory, to my understanding, information shared.

They didn’t feel that it was important to share up the chain, which is why it didn’t get to my senior leadership team and which is why it didn’t get to me. I’ve certainly been clear that should agreements, should announcements be coming, and staff…. It doesn’t matter what level. With the federal government, with a nation, I need to be informed. In this case, I wasn’t, and I think that’s not right.

To be fair, normally how this is handled, and the member referred to it himself in the question, is that this information is shared at a senior level. It’s not shared down the chain. It’s shared at a deputy minister level, it’s shared at a chief of staff level, and it’s shared at a minister-to-minister level. That’s not how it was handled in this case.

I’m not sure why the federal protocol was changed, but it was in this case. Certainly, we’re working to get to the bottom of that and be clear that that’s not how these things should roll.

The member will also know, of course, that Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, for example, was also not made aware of these things happening, and they had their own thing to share here.

Again, no agreement was shared, no text to the agreement or agreements. I later understand, as we learned on the weekend, that there were three agreements. Again, none of those were shared with the negotiator. It was very much a verbal heads-up that something was coming, is my understanding.

John Rustad: I’m just wondering…. You know, I’ve been in plenty of briefings from staff over time. When the federal minister says he briefed British Columbia, and when the minister receives briefings from his staff, is it just a casual mention, or is it a briefing?

[3:00 p.m.]

A briefing means a briefing, a full understanding, maybe not the full text but an understanding of what exactly was coming, not just a casual mention of something that might be coming down the road.

The federal minister also said it was weeks ago, two weeks at least now, probably three weeks, given the timing. The minister just implied that it was a number of days ago.

There’s something not right in this chain here, and I’m trying to understand because this is important. We’ve got, obviously, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm going forward. We’ve got all these other types of things going forward.

A briefing on this comes to a minister. Ministers need to make decisions. Ministers need to know what’s going on. They need to be fully aware of what’s happening. I certainly was when I was minister. I’m assuming you’ve got very professional staff around you. I’ve got great respect for them. I’m sure they’re keeping you apprised of what’s going on too.

So how is it that the minister can stand here and say something was casually mentioned when the federal minister says it was a briefing? “The province was fully briefed.” That was what the federal minister said.

Perhaps the minister could explain how somebody — a senior negotiator, I get how that could potentially be — could characterize that as being a casual mention, when the federal minister is saying it was a full briefing.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Maybe the member misspoke, but I think we should be clear about who the federal minister is. The member referred to a man. It’s actually a woman. Her name is Rebecca Alty. She’s the federal minister responsible, just to correct the record. Maybe the member misspoke.

To be clear, the negotiator…. From my understanding, it was a verbal heads-up more than anything. I’ve asked, and they said that they requested text. They wanted to understand the agreement so that they could more fully share it with others. They received no text. The federal government wouldn’t share that level of detail at all. In fact, it was just a heads-up.

Had they shared it, had they had the fuller ability to better understand the agreement beyond that heads-up, I would’ve been fully briefed. But as I say, nothing was shared. It didn’t go to my senior team. That did not come up the chain to me.

I think I’ve answered this question now probably ten times.

John Rustad: If the math added up ten times, it would not have been necessary. But obviously, information has come to light.

Okay. Let’s just accept the presumption that the minister can characterize a heads-up as a briefing. I’m sure the federal counterparts will be asking the minister in Ottawa what he meant by a full briefing as opposed to a heads-up, so I’m sure this will come out all in its full time.

I haven’t had a chance to look at the minister’s calendar, do an FOI on the minister’s calendar. The minister obviously partakes in weekly cabinet meetings. Last Wednesday — which would’ve been, I think, the 25th or roughly thereabouts — can the minister confirm that he attended a cabinet meeting with the Premier?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, I was in attendance.

John Rustad: The Premier attended a signing ceremony on the 20th of February and attended a cabinet meeting with the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation on the 25th. Yet the minister yesterday said that he wasn’t aware of this agreement, hadn’t seen anything until he heard it from the media.

How is it that the Premier attending an event like this, something as significant as xʷməθkʷəy̓əm title declaration by the federal government, would not have raised that in a cabinet meeting?

And how can the minister say that he didn’t hear anything about it, whether it was from his staff that was apparently fully briefed, according to the federal minister, or even at the cabinet meeting where the Premier may have casually mentioned: “Hey, you know, I attended a fun little event. Something’s coming down the pipes”? The minister didn’t think to ask: “What did you attend? What was going on?” He heard nothing about it at all.

Perhaps the minister has an opportunity to change the story a little bit.

That wasn’t, obviously, put as a question well enough. Maybe I’ll just ask it this way. Would the minister like to stand today and perhaps clarify his position on when he heard about the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement? Maybe not the full details. Obviously, he didn’t see the full agreement until it came out, but he heard about this, with some sort of details, that something was going on.

Clearly, there was plenty of opportunity between the Premier and the minister, and the minister’s staff and the minister, well before it was released publicly, when the minister said that was the first time he had heard about this.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member can read the Blues, or he can remember what we discussed yesterday. I answered that question yesterday.

John Rustad: In all honesty, I was giving the minister just an opportunity to maybe clarify so that it wasn’t misconstrued by the media and others in terms of what his statements were from yesterday. But clearly, the minister wants to stand by that, and that’s fine. That will stand the test of time one way or the other, as it will prove out.

I’d like to carry on with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm just in terms of what is happening now going forward. I mean, clearly, you’ve got a situation where title is now being talked about at a federal level, and land is the responsibility of the provincial government.

At what point can we expect this minister to be able to inform this House when his negotiators and the provincial team will be part of discussions between the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and the federal government, associated with the land question, since that is clearly in the provincial purview?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear here, and the member may have forgotten again, we did read into the record very clearly what’s in that agreement. It was an agreement between the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. The member probably has the text in front of him, which says very clearly that unless both xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and the federal government want to involve us in their bilateral discussion, we’re not involved. Both parties have to agree. I read that into Hansard yesterday. If the member wants, I can do it again.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’d also point out that the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm have their own lands to talk about. We don’t control reserve lands. The member probably understands that reserve lands are administered through xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and the federal government.

Also, the federal government has other lands within B.C. that they own. Those lands are theirs to discuss. They’re not mine to discuss. They’re not the member’s to discuss — reserve lands and federal lands.

If the member has a problem with that, he can take that up with the federal government, but those are the lands that, to my understanding, the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm are talking about.

Now, to be clear…. Again, maybe the member has forgotten about it, but when he was the Minister of Indigenous Relations, his government entered into land-based decisions with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm as well. They entered into agreements. I’ve got one called the collaborative management agreement from 2017, when his government was here — I believe he was still Minister of Indigenous Relations at the time — where they talk about xʷməθkʷəy̓əm asserting Aboriginal rights and title.

Now, that’s 2017. If you want to go further back, when he was still an MLA, when he sat as part of the government, his government entered into land title agreements with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. The member might remember University Golf Club returned, under his watch as a government minister. Or maybe he wasn’t a minister yet, but he was part of the government. They returned University Golf Club to xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. The Bridgeport lands, where the casino is now, they returned that to xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. They returned, I believe it’s called, the triangle lands to xʷməθkʷəy̓əm.

The member may try to suggest that talking about land-based rights with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm is a brand-new thing, that it’s somehow a sneaky thing that people should be concerned about, that it’s going to affect people’s private property rights. Chief Wayne Sparrow has been absolutely clear that nobody’s private property is on the table. In fact, in this agreement, the only thing that they can talk about right now between the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm is federal government lands, not private property lands.

Maybe the member has other remembrances of how these things went down, disagrees that they talked about title with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, but they were very clear. I think it was called the “New relationship,” working to acknowledge rights and title with Indigenous People.

I know there’s a new player in town who is very anti-Indigenous, another party who’s making these statements, but the member, as minister, signed a lot of agreements which acknowledged land and title rights with Indigenous Peoples and has been very vocal about how this is a work that we have to get done.

I’m not sure how this agreement between the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm is doing things that he and his colleagues have asserted and also how it relates exactly to this ministry, as these are decisions between the two parties there right now. The assertions that this is somehow different, brand-new, that it’s taking all the provincial land and we should be outraged…. Well, there’s federal land. There’s reserve land, and there’s federal land. That’s what the agreement is about. They can’t make decisions about provincial land, and the member well knows it.

John Rustad: I would be very tempted to ask him if he and the Premier took the same dodgeball lessons, because that had absolutely nothing to do with the question I just asked.

So thank you very much. You’ve just wasted four minutes of our time answering something that wasn’t even asked.

I asked the minister: when will this ministry actually be having somebody at the negotiating table through this process of title with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm? Nothing to do with any of the rest of the stuff that the minister….

I can’t believe the minister would actually not want to be proud and say, “Hey, we’re not at the table yet, but we’d like to get to the table,” or “Maybe we can get to the table next year,” or maybe it’s not on the schedule for the next four years. That’s all I’m asking. When is the province actually going to engage?

Here’s another even more important question, since the minister doesn’t want to answer that question. Does this ministry plan to actually hold public hearings in Vancouver so that the public can be informed about what kind of engagement this province — I’m not asking about the federal government — is having currently or is planning to have with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm People?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course we continue government-to-government relationships with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. We do our best to connect with them and understand their interests, just as we do with every Indigenous nation. I have meetings with nations all the time, all across the province, where they share interests, they share goals, and they share objectives. And xʷməθkʷəy̓əm is no different.

In terms of the question of public engagement on this federal agreement or are we going to be part of the federal agreement, I’m certainly interested in working in a tripartite way with the federal government, with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, if they want, and if they both agree that we should be at that table with them.

I guess I’d say that my message is always clear that we need to bring the public with us on this. We need to give them a chance to be involved where they can be and, I think, when it impacts them, obviously. That’s something that I’ll continue to look to support, because you do want to ensure that you’re answering questions that the public has, that they do understand what’s going on. I think this is a good example of what happens when you don’t do that work as well as you should.

I think the fact that so much misinformation has been shared suggesting that this is giving away private property rights; that this is giving away people’s homes; that it’s a land grab, as I know a number of the Conservative opposition MLAs have shared, when clearly it’s not…. If you read the text of the agreement, that’s not what’s going on here.

But I can understand that when there’s a vacuum, folks will want to fill it, and some folks will want to fill it for partisan advantage or fill it for other reasons that may not result in partisanship but may be driven by other feelings.

I think, in this case, clearly public engagement is important. I would suggest that when a signing ceremony like this happens, the text of the agreement should be shared publicly so people can see and get a better understanding of what’s being signed. Obviously, that didn’t happen here, because we would all have had a copy much earlier and I think a lot of the concerns could have easily been put to rest.

John Rustad: I remember when I was minister and we were doing treaty negotiations, there was always this challenge, when we were in the land component of discussions with nations, about when we made that public, when we engaged with the communities, mayor and councils, regional districts, when people were made aware of it.

I had changed the policy at the time — I don’t know if it’s changed back — that I wanted that engagement to happen right away, because people need to be brought along, just as the minister has said. But clearly, we’ve got many agreements now that this province is engaging in where the public is not being informed until after it’s done.

I’ll just take, for example, the caribou agreement up in the Peace country. It was signed off, and then there was an engagement with the public, knowing full well that there were no changes that were going to happen, because it was initialled. It was initialled by both the province and the nation. So the information…. It wasn’t an engagement. It was just letting people know and letting them vent until it went away.

We had the shíshálh agreement. What was it? Six months after it was signed, it became public? There was no engagement. People were wondering what was going on.

[3:20 p.m.]

The question to the minister is: given the fact that there is so much information, right or wrong, and so much a lack of information that is out in the public, will this minister commit to actually being open and transparent about engagements that, in fact, impact Crown land or other areas within the province, obviously, that people may use?

Will the minister commit to this transparency with the public so that they can be brought along and we can put to rest just what it is that is being done?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yeah, I think transparency is important, and I think doing what you can to ensure that you give the public an opportunity to be engaged where it makes sense is obviously the right approach. You don’t want to lead to people, if you can avoid it, being kept in the dark until it’s too late to do anything.

However, of course, negotiations are a private process. I think that the member knows that, that there is a give and take. There’s a back and forth in negotiations, and publicly negotiating with each other generally doesn’t work well for either party.

That being said, of course, treaties, and I think the member talked about it, are done in such a way…. I think it’s a good model, and I certainly appreciate the approach where, working with the Treaty Commission, you see the land being proposed. You have given people an opportunity to have their say about concerns and things that they share.

I think I can talk about many parts of the province where we have local government leaders sitting at those tables, for example, being involved in the process as it goes along so that their interests are there. They’re there as neighbours, they’re there as supporters, and they are part of this process.

Very recently I received a few letters from local government leaders around the treaty process, certainly sharing their desire to see the success of these treaties and how much they appreciated being part of the process.

But it’s not just local leaders. Obviously, there are business interests. There are community interests. There’s the average citizen. There’s everything from, you know, trail users…. You could go down the list. Depending on what part of the province you’re in, there’s a lot of interest in how we use the land and who has access to the land and what impacts you have there.

Certainly, we’ve learned lessons, and I think the member has heard me say more than a few times that there’s certainly room for improvement. Where there are suggestions for improvement, other ways that we might be able to engage, I’m interested in hearing them.

Obviously, I would ask that members also do their part, if they’re able to as local leaders, to help people understand what is happening. If you’re holding a town hall, making sure that town hall has factual evidence, factual information about what’s happening instead of trading in suppositions or fearmongering and those kinds of things.

There’s work that we all have to do, and I think the best thing to do if you don’t know what’s happening is to ask the question, and we’ll do our best to get the member the answers. We’ll do our best to try and fulfil our obligations to the broad public because that’s who we work for and that’s who we have to ensure understands what we’re doing here and why we’re doing this work.

Yeah, transparency is valuable. Bringing local stakeholders, local governments, local nations…. That’s the other part to it. You want to make sure that the neighbours, neighbouring nations, are also understanding what’s going on and have their interests upheld as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister and staff for being back here today.

As an optimistic person, there’s a tremendous opportunity here, I think, and a responsibility on government to set the record straight about this Sḵwx̱wú7mesh agreement. I mean, we’ve been forced….

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: Excuse me. Pardon me. I withdraw. It’s the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and federal government agreement. Thank you to the member for Saanich North and the Islands for correcting me.

There’s a tremendous opportunity here, I think, to set the record straight with the public. We’ve been forced to do our jobs in opposition to tease out exactly what’s taken place here with the communication piece with the public. I can hear that the minister is frustrated with some of the communication that’s happened online and in the news and other things.

That all could have been avoided. We teased out that the Premier didn’t know anything about this. Then he was actually at the ceremony in the front row, but that’s it. He didn’t know what was happening with the agreement at all. Then it appears that, no, in fact the federal Crown-Indigenous Relations Ministry did brief somebody in government several weeks ago.

The responsibility to be transparent and open with the public doesn’t lie with the public or with the opposition. That responsibility is squarely on the government, and we’re still trying to tease this out, unfortunately, in question period.

I would really appreciate if we could move on from this issue and just get the facts straight. We come in every day and we’re pulling up new information and new facts come to light, and the government has to circle the wagons and figure out how they’re going to cover their story on this. That’s not helpful in the public eye when trying to communicate that, yes, we believe totally in transparency, bringing the public along in this reconciliation journey.

I would have some very kind words for the Premier if he stood up in front of the cameras and just said: “Lookit, there were some errors made, and as the leader of the province, that falls squarely on me.” Instead we’ve kind of gone down this other path where people are led to draw their own conclusions. It’s extremely frustrating. The public is drawing their own conclusions as well, because we can’t really find out what’s going on here.

It’s just a very perplexing situation, not only to the opposition, to the public, to the media about what’s going on. It’s either there’s a…. I see this as two very realistic possibilities. A catastrophic breakdown in communication somewhere between the federal government, the provincial government and the public. I also see a potential other option where the federal government has come in here, totally swerved around the provincial government and signed this agreement without them knowing. In fact, maybe that’s the case.

But the question, if that’s the case, is: why? Why would the federal government bypass the province for a significant rights and title agreement between a very, very prominent and important First Nation in British Columbia and the province itself. I still think that the whole story is going to come to light about what has taken place here. But if that’s the case, we need to find out why that is.

My question is that…. The minister was hoping that opposition would be more helpful in communicating with the public about exactly what’s going on. It’s hard to do that when the opposition doesn’t know what’s going on.

[3:30 p.m.]

So my question to the minister is: when he’s provided briefings about rights and title agreements, before he and his ministry go public with them, would he be willing to share those with the opposition so we can help with the transparency message? I think that’s a duty that we owe British Columbians.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This is the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I just thought I’d want to invite the member to reconsider some of the words he may have used, that he did use.

He talked about “circling the wagons.” It is an offensive term for Indigenous people, and it’s probably not appropriate. He’s probably unaware of that and certainly, probably, did not intend harm with it, but probably not a good thing to use because it creates the us-and-them kind of context which this ministry is about taking away. It’s about actually bringing us together. So that kind of a comment doesn’t do that.

I think I can speak to the work we have already done together. We certainly…. Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, K’ómoks treaties coming up. Certainly something we support and supported is a full briefing for the opposition from those nations.

My understanding is…. I wasn’t there. It was their meeting with the opposition. I heard it was an over three-hour meeting. That’s all I heard, so there probably were lots of questions and lots of opportunity to go through what the nations were bringing forward in terms of why they were doing treaty, what land that they were looking at. Indeed, I believe also the Treaty Commission participated with the opposition in a briefing to go through the treaty process.

I know there will be further work to ensure that the opposition has the information they need so that they can feel comfort in these things. That’s my hope. I don’t want this to be a partisan issue where we’re punching at each other over these things, because human rights shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Fulfilling our obligations to Indigenous nations, First Nations, shouldn’t be a partisan issue. The courts have been clear about it.

It’s not one party’s job to do this. It’s government’s job to do this. It’s all of ours. Maybe the member takes his role as an MLA a little differently than I did, but maybe not. I felt that, as an opposition member, my job was not just to oppose but also to propose. Also, if I knew something was wrong, even though partisanship might say we should say it was right, to say it was wrong.

I guess that’s where my request or ask for the opposition was in terms of this agreement with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm that the federal government made. Clearly, again, the member has the text and would understand that it doesn’t do what his party says it does. That’s where that request came from, but that’s neither here nor there.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m not going to press that point. In the end, we’re talking about the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation budget and our own objective and our own obligation to do it better. I take that seriously.

I appreciate the member’s concern about it and focus on it, because we get distracted, and if we get distracted in this back-and-forth, we’re not moving forward the goals of reconciliation, we’re not fulfilling the rights and responsibilities that we have as government in that Crown relationship with First Nations Peoples.

I will continue to press, wherever we can, as long as there are not commercial confidences. There are certain things that are required to be maintained in confidence. But my preference, generally, is sunshine. Give people a chance to see what’s going on. I think there’s that old line that sunshine is the best…. What’s that word now? It’s a sterilizer? No. It gives you better health. Let’s say it’s a big thing for vitamin D, and it helps with transparency. I think that’s certainly how I try to….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yeah, I guess — a sanitizer. I’m not sure. Let people see things in all their glory and all their warts, but give them a chance to see what’s going on. That would be my objective, and I’ll continue to do what I can to reach out and share information where we can, as long as it’s received in a responsible way and we don’t have a conversation where the next moment I’m getting punched in the face, so to speak, as we’re trying to do this work in a more collaborative way.

I appreciate the member making the suggestion and trying to reach out in a sense of honour. I think when I sat on his side, I tried the same thing a lot, often was rejected. But where ministers were able to develop a good working relationship, generally both of us did better, and the province did better because of it.

Scott McInnis: In regards to my comment about circling the wagons, I had no idea that was an offensive term. I think my colleagues that know me know that’s not the kind of person I am, so if I did offend anybody by that comment, I apologize.

This is kind of groundbreaking. I appreciate the minister being willing and open to share some information with me as the critic for this ministry. I actually feel pretty good about this. This is a really good opportunity.

Again, the most important thing here, in my opinion, is public transparency in this journey that we’re on. So I appreciate the minister being willing to support the opposition in that, and I look forward to more communication around agreements in the future. We do appreciate it.

I know my colleagues and I appreciated the opportunity to speak with the K’ómoks, the Kitselas and the Kitsumkalum around their upcoming treaties. I know we all found that to be very insightful and appreciated those delegations coming and speaking directly with us. That was a great opportunity.

The minister mentioned something — I’ll paraphrase, because I don’t have the exact quote — about being involved if both parties agree that they should be at the table. I’m speaking about the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and the federal government. What are the minister and the ministry doing to step that up a little bit and actually demand that they’re at the table as soon as possible?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll read it again just so the member has it, so he doesn’t have to try to paraphrase something I said yesterday.

The reference in the agreement between the federal government, between Canada and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, is: “xʷməθkʷəy̓əm or Canada may propose to the other to include the province in scoping discussions or negotiations. However, both parties must agree before the province can be included.” So there’s that.

I think the member probably is meaning: why don’t I insist that we are at the table so that we can talk about all of our interests — provincial interests, federal interests, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm interests?

Right now the agreement as it’s structured…. It’s very clear this is about the federal interests vis-à-vis with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm. So they’re not talking about provincial interests, they’re not talking about provincial lands, and they’re not talking about that side of the equation. I know the member’s colleague talked about the provincial role with lands and how we play that role.

Certainly, I’m interested in working more in a tripartite fashion where all of the interests would be at the table, but, as I said, that’s something that the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm both have to agree to. That is their right to have their own agreement to work on their own issues together — for example, fisheries and those kinds of things, which are not as much in this ministry or this provincial role in that sense. So they do have the right.

As I mentioned, there’s federal land as well and impacts. I think they had a discussion around the airport, for example. Again, that’s outside of our role provincially, but that is their right to do that.

I am interested in how we work in a tripartite role. For example, last year — I think it was over a year ago now — xʷməθkʷəy̓əm entered into a self-government agreement with the federal government. It was a bilateral agreement. It was not with us. We were not part of that or party to it. We’re not involved in it. This kind of tracks from that same approach with the federal government and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm.

We certainly…. I think the former minister reached out to the federal government at the time and said: “Hey, we’d love to be a part of it.” At the time, they did not agree that that’s something that we should be part of, that instead it was xʷməθkʷəy̓əm-federal direct.

In conversations with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, certainly I’ll make the case. In conversations with the federal government, I’ll make the case that there could be and there should be a role for B.C. to play.

However, to be clear, really how xʷməθkʷəy̓əm wants to engage, who they want to engage with, is their choice. As constitutionally protected rights, they have the ability to make a decision of who they work with. In this case, they’ve decided to work with the federal government. But a tripartite kind of discussion, I think, could lead to better relations and certainly us being able to provide our perspective around transparency and our perspective around the B.C. interest in these conversations.

Scott McInnis: Just maybe so we could get it on the record, do we have at this moment a meeting set up between the minister, high-level staff, the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm and the federal government in a tripartite meeting? Is there anything that’s been formally scheduled at this point?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We’ve reached out to our counterparts, but at this stage, no meeting has been set.

Scott McInnis: I do appreciate that answer from the minister.

The Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation came out yesterday with a release, and they had some concerns, I suppose you could say, around this specific agreement. Just wondering quickly if the minister and the ministry has reached out to the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation to have any communication regarding the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not aware of any staff who’ve reached out to Sḵwx̱wú7mesh to talk about the federal Canada-xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement. I’m sure staff have talked to Sḵwx̱wú7mesh about other things, just as we talk to nations all across the province daily on a range of issues. But as to this federal-xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement, no, not at this stage.

[3:45 p.m.]

John Rustad: I’d like to switch gears a little bit and have a bit of a conversation on Quw’utsun. In particular, I think, the Premier as well as the minister are being public about the fact that they are having a negotiation with the Quw’utsun, which I find interesting, simply because there is an issue before the court. As well, the Premier has talked about how…. Obviously, they have filed for an appeal, and the Premier has talked about a stay.

If the minister could perhaps just provide some clarity, as part of this negotiation, going forward — whether or not a stay is actually being filed, whether or not the appeal is expected to go ahead and whether or not those components are actually part of the negotiations that this ministry is having with the Quw’utsun.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I should be clear that this is a two-track process. The B.C. Supreme Court decision made it clear that it expected the Crown, B.C., to negotiate in good faith following its declaration of the Quw’utsun Aboriginal title. If we didn’t have a conversation, they could find us in contempt of court.

So we are actually required, under the current court decision, to enter into negotiations and have those conversations. They’re at a very early stage. Obviously, we’ve been clear about our intents around appeal and around a stay. For further details on the appeal and the stay, I would ask the member to follow up with the Attorney General, as that’s not held within this ministry. The question of negotiations and of having conversations with the Quw’utsun Nations is within our ministry. Really, they’re early-level discussions.

It’s important to say that through those early discussions, we were able to come to an agreement to release the joint statement the member probably saw, which was clear about the protection of private property. There’s no intention to invalidate people’s titles. That’s something that both the Quw’utsun Nations and the B.C. government agree on.

That was one of the things that was our objective. We wanted that to be clear, so that people would have that sense of security in their home and so that it would be clear that we both have that agreement that that’s not something that’s negotiated. We’re not negotiating people’s homes. That’s off the table. That’s not part of that agreement. That’s kind of where it began, and that’s about where it’s at.

I’d say that we’ll continue to reach out and engage with private property owners — the city of Richmond had a good conversation the other day with the mayor, neighbouring First Nations and the public — when we have anything more to share, as we did on Monday around that agreement around the protection of private property.

John Rustad: My understanding is that the Quw’utsun themselves are appealing the decision to go after a broader area, as opposed to the area that was defined under the ruling.

Could the minister perhaps clarify for this House if the negotiations that have been entered into with the Quw’utsun are limited to the area defined by the court ruling — whether it’s to the broader area or even outside of the area that was originally put forward, or the area that is potentially now going forward — as part of an appeal?

[3:50 p.m.]

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member will understand that we are following the court direction, and the court direction is very specific to that claim area. Obviously, Quw’utsun has the right to appeal, just as we do. They’re seeking a broader area, but they’ve been clear, as we had that discussion, that private property is not their intent.

I guess that’s where that negotiation discussion occurred. That’s probably…. In terms of court strategy, that’s not something I can get into. In terms of negotiation strategy with Quw’utsun, it’s not something that I think would be appropriate in this forum, as we’re trying to do what we can with Quw’utsun but with private property, the city of Richmond, other nations and the broad public as well.

John Rustad: Like I said, the reason, the intent for asking this question is that, obviously, landowners were blindsided, I guess you could say, by the court decision and by the lack of engagement in Richmond. I understand fully the requirement by the Crown to enter into negotiations within the area that was defined by the court, but obviously, Quw’utsun has got much broader interests.

I have sat at enough negotiation tables to know that you don’t go into a negotiation and say, “We’re only going to talk about this, but the rest of this, we’re just going to ignore,” because that’s not what the nation will want to do. The nation, obviously, will want to have a much broader conversation, because it’s all part of how this process will play out.

In addition to that, it also is very clear from negotiations I’ve been part of that once you negotiate within a certain area, it has, I would recall, set the standard or set the preconditions for what happens in other areas because you’ve set the precedent in terms of how that negotiation goes. So obviously, there are many people within the broader area that is going to be appealed that are wondering what is going on.

It also will set the stage for even beyond that because Quw’utsun’s interests are not just within that area of Richmond. There are other areas for Quw’utsun, plus there are other nations outside that are watching very closely because this obviously has implications for them in terms of the standards that will be set in terms of this process.

This is why I’ve asked the question of the minister if the negotiations are going to be limited and if he can assure this House that those negotiations aren’t going beyond what the court has defined in its decision and will have no implication for areas outside of that. If it does, the public should be fully made aware so that they are not caught by surprise once again, as they were in this decision.

Perhaps if the minister could, then, just reassure this House that those issues will not be used, that they will not be setting the implications for other areas and that there is no negotiation going on outside of the area defined by the court.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We’re very much at the beginning of discussions, the beginning of conversations. We felt at the beginning stages, before we get into further discussion, that we’d be clear, that we’d both be clear, about our intent at the table. That’s where the agreement is to state quite publicly that neither Quw’utsun Nation nor British Columbia are seeking to invalidate any privately held feasible titles on the Quw’utsun title lands through the negotiations or the appeal process.

I’d say that applies to any privately held lands. We’re not in a case where we’re invalidating private titles. We’re very clear. Our principal…. Quw’utsun has stated similarly. We’re willing-seller, willing-buyer. That’s been B.C.’s practice. It was the practice when the member was the minister, and that’s still the practice today. Nothing’s changed about that.

Now, I should say, and I don’t want to…. This is a bit of a bridge out of the discussion specifically to this one set of negotiations around that claim area. Different members of the Cowichan Nation Alliance have interests themselves on the Island. We’ve worked with them. I think it’s Stz’uminus in and around Ladysmith. We’ve worked around an incremental treaty agreement there.

We’ve worked with a number of the nations over the years to fulfil interests. The Lyackson, a nation without a homeland, a nation that through federal processes had been dispossessed of any place to call home…. We worked with them very closely to find and identify a village site, working with the Quw’utsun Nation, as well, to find that place.

The opportunity that’s unlocked for the Lyackson people with the strong leadership of Chief Shana Thomas is new housing, new opportunity, economic prosperity — things that we would want for everyone.

Separate from those individual nation-to-nation conversations, I just want to be clear, as well, that there’s the treaty group representing a number of the nations, one or two other nations that were not party to this court decision and discussion around the treaty process.

It’s a long process, but there’s been continued work on that side as well. All that is to say that there are conversations going in a number of different rooms that relate to different title interests, different focuses.

Then there’s very specifically the claim area that the member refers to where our first decision together was very clearly to state that private fee simple lands are not on the table and people’s homes are not on the table, which we shared the other day.

[4:00 p.m.]

John Rustad: You know, I do find it a little interesting in this estimates process we’ve gone through. I don’t think I’ve mentioned private property once. The minister keeps on raising this dozens and dozens of times. I think maybe a sore point? I don’t know why he keeps coming back to it when I haven’t even asked about it.

I understand. The Premier is very defensive about it, and there’s lots of talk outside in the public with regards to it. But I’m not here to ask about that at the moment. There are other issues that I do want to talk about.

What I do want to understand from the minister is something very clear. I was at the town hall meeting in Richmond. I heard from residents there that were surprised by this, wondering why they weren’t at the table, wondering why they weren’t part of negotiations, wondering why they weren’t informed. And obviously, there are other potential court cases coming forward, other claim areas coming forward.

What are the lessons that the minister has learned from this court decision with regards to engagement with the public so that the public is not blindsided in the future with any other court case or any other agreements that may be coming down the pipes?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the Premier, the Attorney General and myself have been very clear that we felt, and we feel, that private property holders in an affected area, if there’s a court case going forward, should have been informed, that they should have had their chance to have a say in the court. The court disagreed. As the member knows, there’s ongoing litigation and court arguments about that right now.

Further, just so I don’t compromise a legal discussion, debate, going on with the courts right now, I would suggest the member should follow up with the Attorney General. We’re not involved in the sense of setting the legal strategy in directing staff through our budget in terms of how to proceed in that court. So that’s probably about the best I can offer on that one.

The Chair: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nice to see you there.

I think what I’d like to move to on the Quw’utsun, specifically, is…. As we’re talking about public engagement and transparency, things of that nature, I know the minister was at the town hall, as well, and hearing directly from homeowners and business owners that are in the area that was granted title to the Quw’utsun.

Could the minister walk me through, walk us through, walk the people of Richmond through, in detail, what specific actions the ministry has taken when it comes to public engagement with individuals and business owners that are inside the zone which was granted Aboriginal title in the Quw’utsun decision?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I will answer the question, but I should say that the person doing the work is budgeted through the Premier’s office, so for further, more specific, that would be an appropriate place.

But we have a staff member who’s been out knocking on doors, finding people at home. They have her number. They can communicate with her directly around concerns or questions or if issues come up.

Certainly, that person has reached out, as well, to see if there are ways that homeowners, business owners in the claim area, in the area decided through the court decision, have a contact so that if they have evidence, if they have a case to be made, we can support them in that or find a way to bring their information forward through the court process.

The Attorney General would be the place for that court process discussion, but I can say that we feel it’s most important to speak directly with the people involved, with the people potentially impacted, and certainly we’ll continue to do that work.

They’re, of course, communicating back to government what they’re hearing from residents and from business owners — like Montrose, for example, who has a more direct relationship not through this door-to-door process. But certainly, each one will pursue their interests as they need to. We’re interested in working with residents directly where we can to help them understand what’s going on and what role we’re playing, what role others are playing.

Now, to be clear, though…. Sorry, I shouldn’t say “to be clear” — I’ve used that a lot — but to be transparent. I’ll try other synonyms for this.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yeah, don’t go there. You’ll see right through me anyways.

We’ve got to remember that there are other parties to this decision that we are not directly involved in. The city of Richmond has its own role to play, and the federal government has its own role to play as well, which are outside of what we are involved in.

Scott McInnis: Just for the thousands upon thousands of people at home watching this live, I want to highly recommend that everybody take an opportunity either to read the Quw’utsun decision either in full or have some sort of AI break it down into chunks. It’s actually quite a fascinating history lesson within that judgment. Very, very interesting history of British Columbia and all the peoples here. I just want to recommend that people actually take the time to look at that, as I have.

I just want to understand from the minister…. Has he and his ministry made any attempt to bring together representatives from the Quw’utsun Nation and residents of Richmond for some sort of productive discussion?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I understand some conversations have happened. I think certainly based on what I understood the interests of area residents to be, the first interest was confirmation that their private property was not at risk. That’s something that they were very clear to us they needed to see and they needed to hear from Quw’utsun directly, and that’s where the joint statement came from.

I know the member, his colleague, asked why I keep talking about private property and fee simple interests and willing-seller and willing-buyer. I think it’s really important because some members of this House have been actively suggesting that private property is up for grabs and that they’re coming for your home when that couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s really important that we all say that and that we share that perspective.

That’s an answer as to why I’ve been saying it. I can say it in here, but there are a whole lot of people who are saying the complete opposite on social media, in town halls. I’ve got recordings of some of them where clearly things that are not happening are being shared as if they are the truth. That’s why I focused on that one.

I think those conversations and finding that path between Quw’utsun and Richmond, Quw’utsun and the area residents, Quw’utsun and the businesses is….

You know, we’re also in a legal dispute with Quw’utsun, so while we are in negotiations, we are also in a legal dispute. So of course, bridge-building between parties is important. If I can find ways to support that, I’m interested in it — to reduce the tension, to reduce the hate, to reduce the death threats that have been going around, to bring greater safety, greater security for everybody, to get people to be able to hear each other.

I think the member being at that town hall also heard from a number of residents saying that they believe in reconciliation, they believe in working with Quw’utsun, and they don’t think that Quw’utsun is coming for their home. They found that the court process was not one that supported their interests or supported greater reconciliation and that they want to lead it in that direction.

I think there is a path to finding greater understanding. I’m a hopeful person, and I think based on my talking with residents, talking with Quw’utsun Nation members, there is the opportunity, there is the path, I believe, for greater reconciliation. But we are in the middle of a court process, so there is a limit to what you can do when you’re in a dispute, in that way.

Scott McInnis: Again, we’re coming back to the intent with the Quw’utsun, and I made it clear on the record yesterday that I agree 150 percent with the minister. But I also think it’s important that we don’t gloss over what was said in the judgment as well when it relates to land.

The judgment is still there, so I just want to be clear on the record when we’re talking about that because they are two separate things, and I don’t want them to get conflated with each other. I think that’s very important, and I actually think the minister and I can probably agree on that.

I’ll just read into the record from paragraph 2,258 of the judgment. Justice Young says: “I find support for the view that the indefeasibility provisions in the Land Title Act do not apply as against Aboriginal title in section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act which directs that legislation be interpreted in a manner that does not derogate from Aboriginal rights. To construe it otherwise would also be inconsistent with UNDRIP. A plain reading of the Land Title Act indicates that it does not and was never intended to apply to Aboriginal title.”

We can’t gloss over the issue that there was a judgment made, again, which really makes indefeasibility of private property cloudy, to say the very least.

Again, on the record, I want to say — like I said with the Haida, like I said with the Quw’utsun — that I believe people at their word when they say: “We’re not here to take private property.” I support that, and I believe that. But we have a judgment which, again, creates uncertainty.

[4:15 p.m.]

I just think it’s irresponsible if we just say, “Well, don’t worry about it. They’re not coming for your private property,” okay? I just want to be clear in that.

On the other side of it, just back to my original question that there has been no formal meeting set up by the Ministry of Indigenous Relations in a room similar to this, which could seat maybe 15 to 20 individuals, with representatives from either Quw’utsun members or leadership representatives, and perhaps a handful of business owners and residents in Richmond. There has been no effort made to bring people together at a table in a forum such as that to have a conversation.

Have the minister and the ministry gone through an effort for that specific type of a forum to happen?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No, we have not at this stage.

John Rustad: A little bit of a speculation question, but it’s important because this is about how the ministry is going to be allocating funds and the impacts in terms of the negotiations. Obviously, government has…. At least, I think they’ve applied for a stay. I don’t know if I’ve actually ever heard that they actually did the application. They said they were going to do an application for a stay. That’s obviously not this minister that’s involved in doing that. But the ministry is involved in the negotiations that are directed because of the court decision.

If the court decision is stayed, does this minister then stop those negotiations because there would no longer be the direction from the court for him to have to go and do these negotiations? So you’ve got the ministry and you’ve got the government asking for a stay of the decision, asking to stop the implementation of that decision.

Part of stopping the requirements of that decision is the requirement of the court asking the minister to engage in a negotiation. So if that is successful, will that also mean that the government itself will be saying a stay to their negotiations and that it would stop those negotiations on that until that gets confirmed one way or the other?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think, as the member knows, I’ve said a few times that I am not going to get into the hypotheticals here. I think that, as the member probably was advised when he was a minister, to get into hypotheticals of what might happen 20 years, ten years, five years, six months, two months, a week down the road is often a dangerous thing to do.

But I would say that, obviously, we are seeking a stay. For further information, the Attorney General would be the best place to go for that discussion.

[4:20 p.m.]

Obviously, if the appeal goes in the way that we’re seeking, these conversations would be different. There might not have to be conversations at all. It really depends on what a superior court, a Supreme Court judgment would be, or appeal, and then on the way you go through that ladder. But I’ll leave those legal going-through-the-ladder questions for the Attorney General.

John Rustad: Once again, this might not be the minister who can answer this, but I do need to understand. The court decision, as it is right now, has not been enacted, to the best of my knowledge. The province has applied for a stay, yet the minister is acting as if the court decision was in place following the negotiations that are required by the court.

Could the minister perhaps explain…? Unless the court decision has been enacted, which maybe it has. Maybe I’m not kept up on it. Can the minister explain why he is speculating and engaging in negotiations when we don’t know whether or not the court decision is actually enacted?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The Attorney General is leading the legal side of this. It’s been clear the court decision — and it was a decision, not a speculation; it was a decision, at this stage — was that we had to enter into negotiations. That’s what the decision said very specifically.

I’m not sure if the member is counselling that we don’t have conversations. Because if you don’t when the courts have told you that you should and that you have to — not should but must — and you don’t have those conversations, you can be found in contempt of court. Is the member suggesting that that would be the approach we should follow?

John Rustad: The member seems to love the idea of being in opposition. Hopefully, that will be happening soon enough. Regardless of that….

This can be too much fun. I get it. You have a little bit of a chuckle, you know, as the day goes on.

I think for now we’re going to leave Quw’utsun. We may come back to it for a little bit, but there are a number of other things that my colleague and I do want to touch on, and we have a limited amount of time that’s left.

Just for a moment, perhaps, I want to talk about the shíshálh agreement that has gone on and the fact that it was six months delayed before the public was engaged with it. Obviously, there are additional negotiations that will be going on as part of that.

Perhaps the minister could explain what the process is going to be for engaging the public so that they understand what is being negotiated, understand where this agreement is going and what they hope to be able to achieve, so that there aren’t more surprises being brought on for the Sunshine Coast.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There are a lot of aspects to that agreement. I’m wondering if the member might be able to be clear about what aspect he’s looking at, or does he want me to provide a broad general overview?

John Rustad: I actually wasn’t asking about aspects of the agreement. I was asking about negotiations going forward and the process that the minister plans to undertake to make sure that the residents of the Sunshine Coast and the area are informed as to what is happening and actually be part of the discussions.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think there are a lot of learnings that have had to come out of this particular agreement around how things should be done and how they weren’t done.

Clearly, I think this was referenced in estimates last year as well. Going forward, I have certainly been clear to my team that I believe there needs to be a higher level of public engagement as these discussions happen. If negotiations begin on some aspects of the agreement, there will have to be public updates and there will have to be engagement.

I think I’ve also been clear, and it’s in the agreement around engagement with local governments, that as we proceed, we have to engage with the local governments on these things and the local community. There are a number of questions and answers, for example, that people have asked. There’s been a webinar. There have been those kinds of approaches. I think we have to be innovative in how we ensure we’re engaging with people in and around that territory, those communities.

John Rustad: In the remaining time that we have, we might be jumping around a little bit because there are 200-and-some-odd nations that we haven’t talked about yet and the ones that we have talked about, so there are many things that are going on.

I want to touch particularly on the pathway forward 2.0 agreement with the Carrier Sekani Nations. Perhaps if the minister could give an update in terms of how that’s going. One of the things that is always a challenge…. I represent that area of the province, and I have not received any details in terms of where additional negotiation is going or what the broad intent is.

If the minister could perhaps provide an update in terms of negotiations that are happening on that file and what can be expected in terms of engagement with the public to keep them informed as to how things are developing.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

The Chair: Recognizing the minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair. Good to see you. Welcome.

I think the member participated in a briefing about this agreement as it was about to go live and asked a number of useful questions and was involved then there as the local MLA.

[4:30 p.m.]

If the member is interested, we’re certainly happy to provide an update briefing so that he has a chance to ask more questions than he’s going to have the time for here, if that’s useful. Otherwise, if the member has more specific questions that I can get to right now, I’m happy to do it. We’d be happy to provide a briefing, and if the member has future questions, I’d be happy to take them as best as we’re able.

John Rustad: Yes, actually, a briefing on that from staff would be good at some point down the road.

More the intention, though, of asking that question was about public engagement. I’m only one person. I’m the MLA. Obviously, people come to me and ask me questions, and I try to provide the information that I know. But there are a lot more people than just I can connect with that might be interested in understanding how this is developing.

Is there a process for public engagement in terms of how those negotiations are developing?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, as this came forward, my expectation was and continues to be that local government leaders, local officials, are engaged as we move forward. It’s a five-year process, and over time, we’ll have to continue to engage, answer questions.

The whole agreement is posted publicly, and I’m certainly happy to continue with those engagements. If the member has suggestions of local community members or others that have concerns or have questions about it, we’re happy to engage with them as well, as best as we’re able.

Some of this, obviously, is an agreement with other ministries, in a sense as well, so there are other pieces to this not held exclusively at MIRR. But certainly, we’ll follow up with the member on the briefing. I hear his point that he’s only one member in that region, but if he has a feeling of others that should be brought up to speed on where we’re at, as best we’re able to, we will.

The member and others in the region will have relationships with the local nations that are engaged in this work as well. So I think the member will not be surprised that they’re quite interested in this agreement and see it as an opportunity for greater economic prosperity in the region, more resilience, more sustainability. They see it as an opportunity for cultural revitalization, support for things like language, support for things like youth.

It really has the opportunity, I think, to raise the region up, raise the local nations up in a better way with them as leaders in that community. Hopefully that’s helpful to the member.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: Well done, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair. Thank you for the introduction.

I’m just wondering if the minister could provide any insight related to my riding of Columbia River–Revelstoke about territory overlaps between the Shuswap Band and the Ktunaxa Nation and what work the ministry has been undertaking to address that overlap proactively with both nations.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I had the privilege, the honour to come visit the member’s riding, parts of it, and to meet with a number of local chiefs and councils, Ktunaxa Nation. I certainly heard the concerns, but that’s not new. That’s an issue that has existed across B.C. for quite some time now because of, of course, the lack of treaty and the lack of an approach from earlier governments to resolve those things.

We have a role within this ministry to try our best to help find a way to reduce disputes, to reduce these kinds of conflicts. Of course, much of that leadership comes from the local level, and we’ve seen that where communities have stepped up.

In some cases, I’ve heard of Elders exchanges, where Elders will come together in different spaces to share the stories of how they used to work together — and how, through history, sometimes it’s provincial, sometimes it’s federal, sometimes a combination, or sometimes it’s a natural disaster. There are a variety of things that have led, in some cases, there to be these conflicts, sometimes between related members.

I think we are working directly with the First Nations Leadership Council to see about developing protocols, developing strategies to find a better path together so that these conflicts don’t get out of control, so that there isn’t that same level of, in some cases…. I’m not going to speak specifically to one region or another. The level of animosity can be pretty hard, particularly as sometimes it’s family-related and there are families on both sides of a dispute.

If we can serve, and the best way we can is to help support dispute resolution, that’s something we should do and do where that’s possible. But again, the leadership comes from the community level, and we have to work that through with the communities. If we can play that role, if Canada can play that role, because Canada also has a role in this issue, we should do it.

If the member has suggestions, ideas on ways we can reduce the tension and we can get to greater collaboration, I’d certainly support it.

We’ve heard some nations have protocol agreements with their neighbouring nations where they’re very clear about what the boundaries are, how they agree, what shared-use areas are. In one case, one nation talked to me about a peace treaty that they’d made with a neighbouring nation that through history they’ve had conflict with, but they’ve found a better path together.

There are a variety of approaches. I think this is very important work. It’s in my mandate letter as something that I need to work to support, work to find resolutions where we can. So thanks for that question.

[4:40 p.m.]

John Rustad: This will be the last question, and we’ll pass it over to our colleagues from the Green Party for their time. We may be back, depending on whether, on the final hour, the member is available for asking those questions or not.

I’m actually just curious about the NStQ treaty group. I’m just curious. We signed the agreement in principle. We got into the land discussions. There was lots of controversy around range and what was happening with that.

I’m curious in terms of how that’s developing, the engagement and how that engagement is going or whether or not there’s any information engagement with the public in terms of how that’s developing. I guess you could say how that is, whether that’s getting closer to finalizing.

Now, I understand that might be more information than you can provide just now. I’m happy if the minister could commit to another briefing of myself, as well as the local MLA in that area, in terms of that status and information.

One way or the other, if you want to provide it now, but I’m happy to take it as a briefing.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, happy to share what we can with the member and the local MLA. We’ll look to book a briefing to provide the best updates we can. Of course, we’ll share what we’re able to share.

John Rustad: Thank you for that. Thank you for this process.

I want to thank the staff, obviously, in terms of this. We’ve gone through a lot of information.

I’d love to make a long closing statement, but I don’t want to really offend the Green Party in terms of eating up more of their time.

I did want to sincerely thank the staff for this in terms of going through this. We look forward to our next opportunity in the future.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you.

Not to bother my friend in the Green Party, but I just want to thank my colleagues across the way for their questions and look forward to future work together.

Rob Botterell: I just welcome this opportunity to raise some questions around this very important ministry that plays a pivotal role in a pivotal time in achieving reconciliation between First Nations and non-Indigenous people in B.C. and charting that path forward.

My colleague mentioned that the Quw’utsun decision would be a great read. For those that don’t have time to read 800 pages of single-line type, since many people are listening right now, I do definitely recommend reading Prof. James Hickling’s review of the decision. He’s a professor at the Allard School of Law at UBC. It’s a very straightforward, relatable and understandable explanation of the decision.

I also am going to do what I can to resist the temptation to turn this into a litigation strategy discussion. Seemed headed that way a couple times this afternoon. As a lawyer who practised for 25 years in the Indigenous space, working for First Nations, there’s nothing more that I would like to do than enter into a discussion. But I’m going to resist that temptation.

There’s a series of questions. If I don’t get through all the questions, maybe I’ll read some in at the end.

My first question really relates to the work nations have in front of them to be able to have the capacity to engage. We know there are multiple avenues for establishing co-governance between First Nations and the provincial government from modern treaties, section 6 and 7 agreements under DRIPA, and many other creative ways.

[4:45 p.m.]

These processes exist in the expectation that First Nations — large and small, rural and urban — will have the resources necessary to participate in those tables and effectively work across the table to find that good-faith agreement to ensure that they’re able to act on their constitutionally protected inherent rights to self-government and self-determination.

My observation is that the vast majority of avenues that are available through negotiations, through agreements and other initiatives are, frankly, significantly underfunded. For many nations, it’s a real challenge to make use of these processes. That creates a degree of frustration, and the tables are often underutilized.

That has knock-on effects, because if we’re not making progress, and if we’re not able to reach agreements, then there’s the risk that the public will lose confidence in the process. In some cases, we end up with a much more costly approach of needing to resort to litigation.

Given this, can the minister confirm how much money is allocated under the treaty and other agreements funding to support and conduct treaty and reconciliation tables, including but not limited to modern land treaty negotiations and section 6 and 7 agreements under DRIPA? How much funding has been allocated toward supporting these negotiation tables in this year’s budget compared to last year?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, we will get back to the member for an answer to his question, but if I might request a five-minute recess.

The Chair: Why don’t we make that ten minutes? But Members, we do certainly expect you to be back at 4:57, no later.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:56 p.m.

[Amna Shah in the chair.]

The Chair: I now call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order.

We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the member for his question. I’ll give him props. I think he said this is the most important ministry in government, at one point on the radio, and hey, I like that kind of talk. Need to do that work, and I appreciate the support.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: He says that to all the ministers? He’s a charmer, that one.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Until he doesn’t? Yeah, watch out, Minister.

I think to answer that question, $105 million is the vote, as the member has seen in the blue book. But of course, we do our best within that to find a way to ensure that we’re able to show up in a good way for nations if they’re ready to have those conversations with the province.

Rob Botterell: I guess I have a preliminary question which reflects, although I am the House Leader for the Greens, my lack of knowledge of process. Did I just donate ten minutes of my hour? The break, the recess, is that deducted from my hour?

The Chair: No, that is not going to be taken away from your time.

Rob Botterell: Okay. Well, let me slow down.

What steps is your ministry taking and what strategies are in place to ensure that negotiations are undertaken in a manner which prevents the need for communities to resort to litigation?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for his question. I think part of it can be housed in the Attorney General’s ministry through the civil litigation directives. That’s one aspect of trying to find a way to get to discussion instead of ongoing court battles.

I think there’s also…. It really depends on the nation. I’d say there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. I think some nations have very specific local interests. Some have slightly broader interests or are ready or able to participate in a different way. Some have interests that go all the way up to comprehensive treaties.

Hard to be too specific because with 202 or 204 First Nations, depending on how you do the counting, there are lots of different approaches that we need to take within our ministry and, of course, across government too. Sometimes an issue a nation has really needs to be solved at a different ministry level.

We’ll provide support if we can, but in many cases, our expectation, through the work that the Declaration Act secretariat does and through the work that our ministry does, is making sure that ministries have the capacity to deal with, work with, negotiate with, cooperate with and collaborate with nations as well.

Rob Botterell: Certainly, in this upcoming year, it is a concern we’ve raised that funding is not being increased in this particular area of the budget, given the heightened awareness and urgency around addressing issues.

Another aspect that we’d like to explore is, really, the events of the last few months where, frankly, untrue narratives have been allowed to proliferate throughout the province regarding the facts, the application and the outcomes of the Cowichan Tribes decision, the Gitxaała ruling, application of DRIPA and now the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement.

Certainly, what we see is that these narratives have been allowed to develop. There are members of this government, both sides of the House, where a move to make statements quickly on issues, a lack of information and transparency…. I was at the meeting in Richmond we discussed earlier this afternoon, and the lack of information really fed a fear in the community.

A lot of British Columbians are left confused and worried about how critical laws and court precedents surround Indigenous reconciliation. Some of us around this table have had the benefit of being thoroughly briefed on that or have spent time working in the area, but most people haven’t. And I certainly wouldn’t suggest they listen to question period to find out how the Quw’utsun decision or other decisions ought to be dealt with.

[5:05 p.m.]

My question is…. Although this was lightly touched on during yesterday’s session by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, can the minister speak to if there are any plans to allocate resources or funding from Budget 2026 towards thorough, comprehensive public education to dispel these harmful narratives and to actually create relatable, understandable information in order to really create the environment to address court decisions and agreements?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I agree with the member about the challenges of misinformation, the disinformation and the challenges of torquing things to try and make them look like they mean something else to get people upset and concerned.

I think in the age of social media and clicks and clickbait, and so on, there seems to be an increased desire — I guess it’s the algorithm or whatever — to get that attention right at the front end. What attracts attention on the front end? Fear and anger. It’s deeply upsetting because there are real-world impacts to these.

The racism facing First Nations people right now is much higher than it was a few years ago. You hear about it when you talk to First Nations people about what happens in the grocery store, on the street, at the playground.

I think it’s incumbent or it’s something that we all, I would hope, take on as leaders in our communities. So there’s that aspect. I think it’s a responsibility of each of us to learn about the true history of this province, to learn about local nations and that this wasn’t some virgin land which was just wet and muddy, as I think one MLA once argued.

In fact, there were very strong cultures that go back thousands of years, complex cultures and complex economies. We have to understand that, and I think we’ve got to do a better job of ensuring that people know about that incredible history, heritage and ongoing cultures in this province.

In terms of the question around…. I’m sorry. I’m directed right away to that answer because I’m passionate about this stuff.

I think there’s a whole lot of stuff you can read. If you don’t know, talk to somebody. We’ve got to up the level of understanding here in this province if we’re going to find that better future — for example, this year’s efforts we’re making around treaty, around finding that comprehensive agreement and approach.

The honour of the Crown, the honour of the nation coming together shoulder to shoulder with Canada, as well, is going to provide us a huge opportunity, I believe, to dispel some of the myths, to take on some of the fearmongering, to help people better understand why we work on reconciliation and how we work on reconciliation.

[5:10 p.m.]

There certainly will be an ad budget related to that through the Treaty Commission. Also, of course, there’s public information and public engagement, which is largely held through Finance. I can’t speak to their budget around how they do this work.

There’s also other work that’s more on the person-to-person work. I think of an incredible leader who works with our ministry, Charlene Belleau, and the work she’s doing with caretaker communities around residential schools and the impact of the children that never came home, the impact of people who did come home but came home traumatized, came home victimized by a system that was designed to break their culture, designed to break their ability to continue as First Nations people.

She’s been doing incredible work, with our support, of lifting up the voices of survivors, lifting up voices of families and spreading that truth, sharing that truth, telling that truth. I think we all have to lean into that work, taking the leadership from caretaker communities and also supporting them — as we’re trying to do through our ministry around information-sharing, for example, so that people can get to the truth of what happened to their relatives, and where did they end up, so that they can have some sense of understanding. That’s been denied them for far too long.

All that is to say that I agree with the member. I think I’m looking for opportunities wherever I can to push back against misinformation and also to not just push back but to lead in a way that demonstrates why we do this work, that speaks about the true history of this land. There was a choice many, many years ago that governments made, and that was to ignore, to objectify, to subjugate First Nations people when that choice didn’t have to be made.

There were early attempts to find treaty, to find agreement, to find a path together. You look to Treaty 8 in the North. It still needs work, but that’s a treaty. You look to the Douglas treaties here. I still regret…. Well, regret — I guess I wasn’t there. But I still think about how different this place could be had different decisions been made those years ago. As they say, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the next best time is today. That’s what we’re trying to do in this ministry.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the answer.

Where we see concerns right now arising in relation to, for example, the Quw’utsun decision and the recent agreement that was announced regarding the Xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, it seems to me that the provincial Crown could….

Certainly, some community members will be involved, but in order to ensure that there’s a consistent, well-resourced opportunity for community members to find out about these decisions and ask questions and get answers, would the ministry consider maybe working with other ministries to help create a framework and perhaps provide some seed funding to support community meetings and help to resource those in terms of the folks that would be speaking at those meetings?

I can see, for example, in my riding of Saanich North and the Islands that there would be a great interest in that. I think that in my riding, former MLA Adam Olsen has sort of taken that on to some extent. But I think in other communities, it would really help to have the province, with partners, create that consistent opportunity for people to find out. I think that would go a long way to dispelling the concerns. I’ll just make that observation for your consideration.

[5:15 p.m.]

The question to the minister really relates to another part that you’ve touched on of the challenges that we’re facing right now. I’m wondering if the ministry has committed any of this year’s budget to support communities that are combatting and healing from the misinformation and disinformation and the racism that has proliferated. There are First Nations communities throughout the province who are bearing the brunt of the pushback and the racism that the narrative that some have brought forward has created.

So my question really is: is there some funding in your budget to support communities as they deal with the fallout from this fear-based narrative?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We do ongoing work to better understand how we can support, for example, caretaker communities around residential school denialism, working to better understand what their needs are.

We also work cross-ministry, multiministry, all ministries as best as we can to ensure that staff understand better the history of this land. For example, we did a staff briefing where staff had the opportunity to watch Sugarcane to get a better sense of that residential school experience, to ask questions so that they’re prepared.

We also do that work in other ministries. They can speak more specifically to it, about the training they provide out in the field, the work that they’re trying to do to better ensure that if people are working with Indigenous communities, they understand cultural competency and that those kinds of things are improved so people are not coming in with assumptions and those sorts of things.

I think there’s work…. We have staff all across this province who, when we make decisions or when we’re looking to do consultations or engagement around potential decisions, will attend things like town halls.

I can say right now around the upcoming treaties, there’s been engagement in communities, a town hall kind of approach where there are questions asked. There’s an open house kind of approach, another way to engage it.

We’re working with the Attorney General on the Anti-Racism Act, the action plan. That may be another place the member may want to discuss these issues too. He’s right. If it’s just the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation trying to do this work, we will not get far enough, and we will not get enough support in community. It has to be all of us, I think, or most of us, because I know some people are actively pushing against the work we’re trying to do.

I think I’ve got to believe, and I think it’s true, that most British Columbians want us to do this work. Most British Columbians do not want racism to divide us, do not want those old ways to get in the way of working with our neighbours.

[5:20 p.m.]

We’re going to proceed to hear those voices, listen to those voices and do what we can to build them up and give them the support when they are facing an onslaught of racism in too many places right now.

Rob Botterell: Would the minister be prepared to invite a follow-up discussion involving the Attorney General and himself and whomever else is appropriate on ways in which it can be possible to support communities that are dealing with racism and other impacts that are rising out of these recent decisions and the narratives?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m certainly happy to continue to work with the Attorney General around these questions, yes.

Rob Botterell: Shift gears a bit. The Declaration Act secretariat — as you would know, a central agency located within your ministry — guides and assists the province in ensuring that all laws within B.C. are aligned with UNDRIP as per section 3 of DRIPA.

Additionally, the Declaration Act secretariat produces annual reports that are required under section 5 of DRIPA, which lay out the government’s progress in carrying out the alignment of laws under DRIPA, along with ensuring that the Declaration Act plan — a plan that contains 89 actions which uphold the spirit of DRIPA and creates obligations for ministries to integrate truth and reconciliation; free, prior, informed consent; and co-governance throughout their ministerial activities, all to be accomplished by 2027….

As I mentioned, the Declaration Act secretariat plays an integral role within the ministry, where they act as an oversight body, ensuring that DRIPA continues to be upheld and utilized to its fullest potential throughout this province. Certainly — it probably won’t come as a surprise — the Green caucus supports DRIPA in its current form and looks to it being an effective way to accomplish the intent, but for a lack of resources.

When we look in Budget 2026, the Declaration Act secretariat, which is right at the centre of achieving the 89 actions, received a $400,000 cut, which is almost 10 percent of the budget, just as the annual report from the end of ’24-25 fiscal stated that only eight out of 89 actions under the Declaration Act have been effectively carried out since 2022.

We have this environment where there is increasing concern in the public domain around Indigenous rights, reconciliation, UNDRIP; the public needs more information and assurances around the work; and at the same time, we’re reducing the budget for the secretariat that has the critical responsibility for carrying out and overseeing that work.

My question to the minister. During a time in which the alignment of laws, ministerial programming and overall governance in B.C. within the spirit of UNDRIP is more important than ever, can you provide a rationale as to why the Declaration Act secretariat’s budget was cut? And if so, can you provide any assurance that the Declaration Act secretariat will not face diminished capacity in their efforts to assist other ministries and to actually achieve the important objectives that DRIPA sets for this government?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member knows, I think, that all of government has looked at cost reduction, looked at tightening up how we do our operations out of respect for the fiscal situation that we are currently in.

Of course, we’re committed to making sure every dollar we spend gets the best results and is making a big difference in people’s lives, and that’s, I think, clear across government.

I’d say that in terms of…. How we’ve managed the cost efficiencies within the Declaration Act secretariat has been through looking to reduce things like travel costs, looking to do more things online, reducing contracts. But it hasn’t impacted the work of the secretariat in terms of their engagement, in terms of how they work with ministries, in terms of how they work around alignment of laws. Those budget choices have not impacted that work.

Rob Botterell: The fact remains that the existing budget and existing level of resources have left us, as British Columbians, in a place where, just at the time that the public needs to see more action and more resolution and more agreements reached than ever, we’ve only achieved eight of 89 actions.

My question to the minister is: what is your plan to achieve the other 81? What’s the timetable? What’s the plan?

I’d very much appreciate some understanding of how, when we’ve only accomplished eight of 89 with this budget, we’re going to accomplish 81 more with a reduced budget.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We talked about this yesterday in the estimates process and kind of went through the action plan and went through how many items and where we’re at.

We’re at currently 78 out of the 89 actions that reporting is underway or complete, so we are making consistent progress. It is reported yearly and with information that…. Clearly, as we announced this and as we did this work — 2022 to 2027 is the action plan dates. We’re not quite to the end of 2027.

Also, these are systemic changes. We’ve been clear that some of these require other changes before the others can take place, so there’s a phased approach to these. There is also work that may go beyond 2027 because it’s not just work that the province does by ourselves. This is work we do, in many cases, with nations, where nations provide advice around: how do we meet the test, how do we do the work? And that will continue.

Now we are entering into a review process where we’re looking at the action plan, looking at how we make sure it provides the information, that the people who are interested in the action plan can find out where we’re at. They can provide advice on if they think we’re meeting the test or not, and then we can renew it.

[5:30 p.m.]

I think that this is ongoing work, and I’m encouraged by the work ministries have taken on this.

The member, if he’s interested — I’m sure he’ll be up in many ministry estimates — could certainly ask each ministry around where they’re at on their action plan items, because this is not work that’s held only within the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. It’s cross-government work.

While some actions are discrete and very much time-bound and can be accomplished in the short term, others really relate to core functions and systems change. So the longer-term, more generational actions may not be considered complete by the end of the action plan. I think that’s fair, because some of it does require ongoing work. It’s not so much a one-and-done but working in process over time to get to that goal. Sometimes the process is almost as important as the goal.

Rob Botterell: I’d like to move to a question around how we can foster fulsome collaboration and co-governance. I’ll use the example of an issue in my riding, which is dock management in the southern Gulf Islands.

To provide some background, a working group has been established with local residents, small business owners, First Nations communities and government agencies, including the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, to improve the speed and standardization of dock management, dock approvals within the southern Gulf Islands.

My experience with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations is that you play a critical role as a ministry with a lot of experience in how to ensure that these sorts of processes work. This particular working group, which is dealing with issues that bear a significant resemblance to the issues that led to so much difficulty in Pender Harbour…. The work of this working group seems to be stalled.

The policies and procedures that we need, to see this completed, seem to be suffering from a lack of resourcing with various First Nations, especially W̱SÁNEĆ Nations. I recognize and everybody recognizes there’s always a need for give-and-take. But if there are parties at the table that are not being consulted sufficiently and don’t have the capacity, particularly First Nations tables, it’s much harder to reach a consensus on a path forward. I only illustrate this as one of what I expect are many examples of consultation processes and co-governance mechanisms that are inefficient or incomplete.

The question I have is: what resources, whether financial or personnel, can be made available to First Nations in order to ensure that they can meaningfully participate in these matters that cut across multiple jurisdictions? If we can’t build consensus, and if the nations don’t have the resources to participate effectively, then resolving these issues in a way everybody can support basically will end up being on the never-never plan.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Actually, that’s timely. I understand there was actually a meeting today around the issue of dock management in the Gulf Islands. My assistant deputy minister was part of that.

That table is being led and being funded through the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. If there are more specific questions around that piece that’s being led there — of course, we’re supporting as best as we’re able — when it comes to those land-based, resource-based kinds of approaches, a lot of that ends up being through Water, Land or potentially Environment, other ministries. Certainly, we play a supporting role as best we can.

Rob Botterell: The Cowichan Tribes decision, which as we all know was released in August last year, determined that descendants of the historic Quw’utsun Nation, including Cowichan Tribes, Stz’uminus, Penelakut, Halalt, have established rights and title over a portion of the lands in and around the traditional Quw’utsun village, which is located in the city of Richmond.

However, despite a recent announcement from this government that negotiations with the Quw’utsun have commenced, it remains unclear as to how those negotiations will be adequately resourced so they can occur in a timely manner.

I understand that those types of negotiations would be on a without-prejudice basis and that there’s not an expectation that we’re going to be discussing any of the details of those negotiations here.

Can the minister confirm how much money from Budget 2026 along with staff resources have been allocated towards negotiating land claims and achieving other necessary settlements, such as with Quw’utsun Nation, given the outcome of the Cowichan Tribes decision?

Given the recent announcement that negotiations have begun, can you provide what you would see as an approximate timeline? I would expect that, given the court decision, the budget amount would need to support negotiations in accordance with the court decision.

The main part of my question is: what’s the budget that’s been set aside to support successful conclusion of this important negotiation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member asked about treaties, negotiations and generally…. That’s still within that $105 million budget that we spoke about earlier.

I think the other thing to note is that those negotiations that the member referenced…. Really, I think, the first outcome was the statement around the question of private property and that neither Quw’utsun nor the B.C. government are negotiating people’s private property. In fact, those are protected, and that’s not what the discussion is around.

[5:40 p.m.]

Beyond that, I think, the litigation continues as well. It’s a two-track process. Is it all going to be wrapped up this year? Unless the courts act quicker than they usually do, it’s unlikely.

Rob Botterell: If the budget is $105 million and is stable, unchanged, and if the negotiations with the Quw’utsun are getting underway on such an important decision, pursuant to the direction from the court, what negotiations are being put on hold to allow funding to be made available to support these negotiations? It’s got to be a zero-sum game.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Treaty negotiations, negotiations in general…. I’m sure the member knows that sometimes they move quickly; sometimes they move slowly. Sometimes people are ready; sometimes people aren’t. That can be on the provincial side. That could be the federal side. That could be the nation side. I’d say we calibrate the budget as best as we can to respond to the needs as they arise. That sometimes means that you move forward faster because someone is ready, as opposed to not moving forward as quickly because somebody needs more time to do their work.

That’s the approach we take here. It’s a dynamic approach that we have to toggle up, toggle down. You might think you’re getting close to an agreement, but in the end, you’re not going to reach that and maybe it won’t happen for another year. Then, in some cases, that means resources moved to somewhere else where people are more ready to go. It’s trying to be efficient with the public dollar and make sure it gets the staff.

It’s mostly people. They work, as the member I’m sure knows, long hours. They’re very focused, and they’re committed. They’ve joined the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation because they believe in the work, and they want this work to succeed. Certainly, they’re doing whatever they can to be efficient with the time they have.

And planning ahead. Some of it’s planning ahead so that we don’t have to be so reactive. There are so many negotiations, so many different opportunities across the province and amongst different ministries as well, that it really does take focused leadership and disciplined leadership to make sure we’re doing as much as we can with what we have.

I commend my team. I’m amazed at how much they are able to find a path for. I feel like I keep adding more to their pile, and they seem to find a way of making it happen.

Rob Botterell: From December onward, Premier Eby has made multiple comments stating your government’s plan to amend DRIPA and that courts should not have the sole ability to determine what reconciliation means or how it is undertaken.

[5:45 p.m.]

My question to the minister is: what funding within the ministry’s budget over the next fiscal year has been allocated to consult and engage with First Nations communities on prospective amendments to DRIPA? Can the ministry comment on how negotiations already have and will continue to be undertaken with this funding in mind?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We ended up going through this a few times yesterday so, certainly, there may be more in the discussion yesterday that the member might be interested in.

It’s staff time. The staff are doing the work. The staff are engaging. If the member wants me to list the global budget that relates to the staff that do that work, I could. But there’s no specific line item for this work within the budget.

There is also engagement work happening through the Premier’s office. That’s not within our budget, so we can’t speak to that work. But there is work at that stage through the Premier’s office.

Rob Botterell: In December 2024, the Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua First Nations, which are situated within the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky’s riding, informed the Ministry of Environment and Parks of their 2025 closure dates of a park which is located approximately 35 kilometres east of Pemberton. These annual closures are for reconnection, for the nations to carry out cultural practices and to allow the area to recover from the effects of mass tourism.

The ministry did not announce until weeks before the park’s scheduled closure in September that they would be rejecting the nations’ dates, with the ministry unilaterally deciding when to close the park in accordance with their own wishes rather than those expressed by the First Nations many months prior.

My question to the minister is: will the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation get involved, given how the Ministry of Environment and Parks handled the disagreement and the breakdown of trust between the ministry and the nations in 2025? Is the ministry committed to allocating any funding or staff resources delegated to them under Budget 2026 to support public understanding about the nations’ reconnection periods in the Joffre Lakes Provincial Park, including the history behind their necessity and their significance within these First Nations communities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This work is being led by, and I think the member would understand, the Ministry of Environment, the Minister of Environment and B.C. Parks. They will continue to be the lead on that work with the N’Quatqua and Líl̓wat Nations.

We certainly are happy to provide support to the ministry in that work if we can, but as reconciliation is an all-of-government responsibility, it’s not just this ministry that has the responsibility to take that work on. I’m sure there will be an upcoming estimates process or other ways that the member might be able to engage with the Ministry of Environment on this question.

[5:50 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I think that, and I’ve said this in previous estimates, you have the most important ministry in this government. I’ve never said that at the Minister of Energy, although I’ve been tempted sometimes.

I would say that you play a critical role, because when there’s a breakdown in the relationship between nations and another ministry, you’re uniquely positioned with the benefit of the expertise of the staff within your ministry to play a really productive role in overcoming those breaks, because we’re all here to stay.

I want to thank your staff and you, Minister, for taking the time today to answer the questions we have, and I very much wish everybody well in 2026.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just want to thank the Third Party House Leader for your interventions, for the questions that you shared with us today.

I made the offer to the opposition critic, but I should make it here as well to the member. As questions arise…. I know we’ve already had one meeting. I’m sure we’ll have more. But if things come up in his community or in the province that he sees as something we should be aware of, we should be involved in or we just need to not be involved in — there are a variety of ways — we’re certainly happy to hear from him. We’re happy to brief and provide briefings as necessary as well.

I look forward to an ongoing, good collaborative relationship, and I thank him for the questions.

John Rustad: I need to start with a slight apology. It was never my intention to mislead this House. I don’t think MLAs should do that.

But I’m back. Our time wasn’t finished. Unfortunately, the independent wasn’t able to do her time, so you get the pleasure of more questions from my colleague and I.

There was a decision a number of years ago to allocate gaming revenue to First Nations. My understanding is that’s in the ballpark of $100 million per year. It’s obviously $100 million going forward this year in terms of it.

So the question is: how is that money being spent by the nations? Is there any reporting going back? Is there any accountability associated with it?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The gaming revenue sharing, the member probably knows, has been a long-standing request from nations. We started, since 2019, sharing 7 percent of the B.C. Lottery Corp. revenues with First Nations through that long-term revenue-sharing agreement with the First Nations Gaming Limited Partnership. So it comes through BCLC, through us, and then flows to that partnership.

Funds may be used under six categories: health and wellness; infrastructure, safety, transportation and housing; economic and business development; education, language, culture and training; community development and environmental protection; capacity-building, fiscal management and governance.

[5:55 p.m.]

Direct distribution to individuals is not permitted. It must be to eligible entities. Annual payments are based on the estimated BCLC net income for that fiscal year.

I’m happy to take more questions on that as needed.

John Rustad: I think the crux of the question I’ve just asked…. I want to thank the minister for that information on this.

Is there any reporting that comes back from the First Nations or any of the Indigenous people who are receiving that funding, and what accountability? Is it audited? Is there any process that goes through to make sure that this money is being spent appropriately within the Nations?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There are a few things here. There’s an independent appointee that’s agreed upon between the partnership and the province. That person’s role is to ensure that money is being spent where it’s meant to be spent. They do that through the receipt of annual audited statements from each nation that receives that funding where they have to demonstrate that it fits within the categories.

As I say, it’s an annual audited statement that then goes back to that independent appointee who has to manage and ensure that that funding is going where it’s meant to be.

John Rustad: Just to confirm. It’s great that we’ve got the third party, that independent person who’s agreed on by the two organizations.

In terms of how the money is spent, I’m assuming…. Do those reports come back to the minister? In terms of how that’s done, are those reports made public in terms of the spending?

Also, just for clarity, do the Métis actually qualify for any of this gaming revenue and, if so, how does the process go forward with the Métis?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To answer the member’s question, the First Nations Gaming Limited Partnership is required, they are required, the independent appointee is required to create a report.

[6:00 p.m.]

Certainly, I will follow up with the staff and see if I can get the member a copy because I don’t see what reasons there could be for not being able to share that information. I’ll follow up just to make sure that there isn’t something I’m not aware of that might hold it up, as it is a partnership. But I don’t see an issue there. Yeah, I’m happy to share that with the member.

There were a number of questions there, and I might have missed some of them.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Okay, yeah. It’s called the First Nations Gaming Limited Partnership, so very much, it’s focused just on First Nations.

John Rustad: It’s interesting because the….

Sorry. I was going to pass it over to my colleague here, but I’ve got to do one quick follow-up.

It’s interesting because I think about one-third of the Indigenous population in B.C. is Métis. I find it interesting that they wouldn’t be included in something as important as gaming revenue. The Métis Nation, obviously, has got lots of issues that they’re working on to support their people in the province of British Columbia to engage in various opportunities, and I know revenue is always hard to come by.

But that was a decision that was made in 2019, so I’m not going to ask the minister to rehash that. It’s just unfortunate in terms of that.

With that, I’ll pass it over to my colleague to ask a couple of questions.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Madam Chair. Very well done. It’s a long title.

Just quickly, this may be somewhat out of the purview of this ministry, but I’d like to ask anyway. I had some really good time with the Doig River First Nation when they were here. Jeepers, I’m losing track of time. I believe it was last week, for a few days. The newly elected Chief Justin Davis and the delegation from Doig River had really good discussions about a number of topics.

I want to ask the minister if this ministry specifically, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, is involved in any communications with Doig River around some of the concerns they have related to the Yahey decision, the Blueberry decision, around what they’re looking for with energy developments, some of the cleanup processes.

I understand this has a lot to do with my good friend the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, and perhaps this will be a conversation for another time, but I’m just wondering if this ministry is engaged with Doig River directly, in communication around these issues, or if potentially it’s more suited for Energy.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I also enjoyed meeting with the Doig River First Nation last week and meeting with the new chief, Justin Davis, and council. I think they invited me up to Doig Day. I’m not sure that I’m going to be able to make it this time, but it certainly sounded like a great community celebration, and well past time for me to get up there and have a visit and get to see the territory through their eyes.

I think the member is right. Most of this is Energy and Climate Solutions and probably best to direct further questions, in relation to some of the issues that Doig, I’m sure, raised with the member, to the Minister for Energy and Climate Solutions.

I see he’s smiling, so there you go.

Scott McInnis: I just gave the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions some homework. I think he’ll know that I’d love to ask some questions just around some of the concerns that they have around that.

Moving on…. I’m sorry. We’re jumping around here, knowing that we are using some additional time, so a couple of topics just to kind of cover off randomly here. I do apologize to the staff for the scattered categorization of these questions.

[6:05 p.m.]

I know the member for Saanich North and the Islands brought up the issue related to the Líl̓wat and the N’Quatqua Nation around the provincial park, whose name I have completely….

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Joffre Lakes.

Scott McInnis: Joffre Lakes. Thank you very much, Minister, for that. Sorry.

I think we’re looking back around to the transparency piece. I do apologize to the ministry if this was answered already. I was engaged in something else when the minister answered my colleague’s question.

I’m curious to know, so that all of us can get out ahead of the issue when we’re talking about public communication and transparency, if the minister and his ministry have engaged in detailed negotiations with both of those nations around their desires for potential park closures, in the upcoming season, to the public.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll provide the same answer I provided the member for Saanich North and the Islands. This file is held through B.C. Parks and the Ministry of Environment, so that would be the best place to have those conversations.

John Rustad: This spring or possibly next fall, depending on what the government’s agenda is, there will be three treaties brought into the House, and that’ll be some interesting debate. I don’t want to ask about that because that’s potential legislation, obviously. But I do need an interesting question just from a financial perspective.

My understanding of the agreement with the federal government when it comes to treaties is they provide the cash and British Columbia provides the land. Often the land value is significant, and there can be a recouped component of cash that actually comes to the province. In other words, the province actually can make money on treaties because there is that requirement for that balance between the federal and provincial sides of the overall value of the treaty.

I’m just curious, since it’s this fiscal year, assuming these things go forward, what the financial gain will be for the province, if any, on land that will be allocated towards these three treaties.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: B.C. doesn’t make money on treaties, but I think I know what the member is referring to, that yes, sometimes in that balance of land value versus cash value…. It’s certainly not a profit-maker for B.C. in that sense.

Broader, sure, B.C. does benefit from treaties, and that’s the economic benefit, certainty, etc. But I don’t think that’s what the member was asking.

In terms of the cash, land, none of that takes place until treaty effective date, and that’s meaning that it has to pass the Legislature and it has to get through the federal process, at which point then a treaty effective date would take place. At this stage, it could be 2028, could be 2029, but that’s probably more speculative than I probably should be, as these processes can take their own paths.

John Rustad: I understand that, and I was kind of anticipating that would be the answer, but I’m wondering if the minister could indicate, since the land package has been finalized, whether it’s passed or not through the process of ratifying in the province and the process of ratifying federally…. There is a total value of the treaty. That’s a known number. Certainly it’s known to the province, it’s known to the First Nations, and it’s known to the federal government. There’s that total value of the land that’s associated with that as well.

I’m just curious if the minister is in a position where he’s able to answer the question whether or not there is going to be any money recouped by the province for that total value of that package associated with the land.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member may have guessed that this is probably where I’d go with this. I don’t have an accurate number that I can share with the member right now.

There are transition costs. There are transaction costs that don’t come due this year, don’t come due next year. Really, some of those will be clearer to us at a future estimates process when we, or whoever is sitting in this role, will be able to provide a better line of sight on those exact costs as the two sides, federal government and British Columbia, reconcile those costs together.

John Rustad: I guess I can wait for the treaties, I suppose, to come in to ask what the ballpark number of the total value of the treaties is, but I’m sure we will have weeks of debate time in the coming session to go into the treaties.

Maybe just one last quick question on the treaty stuff, because this was an issue that I was grappling with many years ago. As land is transferred, there was this requirement that it would have to be surveyed. Obviously, there’s new technology in terms of doing things, but that was quite a process that would go through, when you start talking about significant amounts of land, Crown land, being transferred as part of agreements that had to be surveyed through.

I’m just wondering if the ministry has moved beyond having to do the actual physical land surveys as part of the land transfer or whether that’s still a burden that has to be undertaken.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, you’re still required to survey land to be able to know the boundaries, so there are still costs associated with that. I get a sense that it was something that was challenging then and still challenging today. But Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship also holds part of that because of course lands are under them. So that’s an ongoing conversation.

John Rustad: Just a note for the minister. Technology has changed enough that we don’t need to do that anymore. It’s just for some reason, we’re still stuck in the past. We were stuck in the past back then. Things have developed a lot better since then. In any case, that’s fine.

[6:15 p.m.]

In the budget, I think it’s page 135, there is an amount that was estimated at $30 million for the current fiscal year. And for the fiscal year we’re talking about, it’s $50 million to deal with treaty and other arrangement funding, which included disbursements, acquisition of lands, disposal of lands, transfer of lands, these types of things, as part of incremental agreements.

Out of that $50 million, a question I’ve got for the minister is…. Obviously, there’s some anticipation that there will be some land transfers, likely outside of treaty because we just talked about what that is. That is a commitment in terms of $50 million this year and ongoing for these land transfers to nations.

I’m just wondering, from the minister — a couple of questions. I’ll start with a simple one. Can the minister indicate what lands are being considered as part of that $50 million this year in terms of land transfers?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: First, I’ve got to say I’m grateful to the Minister of Finance for that budget lift in a tough time.

I think going from $30 million to $50 million for land purchases on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis is positive. It will help us in a number of places. I don’t want to get into the realm of going, “Well, it’s this property; it’s that property; it’s that one,” because the member knows that the minute I start saying, “Oh, it’ll be in this town, or it’ll be in that place,” everybody who’s holding property there is going to go: “Hmm, government is looking to buy. Let’s up the value.”

It’s an incremental approach in most cases. But it might also be in terms of looking at future treaties. There may be opportunities in future treaties where maybe there’s a certain parcel that’s needed.

Obviously, I’m not going to presuppose. But it is a valuable way that we can find a path together. I think it may have started…. I know it certainly showed up early on for us, and it may have been there when the member was the minister.

I was out in Abbotsford, Semá:th Nation, working with them. One of their challenges was that a gravesite, a very important cultural spiritual place as well, was potentially going to be under development, a place called Lightning Rock.

Our ministry — and this is previous ministers. I just had the benefit of being there as the minister after all that hard work had been done. I think the member will probably know that sometimes a whole lot of work goes on. You show up, and you’re thanked for the work. But really, it’s the staff and it’s the nation and it’s the local government and it’s many partners that work together to make sure that that site could be secured.

It was a very powerful moment working with Semá:th Nation and being able to come into their big house and celebrate that moment together. I believe the member’s colleague was there as well, the member for Abbotsford South.

It certainly just shows, again, the power of reconciliation, the power of working together for the greater benefit of all.

John Rustad: That Lightning Rock was an interesting issue. I was actually the minister that signed the MOU to get that thing started. I remember engaging with Chief Silver at the time. The ministry did not want to go there, they didn’t want to do this, and I pushed them hard to get the MOU signed to get through it. It was one of the last MOUs I signed before the election in 2017 as part of it.

I was very pleased to see that. Chief Silver did invite me. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the ceremony at the time for that.

[6:20 p.m.]

The reason I’m asking in particular about the land value and the amount…. Obviously, $50 million is not insignificant. One of the things I pushed for back when I was minister was…. We talked about treaties. There’s a 60/40 split between the feds and the province in terms of the value going forward.

As these lands get identified — for this incremental treaty or whether it’s something like Lightning Rock, these types of things — has the ministry been able to reach an agreement with the federal government so that that land would be accredited towards whatever future agreements might be reached, that would ultimately be treaty or treaty-like?

Having said that, in the province, we may have many agreements that ultimately go beyond a treaty so that treaty is not even necessary. The key in my mind with this is making sure that the federal government is paying their share as per the agreement on treaty.

Haida is a prime example. Why would Haida need a treaty when they’ve all got title over the whole islands as it is? That’s a significant value that the federal government doesn’t have to contribute towards, where they should, because that’s a treaty component.

The question to the minister associated with this is: have we reached an agreement with the federal government to make sure we recognize that, so that they’re contributing appropriately to the value, their 60 percent of the value, as per what a treaty agreement would be? If not, does the minister plan to engage with the federal government to make sure that our senior partner in government isn’t shirking their duties?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m a twin. I have a twin brother, and we are fiercely competitive. So I’m very interested in things like fair share. It’s something I grew up with. I’m also a bit of a spendthrift or, as my husband calls me, cheap. I prefer frugal, tight with money. So I want to make sure we get the fair share and that it’s being used well.

All that to say is that we do have that long-standing agreement, since 1993, with the federal government around sharing the cost of treaty. We are currently undergoing a bit of a review with the federal government of that arrangement.

I hear the member’s concerns and I certainly think that we need to be doing…. My instruction to staff is to do what we can to make sure that we get our fair share and that B.C.’s role of providing land is properly acknowledged in how we do this work, whether it’s through incremental treaty agreements that eventually lead to treaty or otherwise.

It is a back-and-forth. We are in that review process now. I can’t speak too much further about that, but I hear the member’s concern. As a twin who likes getting his fair share, I certainly make sure that the team follows that path. They want to do that as well because, of course, if we’re able to get a good, fair arrangement with the federal government, that means we can do more.

I’d say, slightly different from the member’s question, but if he’ll humour me, I’m a big fan of the First Peoples Cultural Council and the work they do around language revitalization. One of the challenges that we’ve had is that B.C. has 36 language groups, which is a great thing. It’s incredible, the diversity of very different language groups in this province.

[6:25 p.m.]

The challenge we have is that those groups are not recognized in the way that they should be, I believe, through federal funding formulas around language support, around language revitalization. Given that each one is different, they need different levels of support. Given the level of risk of losing some of those language groups, because of the low number of speakers and because of the challenge of teaching and the challenge of that work, I think we do need a better share on that.

I’ve made that case to Minister Marc Miller and will continue to make the case in support of the First Peoples Cultural Council because their work is just so valuable. I think really, leaders from around the world come to learn about how they’re doing language revitalization and cultural support.

John Rustad: Having two older brothers, one six years older and one eight years older, I can assure the minister that I am as competitive or more competitive than he might be in terms of wanting to get my fair share. I’ll boast a little saying I often got more than my fair share, as I had to be very creative in terms of how I achieved that.

Regardless of that, the federal government has been off the hook for a long time, partly because they only stuck to the treaty side, and they refused to consider the other types of agreements. I’m glad that there’s at least a conversation going on, because, quite frankly, at some point, if the feds aren’t going to step up to the table, we need to take them to court and get them to live up to their share of the agreement that goes all the way back to when British Columbia joined Confederation.

It actually goes beyond that, just in terms of the land side. When you look on a per-capita basis, when you look at any kind of measure, the Indigenous populations in other provinces actually receive more funding than British Columbia receives, whether that’s through treaty or whether that’s through other processes.

Is that also something that this minister and this government are doing in terms of making sure that British Columbia receives its fair share of support from the federal government, from the senior partner, if you want to call it that, in our relationships, making sure that we have the services available for all Indigenous People, Métis included?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think Ottawa can seem much farther away from Ottawa to B.C. than B.C. to Ottawa, if the member gets my meaning, sometimes. When I worked in the arts, they used to call it the $1,000 cup of coffee because you had to fly to Ontario in order to get seen. Then you’d have a cup of coffee, and the meeting would be finished.

That’s not quite the same anymore. We do have a good relationship with the federal government. There are bumps in that relationship, no question, and certainly, we are always seeking a fair share for nations seeking….

The fact that, for example…. If you haven’t picked it up yet, I’d commend the book Unceded by former Minister Abbott. Lots in there around that B.C.–federal government–nation relationship and how it has not always worked so well. B.C. has a lot to do with that historically, but the feds also have their share. All that to say, we’re doing what we can to address that.

[6:30 p.m.]

Treaty is one part, but of course, the federal government has stepped up in other ways, which we are still working with and trying to get a better understanding of and better partnership with. Self-government agreements, for example, a new path that they are following. Certainly there’s a lot of interest among some nations around that approach, and that impacts us as well — so trying to find our place in that.

Of course, there’s also the bilateral relationships of Canada to nations, to which we say: “Hey, we’re keen to be involved too.” But sometimes it’s not appropriate. Sometimes it very much is a direct Canada-to-nation relationship that we are not involved in for a whole bunch of constitutional reasons.

John Rustad: I want to talk about a couple of other agreements, and more specifically for my riding, one agreement, which is with Lake Babine Nation. It was an agreement that we started on, and there was a process of land transfer that happened associated with that.

There was some frustration from the residents, particularly in and around one of the little lakes that the land was associated with, because they weren’t engaged. They’ve since had a better opportunity to engage in more components. But that initial land transfer was meant to be the first part of an ongoing agreement. I can’t even remember if we called it pathways, but likely that’s what it was called at the time as well.

I’m curious, in terms of…. That land transfer, I think, is now complete or is about to be completed if it hasn’t been completed. The discussions that are going on with Lake Babine Nation in terms of how that is advancing…. Where does the minister see, through this fiscal year and beyond, the effort to continue that developing relationship?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: First I just want to give praise to Chief Wilf Adam and the Lake Babine First Nation. They’ve been great partners, provide good advice, very forward-looking in terms of the work that they’re doing.

I think my colleague the Minister of Forests often praises the work that they’re doing and acknowledges the work of the Lake Babine, the foundation agreement. We really have found a better path together.

The land transfers the member refers to…. The transfers themselves go through the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. Of course, we’re very much involved through the foundation agreement.

Last year my understanding is that 3,000 hectares were transferred. This year there’s work to try and get the full quantum to be transferred. I can’t guarantee that will happen this year, but further questions on that probably should be directed to Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

[6:35 p.m.]

John Rustad: As with the other two requests, it would be great if I could get a briefing from this ministry in terms of their efforts and how this is advancing.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m certainly happy to provide the briefing with staff if the member is able to provide any specific questions or anything in advance, just so that they’re better prepared. That’s always helpful. Certainly happy to work with a member on that question.

It’s in his neighbourhood, but it’s also a success story that more people in B.C. should know about. I know the member has referred that people down in my neighbourhood don’t always know what goes on up in Nechako Lakes, nor do they always know where it is. I think that when you see such successes, I want to tell people about it. That’s a very positive story for reconciliation and just, in general, economic prosperity in that region.

Á’a:líya Warbus: Just looking at the difference in budget and projection for government-to-government and community relations division, I was hoping the minister could give a bit of information on two parts to this question.

One being if there’s a specific line item related to and will there be cuts to local government and regional district negotiations and engagement? The reason I ask the question is because I know — this is specific to Stó:lō Nation and the riding that I represent — that the regional districts are often left with overlaps or different tables that they have to put together or are trying to pull together different nations that may exist in an area.

Although there’s funding from the nation’s side, that same funding capacity and consideration hasn’t always been given to the regional districts and, at times, the municipalities in order for those tables to come together.

With a $1.1 million cut, I’d like to know if there’s a line item specific and if that will also be reducing.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the question and looking at: how do we do this better? I think the answer to the question is that no, the core functions that the member talks about are not going to be impacted.

We have regional offices, so the impact on travel, for example, will not be…. That’s where we’ve focused to find reductions on things like travel, things like office admin expenses, but not in terms of the regional staff that would be there to help answer those questions or help respond.

I think that’s the answer to the question, but maybe the member has something more specific.

Á’a:líya Warbus: It is helpful to know exactly where there has been a limitation and pulling back on the budget and if that’s mainly related to travel. It is a big number in consideration of the amount of work that still lies ahead in order to settle some of the negotiation table strains. Again, I’m speaking more from the MLA for the area that covers part of Stó:lō Nation. But it’s a big area, and there are 30 different distinct bands in that area.

Specifically, I know that through benefit-sharing agreements, there are some funds that are attached to creating an office that helps to facilitate those benefit sharing agreements. That office has had growth, and they are creating revenue through their own corporate arm to be able to infill some of the gaps in funding that exist there.

[6:40 p.m.]

My question is more related to: are benefit-sharing agreements going to see a reduction in funding specifically, as well as the reconciliation agreements, if there is a funding amount attached that went towards reconciliation agreements last year, and where the minister might see that’s going to head for the next fiscal year?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We are funded, and we’re continuing to be funded, to match the signed agreement costs. So there won’t be reductions in signed agreements. Obviously, we have obligations. We’ve made commitments, so those will continue.

I know there’s always a desire for more money, and there’s never enough to meet the objectives in so many ministries. But we work very hard to ensure that the dollar goes out to work in the best way, and that’s where we prioritize looking at things that we could cover ourselves to reduce costs in that way so that it wouldn’t have an impact on those signed agreements. They are very important, and they make a real difference in communities.

I was not quite all the way out the member’s way. But certainly, I’ve seen the benefit and spoken with a number of the local nations, Stó:lō Nations, in the area. I see the real benefit and interest in reconciliation agreements and strategic agreements around ways we can work better together so people can work in a way that, if they’re collaborating, sometimes that cost is lower for each of the individual nations.

They can put more of their resources towards health, towards language, towards youth, towards things that they want to see benefiting their community, as opposed to quite as much focused on: are you responding to the referrals? Are you responding to the demands coming at you from government?

I speak to one of the offices out there, the referral office, which is just doing great work for many of the nations, not all of the Stó:lō Nations, of course, but really important and valuable work.

The Chair: Members, just noting the hour, is it members’ intention to finish this evening?

Á’a:líya Warbus: Yeah. We have just probably one more question, and then we should be very close to wrapping up here.

The Chair: All right. Recognizing the Official Opposition House Leader.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I wasn’t able to get an exact, I think, answer to where the funding dollars may be headed specific to the reconciliation agreements and that work that may be continuing throughout the province.

Moving on, because there’s only so much time left, I’m wondering if the minister could shed some light on some of the advancements for strategic policy tools. That is under programs and partnership division. Again, noticing that there’s a significant cut in the dollar amount that’s allocated through that. That includes work that may be tied to engagement processes with this government’s reconciliation vision.

Just to clarify a little bit, a part of what I’m getting at here is that there are many different nations across…. You’ve stated it. I’ve stated it. I’m very aware of the amount. If the minister could shed light on progress that you’ve made, that your ministry has made, in touching base with all of those nations.

How many have been engaged with on this front, specifically, and the strategic policy tool development and the partnerships as they may be related to the Tŝilhqot’in Supreme Court decision, and moving those nations along towards one of the paths of reconciliation, whether it be reconciliation agreements…? I think a treaty is the ultimate gold standard that we may be shooting for.

[6:45 p.m.]

If the minister could help us understand, with the reduction of dollars in programs and partnerships, as well as the other line item that we were speaking about, the government-to-government and community relations division — that’s a few million dollars. I know every dollar and cent counts when you have to travel around such a big province, to engage with those 200 nations.

Can you shed light on how many you’ve had direct engagement with and where the dollars may be funded for the next year, and how that’s projected and attached to the extent of travel that I know would be involved, to make sure that all of those nations get the same benefit of time from this ministry and to understand exactly where they’re at in that process?

John Rustad: If I could just grab the minister’s attention for a minute, obviously, there was a lot to that question, a lot of detail. I recognize that we are out of time for the day, and I wouldn’t want to go over that.

So with permission from the House Leader, I would request if you could just review Hansard in terms of that and if you can commit to making sure that we get a written response to that. It’s so that you don’t have to give a rushed response and you can give it the fulsome answer that is being asked for.

With that, once again, thank you to the staff and to the minister for the estimates process that we’ve gone through.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m certainly happy to get back in touch with the member, either in writing or, if the member would prefer, a briefing to go through that together. We’re happy to do that, and I think that would be valuable.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I would certainly be willing to have that briefing. I’d love to include our critics, obviously, on that. I think that there’s a lot to make sure that both sides understand the breadth, the scope and the different approaches that there may be to the work that lies ahead. Like I said, every dollar and cent counts, right? Seeing how that’s going to be achieved through the next fiscal year — it would be great to know that, for sure.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m certainly happy to have that. Before the member arrived, we had good discussion with the critics around ways that we can brief each other and try to reduce the tension, answer the questions, be able to do our best and try to be collaborative where we can be, so that there aren’t surprises or mysteries, and so on, as best as we’re able, on a good-faith basis.

Certainly, that’s my intent. I understand from the member that that’s her intent, as well — and the members across the way.

I do want to move that vote, because I see the Chair is ready to go.

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

Vote 34: ministry operations, $70,806,000 — approved.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to my staff. I didn’t do that. Thank you to the great team. Thank you for the questions.

Vote 35: treaty and other agreements funding, $105,072,000 — approved.

Vote 36: Declaration Act secretariat, $4,147,000 — approved.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Hon Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee is now adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.