Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: George Anderson.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix: I want to recognize today members of the Armenian-Canadian community who are with us in the Legislature in advance of our commemoration at noon of the Armenian genocide. I invite all members to join us at that time. It is always an important and moving event.

Joining us today are members of the Armenian National Committee of Canada and the United Armenian Committee of British Columbia. We’re honoured to have with us archpriest Rev. Father Keghart Garabedian, pastor of St. Vartan Armenian Apostolic Church; as well as Right Rev. Vartan Tashjian, pastor of St. Gregory Armenian Apostolic Church.

I would also like to recognize members of the Armenian Youth Federation, including Seza Korajian and Mher Asayan, who will be sharing their reflections today during the lunchtime commemorative ceremony in the Hall of Honour.

I ask all members to join us at noon and also to wish our guests welcome.

Ward Stamer: This morning our caucus welcomed representatives from the Washington state Department of Natural Resources and also representatives of the Truck Loggers Association.

The Department of Natural Resources in Washington has many divisions, including forest practices, forest resources, aquatic conservation, recreational resources and wildfire management.

Will the House please make them feel welcome in British Columbia and in this House.

Dana Lajeunesse: Today I want to recognize the Clements Centre Society, a cornerstone of support in the Cowichan region since 1957.

Clements Centre provides essential, person-centred services for people of all ages with developmental disabilities — strengthening families, fostering independence and building inclusive communities. Through early childhood supports, adult living programs and a deeply holistic approach to care, Clements Centre helps individuals thrive with dignity.

Their work has recently been recognized by Her Honour Wendy Cocchia, Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, who has accepted the role of honourary patron.

Here with us today representing Clements Centre Society are Leslie Welin, board chair; and Dominic Rockall, chief executive officer.

Please join me in welcoming them to the chamber.

Sunita Dhir: Today in the gallery we have my friend and volunteer, Mr. Ali Safdari. Ali is a well-known volunteer among our caucus. He is currently studying political science at Langara College and hopes to transition into something new in the near future. He also serves as a student representative on Langara College’s board of governors.

Ali is joined today by his cousins.

I hope the House will make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I look up, and I have a few friends in the gallery. We have Louise Wallace Richmond and her husband, David Richmond, from Salmon Arm. They are down for UBCM advocacy days.

We’ve had some great meetings so far, and I hope that you enjoy when you’re meeting with UBCM. Their work is so critically important across our province.

[10:10 a.m.]

Of course, we have the mayor of Tumbler Ridge, Darryl Krakowka. He has done so much for his community in such an incredibly difficult time. So it’s really wonderful that all of our caucus has been able to spend time with Darryl this week.

I hope that you’ll make my friends in the gallery feel very welcome.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’re joined in the gallery today by Miles Bisske, visiting all the way from Hope, British Columbia. He enjoyed it so much the last few times that he visited us to watch question period that he has decided to make it an annual appearance. I’m not entirely sure why, but I noticed that this year he is not joined by his family, so I guess there’s some disagreement in that family about whether this is a good place to spend their time.

Would the House please join me in making Miles, at least, feel very, very welcome.

David Williams: It’s not often I have visitors coming from my riding, but I would also like to welcome Salmon Arm councillor Louise Wallace Richmond and her husband, Dave. I certainly hope they have enjoyed their trip, and I certainly hope they enjoy question period today.

Please, everybody, give them a warm welcome.

I would also like to make a second introduction. I would also like to welcome my friend Andrew, better known as Drew Vancouver, to the Legislature today.

Andrew has worked since 1998 as an addiction, alcohol and drug intervention advocate, bringing more than 25 years of front-line experience to this important work. For 21 years, he was contracted with the Ministry of Children and Family Development in Vancouver, where he helped to operate group and foster homes supporting more than 900 placements.

Drew has become well known for speaking candidly about addiction, mental health and homelessness in British Columbia. He has also helped shine a light on the work of the police, firefighters and paramedics, while drawing greater public attention to the challenges facing vulnerable people and the communities around them. He brings valuable front-line insight, deep experience and a strong commitment to public awareness.

Please join me in extending Andrew a warm welcome to this House.

Paul Choi: I’m very excited to welcome my friends from MOSAIC today, if I can get them to stand up for me. MOSAIC is actually celebrating its 50th anniversary. It’s exactly today, 50 years ago, when MOSAIC started, so I’m really honoured to have them here today in the chamber.

We have Olga Stachova, who is MOSAIC’s CEO. We have Susan Trevor, who’s director of finance and administration; David Lee, director of employment, language and social enterprise; Caitlin Johnston, director of MOSAIC community clinic; Payvand Gonzalez, director of people, culture and inclusion; and Vania Ganacheva, manager of executive office.

We know that MOSAIC is doing fabulous work to support our community and help newcomers to our lovely British Columbia settle in and get integrated.

Please, if I can get all the members of the House to make them feel very welcome.

Hon. Randene Neill: It is my honour today to celebrate a constituent, but more importantly, a former colleague of mine. Brian Coxford was first hired to work at good old BCTV back in the 1970s. He was, in fact, Jack Webster’s very first reporter at 9 a.m. precisely every morning, and I know I’m dating myself.

His 45-year career in journalism helped shape government policy over the decades and, really, is a testament to how important journalism is to all of us in this province.

He’s a guy who somehow never ages, but he’s celebrating his 80th birthday this weekend. He is definitely not watching this, this morning — he is likely golfing — but I hope everyone in the House can wish him a very happy 80th birthday.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d like to invite people today to help me welcome two extraordinary guests here on the precinct, Leonard Schein and Barbara Small.

[10:15 a.m.]

Leonard Schein is one of the recipients this year of the Order of Canada, and no surprise. He has contributed so much to British Columbia, not only through his amazing volunteer work through the Canadian Cancer Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and much more but in being a fierce advocate for independent cinema.

Leonard is an extraordinary British Columbian. I’m proud to say he’s been a mentor of mine for many, many years. He’s here with his wife, Barbara Small, whose contribution to our community and her giant heart are anything but small.

Would the House please join me in making them most welcome.

Members’ Statements

National Volunteer Week

Donegal Wilson: I rise today to recognize National Volunteer Week and to celebrate the extraordinary people across British Columbia, especially those in Boundary-Similkameen who give their time, energy and compassion to many groups across B.C.

This year’s theme is “Ignite Volunteerism.” It reminds us that strong communities don’t just happen. They are built by people who step forward to help their neighbours, organize local events, support families in crisis, coach our youth, protect trails, respond to emergencies and keep community organizations running.

In rural communities like mine, volunteers are not simply helpful; they are essential. They are the backbone of our volunteer fire departments, service clubs, agricultural fairs, search and rescue teams, seniors programs and even our community halls. They are the reason small communities remain connected, resilient and welcoming places to live.

Volunteers support nearly every part of our lives in British Columbia. They ensure our families have food on the table. They create opportunities for children to play and grow through sport and mentorship. They welcome visitors and strengthen local economies while supporting neighbours through community and housing services. They also steward our land, water and wildlife; maintain our trails and recreation spaces; and advocate for important infrastructure that helps communities thrive. There are far too many contributions that I can list today, but every one of them matters.

Today I want to thank every volunteer in British Columbia and in the Boundary-Similkameen. Your contributions often happen quietly and often without recognition, but they make a lasting difference every single day.

During National Volunteer Week and throughout the year, I encourage all of us to take a moment to recognize the volunteers in our lives and communities. Please take the time to thank that volunteer when you see one.

To everyone who gives their time and makes our communities better: thank you.

Retirement of Violet Hayes
and Social Services Work

Stephanie Higginson: Today I rise to celebrate the extraordinary career of compassion and giving of Violet Hayes, who is nearing retirement as the executive director at the Island Crisis Care Society. Violet’s career spans decades of caring and service. She began her career in 1991 as a volunteer coordinator for home care services. In 2001, she moved to the Salvation Army where she held numerous positions in many towns across British Columbia. In 2010, she became the manager of Samaritan House before eventually becoming the executive director of Island Crisis Care in 2011.

Throughout her time as executive director, Violet brought patience, compassion and an unwavering belief in the dignity and worth of people — all of this during an unprecedented time of need in our communities.

I witnessed her quiet fierceness during opposition to a community rezoning process for a supportive housing project in Parksville. Violet was steadfast in her work to bring this project to fruition, and it is now a successful 52-unit building, supporting people as they move from struggling to survive to being fully independent. Because of Violet, countless individuals have found safety in moments of fear, and hope when it was often hardest to hold onto.

Violet has not just touched lives; she has saved them. She has done all of this not for recognition, but because she cared. Violet’s legacy isn’t just in the work she’s done but in the standards she has set for what compassion in action looks like.

On behalf of our community, thank you, Violet, for your years of dedication, your quiet leadership and your deep humanity. As you step into retirement, we wish you joy and rest and every opportunity to enjoy the next chapter, knowing that your work has made a lasting difference and will continue throughout our communities. Congratulations, and thank you for all that you have done.

[10:20 a.m.]

Accomplishments of Langley Secondary
School Students and Improv Team

Misty Van Popta: Just this past weekend a group of seven drama students from Langley’s R.E. Mountain Secondary School attended the Canadian Improv Games National Festival.

These seven students won the Lower Mainland regional competition earlier this year and recently jetted off to Ottawa to compete and participate in workshops with 15 other teams from across Canada. This is the eighth time that Mountain has made it to nationals since the early 2000s and the third time for some of these students under the great instruction of Gura Sidhu and UBC student teacher Miguel Thompson.

As a self-confessed drama geek myself, we all know that life often requires improvisation, thinking on our feet and reacting to the situations around us. The R.E. Mountain School’s drama department is teaching those very skills to Langley youth now — valuable skills that these young people will use forever, moving forward.

Not all of these students will enter a career of acting, but I didn’t expect to as a teenager either. Yet in this chamber today is a version of performance and getting our message across to the province. Who knows if any of these students could one day be standing here giving a passionate speech about the accomplishments of their community as well?

R.E. Mountain School is a school of over 2,500 kids in grades 9 through 12. It is a school of excellence in education, with Langley’s only IB program and robust sports and music programs. But most importantly, its students are also winning volunteer of the year awards in Langley township. Special shout-out to Ruo Lee for winning the Pete Swensson award recently.

Agatha, Ava, Geena, Jacob, Landon, Logan and Rylan: winning silver medal in the 2026 competition, which is also your graduating year, is quite an accomplishment, and you should be proud of yourselves. While having fun in an unscripted art form, you are gaining an invaluable skill, setting you up for success.

Keep up the good work, and make sure to invite me out to watch one of your classes. I’m terrible at improv but love to watch students learn their craft.

50th Anniversary of
MOSAIC Immigrant Services

Paul Choi: Today it is a true honour to stand here and celebrate the 50th anniversary of MOSAIC.

Now, for many, MOSAIC is an organization. For families like mine, it was something much more. It was a lifeline. When my family first came to Canada, like so many newcomers, we arrived with hope but also uncertainty — a new language, a new system, a new life to build from ground up.

In those early days, organizations like MOSAIC were there for us. They helped families like mine navigate the basics — how to settle, how to find work, how to understand the systems around us. They provided language support; guidance; and, more importantly, a sense that we were not alone. That matters more than people realize, because settlement is not just about paperwork or employment. It’s about dignity. It’s about belonging. And it’s about giving someone the confidence to say that I can build a life here.

That is exactly what MOSAIC has done for 50 years. They help tens of thousands of newcomers not just survive but succeed — to find jobs; build families; contribute to our communities; and, ultimately, help shape the Canada we are proud of today.

As someone who came from that journey and now having the privilege to serve as MLA, I carry that story with me every day. Because I know firsthand that when we invest in newcomers, we are not just helping individuals; we’re strengthening our entire society.

Today we celebrate not just 50 years of service but 50 years of impact, 50 years of opening doors and 50 years of building belonging.

To everyone at MOSAIC, past and present: thank you. Your work changed my family’s life, and it continues to change countless others’. Congratulations on 50 years of incredible work.

Earth Day and Responsibility
to Future Generations

Jeremy Valeriote: I learned recently that the Haíłzaqv Nation teach the following: “We don’t own the land. We borrow it from our children.”

So for parents, grandparents and caregivers in this House, I have a few questions. Do you want to tell your kids about the old-growth forests that once towered over the land, or do you want to walk amongst them with your families? Do you want to point out where a salmon once ran or to watch them swim upstream together?

Members: do you want to look at a muddy, collapsing moraine or marvel at the beauty of a glacier cascading down a mountainside?

The decisions we make in this House about our natural environment aren’t abstract. We’re in a unique, privileged position here. Our choices become the stories we and our children pass down. This is our legacy, and it may not be realized within our elected terms or even our lifetimes.

[10:25 a.m.]

Many of us in this House are already having these conversations with our families. I encourage all of us to continue dialogue with the next generation about our planet. And if I can put in a plug on the heels of B.C. Book Day, read books with them about our environment and our future.

As we start to see climate change chip away at our natural beauty, we’re also living in an increasingly artificial world, one where the only mountains or forests we see are digital screen savers or wallpaper, where we reach out to AI chatbots in times of crisis. Our old-growth forests, rivers and glaciers, our landscapes, the art we create — these are what inspire us and make us human and what make our home planet beautiful.

If we’re not careful, what replaces this beauty? Will we outsource birdsong to metallic beaks, replace our fish with artificial imitations to replicate annual salmon runs? This sounds like a science fiction hypothetical, but a lot of what we couldn’t imagine even 20 years ago is now coming true. There is risk to our environment and our species when we sacrifice ourselves and our world to convenience and complacency. We risk losing the connection to what is natural, imperfect and alive.

These are warnings, and too often, the voice of the natural world is drowned out or ignored entirely. On Earth Day, our responsibility in this place couldn’t be clearer.

Clements Centre

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Today I rise to recognize the vital contributions of the Clements Centre Society, which has served the Cowichan region since 1957. For nearly seven decades, the organization has provided a continuum of care for children, youth, adults and seniors with developmental disabilities, offering essential support that fosters dignity, independence and belonging at every stage of life.

Clements Centre plays a foundational role in strengthening families and communities. Through early intervention child development services, its child care resources and referral programs, the organization supports parents and caregivers across the region — from Saltair to the Malahat, including Duncan, Chemainus, Lake Cowichan and the surrounding communities — helping ensure children receive the care and opportunities they need to thrive.

Beyond early years supporting, Clements Centre delivers inclusive, personal-centred service for adults, including home-share and staff-lived programs. These initiatives provide safe, supportive environments where individuals can build life skills; participate in their communities; and pursue meaningful relationships, work and personal goals — always with dignity and choice at the forefront.

At the heart of their work is a commitment to inclusion, a vision of community where all individuals are valued and celebrated. Their holistic approach to supporting not only health and the personal care but also education, housing, employment and recreation and a cultural and spiritual well-being, reflecting best practices in developmental services and community-based care….

As demand continues to grow, Clements Centre is advancing a campus-of-care vision, including a new child development centre to expand access to critical services.

Today let us thank the Clements Centre for the support it provides, the help it offers and the inclusive community it helps to build.

Oral Questions

Temporary Housing for Families of
Children in B.C. Children’s Hospital
and Ronald McDonald House Project

Gavin Dew: Kids from all over B.C. come to B.C. Children’s Hospital for specialized care. Every year more than 500 families are forced to find hotel rooms, stay in shelters or even camp in parking lots because there’s not enough space for them to stay close to their sick children.

Ronald McDonald House has already raised more than $45 million for an expansion. The community has stepped up. The city of Vancouver has stepped up. The feds have stepped up. Even the Yukon government has stepped up. But the project is at risk because this government has cut funding.

Will the minister stand up today and commit to reversing this cut?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question and highlighting the incredible role that Ronald McDonald House has played supporting families, particularly those of sick children who find themselves in the situation of having to come to Vancouver or the Lower Mainland to receive the specialized care that they need.

[10:30 a.m.]

The services that Ronald McDonald provides are phenomenal. We know that they have intentions to expand, and they have work underway. It’s important to continue to provide that support for families, continue to work with Ronald McDonald House. I really value the long-standing partnership that we have had with them.

I think everybody understands that currently the province is under some financial constraints. We do consider every proposal that comes forward to us. I continue to maintain that relationship with Ronald McDonald House, continue to work with Ronald McDonald House, to understand the project and the approaches that they’re taking to it, and I’ll continue to extend that commitment.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Gavin Dew: If the minister values the partnership, she wouldn’t leave these people hanging in limbo, begging for support.

These families are coming from all over British Columbia because their child is sick enough to need specialized care. They’re scared, uprooted and far from home, and they feel abandoned by this government.

Will the minister stand up right now and defend $14,000-a-year luxury car allowances for her senior staff while the families of sick children sleep in cars?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member makes the very, very salient point that families need support. That’s why health authorities, that’s why charities like Variety, like Angel Flight, like Hope Air, like Ronald McDonald House work together with government, with government support, to provide that support and funding for families.

We are continuing these programs. Once again, the work that Ronald McDonald House is doing for families across B.C. is a vital part of the system. We greatly value that relationship. We’ll continue the conversation with them and do just that.

Health Care Travel Assistance
and Family Residence Programs

Sharon Hartwell: We know that this government has cut access to the travel assistance program, in secret.

A family in my riding is directly affected by this cut. Their family, like many others from northern B.C., have no choice but to travel long distances for specialized care, something we’ve talked about a lot in this House. Their son is scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy and MRI in Vancouver this May. This involves significant travel, approximately 13 hours, and requires flights, accommodations, meals and time away from work.

To the minister, can she please explain to my constituents and families across B.C. why she is cutting these vital supports?

Hon. Josie Osborne: There have been no cuts to the travel assistance program. This is a vital program that health authorities and the Ministry of Health offer to support people who need to travel for medically necessary services. I encourage any person who needs to access that to reach out, to the established phone lines and email addresses that are published, to work with people to access that support.

In addition to that, we are working urgently to build out hospitals and surgical suites, to bring in new diagnostic technology closer to home, into rural communities, into regional referral hospitals. The upgrades that we have made to hospitals in the North, providing more access closer to home for people, continues to be a strong focus for this government.

I know, myself a rural resident, just how important it is to bring that care closer to home, to support people when they have to travel out for that. That’s why we’re building cancer centres across B.C., again, to build that support for people to have care closer to home.

If the member has a specific case that she would like to bring forward to my office, I welcome that and will happily work with her together on it.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Sharon Hartwell: Well, that’s encouraging news, so I would be happy to have a meeting with her.

We’ve already sent this information to your office. We’ve had this discussion before. This program is not a luxury. It’s a lifeline for families to be with their children. There’s a real risk that children will delay or forgo necessary medical care because their families simply cannot afford the associated travel expenses. This is not acceptable in a province that prides itself on equitable access to health care.

To the minister, will she reverse these cuts today, or does she think it’s acceptable for children to forgo their necessary medical care?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, I want to be very clear. There have been no cuts to the program…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …that the member refers to.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, shhh.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for North Island.

Everybody come to order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Now, if the member is referring to the B.C. family residence program, an important program that supports families who are travelling to get care for their children, I want to be very clear once again. We increased the budget for this program in ’26-27.

I know that there are increased pressures on the program, like we are seeing across programs and services, with the rising costs that are associated with running these programs. Our partners, who deliver these programs together with us, have made difficult decisions, I know.

This is about ensuring that as many people as possible, the people who are most in need, can access this program. The B.C. family residence program was a program that this government brought in, because it didn’t exist before. That is about listening to rural communities, listening to families and working with our partners, to deliver the supports that families depend on. They can count on this government to continue doing that.

Activation of
Aboriginal Affairs Committee

Rob Botterell: Some journalists and politicos, almost always old white guys like me, are wondering who’s in charge in B.C. — us or the First Nations? Well, spoiler alert: section 35 of the constitution is the law. UNDRIP is an international commitment that helps inform section 35, and DRIPA is the roadmap on how to do that work.

Collaboration with First Nations is the law of the land. If you disagree, let me remind everyone in this House that since Calder, First Nations are on a 53-year winning streak in the court. Appealing cases like Quw’utsun and Gitxaała are just delaying, yet again, the work.

One important way to move past denialism and get on with the hard work of reconciliation is through the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Rob Botterell: …a space where this House can come together with First Nations, legal experts…

The Speaker: Member has a question?

Rob Botterell: …and public engagement to move past partisanship and actually make progress.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will the government work with the Greens and Conservatives to reactivate this all-party committee in April 2026?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate the member’s passion and explaining of what the law is and has been since the constitution has been put in place, that every government is subject to in this province. I think it’s informative, certainly for our members across the way that don’t seem to appreciate that.

I will say that we are open to all ideas, and I’ve met with this member a few times. We are now engaging in solutions to the challenge of the Gitxaała decision and how we move forward on reconciliation, as promised.

I think it’s clear to many members that — because of the political rhetoric that has been rooted in misinformation and targeted against Indigenous People and that has been led by the party across the way — we have an issue with making sure that people understand, in this province, that private property rights are not on the line and that we will protect them. We are going to move forward together, lifting all boats, because that’s what British Columbians want.

They want prosperity. They want us to work together to solve complicated problems so we can all move forward together.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental question.

Government Communications on
Indigenous Rights and Reconciliation

Rob Botterell: Unlike most Conservative MLAs, I know the Deputy Premier and Attorney General knows how to read the law. Unlike most Conservatives, she just doesn’t parrot whatever Tom Isaac and Geoff Moyse say.

First Nations do not have a veto. Let me repeat that. First Nations do not have a veto. How do I know this? I also read. In February 2025, the federal court held…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Rob Botterell: …in the Kebaowek First Nation case, 2025…

The Speaker: Member will ask the question now.

Rob Botterell: …Federal Court 319, paragraph 131: “Similarly, in my opinion, free, prior and informed consent is a right to a robust process. As explained above, it is not a veto or a right to a particular outcome. Nor is FPIC absolute…”

[10:40 a.m.]

The Speaker: Member. The member will ask a question now.

Rob Botterell: “…as states may infringe UNDRIP rights in certain limited circumstances.”

My question. To the Attorney General: what is your plan to reassure British Columbians, that First Nations do not have a veto and reassure First Nations that the Crown will act with utmost honour and good faith in this government’s dealings with them?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s always our job to act with honour, to present information to the public, to present when there are challenges that we need to overcome, to make it clear what we’re protecting and how we’re moving forward together. That’s been our approach on this side of the House repeatedly.

Despite the rhetoric and misinformation and the divisive discussion that has been happening led by the party on the other side, including in their leadership race, where they are now debating whether or not to bring in a residential school denier back into their party…. So that’s what’s happening over there.

We’re going to keep solely focused on protecting and ensuring that we move forward together with Indigenous People and all British Columbians to make this a prosperous province.

Government Handling of DRIPA
Concerns and Call for Referendum

Dallas Brodie: DRIPA is one of the most contentious pieces of legislation this province has ever passed, and it’s fair to say that until late last year almost nobody in B.C. even knew about DRIPA and its profound implications for our lives.

The Premier keeps saying that there will be chaos and blockades if we touch DRIPA in any way. So the Premier is basically telling us that we are being held hostage and must submit to these demands in their entirety or else. This represents a shocking lack of leadership. It is astonishing that we are even in this position.

Here’s how seriously unbalanced this whole situation is. Indian lobby groups are lined up on one side of the table, and the NDP government is sitting right alongside seemingly agreeing with each and every demand. It appears that there was no one at the table speaking for the rest of the people in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Dallas Brodie: My question to the Premier is this. While the Premier is cowering before the reconciliation elite, who is at the table advocating for the rest of B.C.? Is there anyone in the room at that table saying no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We work hard for all British Columbians. I know when I got elected, I made a pledge to my constituents, just like all of us New Democrats did, to work hard for the public interest, to work hard to build prosperity, to build equity, to build justice, to fight for affordability, for housing, for public safety. The member knows all that.

We only know about her, though, and her approach to things is she can’t work with anybody. She had a party of two. She couldn’t even work with another person. So she sits alone, trying to bring division, disrepute, to all other British Columbians.

Indeed, when we work with First Nations, we get solutions to prosperity. When we work with homebuilders, we bring down prices of housing. When we work with the police, we improve safety. When we work with mental health experts, we improve the mental health challenges. When we work with doctors, we bring over 600,000 people access to a doctor.

Oh, I know the Conservatives want to root for their friend in the OneBC party because they want her to be one of them. I think that’s shameful. I don’t think there’s any place for residential school deniers in parties in this province, and it’s a shame that they want her to join up with them again. They should be ashamed for what they’re trying to bring back into the public discourse in the House. They brought her in here, now they want her to be their friend again.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Dallas Brodie: If this NDP government is unwilling or too afraid to get rid of DRIPA, then it is high time to let the people of this province do it themselves. I say we have a referendum. As per Elections B.C., a referendum is held whenever the Lieutenant Governor in Council thinks that an expression of public opinion is desirable. It is obvious that we have reached this point. The people of British Columbia deserve to have their voices heard.

My question to the Premier is this: when will he call for a referendum on DRIPA?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member’s constituents are really working hard on their own referendum: recall of that member. So if the member is worried about what the people think and she’s very certain that her constituents would vote a certain way in a referendum, maybe she should offer to resign and run again and see what they have to say about her duty. Because I don’t think she would do very well.

Old Fort Landslide and Peace River
Area Infrastructure and Services

Jordan Kealy: You know, it’s been a little over a year that I’ve been an independent now, and I represent my constituents first and foremost. I have to say it is sick when I see partisan politics. Absolutely sickening.

You should take a look at yourselves and actually focus on the people that you represent.

The Speaker: Member, let’s ask the question.

Jordan Kealy: Yeah, I’m getting there.

This government has spent billions on Site C dam. It’s great to see British Columbians benefiting from hydroelectric power from my region for decades. My region has gotten very little back, even though it makes major contributions to this province.

I currently have people stranded and blocked from their homes in Old Fort because of a landslide that could have been dealt with during the construction phase of Site C. Instead, this government chose not to make any decisions with this community that it directly affected. This isn’t the first time. It’s not the second time. This is the third time this landslide has happened.

This community is blocked off and isolated because infrastructure and transportation are highly underfunded.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Jordan Kealy: My question is to the minister. When is this government finally going to start giving back to my region and fulfil its promises to fix infrastructure like the Taylor Bridge, failing roads, hillsides that are currently crumbling and now falling away and stranding my people?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. I think we had a good meeting in my office the other day on the issue that the member faces.

Just on a couple of the points the member raises, in terms of money going back to his particular region, I’d like to remind him that I was the minister that brought in place the first Fair Share agreement in the northeast in his area so that some of the resource revenues that come from that area actually flow back to his community, and that’s something that this side of the House has continued.

In terms of the slide that he talks about, that is a very challenging situation, as the member does know. It is a 400-metre-long slide in an area that is significantly prone to slides. What we have seen in terms of mitigation…. The member knows that a new alternative route for that particular area would cost probably between $250 and $300 million and would not give a guarantee that it would not be impacted by slides.

What we are currently doing in terms of the situation in the area…. Emergency Management is dealing with the individuals in the 50 homes in that community. At the same time, my ministry is monitoring the slide in terms of getting an understanding of how this particular stage of the slide is moving. It has slowed down somewhat, but it initially was moving at a rate of about 90 centimetres an hour, which is pretty significant and pretty fast.

We continue to do that work. We will continue to meet that member, keep him updated, and I know that we’re meeting with the regional district later today.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Jordan Kealy: I appreciate the meeting, and I thanked you for that before. But it’s promises and promises, and it’s results we’re asking for.

It’s multiple times I’ve brought up about the Taylor Bridge. We actually need something before there’s a drastic hill slide that might actually kill somebody or a bridge that falls down.

Just going home, I actually drive on a road where you drop a foot and then end up climbing a foot. It’s regular for us to deal with, because we have pickup trucks. We’re used to it. That would never exist in the Lower Mainland here. People would just hit it and die.

[10:50 a.m.]

My constituents want actual results. People in rural British Columbia are feeling like they are in a Third World country. Empty promises — Taylor Bridge, endless assessments, cancelled seniors’ Peace Villa facility, failing health care system, cancelling the rural retention program, more continued ER closures and a resource sector with uncertainty.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Jordan Kealy: Promises, promises and more promises, and the system crumbles.

The Speaker: Question.

Jordan Kealy: Soon we won’t even be able to get FOI information from this government and know what’s going on behind the scenes.

My question is for whoever, really, is making the decisions behind this government that is neglecting so many British Columbians. When are you going to commit to governing for all British Columbians and not just prioritizing certain groups?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’d remind him of the significant investment that takes place in all areas of the province, not just in transportation, for example, and the work that is underway right now in terms of the Taylor Bridge so that we can get it to the point where it starts to be rebuilt. That work is currently underway.

A new hospital in Fort St. James is a commitment of this government. The new hospital in Terrace was a commitment by this government. And $195 million in the northwest of British Columbia, in terms of the roads along Highway 37 that’s going to see mines opening up, that’s going to see economic development in the northwest of British Columbia.

All of those things are happening right now and are a commitment by this government to all of British Columbia because we all benefit from that. We’re going to keep doing the work for all of British Columbia.

Government Action on
Extortion Crime in Surrey

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Starting from 2024, since I was elected, I continue to ask when this government will stop extortion violence. Yesterday, again, another shooting in my riding, and 15 shootings this year alone in Surrey — 15.

When will the NDP government provide peace for Surrey families?

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite for the question. Let me be clear. Extortion has no place in British Columbia.

When an incident like we saw in Surrey takes place, this strikes fear in our communities. We have seen a general decline in extortion threats and related violence over the last two months, but when something like this happens, it shows why it is so important that we double down and do not take our foot off the gas in terms of supporting police in their work.

B.C. has, as we know, established the B.C. extortion task force, the largest multi-jurisdictional coordinated police response in the country. We have seen now 19 charges, 25 removals from Canada, thanks to the engagement of Canada Border Services Agency.

One of the recent arrests announced by the task force was done in coordination with the Alberta RCMP, which just shows that the threats of extortion know no bounds. They are taking place across jurisdictions, and that is why the steadfast and coordinated and strong approach of British Columbia is necessary and will continue.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: We don’t need any more lip service. We need action. We need more police in Surrey, equal to Vancouver, because Surrey has the same population.

When will this NDP government provide more police? Give me a timeline. Or is the answer never?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I want to be clear. Extortion has no place in British Columbia, and combatting extortion is our number one public safety priority. The work of the B.C. extortion task force, the work of Surrey police service, the Abbotsford police department — all partners — is making a difference.

There are many investigations underway. We have seen charges brought. We have seen removals from Canada. We have been committed to advocating and working with our federal partners for changes to bail and sentencing reform, changes to immigration laws to ensure that extortionists are not able to exploit loopholes and claim refugee status.

[10:55 a.m.]

We continue to work with all partners, police, with other levels of government to ensure that combatting extortion is resourced and remains our number one public safety priority. We will continue to ensure that we stand with residents, with families, with businesses south of the Fraser who are being affected by these crimes.

Fraser Health Authority Injury Case

Korky Neufeld: It gives me no pleasure to ask this question in the House today. I’ve had numerous discussions with the minister over the last two months, to no avail.

A former elementary school principal in Abbotsford, who’s on disability, is now caring for her husband after he suffered a permanent injury at the Abbotsford Regional Hospital. We all know front-line nurses and staff are overworked. Our hospitals are understaffed. But while under hospital care, he became dizzy. He asked for assistance to go to the bathroom. No one came. He went alone. He passed out, struck his head, and his life changed forever.

A judge acknowledged this life-altering injury happened at the hospital, and now Fraser Health’s lawyers are demanding over $200,000 court costs from this disabled couple, requiring them to sell their home. This is gut-wrenching. It is unjust.

Does the minister think it is acceptable for Fraser Health to force a disabled couple to sell their home to pay for an injury that happened in one of the hospitals under her watch?

Hon. Josie Osborne: First of all, I just want to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation that the member raises.

I do know the member understands that I cannot talk about specific cases. I cannot talk about court cases, particularly in the House. That is why we have been working together as best that we can. I continue to make that commitment to him and to do everything that I can through my office to support him and his work with his constituents.

We all know that anybody who is facing issues with patient care is strongly encouraged to reach out to the patient care quality office at the relevant health authority. There are processes in place.

For anybody facing situations regarding their concerns around that care, that is the proper format to follow.

Surrey School District
Spending Priorities

Linda Hepner: The Surrey school district was promised 99 things by this government, but the highest-paid superintendent in the province wasn’t one of them — half a million dollars last year, car allowance included.

This is the same district that cut busing for kids. That’s how backwards it is under the NDP. The minister is paying for the superintendent to get to work while cutting the buses that kids need to get to school.

My question to the Minister of Finance: why is it acceptable to cover a high-paid executive’s commute while Surrey kids lose their bus ride to class?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. But I am somewhat puzzled, because she’s very concerned about a superintendent with a car allowance, yet when she was mayor of Surrey, she didn’t seem too concerned about the almost $15,000 that she claimed in a car allowance.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. House.

Shhh, Members.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Members. Members, order. Shhh.

Leader of the Official Opposition, the Chair asks you to please be quiet.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Petitions

Lorne Doerkson: I rise to introduce a petition signed by 689 residents of the South Cariboo demanding that the province and the Ministry of Health provide full-time access to the 100 Mile Hospital emergency department in a reliable and consistent manner.

[11:00 a.m.]

Brennan Day: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Brennan Day: I’d just like to introduce my good friend Robert Mulrooney, down from the Comox Valley today. He’s an extremely active community member and philanthropist. We’re trying to twist his arm to put that to good use in the municipal elections.

Please, will the House make him feel very welcome.

Petitions

Steve Morissette: I, too, rise to present a petition — this petition of CUPE and BCTF staff from J.L. Crowe Secondary School in Trail, B.C. They recommend that the government consider a change to the current legislation regarding personal cellular devices. They ask for a stricter and uniform policy across British Columbia to protect students.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued second reading on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Reminding members that the tiny House remains closed.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: We’re going to call this chamber back to order. I’d ask for you to take your conversations into the hallway.

We are going to continue our debate on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

John Rustad: It’s an honour to be able to carry on with the conversation started yesterday around Bill 20. There’s been lots of rhetoric, lots of accusations, and I just want to summarize some of the things I said yesterday before I carry on here.

Treaty is, ultimately, a large form, or the best form you could, of reconciliation. The intent of treaty was to be able to create certainty around section 35, to be able to bring certainty for the people in British Columbia, certainty for the people of a nation like the K’ómoks Nation and to allow them to be able to move forward in a good way as partners with Canada, with British Columbia to building success and building a future for its people. This is the goal that I think should be achieved.

The uncertainty, though, of how this treaty has changed from the other modern treaties that were created is the big issue here. The adoption of UNDRIP as in the language; the fact that UNDRIP is “an authoritative source for the implementation of the treaty”; the fact that UNDRIP itself leaves many, many questions and has created court challenges and issues in this province….

I think, quite frankly, it’s done the People of K’ómoks a huge disservice by this government actually putting it into the treaty. There’s too much uncertainty that has been created there. It doesn’t bring the opportunity and the potential that I know the K’ómoks People would like to see happen.

There’s been lots of debate around the general public being up in arms. You see things like the Quw’utsun decision. You see things like what’s going on with Haida, even the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm agreement. There are so many high-profile issues that many, many people are starting to raise serious concerns.

I look at it and I think: “Okay, so what is this government actually doing? Why do we have Indigenous-only health care? Why do we have Indigenous-only child care? Why do we have these things that, quite frankly, give the opportunity for division in this province?” I understand section 35. I understand the rights. I understand what we need to be doing to repair many of the wrongs of the past.

[11:05 a.m.]

But when you look at it from a lens of the average public looking at it, they kind of wonder and start thinking: “Wait a second here. What about the rest of us?” There are five million people in this province who are not Indigenous. Where are their concerns being raised and thought of?

This government, when it goes and negotiates things like treaty or any other sorts of agreements that it’s done…. It goes and negotiates them, finalizes them, and then they go to the public and inform them. There isn’t an engagement there. You wonder why the public then starts pushing back. To blame a political party for reflecting what’s already been going on in the public, I think, is quite wrong.

When I look once again at this, I understand what the K’ómoks Nation is trying to do. I really do, and I support what they’re trying to do. This is what leaves me with such a difficult decision to make. Do I support a treaty that I know is flawed; a treaty that, quite frankly, is going to create untold problems down the road, so many unintended consequences? Or do I oppose something that I believe is a good thing, particularly for the K’ómoks People and, quite frankly, for the province?

Let’s just take this out and look at what would happen if we had treaties covering all the nations in this province — 204 treaties. Well, the model that is here, with UNDRIP being in place, is a co-governance model or a joint decision-making model. Essentially, that means all decision-makers, the province as well as the First Nation, need to agree, or nothing happens. That is what free, prior and informed consent is being interpreted as in the province of British Columbia.

If all the nations in the province were all treaty nations and the government was now in the situation where it had joint decision-making everywhere, why do we even have a provincial government except to fund the decisions that would, ultimately, be made by the First Nations? There is a line that is being crossed here. There’s a line that’s being crossed in the approach that this government is taking.

What does reconciliation mean? How does reconciliation conclude? You can’t achieve reconciliation if you don’t know what it is that you’re actually trying to achieve. You can’t achieve reconciliation if there isn’t a conclusion, because then it becomes this forever-changing target.

I think the people in British Columbia need to know, and they deserve to understand what exactly this government is trying to do. This treaty, of course, lays out another piece of the vision in terms of how this government sees reconciliation moving in this province.

Why doesn’t this government come forward and actually say what reconciliation does mean? Why doesn’t this government come forward and actually put forward a plan saying: “This is how reconciliation will be concluded in British Columbia”? We need to see that conclusion, I believe, if we want to be able to move forward in a good way.

Now, I look forward to talking to the Chiefs of K’ómoks. I’ve talked with some of the other Chiefs. I look forward to more meetings with the Chief of Kitselas and Kitsumkalum. Because I’d like to know from them: would they be willing to complete these treaties if we were to remove the UNDRIP language that is in them? Is the UNDRIP language the hill to die on? Is it the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Is this the thing that has to be in these treaties?

Because if it doesn’t, let’s sit down and talk about how we remove it so that it isn’t a barrier to moving forward with the success of treaty. This is where we should be going, and this is the question that I have in terms of whether I support this treaty or not.

Are the Chiefs willing, particularly the Chief of K’ómoks, because this is the treaty that we are discussing here with Bill 20…? Is the Chief of K’ómoks willing to consider removing the UNDRIP language from the treaty so that we can move forward with this treaty in a good way and be able to achieve the results that I believe they want to achieve and, I think, quite frankly, people in British Columbia want to achieve in terms of finalizing the reconciliation for the K’ómoks People?

If we’re able to do that, then why don’t we just pause this treaty, get it done, remove that language now and then move forward and complete it?

The alternative, of course, is to have an agreement to renegotiate after the treaty is implemented. But of course, that could take a tremendous amount of time, with untold potential damages from a legal perspective. As we were talking about yesterday, we’ve got a government that is in court fighting against its own legislation of DRIPA, which is the implementation of UNDRIP, and now you’re going to be passing a treaty which brings in a constitutional-level protection and implementation of UNDRIP.

[11:10 a.m.]

It’s going to be used against the government in its own arguments in court, or maybe that’s what the government is trying to do here. Maybe that’s why the government hasn’t brought forward changes to DRIPA, because it knows it wouldn’t stand the test of time with the implementation of these treaties.

There is no question that there are a lot of things we need to do in this province. Economically, we’re in serious trouble. Socially, we’ve got a tremendous number of problems and friction forming. We need to find this path to reconciliation. It is the elephant in the room.

You can’t achieve anything else unless we’re able to find the path forward with First Nations. Treaty is one of those paths that can work, but we need to be able to find a way that all British Columbians can accept. We need to find a way that moves forward and creates those opportunities.

You know, the government says: “Oh, we wouldn’t be able to do this. We’re going to risk all kinds of economic activity if we were to move DRIPA.”

I want to remind people in this House, I signed 435 agreements. Those were mining agreements, pipeline agreements, LNG agreements, agreements for clean energy, agreements for forestry. Those were agreements for all kinds of economic activity, investing billions of dollars in British Columbia — including agreements on Site C, on power lines, on all kinds of activities in this province.

All of that was done without DRIPA. All of that was done without UNDRIP. Surprise, surprise, the world didn’t just start because we’ve introduced this. However, what we have introduced is a tremendous amount of uncertainty.

This government said by doing this we would eliminate or reduce court cases and all of these things because we would have this great relationship. Well, how has that turned out? It hasn’t turned out very well for the people of British Columbia. It, certainly, hasn’t turned out well for the certainty for the people in Richmond that are under the Quw’utsun case. How much more uncertainty and unintended consequences is this government willing to implement on its reckless path of pursuing UNDRIP?

Treaties are an important process in British Columbia. I was very proud to sign agreements-in-principle. I was very proud to be there for celebrating the implementation of treaties. I’ve spoken favourably of treaties for many, many years.

I still am in favour of that form of reconciliation, but I think, quite frankly, in British Columbia, that we need to be thinking even bigger. We need to be looking at what New Zealand has done with the Māori. We need to be thinking about how we approach reconciliation to bring it to conclusion so that we don’t have this ever-changing target.

The only way we’re going to be truly able to unleash the economic potential of this province to solve our budget problems, to solve the problems of health care, to solve the problems with addictions and the investments that we need in safety and fighting crime in this province is to be able to have a strong economy. The only way to do that is to find a path forward to conclude reconciliation so that we can bring the certainty and we can drive the investment that’s needed in British Columbia.

Treaty is one form, but with the way that this treaty is written, with all the uncertainty that is created now because of UNDRIP, I’m just not sure that it’s going to achieve what we are hoping it would be and, certainly, what the promise of treaty was.

The folks in the K’ómoks Nation have waited a long time to be able to do this. As I mentioned yesterday, I remember, after the agreement-in-principle signing, sitting down with them and them doubting whether they want to move forward with the treaty because of some of the challenges that were there. I’m glad to see that they’ve done that.

I’m not certain that what is being put in place is actually going to create what they’re hoping for, particularly with the overlap and the challenges now, the court cases that are going to come forward, the risk now of title being declared within treaty territory. This has created an unbelievable situation in this province.

I think, quite frankly, that any government — any reasonable, rational, intelligent government — would want to say that we need to figure out how this is solved before we move forward recklessly again in this approach of UNDRIP.

With that, I look forward to more of the debate that’s going to come. I look forward to the relationships that are going to continue to need to be built in this province. I look forward, quite frankly, to a day where we can sit down with First Nations and agree on how to conclude reconciliation for the benefit of all British Columbians. Without that, the uncertainty that’s created and the problems and the friction that is building are not going to lead to a good path.

[11:15 a.m.]

I’ll just conclude by saying this. There’s nowhere in the world that has introduced legislation that has created rights for one people and not another that has ended well. We need to find a way to be able to reconcile those different rights and those differences so that we can move forward together. If that means everybody is unhappy, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, maybe that’s the right answer. But right now what we are doing in this province is creating too much friction.

I’ve heard from too many people across this province that are fed up, that are frustrated. They want to conclude this. They want to live well with their neighbours. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike have told me this. We need to find the path to do that.

I hope to see more dialogue happening around these treaties. I hope to see we have that opportunity to remove UNDRIP, because I would dearly love to be in a position to be able to support this treaty.

Thank you for the time to be able to respond to this. I know the folks in my riding of Nechako Lakes care deeply about their neighbours, about First Nations, about finding the solution, but there needs to be solution and not uncertainty that is being created.

Susie Chant: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act, something that gives me joy — joy that was reflected in the Hall of Honour on the day this bill was brought to the chamber.

Before I start, I acknowledge that I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm Nations.

When I’m at home in North Vancouver–Seymour, I work, learn and live on the territories of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations.

I am always grateful for the opportunity to learn and practise the work of reconciliation and commit to continuing that ongoing process. These acknowledgements that I do each time I speak serve to ground me in the ever-present work that our government has started and maintains in strengthening relations with the First Nations of British Columbia.

As has been indicated already, this treaty is a result of three decades of focused and maintained effort by the people of the K’ómoks Nation, the province and Canada, and I find it very difficult when people characterize that work as reckless. I find it very difficult when people try to second-guess the work that the nation, the province and the country have done together over 30 years to bring this to fruition. They have created a treaty that reflects the living and evolving relationship between the three entities.

When fully ratified, a treaty becomes a series of constitutionally protected agreements that support strong community, benefit the First Nation and the surrounding regions and continue to move forward on the path of reconciliation — a reminder that treaties are meant to be able to evolve over time to reflect current state and to support the union of the entities, rather than continue to foster division.

Among the range of benefits included are the following: predictable relationships; recognition and strengthening of partnerships; and providing a reference framework that promotes clarity in decision-making, which in turn promotes a strong future for all of British Columbia.

The treaty will also reinforce recognition of the inherent rights of the First Nation, including that of self-determination. This results in a move from the imposed band government model of the Indian Act to that of government authority for all citizens of a treaty nation on treaty land.

Other benefits that have been enjoyed through the identification of shared priorities are things such as improved overall community health; enhanced services that make life easier; new investments and improved community prosperity; more sustainable jobs that provide a decent income; support of the ongoing land, water and resource stewardship. The certainty and stability that is brought about by treaty promotes a continued growth of these benefits.

The other thing that cannot be overstated is the empowerment of the nation to continue the work of, once again, embracing their culture, heritage and language and all of the strength that comes when a nation sees its future in its own hands and in its own children.

[11:20 a.m.]

I have outlined some of the benefits of the treaty process in realigning First Nations as those who will determine their own outcomes and make their own decisions about their own affairs.

Now let’s talk about some of the other positive impacts. Increased certainty can be established by all British Columbians related to treaty land ownership and governance. Shared decision-making, economic benefits and resource revenue sharing are all advantages that will be garnered as treaties are established.

For all these reasons and because this is the next step in ratifying an agreement that has taken 30 years to come to fruition, and it was ratified by the people of K’ómoks Nation in March of 2025 with a significant voter turnout, I strongly support Bill 20 as the next step in the completion of the K’ómoks treaty.

Tara Armstrong: It is with a deep sense of honour, duty and gravity that I rise to express my profound concerns about the proposed K’ómoks treaty. I urge my esteemed colleagues to vote against Bill 20, which would ratify and constitutionalize this fundamentally misguided agreement.

First, this treaty expands Indigenous claims. It does not settle them. A treaty is meant to bring finality. This one does the opposite. It expressly admits to the existence and ongoing force of Aboriginal title. The document describes itself as a living agreement with mandatory periodic renegotiations and amendments. Far from extinguishing Aboriginal title claims as it should, this agreement keeps the coals burning so that every breeze that blows from the court or another negotiation table will revive K’ómoks claims and spark new ones.

Even worse, this treaty expands these rights and the uncertainty they create. How? Through the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, whose objective and anti-Canadian claims are directly embedded into this treaty. Yes, the same UN declaration that this NDP government gave the force of law with in this province in 2019 and the same law which the Premier himself now admits is an existential threat to British Columbia.

On its very first page, the treaty affirms UNDRIP and recognizes what are described as inherent rights to land, law-making authority and governance powers within a large geographical area of Vancouver Island. These are the kinds of powers ordinarily reserved for sovereign nations, but they are being given to a group of approximately 350 people, only 100 or so of those that live on the reserve. A group this size is more of an extended family than a local government, let alone a sovereign nation.

Our government is preparing to grant them a broad array of national governance powers over a region that is roughly 7,000 square kilometres in the heart of the Comox Valley with approximately 70,000 non-Indigenous residents. With all due respect, granting the powers of a sovereign nation-state to an extended family group is absurd.

Furthermore, embedding UNDRIP into a treaty undermines any legal certainty that a treaty might otherwise bring. It is legally schizophrenic to recognize broad, undefined, inherent and thereby inalienable rights on the one hand while purporting to define, limit or settle Indigenous rights on the other, which is what this treaty does. This double meaning invites Chiefs and their lawyers to claim in the future that, while their Aboriginal rights may have been limited by the treaty, their UNDRIP-inspired inherent rights can be retrieved whenever they feel like it.

[11:25 a.m.]

In addition, this treaty does not even bar new court challenges. K’ómoks retains the ability to challenge permitting decisions where it says consultation has been inadequate under the treaty framework. These consultation processes won’t even provide fixed, fast or final timelines for business and resource developments in this province.

In sum, this treaty provides no certainty whatsoever. In fact, it doesn’t even attempt to reconcile the K’ómoks band with the historical reality of Crown sovereignty. On the contrary, it promotes UNDRIP’s blood and soil theory that people with Indigenous ancestry have their own inherent rights, based upon what are described as inextricable links to the land.

That is why the first page of this bill says that British Columbia must reconcile the past presence of Indigenous People with the assertion of Crown sovereignty. But as recognized by the trial judge in the Delgamuukw court case, British sovereignty was not merely asserted; it was undeniably established.

Sovereignty was established not through violent conquest, as in other parts of the world, but through the orderly extension and adoption of British laws, settlement and institutions across this entire province. Crown sovereignty within British Columbia was unquestioned for over 100 years. Indigenous inhabitants were adopted by the Crown as subjects and supplied with food, medicine, education and economic opportunities.

It is true that colonial authorities entered a few treaties from time to time to facilitate settlement, but Canadian governments, at all times, welcomed Indigenous individuals to become full and equal subjects of the Crown through the process of enfranchisement. The good and honourable objective was to grant them all the rights enjoyed by all other citizens, regardless of racial ancestry. Enfranchisement offered the path out of the Indian Act and its racial isolation from broader society.

Tragically, this treaty would prolong the regrettable forms of race-based governance that prevail under the Indian Act, only this time with the power of UNDRIP. It entrenches a form of Indigenous racial supremacy, granting peculiar and additional rights not belonging to other Canadian citizens.

Even so, many tribes vehemently oppose this treaty process. The uproar we see now from neighbouring groups proves the point. They say that these treaties before the House impinge on their own demands for sovereignty. We now have threats of blockades and other civil unrest as a result. Clearly, modern treaties are not a path to peace, stability or progress.

These treaties have enraged neighbouring tribes, but how should the British Columbian taxpayers feel? They should be angry too. This treaty is a terrible deal. We already know that it fails to provide legal certainty by extinguishing Aboriginal title. Nevertheless, it grants large and ongoing wealth transfers as if it did.

B.C. taxpayers get nothing, but they pay anyways. This includes an upfront payment of $70 million in cash; various forest licences and tenures; a commercial fisheries allocation; subsurface mineral rights; taxation powers; and additional agreements with B.C. regarding natural resource revenue, which are not included in the treaty itself.

Nowhere in this treaty or the bill before the House has the government provided even an estimate of the total economic value of the cash, the land and other wealth being transferred from British Columbians to the K’ómoks band council. Nowhere. We have no idea what this treaty will cost. Is it $250 million? Is it $500 million? Is it $1 billion? More? We don’t know, and this government over here — they won’t say.

[11:30 a.m.]

What does this treaty accomplish for the 350 individual K’ómoks band members? Let’s ask that question.

Treaties are supposed to replace the dysfunctional system of Indian Act reserves, which require federal government micromanagement and which do not give individual band members the right to own their own private properties. On an Indian reserve, members are treated as wards of the federal government, which holds the title to the land in trust for the band. The band council typically has a lease arrangement whereby it manages the rental properties occupied by individual members. Land cannot be held in fee simple. Private property cannot exist.

But the K’ómoks treaty does not solve this problem either. What it does is dictate that Indian reserve lands will be transformed into K’ómoks lands. These lands are not distributed to the members directly in the form of private property. They are given to the band council to control. There are no guarantees that members will ever have the right to own their own homes — ever.

This treaty just swaps one form of government-controlled housing with another form of government-controlled housing. What it does is give more rights to the K’ómoks band government, not its members.

Why do treaties give rights to band elites and not band members? It’s because our governments and our courts have been captured by anti-Western, UNDRIP-inspired theories of inherent collective rights, including laws, law-making authority and legal systems.

There were, of course, no written laws when Europeans first arrived along the west coast of B.C. There was no writing at all, in fact. No recorded history. No way to verify which tribe had conquered another for the time when prior inhabitants struggled for control over these lands after having arrived from the Bering land bridge 10,000 to 15,000 years prior.

Deputy Speaker: Apologies to interrupt. Recognizing the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Elenore Sturko: I rise on a point of order, but I’m willing to wait until the end of the speech, if that’s preferred.

Deputy Speaker: That would be appreciated.

Tara Armstrong: What you had was intense competition for resources and a brutal struggle for survival. You had tribal warfare, night raids, captives taken as slaves, children traded away, even cannibalism. The establishment of Crown sovereignty and the inclusion of Indigenous People into Canada ended this era of brutality.

One thing many people do not understand, possibly some members in the House, is that when UNDRIP, or a treaty like this one, gives rights to Indigenous governments, it is taking rights away from Canadian citizens. The Chiefs get stronger; the people get weaker.

Finally, Aboriginal title is not only a denial of the gracious inclusion of Indigenous Peoples within the Dominion of Canada as full and equal subjects of the Crown. It is also an obscene demand, a demand by unelected bodies to be elevated above our Constitution and placed beyond the reach of our democracy. It has no place in Canada or in any Western nation.

The only kind of solemn agreements that the legislators who first stood in this House would expect us to entertain and the only constitutional instruments that we should now consider are those which seek to perfect the legal union of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians, agreements which provide Indigenous people with the same responsibilities and opportunities as all of us, as fellow Canadians.

That will include a full abolishment of the Indian Act and its system of racially segregated reserves; the full abolishment of Indian status and all other forms of racial distinction; the full abolishment of Aboriginal title, which has wreaked havoc on British Columbia’s economy, undermined confidence in our heritage, laws and institutions and, ultimately, served no other purpose than to empower Chiefs and other reconciliation industry elites.

We should recommit ourselves to the true pursuit of the well-being of all Native People, something that our honourable founders have endeavoured to do since the earliest days of contact.

[11:35 a.m.]

We must urge our elected governments to pursue constitutional paths forward towards the full and final inclusion of Indigenous people as proud British Columbians and as equal citizens of the great Dominion of Canada.

Elenore Sturko: I rise on a point of order.

I was actually watching the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream in my office when I heard her, quite offensively, refer to the ideology of blood and soil, which was a key piece of Nazi ideology.

I find this extremely offensive. I would ask that Mr. Speaker have the member withdraw that comment. It should never be used in this chamber, let alone used to describe the inherent rights of Indigenous People in British Columbia. Disgusting.

I am also wanting to raise a point of order on the fact that this member has spread misinformation about Indigenous People. She said that they had no history. She said that they did not have any laws. This has, of course, been disproven by the expression of Indigenous culture, multiple court cases and multiple learnings and teachings by Indigenous people here in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member. I appreciate your comments. I feel like that is a matter of debate between members here and won’t adjudicate on this today.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Just on the point of order, I appreciate the Chair’s ruling.

I just would, also, remind people, though, that certain comments do have particularly nasty connotations. If members are mindful of their comments in terms of debate, I think it would be appropriate, because comments such as blood and soil and Nazi Germany are pretty inappropriate.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. I appreciate the House Leader’s comments.

Amna Shah: It’s an incredibly dark day here at the B.C. Legislature. I never thought that I would hear such disgusting rhetoric from the member from Kelowna….

Deputy Speaker: Member, is this a point of order, or are you…?

Amna Shah: I’m about to signal my support for the treaty act.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Amna Shah: To be clear, hon. Speaker, I’m rising to speak in support of the K’ómoks Treaty Act, if that’s okay.

But before I begin there, it’s important that we recognize truth in this chamber. It’s pretty deplorable for me to hear the revisionist history of this province, of this country, the dehumanization of a People who have been harmed for generations, the erasure of the struggle, the pain, the continued dehumanization of a People. I applaud the point of order that was made in this chamber.

But all of this is so relevant to the discussion, the debate that we have here today, because I’ve heard all sorts of weird perspectives around what this treaty act actually does in this province.

This legislation here does not represent just a critical step in the ratification of this treaty but a clear and necessary step forward for reconciliation, for certainty, for economic prosperity, for community, for unity, for the prosperity of this province, for everybody — for everybody.

[11:40 a.m.]

We know this because there are members, even across the way, who have said what certainty brings to this province. It brings unity. It brings compassion. It brings care. It brings prosperity. It brings all of those things.

I just want to say very plainly: when we have harmful rhetoric in this chamber that is then broadcast into our communities, as though the member there made a point…. Let’s be very clear. That’s not what the history of this province and this country is, and we cannot get anywhere into the future when the truth does not matter.

I’m sure that if there are people who are watching, this must be quite triggering for them. I do have to state that the majority of the members in this House would never share those opinions and would ensure that they can do everything in their power to protect British Columbians, and that includes Indigenous people. They are a part of British Columbia. They always have been, and they always will be, and nothing is going to change that.

The question which is relevant in the debate here is whether we are going to choose a path of cooperation, of collaboration, clarity or we are going to rely on the same type of rhetoric that the member before me spewed in this House, which was one of conflict, dehumanization, erasure and more conflict — to pit people against each other, to divide our communities, to make us think that somebody is out to get us. There is nobody out here to get us.

The rights of Indigenous People are constitutionally protected. Let that sink in. This treaty does not give them special rights. They have always been there, and it is our duty to respect those rights, because that is law. If we can’t respect law in this chamber, then we do not deserve to be in this House. We do not deserve to serve British Columbia when we cannot respect the law of this country.

The K’ómoks treaty — it’s the result of decades of reconciliation, decades of cooperation, collaboration. When the members say, “Well, this is too rushed….” It’s 30 years — 30 years of collaboration, of respecting the history of this province, of respecting the Peoples who were here before us. It’s 30 years, and it’s endorsed by them. Who are we to say that’s not long enough?

It was agreed upon. It is agreed upon. Importantly, this agreement has been endorsed by the people it affects the most. We always hear about individuals in our communities saying: “You can’t make decisions about me unless I’m at the table.” It applies to every single community in this province. I say the same thing, which is why I chose to run for public office. It’s because I recognize the dangers and the harms that can happen when people like me are not represented in places like this.

We strive, on this side of the House, to respect that we cannot make decisions about people without their input — again, a basic principle of this House, of this democracy, that seems to keep being attacked by certain members of this House.

[11:45 a.m.]

Where does this come from? It comes from this superiority complex that somehow, “I deserve more than somebody else. It’s my right to infringe on the rights of others. Why? Because of this grand history,” which, by the way, is pretty false, as was presented. “It’s something that I like to believe, because it somehow helps my fragility in this province.” But we’re not going to do that here. We’re not going to do that.

This treaty act, this treaty specifically, is self-determination in action. All Indigenous Peoples in this province deserve to be at the tables when decisions are made about them. As I said, treaties provide clarity. They define rights, responsibilities, processes. They actually reduce the risk of lengthy court battles, costly court battles. And really, they give communities, they give businesses, they give governments…. They give them a stable plan for the future.

Again, back to basic values of humanity. When you collaborate with others, when you respect them, when you give the space for them to be taken seriously, chances are they’ll probably work with you.

Isn’t dignity what everybody deserves? How do you give people dignity? You really can’t. Dignity comes as a result of the way in which you engage with others, the way in which you treat people. These concepts are not something that’s like an award that you give to somebody, and now, suddenly, you have dignity.

Everybody has dignity in this country. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity. When we have things that are said in this House, the how, which is to harm people, that doesn’t just take away the dignity of some people; it takes the dignity away from everybody — everybody.

It’s sad. I had this speech prepared, but I was just at such a loss from what I was hearing. I keep thinking to the specific parts of this treaty act, and I can’t help but think that we don’t even have the basics right in this House — the basic values of what makes us human.

I can’t believe I’m addressing that in this chamber, in 2026. It’s shocking to me, but you know what? I’ve heard some pretty outrageous things in my life, and this is no different. So the battle continues. The battle for decency continues. The battle to encourage people to care for each other continues. The battle to ask people to be able to see one another just as equals continues. So we will do that. I will do that. And I know members on this side of the House will certainly do that.

As I mentioned, modern treaties recognize pre-existing rights. They’re not going to be born once this passes. And modern treaties do not extinguish rights. They set out how those rights are exercised in a way that works for everybody. They establish self-government. They replace outdated structures, which we know are harmful and which were imposed under the Indian Act, with governance systems that are designed by First Nations themselves.

Despite the previous member’s comments that there’s no history and there were no rules and there were no laws, there was, there is, and there will be. It’s important that we lay the foundation for that to be able to happen in this province.

[11:50 a.m.]

Again, this does not create special rights. These rights are recognized in section 35 of the constitution — constitutionally recognized.

Under this K’ómoks Treaty Act, the nation will have law-making authority over its lands; resources; key areas such as education, child welfare, language, culture. It will affirm K’ómoks lands and stewardship that reflects both environmental responsibility and cultural knowledge.

We talk about culturally sensitive services in all of our communities. Every constituency is different. Every constituency has different demographics, different percentages of different demographics, and I think all of us strive to ensure that those populations are serviced in appropriate ways.

I’ll give you an example. We talk about culturally sensitive health care, culturally sensitive mental health care, because we know that in some communities, mental health care should be approached in a different way compared to others. It’s not because we’re somehow giving people special treatment. No, it’s because it works. It benefits everybody when we can solve problems. There’s a simple purpose for those things. It’s to solve problems, the issues that exist. I mean, I don’t know what the saying is, but you can’t keep prodding at the same thing when it doesn’t give you anything, so really, it makes sense.

What is the issue, then, with trying to lay the foundation so that the K’ómoks First Nation can develop and have authority over key areas, such as child care, child welfare, language, culture? All of these things matter in the broader context of this province, so this benefits more than just one community.

We’ve seen across British Columbia that modern treaties, which are living documents, deliver real, measurable outcomes. They lead to stronger economies, higher wages, better partnerships between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities. We’ve seen that it works. They attract investment. They create jobs. They support housing development, infrastructure. They foster stability, not for the short term; for the long term. That’s why they need to be living documents. It’s not a one-and-done thing. I mean, there’s not a single law in this province that can’t be amended, that can’t be changed.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

As a matter of fact, it’s healthy. That is what we need to do, because times are a-changin’. If we’re going to battle for equal rights continuously in 2026, we also have to be able to respond to changing times, and this does nothing different.

Noting the hour, I move to adjourn debate, and I would like to reserve my spot.

Amna Shah moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Point of Order

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Earlier today in these chambers, we heard the member from Kelowna, Lake Country, say some quite extraordinary things. It wasn’t an error in language as she spoke. She read it from her prepared notes. Not only did the member draw on a known Nazi slogan that we know has been employed by hate groups in our country but also made reference to Indigenous Peoples having been cannibals.

I know that there are protected rights for people to speak in this House, and rightfully so, but hon. Speaker, I appeal to you to please review these specific things that were said. This member is drawing on old views that people were portrayed as savages.

[11:55 a.m.]

This is very carefully chosen language that this member is using. If this member said these things outside of the chamber, we would see them as a bigot and a racist. We have to identify the line of what we accept said in this chamber, hon. Speaker. Please review it.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. The Chair will take that under advisement, and we will review the Hansard proceedings and everything. Thank you so much for raising it.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Brenda Bailey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Energy and Climate Solutions
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are currently considering the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $89,684,000 (continued).

Hon. Adrian Dix: I endeavored to get some information for the members from yesterday. The member had a question about head count in the ministry. The head count was 377 in 2025-26. In 2026-27, it’s 365. That’s a change of minus 12.

I make the point of why FTE is a better method of assessing workforces. Head count would be one. But if a person had a 0.25 job — in other words, a part-time job — that counts as 0.25 in FTEs, and that’s the reason for the differences in the numbers. I said yesterday that the FTE burn has gone from 356 in the same period to 314, or a change of 42.

The member had some questions about tier 2 billing and tier 2 consumption. I’ll provide an update today. So 35 percent of households never hit tier 2 in any billing period of the year, and 42 percent of households hit tier 2 in some billing period of the year.

The remaining 23 percent of households are in tier 2 in all billing periods. These households are benefiting the most if they choose to move to tier 1 and are benefiting over time in the next five or so years as tier 2 is held flat and eventually eliminated once tier 1 catches up as those rates increase.

That is some of the information that the members sought. What I would endeavour to do with my friend from Peace River South is I’ll share with him, perhaps offline over the lunch hour, some information around permitting times that he had raised, so I won’t take up the somewhat limited time during this session with what is a longer analysis. But I’ll be happy to share information.

Larry Neufeld: Upon reflection last evening, it was apparent to me that I may have misspoken yesterday, and I’d like to clarify with the minister this morning. I mistakenly used the word “whitewash” when it came to potentially bringing in outside energy, and “whitewashing it,” I think, was the term that I ultimately landed on — using Site C as a whitewash for that energy.

Obviously, the correct term — and I do apologize for that — was greenwash. My understanding of the minister’s response yesterday is, no, that Site C would not be used to whitewash, in my terms. I’m just asking for clarification on the record that in no way will Site C be used to greenwash energy.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, Site C isn’t washing in any colour.

Larry Neufeld: That’s a good start.

With respect to the Yahey decision, getting back to something, again, a little bit closer to home for me…. The investment uncertainty that that decision has created in northeast B.C., certainly, has created a certain significant concern for companies and for families. I do know, for a fact, that a fair number have left and gone to Alberta.

My clear suggestion is that that was due to investment certainty and creating more jobs. My question to the minister is: what is this government doing to provide industry and communities in northeast B.C. certainty that an additional Yahey-type disruption will not happen again?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the answer is to do the work that we all need to do together. I, yesterday, took the member through — and it’s on the record, but he’ll remember — the very significant increases in natural gas production over the last number of years, since, I would say, the Yahey decision. That’s not to minimize the impact of that decision and the work that has to be done to address it.

As the member will know, the government also signed an implementation agreement with the Blueberry River First Nations and a significant number of other actions. Over the last year, I’ve met repeatedly with Treaty 8 First Nations all together — all of the nations, who are also, of course, the member’s constituents and important people in the region — to address these issues, not just with one First Nation but with all First Nations in the region, which is an important issue for First Nations in the region.

For example, we’ve achieved, I think, success on restoration funding for all First Nations, not just one First Nation. That’s important for the future of natural gas in the region and reflects the work that we’ve done with First Nations. I’d just say more production, a strong relationship with the natural gas industry. We’ve got an extraordinary resource. More outlets, and I think the potential of LNG for the region to increase wealth not just for the region but for British Columbia as a whole….

I’d say, finally, that it’s a challenge for us — and it’s an important challenge that I set for us, for the government and everyone else — that when we do LNG in B.C., it would be B.C. natural gas that’s used.

That increases the value to our province. It means that the royalties paid on that natural gas are paid here in British Columbia to support health care and education and all the services that we continue to have and that we have in our province, which are so important to the member and to me. When we are building a new hospital in Dawson Creek, that’s related, and we have to recognize that that’s related to economic development and growth.

I don’t quite accept the characterization. Obviously, the Yahey decision had a profound effect, and we’ve responded to it. We’ve clearly got to continue to engage with Treaty 8 First Nations, I would say, all of whom have their own interests in economic development, in restoration, in community-led restoration companies, and so on. We’ve got to continue to do that work, continue to do our work with the industry to reduce the delays in times, and I think the B.C. Energy Regulator has done that, and that’s reflected in its response to permitting and its work in the region.

I think all of those things reflect the positive response we’ve had. It’s hard work to work with communities, but I think what all of those communities…. All those Treaty 8 nations are, by definition, part of the community as well, and working with them more closely and connecting the community with the industry and achieving the successes we’ve had in terms of production and resource revenues for the province and for Treaty 8 First Nations is a significant thing.

We’ve got to ensure that happens, because I believe, with respect to the industry, the next 20 to 30 years are going to be critically important for the region, for Treaty 8, for the industry and for the province.

We have to drive forward, and that’s what we’ve been attempting to do every day, methodically. I spend more time working on the issues of the upstream, as we call it, than any other part of the energy portfolio, because those are the significant issues that we’ve seen.

I won’t repeat, but I could, the success we’ve had in terms of production, a 29 percent increase — which I said yesterday, and I won’t go through the detailed numbers — since the Yahey decision and considering the impact of that decision.

It was real. Let’s acknowledge in this room that it was real. It’s a significant decision. It’s a court decision. You have to deal with it. You can’t wish it away. I think that the 29 percent increase in production over that period is a reflection of the work that has been done, including by Treaty 8 First Nations.

[11:15 a.m.]

I’d say, finally, it’s not inevitable. We have to continue to work every year and every day to ensure that the restoration is taking place, takes place; and that the permitting and the industry’s growth — on which many depend, including many in the region and Treaty 8 First Nations — is achieved.

Larry Neufeld: I’ll maybe simplify my question. I’m looking for concrete steps that the province is taking or has taken to prevent a similar decision.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Concrete steps, I think, are important. The member talked a little bit about the number of wells authorized on Crown land against private land yesterday. I’d just say that the relative numbers, if you look at the time since the decision…. I’ll just give a couple of years, because 2026 is obviously partial. In 2023, just after the decision, 66 percent of wells authorized were on Crown land. In 2025, that number was 65 percent, effectively unchanged, I’d say to the member for Peace River South.

If you look at the wells authorized in 2023, just after the decision, it was 701 on Crown land. The number authorized in 2025 was 842 on Crown land. On private land, the number went up as well, so the proportion stayed exactly the same. I think that’s an important demonstration of the work, not just of the energy regulator but of Treaty 8 First Nations and of the industry, which I think has responded by truly engaging with First Nations in the region.

With respect to Treaty 8 First Nations, the restoration dollars that I referred to are significant over time — half a billion dollars needed over time. And the fact that we’ve arrived at agreements after quite a period of talk is a significant thing which will also create jobs in the community as restoration companies on the land perform their work and develop their expertise. It’s an extraordinary wealth for Treaty 8 First Nations but also for others.

We’re, obviously, working with a number of First Nations on cumulative effects in the region, and that’s important. Whenever I go to the member’s riding or to Fort St. John, I hear that from First Nations communities, yes, but also the community as a whole, which is, obviously, interested in that.

Obviously, we are developing and working with First Nations, engaging with them on the issue of revenue sharing. That exists now, but we’re rolling over agreements year into year. I would rather see stability in that period — so ten-year agreements and not one-year rollover agreements, which don’t demonstrate that need for stability — on revenue sharing; and, finally, on land use planning, which is necessary for all First Nations to simplify processes, on the one hand, and also to address long-standing issues.

So doing the work with First Nations, doing the work with industry, and in the meantime, achieving some real successes…. I really pay tribute to the nations, to the communities, to the industry, to the BCER and to the ministry for working together under circumstances that just changed with the Yahey decision. We have to acknowledge it.

But if you were to look at those numbers — the relative number of Crown versus private and the overall numbers, which have gone up — significant work has been done, because the real work is the day-to-day work on getting things done in a way that’s satisfactory for everybody concerned. That work has really been done in an exceptional way by the B.C. Energy Regulator and by First Nations.

Larry Neufeld: Is there a written cohesive plan or strategy toward addressing the question of preventing a similar decision, something that I could review?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The plan is action. So on restoration, the plan was to put…. There are long-term restoration agreements which are instrumental to First Nations. Do that work and fund that work and start that work to see restoration plans in each First Nation.

The next step with First Nations is revenue sharing and having long-term agreements for revenue sharing, which have a significant effect.

[11:20 a.m.]

Thirdly is to address issues like the healing land program issues, which we’re doing both with industry and engaging with First Nations.

Fourthly, it’s providing stability on issues of royalties. The member and I have talked about this. We’re working on that issue now with industry and, of course, with First Nations and with others to ensure those things.

Finally, of course, the land use plan.

You’ve got to take each issue and push it forward. One of the ways we’ve done that is the exceptional work of one of our public servants, Viva Wolf, who is well known in the region because she spends time there. Her responsibility is for northeast initiatives. Viva lives in the Interior. She understands the Interior. I think everybody, both in the industry and in First Nations, understands her role and the outstanding work she did.

I think from our perspective, having decision-makers at the table engaging all the time, whether it’s Michelle Carr and her team at the BCER or Viva Wolf or Peter Pokorny, the deputy minister…. We are repeatedly there. Recently Mr. Pokorny and Ms. Wolf were in the region for six days. I’ve been in the region multiple times. We are engaging on the ground, and the evidence of success, because we know what the tasks are, is happening step after step.

I prefer success in action to grand plans, but those are the elements of it.

Larry Neufeld: I’m going to take that answer as a no, and please correct me if I misunderstood. I’m not arguing at all with what’s been illustrated, without question.

The minister did mention the Blueberry implementation agreement. As I understand, that agreement included a disturbance cap set at a level that resulted in half of what industry needed in the past with respect to land access north of the Peace River. I further understand that this cap was supposed to be an interim cap, but it is still in place. My question to the minister is: what is the government’s plan to remove the cap so that industry can get back onto the land that it needs to develop?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, it’s our perspective that caps are transitional and what is required is land use plans. That’s the direction we’re going, and that’s the work we’re doing both with the Blueberry River First Nations but also all First Nations in the region.

Larry Neufeld: I can appreciate the perspective of that answer. From the perspective of industry, they would be looking for a timeline and a level of certainty. Can we provide something?

Hon. Adrian Dix: On all these issues, industry is, of course, involved in our work every day, both the work led by Mr. Pokorny and Ms. Wolf and also the work done by the B.C. Energy Regulator. The record of success is reflected in the actuals that we produce together.

I understand, exactly, what the industry wants because I’ve repeatedly met with the industry on these issues and what they’re looking at. It’s our view, as I’ve said, that the caps are transitional. We’ve got to do the work, especially the work around land use planning, which balances economic and ecological considerations which are important to Treaty 8 First Nations but the whole region as well.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s that long-term perspective — long-term decisions on deep-well credits, long-term decisions on royalties, long-term decisions on revenue sharing, long-term decisions on land use plans — and making repeated progress. It’s not showy. It doesn’t lead to press conferences. But it’s the work we need to do together.

Larry Neufeld: I can appreciate that there’s this tremendous amount of work involved, without question, and I really keyed in on the minister’s comments with respect to the word “long-term.” Is there any possibility to put a number on that, an estimate — three years, five years, 12 months?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just think, clearly, as well…. You see this, especially, in the work of the B.C. Energy Regulator or the ministry. We work to ensure that industry has flexibility in the moment as the caps exist in that area. We’re looking, actively working, starting, doing the work day to day on the longer-term solutions.

We’ve seen the success of that approach with restoration agreements. We’re going to see, I believe soon, the success of that approach with HLER, the success of that approach with revenue sharing and so on. Overarching all that is the need for land use planning, which will provide the certainty that everybody needs — First Nations as well as industry.

Larry Neufeld: In that same vein around the BRFN high-value areas, industry was told that they would not be able to apply for permits until plans were approved. It’s been well over three years, and only one plan has been approved to date. Even though this plan was approved, BRFN sued the government for it over the lack of disturbance caps.

Development in the areas is critical to support the government’s Look West and LNG objectives. The minister and I have discussed that at length, how important that is to the province overall.

My question to the minister is: what is the government doing to ensure that industry can get permits that it needs to develop in these areas?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, in practice, 11 of 16 plans that were committed to have been approved, which is progress. Industry works with us at the table on that plan, and we work very hard to ensure that they have the flexibility required to achieve their goals.

Some of that is reflected on the success we’ve had in terms of reduction since the Yahey decision. It’s reflected on that. It’s not an abstraction. It’s a very concrete statement of success. But just with respect to the plans promised, 11 out of 16 are in place in practice.

Larry Neufeld: A more generalized question that I’ve been asked is…. Clearly, we understand that in order to move natural gas permits to decision in northeast B.C….

Perhaps, I’ll rephrase that. I shouldn’t say we clearly understand. Not everyone that would be listening to this or reading the transcript would necessarily understand what I’m about to ask, so I’ll rephrase.

To move natural gas permits to decision in northeast B.C., companies are required to ensure that each Treaty 8 First Nation is supportive of the development, even before the application is submitted. Then for each application, the BCER undertakes full consultation with each nation. Some would suggest that this is duplication and the creation of red tape.

My question to the minister is: what is the government doing to streamline consultation and reduce red tape?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I suppose three sets of things.

One of the things that’s been successful for the B.C. Energy Regulator and the ministry is pre-engagement, which saves time for everyone concerned, including First Nations, who have their own time and capacity concerns, as you would understand, in such a process.

There is consultation that takes place. The B.C. Energy Regulator hears concerns, and then the B.C. Energy Regulator, as the statutory decision–maker, makes decisions, sometimes with conditions, to reflect the concerns they’ve heard, which is a fairly normal process in an attempt to mitigate concerns. So the process….

Finally, every Treaty 8 First Nation doesn’t have to be consulted on every application. It’s related to the territory in which the territorial boundaries of the First Nations have been established.

I would disagree with some of the statements by the member. These are necessary. This is a necessary way to do business, and the pre-engagement saves time. The engagement has become quite efficient, which is a positive reflection on Treaty 8 First Nations and on the BCER. The statutory decision–maker makes decisions. Sometimes those decisions are made with conditions, but it would be normal in any consultation process to mitigate those concerns, and that’s the way the process goes.

There’s a continuing effort. There are no advocates in this process for unnecessary complexity — not the First Nations, not the BCER, not the industry. People work really quite well together in practice on the ground.

Larry Neufeld: I would like to thank the minister for identifying that my language could’ve been more clearly chosen. Clearly, I wasn’t…. Well, I shouldn’t say “clearly.” I wasn’t suggesting all nations, but it would be multiples that were affected by that area.

I would take from that answer that we don’t have a plan or a guided path forward, if we have multiple nations that would be at the table, to get everyone at the table at once as opposed to doing multiple consultations.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes, we do. We’re meeting regularly. I’m personally meeting regularly, including in the region, with all Treaty 8 First Nations present at meetings to drive resolution of questions we need to resolve.

We’ve got revenue sharing, and they’re year-over-year rollover agreements. I’d prefer long-term agreements, and that’s what we’re driving towards with all Treaty 8 First Nations. When we address issues, from HLER to permitting, we do the same thing.

So I disagree. I mean, we could…. We are following a plan, which is to resolve issues one after the other. There’s not an order to do that, but I think it is a successful approach. It’s doing the work and assigning to decision-makers.

At those meetings, generally, the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions is representing B.C.’s position. So I go to those meetings, and I am representing British Columbia’s position on those questions, which is, I think, an important consideration. Everybody knows where the buck stops, and we have meetings when everyone’s in the room.

[11:35 a.m.]

There had been a period, especially post-Yahey, when people didn’t get together in the room for a period of time. I think this is a vastly preferable response. I just want to say a couple of things that have happened since Yahey as well.

This gets into the discussion we’ve had earlier, but we’ve seen permitting timelines decline significantly in the past three years, even with the challenges that come with a court decision that’s significant. It’s a reduction in median permitting times, and I’ll share this information with the member, of 80 days, which is significant work by the BCER. This is making due process and systems efficiencies but also increasing things that I discussed, such as the pre-engagement so that we’re not discovering problems in the process but resolving them beforehand.

The median is the most accurate, in our view, way of looking at timelines in timeline measurement. The timelines are for all kinds of oil- and gas-permitted activities — from the very simple, low-impact or technical decisions; to the complex, large, new disturbances, such as major facilities or new multiwell pads on greenfield Crown land.

Finally, I’d just say that the BCER meets regularly with industry to understand companies’ timelines and to prioritize for them what’s most important for them. This process of engagement is comprehensive both with Treaty 8 First Nations and with industry. I think that’s the way forward. That’s the way to have success in the region that both Treaty 8 First Nations, obviously, the government and the industry wish.

Larry Neufeld: Certainly, I’m not denying…. I certainly do understand and recognize the effort that the minister puts into the file and the energy that goes into moving these things forward. My line of questioning is very specific to individual approvals — wellsite approvals, pipeline approvals. What are we doing to streamline and to avoid duplication and creation of red tape?

Hon. Adrian Dix: What I’ll suggest to the member is that Michelle Carr, our outstanding CEO of the B.C. Energy Regulator, is developing, just for example, service standards that include just those timelines. What I’d suggest is I could, again, read a long response, but what might be useful to the member in his work is for Ms. Carr to brief him personally and take him through in detail those changes and that work that’s being done.

You’ve seen the reduction in overall permitting time, in a time that arguably became more complex because of court decisions. I think that’s a real achievement for the team. I also think it reflects something we’ve discussed before, that the BCER is hugely a Fort St. John operation. That means the staff at the BCER are members of the local parent advisory committee, are working in communities, are engaged with First Nations and with the broader community all the time.

This has been very helpful to it, and I’d be happy to have Ms. Carr, in the coming week, brief the member on all these issues in detail so he understands what their strategy is and what its impact will be on the ground.

Larry Neufeld: I would enjoy that opportunity quite a bit.

My next question on the same line of thinking would be: is there any push-back from the First Nations of Treaty 8 to do a co-consultation? Again, this is specific to wellsite permit approvals, pipeline approvals that might affect more than one traditional territory.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we work with all the First Nations in the pre-engagement and the preplanning processes.

I just want to make…. I think it’s an important point. The answer to the question is yes. It’s yes, not just because we want to see it more efficient or industry wants to see it more efficient, but they want to see it more efficient — meaning the Treaty 8 First Nations want to see it more efficient.

[11:40 a.m.]

They don’t want to spend endless amounts of time working on these questions. They want an efficient process. They can work together; they do. Part of that work of coming together — that advantage of being in the community, of having people be able to drive and see each other in person — has led to real successes in that respect.

I’d say to the member that everybody wants that, and they’re acting in accordance with that. That, in particular, is true of the Treaty 8 First Nations. Imagine if you were in their circumstances, and you had these obligations and responsibilities for consultation. You’d want the process to be efficient too. I can tell you from experience, talking to all of the Treaty 8 First Nations Chiefs and members of council and administrators, that, to a person, all of them want that as well.

Larry Neufeld: To the minister, thank you. What I’m taking that to mean is that we don’t have a concrete plan, moving forward, to streamline the consultation, but there is the appetite there for it to happen. If I’m not understanding that correctly, please do correct me.

What I’m looking for is a timeline on when industry could expect a streamlined process to be provided.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the evidence is that, in fact, times have come down, so that’s a reflection of the work, a lot of which is seen in plans and other things but also in the day-to-day work that goes on. I think it’s been quite successful.

What the BCER has developed — this is one of the things Ms. Carr will be briefing the member on — is permitting service standards that have been developed with the industry. That means CAPP, EPAC and others and Treaty 8 First Nations. BCER met, I think, at a meeting this week on the standards question with the industry, for example, to make progress. They’re in draft form — a plan, concrete on paper, the result of work. I’m happy to have Ms. Carr brief the member in detail about that success.

One, we’re achieving success. Two, we’re not satisfied with that success. Three, we’re engaged in a significant effort to establish service standards so that it’s clear for everyone. It’s not a plan for 2029 or 2030; it’s a plan for right now.

Larry Neufeld: I will accept that answer and move on.

Since the Yahey court decision and the implementation of the Blueberry implementation agreement…. I know we did touch on this yesterday, and I know that the number served, from recollection, or from memory, in the order of about a thousand backlogged permits that had been approved.

My question at this point is: are there any…? What is the number of outstanding permits that are in the queue? By “outstanding,” I would suggest anything over 90 days.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The backlog is clear, and obviously, we start working on new applications as they come in. Questions are absolutely legitimate here, but those are also things that Michelle Carr can take the member through in detail. It was a real effort to do that in the wake of the circumstances of ’22 and ’23, and the backlog is clear, so we’re taking new applications in.

That’s not a backlog. That’s the ongoing work. Sometimes the delays in those processes come from industry as well. They’re working away on things and doing their work, but the backlog is clear, and that’s good news for everyone involved, although we’ve got more to do, and there’s no “Mission accomplished” sign. This is work we do every day.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.