Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

The Speaker: Member for Skeena.

Personal Statements

Apology for Conduct in the House

Claire Rattée: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start by apologizing for disregarding your authority in the House during question period today.

I would also like to raise a point of order.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Point of Order

Claire Rattée: My point of order is in regard to comments that were made by the Premier this morning during question period.

It’s a long-standing custom of parliamentary procedure and practice in British Columbia that “members should be mindful to not unfairly attack an individual’s reputation, particularly an individual who is not in a position to reply with a defence or rebuttal, specifically in the context of parliamentary proceedings.”

Today in this chamber, the Premier of British Columbia stood in this place and told this House that members on this side of the House oppose LNG Canada. That is patently false. I represent the riding of Skeena. LNG Canada is built in my riding. I spent four years on city council, where I devoted most of my time to ensuring that phase 1 reached the final investment decision of that process.

I’m also surrounded by colleagues — the official Leader of the Opposition as well as the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie — that worked on that project quite extensively and have always supported that project.

People in my riding have known where I stood for years, so when the Premier of this province rose in the chamber today and tried to rewrite history and make spurious claims, he was not engaged in vigorous debate. He was telling this House something that does not reflect the record.

[1:35 p.m.]

The record on LNG on this side of the House is above reproach. We have always supported natural gas, LNG and oil development in British Columbia. The members opposite cannot make this same claim. Certainly, the Premier cannot.

This is not a small thing. The rules of this chamber are clear. They have been clear for a very long time. A member may not deliberately mislead the House. That is not a partisan rule. That is not something that our side decided on, the NDP or a Green rule. It is the rule that makes every other rule in this place possible.

Everything we do in this chamber — every vote, every bill, every debate, every committee — depends on one assumption: that when a member stands in their place, what they say is true. When that assumption breaks, this institution breaks with it.

The fact of the matter is that the Premier knowingly misled this House and British Columbians on the record that this side of the House holds on LNG Canada.

If the Premier wants to know where members of this side of the House were when that announcement was being made, the Leader of the Opposition and I were touring LNG Canada. It is, I believe, the third or fourth tour in the last year that I have been on personally.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. The Chair will take that under advisement.

I also want to caution all members about the comments made by the member for Skeena earlier. The Chair accepts her apology, but every member, be careful not to be argumentative with the Chair and disrespectful. That’s a no-no, because that will not be tolerated. That does not go with our traditions of respect here in the chamber.

Thank you so much. As I said, we will take that under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and the Legislative Assembly.

For the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

And just advisement in terms of the Douglas Fir Room, there are about ten minutes left, so we will be back to call the next items after that.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I called Transportation and the officers of the Legislative Assembly. Just for the information of members, that is for Votes 1 through 10 on the legislative officers.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Public Safety and Solicitor General
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we will begin our estimates process today of the Minister of Public Safety.

Hon. Nina Krieger: The member opposite asked a question when we broke for lunch. We are just finalizing the answer, and we’ll be back to him in short order.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 (continued).

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Before the break, we were talking about helicopter resources. I can confirm that each district of RCMP E division has access to helicopter resources, and there are three in the Lower Mainland district specifically.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer. I appreciate that.

The three helicopters — are they full-time helicopters in the Lower Mainland, or is that one extra that was talked about during the extortion expansion of resources?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. These three helicopter resources in the Lower Mainland district are full-time resources. How and when they are deployed is guided by operational requirements.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

Switching gears a little bit here. We had a situation in the Interior this year where there was a lot of news coverage around ostriches. We had RCMP members deployed to cover what was going on there. Can we confirm that the deployment occurred with provincial resources? How many officers were deployed to police these ostriches?

Janet Routledge: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Carry on.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge: It’s my pleasure to introduce some students and their parents and teachers from Holy Cross Elementary School in the Brentwood area of Burnaby North.

I’d like to tell them that what they’re going to be witnessing right now is the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General answering questions from the opposition about how her ministry will expend her budget in order to keep us all safe.

[1:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Indeed, welcome to everyone in our chamber today. Thanks for joining us.

Debate Continued

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. The focus of this line of questioning is Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, where there was a mandatory court order by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that was upheld by federal courts. The B.C. RCMP provided support to the Canada Food Inspection Agency to maintain public safety and enforce lawful, court-authorized actions at that time.

I’m not able to speak to the specific number of members, but what I can provide is the number of deployments, as members may have been deployed multiple times. The RCMP deployments took place between May 21 and November 15 of 2025, and it involved a total of 496 deployments. Just to be clear, that’s deployments, not members.

Bryan Tepper: I would like to ask who ended up paying for that deployment. Was it provincial funding, municipal funding?

Hon. Nina Krieger: This operation was led by the critical response unit of the provincial RCMP, so it was resourced provincially.

[1:50 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper: Yes, thank you for the answer.

Looking at it as assisting a federal agency and a federal operation, I don’t know if the province is in a place to spend money without recouping that from the federal government. Something to think about in the future is seeing if we can’t recoup some of that money.

What I’m asking, I guess, here, at this point, is that…. While we were under a massive crisis of families in Surrey — people being extorted, businesses being shot up, houses being firebombed, children afraid to go to school, people moving out of their own homes or living in their basements — we sent provincial RCMP officers from May till November to watch over ostriches that were being euthanized — 496 deployments. I’m pretty sure the families in Surrey would have liked to have a few of those deployments if they could have.

Can we explain to the people of Surrey why the ostriches took a higher priority than the people of Surrey?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member. There’s quite a lot to unpack in that question, and I’ll just begin with some of the phrasing that the member opposite used, that the police were deployed to watch over ostriches. I want to be clear that this deployment was to maintain public order. The decisions around the deployment are led by the critical response unit and are based on an assessment of threat, of risk.

That stems from the court order and quite a sensitive and volatile situation around the farm, where the maintenance of public order was a concern and led to the operational decisions made by the RCMP. It is not the ministry’s role, not the province’s role, to interfere with operational decisions of police.

Then a second part of that question is around the prioritization of enforcement related to extortion. I think early in the debate I’ve had an opportunity to emphasize that combatting extortion has been and remains the province’s foremost public safety priority. I would be happy to get into the numerous actions that we have stood up and that have been sustained and responsive to combat the extortion that is causing harm not only in communities in Surrey — which is, of course, an epicentre — but in other communities south of the Fraser.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you very much for the answer.

I’m going to hop back to helicopters for just a second. I was at the state-of-the-city address in Surrey the other day, and I was very pleased to hear that they were talking about deploying drones. I’ve long been an advocate for switching from helicopters to drones in the city, as they are far less expensive in every way, shape and form to keep in the air.

I’m wondering if that’s something that the minister has been looking at — moving towards a system of better service delivery at a lower cost with something like moving from helicopters to drones.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. Certainly, the police are always looking for innovative tools to deploy in their operational investigative work, and that is certainly something the province supports.

To be clear. We do not direct the use of police in terms of what technologies they might adopt, but it’s certainly something that, as a province, we have sought to support and invest in. There are examples of that that include the Health IM digital resource to assist police in their interactions with people in mental health crises and also an initiative such as track and trace that we supported that involves innovative use of AI and other tools in identifying and tracing substances in the toxic drug supply.

Those are just some examples of the province’s encouragement and support for the use of innovative technologies, but I do want to note that when it comes to the deployment of specific technologies — drones versus helicopters — those would be decisions that police would be making to support their operations and their investigations.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer, and I’ll move on to some corrections questions.

What I would say is that in the past little while, we’ve seen that the federal government has come out and said there are now more employees than inmates in the federal prison system. My question would be: what is the ratio of corrections staff to inmates in B.C.’s provincial correction facilities?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The average inmate count in B.C. Corrections is 1,830 per day. The total full-time-equivalents in the custody division is 1,802. Those are 24-7 staffing. So we don’t have the exact ratio that I think the member is looking for at this moment, but that gives you a sense of the number of inmates and the number of full-time-equivalent staff.

Bryan Tepper: Well, that sounds like it’s almost a 1-to-1 ratio for each prisoner, for each FTE, full-time-equivalent employee, which sounds like an awful lot as well. For instance, I think the ratio for guards to inmates is supposed to be 1 to 60.

But, I mean, if you…. Well, I don’t know if we need to confirm that or not. But what have we done with that ratio? Do we know what the ratio has been over the past five years? Has that increased?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:08 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:08 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: The Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: The Committee of Supply, Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and further reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Legislative Assembly and officers of the Legislature and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

[2:10 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:12 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Public Safety and Solicitor General
(continued)

Hon. Nina Krieger: Just to clarify, the ratio is not, I would say, 1 to 1. Just over 1,800 full-time-equivalent staff represents not only correctional officers but also staff in administration and programming — to underscore that point.

In terms of the question relating to the five-year trend, the five years may not be entirely representative because that includes the COVID years, when there was a reduction in inmate population, but the numbers of inmates and staff over the last three years have been relatively stable and consistent.

Bryan Tepper: Perhaps we could just table and look at those numbers later on, maybe if we stretch back ten years, so we can have a good look at what the ratio has been. It does seem quite high now, when the federal government came out and announced that it was because it was an anomaly.

If we’re looking at, for a full day, having three guards watching over, the ratio should be 1 to 15. That is a lot of administrative staff, a lot of programming staff. If those have increased over the past several years as the inmate population has gone down, that would be very interesting to know. If we could table that for later, I would be very interested to find out. The question on that would actually be, as well: what do we…?

Actually, I’ll ask that right now rather than table it. Do we know what would be driving any increase in staffing relative to inmate population?

The Chair: Minister, if you don’t mind reading the vote. We neglected that.

Hon. Nina Krieger: My apologies. I was so looking forward to replying that I neglected to move the vote.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 (continued).

Hon. Nina Krieger: We’ll deliberate on that question and be right back to the member.

[2:15 p.m.]

Just to clarify, the B.C. Corrections operates separately, of course, from federal Corrections. I’m not quite sure what metric the member might be referring to, so I’m happy to get more information about that.

But in the previous answers, I did reference the consistent level of staffing that we’ve seen across administration, programming and corrections staff in recent years — not an increase, per se, but a stable number.

Bryan Tepper: I actually missed the reading in as well. I think everybody did. That’s okay.

I will correct myself, because this is going from memory from a few years back. So 1 to 60 is the correct ratio, which would be 1 to 20 for each shift. I divided twice by two. I don’t know if anybody needs to know about my math.

Following that up, I actually have a question that had come up recently. I hope I didn’t make trouble for people of the staff coming in and out. I did want to ask about…. It’s another FIFA deployment question.

I’ve found that there are detachments around the province — for instance, Williams Lake — that are struggling to find overtime members to work, and they’re reaching out across the province to find people to work at a massive event. It’s the second-biggest rodeo in Canada, so it definitely needs the overtime members. Back when I worked there, I believe me and a partner arrested 57 people in a shift. It is a place that is police-intensive, a time that needs to be covered for safety for everybody.

Is there a plan to cover detachments that are having that issue while they’re also putting members into Vancouver for FIFA?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think we had a chance to talk a bit about this before. I’m happy to go into more detail.

The assessment around numbers of policing is led, of course, by the RCMP. They know, based on their extensive experience and expertise, the numbers that are needed for major events and also the number of officers that are needed within communities. Ensuring there is that appropriate balance is integral to the planning process that is well underway.

We do have a commitment, from the highest level of the RCMP and the highest level with the Canadian government, to ensure that the requisite resources for safety and security during the FIFA World Cup are in place, not only to respond to the games and that immediate environment but also to be responsive to the public safety requirements within communities and to respond to other emergencies that could arise in the province as necessary.

Bryan Tepper: I don’t know if I have comfort in that response at all. If their members are required to move from their detachments and other detachments have major events, is anybody reaching out? Have any of the detachment commanders reached out with concerns about this to the ministry?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you, again, to the member opposite for the question. Public safety really is our north star and remains the cornerstone of planning for safe games during the FIFA World Cup and also safety for the entire province. That planning, as we talked about in previous discussions, is being done across multiple levels of policing and government.

More directly in response to the member’s question, just to underscore that the RCMP is drawing personnel for FIFA World Cup security operations under established provincial policing service agreement frameworks, so those agreements are in place and guide all allocation of resources.

The RCMP have advised and reassured the province that current allocations that are being made to ensure safety at the FIFA games are reasonable and no jurisdiction is being asked to operate below workable conditions.

I think the member asked very directly if the ministry had heard from any detachments with concerns related to this, and the answer is no.

Bryan Tepper: Well, I probably will be following up with the fantastic MLA that represents Williams Lake at some point to find out how they are doing on their policing resources.

I am going to switch over to one coroner question from me, and I don’t know if the next questions will be along that line as well. But if we need to do a switch, I will be asking a quick coroner question.

When we asked you for some information…. I was going to ask some different questions, but this kind of stuck out at me. We went back and looked at the information you provided from the previous two years, from 2018 and ’19 as well, and we sort of had a baseline of 38,700-ish deaths per year.

We had COVID in 2020. It jumped up a little bit to 41,400, which isn’t a great increase. But then we hit 2021 till now and we end up with a 15 percent increase in deaths, which I would probably describe as expected deaths. I would wait to hear an answer from the minister on what they expected deaths would be, going from 38,000 up to almost 46,000 people in 2022.

Do we know why we have a 15 percent increase, generally, in deaths in B.C.?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I think the question around the increase in the number of deaths broadly relates more to Vital Statistics under the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, rather than, specifically, the B.C. Coroners Service, which looks at the number of reported deaths, not the number of overall deaths. That’s another set of numbers.

I just had an opportunity to consult with the province’s chief coroner and can confirm that that number of reported deaths has shown a slight increase that is aligned with demographic changes broadly.

Bryan Tepper: Thank you for the answer.

I would follow up on that actually. It would seem to fall under the coroner’s purview to figure out why we’ve had a 15 percent increase in deaths in this province. Looking at the numbers, really, we’ve had, I would suggest, probably pretty close to a 15 percent increase in deaths that meet the criteria for an investigation.

I would just follow up one more time and say: is there any curiosity in the Coroners Service as to why we’re having, really, a massive increase in deaths in this province?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Again, to clarify, the B.C. Coroners Service is looking into the number of reported deaths specifically, and a certain number of those are investigated. But most of the increase, any increase that is seen, is as a result of natural causes and not reportable under section 2 of the Coroners Act.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, well, I will wrap up the coroner question then. I will say people aren’t just moving out of this province in record numbers. This is a joke that isn’t funny. It looks like people are dying to get away from this NDP government.

To reiterate the JIBC questions we had earlier on, the VPD gets 88 percent of their requested graduates while Surrey is getting 61 percent. We don’t know why, really. Is it an unfair allocation, or do we just not trust Surrey to train their own officers?

We’ve talked about the deportations. We know that the RCMP members get paid federal dollars to enforce federal laws, but we’re not doing anything to chase after people that are on active deportation warrants. We don’t even know the numbers in B.C. That’s fairly disturbing to me that we aren’t looking at the people that we know are involved and are probably all of the perpetrators that are either on overstays or with active deportation orders for our extortion crisis.

Why we don’t have resources available for that but we have 490 deployments, shifts covering to keep the peace — I understand that actually — with an ostrich farm that lasted for…. I don’t remember. Is it six months, eight months? But we can’t provide that kind of coverage for people that are afraid to leave their homes or people that have left the community, left the country to protect themselves during this extortion crisis.

I’ll go back to the Surrey police service. We’ve now had to strip the gang enforcement unit away from their jobs to deploy them to take over one of the districts that was actually not scheduled to be taken over. It was moved up to be fully taken over in advance. These members doing a fantastic job, however, have now left, and the number of murders over the past two weeks has spiked.

I will say the minister has also spoken about how extortions are down. The only metric in which they’re down is from January, when we hit a peak — an all-time peak. They are still up thousands of percentages over previous years. They continue to come in, in what, really, are record numbers.

We have a police force that now doesn’t have the resources that the city had moved forward with. They had a new election. They wanted to reject the new police force. The minister and Solicitor General at the time had to change the law in order to push through and force this experiment on the city of Surrey.

[2:40 p.m.]

It has left us holding the bag on what we’re going to do around every aspect of policing, whether it be gang activity or the extortion crisis. Our policing price has gone up, though I’ve never really got any satisfactory answers on that in this. But that being a city responsibility now, we have to deal with it. As I said, I’m not sure I’m really wanting to know the numbers with my tax bill.

I would like to know. I guess my final question is: am I correct on the metric of the extortion numbers? Are we just comparing it to January, or are there numbers that go beyond that, and are we down? It sure looks like we have record numbers. If the minister could answer that.

I appreciate your time.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Without question, Surrey is the B.C. community that we have seen most impacted by extortion threats and related acts of violence plaguing other communities in B.C. south of the Fraser but also other communities in other provinces across Canada.

That is why it has been so important that our response has been coordinated between different levels of government and, of course, different jurisdictions of police. That cooperation has been integral to our response, to our actions that have been, as I’ve had a chance to highlight, really prioritized by the province and sustained.

The metric that the member opposite asked about — this was a metric that was reported first not by the province but by the Surrey police service. The number of extortion files has dropped considerably since the beginning of the year and has remained below 20 per month. Shootings are trending downwards, with ten in January, followed by one in February, three in March and two in April.

This is a trend that not only the SPS has pointed to but the provincial RCMP, the Abbotsford police department, Delta police department and, really, all of the police that are working so hard and working collaboratively to combat extortion in communities.

I had a chance to open a webinar, a virtual update and round table that the province hosted — I believe it was last week — featuring the Community Advisory Group on Extortion, a group that we stood up to really improve communication between police and community and ensure that the questions and concerns of community were reaching the highest level of law enforcement.

[2:50 p.m.]

There was the deputy commissioner of E division there, Dwayne McDonald, and the chiefs of Surrey, Delta and Abbotsford police departments, who all spoke to the numbers now moving in the right direction in terms of a decrease in extortion-related violence. That really reflects that collaborative work done.

I would just like to point out what the member alluded to, in some of his introductory comments to the questions, about what was, I think, referred to as a dismantling of the gang unit in Surrey. Operational changes are made from time to time, in terms of the deployment of officers by police, and the SPS made that change before the district 4 transition commenced.

It’s also to affirm that SPS is not alone in its fight against extortion, in its fight against gang violence more broadly. This is why the province invests over $100 million a year in the work of the coordinated gang enforcement work and investigative work that is carried out by the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. They remain active. The uniform gang enforcement team remains active in Surrey.

I just appreciate the member’s concern for members of his community, his advocacy for the community, and affirm that combatting extortion and gang violence is, absolutely, prioritized for the province. We will continue to ensure that police have the resources they need to bring this violence to an end and to keep our communities safe.

Macklin McCall: Now, I’d just like to switch gears. I have a few other questions in other areas I’d just like to go into, but perhaps, the minister might be able to assist me just in my first line of questioning here.

My first thing I have is the sheriff service. Now, I don’t know. I think the minister has the policing team. Is it a new team for sheriffs, or can I go into those with you yet?

Hon. Nina Krieger: The sheriff service is under the Ministry of Attorney General, not Public Safety.

Macklin McCall: Well, that makes it easier.

We’ll go into my next…. This will be, really, policing expenditure, ministry operations. Now, the ministry’s operations vote reflects the overall direction of policing expenditures in British Columbia. Year over year, increases raise important questions about cost drivers, allocation priorities and whether spending is aligned with public safety outcomes.

My question to the minister. Under the ministry’s operation vote in Budget 2026, what explains the year-over-year increase in total policing expenditures, and which subprograms are driving that growth?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As we’re digging into the information, I just really want to clarify the question. The member opposite is asking about an increase to a certain line item in PSSG’s budget? If you can just restate the exact question, that would be appreciated.

Macklin McCall: My question is referring to the year-over-year increase in the total policing expenditures and if there are programs under the total policing — subprograms underneath — that are contributing to that growth. The overall policing budget…. If there are programs underneath that contribute to that growth in the budget….

Hon. Nina Krieger: Maybe the member can point to the specific budget documents that you’re referring to that show an increase, but I can confirm that the net operating expenses to support core policing and security operations for the ministry have been stable.

Macklin McCall: I’ll just move to another question. What contingency funding is included to address unforeseen policing cost pressures in Budget 2026?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Policing operations are under contract arrangements and not supported through contingencies.

Macklin McCall: Can the minister explain? How does the ministry justify increasing policing expenditures while municipalities report growing financial strain?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Could the member please repeat the question?

Macklin McCall: I’ve got a bit of overlap in some of these, so I’ll move to a next question here. I think it’ll be a little easier, for clarity’s sake.

This is more related to RCMP contract governance issues, basically. RCMP contract policing represents one of the largest and most complex components of the policing budget, and certainly, around cost structures, they’re long term. Under the ministry’s operation vote in Budget 2026, what portion of RCMP contract costs are fixed versus variable?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Costs are based on a cost-share formula under the contract agreement. Any input variables are prescribed in the contract as well.

I think it’s important to note here that RCMP E division and the ministry are constantly monitoring any public safety trends and requirements within communities so we can be responsive to those. That is part of the ongoing superintendence work the ministry does in partnership with the RCMP to ensure adequate and effective policing.

Macklin McCall: Under the ministry’s operation vote in Budget 2026, what provisions have been made for potential increases resulting from ongoing RCMP contract negotiations?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Canada has not formally initiated negotiations or shared a mandate to negotiate with provinces and territories who wish to continue in the contract policing program. They have indicated a willingness to enter into those negotiations, but we are still waiting for the federal government to formally initiate those negotiations.

There’s nothing in this particular budget related to those contract negotiations, but B.C. has been very active with our provincial and territorial counterparts in urging the federal government to confirm that mandate so that we can commence negotiations as soon as possible.

Macklin McCall: Now, can the minister explain how the cost overruns in RCMP contract policing are managed and who bears the financial risk?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Provincial police are provided with a delegation and are required to work within that delegation. As I underscored in the previous answer, the province meets quarterly with the provincial RCMP and also works very closely, on an ongoing basis, to track any emerging trends, needs, changes in vacancies — and works in partnership.

The province superintends that relationship to ensure adequate and effective policing. But just to underscore, provincial police must operate within the agreed-upon delegation.

Macklin McCall: Thank you, Minister, for the response. I don’t know if I fully understand some of what was said, so just bear with me if I try to ask a question just for clarity’s sake.

Delegation. When the minister refers to that, I don’t know if I fully understand what that means. My question was about cost overruns in contract policing and then who manages it. My mind goes to delegation being like a group of people, that there’s a meeting and they discuss this type of thing. If that’s the case, I’m wondering if I could get more clarity on the answer itself, just in how the delegation would reflect on contract-policing-managed overruns and who bears the risk.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for that clarifying question. The delegation that I’m referring to is really a fixed amount. The RCMP are expected to work within specific amounts as per our agreements.

Macklin McCall: Thank you for that. I clearly had it incorrect, and I’m glad you clarified it, Minister.

My next question. How does the ministry address uncertainty for municipalities related to RCMP contract renewals?

Hon. Nina Krieger: For RCMP police municipalities, there is a local government contract management table. This includes municipalities of various sizes. It’s co-chaired by senior ministry staff and also by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The UBCM has representation on a federal table, as well, that involves the ministry and all of the provinces and territories with contracts with the RCMP. That’s an important representation that municipalities have on a provincial table and also that federal table.

As minister, I meet with mayors and delegations on a regular basis, certainly as part of UBCM engagements but also throughout the year as well. As any issues arise, I have the opportunity to engage with municipal leaders on matters that relate to their contract arrangements.

[3:20 p.m.]

Macklin McCall: I just want to clarify something related to RCMP contracts with municipalities. Is what the minister just explained referring to RCMP contracts where the province is involved, such as the 70-30 split with small municipalities under 15,000 people or where the province is solely providing RCMP policing to the municipality, or does that same explanation that the minister provided also fall in line with a larger municipality like Burnaby or Kelowna or Kamloops RCMP detachments, where it’s like a 90-10 split and the province is not involved at all? It’s just the municipality and the federal government.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Really, all of the above.

Macklin McCall: I’ll go into another section of policing regarding staffing and police strength. Staffing shortages continue to affect policing effectiveness, cost structures and service delivery.

My question for the minister. How many funded policing positions remain vacant across British Columbia?

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: As of January 1, 2026, there are a total of 196.5 vacant positions within the provincial police service.

Macklin McCall: My next question. Just reading it over, making sure it’s not the same question — just different wording here. Can the minister explain what percentage of authorized RCMP positions are currently unfilled?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: So 91.2 percent of the authorized strength positions are currently filled.

Macklin McCall: I just want to go back to the last question about how many funded policing positions remain vacant across British Columbia. The answer was just shy of 200 — 196.5 vacant provincial RCMP positions.

My question, just to follow up with that. Can the minister explain why we currently have just shy of 200 vacant provincial policing positions that are funded by taxpayers and there’s nobody in those positions? If the minister can just explain how that works.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: We do not pay for direct costs related to vacancies, so we are only paying for positions that are filled, not those that are unfilled.

Macklin McCall: If we are only paying for the positions that are filled, but there are just shy of 200 funded positions remaining vacant, I assume that those vacancies still exist but the funds are then returned back to the province or the funds are not provided to the RCMP for that vacant position until it’s filled. Is that correct?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: I think the answer here relates to some of our previous discussion around that prescribed delegation, the fixed amounts. Policing priorities are managed within the delegation, within the fixed amount.

The vacancy that I referred to, as of January 1, 2026, reflects a moment in time. Vacancies do fluctuate, of course, over time. Through our ongoing superintendence, we prioritize and ensure that resources are used strategically, that we’re monitoring the use of resources.

Funds aren’t returned per se, but they are then managed within the delegation, according to priorities and as part of that ongoing superintendence work that the province carries out.

Macklin McCall: What is the total cost of overtime associated with staffing shortages?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Overtime is something that is managed by the RCMP. Determinations around overtime are made at the district level, at the detachment level. The province’s role is really one of superintendence, so ensuring that authorized positions are filled.

We hear of challenges, of course, related to recruitment and retention, and that has really driven the province’s work to bolster training opportunities to meet the needs of communities across the province.

Macklin McCall: I have a couple of different avenues I could go with questions with that. A couple of things here, but I’ll try to, maybe, put them together so it flows a little easier.

[3:40 p.m.]

Let’s go back, before I go on to my next question. The minister has explained the delegates. I’ve found out that that’s not talking about people; we’re talking about a budget that the RCMP have to operate within.

Now, I just want to be certain with something, in how that would work and with some of the past answers that the minister has provided. What I’m hearing and what I’m understanding is that the delegates that the minister is referring to…. I’m under the assumption that that’s the total operating cost that the RCMP has to stay within for all provincial policing in British Columbia. That’s the number — let me know if I’m incorrect in this, but that’s what I believe the minister is referring to — that the RCMP must stay within.

If that is the case, my question for that would be…. Look at an unforeseen circumstance, like wildfires that take off in a detachment area. That detachment would be kind of overrun in terms of cost and needing resources brought in and all the things that would go down in terms of responding to that emergency, and that would come out of the operating funds for that detachment in that community.

But if the minister is referring to the delegates, as she refers to, that are the total operating budget for the RCMP that they must stay within, how does that break up the total number into detachment by detachment, in terms of what they’re getting of that and, at the detachment level, their requirement to stay within, not going into overruns and these types of things?

I think that the answers, perhaps, that the minister was providing were general, broad, for the entire provincial RCMP. I want to just go back to local detachment level because, obviously, a major city policed by the Mounties in the Lower Mainland is not going to be the same budget as a five-man provincial detachment in north B.C.

I’m just hoping, maybe, if the minister can explain that process, if she is referring to the total RCMP’s operating budget for the provincial police, and then how that would break down into detachment by detachment across British Columbia. If there’d just be some clarity on that.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Really, in response to the first part of the question, the answer is yes. The delegation, really, is the amount that the RCMP has to work with for provincial policing.

In the event of any extraordinary circumstances and if additional resources are required, then that would be something that the province would be responsible for. But on the local level, for communities over 5,000 with their agreements for RCMP policing, it’s a similar relationship. Anything beyond the delegation would be managed and negotiated between the municipality and the RCMP.

Ultimately, though, the RCMP will use the delegation first and foremost before pulling any additional resources in, in consultation with the province or the municipality.

I would emphasize, and this is a point I’ve tried to underscore throughout, that this relationship is one that is really at the heart of the ministry’s work around superintendence. So there is forecasting done. There is active monitoring done. This work is done on an ongoing basis to really work to ensure that there are appropriate resources to cover policing costs that reflect the emerging needs of communities.

Macklin McCall: Now, I have quite a few more questions on policing, but I’m running out of time, so I’ll transition over to Coroners Service death investigations.

Should I just read my question or wait until your team is…?

Interjection.

Macklin McCall: Yeah, okay. Regarding this budget vote, how does the 2026 allocation ensure investigation timelines are not further delayed with respect to Coroners Service?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The budget this year compared to last year is stable for the B.C. Coroners Service. We did see uplifts in the budget in the 2024 and 2025 budgets that did allow for an increase in the number of coroners from 32 back in 2021 to 52 currently.

That enables the coroners to carry out the important work of investigating reported deaths. This is work that takes place in consultation with a number of stakeholders, including police, RCMP, families and other partners as well.

Macklin McCall: My question for the minister. Prior-year reporting has identified delays in completion of death investigations in certain regions. Regarding this budget vote, what specific capacity increases are funded in 2026 to address this backlog?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I am wondering if I can request a brief recess and then respond to the question after this break.

The Chair: Sure. We’ll take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I’ll call the Committee of Supply back to order. We’ll continue estimates for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question around backlogs to the Coroners Service. As I noted, the budget for this year is stable, but as a result of previous-year budget investments, we’ve been able to increase capacity of the Coroners Service and make some significant improvement in terms of the investigations.

We had 9,121 open section 16 investigations at March 31 of 2026. This is a significant improvement from open cases we had at the end of the previous fiscal year, which were 11,752.

This is, I think, progress in the right direction. We do have performance measures in the ministry that indicate a median time for concluding investigations. Right now that baseline is nine months, and we are moving forward to decrease that in the years ahead to eight months.

Macklin McCall: I’ll try to be quick to get in, perhaps, two more questions here.

Rural and remote death investigation response times have historically exceeded urban timelines. Regarding this budget’s vote, how does the 2026 budget address geographic service inequities?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Coroners’ investigations that take place in rural and remote communities rely on community coroners. We have been aware of issues related to the compensation of community coroners, which we have been working on to address and recognize that this is a priority for the province.

Macklin McCall: Drug toxicity deaths continue to represent a significant portion of current coroner workload. My question. Regarding this budget vote, what dedicated funding exists in 2026 to address this investigative burden?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Certainly, the impacts of the toxic drug crisis are felt in communities and by people across the province. In terms of the number of toxic-drug-related deaths, the number in the last year is 1,850, which is trending down from a higher level of just over 2,200.

[4:15 p.m.]

The Coroners Service has been really redoubling its efforts to provide toxicology services in a timely manner in order to identify and investigate toxic-drug-related deaths and really reflecting the data, providing the data to relevant health authorities to do their appropriate work with this data.

Just to point out that there is a decrease to those numbers, but this remains a very serious public health crisis for the province and is, certainly, prioritized in terms of the toxicology services that are provided.

Macklin McCall: My next question to the minister. Overdose-related deaths continue to place sustained pressure on investigative services. Why is there no dedicated surge capacity funding in 2026?

Hon. Nina Krieger: As I noted, previous budgets included investments that increased the capacity of the Coroners Service. Certainly, monitoring, tracking and reporting on the achievements and the progress of the work in relation to service commitments is something that the ministry undertakes on an ongoing basis. We continue to monitor any patterns and changes.

As I noted, there isn’t at the moment an increase in the number of toxic-drug-related deaths, but that is, certainly, something that we are monitoring with an eye to being able to respond to this, really, priority area for the province, given that the toxic drug crisis continues to have a devastating impact on communities, on families across the province.

Macklin McCall: Complex, multi-factor death investigations have increased in frequency. My question to the minister. How does 2026 funding reflect this increased complexity?

[4:20 p.m.]

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: Committee of Supply is adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:21 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:21 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Committee of Supply, Section C, reports resolution and completion of estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 4:22 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Public Safety and Solicitor General
(continued)

The Chair: I call the Committee of Supply to order.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 (continued).

Elenore Sturko: I would like to ask questions about police services. If you need to take a five-minute recess to get the other people back….

The Chair: Minister, do you want to reply?

Hon. Nina Krieger: If I could just, maybe, provide a brief answer to the member opposite’s question around the B.C. Coroners Service.

Really, we’ve noted that the budget this year is stable, and the Coroners Service uses its funds to identify and triage the investigations of deaths that relate to complex needs and situations. That is part of the ongoing work of the ministry to deploy its resources strategically and effectively. That is done as a matter of course by the Coroners Service.

[4:25 p.m.]

Elenore Sturko: I think that the staff is back. We’re ready to go.

In 2025, Surrey had 133 extortions and 49 extortion-related shootings, for 88 unique victims in the city of Surrey. Does the minister know how many extortions…? How is it that they are filed? Are those 133 unique calls, or is that the same victim they’re counting 133 extortions for? So 133 extortions — is every new call considered a new extortion, and why are they not having this calculated as one extortion with multiple contacts?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: The numbers that the member is referring to, I believe, are the numbers of the Surrey police service, in a recent media release highlighting that extortion violence has declined over recent months. The Surrey police stats showed that there were 133 reported extortions with 88 victims, and 37 of these victims are repeat victims. They have not provided more granular figures than that in their reporting.

We know that extortions are crimes that straddle multiple jurisdictions. That really underscores the importance of the province’s work, through the B.C. extortion task force, to work not only with SPS but with other police of jurisdiction to aim for, really, consistency in terms of the numbers that are being reported.

Elenore Sturko: I thank the minister for the response.

So 88 victims in 2025 in Surrey, 37 of those victims targeted more than once — presumably by the same group, maybe by another group that didn’t know they were already under threat. But this year, 2026 — 98 extortions as of May 11, 16 extortion-related shootings, two arsons. Are the 98 extortions that 98 times some type of threat was made — 98 victims?

One of the concerns that I have is that there is a high level of fear in the community, I would say, especially within the South Asian community. We’ve already had a ricochet that shot someone, a ricochet in their face. We had someone who was shot in their bed. So, of course, the level of fear is high.

But if we’re really talking about 88 extortions with, in 37 cases in 2025, multiple contacts…. Granted, I could be wrong. Like I said, of those 88 victims, 37 with multiple, it could be different groups acting independently, which would also be a different scenario. But saying that we have 133 extortions, if we really only have 88 open investigations with multiple contacts…. Is that actually increasing the public’s amount of fear? It makes it actually seem like there is a larger victim group than there possibly is.

That’s not to downplay the victimization. It’s not to downplay the risk that is associated with these ongoing extortion threats and, of course, the associated shootings in this year, also including some arsons.

But for 2026, are there 98 victim groups for Surrey, or are these 98 WhatsApp threats? Are they 98 different contacts? Are there 98 people receiving mailout letters? I think that there is some degree of inaccuracy in terms of what the public understands the threat to be and the numbers that have been reported to the public.

Can the minister please provide some clarity on that?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member for the question, which really gets to the heart of a concern that I take exceptionally seriously as Minister of Public Safety — not only the actual safety of people but that perception of safety as well.

We know that one threat, one shooting that affects a family or a business is one too many. Certainly, with the reporting on the overall figures that have come out of the Surrey police service, for instance, that understandably does cause real concerns and fear among community.

One approach that the province has really refined as we’ve been meeting the challenge related to the extortion crisis and its impact on communities has been to improve the communications between police and community. We know that police are working exceptionally hard, very diligently, on the investigations that are, in many cases, multi-jurisdictional. That work is represented in the work of the B.C. extortion task force to identify perpetrators and hold them to account.

The communications about the work to a community that is fearful is something that we really, as a province, wanted to prioritize. That was behind our decision to stand up a Community Advisory Group on Extortion, chaired by Paul Dadwal, a former member of the RCMP who has worked extensively on combatting gang violence. It includes a number of members of the law enforcement community and also the business community.

The real mandate of that committee has been to interact with the community wherever they are — within various groups, organizations, on a one-on-one basis — to provide fact-based updates about investigations related to extortion and also to bring the community’s questions and concerns directly back to police.

[4:40 p.m.]

We had a chance to present a virtual webinar, an update on the community advisory group’s work, last week I believe. That featured a deputy commander of the RCMP, chiefs of the Surrey, Delta and Abbotsford police, and I think it was a really important opportunity for members of the public to hear directly from those law enforcement leaders.

All of them spoke about the importance of the coordinated approach that they have and we have been taking and, also, that that sustained work is leading to results I think we all want to see in community, in that the extortion acts of violence are now on a downward trend in recent months.

Just today there were two separate news releases that went out, one from the Abbotsford police department and the other from the Surrey police service, related to separate investigations into a 22-year-old man who has been charged with a number of Criminal Code offences that took place in Surrey and Abbotsford at the end of last year.

This, really, again, underscores that the work continues, that it must transcend jurisdictions, that we have to be collaborative and not let our foot off the gas in terms of providing the supports to police that they need and also encouraging really proactive and accurate communication between police and members of the public.

Elenore Sturko: Thanks to the minister for the response.

We know that there is a provincial extortion task force, and also multiple police jurisdictions have stood up their own extortion task forces. Can the minister please explain what the criteria is for an extortion file to be taken up by the provincial task force, and how many files are currently sitting with the task force?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member for the question. There is ongoing coordination between the extortion task force and police of jurisdiction. Everyone is meeting on a weekly basis to review all files. At this point, there is really critical triaging work that takes place to determine what the task force takes on. Those would include incidents that are believed to be linked to other incidents and also incidents that are multi-jurisdictional in nature.

The exact case number of files with the extortion task force fluctuates. It’s, I believe, in the low 30s right now. But I think, really, what’s important is that there is ongoing communication between the task force and all police of jurisdiction — very close coordination, ongoing triaging — really with an eye to the task force taking on those cases that are linked, potentially, and multi-jurisdictional.

Elenore Sturko: Thank you very much for the response.

I guess here’s one of the concerns that I have, beyond the fact that I only have five minutes left.

My concern is that we’re undergoing the police transition. It’s already a huge strain on SPS. It was a strain on the Surrey RCMP, now SPOSU who is still helping police in the city.

As concerns started rising, the number of extortions escalating, the number of shootings, the public outcry growing, the answer was setting up the task force. That was one of the answers. One of the other answers was that we would have a surge capacity of services from the RCMP to come and assist us.

I’m going to lump some of this together. But first of all, what surge forces were ever announced that didn’t already serve the city of Surrey? PDS already served Surrey. CFSEU already served Surrey. We already had IHIT. We already had multiple others of these units and capacity that already was part of Surrey.

In fact, one of the things that is very bothersome to residents of Surrey is the fact that we’ve had our gang enforcement team disbanded. I know the chief has said he would bring it back in June, but we’ve had, I think, nine homicides related to gang activity, including the death of a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old just a week ago.

I’ll remind this House that one of the reasons that the transition was advocated for was because we had two teenagers shot and killed in South Surrey related to drug activity, gang activity. We had 1,000 people show up on the plaza of our city hall.

One of the things that we were told as Surrey residents was: “If you would get your own municipal force, this would go away.” We would have a much better outcome because we’d have our own local boots on the ground, our own Surrey people working to fight gangs.

Now for the past few months, we haven’t even had our own gang enforcement team. I know that we’ll be told: “Well, don’t worry. CFSEU is there.” But we had CFSEU before the transition. We had two gang enforcement teams, and it does make a difference.

When it comes to the extortions, one of the things that our chief has said was that he had to pull members from the gang team to not only go to the new D4 transition area in my riding of Cloverdale but he also has to put them on the extortion task force because they have so many extortions that the provincial team is not taking.

I have also been reliably informed that they’re down to about two members in domestic violence. That’s a provincial priority. We have femicides. We have women getting murdered at horrific rates in British Columbia.

The fact that in British Columbia’s second-biggest, soon-to-be-largest city, we would have a domestic violence unit with two people in it…. That is pretty wild, especially when in November, I was at the town hall and I heard the promises by the government and by the provincial RCMP that we would have a surge capacity to help us with our extortions and that we would have a surge capacity to take on extortions so that our local SPS would be able to successfully do the police transition.

But I don’t think it’s successful when the police force is being stretched so thin that, in a city with a historically horrendous gang problem, we would be disbanding for any amount of time the gang enforcement team.

[4:50 p.m.]

Can the minister please provide some clarity as to why it is that we are saddled with so many of these extortions, to the extent we’ve had to strip away other vital services, when there is a provincial task force that has been assigned?

Hon. Nina Krieger: My thanks to the member opposite for the question. I really appreciate her advocacy for her community and the perspective she has offered in terms of the profound loss of the two young people and the resonance that this has, given the long-standing gang conflict that has impacted Surrey.

Truly, my thoughts are with the victims and their families.

I had a chance last week to be briefed by commanders of the integrated homicide investigation team and also the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, who assured me that they are doing everything possible to find those responsible and to bring them to justice.

Now, the decision to temporarily reassign members of the SPS gang unit back in January was an operational one, and these are decisions made by SPS. These operational decisions are made by police for a number of reasons.

[4:55 p.m.]

I understand that Chief Lipinski has decided that, with the success of combined efforts between the B.C. extortion task force and the SPS in reducing the extortion-related violence in Surrey, he does intend to redeploy the gang unit members back to their regular duties. As I noted, decisions like these are made as part of policing operations to respond to emerging issues, and the RCMP continues, throughout the Surrey transition, to provide temporary and really critical transitional support to the SPS as it moves through the transition.

The provincial gang unit, CFSEU, has been really actively engaged in Surrey. I know the member opposite noted that CFSEU was always present. But what we’ve really worked on is much closer coordination and, really, much more engagement — for instance, of CFSEU in the work of the task force, in terms of the numbers of CFSEU representatives that are participating in the task force, also in terms of the number of Canada Border Service Agency representatives on the task force. Those numbers have grown and contributed very significantly to the work of the task force.

That work is both visible to community and also takes the form of investigative supports, surveillance work — work that is maybe not boots on the ground within community but really critical to the investigations and the successes that we’re seeing.

We’ve also had an opportunity, of course, to advocate on a continued basis for federal resources, as well, to combat extortion in our communities. That is a commitment that we maintain, despite the downward trend, ensuring that we’re working with all levels of government, with all levels of police to meet the challenge of this moment and ensure that police have the tools that they need to combat extortion while also addressing other public safety priorities in their communities.

Elenore Sturko: This one, last one…. Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

One of the things that I heard the minister say, and I also heard her talk about this in another answer with one of my colleagues…. It’s about the operational decisions that are made by the other detachment commanders or the operational decisions that are made, in this case, in Surrey by our police chief, Chief Lipinski.

When it came to the Cloverdale transition, Chief Lipinski had said that he did not feel that there were enough officers to undertake that transition on April 1. We now know that, as a result of not having the number of individuals that the chief felt was necessary to undertake that, our gang enforcement team got stripped back. We know that other units also have been stripped back, including domestic violence.

The minister can stand up in one instance and say: “These are all operational decisions. If the chief wants to get rid of the gang enforcement team, well, that’s up to him.” But the ministry actually told the chief that he had to go ahead with the transition to D4 even though he said he wasn’t ready and that they didn’t have enough people.

It was the ministry that took that operational decision away, took it into the ministry’s hands, said that they did a review, and now we are going to be having the next phase of the transition into D2. From what I understand, there are already concerns that there aren’t enough new members or experienced officers.

I should note that if we keep on recruiting the way that we are in Surrey right now, we’ll have 76 percent of our SPS that will be under two years of service by the end of 2027. Three quarters of all the police in Surrey will have under two years of service. I don’t know if people know this, but policing is a job of mentorship, and you need experience in order to get the best out of your force. When three quarters of them only have two years of service, it’s a concern.

[5:00 p.m.]

When the chief is telling us that his operational decision is that he doesn’t want to accelerate or to go at this pace…. April 1 was a push. We had to strip away valuable units. Now D2 is coming up. He’s worried.

Why is it that when it comes to an operational decision that the minister doesn’t want to take blame for, like stripping away our gang enforcement team while two teens get shot dead in Surrey, that was the chief’s operational decision? But when it comes to him deciding what’s safe for the transition to go ahead, that’s not his decision. That gets to be made by the director of police services.

Can the minister please explain what criteria the minister used to make that decision that there were enough members to go ahead, knowing now that we’ve had our gang enforcement team stripped down?

Other units have been stripped away, other things that citizens of Surrey were promised, because we’re paying more. Whether it’s coming in our municipal taxes, which will go up, or whether it’s the $250 million out of provincial coffers that have gone to supplement the city of Surrey for its police service, we are paying more. The government, in not allowing our chief to make his own operational decision about the pace of this transition, is giving us less for more.

Can the minister explain the criteria that she used to determine that it was okay to go ahead with the transition to D4, what it will be for D2 and whether or not she thinks it’s acceptable? How does she justify stripping away those valuable resources and then just saying: “Don’t worry. That was just an operational decision by the chief”?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member for the question. I know the member opposite knows, and we all know, that this transition between the RCMP to the SPS represents the largest and most complex police transition in our country’s history. The province’s role is, really, one of superintendence and for providing oversight as the transition continues.

For each geographic or functional responsibility that the Surrey police service takes over, the director of police services with the ministry has to be satisfied that the SPS has met the requirements for doing so. So this superintendence is very active, is ongoing.

In the case of the district of Cloverdale takeover, the director was engaged by both the SPS and the RCMP to provide a decision and direction on the timing and scale of SPS takeover of the district. The director received and reviewed information from the RCMP regarding its views on the transition progression and engaged with the RCMP commanding officer on this issue.

The director also engaged extensively with SPS senior executive and received detailed planning materials and options related to the district 4 takeover. It was on this basis of carefully reviewing and considering all the material, all of the information exchanged, that the director made the determination that the SPS could take over responsibility for district 4 on the first of April of this year with, crucially, ongoing support from the RCMP.

I think it’s important to note here, as I’ve endeavoured to throughout the estimates discussion, that our approach to supporting police and the critical work that they do in communities has been guided by the need to be responsive to the needs of community, very coordinated in our efforts, responsive to emerging trends and also very sustained in our efforts as well.

When it comes to dealing with…. Whether it’s extortion or broader organized crime and gang violence, the province continues to work with all levels of government, all levels of law enforcement in ensuring that police are adequately resourced to maintain public safety in communities throughout B.C.

The Chair: Hearing no further questions, I’ll ask if the minister has closing remarks.

Hearing no further questions, I will now call Vote 42.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:10 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:11 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I call continued second reading on Bill 20.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

Ward Stamer: I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today.

At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. Second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA.

Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. This is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province.

UNDRIP was never originally designed to function as an authoritative governing framework for provincial constitutional law in British Columbia. It was not written as a detailed, operational blueprint for resource management in B.C. It was not drafted as a binding administrative manual for provincial permitting systems. It was not designed as a constitutional replacement for the democratic institution of Canadian provinces. It was certainly not written to resolve the extraordinary, complex realities of overlapping territorial claims between First Nations in British Columbia.

UNDRIP emerged as a broad, aspirational international declaration intended to establish human rights principles and standards regarding Indigenous Peoples globally — globally. That distinction matters, because international declarations are often intentionally broad and aspirational in language. They are meant to establish moral principles and objectives, not precise operational legal mechanisms. There is a significant difference between aspirational declarations and an authoritative domestic governance framework.

Unfortunately, this government increasingly treats UNDRIP not as a guiding principle but as an evolving authoritative reference point for provincial decision-making. That shift carries enormous implications, and British Columbians deserve honesty about those implications.

[5:15 p.m.]

One of the greatest dangers in governance occurs when broad, aspirational language is converted into domestic law without clear operational boundaries. What sounds straightforward politically often becomes deeply complicated legally. Words like “consent,” “shared decision-making” and “co-governance” may sound collaborative in speeches and press conferences, but once embedded into legal frameworks, those concepts carry significant constitutional and jurisdictional consequences. Government has not provided sufficient clarity regarding where those consequences ultimately lead.

The B.C. Conservatives believe in meaningful consultation and respectful relationships with our Indigenous communities. But we also believe democratic authority in British Columbia must remain clear, accountable and rooted in elected institutions answerable to our public. That principle matters enormously, because democratic accountability is one of the foundational pillars of responsible government in Canada.

Citizens elect representatives. Representatives debate laws publicly. And governments answer to the voters. Authority ultimately flows through these democratic institutions, and the accountability to all citizens is equally applied. But many British Columbians increasingly fear that DRIPA is slowly eroding the clarity of that authority — not through a single dramatic constitutional amendment; not through open constitutional negotiations; not incrementally through policy evolution, legal interpretation and expanding government or governance expectations.

This is precisely why many citizens feel uneasy in this province today, because they sense fundamental changes occurring, but they are not receiving clear explanations regarding the final destination of any of those changes. When government avoids defining boundaries clearly, uncertainty inevitably grows.

One of the most concerning aspects of DRIPA is that government often refuses to clearly define the limits of provincial authority, moving forward. Will the province always retain final decision-making authority, and under what circumstances? Can the provincial decisions proceed without consensus? If free, prior and informed consent is not achieved, what happens then? Can projects move forward? Can they be delayed indefinitely? Can different nations reach different conclusions regarding the same territory? What happens when overlapping claims exist?

This government repeatedly avoids giving precise answers to these specific questions. That is deeply concerning, because laws function through specifics, not slogans. The B.C. Conservatives believe that elected governments cannot surrender clarity of authority without weakening public accountability itself. If responsibility becomes undefined, accountability becomes undefined. When accountability becomes undefined, public trust is weakened.

Citizens no longer know who, ultimately, governs in this province. B.C. already faces serious challenges regarding public confidence in our institutions. People are frustrated by the bureaucracy. They’re frustrated by permitting delays. They’re frustrated by the regulatory uncertainty, with changes happening almost daily. They’re frustrated by the government that increasingly seems unable to make timely decisions on major projects and economic opportunities.

DRIPA risks worsening that uncertainty further if operational governance structures remain undefined. One of the core concerns many British Columbians….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute.

Recognizing the Minister of Indigenous Relations.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just wonder if the Speaker might draw the member’s attention to the bill, which is the K’ómoks Treaty Act. We’re not currently in discussion around DRIPA, which he spent a bunch of time discussing. That’s not currently in the legislation or what we’re debating.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

To the bill, Member.

Ward Stamer: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I believe, on page 4, it says that whereas the K’ómoks treaty advances the objectives of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples…. I think I said very clearly at the beginning of this, and I’ll continue to say that as we go through this process, possibly for the enlightenment of the minister concerned, that this is exactly what we’re talking about.

Now, government members may reject this concern publicly, but actions matter more than rhetoric. Increasingly, we see governments hesitant to act decisively in areas traditionally understood as provincial jurisdiction, because they fear legal uncertainty surrounding consent frameworks and shared governance obligations.

That has consequences, real consequences. These are consequences for resource development; consequences for infrastructure; consequences for energy projects; consequences for forest operations; and, of course, consequences for rural and urban employment and, again, confidence in real investment across British Columbia.

Provincial governments exist to govern, and governing requires the ability to make clear decisions under constitutionally defined authority. That does not mean ignoring consultation of Indigenous rights. Far from it. But it does mean governments must maintain clarity regarding who, ultimately, holds lawful authority to act and under what conditions. Increasingly, many British Columbians feel that clarity is disappearing.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Another issue rarely discussed openly enough is how DRIPA and UNDRIP may fundamentally alter the relationship between provincial governments and the courts, because whenever legislation contains broad, undefined principles, courts inevitably become central interpreters of political intent. That means judges increasingly define operational governance boundaries rather than elected legislators themselves.

Once courts begin establishing precedent, governments may find provincial authority constrained in ways never fully debated publicly beforehand. That should concern every legislator in this House regardless of the political affiliation, because constitutional evolution through litigation rather than democratic clarity weakens public understanding and accountability.

B.C. Conservatives believe major governance transformation should occur transparently and democratically, not incrementally through non-disclosure agreements. Unfortunately, many British Columbians feel DRIPA and UNDRIP have introduced precisely that uncertainty.

Let us remember that UNDRIP itself was intentionally broad because it was meant to apply globally across vastly different legal systems and political realities, yet it’s on page 3 or 4 of the treaty. Obviously, this government thinks it’s important enough to put that into this treaty, into a legally binding document, when that’s not what UNDRIP was designed to do in the first place.

Countries around the world have entirely different constitutional frameworks, entirely different land ownership systems and entirely different relationships with Indigenous populations. That means UNDRIP was drafted as a high-level statement of principles, not a price or constitutional code. Yet increasingly, this government treats it as though it was an authoritative legal instruction manual, obviously, because that’s why they included it for the first time in a treaty, in this one, Bill 20.

[5:25 p.m.]

That creates enormous problems, because aspirational declarations leave tremendous room for interpretation — interpretation by governments, interpretation by activists, interpretation by bureaucracies, interpretation by courts. And once interpretation becomes expansive, authority boundaries become unclear.

British Columbia cannot function effectively under perpetual uncertainty regarding governance authority. Business cannot invest confidently under this uncertainty. Communities cannot plan confidently under uncertainty. Workers cannot build stable futures under uncertainty. Indigenous communities themselves cannot achieve long-term economic success under uncertainty either. Everyone suffers when government frameworks become unclear.

This debate is not about whether Indigenous communities deserve respect, because, of course, they do. It’s not about whether reconciliation matters, because, of course, it does. The issue is whether this government is creating durable, clear and accountable governance systems or whether it’s creating overlapping structures that ultimately weaken certainty for everyone involved.

Nowhere is this more visible than the overlapping territorial disputes connected to Bill 20 itself. The government claims that this treaty creates certainty. But how can certainty exist when overlapping claims remain unsolved? How can certainty exist when neighbouring nations continue raising concerns regarding territorial boundaries? How can certainties exist when governance expectations themselves remain unclear under DRIPA and UNDRIP?

Unresolved overlaps combined with expanded shared governance expectations create the exact opposite of certainty, because they create layers of uncertainty. These layers of uncertainty lead directly to litigation, project paralysis and prolonged conflict.

The B.C. Conservatives believe reconciliation should reduce conflict, not institutionalize future disputes through unresolved agreements and concerns, yet this government appears willing to move forward despite these unresolved concerns.

Now, one of the troubling aspects is quickly dismissed, and that’s through local governance and local citizens. If local residents are asking questions about government impacts, they are often accused of fearmongering. If neighbouring First Nations raise concern about overlap, government members downplay those concerns.

Whether one agrees with that concern or not, dismissing it outright is unwise because people deserve answers and they deserve clarity. They deserve governments willing to explain how overlapping governance structures will function in practice. Instead, too often, they receive vague assurances rather than detailed explanations. That approach only fuels uncertainty.

Again, with these treaties, and this one specifically, local governments also deserve clarity. Municipal and regional districts need to understand how overlapping jurisdictions will affect planning decisions, infrastructure approvals, service delivery, emergency management and taxation structures. And many First Nation governments have demanded a pause in this treaty process.

If opposition members ask for more transparency, we’re accused of standing against reconciliation. That approach weakens our public trust, because democracy requires a debate, and healthy democracies welcome scrutiny. Legislation with constitutional impacts deserves the highest level of public examination possible.

The consultation is supposed to be meaningful, and that word, “meaningful,” matters. But it doesn’t mean informing people after the decisions have already been made.

[5:30 p.m.]

We’ve been told that this treaty has been 30 years in the making, multigenerational. Members on this side of the House and most of the public got to see it a mere two weeks ago, yet this government would believe that it’s important that not even within two weeks from today, we should be able to go through the entire process of this treaty and the implications of this treaty and be able to pass it by May 28.

Now, I don’t know what the rush is, but it seems like this government is in an awful hurry to be able to make these treaties go through, even though it has taken them 30 years to get through this process when we’ve already had other treaties ratified in this province. For some unknown reason, they’re in a big hurry to ram this one down in two weeks.

Then we have questions from the minister asking: “What does this have in relevance to DRIPA and UNDRIP?” Well, the relevance is…. Why did they put it in this legal document in the first place?

As we talked about, meaningful consultation isn’t after the fact. It doesn’t necessarily revolve around non-disclosure agreements.

It certainly doesn’t instil a confidence in our public and the process. And as I mentioned earlier, there are many First Nation organizations and governments that would like us to pause this process. I’ll be able to talk about that a little bit later.

Meaningful consultation does not mean pushing forward despite unresolved objections from those affected parties, yet many people involved in this process feel that’s exactly what has happened. They feel their concerns were acknowledged publicly but not meaningfully addressed substantially. That creates frustration and distrust.

This government often speaks about partnership and inclusion, but inclusion means hearing all voices, not just supportive ones. The reality is this. Neighbouring First Nations with overlapping territorial interests are not outside observers. They are directly affected stakeholders. Their concerns regarding territorial boundaries deserve serious attention, not political management and not public relations language. It deserves real attention.

If those disputes continue after this treaty passes, the consequences won’t disappear. Instead, these disputes may intensify through litigation, regulatory conflicts and competing consultation claims. That is exactly the kind of uncertainty British Columbia should be trying to avoid.

These treaties should be bringing clarity. That should be the goal — clarity for Indigenous communities, clarity for local governments, clarity for industry, clarity for our residents and clarity for future generations.

But many British Columbians look at this agreement, and they see unresolved questions rather than that clarity. They see unanswered concerns regarding overlapping boundaries. They see concerns regarding future jurisdictional conflicts. They see a government more focused on symbolism than practical implementation.

We must remember that treaties affect far more than the present moment. They shape the future legal framework of this province. Every treaty establishes precedents and expectations. Every governance arrangement becomes part of a broader, evolving landscape. That’s why we must be cautious. Once agreements are ratified, reversing or correcting mistakes becomes extraordinarily difficult. If overlapping claims remain unresolved now, they may become even harder to resolve later.

Another issue that cannot be ignored is the lack of broad public understanding surrounding this treaty. Many residents in these affected regions still have basic questions regarding governance implications, consultation requirements, land management, taxation implications and jurisdictional authority. That tells us something important. It tells us that the government has not done an adequate job explaining the agreement clearly to the public.

[5:35 p.m.]

That is why delaying this legislation until the fall session remains so important. Because additional time allows for additional scrutiny. It allows for additional legal analysis; additional consultation with all affected members of the public, including our First Nation communities; additional opportunity to clarify governance, authorities and overlapping concerns before these irreversible decisions are made.

Another important issue is economic competitiveness. B.C. is already struggling to attract and retain investment compared to competing jurisdictions. Major resource projects face years of delay. Permitting timelines are continually expanding. Forestry communities face ongoing instability. Mining investment is flowing to other areas. Many business leaders openly cite regulatory unpredictability as a major concern.

Now, these treaties are supposed to be able to alleviate some of those concerns, but that’s not what we’re seeing in the real time. What message are we sending when government themselves appear uncertain regarding authoritative structures? What message are we sending when approval systems become increasingly layered and undefined? What message are we sending when unresolved territorial overlaps remain embedded within these treaty frameworks?

Confidence matters in this province. Capital moves towards predictability. We’ve heard that time and time again. Jobs move towards that predictability. Investment moves towards that predictability. Now B.C. is perceived as a jurisdiction where governance authority is uncertain and approvals are endlessly vulnerable to overlapping disputes. Economic consequences will ultimately follow.

That’s what we’re seeing today. These treaties are supposed to be able to attain certainty. Yet with all the overlapping boundaries and the number of First Nation communities that want us to pause this, we’re suggesting that that’s exactly what we should be doing.

Now, some of the government members are saying that these claims are exaggerated. Yet B.C. is already witnessing the consequences of this uncertainty in these uncertain times. We’ve lost tens of thousands of jobs in the last couple of months, directly because of that uncertainty. Communities dependent on natural resources are struggling. Projects are delayed or abandoned, and again, investors are choosing other jurisdictions. Workers are paying the price.

B.C. Conservatives believe reconciliation and prosperity should work together, and Indigenous communities deserve those opportunities to strong economies and responsible development. But prosperity requires governance systems that are stable, transparent and predictable. Without that, opportunity weakens for everyone.

When we started talking about our democracy, we talked about the reason why we’re here in the Legislature: to be able to pass laws that can be interpreted the way they were originally designed and not just interpreted by the courts. The uncertainty, as I mentioned earlier, with implementing UNDRIP into a treaty where it was never designed to do that and then having an authoritarian framework around something as broad as a declaration….

I think the public deserves to know how we are going to be able to overcome these overlapping claims. The government says not to worry about it, that we’ll just be able to sign a new treaty and we’ll be able to move forward.

[5:40 p.m.]

But I would suggest that the First Nations that are asking for a pause in this have legitimate concerns on these overlapping boundaries. They, as well as the people of B.C., deserve clear explanations, not vague political reassurances.

People must be allowed to ask these questions. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we’re offered the opportunity to speak. As legislators, we must be allowed to scrutinize bills. Again, this is a treaty that, we’ve been told, has taken 30 years in the making. Yet in less than six weeks, it’s going to run through this entire process.

Governments must be willing to provide exact and precise answers. Delaying Bill 20 until the fall session will provide an opportunity for exactly the kind of scrutiny that is needed — more time for legal experts, more time for constitutional scholars, more time for public engagement, more time for neighbouring nations to continue discussions surrounding these overlaps and more time for government itself to clarify how DRIPA and UNDRIP interact with provincial authority operationally.

There’s nothing radical about asking for clarity before constitutional-level governance changes become entrenched. That is responsible leadership. That is responsible democracy. Frankly, future generations will judge whether we exercised sufficient caution at this time.

Conservatives believe B.C. can pursue reconciliation while preserving democratic accountability and constitutional clarity. These goals are not mutually exclusive. But achieving them will require the government to define boundaries clearly rather than relying on evolving ambiguity.

Unfortunately, too much of these discussions remain undefined. That’s why caution matters. That’s why delaying Bill 20 until the fall session remains prudent and responsible. Reconciliation is built on clarity, accountability, transparency and a broad confidence in a far stronger chance of enduring success for generations. That’s important to all of us.

Jeremy Valeriote: It’s a privilege to speak today to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

I will be brief, and I will be echoing my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands and many others in expressing the importance of treaties and the treaty-making process. As a province that has established and continues to establish itself in the absence of negotiated processes with First Nations, treaties represent an avenue to right that wrong.

I wish to convey my congratulations to the K’ómoks Nation on their arrival to this stage of the process, an incredibly delicate endeavour that has spanned 30 years and undoubtedly many, many meetings, collaborations, agreements, disagreements and resolutions. We do not take it lightly that this treaty legislation is in front of the House, and we honour the legacy of labour that has brought it here.

We’ve also heard many perspectives in this House on this specific piece of legislation. It’s clear that the environment and moment in time in which this bill has been introduced has been, and is, complex.

As we all know, and it has been named multiple times during this process, there are significant concerns in regard to this treaty act. These include concerns of overlap, of economic development considerations and of non-derogation. These concerns and those voicing them — and we would like to thank the Chiefs and leaders of the Wei Wai Kum again for sharing their time and insight with us — have reminded us of the incredible care, time and work that is required when passing treaty legislation through this House.

It is also critical for many of us to remember that Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia have developed and practised intercommunity negotiation and protocols for far longer than the rest of us have even been here. Many of these practices were intentionally disrupted, banned and even outlawed through colonial interference and legal orders.

It is important to remember this because we are placed in a very specific situation in responding to this legislation as Members of the Legislative Assembly. As elected officials, we’re not here to determine the quality or validity of the claims for or against this treaty, nor are we here to control what treaty is or isn’t supposed to be. We’re here to do our part in ensuring that the self-determination of all First Nations in B.C. is, at the very least, not impeded by the laws created and passed in this House.

[5:45 p.m.]

Keeping this responsibility in mind, the comments in the House on this act have been announcements and assertions, not dialogue. The second reading vote we have directly in front of us is not whether this treaty passes through the Legislature but whether we are willing to have a further conversation about it.

We want to be sure that the concerns are brought forward for the record and that this legislation will, without a doubt, not impede the self-determination of any nation impacted by its ratification. I believe we owe it to the decades of work, negotiation, relationship-building and community effort that has gone into this treaty process to take our time at this stage.

It is in the spirit of the democratic process that the Third Party supports this act to move into the committee stage. We’ll be looking to the government to answer, in detail, the hard questions that have been raised. It’s an opportunity to continue the conversation, move this bill to committee and ensure the concerns raised by nations regarding overlap in territory are fully responded to by government on the public record.

There are, clearly, misunderstandings, fears and competing interpretations circulating publicly right now. Government has an opportunity at committee to provide clear, factual responses and help build confidence in this treaty and in the treaty process more broadly, at this important moment in our province, by approaching it constructively and bringing in the appropriate experts to support them in providing those informed responses to what has been raised.

Larry Neufeld: I’m here today to speak about Bill 20, and I think I can make comments that most, if not all — certainly, I would think most, the vast majority — in this House would agree with. I would say that, without question, reconciliation matters, treaties matter and that, without question, the recognition of Indigenous rights is not optional. That’s section 35 of the constitution. Many would suggest, and I’m not saying that I would disagree with it, that it’s the foundation of the future of the province and, perhaps, even the country.

From a very pragmatic perspective, though, I would also suggest that supporting reconciliation does not in any way suspend scrutiny, nor should it. In fact, I would say that it demands the opposite. It requires that we examine, both carefully and honestly, whether the mechanisms we are putting forward will actually achieve what those mechanisms promise and what the future needs. That’s the responsibility that is before us today.

Certainly, we’re not trying to decide whether reconciliation is important. Again, that has been established. What is important for us to determine, when we’re discussing Bill 20, is whether the bill moves us closer to reconciliation or if it drives a wedge, creates conflict and moves us away from that goal.

I would say that good intentions are not enough, certainly not in terms of legislation of this magnitude. We’re not dealing with a short-term policy. As my colleague prior stated, this work has been underway for 30 years, so it’s certainly not short-term policy. We are dealing with agreements that will shape governance not only in the province but that may even affect beyond those borders. We’re dealing with agreements that will shape land use, affect economic opportunity and potentially affect legal relationships for generations.

The question is not: do we support reconciliation? I’ve already stated that. The question is: are we building that admirable goal on a foundation that will hold?

I believe that it’s important for Bill 20 to be understood as part of a wider transformation tied to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. I know that that raised some concerns from across the way, but bear with me and I will attempt to explain as to why I believe that’s important. The framework has to date introduced shifts in how decisions are interpreted in this province. I don’t know that’s…. I’ll maybe leave it right there.

[5:50 p.m.]

What have we observed? We have observed uncertainty. We have observed evolving interpretations. We have observed a lack of consistency in how principles are applied across sectors. One might even suggest the government has even acknowledged this. I wouldn’t even say “suggested.” It has been said in this House.

Now, rather than resolving those uncertainties within statute, Bill 20 proposes to elevate similar concepts into constitutionally protected agreements. I think that’s something that’s exceedingly important for us to establish and discuss as part of the debate process. It’s a significant escalation. This is moving toward constitutionally protected agreements, and that is something that is at a magnitude that I don’t know everyone that has spoken to this has illustrated to the most effective manner possible.

I would suggest that we need to pause and reflect on the difference between ordinary legislation and treaties, represented by Bill 20 in this case. They are not compatible. Correction. I will correct myself and withdraw that word. They are not comparable.

If a statute produces unintended consequences, the Legislature can revisit it. Everyone that’s in this place of honour is very aware of the mechanisms, or most of the mechanisms, that are available to do that. We can amend it. We can fix it.

However, when a treaty is ratified, it becomes part of the constitutional architecture of Canada. This means that it is far more difficult to change, its interpretation is largely shaped through courts and its effects extend far beyond the control of any single government.

So we must ask: are we embedding clarity, or are we embedding uncertainty at the highest level of law?

Bill 20 introduces a model that relies heavily on interpretation over time, thereby illustrating the risk of open-ended design. Some would describe this as flexibility. Others would describe it as adaptability. There is another way to describe it: indeterminacy.

When key elements are not clearly defined at the outset, they do not disappear. They simply shift into other arenas. They shift into courts, tribunals, arbitration processes and prolonged negotiations. This is, certainly, not theoretical. That is exactly what happens when agreements lack precision. Many here would agree that that is exactly what we’ve seen for so many years.

The question could be asked: what are treaties supposed to do? I would suggest if you ask ten different people, you might get ten almost slightly, if not even significantly, different answers.

Historically, modern treaties in Canada have been designed to accomplish something very specific. They are meant to settle questions, not extend them. They are meant to define rights. They are meant to establish jurisdiction. And they are meant to create certainty moving forward.

We have seen several examples of this approach. I would go further to say that these examples are not entirely without challenge, but they do provide a level of predictability. They allow governments to function. They allow communities to plan and economies to operate. Some would suggest that Bill 20 moves in a different direction, from certainty to continuous interpretation.

[5:55 p.m.]

It could be interpreted that instead of resolving key questions at the outset, the model represented by Bill 20 anticipates ongoing interpretation and potential ongoing change. Instead of clearly delineating boundaries, it leaves space for those boundaries to evolve. Instead of minimizing disputes, the risk represented by Bill 20 is relocating those disputes. When disputes are relocated into systems that are slower, more complex and less transparent, it would not be much of a surprise as to what we could expect as an outcome.

Another critical issue is the process. I would suggest that reconciliation is not only about agreements between governments; it is also about relationships between nations. We are hearing legitimate concerns as we’re listening to different speakers. We’re hearing about overlapping claims. We’re hearing about competing interests. We’re hearing about insufficient engagement with neighbouring communities. Clearly, to me, those concerns cannot and should not be brushed aside, because unresolved overlap does not resolve itself following ratification. It only intensifies.

When agreements proceed without alignment, the consequences are certainly predictable — legal challenges, fractured relationships and delays in implementation. Many would suggest that that is not reconciliation; that, in fact, it is conflict deferred.

We also have a responsibility to consider the economic implications of this legislation, Bill 20. In regions like northeast British Columbia, where I live, economic activity is closely tied to natural resource development, infrastructure investment and long-term regulatory certainty. Some of the statements that I’ve certainly made in this House, and I intend to make many more, are that I don’t think many people fully appreciate the economic engine to the province of British Columbia represented by northeast British Columbia.

If we are not utilizing something like Bill 20 to ensure that certainty is provided, then the concern lies as to whether that economic engine and, ultimately, the province are successful financially.

Projects in these sectors are capital-intensive. That’s where I spent the majority of my career, if not all of it. It’s clear from my experience and from everything that I’ve been told through that experience that to be fully successful, these capital-intensive projects require some very clear timelines, they require defined authorities and they require stable rules. The question is: does Bill 20 provide those three items?

Should those elements become unclear, investment decisions are potentially subject to change. That change, should it ever occur, is certainly not because investors are opposed to reconciliation but because uncertainty, without question, carries a cost. As we’ve established in this place of honour, capital is mobile. Does Bill 20 provide the certainty that is required by the investment market?

We have seen situations where opportunities in energy and resource development have moved elsewhere, even when British Columbia has had a competitive advantage. I’ve seen that on a daily basis where I live. It is challenging.

[6:00 p.m.]

The certainty, which…. Again, I’m questioning whether Bill 20 provides that certainty to the billions of dollars of investment that we require in the northeast. I’m concerned from that perspective as to whether or not the certainty is there for the billions of dollars to be invested.

I recognize that that’s not where this bill is focused on geographically. However, it does set a precedent. I would go further to say that we should not design frameworks that recreate conditions whereby we are challenging the certainty that is required by investment.

I would clearly say that reconciliation cannot succeed in a vacuum. It requires public understanding. Does Bill 20 provide that public understanding? People in the public need to know what is being agreed to, how decisions will be made and how accountability will be maintained.

Should that understanding be absent, support may become fragile. Does Bill 20 check those two boxes and provide what is needed? In the absence of broad support, clearly, progress becomes difficult to sustain. Transparency is not a procedural detail. It is a requirement for long-term success.

One of the most important questions in this debate, which is questionable as to whether Bill 20 identifies it clearly…. The question would be: where does decision-making authority ultimately reside?

In that case, again, attracting significant capital to this province that’s needed to push forward on these incredibly important projects…. Does Bill 20 advance that fundamental need?

If authority becomes increasingly distributed across courts, arbitration bodies and evolving interpretive frameworks, then the role of this Legislature may change. Does that provide certainty? Does the bill before us provide that certainty?

With a potential change comes a question of accountability. This House is accountable to the people of British Columbia. Every one of us here at some point in the future, should we choose to continue down this path, will be facing our electorate once more, and we will be held accountable for the decisions that are made here.

I would suggest that many, if not the vast majority of the populace, would say that that principle must remain intact — that principle of accountability. I would go further to suggest that any shift in governance must be clearly understood and very clearly justified.

In no way am I calling for an abandonment of progress. I’m making a call to strengthen it. We can move forward, but we must do so carefully. One would suggest that the meaning of moving forward carefully would be ensuring overlapping claims are addressed before agreements are finalized, reinforcing clarity in treaty language and maintaining transparency throughout the process. It means learning from agreements that have worked and avoiding unnecessary departures from previously successful models. It also means prioritizing durability over speed.

The decisions we make here will not be judged next year. They will not be judged during the next election cycle. They will be judged decades from now.

[6:05 p.m.]

These decisions will be judged on whether they created clarity or confusion, stability or uncertainty, trust or division. The question before us this afternoon is: does Bill 20 represent those three points?

Reconciliation does deserve to succeed. Success is not guaranteed. It must be built, and it must be built on a foundation that is clear, stable and understood by all parties involved.

We remain committed to working constructively, to improving the framework and to ensuring that reconciliation in British Columbia is not only advanced but sustained. This work is too important to rush. Let us take the time to do it properly.

With that, thank you very much.

Misty Van Popta: All right. I want to recognize that the minister is here today to listen. I’ve noticed, actually, he has been here at a lot of these.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we don’t refer to the location of any of our members, please.

Misty Van Popta: Oh. Sorry, yes.

Anyways, going back to who I’m referring to, I do want to recognize presence here a lot, listening to these speeches and these debates. I think it’s valuable to hear firsthand from as many different people, different perspectives from across all party lines, with our members from the Greens, independents. This is a very important topic, so I do want to appreciate that he’s here. I’ve given lots of speeches on different bills, and the ministers have not been in the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Member, once again, we don’t refer to the location of our members, so if you could please move on, that would be great.

Misty Van Popta: Oh. Sorry. Okay. Anyways, I understand what you’re trying to say now. I thought you meant names, but yes.

This is actually a first for me, as you can tell, because it hasn’t been going well so far. This is an unscripted speech for me. I generally am somebody who likes to write things down and really put pen to paper on what I’m thinking about and how I want it to come across.

In this case, this particular topic is a tough one for me. It has been something that I’ve never also publicly spoken, on social media, in this chamber. And that has to do with First Nations issues, and it’s because I do actually care quite a bit. It is something that is very, very complex. It contains a lot of history, a lot of narrative with nuances. So I always want to be thoughtful in how I speak to this particular topic, which is why I haven’t generally spoken to this topic.

It’s not that I don’t care. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion. But it’s because I always want to make sure that the words that I say come across with a level of respect and concern at the same time.

So bear with me as I mumble through a few procedural missteps. But it’s with that that I do really want to dive into Bill 20, the treaty for the K’ómoks Nation, which is an important topic to be discussing today.

If I dive into what reconciliation is from my perspective, from the people that I represent and their perspective…. It’s a long conversation.

Ultimately, as elected officials, what we’re here for today and every day is to make sure that we’re governing for all in this province and that we’re also looking through the lens of perspective, history. But ultimately, we have to look at everything that we do in this chamber to the benefit of all British Columbia.

[6:10 p.m.]

This particular legislation and this particular bill is directly in regards to one portion of British Columbia, one distinct group, which is valued to be considered and to have these conversations.

When it comes to reconciliation and how I’ve been thoughtfully sitting on that topic, I look at, perhaps, some statistical information in that out of the 5.7 million British Columbians…. British Columbians are everybody — First Nations, Métis, new immigrants, European descent — all sorts. We are a giant mixing pot of different stories of how we became British Columbians. When it comes to reconciliation, we’re talking about 4 percent of the population — 4 very important percent of our population.

When it comes to reconciliation, there have to be conversations about: what does that tangibly look like? What does reconciliation mean? How do we arrive there? Is it ever complete? These are just important questions to throw out there.

It doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily speaking from a place that this is hard fact. What I’m standing here to say, I believe, is reconciliation…. They’re questions that I hear on the street. They’re questions in people’s frustrations. The narrative that is out there right now is: when is reconciliation…? What is that process? Is there…? I’m very project oriented. That’s my background. So I always look at things as a beginning, a middle and an end.

This is an important discussion to have, and it’s also a very important one. Reconciliation is extremely important for this province. We can’t deny our past, but as we’re seeing right now, without guidelines, without boundaries on what reconciliation is, it has gotten us into a bit of a quagmire with the legal system — different interpretations of what that means, whether it’s DRIPA, whether it’s mineral rights, all sorts of different avenues or different pieces of the functioning of our province.

When we don’t have clear understanding of what reconciliation is, it can really create a lot of uncertainty, and I think that is a valid conversation.

When it comes to Bill 20, we’re talking about certainty, in theory, with a treaty of what reconciliation looks like for K’ómoks. What is fair? When is reconciliation achieved in general? I really have been kind of taking back that personal piece for me, trying to dive through what reconciliation is.

If we go into treaties and the history of treaties, treaties are extremely important. They’re done worldwide, all over this world. Treaties, in one form or another, for centuries and centuries have come into play. There are actually still — I did a little bit of research — some ancient treaties in parts of this world that are still in existence. I believe it’s in Portugal.

But there are only a handful of countries that are still creating modern treaties — Canada being one, Australia, New Zealand, United States. We’re running into, perhaps, a different experience of treaty creations than a century ago or a couple hundred years ago.

If we look through what treaties are meant to achieve, some have been peace treaties. Others are meant for alliances — creating alliances, creating a partnership. Some are for sovereignty. When we look through the history of Canada, B.C. being a little bit late to the table creating treaties, we’re looking at it from a different perspective of treaty creation than, say, perhaps, has happened in the past in other parts of the world.

[6:15 p.m.]

I want to take this conversation back a little bit, especially when it comes to treaties and reconciliation. I have a bit of a personal experience that has kind of shaped why I have a deep respect for the conversation. That has everything to do with….

In 1985, the most influential teacher I ever had was my grade 4 teacher. This is in the ’80s, this conversation. I know. I’m dating myself. Back in the ’80s, it wasn’t a conversation. Reconciliation wasn’t a topic. Residential schools weren’t a topic. But I had a teacher that every single day taught through the lens of the First Nations perspective. This is just a public school in south Langley, a little country school. She was quite a unique character, my teacher. I have been acutely aware of the history — not a deep understanding, at the age of ten, of First Nations within B.C. but at least a respect for the conversation.

Then, even in the ’90s, when I was in high school…. I don’t know why my experience was different than a lot of people that I talked to, but this was two decades before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report came out. I had a profound chapter in my high school. I don’t even remember. I think it might have been socials or western civilization class. We talked about residential schools even at that point, in the ’90s, so I’ve always been acutely aware.

Then, when the report came out — I believe it was 2015, 2018, somewhere in there — everybody was kind of flabbergasted. I was just like: “I don’t know why people didn’t know this.” Anyways, that’s why, really, when I talk about this, I do it from a context of always having a deep respect for the conversation.

In B.C. right now, we’re playing catch-up. This is work that has been going on for a long time, and I understand that that process is there. When treaties are done right, they offer surety and stability. Really, right now, in British Columbia, that is what everybody is striving for and wanting.

We can’t deny it. How many days a week are we bringing it up in this chamber as a topic of conversation? Economic surety. Court cases. Treaties are meant to be that piece that adds goalposts around a topic of reconciliation and what it looks like for the K’ómoks Nation.

I want to move on. Having that kind of background and that context…. The reason I did that is because I want to talk about why I don’t think that we should be proceeding at this point. It doesn’t come from a lack of respect for the process but because I respect it so much. We’ve got six days left in the spring session. We’re only bringing forth the rest of second reading six days before the end, and we disband for the summer.

That’s not a lot of time to do this process justice. We’ve got other people that, rightfully, have time on the clock to be able to speak to this. It has definitely got to go to committee — and talk about it in committee. It feels, at this point, that it has been left so long, and now we’re just trying to get it over the finish line at the very end, which I don’t think is respectful of the process for something that’s as important as this topic.

For the last eight years under the NDP…. These are only the first treaties — this one and I think it’s Bill 21, which is the other treaty that’s before us. In the eight years, we’ve only got two that have now just hit the floor, when close to a dozen were done under the previous government. We kind of get tagged as not wanting to believe in reconciliation or otherwise, but that’s just not true when you look at the amount of work that has been accomplished in the past.

If we’ve only got two to this point under this government, what has been taking so long? I understand it’s negotiation. I understand that it’s a process. But it seems in the past we’ve been able to get this process and get to these finalities a little bit quicker.

Then you also look at the…. If we read the room — I’m not meaning this room but, hypothetically, other rooms — there’s a lot of friction in the air right now.

[6:20 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There are a lot of people upset, rightfully so, with the recent court cases that have come through. So the question is: why are these bills being presented now? Why are we here at this time? Why, at such a sensitive time, are we bringing and debating these bills now?

I just feel like we might be doing K’ómoks a disservice at a time when there’s so much conversation, so much uncertainty in regards to DRIPA. Is it going to be paused? Is it going to be pulled back? Are certain sections going to be pulled out?

At such a time, why are we bringing this forward now? The province is on fire, and I don’t mean that in a way that we’re just like: “Yeah, we’re doing everything. Everything is going well.” I mean like in every conversation, people are upset. People aren’t understanding the difference, even, between DRIPA and UNDRIP, between section 35 and otherwise.

Noting the hour, I reserve my right to adjourn debate and speak again.

Misty Van Popta moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: Section A reports progress on Bill 9 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Christine Boyle moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:41 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Transportation and Transit
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, folks. Welcome back to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,196,576,000 (continued).

Harman Bhangu: Thank you, Chair. We’re getting to the end of the estimates here and we’re in the red zone, and I’m not kicking a field goal. We’re going for the touchdown there, Minister.

I want to return to the question of rail expansion in Fraser Valley. The last time the issue was raised in the House, the minister expressed support for commuter rail in principle while noting that if it were to be delivered today, it would depend on access to existing freight corridors and negotiations with rail operators. The minister also indicated that current investments do not preclude future rail options and referenced the possibility of light rail within the corridor.

Over a week ago, the minister was asked again about rail expansion at a public announcement related to the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project. In that response, the minister confirmed that the work has been undertaken to examine rail corridors further up the valley but emphasized that the current focus remains on Highway 1 and major road investments. The minister also pointed to the SkyTrain extension as a key improvement to regional mobility while noting that the rail remains something being looked at within the ministry.

Taken together, those responses point to a consistent position. Rail remains something that has been studied and discussed but not something that is currently being advanced with a defined path forward. At the same time, there is an important distinction. Commuter rail connecting communities like Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Langley requires dedicated space, direct alignment and long-distance capacity.

If it is fundamentally different from urban SkyTrain service or rail operations that rely on shared freight corridors, that raises more of a specific question — whether the Highway 1 corridor, which runs directly through these communities, is being preserved in a way that could realistically support that kind of commuter rail in the future. If that opportunity is not built into the corridor today, it may not be recoverable later.

Does the ministry acknowledge that commuter rail connecting communities such as Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Langley requires a different type of infrastructure than light rail or urban SkyTrain?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make a couple of observations.

One, in terms of Highway 1, the expansion is underway. It is designed in such a way that, for example, light rail could be placed along that.

The member has mentioned commuter rail and also SkyTrain. Again, I’ll repeat, the focus of the ministry is on the Highway 1 expansion that’s currently underway, along with the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project. Both are two significant, huge infrastructure projects that are taking place.

At the same time, in terms of how you add onto that — if you were looking at commuter rail, for example, or light rail or SkyTrain — a lot will depend on the nature of the growth that takes place in communities up the valley.

Commuter rail is significantly different from light rail. Commuter rail tends to have fewer stops in between and tends to run longer distances, as a train does, as opposed to light rail, which can have a multiplicity of stops along the way. All of those factors…. You need to undertake work in terms of determining what the most effective way to move people is.

Where are people going to and from? What are the growth patterns taking place in the local communities, like Abbotsford, Chilliwack and Langley? How would they potentially fit into the existing transit infrastructure — the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain, for example, that’s being built? Then you’ve got the existing commuter rail line that goes out to Mission. All of those things are part and parcel of decisions that would have to be undertaken to advance rail in the way that the member is talking about.

Right now the focus of the ministry is very much on those two major projects, which are significant in their own right and, obviously, taking time to come to completion.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm whether a sufficient right-of-way has been preserved within the Highway 1 corridor to support commuter rail services or light rail running directly through Chilliwack, Abbotsford and into Langley?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Certainly, Highway 1 is being built with the capacity to be able to take light rail.

In terms of commuter rail, that’s a different thing altogether, in the sense that it’s not just: would you be using Highway 1? You’d have to find a way, on commuter rail, to then be able to link up to the existing railway line and the existing commuter rail service.

The work that we’ve got underway is that whole progression of expanding transit out the valley through numerous modes. We have existing commuter rail. We have SkyTrain being built. The No. 1 is being built with a way that it could accommodate, in the future, light rail.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm whether the province can deliver a direct commuter rail service through the Fraser Valley connecting Abbotsford and Langley without relying on existing freight corridors?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I’ll answer it this way.

First, in terms of a commuter rail line, you’d have to find the route.

Second, there’s already an existing one that uses the line, on CP Rail line, from Mission through Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Port Moody, then right through to Vancouver.

I will tell you this. As the MLA for Port Coquitlam, if anyone thinks that they’re going to then move the line from Port Coquitlam along the Barnett Highway to some other route, it will be a cold day in hell before I allow that to happen.

Harman Bhangu: Well, Minister, what about the valley side? Can’t we get a route of our own? Was commuter rail through Fraser Valley — specifically, connecting Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Langley — even formally considered as a part of the design for the Highway 1 corridor improvements, and what conclusions were reached? Also, was there any analysis or cost incorporating commuter rail capacity into Highway 1 considered?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll put it this way.

Highway 1 has been designed to be able to move vehicles and people and transit. In the future, it can take light rail. Then there’s the existing right-of-way, what they call the old B.C. Electric route, through there. That could also be used for moving people from Chilliwack through Abbotsford through Langley.

Commuter rail is a different beast altogether. It relies on a rail track. Currently the one we have is the one that’s with the negotiation to CP Rail that goes to Mission. That’s where things are at the moment. Anything future to extend that would require negotiation with CP Rail.

On the Highway 1 side, it’s designed for vehicles; for traffic; and, in the future, light rail.

Harman Bhangu: Why I remind you of that, Minister — it was a former NDP campaign promise. You build in Highway 1 now, not even considering a previous promise that you had planned to deliver on, in a way.

I want to turn to TransLink here. The province provided operating funding to stabilize the system and prevent service reductions. That funding, $312 million over three years, was intended to protect services and support near-term priorities.

At the time the funding was announced, TransLink was facing a significant structural deficit projected at more than $600 million annually, beginning in 2026. We are now in that period.

The province has taken steps to provide short-term stability. However, underlying financial challenge has not disappeared. Long-term revenue solutions were to be developed with collaboration with TransLink and regional partners, but those solutions have not yet been finalized.

At the same time, TransLink’s long-term capital needs remain substantial, with tens of billions of dollars in proposed investment requirements to meet future demand. The situation today is clear. Short-term funding is in place, but the long-term plan remains unclear.

My question. What specific revenue tools is the province considering to address TransLink’s long-term funding needs, including whether road pricing or vehicle levies are being actively evaluated?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question. We did supply the short-term financing to assist TransLink with their operating functions. At the same time, we’re aware that there needs to be a longer-term solution. We’re looking to see if we can have something in place by 2027, and the work on what that may be is undertaken, actually, by the Ministry of Finance, not this ministry.

I can also repeat what I have said in the House, and that is that we are certainly not in favour of road pricing.

Harman Bhangu: When does the minister expect a final decision to be made on a long-term TransLink funding model?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Through the 2027 investment plan.

Harman Bhangu: I know we’ve talked about this. It’s the port trucking issue with the truck tags. Right now what analysis, I want to know, was done with truckers and the commissioner that’s there? I realize there’s a private little separation there, but to….

I’ve been in the trucking industry. When you’re buying a new vehicle, it’s a five-year minimum finance, and they’re actually trying to move that to seven, eight or ten years, in some cases, to help with inflation. Chassis start at close to 300 to 400 depending on what kind of spec of truck you want.

Now, for the ports, I know that it went from a two-year to a three-year tag. Is there any consideration to match it with how financing works at all? That’s the question I’d like to know. Is there any consideration of extending that tag not just from two to three years but to four to five years? And what consultation was done with the trucking industry and also truck providers, manufacturers and sales?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell you I have raised that issue with him. As you also acknowledge, he is independent, and I don’t get to tell him what to do, but I also know that he has been engaging with the industry on that issue.

Harman Bhangu: In those conversations, have you brought up the fact, with the financing, how the trucks work…? Right now I know there is a push to even…. There was the 12-year rolling truck age program which was paused that had a level of federal in there, but now I’m hearing a lot about electrification, electric trucks. They want to come up with…. You get a little bit of returns on it. You can get lower pricing and everything else.

Right now for truckers, if they’re going to make that investment, it is going to be very key that they know if they’re getting truck tags of three years. No one’s really going to be looking to buy a truck that it takes five years….

I just want to know. What level of groups has he actually met with? If you can maybe…. If you don’t know, on hand, if you can get me a written report about it. Which groups has he consulted?

[2:00 p.m.]

I think it’s very important that a commissioner of the port trucks actually does the engagement and figures out what the reality on the ground is. I know, stepping into a field that you don’t have any experience in, you might think you’re making good decisions. But right now that has been a huge reason why a lot of people are putting the pause on truck sales. I get truck sales companies reaching out to me, saying: “Hey, what’s going on here?”

Now there’s a new program being rolled out, and a lot of people aren’t coming back with their fleet renewals because they don’t know if they’re going to have the tags.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I think we can get you a list, and we’ll arrange for a briefing for you with the commissioner.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the questions from the critic and other members of the chamber. Commitments that we’ve made, in terms of getting information…. We’ll follow through with that.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,196,576,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

We will now consider the votes for the Legislative Assembly and the officers of the Legislature.

Estimates:
Legislative Assembly

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $140,386,000 — approved.

Estimates:
Officers of the Legislature

Vote 2: Auditor General, $26,855,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $910,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $28,706,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Human Rights Commissioner, $7,978,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $12,254,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Merit Commissioner, $1,751,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Ombudsperson, $17,133,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Police Complaint Commissioner, $11,751,000 — approved.

Vote 10: Representative for Children and Youth, $13,763,000 — approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and further report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Legislative Assembly and officers of the Legislature and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. The committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:05 p.m.

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:15 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, to order.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Now, would the minister like to open with some statements?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Good afternoon, Chair, and thank you.

I’d like to introduce my staff, who I have here to support me: assistant deputy minister, Milan Singh; executive directors, Colleen Rice and Rhianna Begley.

I’d also like to thank the dedicated public servants who have worked hard on this project and who serve the public daily with professionalism and passion for ensuring access to information. Their efforts help ensure B.C. continues to have one of the strongest access and privacy laws in the country.

At a time when jurisdictions across the country are struggling with increased volume and complexity of freedom-of-information requests, our government is continuing to maintain oversight and access, while others are pulling back on both access and oversight. Access to one’s personal information continues to be free. FOI timelines remain the same. And the amendments do not limit people’s access rights or diminish the powers of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I’m happy to answer questions from my counterparts on this important piece of legislation.

Jody Toor: Thank you, Minister. I’m going to just start off with some questions with clause 1.

My first question. Why did the government feel it necessary to add the phrase “and in a reasonable amount of time”?

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. The Chair doesn’t see that in clause 1.

Did you have another question that pertained to clause 1?

Jody Toor: What particular problem was not already addressed under the current legislation?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The changes in clause 1 apply to situations where there is duplicate disclosure of records through FOI, which are available through other statutory processes like legal discovery. It ensures participants in legal proceedings receive the right information through the most appropriate disclosure channel, and it reduces the strain on the FOI system by preventing duplication of effort in identifying and processing the same records requested through parallel disclosure processes.

[2:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you to the minister and her team for taking time with us to go through questions and answers in committee.

On clause 1, my question is: can you explain why this clause includes the language “includes a record not specifically listed or identified but that falls within a general class of records”?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, member opposite, for the question. The reason that’s there is because not all legal proceedings list every document, but the following clause helps to qualify that by saying “but that falls within a general class of records that is listed or identified as part of the proceeding.”

Rob Botterell: The risk associated with this type of clause is that “within a general class of records that is listed or identified as part of the proceeding” would be more expansive than the current provisions in the act. My question is: would you agree that “a general class of records” is broader than the current disclosure requirements in the act?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I think it will help for us to clarify that this only applies to records that are part of the legal proceeding, so somebody who is engaged in the legal proceeding and will be getting it through that legal process. If that’s not the case, then FOI would apply.

Peter Milobar: When you read the existing legislation, as clause 1 is amending section 3, you go to section 3 and its application: “Subject to subsections (3) to (5), this act applies to all records in the custody or under the control of a public body, including court administration records.”

Then you go to subsection (5), which clause 1 is adding to, not amending but adding to, and the start of (5) is: “Part 2 does not apply to the following.”

Then you go down to part 2. Part 2 is “Information Rights and How to Exercise Them.” It is information rights, how to make a request, duty to assist applicants, time limit for responding, contents of response, how access will be given, extending the time limit for responding, transferring a request.

[2:30 p.m.]

Then there’s division 2, “Exceptions”: cabinet and local public body confidences; policy advice or recommendations; legal advice; disclosure harmful to law enforcement; disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations; disclosure harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body; disclosure harmful to the conservation of heritage sites, etc.; disclosure harmful to interests of an Indigenous People; disclosure harmful to individual or public safety; information that will be published or released within 60 days; disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party; disclosure harmful to personal privacy — that one’s a long one; disclosure of information relating to abortion services.

Division 3, “Notice to Third Parties” — notifying the third party, time limit and notice of decision.

Division 4, “Public Interest Paramount.” Information must be disclosed if in the public interest.

That’s the last one within part 2. Those are all the headings of the various areas that are dealt with.

Now, this is amending or adding to subsection (5), and I’m just going to read for the public so they get a clear sense. When you read it just as itself, it sounds kind of benign, but you realize it’s actually removing all of those aspects of part 2, essentially.

“Part 2 does not apply to the following: a record that is available for purchase by the public, a record that does not relate to the business of the public body, a record of metadata that is generated by an electronic system and describes an individual’s interaction with the electronic system, (d) an electronic record that has been lawfully deleted by an employee of a public body and can no longer be accessed by the employee.”

Those all sound like reasonable exceptions for why part 2 would not apply. Clause 1 in the bill we’re talking about, though, now says that we’re going to add in an (e).

The (e) of what will not apply for part 2 is: “a record that the public body, the Attorney General or the government of British Columbia is required by law, as part of a proceeding, to produce, list or identify to the applicant or in the case of an applicant who is acting on behalf of or under the direction of another person, to that person.”

Also, adding in: “A reference in subsection (5)(e) to a record that is required by law to be produced, listed or identified as part of a proceeding includes a record that is not specifically listed or identified but falls within the general class of records that is listed or identified as part of the proceeding.”

I’m just a little confused because the minister’s answers seem to make it sound like this is going to actually enhance access to information and create more information. But part 2 is about not applying anything that I just finished reading to freedom-of-information access within part 2, and part 2 is the guts of freedom-of-information legislation.

Can the minister explain to us how this is actually adding to access by putting in all of this language around what will no longer be applied in part 2 of the existing act, given that that has a wide range of applications to it, not the least of which is the very last, 25, “Information must be disclosed if in the public interest.”

Hon. Diana Gibson: The member opposite may be misunderstanding what’s happening here. Changes aren’t being made to all those sections of clause 2. We are simply ensuring that we are not providing this information two different times. If it’s going to be accessed through the legal process, it will not be accessed through FOI as well, to reduce duplication between the processes. This applies to records an individual will be getting through the court process.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister, then, describe…? I think the minister misunderstood what I was getting at. I understand it’s not amending all of part 2, but in theory, it actually is because it refers directly to part 2 not applying. All those headings I read out — I didn’t want to read chapter and verse of every piece — is what this change will now not apply to.

Part 2 does not apply to the following: “a record that the public body, the Attorney General or the government of British Columbia is required by law, as part of a proceeding, to produce, list or identify.” That’s what this change will now read in legislation. Part 2 does not apply to what I just read out. Part 2 will not apply to that, plus to “to the applicant or in the case of an applicant who is acting on behalf of or under the direction of another person, to that person.”

[2:35 p.m.]

Can the minister give an example? What tracking has been done of the sheer number, the onerous volume, of double FOIs, where legal counsel is requesting the exact same information as their client is requesting and we’re finding this massive overwork and overburdening of the system of a duplication of filings? The minister is purporting this clause change is going to free up all of this great time.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I just want to clarify that the only change we’re adding isn’t around what…. Part 2 doesn’t apply — (a), (b), (c), (d). It is just adding (e), a record of the public body related to a court case or judicial proceedings — that we won’t be duplicate-releasing information if it’s going to be released by the court. That is the only thing that’s being added.

The other language is existing language in the bill, in the FOI Act. These massive litigation-related requests require quite a bit of process. That doesn’t provide greater access to an individual if they’re already going to be getting access through the court process. This is important for ensuring efficient use of resources, which I’m sure the member opposite would support.

Peter Milobar: The question I asked was how many cases of this are coming through the system to require this legislation. The minister is saying it’s to prevent duplication and to provide more efficiencies. Surely, modelling has been done. Surely, there must be a case number of how many times this is being duplicated being asked and the problem that has been created that government is now purporting to solve.

What modelling was done? What do those numbers look like, and how many actual filings is this actually currently impacting?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Processing large litigation-related access requests requires substantial effort. These requests strain the FOI process and provide no greater access than what is available through legal discovery.

During legal proceedings, more appropriate and secure mechanisms exist for accessing information. Duplicate disclosure through FOI increases system costs and pressures on already limited resources. This amendment prevents that kind of duplication to ensure that parties in legal proceedings receive accurate information through secure, established channels.

[2:40 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Once again, that wasn’t the question.

My understanding is, if I recall, that the Finance Minister seemed to say this was about a $2 million savings, something in that neighbourhood. I can’t remember if it was a system or a different program change they were making, so don’t hold me to that.

Either way, this is supposed to be about finding efficiencies. It, certainly, must be modelled on something. It’s, obviously, a contentious piece of legislation. The minister and the ministry have had quite some time to figure out what exactly they are purporting to improve and streamline and speed up.

I’m simply asking what modelling was done. How many of these types of situations are currently in the queue that are backing up FOI and creating the exact scenario that the minister is talking about? Saying that that exists but not actually being able to point to any number of files or documentation that it’s actually impacting simply isn’t good enough on something as fundamentally important as changing access to FOI.

How many, and what modelling was done? How many of these types of files are currently logjamming the system?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Processing large litigation-related access requests requires substantial effort, as I have said multiple times. One case alone — hundreds of legal hours, thousands of dollars. We have multiple cases.

That’s why our government is committed to ensuring access, secure access, for the information people need from the right avenue, without duplication or unnecessary expense in a system that’s currently under pressure. We are going to continue to do that work to ensure we’re judiciously using our public resources while ensuring access to information.

Peter Milobar: Bravo, and I stand corrected. I remember where the $2 million was. I’m sorry. There’s been, between FOI and Merit Commissioner, so much gutting of public access. It was the Merit Commissioner that was going to save $2 million, not these FOI changes, so I’ll correct myself on that.

Again, it’s a rinse-and-repeat answer from the minister. I think everyone understands that court proceedings would result in large volumes of documents. You think of the 20 cases that the government doesn’t want to tell us which ones they are, which are facing DRIPA challenges and everything else. Those would require huge, huge volumes of documents. I think we can all understand that. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a layperson. I understand that. Not a problem.

We’re asking a pretty specific question. What modelling was done? What volume? How can the minister claim that this is going to free up all of this time and all of these resources for other FOI requests and make it an improved system if we actually don’t know what is being freed up — other than one case, in particular, that required a lot of documents?

[2:45 p.m.]

Again, I’m just trying to get a straightforward answer from the minister and the ministry. This is their legislation, based on what they have told us and the public why they needed it — the background information that went into the decision-making to create a contentious piece of legislation. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the public. I would say I would FOI it, but once this passes, we won’t get that information.

Could the minister just please answer what modelling was done? There must be a cost savings they can identify, a number of hours that it’s going to free up. What modelling, what matrix was used to demonstrate, other than if it’s a court case, that it can get very cumbersome for the FOI system because these are large documents? That’s a pretty generic statement to be changing FOI law.

What modelling was done by the ministry to do this? I recognize the minister herself didn’t do it, but we have the staff here. We have other staff undoubtedly watching online. I’m sure we can get an answer. Otherwise, I don’t know why the government would have initiated this in the first place if they didn’t have solid factual data to back the previous statements made by the minister up.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I have shared already with the member opposite that there are substantial savings in one case alone, multiple cases. That is adequate reason for moving forward with a change that protects privacy and access to information while reducing duplication and shows that we’re being judicious with tax dollars while ensuring we prioritize freedom of information and access.

That’s the work we’re doing here. That’s work our government is doing consistently, ensuring we are leaving no stone unturned to ensure we’re using public dollars judiciously while meeting and delivering for the public on things like privacy and protection.

Peter Milobar: How many dollars are being saved?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to go back to the reason we are making the changes today. Jurisdictions across the country are being taxed by increasing volume and complexity, as is our FOI system taxed by increasing volume and complexity of information. The changes being brought today and this clause in particular are about ensuring that we are using our limited resources to the most effective means possible.

That’s why we’re reducing things like duplicate disclosure. Duplicate disclosure is an inefficient use of limited resources at a time where the system is under pressure and where our resources are limited. We are getting rid of the duplicate disclosure in order to ensure we can use those resources to best serve FOI requests in a system under pressure.

Peter Milobar: So no modelling, no cost savings — rinse-and-repeat answer. I apologize. This is like an episode of The Twilight Zone for me because this feels very much….

At the opening, the minister said “making FOI free.” It’s not free. Under this government’s watch, it’s $10 for a file now, in the opening statement, so we might need to modernize the speaking notes.

I say that because it wasn’t that long ago I was sitting in a chamber just like this with a predecessor to this minister talking about that $10 fee, and the answer for days on end was a rinse-and-repeat answer like we’re getting now.

It’s ironic because it’s a piece of legislation that’s supposed to be about freedom of information, and the pieces of legislation in this place that have consistently had the hardest time getting a straight answer out of government have been changes to FOI.

Previously, it was: “Well, what would the rate be?” The answer was continually: “Well, we need to consult after this is passed. We need to consult.” Then within 15 or 20 minutes, the rate was actually set after the bill was passed. Fastest consultation this government has ever had in the history of the NDP.

In this case, the answer we’re getting back…. I’ve been trying to just get what exactly the volume of these duplications is. For a duplication, to someone from the outside world listening to that, it sounds like you just have to hit “print two copies” versus “one” because you’ve already collated the information. I know it’s not that simple, but to the outside world, that’s what it sounds like.

We’re trying to ascertain from the government the changes they are purporting the need to make and to quantify that need. That is simply what the basis of my questions has been. It’s been this round-and-around, sounds-good answer that isn’t actually answering the question at all.

I’ll try this as a slightly different approach and see if then we can get back into the meat of the original question. When the government was debating whether or not to make these gutting changes to FOI legislation for the sake of efficiencies, did they balance that off and study this onerous volume of duplication applications they have out there with the backdrop of enhancing AI techniques to provide FOI responses?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Because the member opposite didn’t like the answer to the question doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered.

The removal of one large duplicate disclosure means many, many other people can get better access to information, which is why this change is being made.

I also beg to differ with some of the language used by the member opposite around gutting changes. These changes are part of an overall strategy our government has to improve access to information.

We have 17 categories of proactive disclosure under FOI because of our government’s commitment to ensuring people can get access without even having to ask for it. This set of changes in Bill 9 adds another proactive disclosure category so that people can get their information without even having to ask for it.

In terms of the cost, this act ensures that those personal requests, which is the growing volume for us, remain free.

[3:00 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Again, “one large file will create many.” That is not what I was asking, and we don’t know what “many” is.

I’ll ask a different way because we totally glossed past whether AI was considered as a way to provide the same efficiencies versus a gutting of legislation. I can come back and ask that later, I guess.

Just avoiding the question isn’t answering the question — standing up and providing the same stock answer over and over again. It’s not me not wanting to hear the answer. I literally asked about AI there. I didn’t hear AI once in the answer. I don’t think I was just ignoring the answer. I did not hear it.

We’ve heard we’ll have capacity for many more files if even just one large duplicate filing is removed. The question all along has been: how many large duplicate filings are going to be removed by this?

There has to have been modelling. If not, it’s a guess, and if it’s a guess, the public needs to know that. If it’s that one large filing will speed things up for 5 percent of the applications and we’re going to remove X amount of large files, fair enough.

I don’t know what the answer is. That’s why we’re here, trying to ask the minister and the ministry what modelling was done based on her own answers. Otherwise, how did the ministry come to this conclusion that this was going to free things up and it was going to make things faster and it would actually help everyone, if it’s just simply about removing duplication?

How much duplication is it removing, and what does it actually mean in real terms to the people that are sitting on long backlogs and being asked to approve extensions or needing to keep asking why it’s taking so long?

That’s what we’re asking, as opposition. I don’t think it’s too unreasonable of a question to ask. I would hope the government would add it to be No. 18 of proactive disclosure and actually disclose it. But they’re not, so we’ll keep asking it.

Can we get a sense around that? Was AI played into this or not? We don’t know because the minister didn’t want to touch that. That’s what the opposition is trying to find out.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Yes, B.C. government’s modernized FOI technology is using AI to support public servants who process FOI requests and improve service delivery for applicants.

One new AI-enabled tool allows analysts to search across old and handwritten documents to speed up review of records and help applicants get their records sooner. Another tool uses natural language processing to help analysts find personal information within FOI records to enhance abilities to protect privacy.

These tools have been developed in alignment with B.C. government’s responsible use of AI principles to ensure all privacy and security requirements are applied.

These help us to identify sensitive information, but the decision in terms of the FOI processing and completion is done by an experienced staff person.

Peter Milobar: Thank you for that.

How much capacity will these changes create in the system? How many large files will no longer be duplicate-applied based on current filings? And what does that mean to applicants out there reasonably expecting for a change in their service levels?

[3:05 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The review of resource allocation in our FOI system was done through rigorous research and policy analysis by our team around where resources were being used and how they could be used to the best possible purpose for maximizing access for individuals to FOI.

Each legal case is totally different, making it difficult to anticipate going forward. Also, with the FOI process being applicant-driven, again, there’s great variety around what that could look like going forward. We do know for a fact that hundreds of hours for a case, on average, can be used more efficiently elsewhere in our FOI system to deliver for individuals. That has been the purpose of this FOI review, to ensure that we are using the resources to the maximum possible effect.

These resources were being used twice, once through our process in FOI, the other through legal disclosure. To be accountable to citizens, we are reducing that duplicate disclosure, while ensuring that the individuals get access to their information through the most appropriate and secure mechanism that exists.

The Chair: The Chair will call a five-minute recess. It is now 3:14, and we’ll return at 3:20.

The committee recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:21 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back, Members.

Rob Botterell: Early in April, I also raised the same questions with the minister along these lines that my colleague raised. How many FOI requests were made in ’24-25 that would be excluded from the act if this amendment were in force? What other metrics are available in relation to this category of requests in ’24-25 — pages, percentage on time, processing days, dollars?

The answer then, as now, is that there’s no data. So let me take a different approach to trying to understand the purpose of this clause, and let me paint it in a picture that somebody who’s pretty old-school would appreciate, and those of you who are youngsters will get a history lesson.

Interjection.

Rob Botterell: That’s right.

In the world of litigation, you have a pre-litigation phase before the proceeding starts. Applicants are quite free to make FOI requests at that stage, before there is any litigation started and before there’s an “in contemplation of litigation” moment, and apply the act and get information. That’s a good thing because it helps the applicant get some information to understand whether it’s worth pursuing.

Then we get into the part of this section that deals with: “as part of a proceeding.” Certainly, in my experience in litigation and my experience in watching how the province and the Ministry of Attorney General and ministries impacted by a particular proceeding…. How that works is that the call goes out to gather, in a great big filing cabinet, all the records that might be relevant because the legal counsel handling the proceeding needs to know all of the relevant information in order to effectively represent their client.

Then, as the litigation proceeds, there is, as required by law, a necessity to produce, list or identify records. So you’ve got this great big filing cabinet, and now you get your order from the court or guidance from the court, and you have to go to the filing cabinet. You say: “Okay, those are the ones that I need to produce, list or identify.” Then there’s the rest of the filing cabinet. The rest of the filing cabinet is sitting there, and somebody has already gone to the work of figuring out what’s required for the proceeding.

[3:25 p.m.]

It is a complete change in the litigation process to say, as this clause says — section 3, amended: “A reference to a record that is required by law to be produced, listed or identified as part of a proceeding includes a record that is not specifically listed or identified but that falls within the general class of records.”

This excludes the whole filing cabinet. There’s nothing in this clause that makes clear that that is not the case. This could easily, and I would say reasonably, be interpreted as excluding the whole filing cabinet. That is a change in this act.

The fact is that the applicant has a right at law under this act to apply to see the rest of the filing cabinet — subject to cabinet and local public body confidence; policy advice; legal advice; harmful to law enforcement, intergovernmental relations, financial or economic interests, conservation of heritage sites, interests of an Indigenous People, individual or public safety; information to be published or released; business interests; disclosure harmful to personal privacy; of information relating to abortion services.

There’s lots of protection. I guess my question is: would you not agree that (5.1), effectively, takes the rest of the filing cabinet out of the FOI process? It is not just an effort to eliminate duplication.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, Member opposite, for the question. With regard to the filing cabinet, first, it’s really important that the sentence be read fully: “Includes a record that is not specifically listed or identified but that falls within a general class of records that is listed or identified as part of the proceeding.” Meaning, only the parts of the filing cabinet that are listed or identified as part of the proceeding would be covered by this (5.1). The balance would be accessible under FOI.

[3:30 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: The “but falls within a general class of records that is listed or identified” — those would all be listed or identified as part of the proceeding under this interpretation. So the point here is “record that is required by law to be produced, listed or identified includes.” It doesn’t say “only.” It includes a record that is not specifically listed or identified but that falls within a general class. It’s not specifically listed or identified. It’s a general class. So that part of the filing cabinet is excluded where it wouldn’t be before.

It’s clear on the face of it, as far as my read of it, that you’re expanding the portion of the records. If you simply had 1(a), I could probably understand that. That hasn’t been…. That’s the limit of the type of restriction that occurs in other parts of Canada. This is simply a restatement of section 3 for more clarity. But 5.1 broadens it. The key is that “but that falls within a general class” and “includes.” In that way, you have extended the section.

I think that if you had done consultation with Trial Lawyers Association or the Canadian Bar Association, which you haven’t, you would find that they’re very concerned about the way in which this alters the way in which the act has worked for a long, long time.

I understand the desire to reduce costs, but as my colleague mentioned, there’s no business case here. Hundreds of hours. It must be tens of thousands of hours spent a year on FOI. Hundreds of hours is a drop in the bucket if those are the savings — we don’t have any records — in return for expanding this. This is not just an elimination of duplication.

To come back to the section, you’re doing the search for the records, you have the filing cabinet, you’ve already created the universe of records that might be available, so it makes logical sense that you’re not going to reduce the…. Duplication costs are not going to be very high, even if there are any, on account of the fact that you’ve already gathered the records and you already will have the list from the court. So it can be and should be a straightforward matter.

My question is: what other approaches have you considered, and what report or briefing notes or documents…? Maybe I can make an FOI request to find out what you considered rather than taking this draconian step of expanding the area that prevents disclosure of classes of records.

[3:35 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Something that might be, I think, informing the challenge here is the difference between how information shows up today compared to how it did when the bill was first created in the ’90s. There might have been a filing cabinet in the ’90s. Today it’s multiple electronic and other types of files across many different systems and types of information. That’s the kind of volume and complexity that is challenging FOI jurisdictions right across the country.

This change is about ensuring that we don’t do that processing twice through two different teams and processes and, also, adding to the legal review because they would then also have to do a review of the FOI review. It’s duplicate plus.

Again, this isn’t about pulling records out of FOI. It’s about ensuring that those that are going to be disclosed under the legal process, those that are listed or identified as part of the proceeding, are disclosed through that process. Those that aren’t will be subject to FOI.

Just to say, the reason that class is added here is because legal processes often don’t list every document. The class of records is an important part of ensuring that we’re not duplicate-releasing documents and processes that are going to go through a more appropriate avenue for the individual.

Rob Botterell: I don’t think that technological innovation since the 1990s changes my point. I only used that to try and introduce some levity in a serious discussion.

The information should be even easier to access and assemble now, with the help of AI and with the help of all of the innovations that your team has put in place over the last bunch of years.

The point is that there is no way that I’ve heard so far to guarantee that clause 5.1 isn’t effectively a Trojan Horse. There are no boundaries around general records, that definition in that clause, to make it clear that just exactly what you’re saying is the way it’ll actually be applied.

It is broad enough to incorporate records that eliminate them from access because of the breadth of the way that clause has been drafted.

Do you have the endorsement of litigation lawyers and their clients for this change?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record and on the record, that is not the intention of this change. The boundaries around the class of record are that it be listed or identified as part of the proceedings. If it is not, it is covered by FOI.

Rob Botterell: There was part of my question that was not answered. Trial Lawyers Association, litigation clients, applicants — do they support these changes? Do you have some evidence that there’s support?

They’re all taxpayers too. They’d be concerned about duplication and eliminating duplication. If your interpretation of this clause is correct, then the trial lawyers and litigators and applicants should be jumping up and cheering because taxes are going to go down and there’s going to be more time for their FOI requests.

My question is, repeating what I said earlier: do Trial Lawyers Association, litigators and applicants who this clause would apply to…? Are they supportive of these changes? Are they on the record as supportive of these changes?

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: This change came from our litigators, who identified this as part of the review process that was looking for ways we could have efficiency within the FOI system, which, as we’ve talked about, is under pressure.

They identified this as an area that took up a lot of time, and that was duplication. We then validated this by speaking with other public bodies, which were also in favour of this change because it was duplicate processes. The Privacy Commissioner’s office did not oppose this change.

Again, it’s really important to recognize this is not about reducing access. This is about making sure we’re not having our teams do the work twice, at cost to the taxpayer, ensuring it’s an efficient use of resources while we deal with a system under pressure.

Jody Toor: What kind of consultation was done with First Nations under the provision of DRIPA?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In the development of this bill, we followed the consultation and protocols under DRIPA for Indigenous consultation, and there was some engagement, particularly around the Connected Services aspects of the bill and the opportunity to better serve Indigenous individuals through our Connected Services B.C.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Jody Toor: How will this impact First Nations while they’re suing the government?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As per the provisions in clause 5(e) and 5(1), the access would be through the judicial disclosure process for records that are specifically listed or identified or fall within the class of records specifically listed or identified. Otherwise, they would be eligible to access records through FOI.

Jody Toor: Can the minister explain why the bill is disapplying in part 2 of the act that records must be produced, listed or identified as part of a proceeding?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The changes here are about addressing the duplicate disclosure records through FOI when they were available through other statutory processes like legal discovery, ensuring that participants in legal proceedings receive the right information through the most appropriate disclosure channel.

Jody Toor: How does this government define “general class of records,” and who determines whether a record falls within a general class connected to a proceeding?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The list of records and general class of record is determined through the court proceedings.

Something important to point out is that through the process in second reading and out in public debate, there has been a lot of misinterpreting and misunderstanding the oversight. It’s important to know that clause 42(1) outlines the Privacy Commissioner’s role: “Monitoring how this act is administered to ensure that its purposes are achieved and may conduct investigations and audits to ensure compliance with any provision of this act or the regulations.” So where there are challenges on interpretation or definitions, that does sit, in all clauses of this act, with the Privacy Commissioner.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jody Toor: Does this clause increase government judgment to characterize records as connected to proceedings?

Interjection.

The Chair: Recognizing the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

You have to say that again, unfortunately.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you.

Absolutely not. The determination is made through the process of the court proceedings.

Jody Toor: Could applicants lose FOI access rights simply because records related indirectly to litigation or another legal matter?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Absolutely not. As we’ve been clear throughout this discussion, either the record is accessible through the judicial process or it would be accessible through FOI.

Jody Toor: Can applicants challenge a ministry’s determination that a record belongs to a general class connected to a proceeding?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As I have stated, the provisions under Bill 9 and in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act are covered by the “General powers of commissioner,” clause 42(1) and maintains oversight. Decisions can be appealed to and are reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner as per clause 42(1).

Jody Toor: What prevents public bodies from using overly wide classes to shield records from FOI even after proceedings end?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Once legal proceedings are completed, an applicant can request information through the FOI process, subject to the mandatory and discretionary exemptions and disclosures as described in the act.

Jody Toor: Do proceedings include court actions, inquiries or settlements? Can the minister provide examples of records this would newly exempt?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to clarify that this applies to records that an applicant or the person acting on their behalf would receive through the legal discovery process. If they are not receiving it through the legal discovery process, it would be eligible for FOI. After the legal proceedings are complete, information can be requested through FOI.

Jody Toor: What safeguards prevent ministries from interpreting “general class of records” too broadly?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As was said before, the determination of class of records is made through the court process. Any record that is not in that legal proceeding disclosure would be eligible for FOI. The guardrail and oversight are as per the clause previously mentioned, where the Privacy Commissioner has oversight of interpretation and review.

Jody Toor: You just mentioned about the safeguards. I just have a question. Are these objective criteria governing how these classes are defined?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The determination of the class of records is made through the court process, and the oversight is through the Privacy Commissioner’s office. Both of those provide clarity of the line of determination and of the process for appeal.

Jody Toor: How does government ensure this framework respects digital data governance principles?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Although these records are being exempt from FOI, the data management protocols for any ministry data would continue to apply.

Jody Toor: Could this amendment broaden the categories of records excluded from the FOI processes?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: No, it will not broaden exclusion. This is about reducing duplication. The individual will either have access through the legal discovery process or through FOI, but they will continue to have access.

Rob Botterell: Much has been made of the role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to safeguard this particular section’s application, and this section is focused on the litigation process. My question is: is the Information and Privacy Commissioner a lawyer?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As the member opposite would know, when speaking about the commissioner, it involves the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which includes a team that includes multiple lawyers.

Rob Botterell: Through the afternoon, reference has been made to consulting internal legal counsel, so lawyers at the Attorney General’s ministry and other legal counsel within government, in order to allay concerns about the application of this section.

[4:35 p.m.]

My question. Are those legal counsel that you’ve consulted within government speaking on behalf of lawyers outside of government, for example in the Trial Lawyers Association, on the merits of this section?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Absolutely not. When we engage with our internal lawyers, it’s about process efficiencies within our internal FOI processes, which is what this change is about.

Rob Botterell: Then that confirms what we’ve discussed this afternoon — that lawyers who potentially have a concern about this provision have not been consulted or given an opportunity to say yea or nay in terms of their interpretation of the application of this section.

Earlier this afternoon we talked about the lack of data to support this change. Clearly, if this legislation and this amendment were to come into force, there would be an opportunity to monitor the benefits that are asserted regarding reduced duplication, more hours available for other requests or for other activities.

What concrete plans are there in place to monitor the implementation of this section should it be enacted, including the information that we’ve requested that is unavailable, such as the number of FOI requests that would be excluded from the act if this amendment were in force and pages, percentages, processing days, dollars? What monitoring work…? What plan is there to monitor the implementation of this section should it be enacted and to prove, through detailed metrics, that it’s having the effect that the minister claims it will?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: First, I want to differ with the characterization of a lack of data. We have put on the record that there are hundreds of hours, in a single case alone, of resources being diverted to duplicate processes that could be better used to deliver on FOI under these changes. That’s data and information that informed this change.

With this change, we have the opportunity to monitor, on an ongoing basis, any that do apply and fit these criteria. It will provide an incomplete picture because with the clarity under these changes, we assumed there would be fewer applications or requests.

Rob Botterell: I’ll just note for the record that doesn’t really answer the question in terms of what the impact would be in public policy and in business. You would want to be able to have a very clear measurement of metrics to demonstrate the efficacy of the change.

[4:45 p.m.]

My final question, subject to my colleagues having other questions on this clause, is to clarify the impact of this change. This act does not apply to the following: “a record that the public body, the Attorney General or the government of British Columbia is required by law, as part of a proceeding, to produce, list or identify to the applicant or in the case of an applicant who is acting on behalf or under the direction of another person, to that person.”

Consider this scenario. You’re a journalist or you’re an interested NGO. You’re not a party to the proceeding, but you’re seeking the records required by law as part of a proceeding to be produced, listed or identified. Under this section, does an individual or an entity that is not part of the litigation find itself with no access to the record through FOI?

Hon. Diana Gibson: There are no changes for people who are not party to the litigation. The act, as previously, would apply. They may or may not get access to the record depending on the provisions of the act as it currently stands.

Bruce Banman: I have to say I was less than impressed with the minister’s answer to my colleague’s question. I found it, actually, to be a tad flippant, in fact.

With the greatest of sincerity, the reason that this legislation was brought forward was because it is creating an exorbitant amount of work, we are hearing. That’s what we’ve been told.

If you’re going to reduce the workload by changing the act, I would imagine that you would have great ways of measuring that. To say, “Well, we assume that there’s going to be less requests for freedom of information” really doesn’t cut it. It does not answer the question.

[4:50 p.m.]

There are a number of reasons why you may not have increased freedom-of-information requests — such as it now costs, as we found out, $280 for a simple freedom-of-information request because it’s $10 across potentially 28 ministries. That could be a reason. It could be that it’s now become so onerous to do a freedom-of-information that that could be a reason why we have less requests.

I think my colleague’s answer — what metrics is this ministry measuring? — is a valid one. So would the minister please tell us. What is it that she will know that this particular legislation is working, with regards to the metrics of the amount of time that’s being put in? Is it the amount of requests that are being asked? Is it the amount of money that’s being asked?

The public has a right to know whether or not we are creating so much red tape that they just throw their arms up. Is this actually working because it’s going to streamline things? What is it that this ministry is doing to actually measure this so the public knows that the hours that we have debated this particular piece of legislation are actually effective? I think it’s a fair question.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: First, I want to say the member opposite misunderstood when I said the metric would be numbers going down. I was specifically referring to people applying under this clause and to applications that would be exempted from FOI under this clause. We would not know how many because they won’t be applying, because it’s clear they’re not eligible for an FOI under this clause.

However, I want to speak to the broader metrics that we have for making the decision to do this and for being able to know that we’re achieving something with this.

Does this reduce duplication? The answer is yes. Does this ensure participants are receiving the right information through the most appropriate disclosure channel? The answer is yes. Does this reduce strain on the FOI system by preventing duplication in effort by identifying the same records requested through parallel disclosures? Yes, hundreds of hours per case. The answer to using public resources more efficiently to deliver FOI more efficiently through the right channels…. The answer is yes. The metric is clear.

Rob Botterell: Just a follow-up to my colleague’s question. How can you assert that when you don’t have any data?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Asked and answered on the record of what the data is and what the driver of this initiative has been from our team.

Rob Botterell: Let me slow down and ask this in another way. If your legal counsel is saying that they are actually spending time reviewing FOI requests that appeared to match a list of documents or a list for a proceeding, then they would be able to provide you with the number of hours they are spending on each of those tasks. Then with this change that you’re describing, they would be able to track and advise you exactly how much less time they’re spending, if indeed they’re spending less time.

From a business case point of view, you can’t determine exactly what you’re going to save and how that is going to be used without actually having metrics.

With respect, “oh, we save hundreds of hours” is not the type of accountability mechanism and assessment of the impact of this change that we’d be looking for. I think the public of B.C. and the taxpayers of B.C. would want to know exactly what the savings are, if indeed there are savings, because there’s entirely the possibility that an unintended consequence of this amendment could be an increase in other types of requests to compensate in a manner of trying to ensure that the document production in a particular case is full of integrity.

It’s not clear to me that this change will have the effect, and it’s not enough, with respect, to assert it will. We need to actually prove it will.

[5:00 p.m.]

That’s been the line of questioning. What steps will you take, as the minister, to come up with concrete, specific monitoring mechanisms so you can say in a year’s time: “We saved this many thousand hours, and they were devoted to this task and this task, and this is how the business case for this particular change is proven out”?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Taxpayers have asked for our government to be efficient with the use of resources, and the key part of that is to reduce duplication. This is what we’re doing — reducing duplication and ensuring access to information.

We have been clear. Under these changes, the individual will either get their information through the court process or through FOI. We will not do it as duplicate processes. That is delivering for the taxpayers on the efficiency they’ve asked us to deliver in terms of judicious use of resources in an FOI system under pressure.

Bruce Banman: Did this government look at other jurisdictions for best-use practices to come up with this particular section of legislation, or was this done in-house?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As I’m on the record as saying, this surfaced as part of our internal efficiency review to reduce duplication while delivering access to information for people. This is about good public policy.

Bruce Banman: Again, I’m confused. The answer really didn’t have anything to do with the question that I asked. With the greatest of respect, I’ll repeat the question perhaps slightly differently.

When it came to this legislation, did we look at other jurisdictions, other provinces, other states, other countries, other cities — anywhere in the world, for that matter — to come up with how to improve this FOI legislation that now stands before us? Were there any other legislations that were studied to help build this particular piece of legislation that is before us right now?

Hon. Diana Gibson: We are discussing clause 1. As I’ve said, clause 1 is as a result of…. Changes came from a review of efficiency of how FOI resources are being used, to identify areas where we could reduce duplication.

That is the origin of the material in clause 1. It is about ensuring access while reducing duplication and ensuring the most effective use of our FOI resources in a system under pressure.

Bruce Banman: That’s great that we’re trying to do efficiency and reduce duplication and get money for the taxpayer.

Let me answer the minister’s question for her, which I have a hunch she’s going to give me back in a second.

The question I really want to know is: did we look at other jurisdictions to be able to sort out what best practices were so that we could figure out where duplication was, so that we could get better efficiency, so that we could get better efficiency for tax dollars? Did we look at other jurisdictions for this particular section in front of us?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I have discussed already, multiple times, that we’ve canvassed thoroughly the origins of this change, and I have nothing further to add.

Bruce Banman: I didn’t ask the minister what the origins of the change were. I asked the minister a question for a specific answer. I asked the minister because other jurisdictions have done this.

Let me put it in medical terms. There’s a thing called best practices. When one does things in medicine, we do this because it is the best practice. We learn from others’ mistakes, and that’s how we get to best practices. This isn’t a try-to-get-you, gotcha moment for the minister.

If we are developing our own legislation in this province, well, maybe this is the best practice. Then the minister should stand up and proudly state: “No. We’ve done this in-house.” It was a simple question, and I don’t know why the minister is hesitant to say whether or not they looked at what are the best practices across the world when it comes to FOIs.

Have we looked at that? Did we consider that, or did we make this up here? Is this 100 percent made here in British Columbia? It’s not what the origins were. The origins of it were, as the minister has discussed and told us, because there was tons of work being done by staff. Fair enough. I’ve talked about that when I was a mayor and the amount of work that FOIs caused for my staff and how much of an annoyance that was to them. I get the burden.

My question, respectfully, again, is not the origin. Did we look at best practices across the world to help draft this?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you for patronizingly explaining best practices. I’m perfectly aware of what those are.

In this case and in cases of efficiency review in our government, we look at the best possible use of taxpayer resources in every case. In this case, the best possible use of taxpayer resources is to ensure maximum effective use of our resources for delivering FOI.

The best practice is to ensure we’re not duplicating processes where we have a system under pressure. The choice was made to ensure that we are giving these people access to their discovery through legal discovery or through FOI, not through both, so we can maximize effective use of FOI resources.

In terms of developing the FOI Act, jurisdictional reviews, of course, are part of that process. This particular, as I’ve said already clearly, was developed in-house.

The Chair: We’re on clause 1. Shall clause 1 pass?

Okay. Division has been called.

[5:15 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, are you in agreement to waive the time?

Leave not granted.

[5:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is whether or not clause 1 shall pass.

Clause 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Whiteside	Yung
Gibson		Chow
NAYS — 5
Banman	Hartwell	Botterell
Maahs		Luck

The Chair: There being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 1 to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading.

The committee will take a brief recess now and will return at 5:40 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:26 p.m. to 5:41 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, back to order.

On clause 2.

Jody Toor: I’d just like to know. Why did the minister think that it is now necessary to add “in the opinion of the head of the public body”?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The change in this clause referring to “in the opinion of the head of the public body” is consistent with language elsewhere in the act and was introduced to provide clarity and consistency.

It does remain under the oversight of the Privacy Commissioner’s office, as per section 42 of the act. But in engagement with other members and in information we saw in second reading, we’ve heard that it was being misinterpreted and misunderstood. We have proposed an amendment to remove “in the opinion of the head of the public body” to reduce that concern.

Jody Toor: With this clause, it suggests that the request must provide enough detail for the record to be found “in a reasonable amount of time.” A reasonable amount of time is not defined, and it was not in the original requirements for a request. Why did the government feel it is necessary to add the phrase “and in a reasonable amount of time?”

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The objective of this clause change is to ensure that there is sufficient detail to be able to find the record.

The definition is defined elsewhere in the act, is used commonly elsewhere in the act. It is standard wording for legal test. It is interpreted by the Privacy Commissioner’s office, and there will be jurisprudence already.

Jody Toor: How does the government define “reasonable amount of time”?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As I explained in my previous answer, there is jurisprudence from the Privacy Commissioner’s office on the definition of “reasonable,” and that would be used to define it in this circumstance as well. If an individual had concern with the interpretation of it by the public body, they would have recourse through the commissioner.

Jody Toor: Where is the definition written in this bill?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The term “reasonable” is used in many places in the existing FOI legislation, which means that there are past commissioner decisions on the appropriate interpretation of “reasonable.” That would be used as guidance in this context.

It’s also a term used widely in other legal jurisprudence and the courts, which would also, of course, be guidance.

Jody Toor: Will different ministries apply different standards for “a reasonable time”?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: We have a centralized FOI service that offers guidance to the ministries and helps to ensure a consistent service for people.

Of course, it still remains under the oversight of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Rob Botterell: I have some questions related to clause 2, which amends clause 5(1). “To obtain access to a record, the applicant must make a written request that provides enough detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a reasonable effort, to identify the record sought.” That’s the current version. Then the addition in the part we’re dealing with right now is “in a reasonable amount of time.”

I want to begin by asking for some representative examples of what you would see is an unreasonable effort. I’ll come to my questions about the change coming, but first of all, I’d like to understand the current section before the change. What is an unreasonable effort? Can you give some representative examples?

Those representative examples would illustrate the circumstances in which the request is put on hold because it’s considered that it would involve an unreasonable amount of effort. Then, presumably, you’d go back to the applicant and say: “This involves an unreasonable amount of effort. You’ve got to narrow the request or withdraw the request or change the request or reduce the number of ministries” — whatever.

I’d appreciate an explanation with some representative examples of what unreasonable effort means.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: This clause is not about limiting access to records that are hard to find but about requiring or ensuring sufficient detail to be able to find the records. It isn’t appropriate for us to define that here, as the language is already in the act and interpreted by the Privacy Commissioner’s office, where the jurisprudence would sit.

Rob Botterell: I’m sure your staff have read all the commissioner’s orders in detail over the years. Can you not give the members of the public who are listening in on Hansard and others some examples of where there’s insufficient detail?

[6:10 p.m.]

I gather, with an unreasonable effort, there’s insufficient detail. So would it require an unreasonable effort to find those? There must be some examples you could share. That’ll help illustrate questions I’m going to ask later this afternoon or probably tomorrow.

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that questions are through the Chair.

Rob Botterell: Through the Chair, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Diana Gibson: The role of the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner is a critical part of the freedom-of-information and privacy legislation and the act, and it’s not our place to do interpretations here in this room.

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 6:15 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Jobs and Economic Growth
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $72,704,000 (continued).

Teresa Wat: The Premier announced casually in Surrey on March 19 — this should be the correct day — that he would visit China. Maybe I missed an official news release. I just want to know. Is there any official news release about the Premier’s trip to China?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes. The Premier shared at a public event that he will be going on a trade mission to China. We have not put out the details yet, but they will be coming out very soon.

Teresa Wat: It’s a little bit weird that, so far, the details of the trip…. I got it from singtao.ca through the…. The MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview is here. Sing Tao quoted this MLA as saying that the Premier will visit China from June 27 to July 3, going to Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Just want to confirm that before I talk about more details. The quoted MLA, Vancouver-Fraserview….

The Chair: Just to remind all members, we want to ensure that we are not making comments about which members are or are not in the room in the moment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, if my friend across the way does a Google search, you’ll see it on Business in Vancouver and many publications that are talking about the Premier’s trip. Very soon we’ll be releasing a very detailed itinerary that the Premier is going to take. I’m certainly happy to forward that on to the member when it’s ready.

Teresa Wat: But it was clearly stated in singtao.ca that the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview gave an exact date — as I said just now, June 27 to July 3 — stating that the Premier will visit Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Plus, the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview was quoted as saying that the local businesses cannot join the Premier’s trip but they are welcome to attend events in China.

This is coming from an MLA from this government, so I would like to confirm how come. It is really weird that a member of the government is giving details quoted by singtao.ca, yet it’s not been announced yet.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If my friend has a detailed question to the Premier about what he’s said publicly, during his estimates might be a good place for this question to come up.

I’ve shared a couple times that the detailed itinerary will be released very soon so that the public and my friend across the way will be able to know which towns the Premier is visiting.

Normally, and the member will know because she was the minister for trade, leading up to events, when the word gets out that there’s a trip coming, often you have business leaders that are interested, you have academic partners that are interested, you have not-for-profits that are interested, and that’s just normal engagement that happens.

Teresa Wat: Yes, of course, after the Premier announced his trip to China, there was a lot of interest in the community, especially among the Chinese business community.

[1:45 p.m.]

What I’m trying to get at is that a member of this government was quoted as giving details, even the exact date and the three cities that the Premier’s going to visit.

I think the minister is responsible for this file. I’m sure your media monitoring will have put out the report.

That’s what I want to confirm, because I was getting questions from my constituents and the Chinese business community as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s great to hear that there’s interest in the member’s community around this trip. Certainly, there’s going to be lots of interest, given how important these relationships are.

If my friend across the way has a question about something the Premier is doing on his travels, she can certainly ask him in estimates. What I can share with her is that a detailed itinerary on his trip is going to be released very soon. We look forward to releasing that in the very near future.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Member, just a reminder. I think it’s important to recognize that the answer has been, I think, clearly provided by the minister, so perhaps a different line of questioning or a different approach might be helpful.

Teresa Wat: I still have to ask another question concerning this one, if Madam Chair allows me to do so.

The Chair: Please go ahead. I just wanted to point that out.

Teresa Wat: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your direction, but the minister is responsible for trade, and it’s just normal for a critic to direct the question to the minister.

I’m sure the minister is responsible for preparing the Premier’s trip to China. I know that the minister said just now that it will be announced soon. If it’s going to be announced soon, that means that the visit will take place soon, in the summer. But from my experience, any foreign trade to Asia or to Europe has to be planned at least half a year prior to the visit.

It looks a bit odd that the Premier announced it in March and then the trip will happen in a few months’ time. It’s a bit rushed. I just want to get more details about why it was announced in such a big rush.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can assure the member that when trips are being planned, there’s a lot of work that gets done in order to make them successful. Let’s just say, in a different situation, when we work on a project or initiative, an announcement comes later. What I can share with the member is that very soon we’ll be making the announcement. We’ll be able to share details of where he’s going and the broad strokes, the itinerary.

I just am not able to share the announcement with the member at this time, but the Premier has spoken publicly that he’s going to China. He has spoken on multiple occasions that he’s going to China, that it’s coming up very soon. Once we have all the things in order and we’re able to give the details, we’ll be sharing that.

Teresa Wat: Before I have to move to the next topic because I cannot get anything, again I have to emphasize that a member of this government has been telling the media about details of the trip, even with the exact dates and the exact cities. The fact that local Chinese business people cannot join this trade mission and have to be right in China in order to attend any trade activities organized locally…. I just want to put it on record.

Since I didn’t get anything from this minister on a trade mission that the minister should be totally responsible for, I’m going to switch to another question.

The Premier announced the Look West initiative some time ago. This is the government’s signature trade diversification response to U.S. tariffs. Can the minister tell this committee: what’s the total budget allocated to Look West in 2026 through ’27? How much has been spent to date? Broken down by market — Japan, South Korea, India, Southeast Asia, Europe, U.S.A. — what is the specific export dollar target B.C. has set for each market?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry I took an extra second there.

The member will know part of Look West…. Our goal was to attract $200 billion of investment over the next decade to British Columbia. Both Canada and B.C. have a goal of doubling trade to non-U.S. markets. That’s clear in our strategy. We’re investing, right now, $11.8 million in our trade investment offices. I think that’s what the member was asking.

I actually looked up the strategy that the member had when she was the minister for this, and there weren’t exact targets at that time for markets. I think the goal was to diversify, to lead some delegations at trade missions.

Certainly, those are the things we’re doing, but we’re going further by saying we want to double the trade to non-U.S. markets in our strategy. It’s bold. Some say it’s, probably, a little too ambitious, but we have to start with that and see where we go.

[1:55 p.m.]

Teresa Wat: Because I’m running out of time, I’ll just turn to another question that I really want to ask the minister.

The minister personally signed a Canadian mutual recognition agreement in Yellowknife on November 19, 2025, and described it as the largest set of red-tape reduction in Canada’s history. It has been in place for roughly five months.

What measurable outcomes can the minister report to this committee today? Specifically, how many B.C. businesses have used the CMRA provision to assess new provincial markets, and has the ministry tracked any increases in B.C.’s interprovincial export value since December 2025?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The economic impact, not according to me but to IMF, Stats Canada, Greater Vancouver Board of Trade…. They have highlighted many things. The removal of interprovincial trade barriers could add $7.6 billion to the GDP. I think that’s what Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has highlighted. Between IMF and Stats Canada, I’ve seen everything from 7 percent to up to 21 percent drag on the economy.

The numbers are significant. It’s too early to see the data to show the impact, mainly for two reasons.

One is that all provinces have till June 30, 2026, to list their exemptions. Provinces are allowed to have exemptions where they feel they need to. It’s part of the agreement. By June 30, everyone has to list them.

I suspect the true benefit of that is after June 30 when all provinces list their exemptions so that companies that are operating in the space can have more confidence to know what each jurisdiction’s rules are, according to the jurisdiction they want to operate in. So you won’t see an impact this year. You’re likely to see more impacts going forward because of that. That’s an important piece.

We fought hard in British Columbia to make sure that all the exemptions were posted by provinces. I think it’s fair to say that not every province wanted to post publicly their exceptions, but in order to get true benefit for everyone, you needed to do that.

Then a second part is we want to make sure the businesses understood how to leverage this opportunity. Instead of every province creating something themselves, all the provinces and all the players to the table agreed to create one document for all of Canada for all businesses so that they understand how they can leverage these new changes for their own business.

All these things should be coming on very soon, but June 30 is the big date for the goods part of our agreement.

Teresa Wat: Thank you to the minister for the response, and it leads me to this question.

This agreement explicitly excludes food, alcohol and labour mobility. They are a very significant area for B.C. producers and workers.

B.C. and Alberta have made progress on the direct-to-consumer wine sales. When does the minister expect food and alcohol to be brought under the mutual recognition? It will be by June 30? And the Labour Mobility Act as well.

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are three tables that are having conversations. There’s labour mobility table, which we…. Our goal is to have an agreement this year. There’s the alcohol table, which our goal, again, is to have the deal done this year. As well, services, the same thing — our goal is to have it this year.

The Premiers have directed, at their last first ministers meetings, where they basically agreed and directed select ministers to make sure that’s done…. The CMRA around services is being chaired by B.C., and alcohol is being led by Minister of Agriculture, but working together. Then labour mobility is by Labour but still part of our table.

We’ve got different ministries. Because they all have different specialties, they’re able to take lead on different parts of it. But for all three of those, our goal is to have the agreements for the first ministers this year.

Teresa Wat: Given the limitation on time…. My colleagues have a lot of questions for the minister. I still have a number of questions. If the minister is kind enough, can I forward the written questions to the ministry for a written response?

Thank you so much for the interaction. We appreciate that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the member would like to have more time, maybe even meet with the staff to ask questions, we can arrange that. We’ve done that for my friend who’s the official critic for this. But if you want to do it in writing, we can do that in writing as well.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice to see you. Good to be back.

I’ll just close off on the trade file a little bit.

You will forgive my focus on this area, but if I could ask the minister just to speak a little bit more, within the realm of what is in his scope, about what’s happening at the alcohol table on the trade fund and if, specifically, there’s any update that he can provide with regard to advancing the reduction of interprovincial trade barriers for wine and, in particular, if he can expand a little bit on the goals that government currently has in terms of trying to maximize opportunity for our wine-growing sector.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I really appreciate the member’s concern and advocacy on this part. We did canvass this before the break — a week. Not much of a break, and the member knows that.

I can’t share more details at this time. I can say that we’re close, but I almost don’t want to jinx it. At the same time, partly because a lot of work that’s being done has to go to different jurisdictions, things can still change. I don’t want to put anything on the record that wouldn’t be 100 percent factual, so I can’t share the details yet, other than to say that there’s good progress being made on it.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the confidentiality of those negotiations, and I look forward to seeing more in the fullness of time.

I’ll just circle back to a few different topics that we may have covered off in part prior to the break.

I understand that there will be a value-for-money audit of Web Summit spending undertaken. I believe it’s by PwC. That’s my understanding from conversations that I had at Web Summit. I just wanted to confirm whether that audit will be public.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Ministry of Finance’s estimates are coming up, and I think, given the context of the questioning, it might be better suited for the Ministry of Finance. They’ll be in a better place to share the answers to the member’s question.

Gavin Dew: I’ll look forward to learning more about that later.

I’m looking to get some clarity around AI data centre processes. I recognize there’s going to be some overlap here between this ministry and the Ministry of Energy, but I was struck that last week Telus announced that they have secured 85 megawatts of electricity for AI data centres, rising to 150 megawatts by 2032. I certainly welcome that announcement.

I am a little bit confused, because as far as I understood it from prior government announcements, there was a competitive process underway, with the results to be announced in September of 2026. There was no statement from Hydro and there was no quote from the Minister of Energy when that announcement was made last week.

I’m just looking to understand how that announcement that was made last week by Telus corresponds with the competitive process that’s supposed to wrap up in September of 2026.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I don’t have anyone from Hydro here as part of my team, so I don’t want to say something. I don’t have the details, and the team doesn’t have that information, so it is a question better for the Minister of Energy. I’m sure you could just ask him in the hallway or in a more formal setting. But my team, I don’t have anyone from Hydro that’s on the call or in the room.

Gavin Dew: That’s fair. Obviously, Energy estimates have wrapped up, and I don’t know that this rises to the test of being a question period question.

I am just, again, trying to understand what’s going on there. It seems as if it is completely contradictory to the process as laid out previously by government. I’m not opposed to the announcement — pleased to see progress being made and pleased to see that work happening by Telus. I’m just trying to understand how it fits with the competitive process previously articulated. We’ll have to get that answer somewhere else.

Can I get an update on the policy measures being undertaken and the inventory work being done to identify industrial land shortages by region, which have previously featured in mandate letters for this ministry?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s too bad time is running out, because now we’re getting to the stuff that I love. I think there are not many people that will, probably, love industrial land policy more than the member and I. Sorry to everyone else that’s getting bored.

Oh, there are a few people here. You know what? We’ve got a good audience for this conversation today. There’s a lot of interest in the room.

We’re doing a lot of work on this space. I think when industrial land conversation comes up, there’s…. You know, in Metro Vancouver, there’s real pressure. In some parts of Vancouver Island, there are real pressures. Then in some parts in the Interior, in the North, people say: “We’ve got lots of industrial land.”

What we’re doing right now is we’re working with a vendor to create a comprehensive map of where industrial lands are available. That work is important because right now there’s no standardized way of collecting data on industrial land. That’s part of the work we’re doing. The goal with this will be to have a bit of an inventory of where industrial land is and what kind of industrial land we have. It will help us inform our land use policies as we move forward.

Also, it will allow us to create opportunities, perhaps for clusters near highways, for our ambitious goal of moving more goods across the country through British Columbia. Well, you need the working land. You need the industrial land. And where do you want the industrial land? You want it close to highways. You want it close to infrastructure, where it already exists. This type of work allows us to do that.

I can’t give the member a timeline, but my hope is always this year. The team is working pretty hard to get some basic information up, for us and for industry to use.

Gavin Dew: Does the minister envision moving toward an industrial land reserve system?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member — he’ll probably already know this — that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade have called for some form of industrial land reserve policy.

We have not made a decision. It will be part of the consideration because it has come forward from multiple organizations, but at this point, we haven’t landed on what that will look like and how that will be as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: In principle, how will the ministry reconcile industrial land needs with housing targets, environmental approvals and First Nations consultation?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a good question. We have to balance, in all of this, the needs around housing, agriculture, conservation, economic growth opportunities and also ensuring regional diversity.

I can share with the member that we have already been engaging with communities on what this can look like. We had 108 engagements so far — 86 local governments have participated and shared their feedback and 15 First Nations. We plan on continuing monthly engagements for several months still, because there’s more information coming and we want to make sure that it lands well.

Then internally, the teams are doing work with Agriculture. They’re doing work with Housing, because a lot of the policy folks are at the Ministry of Housing. There’s a whole bunch of ministries that are working together on collecting that feedback and making sure that it represents the different interests within the public and also within government.

Gavin Dew: When can there realistically be expected to be an outcome on some of this? I would point to the fact that six years ago, the Premier’s Food Security Task Force report pointed to some directions around agri-industrial zoning, and that does not appear to be moving at anything approaching more than a snail’s pace.

I’m just wondering. When might we actually see some policies enacted?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t give a definitive, but I can say that my goal is by spring in the new year.

Gavin Dew: The minister touched on the cross-ministerial aspects of all this. Again, I understand there are aspects that are and are not under the minister’s jurisdiction. With that said, there was, obviously, some reference to potential industrial land around highways. I’m wondering if the minister can shed any light on what conversations have and have not been undertaken around lower-quality farmland.

As the minister is surely aware, we produce 80 percent of our food on 20 percent of our ALR land, and there are obviously some limitations to the mapping that was undertaken at the time when the ALR was formed. We didn’t have GIS mapping. We didn’t have that technology at that time. We find ourselves in a situation where we have a tremendous amount of lower-quality farmland which processing is still not allowed on.

I wonder if the minister can shed light on, for example: will we allow processing on class 4 farmland within one kilometre of highways? What are the parameters? Help to shed some light on where we’re going in that regard.

I think a lot of folks that are in and around the ag sector have been waiting with bated breath for a very long time to get some clarity on what standard might eventually be enacted around that. Can the minister provide any directional indications, even if it’s not the final outcome, of where we are going? Are we going toward a system for agri-industrial processing that will be based on distance and quality? Where are we going?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can’t make an announcement in the tiny House during estimates. I can share with the member that, as I already highlighted, we’re working on industrial land policy. Policy related to agricultural land is led by the Ministry of Agriculture, so I can’t really comment on the work they’re doing other than that I believe the public prioritizes the need for protecting agricultural land.

We saw through the pandemic — we’ve seen through many challenges — that we need to be able to have the food-growing ability and production ability within British Columbia. We take that seriously. Work is happening, but I can’t speak to any work happening in the Ministry of Agriculture, because that’s where that lead would happen.

Our focus is on just greater industrial land policy — how industrial land pushes against agricultural land, how it pushes against housing, where it should be situated for trade-enabling infrastructure. That’s what our engagement has been focused on.

Gavin Dew: I will leave that subject be, but I will just get in one final, final reiteration of the fact that it’s been six years since the Premier’s Food Security Task Force was rolled out — six years that people have been waiting for clarity around what’s happening, six years of very incremental progress with regard to agri-industrial zoning and to enabling processing. I certainly hope that we will actually see some finality and some greater progress around that in the next short while.

I will start moving quickly around some different subjects, given that we’re going to run out of time here.

Let’s talk about InBC for a minute. Where is the 2025-2026 annual report from InBC? I believe the last report published was the 2025 report. What’s the timing on the ’26 report?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Just to the member’s previous comment, a lot has happened in the last six years. I was just sitting here reflecting on the challenges that we’ve dealt with in the Ministry of Agriculture and everywhere. Historic floods that we have not seen in, certainly, my lifetime. We had the pandemic. We’ve had tariffs and duties.

I just don’t want to leave it as a characterization that no work is happening. There’s a lot of work happening in that ministry in this space. Some of the challenges we’ve seen I don’t think we ever expected to see, so I just want to give kudos to the ministry and the minister for taking on all those things that are outside of our control in that time. Our Minister of Agriculture has been through all of that — all the trauma that comes with it as well.

Now, to the question about InBC, we can share with the member that the reporting deadline was March 31, so everything is in by March 31. Usually InBC will spend the summer collecting that information and the report will be tabled in the fall.

Gavin Dew: Can the minister share an update on actuals? The most recent that I appear to have available is 2023 to 2024 actuals against performance measures. I’m just wondering if he can share an update.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member that about $196 million has been invested; 40 businesses have received investments from InBC. I’ll give a few examples just so that puts a little bit of colour for the record.

Mangrove Lithium, which has opened North America’s first commercial electrochemical lithium refinery in the best community in British Columbia — sorry, Kelowna — Delta, B.C.

MarineLabs, whose coastal intelligence technology is operating four of Canada’s five largest ports, including Port of Vancouver and Port of Prince Rupert. Marine Labs was just named employer of the year in Victoria.

Novarc Technologies, whose AI-enabled welding technology is redefining industrial capabilities in B.C. and beyond, including improving productivity and quality in shipbuilding, construction, energy, water infrastructure.

I’ve got many more. I don’t want to go through all of them.

A more recent one was Photonic, the member will know from Web Summit. Photonic is going to be a household name, I think, in the very near future, leading the way in quantum and doing that from their home in Coquitlam.

I’ll leave it there, but if the member has more questions, I’d be happy to provide the answers.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. Certainly pleased by the progress of Mangrove.

I know that the minister did misspeak in saying that Delta was the best community in British Columbia. He, obviously, was mistaken because, in fact, that is Kelowna, but I would never call him out on that publicly. I recognize that he has to tell the good people of Delta that they’re the best community. I’m happy that the minister is proud of his community, and I’m very pleased to see B.C. companies succeeding out of his community as well as my own.

Turning to a more serious note, I am a little bit concerned about what appears to be some governance churn happening with InBC. I know there has been a significant number of departures from the board of InBC, which is in line with a pattern we seem to have seen of boards, round tables and organizations falling apart under this ministry. Most of the individuals on the board who had actual private sector investment experience appear to have departed.

In the last number of years, the founding CEO, Jill Earthy, stepped down in September of 2025. As of the last information I have, there’s an interim CEO, Dr. Daniel Muzyka, who also sits on the board in place. It has been a while. Is there any plan to hire a new CEO or to refresh the governance of InBC?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Maybe I disagree with the member’s characterization of major changes. There have been two people that have left the InBC board, and two new people have come in.

The member mentioned that there were previously two people with private sector experience. There are now still two people that have got significant private sector experience, but it’s not limited to just those two people. They all have some form of private sector experience as part of their CVs.

We do have a new chief investment officer, Thomas Park, who is leading the helm. Of course, the decision on the CEO is done by the board. They are independent. We’re grateful for the interim CEO, who’s doing a pretty good job in that role. But I’m sure he doesn’t want to stay forever, and the board will be doing that search, hopefully, soon.

Gavin Dew: Certainly, Dr. Muzyka has an excellent reputation, and I’m confident he’s doing a great job. It would be good to see a permanent CEO in place there sooner rather than later.

I will just sideline into a question that the minister may or may not be able to answer but has arisen from the tech sector repeatedly. Is there any intention at any point to re-establish a permanent Premier’s technology council?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I wouldn’t dare speak on what the Premier does. The Premier creates different advisory boards when he feels the need to do that or they feel the need to do that, so I can’t comment on that.

I can say to the member that the last time the Premier’s tech council existed, Innovate B.C. wasn’t quite what Innovate B.C. is now. If you look at the board of Innovate B.C., there are some really impressive people there that are giving advice to government, but not only them. We do so much engagement across the board, and the ecosystem is growing.

At this point, I’m not aware if the Premier has an interest. Again, during the Premier’s estimates might be a better place to ask him.

Gavin Dew: I feel like I would be remiss if I didn’t make the point. The Minister of Finance and I sat across from each other at a table at the B.C. tech awards where that was raised as a primary advocacy item. I certainly hope that the minister will consider taking up that advocacy with the Premier or perhaps when he is the Premier. You know, I’ve got to get you advocating early.

I want to circle back on something that was brought up in estimates about ten days ago. With regard to engaging with partners and stakeholders, the minister stated: “We’ve set up regular engagements with the partners, quarterly engagements with the partners and direct connections with some of these organizations monthly, and we have additional tables that we’ve created.” That was in answer to questions about ongoing engagement of the business community and the loss of some of that connectivity.

I just wonder if the minister could elaborate on how many of those engagements he has personally attended.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Within the last few months, I met with BIAs across the province, chamber of commerce members across the province, board of trade, CFIB. My team has been meeting with them as well. My ministry office has a person appointed to every one of those organizations, where they can call weekly, monthly — whenever they need. They’ve got a direct line within our office. Late last year when we were creating the Look West strategy, we also had round tables with all of them as well.

Gavin Dew: We did actually check the minister’s public calendar for that, and the only round table referenced is a steel round table late last year — up till December 2025, which was the scope of calendar entries that we looked at. Just to confirm, is the minister properly disclosing all meetings in his public calendar, or is there simply some error here around the meetings that are being claimed but are not listed in his public calendar?

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

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just had my team go through the releases.

For the member’s reference, February 2, Surrey and White Rock Board of Trade round table; February 3, steel round table; February 9, 2:30, a round table with all the chambers across the province; February 10, meetings with CFIB; March 12, round table with all of the IBC members.

Gavin Dew: Those sound like one-off meetings. I get the impression from what the minister said a couple of weeks ago that they had created additional tables. I’m just looking to understand what those additional tables are that were created. There seems to be a steel table. I’m not sure if that’s an ongoing table. I’m not sure if a one-off meeting with BIAs is an ongoing table.

I’m just trying to understand whether the minister is overstating or under-reporting the engagement that’s happening, because we could only find one table in the entirety of disclosures up to the end of the last calendar year.

Are there in fact new, ongoing, recurring tables that have been created, or are these just one-off meetings?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m a little lost for words here. Having meetings with all of the business improvement association heads…. I mean, if you’ve got multiple across the province, that’s a round table where they all get to share their ideas. Same with the chambers, where all the heads of the chambers came on to a call, and there’s a lot of them. They got to ask any question that they wanted, and we had a dialogue. Steel — a round table.

If the member is just google-searching the word “table,” perhaps, it maybe doesn’t show up. My commitment to these organizations was that we would bring all their members forward together on a call where they could ask me questions or raise issues that are important for them in their chamber or their local organization.

We’re in May. Session is busy. It’s always tough during session. Doing these meetings in February and March…. I had committed to them that we would schedule them regularly, which we will. After the session is over, we’ll go back and set up another time for another chance to touch base.

I can share with the member that in two weeks, I’ll be at the chamber AGM in Fort St. John. That’ll be the next opportunity with them.

My commitment to them was clear — that we would do this regularly and not just with a few heads of the organization. In fact, I think it was welcomed by people, where they get to express their local concern directly to me, as opposed to relying on it being filtered and only a few items coming forward. That’s the opportunity we wanted to create — more opportunity for each organization within the organizations to be able to share their concerns.

Anyways, the member said there were no dates. I’ve clearly laid out those dates, and my commitment to them is on the record.

Gavin Dew: The minister seems awfully defensive about a simple question. This is not a Google search. This is the government’s proactive disclosure system, which, by the way, has been not functioning for a good chunk of this calendar year. The last available calendar dates we were able to look at were up to December of 2025.

[3:00 p.m.]

The minister is now indicating that he will go forward and set up meetings. I simply quoted back what the minister said to him from the last round of conversation, which was about two weeks ago, in which he said: “We’ve set up regular engagements with the partners, quarterly engagements with the partners and direct connections with some of the organizations monthly.”

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the minister to clarify. With what organizations, as of two weeks ago, has he set up quarterly engagements, and with what organizations has he set up regular monthly engagements? Thirdly, which additional tables have been created that will be meeting on an ongoing basis?

Those are the minister’s exact words. They’re what he said. We’ve looked at what information we could find that was made available through disclosure. I’m simply looking for the minister to clarify his remarks of a couple of weeks ago because he seems to not like the tables that existed previously. He seems to not want to meet with them. There have been a couple of one-offs that have been specified.

Just trying to understand. With what organizations have monthly meetings been set up? With what organizations have quarterly meetings been set up? And what new ongoing tables have been set up?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Perhaps, why I might be coming across as a little annoyed at the member is that in politics, this exchange happens all the time. When a person gets up and purposely mischaracterizes something to make a political point and then gets caught on it, maybe he should have the guts to stand up and say: “Hey, maybe I was wrong.”

He did this last week when we were here, where he read a letter that I wrote to the Small Business Roundtable folks and suggested that I said to them something. Then I clarified, because I had him read out the letter. In fact, it didn’t say that at all. Now he has suggested that these meetings didn’t happen, and I just corrected him on the record.

I don’t mind tough questions. In fact, I relish tough questions. I think that’s the fun part about doing this work. I just don’t like being mischaracterized and suggestions that something is happening when it’s not.

I said to the member that I met with these groups and I committed to them that we would have regular meetings. In fact, if they wanted them quarterly, we would do them quarterly. That’s my commitment. I have no problem meeting with any organization. In fact, I enjoy it, quite frankly. I enjoy that more than just being in this building.

If the member is asking if my commitment is to them on that, it’s clear. If the member is questioning whether I had meetings and round tables with these organizations, I just stated the fact here. We’re going to continue to do that engagement as we go forward.

Gavin Dew: I find it odd to have it suggested that I’m suggesting something has happened that has not. I’ve read back the minister’s direct, exact words to him, and in those exact words, he said: “We’ve set up regular engagements with the partners, quarterly engagements with the partners and direct connections with some of the organizations monthly, and we have additional tables we’ve created.”

I just asked him to clarify, in my last question: with which organizations have quarterly meetings been scheduled, with which organizations have monthly meetings been scheduled, and what tables have been set up?

The answer I got was no answer. The answer I got was the minister being upset that I’m asking him a basic question about what meetings he has happening because I can’t find any evidence that quarterly or monthly meetings have happened. I can find one steel table referenced, not in Google but in his publicly disclosed calendar.

I’m really not sure what the minister is so upset about at being asked to provide basic accountability for who he’s meeting with, because he has shut down virtually every other mechanism for engagement. Now he seems very, very upset that he’s being asked to account for who he’s meeting with quarterly, who he’s meeting with monthly, again, and looking for that to correspond with his publicly available calendar.

There appears to be some difference there between the exact words I quoted back from the minister, the exact content of his calendar. I’m not really sure what he’s upset about, so let’s talk about something else.

The Business Council of British Columbia put out a survey on May 6 showing that 98 percent of respondents are very concerned about DRIPA applying to all laws in the province. The same share of respondents also say they do not believe DRIPA is living up to its original promise of creating greater investment certainty in B.C. Per the Business Council, these findings stand in contrast to provincial government’s stated objectives when the act was introduced in 2019.

[3:05 p.m.]

At that time, the Premier’s office said: “The new legislation aims to create further certainty for investment and reaffirms B.C. as a world-class destination, providing opportunities for business while creating a strong, inclusive economy. It provides an additional tool for establishing rules, transparency and accountability when the province works with Indigenous governing bodies, business and local governments on decisions affecting Indigenous rights.”

I won’t go on to read out the entirety of the survey here, but it is very concerning; 98 percent of respondents are “very concerned” about DRIPA’s current implementation, with the remaining 2 percent “somewhat concerned.” That is 100 percent of businesses concerned. Now, obviously, that’s very problematic.

Only 3 percent of respondents say DRIPA is positively impacting business operations by reducing time, cost, complexity or uncertainty in obtaining permits. This is one of the business organizations that the minister has or has not been meeting with monthly, quarterly.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide an update on what he’s hearing from the business community with regard to DRIPA these days and whether it reconciles with this survey.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, I had a chance to look at the business survey. They sent the survey out to 197 members; 88 responded. Yeah, the percentages sound big until you put in the context of how many people they asked and how many actually responded. That’s not to negate that there are concerns among some business leaders. But to suggest that 90-something percent of businesses have this concern, when really 88 people responded to a survey that 197 got, I think that might be a bit of a stretch.

Now, that being said, everyone that I meet with understands that finding resolution to challenges at the table is better than going through courts. The member will know that, despite their rhetoric, we outperformed last year in GDP output. We’re leaders in the country. We expect to be leaders in the country going forward, and all of that is in the context of us working with First Nations.

The opposition can take it in a different direction and repeal and go back to court. Lawyers will make a lot of money, I guess, but it won’t serve the province’s needs and get us the outcomes we want.

We continue to engage with business leaders — $88 billion of potential investment that we’ve got coming this year, in the next year or two years. We’ve got final investment decisions coming forward. We’ve already had significant announcements coming forward in the last few months in the natural resource space. We’ll continue to engage with leaders on this.

I don’t think there’s…. Despite what this survey says, there’s not one of those business leaders that thinks that just fighting with First Nations and going to court is going to resolve and make the business environment better, so we’re going to continue to engage with them. We’re going to find solutions. We’re going to have people at the table. That’s the best way forward.

Gavin Dew: The same survey showed about 74 percent of respondents say they are decreasing their investment plans in B.C. About one in three say they’re reducing hiring plans in B.C.

To quote the CEO of the Business Council: “There’s been a huge shift since 2019, when the vast majority of people supported DRIPA as a way to advance reconciliation and create the certainty investors need.” The CEO goes on to say: “The desire to work with Indigenous communities to create prosperity for all remains strong, but the message from business leaders is clear. DRIPA isn’t working.”

I want to provide the minister an opportunity to rethink whether the right response to a survey this, frankly, damning in terms of the state of business confidence and the state of concern around DRIPA…. Whether he really wants his response to be to question the response rate of the survey….

This is about as…. I mean, I will state in full disclosure that I’m a former board member of the Business Council of British Columbia, so I know how significant it is for that organization to put out a survey of this magnitude and impact, which lays bare a tremendous loss of business confidence in the approach that is being taken to DRIPA.

I really would love to provide the minister an opportunity to rethink whether he wants to attempt to undermine the credibility of this survey by talking about the response rate.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m just saying facts. I’m just stating the facts that 197 individuals…. This is according to their press release. I don’t know why the member…. I appreciate he was a member, but I don’t know why he’s getting offended by something that they put out themselves. With 197 individuals, 88 responses were received. I don’t know.

It’s important to note that we’ve got tens of thousands of businesses across British Columbia. All of them are important. I don’t see an issue with putting out the information that they put out themselves.

What I can tell the member is that with DRIPA, B.C. was an economic leader last year. Under DRIPA, we have $88 billion of proposed projects that are in the pipeline already this year. Several mines have come forward. Six LNG proposals are either moving forward, close to operating or close to FID. We just saw ARC Resources in northwest B.C. — Shell’s largest acquisition in decades.

To suggest it’s because of DRIPA that some of these business leaders are not wanting to make additional investment…. There are a lot of things happening right now. If you look at the trade uncertainties that people are dealing with…. You’re looking at the challenges with the war. There are a lot of uncertainties. There’s a lot on business leaders’ minds. I get that. I understand.

But to suggest that the economy is just going sideways because of DRIPA, when we’ve seen for the last few years record investments come to the province with DRIPA….

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member says it’s not true. I welcome her to stand up and share her facts.

It’s true. If she looks at the Stats Canada data for GDP output for the province — she can just google it — she’ll see that it last year surpassed what the Business Council of B.C. thought British Columbia was going to do. I think they projected it was 1.6 or 1.7, and we came in at 2 percent.

We’re going to continue to find ways to bring people together at the table and find solutions. That’s the only way. I know it’s a tough way. It’s easier just to say: “Rip it up, and throw it out” — all that rhetoric. The reality is, as the House Leader of the Conservatives said herself, that when….

Yeah, you’re going to rip up DRIPA, but you’re going to replace it with something. I guess the question would be: what are you going to replace it with? Something is going to be needed to be put in place because we have to find a way for us to continue to work with our First Nations partners to advance economic opportunities.

I believe there is a way to do it. We’re showing it, and we have to get to the work. We have to address where the concerns are, but it’s done thoughtfully, and it’s done through dialogue.

Gavin Dew: I have to admit I’m still a little stunned here. The minister seems to think government has done a spectacular job of articulating its vision.

I’m, again, reading this survey, and 83 percent of respondents disagreed that the provincial government has clearly articulated its vision for reconciliation. Eighty-three percent disagree. That means 83 percent of these business leaders believe the government has not clearly articulated its vision for reconciliation.

A majority of respondents favour repeal. That’s 59 percent of respondents. Amendment of DRIPA — that’s 31 percent, with only 2 percent supporting no change. I’m just really struggling to reconcile where the minister is getting his confidence from on this.

Yes, we are experiencing a geopolitical moment. Yes, there is a war in Iran, and yes, we have experienced Trump tariffs, but this is what’s in the control of this government.

I’d say that the conversations I have with people in the business community, the conversations that are reported in the media, the conversations that are in opinion research suggest that people are tired of hearing this government make excuses and talk about Donald Trump and Iran when they control stability and certainty on the land base. Again, 98 percent of respondents here disagree that DRIPA is living up to its promise of creating investment certainty in B.C.

I’m just really confounded by the minister’s disregard for this extremely alarming document that comes from one of the most credible business organizations in British Columbia, which is ringing the alarm bell about DRIPA. The minister seems to be primarily concerned with the sample size of a cry for help from, again, an organization representing a huge chunk of the economy of this province.

[3:15 p.m.]

I will switch to talking about small business, and we’ll see if he likes those statistics any better. Over half of B.C. business owners say they are experiencing increased crime; 60 percent are concerned about personal and staff safety due to crime in their communities, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which the minister has met with recently.

There is such a level of frustration that people are not filing police reports because they lack the belief that it will make a difference. We are facing a total loss of confidence in our downtown business districts. I’m wondering if the minister could speak about what strategy is emerging from his ministry.

Last year in estimates, we canvassed the matter of the securing small business rebate, of which only about 20 percent of the money actually made it out the door and into the pockets of small business because it was so poorly designed.

I’m wondering if the minister can speak about any work that his ministry is undertaking in order to understand the impact of this public safety crisis on small business, on job creation, on business formation and on businesses exiting the province or exiting the market.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There were a lot of pieces in that question, so I’ll try to get at all of them.

We heard from small businesses that they were struggling to find the trained workforce that they need. Part of the budget…. We doubled the skills-training funding to ensure that the small businesses, medium-sized businesses have the skilled workers they need.

The member mentioned challenges on main street, on storefronts and businesses. He has heard me say this multiple times, but my family ran a small business here. The restaurant had many broken windows. That was more than a decade ago. I know how frustrating that is for those businesses.

In the budget, $16 million to create the chronic offending intervention initiative. So far, this program has seen a 50 percent reduction in interactions with police, with individuals. Violent offence interactions have decreased 56 percent. Pretrial remand rate has increased to 75 percent compared to the 56 percent before, and Crown counsel is successfully securing detention in 84 percent of the cases. The program has had success. We heard that from the business community, small businesses in particular. We were able to put additional dollars in that.

The member will also know we’ve been doing a lot of work to cut red tape. We discussed interprovincial trade barriers and how important that is.

The member mentioned CFIB’s report. You’ll note the CFIB gave us a B-plus in their report, demonstrating continued economic leadership in our work to reduce red tape for businesses. There’s more to do, more to come. We’re going to continue to engage with them. We know that there are other items.

When we talk about small businesses, there’s such a wide variety of types of businesses. We’re going to continue to engage with them, whether that’s trades training that they need or skilled people they need; whether that’s support with people who are repeat offenders, which we have programming and dollars on; whether they’re wanting to sell goods or services across the country; or whether they want to get an opportunity to be part of Canada’s investments and B.C.’s investments in all the items that are within the Look West strategy. We’re prepared to work with them on all of those.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. This will be my last question as I wrap up and hand over to my colleague from the Greens.

So 80 percent of small businesses oppose the PST expansion, and 93 percent say Budget 2026 will not improve conditions for their businesses. Seven in ten businesses are saying prices will go up as those costs are passed along. In the most egregious cases, we have companies that are already dealing with a storefront apocalypse in their downtowns who will now be asked to pay 7 percent more on security services.

The CFIB estimates an increase on individual businesses’ administrative costs of up to $7,000 per year per employee, just to comply with PST requirements, so we’re looking at a pretty dramatic impact from the PST.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m wondering if, as I close, the minister can provide any information as to whether his ministry undertook any consultation, any research, any analysis as to what the response to the PST expansion would be, what the impact would be for small businesses and job creation and, having undertaken that information, what the results were, if he can share what those results were. Did he or will he talk to the Finance Minister about reversing this egregious and poorly timed expansion of the PST?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member has been around this place. He knows that tax policy happens at the Ministry of Finance for many reasons, and often tax policy is closely guarded by the Ministry of Finance. Their estimates are coming up. I’m sure the member will be canvassing there.

We continue to have one of the lowest small business taxes in the entire country, which is important. In fact, we lowered it by 25 percent upon forming government, and I highlighted all the investments we’re making in supporting the ecosystem — all the things that small business has highlighted for us.

They asked us to continue to cut red tape, not only with interprovincial trade barriers but also to make it easier for them to do business. We’re going through a very comprehensive process on that.

A lot of small businesses talked to us about industrial land and wanted to protect it so that they can grow their businesses here. I think we’ve highlighted that work.

We’ve heard from businesses that are worried about repeat offenders. We’ve highlighted that.

Small businesses need the ability to have trained people.

All those investments come from the treasury, and dollars are needed. I appreciate the investments that are in the budget for that, but tax policy questions will have to go to the Minister of Finance.

The Chair: We are going to take a recess now. If everyone can be back for 3:42.

The committee recessed from 3:27 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section C, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

Jeremy Valeriote: I only have 30 minutes, so I’ll try to be brief.

The strategic investment fund that the government finalized earlier this session is set to put 400 million public dollars into private projects. The money is stated to secure $20 billion in major economic projects and assist in the Look West strategy of securing $200 billion. The stated ideal outcome is “revenue for stronger services.”

My question for the minister is: has his ministry or the government modelled long-term public revenue from these investments, and how much public revenue is forecasted?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A couple of things. The document that will help industry partners, the federal government understand the pathway forward is being worked on right now. We have to go through a Treasury Board process. I think my critic had asked me about this last week. We’re going to go through that process, and then we’re going to make it public so people understand what the parameters are and who would be viable.

I can share with the member that one of the key provisions for us will be leveraging the federal government’s strategic investment fund. The critique of British Columbia has been, in the past, that Ontario and Quebec have had strategic funds and have been available to partner with the federal government, which has allowed them to, quite frankly, get more dollars in their province than we have.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

That’s what the fund’s value is. Now it sends a clear message to the federal government that we have dollars and we’re interested in being partners.

An example would be a life sciences company, say AbCellera, that wants to expand drug discovery locally. The federal government comes in with a strategic investment, and where would the province be?

There is another company that comes to my mind that does 3D printing of skin, Aspect Biosystems. They’re an example of it. They have, of course, an important use for us; for our health care facilities; and also, perhaps, a dual-use purpose for our national defence, to be able to have it on site for wounded soldiers.

The federal government might say: “Hey, we want to expand our investments in this only if the province comes in.” That’s what we hear consistently from the federal government. “We’ll come in if the province comes in.” We’ve never had the ability to have a strategic fund to partner with them, and now we do.

[3:50 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the answer. It sounds like there are some pieces in process and some pieces that have been made public. I think what I’m trying to parse out here is the difference between a subsidy or a grant to private companies versus an investment, the projected ROI. With some of these pieces still to be determined, I appreciate the examples.

I’m trying to understand the parameters of what the kind of floor ROI would be in these situations so that taxpayers can be assured that this isn’t money going into a fund that won’t generate any returns. Is there modelling on even worst-case scenarios of ROI for some of this investment?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member and I have…. We share the same desire for the outcome, which is: what is the benefit beyond the jobs? What is the benefit for people? That’s why this fund is so important. That’s why the legislative-change part of the budget we made was so important. We’re moving into a place that we have not been able to be because laws here limited us from doing that, where through this fund, we can take equity, we can provide loans, we can have some structures around profit-sharing, repayable grants.

All of these tools are now available to us with this fund that we didn’t have available to us before. It was always grant-based, where money went out with a tie to some form of the number of jobs they would bring on or how many co-op students they take on. There were different outcomes that we valued. Now we have the same ability to have those and also get a financial return to the province.

That work is happening. We’re going through Treasury Board. Now, the member wants to know what that exact number will look like, and it will vary. That’s really hard to model out because we don’t know what’s going to come through the door. We don’t know what the structure of every agreement will be — whether it’ll be loan structure, whether it’ll be profit-sharing, whether it’ll be some form of equity.

There are just too many variables to necessarily model out. It really will be a case of what comes through the door, what the federal government has an interest in. But we now have the tools to be able to be at the table for the conversations, and that’s, I think, the significant difference for us.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll move on to the Look West strategy, which we’ve been going through with great interest and detail.

At the end of the Look West plan, there are indications for what is next in the short, medium and long term. Many of the outcomes indicate processes or completion of projects — for example, legislation for the North Coast transmission line, which is complete; announcement of B.C. Hydro’s AI process and data centres to access electricity in the medium term; and in the long term, securing $200 billion in major project investment.

Some outcomes indicate benefits for some working-class British Columbians — for example, training and upskilling people to build a strong economy and building B.C. as Canada’s economic engine. What I’d like to better understand are the larger picture benefits for British Columbians that will result from Look West. Something like transmission lines is only a success if it benefits people tangibly, and “Canada’s economic engine” is more of a communications pitch than a success measure.

Can the minister explain how, specifically, British Columbians will benefit if the government achieves the success it’s looking for in Look West?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The Look West action plan is 100 percent targeted towards working people. If you look at all the measures, there are benefits for people in British Columbia.

The member has mentioned a couple of things — the doubling of funding for skilled-trades training. Obviously, with all the economic opportunities we see on the horizon, the biggest thing we hear from partners, both in labour as well as industry, is: how are we going to get the people to be able to do the jobs and take on this opportunity? That’s why that funding is so important.

North Coast transmission line creates economic opportunities in regions. It provides opportunity for power to displace diesel in many communities that have relied on other forms to be able to power their communities.

[3:55 p.m.]

There’s a section in the document around the marine industry and the significant opportunity it means for both employment and economic development, not only for workers but for communities, for First Nations communities. Many of them have come forward, especially on the Island, to say: “We want to be part of that economic development.”

If you look at aerospace…. My colleague from Kelowna and I were having this conversation about the huge economic opportunities for working people around aerospace in Kelowna, in Abbotsford, in Victoria. My friend’s colleague the MLA for Saanich South and I talked about the Look West strategy and what that means for the aerospace sector in Sidney, where there’s a huge footprint.

There are so many elements of it, whether we’re talking about the movement of goods…. If Canada wants to double their exports to non-U.S. markets, that’s coming through British Columbia. How do we prepare for that? That means economic opportunities for people to start small businesses. It means people in the transportation industry are going to be needed to be able to move those goods. We’re going to have to figure out how we get more efficiency through our ports.

Every element of the document is about: how do we advance opportunities for working people? I think that’s why it resonates both with the public and we’ve heard it resonates with the federal government on the key things that they want to advance as well.

Jeremy Valeriote: The document has a number of goals, some of which are specific and some are quite broad. It’s appreciated to know, at least, where this is heading. I’m assuming that within internal ministry documents, there are also some more detailed performance indicators for a plan of this size.

Can the minister give some insight into what some of the specific performance indicators are? I’m going to focus particularly on tech and the life science sector because of the numbers I mentioned before, but I’m also interested in tourism and agriculture specifically. Are there specific performance indicators that can be shared on those topics?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a lot of metrics that we have put in, a lot of targets we’ve put in the strategy. I can share some of them. There are probably more, but I’ll go through some of them.

The $200 billion investments over the next decade — the member has probably heard that. We have put a bold target of doubling the employment in the tech community, in the tech sector, to 400,000 over the next decade.

We have a goal of increasing the life sciences sector’s GDP contribution by 75 percent. We have a target of landing 35 percent of national defence contracts in British Columbia. For agriculture, we have a target of expanding our export opportunities by about 25 percent over the next decade.

Within the strategy, there are more detailed strategies that are coming or are being worked on. We have an outdoor strategy, an outdoor rec strategy that’s being worked on, which I know will be close to the member’s heart because there’s a strong ecosystem, a strong manufacturing sector that is a hub in his community. That work is happening with our ministry, with other ministries and will be ready soon.

There is already a tourism strategy within it. That was announced just recently. We’re also working on a more detailed industrial land policy. The member may have caught this, but I’ll say it again. We’ve had 108, I believe, engagements on the industrial strategy. We’ve had 80-something submissions from local governments. About 15 First Nations have submitted ideas around industrial land or working land.

There’s a whole bunch of…. We’ve got the big targets in the strategy, and then we’re working through detailed strategies within each of those buckets. We’ve been releasing them. We’ve announced some of them, but there are more coming very soon.

Jeremy Valeriote: I might come back to industrial land, but I’ll just quickly move to AI and AI data centres. The stated goal in Look West is to provide enough energy for AI data centres, to provide the electricity required. Just last week the minister announced the provincial government assisted in the fast-tracking of three AI data centres. Projects are being fast-tracked to be completed at the earliest possible opportunity.

We’re trying to better understand how the province’s support here signals support for regular British Columbians. Outside of the Telus shareholders’ interests, can the minister tell working British Columbians what they’ll concretely receive in return for dedicating electricity, water and public dollars to fast-track AI infrastructure?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the question from the member. Maybe I’ll clarify one thing. The member said we’re fast-tracking AI data centres. I don’t recall seeing that anywhere. They go through the regular processes that they have to, to get their permitting through local governments, etc. I just wanted to clarify that because it’s an important piece.

When we talk about sovereignty — AI data sovereignty or sovereignty of our data…. I think the member is well read, and he’ll understand. The CLOUD Act in the U.S. has got every jurisdiction in the world a little spooked.

The reason why we need some sovereignty, some capacity of AI data centres on our home soil is to be able to do a few things. Protect people’s personal information, which is vitally important. There’s a defence application. We need to have our information around defence protected and not have it go through data centres in the U.S. or any other jurisdiction. From an academic perspective, we have a lot of high-value research that happens, and we need to protect that research as well. Those are just three examples.

The member’s question about what the benefit is for the public…. I think those are three glaringly obvious benefits for citizens of British Columbia and Canada, and that’s why we need it.

Now, we’re not talking about unlimited data centres, as the member will know. We have allocated a limited amount of power for data centres, and that’s a balance between knowing that we need our electricity for other types of activity — for homes, for electrifying our economy — and also acknowledging and understanding that we need some sovereign capacity around data, around AI in our own jurisdiction, and we can’t rely on other jurisdictions.

Now, there’s a second part to it, which is that AI is everywhere. It’s already in our communities. I know that not this leader of the Green Party but the other leader of the Green Party put out videos and statements saying: “We’re going to ban AI data centres and fight AI.”

Great. Good for you. Go for it, but remember that the algorithms that you depend on to get your Instagram likes is running on AI. AI is operating within…. In fact, you’re seeing benefits from that, just to get your message out to people. So you can’t be saying, “We want to stop AI,” yet you depend on the benefits of the AI.

The challenge for us as lawmakers in this place is to understand that there are some obvious benefits for us as a public. But how do we mitigate the concerns that are legit from people? How do we ensure that people have the skills-training opportunities to be able to pivot if they are impacted by that work? How do they get opportunities, economic opportunities, good-paying jobs in sectors that are more AI-resilient? That’s why we doubled the funding for trades training in British Columbia. Those are employment opportunities that are good-paying jobs for people.

How do we protect people from the concerns that we’ve seen around some chatbots as well as just protecting our public from AI not being used in a negative way? That work is happening as well. It’s not just, “How do we see the benefits?” but also: “How do we protect the public?”

Now, we’ve been having some meaningful conversations with the federal government. It’s our belief that we need to have a Canada approach to addressing these. The good news for us is that there seems to be some reception there and understanding that we need to do that. It’s work that the minister of state and the Attorney General are leading.

[4:10 p.m.]

We have been clear to the federal government that if it doesn’t meet the test, if it doesn’t meet the bar, then we will go alone. We prefer to do a national approach, and that’s not just us. The other provinces are saying the same thing.

We’re hoping we can address that so we can see the economic benefit, the opportunity for better health outcomes; have more sovereignty around our data, our research; and address the harms along the way. I think both can be done.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the clarification on the local government processes, which I’ll assume include consultation. It does seem to me that these particular data centres have bypassed if not environmental regulation then at least the Hydro bid process that’s scheduled to be completed in September 2026. I think this was canvassed earlier, so I won’t belabour it.

When it comes to data sovereignty, I do want to ask the minister…. It’s a laudable goal, but how does the minister reconcile partnering with Telus, given what I understand to be a massive data leak that has occurred through Telus in the last few weeks?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Protecting private data is, obviously, critically important, and certainly, Telus will have to do what they need to do. Because they’re federally regulated, they have to make sure that they’re taking the appropriate steps to do that. But to suggest that Telus is somehow a problem is a problem, given that the member’s device that he’s using today is running off of Telus’s systems.

We can’t have it both ways. We need our companies, Canadian companies, to be able to have the capacity. I would agree with the member that it’s vitally important for them that they do what they need to do to protect our personal information. Not having the capacity for these data centres — some capacity, within Canada — makes our data even more vulnerable than perhaps it is today.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m somewhat amused at the partisan aspect of this and the continued focus on our party leader and my device, but I’ll leave that alone.

Given the minister’s mention of industrial land strategy, I will bring back a question that I’d shelved because it was too constituency focused. I do want to try to ask some broad, general questions.

The district of Squamish has brought to this ministry, over at least eight or nine years, fully underutilized rail yards, former B.C. Rail yards, in Squamish, 96 acres, which to me represent…. I’m biased, but in an industrial land strategy, they’re perfectly situated to enable the technology and innovation sector in Squamish.

The district has been in touch with the ministry recently, and I have to say I really appreciate when ADMs such as this one say, basically: “We haven’t been able to identify funds, and we don’t recommend investing additional effort.” That is really helpful for a municipality to hear because then they don’t go flogging a dead horse.

However, given what the minister just mentioned about industrial lands, I’m wondering if there’s forecasting here of some potential funds that may be made available for industrial lands, particularly in a port city like Squamish where, at last count, $30 million invested would have a huge ROI in terms of attracting new tech businesses near a port and in a growing community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Perhaps when I mentioned the member’s device, I should’ve…. Maybe I could say my device or any member’s device in government. I wasn’t trying to be partisan in that sense. It was more of just a general point on how our systems are running and why they’re running here.

I appreciate the member raising Squamish. He has raised with me, for the record, that site, I think, multiple times, and I appreciate his advocacy. Yes, my team has engaged with Squamish in those conversations, and he’s correct. At this point, in this budget, we don’t have money for industrial lands, for this type of economic opportunity.

[4:15 p.m.]

I can share with the member that part of the work we’re doing is identifying industrial lands throughout the province that are strategically located for us to have a sense of what’s happening on the land base around industrial land — who’s got what, what kind of language they use around their zoning, what the inventory is.

If somebody is potentially wanting to invest and the local government says, “We’re looking for this type of company,” we’re able to play a matchmaker role and put them together. When you don’t have that one central inventory, it’s really whoever gets to you closest, or quite often the company is doing the work themselves.

We are doing some of that work. Our hope is that by spring next year, we’ll have some form of provincial inventory that will be there so we can do all those things that I’ve highlighted.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and all members.

Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 38: ministry operations, $72,704,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:16 p.m.