Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Rosalyn Bird.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s EV Drive and Ride Day, with the B.C. New Car Dealers Association, today on the front lawn. I know many members took part in seeing all the new cars and meeting the new car dealers.

I want to extend a warm welcome to executives from the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. — Blair Qualey, president and CEO; Jared Williams, chair; Ann Marie Clark, vice-chair. The New Car Dealers represent more than 468 new car and truck dealers, doing business in over 55 communities throughout B.C. Over 30,000 British Columbians support their families by working in this sector, and they’re responsible for more than $17 billion in retail sales.

They also, as many of you know, operate the largest auto trade show in western Canada, the Vancouver International Auto Show. You had a chance to visit there this year. Thanks to their partnership with the government, over 229,000 EVs are now on B.C. roads today.

Let’s let them all feel welcome here in the House.

Bruce Banman: It is always a pleasure and an honour to introduce a former MLA to visit this House. I would like for the House to welcome Peter Fassbender, a former minister and MLA, and his wife Charlene.

My understanding is that they’ve been married for 58 years today. I do not know whether that puts Charlene in the running for the Order of British Columbia, but it has got to put her for an honourable mention at least.

Would the House please give them a very warm welcome.

Susie Chant: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize a very distinguished group visiting the Legislative Assembly today. Members of the British Columbia Consular Corps have joined us, and later this afternoon they will take part in briefings with ministers and senior officials.

The Consular Corps of British Columbia represents more than 80 countries and four international organizations from around the world. Through their work, these dedicated individuals strengthen relationships between B.C. and the international community by supporting diplomacy, trade, investment, tourism, education and cultural exchange. They also provide invaluable support and assistance to citizens from their respective countries who are living, working or travelling here in British Columbia.

I would like to extend a special acknowledgement to the dean of the Consular Corps, my friend Ricardo Arredondo, consul general of Argentina, and thank him for his leadership.

I also want to recognize all members of the Consular Corps for the important work that they do in building connections and fostering cooperation.

I ask that all members of this House join me in extending our warmest welcome to our distinguished guests today.

I have a second.…

The Speaker: Member for Langley-Abbotsford.

Harman Bhangu: I’m pleased to recognize Kristin Ali, Carolyn Anderberg and Joel Black, from Enterprise Rent-A-Car, who are visiting the Legislature today.

While they’re unable to join us here in the gallery, I’ll have the pleasure of meeting with them later today to discuss Enterprise’s work supporting transportation, tourism and communities across British Columbia.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

The Speaker: Member for North Vancouver–Seymour will continue. She was not finished yet.

Susie Chant: I’m terribly sorry not to have said something, Mr. Speaker. I have an additional important introduction to make.

Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Tewodros Girma Abebe, the Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia to Canada, who is here on his first official visit to B.C. He is accompanied by staff from the embassy and many members of the Ethiopian community here in Victoria.

He had the pleasure to meet with you earlier today, Mr. Speaker.

Would this House please make them feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: In the gallery today we have a delegation from Junior Achievement B.C., a wonderful educational program. They provide support to teachers and school districts throughout the province, teaching entrepreneurship and business skills. I’ve used them personally. It’s free.

I just want to speak to all the school districts out there for a second. Reach out to Junior Achievement. They provide excellent resources and supports for teachers.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome here today.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Today I have the pleasure of welcoming a delegation from the Barrick Mining Corp., who I will be meeting with later today. Barrick is a Canadian-based company that operates mines across multiple continents.

Although they are headquartered in Toronto right now, I hope they are reflecting on the weather here in B.C. today and the booming mining sector here in B.C. Vancouver is a great place to put a head office, and perhaps Surrey will be even better.

Watching us in the gallery, I’m happy to introduce Christina Erling, Allison Brown and Kerri Harmati.

I will ask the House members to please make them feel welcome.

Sheldon Clare: I, too, would like to welcome the Consular Corps.

I would also like to welcome those delegates from Ethiopia, who I had the honour of meeting at the doorway this morning, outside, when they were coming in: the Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Tewodros Girma Abebe; the Diaspora Affairs Minister for Ethiopia, Terefe Tujuma Hundie; and the president of the Ethiopian-Canadian Human Rights Association of British Columbia, Kibibi Abate.

Would you please make these folks feel most welcome.

Darlene Rotchford: Today in the Legislature, I’ll be having two schools visiting.

First, I would like to welcome Vic West Elementary School. There will be 26 grade 5 students.

As well, we’ll have the pleasure of also having Wishart Elementary joining us, which will have 28 grade 5 students and their teachers.

I hope the House will make them feel welcome.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair will caution all members that when you are introducing, don’t use your phone, please. Electronic devices are not allowed to do that.

Harman Bhangu: I’d also like to welcome Peter Fassbender to the House, former mayor, former MLA.

He doesn’t need any more introductions, but would the House please make him feel welcome again.

Hon. Lana Popham: I’d like to introduce Julia Cameron, Walker Patton, Emma Andrews and Joe de la Plante from the B.C. Craft Cannabis Association and the Cannabis Cultivators of British Columbia.

Fun fact, licensed cannabis contributed $1.75 billion to B.C.’s GDP in 2024. Their national exports increased by 120 percent, and the sector directly supports 5,300 jobs. You know what? Cannabis producers, at the heart of it, are farmers.

Korky Neufeld: It’s a privilege for me to welcome to the Legislature my wife’s close relatives, Rudy and Donna Raby.

Rudy was a long-time, well-regarded educator for 33 years at the École Dr. Charles Best Secondary School in Coquitlam, and he’s most profoundly grateful he never had me in his class.

Would the House make Rudy and Donna feel welcome.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It was a pleasure to come into the House today and look up and see that Liz Shorten is here with us today. Liz Shorten is an incredible contributor to British Columbia and to our domestic film production across Canada as the lead of the Canadian Media Producers Association.

Would the House please join me in both thanking Liz for her incredible contribution and welcoming her to the House.

Trevor Halford: It is always good to see former Elgin Park alumni, a fellow graduate, in the House, fellow Orca. I knew her as Cecily Frost. I think we went to Crescent Park Elementary, and then we went to Elgin Park Secondary. She had to suffer me for a number of years.

It’s great to see Cecily Frost, now Cecily Lawrenson, in the House today.

[1:45 p.m.]

I ask that you please make her welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Once again, today I would like to introduce two very special guests. They’re here somewhere in the gallery. I don’t see them in front of me.

Ashok Bansal Mansa is a pioneer in preserving the forgotten history of Punjabi music, language and heritage. As an author, Ashok brought recognition to many forgotten Punjabi artists and writers whose songs became famous but whose names were lost with time. He’s a tireless advocate for preserving this heritage and its stories.

With him, we also have in the gallery today Dr. Hakam Singh Bhullar, a prominent South Asian veterinarian who fought for equality within the profession. As we all know, Dr. Bhullar wrote the book The Underdog, which was released last year, outlining his journey through hardship and the importance of standing up for what is right.

I would ask the House members to please make them feel welcome.

Ian Paton: One of the oldest elementary schools in my riding, in Tsawwassen, is South Park Elementary. We have a total of over 70 students, grades 4 and 5, here today.

They’re up in the gallery. I don’t know why they want to look at the government side, but anyways, they’re up in the gallery, and they’re under the guidance of teachers Krista Alvano, Laura Axon and Brea Maurice.

Please welcome all the students from South Park Elementary.

George Anderson: I rise today to welcome Raymond Salgado and his mother, Anabelle Salgado, to the Legislature.

Born and raised in Lantzville, Raymond discovered his passion for music at 11 years old and has spent years sharing his remarkable talent through competitions, festivals, concerts and musical theatre productions, which has always allowed him to show his true, authentic self.

In 2018, he competed in the Canadian reality television series The Launch, earning a top 30 spot out of 10,000 applicants. In 2023, he stood out amongst 6,000 applicants to become a top eight finalist in season 2 of Canada’s Got Talent and delivered a powerful rendition of “Heaven” by Canadian icon Bryan Adams.

Raymond’s extraordinary voice and talent have earned praise from internationally renowned artists such as Adele, Demi Lovato and Sam Smith. Most recently he sang a rendition of Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida” in Cannes, France, and the rendition has received over 100 million views.

While we may not be able to compete with entertainment superstars like Raymond, I ask the whole House to join me in welcoming Raymond Salgado to the Legislature today.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I wouldn’t usually reintroduce someone, but it’s very seldom that your life comes full circle, and I think it’s important to highlight it when it does.

In about 2014, I put on my best dress, and I was incredibly nervous, to go to downtown Vancouver to have a meeting for the very first time, the very first time I ever met with an elected official, with the then Minister of Education. I was nervous and incredibly intimidated and had a half-hour meeting.

I’m not sure that he remembers that meeting, but it sticks with me in the work that I do. He inspired me, out of that meeting, to get involved in politics. That’s why I’m on this side of the House now.

I also want to lend my welcome to Peter Fassbender.

Thank you for inspiring me, and thank you for your time in the Legislature.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Today in the gallery, we are joined by members of the Junior Achievement B.C. It’s a non-profit that has operated for 70 years, delivering free programs in financial health, work readiness and entrepreneurship to more than 80,000 B.C. students annually.

Behind this great work and with us today are president and CEO Wendi Campbell, Vice-President Cecily Lawrenson, Glenn Dodge and Delreen Motiwalla.

I look forward to meeting with them later today and ask all members of this House to please make them feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew: Some of the sweetest moments in this House are when people acknowledge the people without whom they would not be here today. I will take that very literally. Today is my mother’s 80th birthday.

Happy birthday, Mom. I love you.

[1:50 p.m.]

Members’ Statements

Canada Day Drumming

George Chow: I rise today to recognize and celebrate the tenth anniversary of Canada Day Drumming, a nationwide initiative that brings Canadians together through rhythm, culture and community spirit. Canada Day Drumming was conceived ten years ago by Mr. Richard Wong in Vancouver to celebrate 150 years of Confederation and has grown into the country’s largest Canada Day synchronized drumming event.

The 2026 Canada Day Drumming will be at Richmond’s Lansdowne mall and will be a great milestone to reflect on an event that unites communities across Canada in celebration of diversity, inclusion, national pride and shared identity.

The signature moment is a six-minute synchronized drumming performance representing Canada’s six time zones, symbolizing unity from coast to coast to coast. The national broadcast will once again take place at 11:30 a.m. Pacific time on July 1, bringing participants together across the country in a shared national moment.

Participating cities this year include Charlottetown and Summerside in Prince Edward Island; St. John’s and Grand Falls–Windsor in Newfoundland and Labrador; Halifax in Nova Scotia; Toronto, Richmond Hill, Markham, Aurora and Ottawa in Ontario; Winnipeg, Brandon and Winkler in Manitoba; Stoney Plain, Strathcona County and Elk Point in Alberta; and Surrey, Nanaimo, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops and Richmond in British Columbia; with additional communities continuing to join.

Canada Day drumming is more than a performance event. It promotes multiculturalism, youth engagement and civic participation and brings people of all backgrounds together to celebrate our country.

I would like to acknowledge Richard Wong, national chair of Canada Day Drumming, along with the many volunteers, performers, culture groups, sponsors and community partners whose dedication makes this event possible each year.

On Canada Day, I encourage everyone to take part in this milestone tenth anniversary celebration in Richmond and across the country.

Honour House and Honour Ranch
Facilities for First Responders
and Armed Forces Personnel

Tony Luck: Today I want to recognize both the importance of honouring those who serve and the extraordinary organizations that support them when service takes its toll.

First, I want to commend my colleague from Prince George–Valemount for her work in getting the month of November recognized as a time to honour first responders. That initiative sends a clear and important message that this House understands and values the sacrifice made every day by those who serve.

In that same spirit, I want to speak about a place that brings that recognition to life. A number of colleagues and I recently had the opportunity to visit Honour Ranch, hence the pin. Just outside of Ashcroft, it is a place that leaves a lasting impression, not only for what it is but for what it represents — a quiet, compassionate commitment to those who have given so much in service to others.

The reality is this. Service often comes with a cost that is not always visible. First responders run towards crisis, towards danger, towards moments that most of us would never choose to face. They carry not only the physical demands of their work but also the emotional and psychological weight that comes with it. Too often, that burden does not end when their shift ends.

Honour House and Honour Ranch exist to meet that reality. Honour House provides a place to rest, recover, and dignity for first responders and their families. Honour Ranch builds on that mission, offering a long-term path to healing through connection, nature and community. Together they send a powerful message that those who serve us should never have to heal alone.

At the heart of this work is a story that underscores why it matters so deeply. Captain Trevor Greene, a Canadian soldier, was critically injured while serving in Afghanistan. His journey of recovery, supported by the unwavering care of his wife, Debbie, became a powerful symbol for resilience and helped inspire the creation of Honour House so that others facing profound challenges would have a place to turn.

Honour House and Honour Ranch are more than facilities. They are a promise, a promise that we will stand by those who have stood for us. They remind us that behind every uniform is a person who deserves not only our respect but our care.

[1:55 p.m.]

B.C. Museums Week

Steve Morissette: I rise in the House today to recognize B.C. Museums Week, from May 17 to 23 — this week.

B.C.’s arts, culture and creative sector is a vital part of our province. It employs more than 122,000 people and contributes approximately $10.5 billion to our economy. Workers and volunteers in this sector preserve and share our history through stories, artifacts and historic sites, helping connect us to our past and to each other.

From the Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre, Kootenay museum, Rossland Museum, Trail museum, Doukhobor Discovery Centre in Castlegar, to the Burnaby Village Museum, Barkerville Historic Town and so many more throughout British Columbia, museums reflect the diversity and resilience of the people who call B.C. home. The British Columbia Museums Association also plays an important role in supporting these organizations and promoting awareness of our shared history.

That is why we continue to support cultural spaces such as the Chinese Canadian Museum, the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, the Vancouver Art Gallery and the Royal B.C. Museum, including the new Provincial Archives research and collections campus.

We are working closely with affected communities to advance new museum programs and proposals, including the Canadians of South Asian Heritages vision for a provincial museum and a provincial Filipino cultural centre.

B.C. Museums Week is a time to celebrate the people and places that keep B.C.’s stories alive.

Please join me in recognizing B.C. Museums Week this week.

Partap Forest Products

Lawrence Mok: Today I would like to recognize Partap Forest Products Ltd., a remarkable British Columbia company that represents the strength, resilience and future of our forest industry. Founded in Maple Ridge in 2004, Partap Forest Products has grown from a small, family-run operation into a leading producer of western red cedar and Pacific HemFir products.

Even as the company has expanded, it has remained committed to the values that matter most to British Columbians: hard work, innovation, sustainability and community investment. Partap is exactly the kind of company our province should be proud to support. The company provides skilled jobs for local families, contributes to the economic vitality of Maple Ridge and the region and strengthens the supply chain that supports construction, manufacturing, transportation and exports across Canada and abroad.

Their two operations in Maple Ridge and Surrey demonstrate how modern forestry can combine advanced technology with responsible resource management. What makes Partap especially important is its commitment to maximizing value from every block while minimizing waste. Their focus on sustainable forestry practices and renewable wood products reflects the evolution of British Columbia’s forest sector into one that is both environmentally responsible and economically competitive.

At a time when forestry communities across British Columbia are facing economic pressures and uncertainty, companies like Partap Forest Products show us why continued provincial support for the forestry industry is essential. By supporting companies like Partap, we are supporting local jobs, sustainable growth, rural and urban economies and a proud British tradition that continues to build our future.

Hydrogen Energy

George Anderson: What if one of British Columbia’s greatest economic opportunities is not only what we extract but what we invent, test and export to the world? That is the promise of hydrogen.

At UBC’s smart hydrogen energy district, Dr. Walter Mérida and researchers are showing what the future can look like: clean electricity, transportation and urban planning working together in one living laboratory.

[2:00 p.m.]

At Ballard Power Systems, B.C. innovation is helping power zero-emission buses, trains, marine vehicles and heavy-duty equipment — the very vehicles that move people, goods and economies.

At Powertech Labs, that future is becoming practical. Powertech recently unveiled a high-capacity smart hydrogen tube trailer capable of transporting up to 1,050 kilograms of gaseous hydrogen at 517 bar — a major step in making hydrogen logistics safer, more efficient and more scalable. That matters because it’s not just about producing clean energy. It’s about moving it, storing it and testing it in order to make hydrogen reliable enough for the real world.

The climate challenge is not only an environmental challenge; it’s an industrial challenge, an innovation challenge and an economic challenge. The question before us is not whether or not the world will need cleaner fuels or cleaner transportation. It will. The question is whether British Columbia will simply buy those solutions or build them.

In British Columbia, we have clean electricity. We have research institutions. We have the companies. We have the engineers, tradespeople, scientists and innovators to address the challenges of today.

Hydrogen will not solve every problem, but in the right sectors — heavy-duty transport, backup power and hard-to-electrify applications — hydrogen can be part of a practical, made-in-B.C. climate and economic strategy. This is how we reduce emissions while creating opportunity and turn climate ambition into industrial strength. And this is how British Columbia helps build the clean economy that the world is waiting for.

Egil Ingvallsen

Claire Rattée: Last week my community of Kitimat suffered an incredible loss with the passing of Egil Ingvallsen. Egil was a person who embodied the spirit of Kitimat. Truly, he was probably the kindest and most generous person that I’ve ever met.

Every person who had the pleasure of getting to know him in Kitimat and throughout my region knows what a blessing knowing him was. He was a man who was deeply devoted to his family and to his faith. He taught me so much about the importance of letting the people that you love know how much you love them while you can.

He had a remarkable gift for making you feel like you were the most important person in the world. I can’t even begin to explain how much he meant to me and how much I learned from him over the last few years.

He was a person who suffered a great deal of personal loss and tragedy in his life. He battled cancer for several decades, but he never gave up. He always had a smile on his face. When he lost his son recently to a drug overdose, it was a moment that really brought the two of us together. He was always such a strong advocate for recovery, for mental health supports, and he always did it with a smile on his face.

He was just the most remarkable man. Knowing him certainly made me a better person. I think it made everyone that knew him a better person.

My deepest condolences to his family. I know how difficult this loss has been. It’s been a huge loss for our entire community. I was just so fortunate to have known him.

He taught me that there was pretty much nothing that couldn’t be fixed by a hug from a person that you really loved, even if that person was maybe a cat, or a really bad day that couldn’t be fixed by a day out at the range shooting or going to church.

He taught me an awful lot of things, but the most important thing that he taught me was to make sure that you tell the people you love that you love them.

I’m going to miss him incredibly, but Valhalla gained another warrior.

Until we meet again, Egil.

Mable Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mable Elmore: Today joining us in the gallery is Matthew Remedios, the principal lawyer and managing director of Remedios Lawyers. He’s joined by his team, Lorentz Sy, Grace Hou, James Kwok, Bhhaskar De.

He’s brought his client, GAC Motor company. GAC is the largest state-owned Chinese EV company. They’re looking to expand their business in British Columbia and Canada through EV cars and clean energy infrastructure.

Joining us from GAC Motor is Mr. Zhao Zay Chen, the chairman of GAC International and the deputy general manager of GAC Group, as well as Zhen Hang Liu, Liu Li and David Zhu.

I ask the Legislature to please give them a very warm welcome.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Action on Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Trevor Halford: When it comes to flip-flopping, nobody has done that more, better, than this Premier, than this NDP government. Whether we’re talking about LNG Canada, a project that they oppose but happily showed up to cut the ribbon at; whether it was TMX, which one of the ministers actually lost an election over but was happy to champion…. Well, the then Attorney General, now Premier, lost millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in court. You can see that they constantly change their position.

Now, the problem with all of this is that on a file as important as DRIPA, the Premier has changed his position not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times — six times in under four months.

My question is clear. We are a few days out from ending this legislative session. The Premier has said that he was tapped on the shoulder by Attorney General, who is going to go in there and try and get a solution regarding DRIPA.

So my question to the Attorney General is a direct one. Can she guarantee this House that when we come back in the fall session, that legislation will be ready to be voted on when it comes to the issues we are seeing with DRIPA, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re hard at work right now coming up with a durable solution to the challenge in DRIPA. I expect to hear from our appeal application soon from the Supreme Court of Canada. That will be one avenue to fixing the legal challenges that we face. We’re working with our partners right now to come up with a solution. We are looking forward to that happening shortly, and we’ll keep doing that work.

Our approach is about bringing people together to solve really challenging problems. Very different than the approach of the other side that would just repeal, rip up, go back to court for long, protracted battles related to not sitting down and solving challenges. We’ll continue to do that work.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Trevor Halford: Well, I will agree with the Attorney General on one thing. Our approach has been much different because it’s been transparent through the beginning of this entire process. We have not changed our position when it comes to DRIPA. They change their position every 24 hours it seems.

I just asked a very specific question and got no answer whatsoever, which is what was to be expected. Listen, the Premier said in December, and then he said it again in January, and then said it again in February, and he even said it in April — that he would have legislation ready for this House to deal with the chaos that we are seeing from DRIPA.

What did he do? He panicked, like he always does, and he blinked, and he blamed somebody else. Now he’s blamed the Attorney General to say she came up to him at the last second, tapped him on the shoulder and said: “I’ve got a better way, and here’s the better way. What we’re going to do is we are going to have legislation….”

To the Attorney General’s credit, and I’ll give her this, she just acknowledged co-governance when she said: “We’re working with our partners.” What they should be doing is working in this House on a solution. We’ve given ours.

This Premier has said and the Attorney General has said that legislation will be ready in the fall. Now they are not confirming that.

I am asking another time. Can the Attorney General say that in the fall session, she or anybody in that cabinet will have legislation ready to deal with the chaos that we are seeing with DRIPA, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve committed to finding a solution to the legal challenges that we acknowledge were in the Gitxaała decision, and we’ll continue to do that work.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Talk about flip-flopping. They voted unanimously. This House voted unanimously in favour of DRIPA, and now they’re talking about repealing it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: What we do know is that the opposition is very focused on trying to figure out what political gains can be made out of this challenge, with making fundraising emails, over and over again, to bring fear…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …to the public about a solution. We’re going to stay focused….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members will come to order now.

Attorney General has the floor.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re going to stay focused on building that solution to the challenges we’re facing.

I want to make it clear that DRIPA has unlocked economic opportunity in this province like we’ve never seen before.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh, Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The strongest mining exploration expenditures on record in B.C. in 2025, over $750 million. Mineral exploration spending jumped 36 percent compared to 2024. That’s just last year, and we’re just getting started.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members will wait for their turn, please.

Investigation and Prosecution
of Coastal GasLink Pipeline
Project Worksite Attack

Kiel Giddens: Well, what we’re hearing is just more uncertainty from this government. When investors look at B.C., they want certainty. They want to know that projects can move forward, and they want to know that they can move forward safely. Even that basic requirement is questionable under this government.

In 2022, a worksite on the Coastal GasLink pipeline was attacked by a group of masked, axe-wielding assailants. Workers on site were terrorized. Anarchists purposely spread fear to try to shut the project down. It caused tens of millions of dollars in damage and major delays. Shockingly, not a single arrest has ever been made.

To the Solicitor General, how can investors have the confidence to invest in British Columbia if this government can’t uphold the law and keep people and assets safe?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I appreciate the question and want to make it very clear that police in British Columbia enforce the law. This government is committed to providing police with the tools that they need to engage with the challenges of our time.

That’s why we have made a historic investment in policing in our province — over $230 million, hiring 256 officers, with an emphasis on rural and remote communities. That’s why we’ve increased training for police, and that’s why we are standing up dedicated programs to provide police with the tools to go after repeat violent offenders and property crime, which we know are causing such challenges in our communities.

We are committed to continuing this strong action, providing police with the tools that they need to do their vital work to keep British Columbians safe.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens: Police enforce the law, but this government clearly doesn’t. No arrests have been made after four years, despite this brazen attack, an act of domestic terrorism on B.C.’s soil. If this isn’t cause for uncertainty for global investors, then I don’t know what is.

The RCMP member who led the investigation at the time said: “We saw a number of people come into the protest camps that had been involved in previous protests elsewhere in the country, elsewhere in North America, that had a propensity to cause violence.” This government has failed to show the world that B.C. is a safe place for major project investment.

To the Attorney General, will she commit to reopening the criminal investigation into the Coastal GasLink attack, yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m happy I inspire such energy from the opposition.

The member talks about certainty, and everyone on this side understands how important it is to ensure that there’s certainty for investors. That’s why, just since November, we’ve had Quintette coal mine, $500 million; Highland Valley Copper extension, $2.25 billion; Mount Milligan mine extension, $400 million; Eskay Creek mine, $713 million…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: …Copper Mountain mine expansion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The Solicitor General has made it clear that we’re going to continue to enforce the law. But I think it’s important…. Yesterday we had a member who was thrown out of this place because of their position on Coastal GasLink.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s important not to paint all protesters with the same brush.

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Are we ready?

Minister of Jobs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is going to be a hard thing for them to hear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Perhaps they were not aware, but their House Leader was one of the protesters protesting the pipeline.

A Facebook post from the House Leader said, from February 2020: “My interest in all this is not environmental. This is environmental. I do not believe we should poison our land to gain money to provide Asia with natural gas. I do not care about any shortsighted opportunities we gain. We can help our nations and family by doing what we are doing, getting healthy, educated, continuing to grow our food, reuse, recycle, cut down consumerism.”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, you are wasting your own time.

Please. He’s trying to answer. Let him finish the answer.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker: Is the member for Kamloops Centre going to argue with me? If not, then take your seat. Let the minister finish. Thank you.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know this is tough news for many of them. It’s the first time they’re hearing it. But I will say that if you live in a glass house, do not throw rocks.

Government Fee Policy
for Raw Log Exports

Rob Botterell: This government continues to talk about…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members will wait for their turn.

Rob Botterell: …the importance of growing value-added forestry jobs here in British Columbia and rebuilding our forest economy around local manufacturing and processing. But while mills continue to close and forestry workers lose jobs across the province, the government has quietly moved in the opposite direction.

Recent reporting has noted the Ministry of Forests reduced the fee in lieu of manufacture charged on many raw log exports — the very fee that was designed to discourage companies from shipping unprocessed logs out of B.C. instead of processing them here at home and creating jobs for British Columbians.

Why is this government making it easier and cheaper to export raw logs out of British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I’m always pleased to be able to rise in the House and talk about the initiatives that we have on this side of the House to strengthen and restore confidence in our forest sector and also for the opportunity to talk about a new project that we launched just last week in West Kelowna. In partnership with the organization Gorman Brothers, we’re going to make more in B.C.

Our make more in B.C. project builds on the success that we’ve had since 2017, where we have seen an 80 percent reduction in raw log exports since we formed government. I might add that from 2003 to 2017 we saw a 140 percent increase in raw log exports.

The fee in lieu policy change the member refers to is something that has been brought forward by industry, by local First Nations. We’re piloting it, and the intent is to ensure that more logs are being processed in domestic facilities.

The member might be interested to note that his former employer, the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, is a strong supporter of this change as well.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Implementation of
Old-Growth Strategic Review and
Advisory Council Recommendations

Rob Botterell: An interesting response. I’ve still got a bit of cognitive dissonance. We do know that our forest sector needs fundamental changes. But cutting as much as we can, especially the last old growth, is what got us into this crisis. It’s short-term thinking.

The minister does not lack the direction on what to do on these issues. The old-growth strategic review, the PFAC report, was exactly the roadmap the minister needs. But when this government fails to implement these reviews or cherry-picks them, this minister fails everyone.

Does the Minister of Forests know how long it will be until he fully implements the old-growth strategic review and the ten PFAC recommendations, or is it his plan to cherry-pick what he wants from these reports?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: An interesting question from the member opposite, who had an opportunity to work with the government and completely abandoned all of the values that he brought to the table on trying to help restore confidence in the forest sector.

I am committed to working with the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, with the Minister of Environment and Parks — all across government — to not only meet the commitments that we made in the old-growth action plan but also to take the necessary steps to help restore confidence in this sector. We can build a working forest that can last generations while also maintaining the incredible biodiversity, ecosystem and wildlife that make British Columbia’s forests and British Columbia’s landscape what it is today.

We’re fully committed to this work and doing this work alongside industry, alongside First Nations and alongside community leaders. This is the work that we have been asked to do by the Premier, and it’s the work that we’re committed to doing. It is going to create jobs and prosperity in every corner of this province.

Government Ticket Policy
for FIFA World Cup

Korky Neufeld: The government has recently released their ticket policy for the 2026 FIFA World Cup: two ministers max per game, who could be accompanied by one staff member — a maximum of 28 tickets for seven games for ministers and staff.

The former Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport said in April of last year: “I don’t have any tickets to give you, Members. You’ll have to buy them, like the general public, when they become available.”

To the minister, how many tickets to the 2026 FIFA World Cup has government bought for ministers and staff?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I think the member just answered his own question by outlining the number of tickets in the policy that was outlined by the minister in regard to FIFA.

But it does give me an opportunity to remind members of this House of the policy that was in place under the previous government, a number of whose members do continue to sit in this House — the member for Nechako Lakes, the member for Delta South, the member for Richmond Centre. There were others — the Leader of the Opposition, who was a staffer at the time. I’ll come to him in a moment.

I know that they get upset when I say they were part of the previous government. I will admit that most of them were not. But I will say this. They did vote for the previous governments.

So it is my pleasure to inform that when some of those members sat on this side of the House and the Leader of the Opposition in fact worked in the office, the ticket-palooza that took place during the 2010 Olympics involved the opposition giving its own MLAs 143 tickets to Olympic events.

That was 57 of them, almost half, that were used for hockey — 49 for men’s hockey but only eight for women’s hockey. That’s more free tickets than they had MLAs at the time. They gave figure skating 20 tickets; short-track speed skating, ten tickets; all 13 other sports, zero tickets. None of them took a ticket to the Paralympics. They completely skipped the Paralympics.

We’ve outlined a policy that if MLAs want to go, they’ll be buying their own tickets, unlike the ticket-palooza that took place when many of them sat on this side of the House.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Korky Neufeld: I think that we’re talking about FIFA 2026, where tickets are $1,000 apiece or more.

We know the government bought a suite at B.C. Place for FIFA World Cup “to attract business investment.” B.C. Place doesn’t disclose how much a suite would cost for FIFA, but in Seattle, six suites were available for $46,000 U.S. each. In Toronto, one was available for $198,000. We can only assume government purchased a box for each of the seven matches in B.C. Place.

To the minister, how many millions did this government spend on tickets for FIFA?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Well, it’s pretty clear the member hasn’t learned how to pivot, when we were giving him the answer a moment ago. The ticket policy has been outlined.

As the member will also know, PavCo does have a box. What is.…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, the nice people do not interrupt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: We’ve made it clear what the ticket policy is, and what we have made clear is that there will be no ticket-palooza on this side of the House, unlike it was when they sat on this side.

FIFA World Cup Attendance by
Premier and Cabinet Ministers

Teresa Wat: The Premier’s office has said that the Premier will be attending two FIFA 2026 matches at B.C. Place. But we don’t know why.

Simple question to the Minister of Tourism — not to the House Leader, the Minister of Transportation. Which NDP cabinet minister will be attending FIFA games and for what purpose?

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right, Members. That’s enough. Shhh.

A Voice: That’s a good smile.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: You’re right, Member. It is a good smile.

I’ll just remind members of the House that this province is hosting an international event. The Prime Minister will be here. The Governor General will be here. The Lieutenant Governor will be here…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …and it is entirely appropriate that the Premier of the province of British Columbia is in attendance at events where those leaders are present, including leaders from around the world. That’s something that I think everybody on this side, everybody in this chamber, should understand and recognize.

But I do have to say this, and I will ask the question of the member for Richmond Centre, who seemed so concerned that I would get up and answer.

When it came to 2010, which events did she go to? Did she go to figure skating, short-track speed skating, or did she go to the women’s hockey final?

Just how many tickets did you get, Member?

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Teresa Wat: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order at this question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Teresa Wat: I wasn’t in the government. I was elected in 2013. Get your records straight.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, even the Chair can’t hear the question. It’s so noisy.

Teresa Wat: I just want to get the record straight. I wasn’t in the government. I was elected in 2013, together with the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let her ask the question, please. Shhh. Let her ask the question.

Teresa Wat: An unknown amount for tickets for cabinet ministers and staff while British Columbians don’t have access to health care, are accessing the food banks at a higher rate than ever, while this government has a $13.3 billion deficit…. It just doesn’t make sense. To top it all off, not even a tourism boost at B.C. hotels. Instead, a 20 percent decline.

What measurable benefits will taxpayers receive from cabinet ministers and staff attending FIFA matches?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Actually, I’m quite happy she answered the question.

She didn’t get any tickets because she wasn’t there in 2010, unlike you, hon. Member, who was part of the staff that engaged…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: …in ticket-palooza for former B.C. Liberals when more than 148 of them got tickets to attend key events, including the majority going to the hockey game final.

In terms of FIFA, I will remind the member that she has been more than happy to participate in the FIFA events that have been held. She was just at the soccer-kicking, taking advantage of the social media, so she’s pretty happy to do that.

Really, the issue is this. We are having a world-class event hosted by this province and this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Shhh, everybody.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth: This is a unique opportunity to showcase our province not just to the rest of the country, not just to North America, but around the globe. One would think that they would want to celebrate that instead of engaging in how many members are going to be attending games on free tickets — which will be very, very few, only under certain restrictive circumstances, unlike what happened when so many of them in 2010 were at the events.

Supportive Housing
Sites in Vancouver
and Relocation of Residents

Claire Rattée: I don’t know anybody right now that has a ticket to a FIFA match except for people that are sitting on this side of the room. Not a single person that I know that can afford to go.

It was recently….

Interjection.

Claire Rattée: Yes, you do. They’re within your cabinet.

The Speaker: Members, shhh.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member has the floor.

Claire Rattée: It was recently announced that the 110-unit Luugat SRO on Vancouver’s Granville strip will finally be closed, conveniently just in time before FIFA begins this summer.

The Minister of Housing previously said: “I also saw up close the impacts of the Olympics on some of our most vulnerable residents in the city, and I want to make sure that we’re doing this well.” But now nearly 300 people from the Luugat, St. Helen’s Hotel and Granville Villa are being displaced just weeks before FIFA, with no clear plan for where those residents will go. That’s not doing it well in my books.

To the minister, where are these residents supposed to go, and why did this government wait until the month before FIFA to finally start dealing with this crisis?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question.

As we’ve spoken about here, and I’ve certainly spoken about publicly, the province has, over many months now, been working with the housing provider and on a tenant-by-tenant basis with folks living at the Luugat to support them in finding other housing that meets their needs.

That work has been largely successful. It was in partnership with and at the request of the city of Vancouver, and we have been able to find good alternative housing for those tenants so that that building, which was never intended to be supportive housing, can be closed down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle: In addition to that, since 2017, our government has helped deliver or get underway over 9,900 supportive homes in communities across this province. There are over 1,100 spaces in operation in homelessness and encampment response temporary homes and shelters. Those are in addition to nearly 4,100 permanent shelter spaces funded by the province, with thousands of temporary shelter spaces added during winter months.

We continue to deliver good purpose-built homes that help people come inside, connect with supports and health supports and get back on their feet. That is a priority because we know it makes a difference in communities.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: See, the problem is that for years local businesses, residents, first responders and community groups warned this government that these SROs were unsafe and unsustainable. The minister knows well, members of this government know well, how deplorable the conditions in these buildings have been for years. But instead of fixing the model, instead of providing a durable solution, adding proper supports or transitioning people into safer housing, this government ignored the problem until FIFA forced their hand.

Now with international media arriving and the province trying to clean up its image, nearly 300 vulnerable people are being shuffled out of these buildings with no confidence that the underlying issues are actually being addressed.

My question to the minister is quite simple. Why is B.C.’s biggest slumlord just moving vulnerable people out of sight ahead of FIFA rather than addressing the issue of their failed model? Where are these people going to go?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m happy to respond frankly to this question, even though I can’t understand the member opposite’s position on it.

We have been clear, over months, that we have been working with tenants one-on-one to support their needs and find a good alternate spot for them. Nobody from the Luugat has been shoved out onto the street. This is work we do in partnership with the provider and with the city so that we have….

Interjections.

[2:35 p.m.]

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Let the minister finish.

Hon. Christine Boyle: So that we have good long-term solutions for those tenants. That’s the work that we’ve done at the Luugat.

The other thing I find just constantly confusing is that members opposite want to criticize old housing, but they also are opposed to any new housing that we try to build. It is not acceptable to oppose….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle: They are opposed to the current housing. They are opposed to new….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, what’s wrong with you?

Member for Abbotsford West.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle: They are opposed to existing housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ll try one more time.

Members opposite are opposed to existing housing.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, if I hear one more time that comment, I’m going to really ask you to leave the House. Let the minister conclude now.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The members opposite are opposed to existing housing. They’re opposed to new housing. They’re opposed to encampments. They have no solutions to offer.

On this side, we are working with communities. We’re working with local governments to find answers, to support people. That’s the work that we’ll continue to do.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Ian Paton: I rise on a point of order. A misrepresentation by the Minister of Transportation, suggesting that I was here as part of government in 2010, to do with some sort of Olympic tickets. I didn’t get elected here until 2017.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes.

Minister.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I recognize you were elected in 2017 and, unlike some of the others, probably didn’t get tickets.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

[The Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, would you let even the Chair do his job?

Minister, would you please withdraw the remark?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I will withdraw.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

The Speaker: Just have some patience. Let me hear the question or point of order. Only then I can respond. You are not even letting me do that. Okay?

Reports from Committees

Democratic and Electoral
Reform Committee

Jennifer Blatherwick: I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform for the second session of the 43rd parliament, titled Review of the 2024 Provincial General Election, a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of the Clerk.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I move that the report be adopted.

This report summarizes the committee’s review of the administration of the 43rd provincial general election and makes recommendations for improvements for future elections. To inform its work, the committee reviewed the three volumes of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the election and gathered input through a public consultation.

On behalf of all committee members, I wish to thank the individuals and organizations who took the time to share their experiences with the 2024 election and their ideas for improving future elections. I would also like to recognize Elections B.C. for their ongoing engagement with the committee throughout our work.

Following the consultation period, our committee considered all the input we received to develop 48 recommendations which aim to strengthen election administration. Our report identifies opportunities to strengthen Elections B.C.’s enforcement powers and improve the process for voters, political campaigns, political parties and Elections B.C. themselves.

Our recommendations are designed to uphold the accessibility of B.C.’s voting model while maintaining electoral integrity by enabling more efficient updating of a list of voters, facilitating safe access to health facilities for voting and permitting remote translators to assist individuals voting in person.

[2:40 p.m.]

We also highlight the importance of strengthening education and promoting public awareness about election administration to combat misinformation and disinformation and support a vibrant participatory democracy in our province.

In conducting this review, the committee agreed that the administration of the 2024 provincial general election was largely effective, and members expressed their confidence in the work of Elections B.C. and the integrity of B.C.’s elections. While mistakes occurred during the election, they were due to human error. This is challenging to eliminate in a large and complex operation such as a provincial general election, which stands up quickly and requires thousands of temporary employees.

I’d like to extend my sincere gratitude to all the committee members for their dedication and meaningful discussion in this review. In particular, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, for his leadership throughout this work.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to express my very sincere appreciation to the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and in Hansard Services for their support to our committee.

It is very difficult to gain the approval of an ex-teacher and a mother of five children on the writing of the report, but I commend the parliamentary committees research staff for doing just that.

Ward Stamer: I also would like to express my gratitude to all the members of the committee for their contributions, and in particular recognize the Chair, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, for her leadership and stewardship in our committee.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge everyone who shared their perspectives on the way to strengthen provisions of the Election Act and improve future elections. The committee heard from many British Columbians about the vital importance of upholding accountability and promoting transparency in our elections.

We recommend appointing a parliamentary committee after every provincial general election to review its administration and make recommendations for future improvements. We believe the undertaking of this work could help to uphold public confidence in B.C.’s elections and counteract misinformation and disinformation.

Throughout our work, the committee also identified opportunities to streamline electoral processes for candidates, campaigns and election officials while promoting accountability and transparency. In this area, our recommendations include proactively addressing gaps in the Election Act, increasing transparency and efficiency in nomination administration and ensuring greater consistency in advertising.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to extend our gratitude to Elections B.C. for their cooperation and engagement throughout the committee’s work and highlight the important role the office plays in ensuring that elections are administered fairly, accurately and transparently.

In closing, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the staff of the Parliamentary Committees Office and our Hansard Services for the support that they have provided throughout our work.

The Speaker: The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will call the chamber back to order, where we are continuing our debate of Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: I want to give us a little synopsis of where I stopped yesterday, just in regards to some topics that I’d covered, which were: what is reconciliation and, at this point, why I feel like we should not be proceeding with Bill 20.

I’ll just circle back in terms of sharing that treaties have traditionally always added surety and added concrete….

Sorry, I’ve just come out of a really rumpus QP there. I’ve just got to get into the zone here.

Treaties in the…. The nature of treaties adds surety, especially in areas where there has been conflict in the past. So I do believe in treaties, but in this particular one, the change from how we’ve done modern treaties in the past, which have been successful, is something to be concerned with in this treaty, with the language inclusion and moving away from typical process and procedure. This is 30 years in the making.

Where I left off yesterday was talking about, at a time when things are so contentious in this province…. Even today, our first two questions were related to DRIPA, which I know is not necessarily in this bill, but in the context of UNDRIP, which is covered in this bill.

The province is not in a place where we can be talking, right in this moment, about adding another layer of complexity to First Nations issues within this province with the security that British Columbians are wanting to feel.

So I ask, in this context of Bill 20, are we possibly doing the K’ómoks a disservice right now by bringing this bill to the table? Are we adding complexity to something that should be, after 30 years, work that is recognized in this chamber? DRIPA and UNDRIP are one of the number one topics right now around British Columbians’ kitchen tables, on top of the economy, economic stability, which is wrapped into parts of the language that is used within Bill 20.

So how can this process be fair to the work of the last 30 years? We’re talking at a time when the general public doesn’t even really understand the difference between UNDRIP and DRIPA. They just hear that there’s language that has made them feel insecure in regards to private property rights.

Another layer, when we’re talking about UNDRIP, is that we’re tying in federal, another layer of government, laws into this legislation. That’s just a piece that…. What if, in the future, there are changes to UNDRIP, there are changes that are now entrenched into B.C. legislation?

I think that when it comes to the purpose of treaties, which is to add definite boundaries and guidelines to what is trying to be accomplished, I just feel like that language, especially when it hasn’t been used in the past….

We’re going into uncharted territory with treaties wrapped in UNDRIP language. So I just think that this is something that we need to be cognizant of. And it has been brought up. I’m not the first person mentioning that. Treaties are supposed to make things clearer, not muddier. We’re supposed to be answering questions that are decades, centuries old — of jurisdiction, of reconciliation.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 20, in and of itself, unfortunately, has been flawed at the end here with adding in language that has not been traditionally incorporated into other modern treaties.

Everybody is saying that now is not the time. Now is not the time, and it doesn’t mean that the time won’t be in the future, but we just have so many questions. The union of B.C. Chiefs is saying that now is not the time and asking for a pause. Even this own government…. I don’t even think that they necessarily understand their position. We talked about it today — six different changing positions on DRIPA.

At a time when nothing is clear anymore, why are we bringing more legislation in to confuse it? That’s what Bill 20 potentially does, especially because of including UNDRIP into this legislation. If that piece and how it was wrapped into this legislation was not there, it would be a very different conversation than what we’re having here now.

Quite honestly, it puts other existing treaties into question. Other nations, rightfully so, could ask about the inclusion of UNDRIP provisions within their treaties. Are we potentially opening a Pandora’s box with this particular treaty and how it’s written and how it’s worded? I think that that’s a valid concern. We don’t know at this stage, with so many cases before the courts right now. We just don’t have clarity.

We’re seeing…. DRIPA was brought in, in 2019, and readjusted with the Interpretation Act in 2021. We’re just now, in 2026 and the end of 2025, starting to see the legal ramifications of that language. We don’t know, in the context of this treaty, in Bill 20, if, five or six years down the road, there are going to be legal consequences and legal ramifications.

To quote the Attorney General, in the term “durable solutions,” if we’re looking for durable solutions right now, why are we bringing through more legislation?

Co-governance is a real issue, especially as it relates to UNDRIP. Even the BCAFN, Terry Teegee, admits that we are in a co-governance model. We can’t disregard statements like this. We don’t know, really…. The government’s understanding that the voice of 200,000 in a co-governance position with the 5.7 million British Columbians that are now a part of Canada, whether through immigration or by birth…. We have to believe that this House is where governance comes from. I do struggle with why we’re proceeding.

We also haven’t heard from the government in regards to these concerns. We haven’t heard anybody stand up and kind of speak to our concerns. If we’re wrong in understanding the implications of UNDRIP being wrapped in this treaty, why wouldn’t we have heard anybody stand up here and speak to those concerns? We haven’t heard those answers, so speaker after speaker is standing up in regards to those same concerns.

Quite frankly, we have 5½ days left — 5½ days that we can debate and potentially bring this bill to committee. That’s not a lot of time for 30 years of work. That’s not doing this bill justice if the intent is to add clarity. How, in that amount of time, can we add clarity and surety to British Columbians?

I think a big piece here is the concerns of the Wei Wai Kum in the 80 percent overlap. I know I’ve heard the narrative that overlapping jurisdictions is common. It’s a common issue within treaties, within the creation and the negotiations of treaties. For sure, this is no different. However, the concerns are extremely valid.

[2:55 p.m.]

I know on our side of the House here that we have done those conversations to understand what the Wei Wai Kum’s concerns are. We’ve heard what their concerns are around economic prosperity, and we can’t discount that.

We’ve got numerous nations throughout British Columbia who are at different stages of treaty and treaty creation. Bill 20 is going to be the main or the first one of this process including UNDRIP into it. That is going to set the stage for the other treaties that are coming forward, let alone, as I previously talked about, what it will do to existing treaties.

Regardless of where other nations are in their process, there needs to be equitable access to any title or treaty lands that doesn’t place another nation over another. This treaty will place one nation over another who’s in a different stage of their process. Without clear understanding of protocol, like a protocol agreement, putting something in place that addresses the concerns of overlapping jurisdictions, overlapping traditional territories…. This isn’t just about treaty lands; it’s about traditional territories. To this point, there isn’t anything in place yet to address that, to add security for British Columbians.

I’m going to kind of close up. Because of those concerns, I feel like we need to have extra eyes on this. I feel like we need to take the time to hear the concerns.

Quite frankly, I think I’m going to actually move a motion on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if you want me to read it or if you want me to bring it forward.

Deputy Speaker: Please do, Member. Read the motion.

Misty Van Popta: Okay. I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefor the following: “Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs”.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member. We are going to call a brief recess to circulate the motion, and we will be back in a few minutes.

The House recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will call the chamber back to order, where the member from Langley–Walnut Grove has introduced a motion moving that the motion for second reading of Bill 20, intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act, 2026, be amended by deleting all words after “now” and substituting therefore the following: “Bill 20, entitled K’ómoks Treaty Act, 2026, not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.”

It is a debatable motion, but we will be, of course, debating, as we go forward, this motion, not the treaty itself. So please direct your comments right at this motion. Thank you very much, Members.

On the amendment.

Misty Van Popta: I have presented this motion for obvious reasons. We’ve heard hours of debate on this bill from members of opposition, the Greens and independents with concerns regarding tabling Bill 20 now and with the new and potentially troubling language around UNDRIP and DRIPA.

In regards to this motion, to refer it to the select standing committee…. I do believe that Bill 20 is done in the spirit of best intentions, but development of this treaty went outside the typical process and language used in previous other successful modern treaties, and it has been entrenched in risk. I think that we have a standing committee in this building, the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. But it hasn’t met since 2003 — that’s my understanding — which is a shame. That’s not just to this government but previous governments as well.

There’s no better time to resurrect that committee as a time such as this. This committee is cross-partisan. We will have a full opportunity to delve into concerns raised by not only members of this House but by the public at large, media alike and especially the Wei Wai Kum.

I think that there’s an opportunity within the format of that committee to have those in-depth conversations. This is a committee that, I believe, is of public record. We can hear the questions, we can hear the answers, and that committee can come up with recommendations. That committee can analyze this treaty, maybe even compare it against past treaties and see how they are different and how they’re alike. It is very important we get this right.

I’ve heard…. There’s a bit of a trend that I’ve noticed this session in that it’s kind of like we’ve got buzzwords and words of fluff. We hear about these words. It’s been everything from tools in the toolbox; to durable solutions; to, in the context of infrastructure, re-pacing. We’ve got these buzzwords.

At a time when the government is seeking durable solutions, we shouldn’t bring in more legislation into a siloed environment. We need to have more eyes on it to weigh the potential impacts of bringing new language into a treaty that hasn’t been covered before. We have to get this right.

We’ve taken 30 years to get to this point. Bringing it to committee, talking it through in a non-partisan environment so that everybody is comfortable with the contents and making sure that everybody is treated fairly and, most importantly, that the K’ómoks are treated with respect and that we’re doing them a service in this treaty….

[3:05 p.m.]

This committee can get to the root of everybody’s concerns.

I previously mentioned that the general public doesn’t understand the difference between UNDRIP and DRIPA, so it’s in the best interests of this treaty — and treaties, moving forward — that we get this right this time. When we’re charting new territory with new language and new processes, we’ve got to make sure we get it right. Otherwise, six years from now, we’re going to see the implications of it possibly not working correct.

Previous treaties have had…. There haven’t been legal implications — that’s my understanding — around previous treaties. I want to make sure that the K’ómoks have a really good treaty, moving forward. So we need to have more eyes on this.

I’ll just close up that this isn’t about me and members on this side not appreciating this process and not wanting it to move forward, but we want to make sure that we get it right. That is why I’ve moved this motion.

We want to add economic security, investment security into this province, back into British Columbia, but we also need to make sure that we’re doing that for First Nations as well, including First Nations that have conflicting jurisdiction and traditional territories. So that is why I’ve tabled this motion.

I thank you for this time.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate my colleague from Langley–Walnut Grove bringing forward this motion, which I also stand and speak in support of.

This treaty process has been very interesting, I have to say. It’s been a process which I’ve learned a lot about, to say the very least, when it comes to how this process works. Long-standing — how do I say it properly? — differences of understanding around overlap for territory and the entire process…. To learn about that history and different perspectives has been very, very interesting.

I’ve appreciated the opportunity to learn. I’ve spoken to both the K’ómoks and neighbouring First Nations, including the Wei Wai Kum, several times to gain a greater understanding as far as this process works — certainly, before I can make an informed decision on the treaty itself. And I know my colleagues feel the same way.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis: I know that.

Deputy Speaker: Thanks, Members. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has the floor.

Scott McInnis: The Minister of Education is welcome to get up and stand and speak after me. I know how this process works. I spent 45 seconds introducing what I was going to say.

This motion, I think, is really good governance. I’m not an expert in this area, but I’ve certainly listened as diligently as I could to all perspectives surrounding this treaty, and there’s not a clear understanding of who’s right and who isn’t.

That’s why this motion is important — because it allows for an open, public, transparent process to take place where individuals, groups, leaders can come in and address the select standing committee, which, again, to my understanding, as my colleague mentioned, hasn’t been sitting for over 20 years, which is a surprise considering that Indigenous relations and Indigenous affairs in this province is a very complex set of issues.

This motion simply allows for a process to take place for which we can gain a greater understanding and come to a place in a good way where we can figure out what some of those challenges are.

[3:10 p.m.]

For me, it’s an excellent opportunity, and I would welcome the opportunity to sit on this committee because, as I stated, I don’t know the long, long-standing history as far as some of the overlap concerns go. I think that’s a tremendous opportunity for all of us, all members on all sides of the House, to hear and to give an opportunity for those to provide more feedback onto this.

Again, I said it in my speech, and I reiterate: I want to support the K’ómoks Treaty Act. But as we sit today, I’m very conflicted on that, and that’s why I think this motion is extremely important — to allow for the select standing committee to work through what is obviously not a place where we sit today, where there is strong agreement. I want to support the K’ómoks, but there are many questions which remain about this legislation and the corresponding treaty document.

This motion would allow for the time and the space for individuals and leaders from all sides of the table to provide their perspective, to give all of us in here who make these important decisions a greater understanding.

This is a very serious piece of legislation. Again, it’s not like we’re renewing driver’s licences here. It is extremely important that we get this right. And I have to say that it’s not just the overlap challenges for which this motion will provide greater opportunity and scope to explore some of the question marks around this treaty.

Again, we’ve had a number of modern treaties brought into this House from 2000 until 2016. Then we didn’t have any for ten years. Generally speaking, what we’ll call the old model — Tsawwassen, Nisg̱a’a, ɬəʔamɛn, Maa-nulth — was a model that, although not perfect, answered a lot of the questions that we have around settling some of these issues.

But again, as I mentioned in my previous bill speech, this government has taken that model and decided in many ways to politicize it and change a model that’s generally working successfully and throw a whole bunch of question marks into it.

Not only that…. That’s why, again, this motion, this hoist motion, is important to address these issues. But it gives us an opportunity to dive deeper into that and to ask those hard questions and to have individuals come into the committee and make submissions to ask those questions as well, everybody from local Indigenous leaders to legal experts in the field.

Again, the reason for this motion is that this does feel a little bit rushed. Now, I know from my discussion with nations that are concerned about Bill 20…. It’s my understanding that they feel the same way. Again, hearing from both sides of the story, there are varying perspectives. Well, that needs to be put out into the open, on the public record, to discuss. That’s exactly why this hoist motion is extremely important.

I’m humble enough to admit that I don’t have all the answers, but I’m in here as the critic to have to vote on something. I don’t feel comfortable with that when I have such strong disagreement among neighbours.

But again, that’s only one of the issues that we need to address and why the purpose of this motion is so important.

[3:15 p.m.]

There are lots of question marks in Bill 20, question marks that should have been answered before such a consequential piece of legislation is brought forward into this House.

If I stand to be corrected — and, please, I would encourage government members to do that — I don’t recall such deep divisions in perspectives from our previous treaties. So something has gone amiss here, which is why this is so important. When we look at media releases from neighbouring First Nations, who are painted into a corner — that they feel like legal action or protests, blockades, are their only recourse for this government, to get some attention — that’s a pretty significant issue.

And I know for a fact that’s the last thing this government wants on the 6 p.m. news — trying to pass a treaty, which is supposed to be a positive piece of legislation, and there are protests or court battles going on.

This hoist motion is absolutely necessary, not to can the treaty entirely but to figure out why we’re hearing so much opposition to this, because the alternative is to debate in second reading, to go to committee, ask the tough questions.

Ultimately, the government has the numbers to pass this treaty. And then what? We see public infrastructure blockaded? We see the floodgates open into court, which this government has admitted is the last thing they want? That’s our alternative to this hoist motion?

Now, I feel for the K’ómoks because they’ve put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into this. And I’ve enjoyed listening to their perspective on why this is so important to move forward. But again, I’m hearing two sides to a story. And those sides are very different from one another. That’s what we need to figure out here. That’s exactly why this motion, to have the Aboriginal Affairs select standing committee meet and discuss this….

When we’re talking about the Wei Wai Kum…. They’ve been very publicly open in saying they support their neighbours in the treaty process, but there are a few questions they feel are important to be heard before it’s passed through this House. That, to me, is good governance.

I know it’s been decades for the K’ómoks, decades to get to where we’re sitting today. And I can understand that there’ll be frustration over an added period of time to figure these things out. I also understand, and I think the K’ómoks can understand, although I’m not going to speak on their behalf, that figuring this thing out is probably in everybody’s best interest at the end of the day. The select standing committee, the purpose of this hoist motion, will just allow for those voices to be brought forward.

There are also a lot of question marks beyond the overlap issue. I just find it baffling, and there are a couple of issues we would address in this committee, why there wouldn’t be a more robust process and agreements to be figured out before we get to this place in the Legislature. I can’t understand that — that we have these major issues, that I’m having meetings weekly or a couple of times a week to figure out things…. That work should have already been done. Again, I was shocked that it wasn’t done.

I’ve got to be frank with you, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point of this hoist motion. I knew the treaty would be a lot of work to get through, and the bill, but this has been a surprise to me.

[3:20 p.m.]

I certainly did not think we would be having some of these discussions as the bill is here in the Legislature. Again, I thought this work would have already been finished.

I would be curious to hear, in detail, from the government side their response to this hoist motion. Are they for or against? I don’t know where they would sit, and I’m sure they’re having those discussions right now. But I would highly caution them on voting against it.

I know most government members haven’t met with some of the neighbouring First Nations. I’ve met with them a number of times. If we don’t do some good governance here just to, again, figure out some of these details, this government, not the opposition, is going to have a serious problem on their hands. I can’t stress that enough.

Again, I would relish the opportunity to hear more, as the critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, during the sitting time of the committee so that I can have a more wholesome understanding of some of these issues before having to cast a vote on a treaty — a treaty which will be enshrined in the constitution forever.

Now, the overlap issues are one thing. Again, unless I missed it, I still haven’t heard as to why it is essential…. With all the question marks around UNDRIP, why is it referenced several times in this treaty as an authoritative source for the interpretation of this act?

That’s what we can figure out in the committee. What are the potential consequences of that down the road? From legal experts…. Of course, every lawyer you talk to has a different perspective, and that’s important. Some will say it’s not a big deal. Others will say that there’s no way a treaty can pass with all the uncertainty around UNDRIP, in this province especially, and to have it in a treaty.

There are a lot of questions to be answered around that, but the two are linked — the overlap issue and UNDRIP. When nations have a right to their traditional territory and the resources within that traditional territory, and we’re having a discussion about whose traditional territory it is, that presents a serious problem. I know what’s coming down the road, one year, five years, ten years. It’s court. And it’s become pretty clear that the courts don’t know how to interpret UNDRIP. That’s the nature of this hoist motion, so we can get those answers.

Now, I think it’s also important that the select standing committee, obviously, doesn’t sit forever. It would be nice to proceed in a way that’s not expedited but is in a fashion where we can get those answers as quickly as possible for the benefit of everybody in British Columbia.

[3:25 p.m.]

What happens here today with Bill 20 will certainly set the table for what happens in the future with other modern treaties. So we can’t have a half-baked cake here.

I’m in full, 100 percent support of this select standing committee sitting, working through some of these issues, asking the tough questions, listening to submissions in person and in writing, having the discussion with my colleagues from across all the aisles here. That’s good governance. But we can’t, in good conscience, pass a treaty with these unresolved questions, which, potentially, will lead to chaos.

I would also like to urge government, all of them, to sit down not only with the K’ómoks and hear their perspective but also their neighbours, because it may change some perspectives on that side of the House.

I get it. I’m assuming that government won’t support this, and they want to get the treaty done as quickly as possible because they need a win.

Reconciliation under this government right now is a dumpster fire. Doing it this way, without the hoist motion and the select standing committee, is not going to lead to the win they think it is, certainly from the discussions I’ve had and some of my colleagues have had. We need to sit down in a bipartisan fashion and get the answers we need before we can make an informed decision on a modern treaty, which is Bill 20 — the first of three, apparently, that are coming forward. That’s all we ask with this motion — a little bit more time to get some answers.

Again, this government has had nine years to work with the K’ómoks and their neighbours to get these answers. We’ve had just a few weeks, and we haven’t gotten them. I’m not sure they have them either, which is why we’ve seen the delegations coming to Victoria and sitting in this House, certainly meeting with us. I don’t know about meeting with government.

This motion is intended to follow a pathway of good governance before we pass a treaty. And I know. I can understand this would be frustrating for the K’ómoks because they’ve gotten this far after decades of hard work. But we cannot, in good faith, pass this treaty without asking those difficult questions in the select standing committee.

Treaties are too important to not get them right. As we sit here today, this government hasn’t got it right, and it’s being rushed at the final hours here. Why? I’d love to hear from the members opposite.

With this hoist motion, again, I want to encourage that, not only in support but following that, we have this committee sit as soon as possible — out of respect for everybody, all British Columbians involved — to get these answers that we need, not to wait six months.

[3:30 p.m.]

As soon as possible, start bringing in those groups and those individuals to speak in favour or to share their concerns.

As I finish up here, I just want to reiterate why this motion is so important, as to how difficult I’ve found this process with the treaties to be in the sense that I didn’t expect such controversy.

As I referenced, I don’t think there was such controversy with the old modern treaty model. But this is not that model. The process appears to be much different, which is exactly why this hoist motion is a necessity. For or against, I’m encouraging a member or two in government to speak to this motion to help me understand where they’re coming from, because I don’t know. I don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to these treaties.

We had Bill 20 to debate on the order paper a couple of weeks ago, then they took it away for three weeks. I don’t know what they’re thinking. This might be a time where we can work together. I don’t know. This is too important. It’s too important for the K’ómoks. It’s too important for their neighbours. It’s too important for the rest of British Columbia. It’s too important for those that are in the treaty process.

This isn’t the last time we’re going to have these issues in treaty if we don’t figure it out here first. It’s not like the K’ómoks is the only First Nation in British Columbia that has disagreements over overlap. We’re fooling ourselves. That’s why I applaud my friend for Langley–Walnut Grove for bringing this motion forward. We have to do more listening.

I’ve appreciated, over the last six weeks, the listening I’ve been able to do around this issue. I’m hoping government will offer the same courtesy, which is why I hope they will also support this motion to have the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs meet for the first time in over 20 years — over 20 years.

We now have nothing to talk about in this province when it comes to Aboriginal affairs? I get it. It was a different government previous to this one. That falls on their shoulders just as much as this government. Twenty years. Maybe we could have had some of this figured out if the committee would’ve sat since 2003.

This is an essential hoist motion so that we can all work together for British Columbia to get this treaty right, because, as we sit here today, it’s not. There are too many question marks in a new 2026 model of treaty brought forward by this government, which has a lot of uncertainty to it because it is not the treaty model we saw from 2000 to 2016. It is not the same thing, and it’s extremely important the public understands that. Why are we taking the risk to try something new with such a consequential document?

[3:35 p.m.]

This is very necessary. I’m in full support of this hoist motion brought forward by my friend. I hope somebody from government will stand up and explain their position on this hoist motion, because I think my colleagues would agree with me. We’re not really sure what they’re thinking on this, and we should be because a treaty shouldn’t be a partisan document. It affects all of British Columbia, because it is forever.

I thank you for the time today.

Elenore Sturko: I rise to speak in favour of the motion to not continue with second reading but to refer Bill 20 to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I’ve put a lot of thought into what I wanted to talk about, with regard to why I support this motion and why I think it’s important that we do that in this House.

My remarks won’t be long this afternoon, but I do think that they make important points. I hope that it resonates with people from my community. I hope that it resonates with the parties who are seeking to see this treaty ratified but also to those who have taken an issue with the ratification of the treaty.

Specifically, I’m talking about the Wei Wai Kum First Nation. I did meet with their Chief Roberts. I did receive correspondence from the First Nation as well, because they are raising concerns that they have with a dispute over territory that is being claimed as the territory under the treaty that we’re going to legislate through Bill 20. It’s also the traditional territory of the Wei Wai Kum.

I’m going to just be really specific. At issue in this K’ómoks treaty, in the opinion of the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, is that it contains portions of land overlapping traditional territory. The primary concern is that the Wei Wai Kum will be required to seek free, prior and informed consent on what they consider to be their own territory.

It’s been expressed to me that this is already causing some disputes with a natural resources project, a wind farm that is already in discussions and the planning phase. Because of this dispute over territory, it’s actually causing a problem already. There’s no framework in the treaty to resolve the dispute.

Furthermore, if we pass this implementation legislation and the treaty is ratified, First Nations who are in conflict over the territory that is overlapping within the treaty agreement have already said that they would take immediate court action. I’m not sure whether or not any other direct action by the First Nation would be taken. As my friend and colleague the critic for Indigenous Relations had said, there’s been talk about blocking things like infrastructure, blocking railways, highways, important trade corridors or ports. Nobody wants to see that.

I think that is why it’s of paramount importance that we support the motion to give ourselves the opportunity, in this place, to have a better understanding of, first of all, the process that went into trying to resolve the dispute between these First Nations. I know that considerable effort was made on behalf of the Crown, on behalf of First Nations, to resolve the dispute about this territory that’s overlapping, but, despite the fact that it has been decades of negotiating this treaty, this still hasn’t been resolved.

The point of having a treaty is so that we can have some measure of certainty. I think that my colleagues in this place have done a good job, on both sides of the floor, in expressing that certainty is something that we need to have. But passing legislation that allows for the ratification of a treaty that in itself will become wrapped in uncertainty because of immediate court action is not creating the certainty that we would expect from this process.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think one of the other aspects of uncertainty — it’s probably a broken record by now in this place — is DRIPA. Of course there’s uncertainty. It’s acknowledged on both sides of this chamber that there are serious legal liabilities in this province related to DRIPA.

When DRIPA was passed in 2019…. I think there have been consequences since then that were probably not necessarily foreseen, especially the way, after the 2021 implementation of the Interpretation Act, section 8.1, that the courts would interpret DRIPA — taking the negotiations out of the hands of government and putting those decisions into the court.

This government has said time and again that negotiations are best done nation to nation, government to government, so that means the Crown at the federal level. That means the Crown at the provincial level working directly with First Nations, and First Nations to First Nations.

But if we ratify the treaty before this issue is resolved with the overlap of this territory, then we’re again going to be headed potentially into multi-million-dollar legal action that will be drawn out for decades; that will have decades of uncertainty attached to it; that, at the end of the day, will take that ability for negotiation away and put it, again, back into the courts, which is something that this government is actually trying to avoid.

Our Attorney General talks about a durable solution and not wanting to have to see things decided in the courts, which is the unintended consequence of section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act. Having the courts decide the Gitxaała decision, making DRIPA the law of the land here so that basically the government’s hands are tied in terms of their ability to negotiate…. And those things are dictated by the courts.

I don’t think that is where this government wants to go. They can correct me if I’m wrong. I think that there is plenty of opportunity for members of the government to dispute what I’m saying, but it has been said over and again that we need certainty. There is definitely legal liability with DRIPA, which is actually also a significant part of the K’ómoks treaty. I think that we do not really know yet what the consequence of having that as part of this treaty also involves.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I just want to draw you back to the motion.

Elenore Sturko: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That’s why I think that it’s important for us to support this motion. My arguments here that I’m making, my speech that I’m making today, Mr. Speaker, is to give you the evidence as to why it’s important. Outlining what happened in a very real scenario that’s playing out today, how things have ended up in the courts, is actually what I see in our very near future.

If we ratify or pass this legislation that allows the ratification of the K’ómoks treaty, it will likely result in long, expensive litigation that doesn’t benefit the First Nations. It doesn’t benefit our province. It is costly and actually takes away some of the benefits of being able to do those negotiations.

Going with this motion into committee allows for a broader discussion. It allows for us to have everything put out on the table to understand better what types of efforts, what types of discussions, because I know that they were plentiful, between the Crown at the federal and provincial level, between the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, between the K’ómoks First Nation and other nations and between the B.C. Treaty Commission.

I appreciate that the member for Langley-Willowbrook brought this motion forward. This is too important, and I hate disappointing anyone. I really do. I was here when the K’ómoks First Nation was in the Hall of Honour celebrating the first reading of this legislation. It is joyous to see work being done that will better communities, but we want to make sure that it’s done properly.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think that if we don’t take an opportunity to understand this process and really to determine whether the due diligence has been done to ensure that we don’t end up in serious court challenges, that we don’t have direct action being taken by First Nations after this legislation is passed…. I think we should be sending this to committee for further discussion.

I don’t want to kill the treaty. I don’t want to, and neither do the First Nations that I’ve spoken to who have some questions and issues with what’s happened. They also want to see it go forward. There were some very specific things that I was communicated with that they want to see.

They don’t want to have this ratified and see the K’ómoks First Nation being elevated on a legal footing before this is resolved. The reality of ratifying the treaty will be that it will be constitutionally enshrined, and it really does change the legal footing between those First Nations — one with its rights recognized in treaty, one who’s on the outside.

Again, a government picking winners and losers, which is why it’s important for us to have a better understanding, to take more time with this. It’s extremely complicated, perhaps despite the fact that this is, in paper, only a few pages. But the importance of it is so tremendously significant. I think that my colleagues here have successfully demonstrated to you the way in which it could impact even other treaties that have long been resolved.

There are just a couple of other things before I wrap up here that I would like to include in my arguments in support of this opposition motion. One of them is a couple of excerpts from a CBC News article from May 5, and it is called, “As Treaty Negotiations in B.C. Raise Concerns, Chief Treaty Commissioner Says the Process Needs to be Improved.”

It includes quotes here from two people who I respect very much. One is Adam Olsen, who, you probably remember, was a member of this House. He is a member of the W̱JOȽEȽP First Nation, former Green Party MLA. He described the tensions that are being experienced between these First Nations in relation to Bill 20 as a reckoning in the modern treaty process in British Columbia.

He says: “I think First Nations generally support the self-determination of First Nations to go through that process. However, it can’t come at the expense of neighbouring First Nations.” He also went on to say that this is on the provincial and federal government.

You see, we have other people in British Columbia, highly respected people, members of First Nations, who also agree that we can’t be making decisions in favour of one nation at the expense of another. I think moving to committee, to perhaps even invite someone like Adam Olsen in to have this discussion…. What do you mean by that, sir? How is it that, in your mind, we can do this better?

I think even more important is that we actually have some comments here from the B.C. Treaty Commission’s new chief commissioner. The chief commissioner also believes that this process needs to be improved upon. He said: “This has been an issue that has been left to First Nations themselves to try to sort out, with assistance at times from the commission and the province and Canada. I think we need to be a bit more imaginative, be a bit more innovative and see if there are additional ways we can support the parties as they try to resolve these difficult and historical issues.”

As I conclude here in support of this motion, you can see that even the new chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission admits that we need to be more imaginative. We need to be more creative. We need to be more supportive when it comes to helping resolve these issues.

I believe in treaties. I know they are a way that we can have security and certainty on property rights, private property rights. They can provide opportunities for economic development and prosperity for First Nations and British Columbians. But we want to start off in a good way, and we want to make sure that we’re not ratifying and putting into constitutional enshrinement something that is going to lead us into significant court challenges.

[3:50 p.m.]

So I support this motion. Let’s give ourselves this opportunity that’s being offered to sit together, to learn more information, to see if there are ways of resolving this dispute, to make this an even stronger and more successful treaty so that we can, in the end, all celebrate together what should be a momentous occasion for First Nations and British Columbians.

I would encourage all members of this House to support the opposition motion.

Jeremy Valeriote: I have been listening carefully, and I feel like this is a true debate. I’ve been a little disappointed, coming from a municipal council background, that sometimes what passes for debate in this House is sort of entrenched monologues, so I’m happy to listen to this.

I want to thank my colleagues for the time and effort they’ve put into this dialogue. Treaties are incredibly important, and it is critical we take our time to ensure we’re honouring the time and relationship and labour that’s informed them.

I’m going to put together a slightly different view here, and I’m going to be a little pedantic with my colleague. I don’t think this is a hoist motion. We had a lot of discussion about whether a six-month delay was effectively killing the bill or not. I’m open to further comment on this, but it seems to me that referring to a committee that hasn’t met in decades either could easily or is intended to stop this in its tracks.

In any case, I’ll explain why we are currently opposed to this dilatory motion.

The Third Party, the B.C. Greens, supports the self-determination of First Nations in all the forms that may take, including treaty-making. We’re all here to do our part in ensuring self-determination of all First Nations is supported by the legislation passed in this chamber.

It’s been made crystal clear there are long-standing issues with the treaty process, including the Crown’s interference in Indigenous relations, governance and legal orders. We also know that negotiation tables have not yet been successful in avoiding the need for First Nations to seek justice or redress through the judicial branch.

As we see through this conversation — and more to come, I’m sure — and throughout this entire session, there are not sufficient venues for the cross-partisan consideration of Indigenous affairs issues needed to find consensus. I would say, perhaps subjectively, that political opportunism has further degraded this conversation.

The B.C. Greens have been calling for the re-establishment of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs as a space where this House can come together, with support from First Nations and legal experts, to move past partisanship and actually make progress on these critical issues.

In April, the B.C. Greens invited the government to consider this proposal, which included the following three things — I will get to the motion in just one second, if you bear with me: reviewing progress on the agreed approach, with regular updates to the Legislature and the public — pretty key, keeping the public informed; reviewing funding for the B.C. Treaty Commission, the Declaration Act secretariat and other treaty and reconciliation initiatives, which involves treating this work as a major project; and reviewing and making recommendations on additional ways to advance reconciliation, such as establishing an independent reconciliation commissioner, selected by the all-party committee together with First Nations.

For all these reasons, we appreciate the effort being made to create space for these more nuanced and non-partisan conversations. It’s an important goal, and I thank the opposition for bringing it forward.

We also believe it’s important to recognize the larger context in which this House sits and that the substance of this act is not, nor should it be, created and stewarded solely through legislative processes.

To clarify this, the development of treaties is an incredibly complex process. It spans generations, requires skill in Crown litigation, Indigenous legal orders, relationship-building, historical and cultural knowledge, humility, critical thinking and grace.

This is not to say that the process is without flaws. It’s clear that it has many. But it’s important to remember that the document in front of us is not the K’ómoks treaty but the K’ómoks Treaty Act. This is a critical distinction. It is fundamentally for First Nations themselves — with the support of the Crown, when requested — to determine what are and aren’t their own historical boundaries.

The process through which the government participates in treaty-making is made possible through the B.C. Treaty Commission, an organization that draws on the skills I just named. If British Columbia is involved, this is where litigation specifics of a treaty are meant to be unpacked and negotiated, not in the Legislative Assembly.

[3:55 p.m.]

Speaking to the motion, the Aboriginal Affairs Committee should be a place for provincewide consideration of reconciliation and how to all move forward together. It should not be where the details of a treaty, which has been discussed and contributed to by generations of people…. This should not be a place where these are dissected and determined.

With all that said, questions about the process remain. As the Third Party shared in our statement yesterday, our role is to ensure that laws passed in this House, at the very least, do not impede or disrupt the self-determination of any First Nation.

For that reason, the Third Party’s caucus is not inclined to support the motion proposed. We recognize the intention and appreciate the attempt to give space for issues to be resolved, but we don’t believe a pause of this form is appropriate or will be effective.

In acknowledging this, this caucus believes that for this specific piece of legislation, the committee stage of the legislative process is the appropriate venue in which to voice concerns about the impacts of the legislation, an important point, that have been raised.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

John Rustad: I want to start, with regards to the motion, just addressing some of the things that the hon. member from the Green Party has brought forward. I understand the reluctance and his suspicion around this. The actions of opposition often use things like hoists to delay projects, to try to talk things out, to eat up time — these types of things. But in this particular case, when you’re looking at what the intent was here, there are serious issues associated with overlap.

Now, when modern treaties were first brought in, and I remember debating some of these treaties in the Legislature, the issue of overlap was there as well, but it wasn’t as acute. Because of DRIPA, UNDRIP, the court cases that have come forward, the issue of overlap is far more critical today than it was in the original treaties — whether it was the Maa-nulth treaty; or whether it is some of the treaties that failed; or ɬəʔamɛn.

Tsawwassen, of course, had been successful. I’m thinking particularly about the Lheidli T’enneh treaty, which did not get ratified because of overlap issues.

So what we are seeing today is a significant difference between those treaties that were brought in and this treaty here and the other two treaties yet to come, being the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum. Because of the significance of the environment that’s changed in B.C. because of what’s happened with DRIPA, with the introduction of UNDRIP as part of that, the expectations are much higher. The legal ramifications are much more significant, and we are seeing that playing out.

For those reasons, I think it’s important that we send this to a committee, that we have an opportunity to actually play these things out, to talk about this, to understand how this goes in, to have the input and try to find a path forward. The world has changed from 30 years ago, from 20 years ago, from ten years ago. The world has changed.

It has changed intentionally by this government, for better or for worse. I would say for worse. But it has intentionally changed, so we need to take that into context when we’re talking about treaty and the advancement of treaty.

I’ve been a proponent of treaty for many, many years, and I’ve come to the conclusion that we need to be talking much more about how we conclude reconciliation entirely, but that’s a different conversation.

There needs to be this avenue to be able to address this because of how things have changed in British Columbia, and how else can you do that? In committee stage, we can have this discussion back and forth, but it’s not the opportunity of time and to be able to have the input and engagement between the nations — giving them the ability to actually work this thing through with the help of government and opposition, through committee, working these things through….

After all, as the member of the Green Party said, this is the whole purpose of why they’re there. We want to be able to pass and bring things forward that make sense, that can achieve results, that are going to improve the opportunities for First Nations — self-determined, self-governance, these types of things.

If we’re going to do that, if we’re going to do that right, let’s find a way to avoid the huge pitfalls that, quite frankly, have become major barriers, major stumbling blocks to how we advance modern treaties today. It’s not just about the K’ómoks treaty, because we have the other treaties and other nations of the province who are looking at it.

[4:00 p.m.]

The issue of overlaps is far more significant right across this province. So if we can get it right here, if we can find a way to be able to address it and deal with it today, through a process, we’re not only helping to solidify and strengthen the opportunity for the K’ómoks People, but we’re also setting the stage for how we might be able to do things across this province in addressing this.

So this is a very timely and important discussion to be able to bring forward in terms of this motion, and I really thank the member for Langley–Walnut Grove for opening up this debate around moving it to a committee, creating that avenue to deal with it.

Now, there are some things that the Green Party and I may agree on. There are some things that we may not agree on. One of the things, of course, is UNDRIP and the implementation of UNDRIP. When I first looked at the treaty, and it says it’s an authoritative source, I kind of looked at it and went: “Well, is this huge? Is this significant? What does this mean?”

But I’ve come to the conclusion that with the problems of DRIPA…. And we don’t even know exactly what they all are because government isn’t forthcoming with these issues. They haven’t brought forward legislation and the changes that they believe are necessary to be able to resolve these things.

Cementing UNDRIP into a constitutional document creates a tremendous amount of unknown factors. So I went to all the sources I could find. I’ve talked to First Nations about it. I’ve talked to lawyers about it. I’ve talked to judges and former judges about it. What does it mean, “an authoritative source”? It doesn’t say it’s the authoritative source; it says it’s an authoritative source.

What it means is that it is authoritative. In other words, it is at the same equivalent law to all other law in this country, including section 35 of our constitution. It is an authoritative source.

When you go back and look at the original debate of UNDRIP in the United Nations, that was never what the intention was. It was never the intention of that as it was passed, and certainly not in the context of Canada, which has Aboriginal rights protected in the constitution.

So the importance of this motion to move this to committee is to be able to create that venue, that opportunity, for discussion of overlap, but it’s also to allow for more information to come forward on the unintended consequences of having UNDRIP directly in this treaty.

As I’m sure the member who spoke before me from the Green Party and other members have talked about, the whole…. What’s the purpose of doing treaty in the first place? The purpose of doing treaty is to find a path forward, for nations to be successful, to prevent things from going to court, to create that sort of stability or certainty that we’ve all talked about.

That’s the intent of doing treaty. It’s a way to address these long outstanding issues and be able to move forward in a good way as partners — not as divorced but as partners, married, going forward, moving this forward to be successful. But how do you do that when there’s this kind of uncertainty that is being created, and how do you do that with these issues of overlaps with their neighbours?

You think about this. It has been 30 years working on to get this treaty to this point — 30 years. Multiple generations have been working at this to get this thing passed.

And I know the K’ómoks People are excited about moving this forward. They want to see their opportunity to advance. We’ve seen the success of other modern treaties that have come forward for this.

I believe that the First Nations want this to be successful, and they don’t want this to generate conflict, or they don’t want this to generate court cases. They don’t want to have the conflict of unintended consequences as well.

There’s a simple change that could have happened. Instead of making it an authoritative process, they could have done it like UNDRIP was supposed to be. They could have just said it is a guiding principle. How does…?

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I direct you back to the motion, please?

John Rustad: This is the motion that I’m talking about, Mr. Speaker. And I really appreciate this, but the intention of this motion is so that we can have these discussions outside. It’s not just debating as to whether we should put it to a committee. Why are we putting it to committee? That is what is important about this motion, which is the information I’m giving you, Mr. Speaker.

So when you look at, like I say, the UNDRIP and changing from “an authoritative” to what it was supposed to be, the guiding principle of how we build our relationships with First Nations, it’s a simple change.

[4:05 p.m.]

I can’t understand why anybody would oppose that, unless there’s an intent which perhaps is not being said here. And I don’t believe that, in the first case, with the First Nations at all. I do, perhaps, suspect the government in terms of their intent on this.

If we are going to advance this treaty in a good way, if we’re going to make sure that we build and advance our relationships properly, questions need to be answered.

We need to understand what the problem is with DRIPA. What has it created? What were the changes? DRIPA is just the implementation of UNDRIP, which is what’s in this treaty. We need to understand those. More importantly, we need to have that full engagement by a committee to actually be able to have public input so the public can understand what’s going on with this, so that there isn’t this misinformation.

This government likes to run around saying that, oh, we’re just filibustering. We’re spreading misinformation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want the public to understand exactly what is happening here, not government spin, not the rest of the type of garbage that goes on in terms of how these things are normally brought forward but giving the opportunity for people to actually have input, to hear information directly. You can do that through committee. You can summon witnesses. You can bring information forward. You can produce reports. All of this stuff is critically important.

When I think about the K’ómoks treaty and I think about our treaties that have gone before them…. Why was there a need for the difference here? What created this? We were able to do treaties before without having to use UNDRIP. Why does this now have to be included today? And why does it have to be included as an authoritative source? Why are we enshrining this in a constitutionally protected document?

It’s a valid question, but it’s a question I’ll be able to ask in committee, which is good. I’ll get an answer, and I’m sure it will be the usual non-answer that comes from government on it. More importantly, this is why it should go to this process, which will be an all-party committee, because the public gets to ask that question and get it answered.

In my time as minister, I’ve had lots of opportunity to be engaged in overlap issues, which is at the foundation of why we are asking for this motion to have this go to committee. I understand the Hereditary Chiefs, the Elders. They know where the boundaries are. They can work these things through. It is possible to be done. I’ve seen it. I’ve had those conversations.

Why do we not have that window today to deal with this? Why is it, after 30 years of negotiations, nobody seems to think that this is something that could have been resolved? It can be. I know it can be. I’ve talked to the nations about it. I’ve talked to Elders about it. I’ve talked to Elders about how they work and how they expected and how they did things.

I’ll give you an example. Up in my riding, I would sit down and talk to the Elders, and they would say that when another nation came into their territory, they would ask permission to come and to hunt or to gather. They would do an exchange. It would be an honourable process that would go through. They’d come in and do this. And it was a friendly component about it, but they knew where those lines were.

It’s only because of what we have done that those lines have been blurred and changed for the benefit of various nations. So why haven’t we created that avenue for those nations to have those discussions? What is preventing that from happening? Vancouver Island has got — what? — 50, 60 First Nations, tons of overlaps all over the place. They’ve all had various engagements and process. What has been done to try to facilitate that kind of a conversation?

I get that when they’re not in treaty or they’re not close to it, there may not be the same sort of urgency, but we’re talking about a treaty that’s a constitution-level document that will be enshrined, that’s almost impossible to change without agreement of the three parties involved. Yet somehow we have not been able to find that path for dealing with overlap.

This is a way to create some space, not to vote to kill the treaty, because it doesn’t do that, but to move this forward, allow the space and see if there can be that path in a good way to be able to address it.

[4:10 p.m.]

The alternatives are what — blockades, court cases? I thought that was the whole purpose of doing DRIPA. That was the whole purpose of doing treaty, to avoid those things. Yet this seems to be what the results of this are going to be. How is that right? How is that achieving reconciliation?

By moving forward this motion and allowing for this to go to a committee, it allows for the opportunity to have those, to give that space, so it’s not conflict on the ground. It’s not fighting in the courts. It’s coming to the table and just having a conversation: “How do we solve this?”

Maybe it’s not the politicians on either side that can solve it. Maybe it is the Elders that you bring in and let them just address it the way they did historically. There’ve been many fights between nations. There’ve been wars. Slaves have been taken, and people have been killed. There’s lots of hostility, lots of history in the thousands of years that nations have lived here in British Columbia, after they came to British Columbia.

I get it. There’s lots of hostility. There’s lots at issue. There’s lots of history. At the same time, I believe that the First Nations people also honourably want to find that path forward. Why wouldn’t we give them that chance? Why wouldn’t we give them a committee to be able to engage and create the opportunity for it?

I can tell you something. If this ends up with conflict, if this ends up in court…. What will that do in terms of the long-term relationship between K’ómoks People and its neighbours — Indigenous neighbours, not even just the non-Indigenous neighbours? It builds resentment. It builds anger. It builds frustration. Is that why we’re trying to do treaty? Or are we trying to find a way for treaty to be able to bridge these differences and create a new path, a positive path, one that’s based on hope and prosperity?

I mean, I think of Tsawwassen and what they’ve been able to do. Yes, they had some overlap issues with their neighbours, but they’ve gone off now to doing great things.

I think of the Maa-Nulth treaties and the five nations that were part of that and how they sat down as a group, and they worked out all their issues. Yes, they had some challenges with some of their neighbours with overlap, but they found their way through that. We’re not seeing blockades. We’re not seeing overlap problems.

Same with ɬəʔamɛn. I had the honour of being there and celebrating the signing of the final implementation of that treaty. And that, to me, is why we need to create the space, because they have been able to move forward in a good way.

The world has changed. The K’ómoks treaty with its neighbours and the threats of blockades and court action — things have changed.

We’ve got to find a way, and I think it’s partly our responsibility to find a way to allow them to come to the tables and to be able to address this, not from a position of a threat that if they don’t address it, we’re not moving forward, but actually giving them the proper space, government support, opposition support, working around a table to find a path forward so that they can celebrate together, and they can look forward to them, the other neighbours, one day potentially entering into treaties.

I’m really struggling, quite frankly, with this treaty, the K’ómoks treaty, and also with the other treaties. I’m struggling because I have been part of the process in the past, and I want to see the success of nations being able to move forward in a good way. Nations moving forward, starting off with conflict and court cases, is not moving forward in a good way. That is enforcing something as opposed to doing something in the way that, quite frankly, I think we’d all like to celebrate.

I encourage people to take a serious look at this. This motion, in my opinion, is like an olive branch to the government, by the opposition, saying: “Let’s find a way to do this together, as opposed to having a divided House. Let’s find a way, a path that can work for this. Take us up on this opportunity. Put this aside for the time being.” It’s been 30 years. What’s another six months?

[4:15 p.m.]

We can find a path to be able to address the issues amongst the nations, hopefully, to be able to address some of these language issues, find a path that is a good way for this to come forward so it can start off the right way, not with a divided vote and the Speaker having to make a decision. That’s not what treaties were intended to do.

The other treaties that came into this House enjoyed almost unanimous support. There were a couple of members of the opposition at the time that didn’t support it but almost unanimous support. I’d like to see these treaties be able to achieve the same thing, but they can’t in the current form. So let us find a way to be able to do this well and to do this properly instead of having this start off in conflict.

Gavin Dew: I rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill 20 to the standing committee. In so doing, I would echo much of what has been said by colleagues.

We support treaties. We want to see treaties be successful. We want to see reconciliation be successful.

In order for that to happen, we also need to ensure that treaties move forward in a way that sets them up for success, not that sets them up for conflict; in a way that sets them up to create certainty, not to lock in uncertainty; and in a way that sets them up to create conditions within which all British Columbians can succeed, all nations can succeed, and we don’t create conditions for collision among nations.

That is why it’s so important that we take the time and use the standing committee process to further the conversation around this treaty.

What gives me great concern at the moment is the extent to which we have come in losing stability, in losing confidence, in losing investability in the province of British Columbia at a time when treaties like this should be a vehicle through which to create stability.

It’s important, I think, to recognize, of course, that there is a tremendous degree of public confusion and uncertainty and that the conversation that often is labelled as DRIPA is not just a conversation about DRIPA. It’s a conversation about DRIPA. It’s a conversation about UNDRIP. It’s a conversation about court cases. It’s a conversation about treaties that are often muddled together under one shorthand.

What that shorthand speaks to is the fact that the public, the business community, property owners, investors, everyday British Columbians, are rightly confused and concerned. By referring Bill 20 to the standing committee and by actually using the standing committee, we have the opportunity to increase the level of public awareness and understanding and to try to get reconciliation back on track.

When I say reconciliation is off track, I regret to say that it is, unfortunately, this government and this Premier that have set back the goal of reconciliation by a decade if not a generation.

In speaking with someone recently, I arrived at the metaphor that British Columbians as a whole — the legal community, the business community, everyday British Columbians — chose together, over the last decades, to steer wilfully toward reconciliation and to turn the steering wheel in that direction and to put their foot on the gas.

[4:20 p.m.]

When we look at some of what was done — when we look, in fact, at much of what was done — pre-DRIPA, tremendous things were accomplished, tremendous things.

The conversation around LNG, as well as other major projects, moved forward a spirit of reconciliation and opportunity that, contrary to the claims that government continues to make, did not require DRIPA. Section 35 obligations existed….

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you please relate your comments to the motion before us, please?

Gavin Dew: Certainly. I certainly will.

I think it’s crucially important, through this referral to the standing committee, that we have the opportunity to return to some of those good-faith, goodwill conversations, which I believe existed in this province prior to DRIPA and prior to…. To return to my metaphor of the steering wheel and the gas pedal, the province as a whole — the business community, the resource sector — were all steering toward economic reconciliation. We saw great strides made in terms of both economic and cultural reconciliation.

We saw conversations that were perhaps unthinkable a generation earlier. We saw amazing things happening. We saw agreements reached. We saw tremendous progress. I know, certainly, that my colleague from Nechako is very proud of work that was done under his leadership, as were others in governments of the day.

Now, unfortunately, the Premier grabbed the steering wheel, yanked it hard and stepped on the gas so hard that the level of uncertainty, the level of concern, has really been exacerbated by the insistence, at least at times…. I do struggle somewhat to keep track of the Premier’s position on DRIPA and to keep track of his position, in fact, on treaties. These treaties….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I need to draw you back to this motion, please.

Gavin Dew: Oh, absolutely.

These treaties, this treaty in particular, seem a bit of a fleeting obstacle, a fleeting opportunity — what am I trying to say? — a fleeting, confusing moment for the government. Because they seem to want to talk about them some days. They seem to want to defer them other days. They seem to want to delay them still other days.

I genuinely don’t know what the government might do with this motion to refer Bill 20 to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which has been inactive for many years. I think it truly presents an opportunity.

It presents an opportunity for a government and a Premier who have yanked the wheel and jammed the gas to think about how to return to a direction of reconciliation that can reunify British Columbians in the earnest desire to see treaties like this treaty, to see reconciliation, to see economic reconciliation be successful.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Again, I believe that this motion to refer presents the opportunity to do that. I believe that opportunity is extremely pressing, and here’s why. Today what we’re seeing in….

This treaty embeds UNDRIP into the treaty. Although I think members in this House recognize that there is obviously a significant difference between UNDRIP, DRIPA treaty court cases, in the minds of much of the public, and in particular in the minds of individuals who are seeking the kind of stability that this treaty can offer…. The kind of treaty that it, I believe, can only offer if, in fact, it is sent to committee and if the right open conversations are had to try to avoid a situation in which it enshrines uncertainty rather than avoiding uncertainty.

[4:25 p.m.]

If that isn’t accomplished, I worry very much about the kinds of signals we’re seeing. For example, on May 6, the Business Council of British Columbia released the findings of a member survey showing that 98 percent of their members who responded are very concerned about the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act applying to all laws in the province.

I think, by extension, it’s reasonable to assume that a similar response might well be elicited if you are asked how they felt about UNDRIP being embedded in this treaty.

The same share of respondents to that survey also said they do not believe that DRIPA is living up to its original promise of creating greater investment certainty in B.C.

That worries me very substantially, because at the same time as that concern exists; at the same time as people are expressing the exact kind of uncertainty around the way in which reconciliation is being implemented, which includes both DRIPA and the way in which this treaty is being brought forward, 80 percent of those same respondents — of those business leaders, of those individuals in leadership roles in the largest companies and organizations in British Columbia — said that they agree that finding a path forward on reconciliation with First Nations is important. That’s really significant.

Those same respondents…. When asked what impact it is having on their business operations, their answers included: decreased investment plans, 74 percent of respondents; increased time, cost, complexity or uncertainty in permitting, 73 percent of respondents; harder access to external financing, that’s 41 percent of respondents; slower negative sales growth, that’s 36 percent of respondents; decreased hiring plans, 35 percent; and balance sheet pressures, 32 percent. Only 3 percent of these senior business leaders said that DRIPA was positively impacting business operations by reducing time, cost complexity or uncertainty in obtaining permits.

I would point out that I raised this very survey in estimates just yesterday with the Minister of Jobs, who flipped it off and said that it obviously wasn’t important because there was only a 30 percent response rate among all the members who were surveyed. I found that odd, and the reason I do is exactly the reason why I think it’s important we talk about referring this treaty.

That is that I believe that reasonable, sound-minded British Columbians, including these business leaders who…. Again, I reiterate, 80 percent want to find a path forward on reconciliation. Eighty percent want to find a path forward, yet 98 percent disagree that DRIPA is living up to its promise of creating investment certainty in B.C.

The same logic, I believe, is applicable when we think about what is happening with this treaty. And that is that British Columbians of goodwill and good faith who want reconciliation, who believe that reconciliation is important, who believe that economic reconciliation is a crucial underpinning of the entire vision of reconciliation, who want to have the kind of stability that good treaties can offer, that a sound framework can offer — those individuals are ringing the alarm loud and clear and saying: “Slow down. Get it right.”

That is the same logic, I believe, that applies directly to referring this treaty, this bill, to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

In fact, again, returning to that survey, 59 percent of the folks responding to that survey favour repealing DRIPA; 31 percent support amending DRIPA. Only 2 percent support no change. Again, fundamentally, I apply that thinking.

There is lots of other opinion research that is out there that has been undertaken, but I find this really striking because it is accompanied by the following quote from the CEO of the Business Council of British Columbia, who says: “The business community wants to advance durable reconciliation” — there’s that word, durable reconciliation — “that protects the public interest, promotes prosperity and helps close the socioeconomic gaps still experienced by too many Indigenous people.”

That’s not in question. What is in question is how to achieve that when the only uncertainty many investors see in British Columbia right now is uncertainty…. It’s up to the government to find a better path forward and to explain how it will all work for British Columbians.

[4:30 p.m.]

I believe that the way to move forward is, in fact, by taking the time to get this treaty right; by taking the time to engage, through the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, to ensure that conversations are had that can actually build trust, that can build an opportunity for this treaty to move forward in a good way.

What worries me, and why I believe it’s so important that we refer this treaty to the select standing committee, again, is that this government, some days at least, is rushing this treaty, is rushing both the treaties that are moving through this House, while neighbouring nations and Indigenous leaders are telling them to stop.

That strikes me as a very serious signal when you have a situation in which there is clear public concern, in which public confidence has not been built in the way in which these treaties are moving forward and reconciliation, more broadly, is moving forward. When you have neighbouring bands calling on the Legislature to pause these treaty bills, is that not exactly the context in which we should be taking every opportunity, including through referral to the select standing committee, to get this right?

What I worry about, again, is that we are inviting conflict. It has become clear, through what we have heard from neighbouring nations, what we have heard from other Indigenous interests, that charging ahead with this treaty risks triggering serious, serious conflict that would do the opposite of what treaties should accomplish. What treaties should accomplish is to produce stability, to produce certainty, to produce knowledge of how we can move forward.

Instead, I worry, in part because of decisions around how these treaties have being structured and in part because of the moment that we find ourselves in — where the level of escalation, the level of inflammation, the level of concern, conflict and uncertainty around reconciliation is so high — that we could ultimately see rushing to implement this treaty, rushing to try to get one fragile victory, at a time when this government is continually snatching defeat on its reconciliation agenda.

I worry that the desire to move forward with haste risks not only creating significant conflict with neighbouring nations but also, frankly, destabilizing for a generation the very legitimacy and the very practicability of treaty processes that are so important to bringing stability to the land base in British Columbia — which, again, is why I believe that the appropriate course of action, as per the amendment, is to refer the bill to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and to fundamentally figure out a path forward that will give us stability, not instability.

There is little question that if this treaty moves forward immediately, if this legislation moves forward immediately, this is a fight that is headed to court. British Columbians will pay. British Columbians will pay financially, in the form of yet more legal costs, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s clear there will be legal action. It’s possible there will be extralegal action. There could well be blockades. There could well be all forms of uncertainty. There could well be all forms of conflict.

I strongly, strongly believe that now, including through the action proposed in this amendment to refer to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, is the time of opportunity and the time of necessity. We have to turn down the temperature at a time when every inch of movement in every direction around DRIPA, around treaty, around court cases, around UNDRIP, around reconciliation, around the broader conversation has become a source of great concern and consternation, in part because these issues are extraordinarily complex, and they are difficult to process.

I claim no expertise in them. I have some experience in dealing with First Nations commercially. I hope to be informed around these matters, but I struggle at times to keep track of the ever-changing landscape. I know from the conversations that I have with my constituents and with business leaders and with others that people are earnestly struggling to understand exactly what is happening. The right response to that lack of understanding, the right response to that uncertainty, the right response, I believe, is to slow down.

And I truly believe, as my colleague from Nechako Lakes stated earlier, that this amendment offers an olive branch to the government. This amendment offers an off-ramp to the government. This amendment offers an opportunity for the government to actually slow down and attempt to get its story straight, yes, and also attempt to get its plan straight because it is exceedingly difficult for anybody.

Certainly, those of us in this House have had difficulty keeping track of the government’s position on DRIPA and on reconciliation and on treaties. We’ve had difficulty keeping track of whether the government is in a hurry to move forward with treaties or whether they are responsive to voices from Indigenous leadership who want them to slow down.

But I certainly believe that this amendment affords the opportunity for the government to slow it down, to try to recapture direction, to pull that steering wheel back from the cliff that, unfortunately, the Premier has yanked it toward while stomping on the gas, and to invite the opportunity to pause and rethink the approach.

We have a number of concerns with the way in which this treaty has been….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute.

Recognizing the member for Abbotsford West.

Korky Neufeld: A motion to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld: I was just informed that the Langley ukulele group is here today. Peter Luongo is here. I’m wondering if they’re in the chamber right now.

I’d just like the House to make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: I also welcome the Langley ukulele club. And for the information of those members of the club, I’d like you to be aware that no props are allowed in the Legislature. But if props were allowed, and if I were sufficiently musically talented to play the ukulele, it would be my honour to play the ukulele right now. Sadly, no props are allowed, and therefore, there will be no ukulele music in the House today.

It has been brought to my attention by the member from Nechako that I could in fact break the rules and play the ukulele, which…. There’s a reason I’m a drummer.

Interjection.

[4:40 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I am now taking friendly fire in the House as it stands. My former leader is egging me on to play the ukulele in the House. I, for one, intend to not be removed from the House today, and certainly, I have no intent of being removed from the House for a sin so small as playing the ukulele. If I were to be removed from the House, I would like it to be for more exciting reasons.

Now, let me return to the task at hand, and that is to speak again to why it is so important that this bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It is so crucially important that we get this right, that we salvage the treaty process, that we protect the legal and also reputational honour of the treaty process and ensure that, through due consideration and consultation and engagement, we are able to get to a point where there can be comfort from members of this House, that there can be comfort from neighbouring bands, with this treaty moving forward.

Again, there are good reasons to have concern and good reasons to refer — including, I think, a very substantial concern that UNDRIP is being hard-wired into this treaty. I am earnestly struggling, and I believe that there is an opportunity through this referral to the select standing committee for us to try to gain a clearer understanding as to why it is that government has chosen to hard-wire the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous People into treaty.

I think that it would be problematic for us to rush forward with this legislation at this time, with the knowledge that we would be hard-wiring UNDRIP into the treaty and making it an authoritative source for interpretation at the same time that conversations in this House, directions, discussions in this House led by the Premier and the Attorney General, have left me, have left members, have left the public, have left First Nations with a considerable degree of uncertainty as to the fate of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

It strikes me as being incoherent that we have heard six different positions on DRIPA from the Premier. We have seen considerable uncertainty emerge as to what the path forward will be on DRIPA. We know and have seen, from considerable opinion research and elsewhere, that the subject of DRIPA has become an immensely confused and divided subject for British Columbians and that embedding UNDRIP in treaty risks being a poison pill for the acceptability of treaty to the public.

We have an opportunity, I believe, to turn down the temperature. We have an opportunity to return to a model that has worked. Since Nisg̱a’a in 2000, 13 modern treaties have been passed into law in Canada. None used this new model. None embedded UNDRIP in this way.

[4:45 p.m.]

So we have concerns about the approach that has been taken. We have concerns about the contradiction in the positions undertaken by this government, where they have, at times, wanted to repeal DRIPA because it created too much legal chaos, while, at the same time, embedding the same UNDRIP obligations into new treaties that are constitutionally protected and can’t be amended.

We are left in this uncertainty. We are left in this chaos. We are left with a treaty that has the potential to be divisive among nations, to bring conflict to a head, to lead to serious and costly legal action, to uncertainty on the land base, to the possibility of very serious escalation.

We have that path, that path of escalation. We have that path, which has been laid out, in no uncertain terms, by concerned First Nations. We have deep public concern, confusion, uncertainty.

We have an alternative, and that alternative is this amendment to refer this bill to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I would encourage all members to support this amendment.

Dallas Brodie: I am here to speak in favour of this motion to push Bill 20 forward six months into the future, but I support this motion for different reasons than have been argued by my friends in this chamber so far.

To my mind, the NDP government has put up an extremely poor-quality treaty with the K’ómoks band that is entirely bad for British Columbian taxpayers. The problems with this treaty go far beyond DRIPA and UNDRIP or what another band thinks about the treaty.

The treaty provides no closure on any issues for British Columbians and….

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member.

Recognizing the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I stand on a point of order, Hon. Chair. The member is supposed to be speaking to the motion, not to the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Member for Vancouver-Quilchena on the amendment.

Dallas Brodie: On the amendment, yes. Thank you. I’ll just resume.

The treaty provides no closure on any issues for British Columbians and, in fact, has been referred to as a first step for negotiations with the K’ómoks band, as opposed to being a final resolution.

This is very confusing for British Columbians, because most people understand a treaty as meaning an ending, not a beginning.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute.

So your remarks now are speaking to the amendment. I’ll just read the amendment: “That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act be amended by deleting all the words after ‘that’ and substituting therefor the following: ‘Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs’.”

I’d just ask that your remarks be pertinent to the motion itself.

Dallas Brodie: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like this referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and this is what my remarks are directed to at this time.

Is there another interruption?

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member. You have the floor.

Dallas Brodie: This treaty provides no closure on any issues for British Columbians and in fact has been referred to as a first step for negotiations with the K’ómoks band. This is very confusing for British Columbians, because most people understand a treaty as meaning an ending of negotiations, not a beginning.

[4:50 p.m.]

This model of giving, giving, giving and signing treaties that enable even more giving is not what British Columbia needs right now. My view is that a referral to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs would be useful because this whole treaty needs to be sent back to the drawing board and discussed in detail in a different framework altogether.

We need treaties that contain finality and certainty for British Columbians, not treaties that are simply frameworks for a one-way flow of concessions that will never end. For each treaty signed, we need extinguishment of all other claims.

For these reasons, I support this amendment and agree that this treaty should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, where the urgent matter of relinquishment of claims can be added to the equation in this treaty and hopefully all modern treaties going forward from this point forward.

It’s my view that reconciliation, in order to work for this province, has to be a two-way street and agreed upon by all members of the province of British Columbia, not just a small group. I think this would be beneficial to all parties to this treaty.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to this motion to refer Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act, to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

I was very excited when I was appointed to that committee when I first came to this building and was equally disappointed when I realized that they have not met in over 20-something years. At a time in this province where Indigenous relations is at an all-time high, you would think that this cross-party committee would be doing the important work needed for British Columbians.

Similar to my first speech, I want to be clear that I support treaty. I do believe it is the way forward. I shared in that speech how I felt disappointed in the treaty, the way it came forward and some of the language that was chosen to be included in that treaty. I think that this motion allows us to go away and correct that, to allow the people of K’ómoks, who have invested 30 years — as the member for Nechako shared, generations — into getting to this day.

But we can’t stand here today and pretend that this treaty is operating in isolation of other things happening in our province. We have a Premier who has had five plans in five weeks about what he’s doing with DRIPA. We have legal challenges. We have U.S. tribes that are pushing in. We have all of these happening at the same time that this government has chosen this moment in time to bring these treaties forward in that landscape. To me, it was a disservice to the people of K’ómoks, Kitselas, and Kitsumkalum eventually.

I believe that this is…. Nechako mentioned it is an olive branch. I think this is the olive branch. I think this is an opportunity for us to come together across party lines and find a durable solution forward. Yes, I did use the word “durable,” which has been driving me nuts all week, but I will use it in this particular case.

The reason that it’s important is because Bill 20 is not an ordinary bill. This is a treaty. It brings into force the modern treaty. This is not the modern treaties that we’ve seen to date. There’s language included in these treaties that is new and different than any treaty we’ve seen before, specifically the fact that it is a living agreement and that that living agreement demands some scrutiny.

When I did my first speech here on this particular bill, I spoke about how I felt I had a responsibility, that Wei Wai Kum and other members on the Island brought forward their concerns. I agreed during that ceremony to bring those concerns forward and read them into the record, which I did. I believe that I did honour that commitment.

By using the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, it allows them to read their own story into the record. It’s not me reading it into the record for them. It allows us to hear from those nations, to understand the concerns. It allows us to have discussions around governance, around land harvesting rights, around resource development and how that has impacts on neighbouring nations and what that looks like going forward.

It allows that testimony to come in as evidence. It allows public submissions. It allows direct testimony from affected parties on all sides. It allows us to have detailed questions and conversations, and it creates that transparent public record.

[4:55 p.m.]

While there was extensive consultation done in the Comox area, around the K’ómoks treaty, the fact that this treaty is new and different sets the precedent for all other treaties in the province. I believe that other British Columbians want to participate and have a say in what these treaties look like going forward.

For me, this isn’t about being obstructive. It’s not about standing here and filibustering. For me, it’s about due diligence, and I believe that this committee allows us to do that due diligence to come to a solution. I think, frankly, if government feels confident in both the treaty and the process that got us here today, they should welcome this opportunity to make it public and not be seen as a threat. It should be viewed as an opportunity.

I think that opportunity is to strengthen public confidence to try to undo some of the damage this government has done in creating any Indigenous sentiment across this province. It allows us to go and work in a cross-party way to find solutions for this treaty and the future treaties that will follow.

I think they will succeed, because we have to have confidence in the process, and to date, I don’t think that confidence exists, and that is why people are looking for a new way forward. That’s why this motion was brought forward to send it to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I look forward to being part of that committee, and I look forward to being part of that work.

I have spoken previously in this chamber about why treaties matter, and I want to be equally clear again today that I support modern treaties. But there is language in these treaties that I cannot support. That really, really hurts my heart for both the K’ómoks People, who have put so much time and energy into it, and the other nations that will follow with future treaties.

I support that treaties are supposed to create greater certainty for Indigenous nations, governments, communities and British Columbians, and that has always been my position. I have always said that I believe treaties are the way forward. I shared in my last speech…. I shared with somebody that I really hoped that these treaties were something I could get behind, because this is what I want for the future of British Columbia.

But these treaties have language in them that is very concerning. It is clear that there is work still to be done. There are unclear overlaps between neighbouring nations that have brought that forward. I think that we have the ability, through the standing committee, to hear those voices, implement them into the decision and find a direction forward.

I feel like it will create an avenue to bring forward legitimate concerns that I feel, today, perhaps have been unheard. I think that it will increase transparency in the treaty process and engage British Columbians in a direction forward. I believe that it could prevent us from just going back to court.

While we are trying to do a treaty with K’ómoks, and we’re creating certainty for K’ómoks, at the same time, we’re creating uncertainty with neighbouring nations. There has been very strong language used by the neighbouring nations around their concerns that they’ve brought forward.

Those court challenges could just tie us up even further. The Premier has shared, though he has yet to name, the 20 court cases that exist today. Are we looking to add to that number, or are we looking to find solutions?

By moving this to a standing committee, we can find solutions. It doesn’t just shift that uncertainty into the future, onto a different nation. It allows the playing fields to level. We’re not, as a legislature, being forced to pick one nation over another and trying to validate whether those claims are valid or not. Their claims need to be on the record, and the select standing committee provides that opportunity for them to come onto the record.

I think that we need to find a way, and thank you to the member for Langley–Walnut Grove that brought this motion forward. I think the standing committee is the way, and it is a way for us to move forward. I think it creates a process for the concerns to be heard, and I believe that it provides an opportunity for all of this to come onto the record in public. I don’t have to stand here and read other people’s concerns into the record for them. They can come and share their concerns themselves.

I think we need to be really clear that Bill 20 is not regular legislation. This is, honestly, life-changing legislation for K’ómoks, but it could be life-changing for the neighbouring nations as well. It could permanently pull them down in a way that they can’t get back up. We need to figure out a way forward, and we need to hear those concerns, and the select standing committee would provide that opportunity.

[5:00 p.m.]

If this agreement took decades to negotiate, which we know it did…. I shared this before. Why is the Legislature now rushing to get this to the finish line? We have eight days left in the legislation, and I think it is our role to get that to the finish line.

I think the select standing committee will do that, and I hope that the members on all sides of the House will support this motion to move this to a select standing committee.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call the vote on the amendment.

Division.

[5:05 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the motion is moved by the opposition MLA, and it reads that the motion for second reading of Bill 20, entitled K’ómoks Treaty Act, 2026, be amended by deleting all the words after “now,” and substituting, therefore, the following: “Bill 20, entitled K’ómoks Treaty Act, 2026, not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.”

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	Wilson	McInnis
Paton	Day	Bhangu
Toor	Hepner	Giddens
Dhaliwal	McCall	Maahs
Block	Stamer	Gasper
Mok	Davis	Chan
Boultbee	Sturko	Brodie
Armstrong	Kealy	Williams
Chapman	Bird	Doerkson
Luck		Tepper
NAYS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Valeriote	Botterell

John Rustad: I request a brief recess so the chamber can reset, please.

The Speaker: The chamber will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 5:15 p.m. to 5:18 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Okay, Members, I’ll call the chamber back to order. We’re on Bill 20, continued reading on the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

On the main motion.

Peter Milobar: Happy to take my place in this debate on Bill 20.

It’s troubling, watching how events have unfolded over the last little while with this government and how badly they have now handled even the treaty process. I say that because we know that treaties do bring stability into regions where treaties have been in place. We see that in other parts of the province where longer-standing treaties have been in place.

Only this government could manage to mess up a system that has taken 30 years to get us here, yet they have still managed to completely bungle it when it comes to talking and trying to better understand and have a treaty that can be better supported by surrounding nations. I say that because this is a government that repeatedly, over the last little while — when we’re talking about repealing DRIPA; when we’re talking about the need to repeal DRIPA — insists that they are going to do it by having conversations and talking and not just taking those types of steps.

Yet here we have a treaty where other nations have very clearly said that not only are they not being listened to; they’re not being talked to by this government. It seems very opposite of everything that this government has been trying to say to us.

[5:20 p.m.]

So again, when they want to try to wag the finger and lecture us about proper process and respectful conversations and moving documents forward and getting agreements…. That has not happened in this case. It is very clear, by virtue of the hoist motion we attempted as an amendment previous to this, that we’re sincere about putting the brakes on this so that further dialogue and discussions can actually happen. That’s what we’re hearing from many in association with this particular treaty. There is no harm in doing that.

The government wants to walk the walk? Then they can do that. They can actually say that they are true and sincere in their attempts. But unfortunately, political theatre is what this government seems intent on. Political theatre around DRIPA — whether it’s going to be amendments; a three-year pause, a one-year pause, a pause until the fall with amendments. Maybe it’s a repeal. We’re not really sure, because: “We’re going to do the right thing, and we’re going to have those conversations. Yet we’re going to rush through.”

I say “rush” in the context of a 30-year document. I understand how that can sound a little bit contradictory. A document 30 years in the making that this government has been responsible for, for the last nine years of that 30 years, one-third of this time…. And they’ve managed to deliver a document that is rife with controversy and rife with lack of consultation, lack of understanding, of agreement of neighbouring nations with the treaty nation that would be the beneficiary of this treaty.

I can’t, in good faith, move forward with the document knowing that that is the backdrop on this. It’s not about the fundamental principle of a treaty. It’s about just how badly this government yet again — time and again; it seems it doesn’t matter what topic we’re talking about — sets a whole new bar for incompetence. Yet again, they have done it on this.

I’m hard-pressed. I would welcome the government to point to any other treaties that took 30 years to get negotiated, wound up in front of this chamber, started to be debated and then had multiple, multiple groups saying: “Put the brakes on it. This hasn’t been done properly.” Only this government, in their incompetence, could manage to pull that off.

Again, after nine years…. Nine long years of the last 30 years has been directly at the hands of this government negotiating this treaty. So they can’t talk and point the finger back to the start. They can’t even point the finger back, although that 30 years…. I guess they would have been in government even at the start of this or close to it. They can’t point the finger back there, nor can they even point it to the midpoint.

The reality is if they can’t deliver a document in a nine-year period that was already well underway, 21 years underway, with some certainty and some confidence and some buy-in by the other nations, how does anyone have any faith that they could negotiate something between now and the fall in regards to DRIPA? This is the insanity that is watching this unfold in front of us with this government in terms of how they are handling the Indigenous file in general.

Every time they touch something it gets worse. Every single time. This treaty is just another example of that.

I feel for the K’ómoks. They were understandably very excited around this, wanting to see closure and a moving forward. But they ought to have known, or probably were figuring out over the last nine years, that the government wasn’t dealing with a full deck.

We need to make sure that this actually has had the proper oversight, overview, which was the premise of the six-month hoist. It was not to try to kill the treaty completely. It was about trying to give that breathing space — as the minister has indicated, the Attorney General has indicated — that is much critically needed for DRIPA, the same time frame as what our hoist motion was. That suddenly was unacceptable to this government, but on DRIPA, it’s totally acceptable.

Again, totally contradictory language, totally contradictory actions, more importantly. It leads to uncertainty, not just within the project world and communities, but it’s leading to a lot of uncertainty within Indigenous nations as to just what this government actually truly believes in terms of working with Indigenous nations in good faith. Is it that they only work in good faith with the ones that they deem to be acceptable in working with them, or will they work truly with all 204 First Nations?

[5:25 p.m.]

I can’t find myself in a position of not being able to support this treaty. I truly feel it’s unfortunate that the government decided to try to ram it through and not support the hoist motion. They will have to deal with the consequences of yet another mishandled file on their part, of utter incompetence when it comes to dealing with issues around Indigenous relations.

Thank you for the time.

Jordan Kealy: The reaction to a term used in this House made one thing very clear. British Columbians do not support unequal treatment. So it’s fair to ask: why are we seeing policies to create different levels of certainty and control depending on who you are? If fairness isn’t a standard, it must be applied consistently. If it doesn’t, people have every right to question it.

The reaction we saw last week and a half ago was immediate and intense. It would be good to see the same urgency when British Columbians are asking real questions about fairness and clarity in this House.

There were certain words referred to with this treaty by another member of this House, and there was a very quick reaction. The people called them very specific things. And it wasn’t even referred to in the way of how the member was using the words or how they were even intended. In fact, it was the exact opposite manner.

The Speaker asked for the member to retract, and the member did.

What was even more interesting was that a motion was brought forward after the fact that didn’t actually make it successfully into the House. But the motion that is currently sitting on the standing paper contradicts the Speaker’s ruling. It makes you wonder whether or not it strengthens what we stand for in this House, which is freedom of speech, or whether or not it undermines it.

This matters because the same mindset is showing up in how this government is approaching this bill. We don’t have to guess how difficult these issues can become. We can look at other jurisdictions around the world — countries like South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and even parts of the U.S. — where questions about land rights and governance have taken decades to work through.

The lesson isn’t that these places are the same as B.C. It’s that once you introduce uncertainty, people begin to feel that the rules are not consistent. It becomes incredibly difficult to rebuild trust and confidence. Those are the very concerns I hear from the hard-working people of Peace River North — the farmers, the ranchers, resource workers, families who get up every single morning and build this province with their own two hands.

I rise today as the independent MLA for Peace River North, where we live every day with the realities of reconciliation that’s done right, in Treaty 8 territory, not behind closed doors, not through secret deals but through real partnership that works for every single British Columbian.

Today I stand to speak against Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act. I will vote against it, and I will keep fighting it, because this is not the way forward for British Columbians, and it has the controversy of DRIPA tied into it.

This treaty hands over more than 34 square kilometres of Crown land in the Comox Valley, fee simple title, mineral rights, forestry tenures, self-government powers and $56 million in taxpayers’ money all signed, sealed and delivered with almost no public debate; no real consultation with the majority of British Columbians; and, most importantly, no requirement for the K’ómoks Nation to fully surrender or pull back their underlying Aboriginal title claims.

[5:30 p.m.]

Who benefits from this decision? The majority of British Columbians? No. Homeowners trying to keep their property secure? No. Government debt and fiscal responsibility? No. Our resources or forestry? Our ability to develop responsibility in rural B.C.? No.

But First Nations lawyers? Yes. First Nations consultants? Yes. Corrupt politicians who love cutting deals in the back rooms? Yes. And the NDP and their federal Liberal friends are smiling all the way to the next photo op.

The B.C. NDP and the federal Liberals are not governing in the best interests of everyone, and they’re doing it on purpose. This is the same pattern we’ve seen with DRIPA. Operate behind closed doors. Shut down real debate. Ram through agreements that sound good in a press release but create uncertainty, division and erosion of confidence in private property rights across this entire province.

I brought forward my own private member’s bill to repeal DRIPA to force real, transparent discussions so that every British Columbian has a seat at the table.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member. Just a minute.

Recognizing the member for Surrey City Centre.

Amna Shah: I call a point of order. I see that the member is engaging in a very wide debate around a number of things under the sun. I’m not sure how that’s relevant to what’s before us, which is the bill. Thanks.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder for the member to focus your comments on the contents of Bill 20. Thank you. Continue.

Jordan Kealy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m talking about DRIPA, which is interwoven into this treaty. I don’t really see how it’s not relevant, but thank you very much for bringing that up.

I brought forward my own private member’s bill to repeal DRIPA to force real transparent discussions so that every British Columbian has a seat at the table. What happened? The NDP and the Greens voted it down in a heartbeat — no second reading, no amendments, no listening to the people. They just shut the door on first reading.

Now we are here with Bill 20, the latest example of the same failed approach — more land transferred, more power handed over, more uncertainty for the rest of us. And what do we get in return? A promise that somehow this will strengthen reconciliation.

Give me a break. If you actually look at what a treaty is supposed to be, it’s supposed to be a give-and-take. This is a give, a give, a give. Just imagine if we end up doing ten treaties in a row like this. Our province would most likely be financially bankrupt.

Reconciliation should unite us, not divide us. It should lift all boats, not just a select few. It should respect the hard work of every British Columbian, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, instead of treating rural communities, farmers and resource workers like we’re the problem.

I’m a farmer, and I know what it’s like to work the land, to worry about tenure, to worry about it, to wonder if tomorrow some court ruling or backroom deal is going to pull the rug out from underneath of your family’s future.

My constituents in Peace River North live that reality every day. We support genuine reconciliation. We support honouring treaties that were negotiated in good faith. But we do not support turning British Columbia into a patchwork of separate governance systems that leave everyday people wondering: “Is this title still secure? Can I still plan for my children? Can we still harvest, develop and build a future here?”

This bill doesn’t resolve claims. It perpetuates them. It doesn’t create certainty. It undermines it. It doesn’t put British Columbians first. It puts politics first.

[5:35 p.m.]

And let’s talk about the slippery slope. This is the fifth modern treaty. What’s next? More land giveaways, more self-governance expansions without public buy-in, more division instead of the made-in-B.C. solution that actually worked for everyone? British Columbians deserve better. We deserve transparency. We deserve real debate in this House, not just rubber-stamp approvals.

We deserve a government that asks: “Does this help all of us, or just a few?” We deserve property rights that mean something. We deserve a resource sector that isn’t strangled by uncertainty. We deserve reconciliation that brings us together, not drives us apart. That’s why I’ll continue to fight, not against First Nations but against a broken process that benefits insiders and leaves the rest of us picking up the tab.

To my colleagues across the aisle: stop operating in the shadows. Bring these issues into the light. Let the people of British Columbia have their say. Repeal DRIPA. Reset the table so that we can build something that works for every single one of us.

To the people of Comox Valley and across the province who are watching this unfold: your voice matters. Your property matters. Your future matters. Don’t let anyone tell you that questioning this process makes you against reconciliation. It makes you a British Columbian who wants fairness for all.

I urge every member of this House to vote no on Bill 20. Send a message that British Columbia will not be governed by secrecy and division. We will be governed by principle, by transparency and by what is right for every British Columbian.

I previously was going to actually have a speech written up for the amendment or the motion that got voted down. But right now when we look at the current treaty, and there is another modern treaty that is coming up, we see the language of DRIPA interwoven into both of those treaties. And right now this government has admitted that there are major flaws to DRIPA and that they need to be resolved, but they haven’t come forward with a resolution to DRIPA.

Right now I really believe that there needs to be a pause on these treaties until that resolution comes forward for DRIPA, and that resolution can actually incorporate and make sure that it is not actually in these treaties either because this is all we’re just going to end up doing — creating more conflict going forward, and then we’re going to end up having to deal with this scenario, possibly with these treaties going further down the road, except they’re going to be enshrined into the constitution once they end up leaving this House.

That’s the reason why I’m speaking against this. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your time, and thank you to my colleagues.

Dallas Brodie: Throughout the process of tabling and debating Bill 20, we keep hearing people use the word “treaty” with a special level of reverence, as if what we are dealing with here is some kind of Abrahamic covenant. But the word “treaty” is not special. A treaty is a deal or agreement between two or more parties, and the K’ómoks treaty and every other treaty this government and previous governments have signed have all been terrible deals for British Columbians.

As a lawyer with a background in contract law, I have been, frankly, offended by the dereliction of duty by the modern B.C. Treaty Commission. After over 30 years of back-and-forth negotiations — 30 years — is this really what we want over 1.1 billion of federal and provincial dollars to buy?

We have an agreement with a band of approximately 340 people that gives away more money, new and enhanced powers and more land without anything in return. This is the best example of the reconciliation industry in action in British Columbia. Indigenous bands and their activist consultants and lawyers demand more of everything, and the provincial and federal government’s negotiators bend over backwards to give them as much as possible, without getting anything in return. This is the part that’s so offensive. It doesn’t meet any of the normal expectations of contract negotiation.

[5:40 p.m.]

Now we have other bands coming out of the woodwork to criticize Bill 20, not because it is a bad deal for British Columbians but because they want the money, power and land that the K’ómoks are now getting.

We even have members of the Conservative opposition who previously cheered for the deal, upon it being tabled, now criticizing the deal, but only because of the supposed lack of consultation with members of other bands that are now upset about the deal that’s been made with this band. Both the K’ómoks Treaty Act and the other bands’ criticism of the treaty are equally troublesome.

British Columbians deserve to hear what this deal is really all about, the details that the political class and the media don’t like to talk about.

The most important missing detail of this treaty is that the K’ómoks band is not required to relinquish their claim to any so-called traditional territories. Government negotiators did not push to extinguish Aboriginal land title claims, but they are signing over more land to be new reserve land directly governed by the K’ómoks band.

Thirty-six square kilometres of Crown land are to be given over immediately, with another 15 square kilometres of Crown land available to be purchased later, of course with more taxpayer money that we will give them at that time to purchase the land that we’re promising they can get down the road. But I will get into the money and the details of the actual dollar amounts in a minute.

The land being given over under this treaty, under Bill 20, is pockmarked all over the Comox Valley and some adjacent islands. Part of the new reserve land butts right up against the city of Courtenay, village of Cumberland and the town of Comox, one concession of land being in the middle of the town of Comox. So these aren’t contiguous pieces of land. These are little places all scattered around, and they’re claiming that this is going to be a good thing. Some of the land being given away is even part of a provincial park.

It is concerning that we would be placing lands all over the Comox Valley that will now be subject to “K’ómoks law-making authority.” Since the K’ómoks band requires cultural heritage investigation permits for any ground-disturbing work in the areas, it is quite obvious that development on all Crown lands handed over to the K’ómoks will mostly grind to a halt.

A band of only 340 people will clearly have little incentive to push to develop housing, utilities or other services for the local area. The fact is that Indigenous band councils in British Columbia have no fiduciary duty to anyone outside their band, so the K’ómoks can simply prevent all of its parcels of land from being developed and even continue to hinder development on nearby lands they still claim as “traditional territory.”

Now let’s get into the taxpayer money being taken by the government and given to the K’ómoks band for this treaty. The talk around the K’ómoks Treaty Act would have you believe we need to pass this new treaty in order to support the self-sufficiency and economic independence of the band. This is untrue for several reasons. Not only is it absurd on its face that a band can be considered self-sufficient or economically independent while relying on increased government support but the current support the K’ómoks receives is already far more than any population of that size would need.

Let’s go through the revenues that the K’ómoks band already receives in mainly direct government transfers every year. Remember, this is a band with a population of 340 people, and these are the transfers without a treaty.

In fiscal year 2022-23, the K’ómoks band had total revenues of $20.6 million. In fiscal year 2023-2024, the K’ómoks band had total revenues of $26 million. In fiscal year from 2024-2025, the K’ómoks band had total revenues of $33.6 million. That’s the year ending last year. So $33.6 million, 340 people, and that’s before the treaty.

The accumulated surplus of the band, which means the amount they currently have in their savings account, back in 2013 was $9.5 million. At the end of the fiscal year 2023-24, that accumulated surplus had grown to over $62 million.

[5:45 p.m.]

We do not yet know what the 2024-25 surplus is. So that’s a jump from $9.5 million accumulated surplus in 2013 to over $62 million accumulated surplus at the end of 2024. Again, 340 people. That’s an accumulated surplus that’s in their savings account. This is before the treaty.

I guess I can give them credit for managing finances better than our provincial government. At least they have an accumulated surplus. At least they’re not running a deficit. Maybe the Finance Minister should take a page from their book.

But now a band of 340 people apparently needs even more money, and the combined federal and provincial one-time payment to the K’ómoks in Bill 20 will be an additional $90 million. That $90 million will come with an additional $6.2 million in yearly funding for so-called self-government. Can anyone tell me why the first $90 million isn’t enough to support their self-government?

This could balloon the average yearly revenues of the K’ómoks band to around $40 million every year. If you evenly divided that income among all members, regardless of age, that would be $117,000 per person per year. If the accumulated surplus, $90 million payment, and one year of the expected yearly revenue was evenly divided among the 340 band members, it would be $564,700 per person, and they would still have the $40 million recurring payment every year. Let’s just repeat that: $564,700 per person every year, and they would still have the $40 million recurring every year.

I almost forgot to mention that when the treaty’s agreement-in-principle was signed back in 2012, the band was granted a $17 million signing bonus.

This treaty will have the federal government forgive an additional $5.3 million loan that the K’ómoks band accumulated during the treaty negotiation process for their legal services. So they borrowed money to get their own lawyers to negotiate for them, and we’re forgiving the loan so that they get us to pay for their legal services to get more money out of us. Despite their massive surpluses, the band demanded the federal government pay their legal bills before they would agree to let the government give them even more money in this treaty. Gordon Gekko would be proud.

Before this treaty, the K’ómoks brought in so much money they could have started a large hedge fund with the surpluses they already had and become truly self-sufficient after a few years, with no more government money needed after that.

For example, a lot of organizations start a foundation or an endowment. What happens is you put money into this endowment or the foundation, and it accumulates, over time, by investing it in mutual funds, stock markets — all these different ways of building the actual nest egg of that capital piece.

Then what happens is you use the income to live off of that or sprinkle it out to people, in this case to members of the band, to make sure that people are being supported or whatever needs they have. But the endowment continues to grow. That’s the proper way of functioning this, and that would be a responsible way of handling money. That’s how most people have to do it. They have to take in….

They’re lucky to be getting this capital nest egg to begin with. But to be given this amount of money and not be able to become self-sufficient is just an incredible situation.

Apparently now they need more government support than ever before, and let’s remind you this is only 340 people. This is the same K’ómoks band that recently sent eviction letters to longtime, rent-paying residents of the Queneesh Trailer Park on their reservation because they apparently want to repossess the land for their own people, even though they’re getting a whole bunch more new land now, and they’ve already got land, and they’re saying they’re going to build homes for their people there.

This is not an action of a struggling group of people. That is contempt for non-member residents by the K’ómoks band, while, at the same time, the K’ómoks want more and more money and special treatment from the government. I bet the Queneesh Trailer Park residents would have a lot to say about what’s going on here.

This treaty mentions that one of its objectives is….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just give me a minute. I just want to recognize the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Just a point of order that those last couple of statements have absolutely nothing to do with the bill.

[5:50 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Okay, Minister.

Continue.

Dallas Brodie: I heard the comment. I don’t think it’s relevant to what I’m saying here today.

This treaty mentions that one of its objectives is achieving equity with other Canadians in socioeconomic outcomes. Let’s just go back to the original number I was talking about here — $564,700 per person with another $40 million coming every year. That’s called socioeconomic equity with other Canadians.

This is a complete farce. Based on the massive amounts of funds already given to the K’ómoks band, it is totally absurd to claim that a socioeconomic equity issue exists that British Columbian taxpayers are on the hook to solve. It seems that the problem is being presented backwards. Non-Indigenous British Columbians are in the inequitable position. The average British Columbian receives far less government support than the members of the K’ómoks band. That is why Indigenous communities have not prospered to the same extent the rest of British Columbia has.

As the famous American economist Thomas Sowell said: “You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become responsible.” If you’re giving money to a group of people, it should be a final deal. The money should go across, and then it becomes their responsibility to manage that in a way that’s careful, reasoned, financially viable and to move forward in a proper and ordinary way that people manage money, not to say: “Once you spend this, there will be more. If you run out, we will simply give you more.”

No one can do that. No one. No group of people can do this. Children can’t do this. You can’t do this with your children. You can’t say: “I’ll give you this. If you run out, I’ll just give you more.” It’s just impossible, I would add, particularly given the bankrupt position our province is in currently.

Let’s not forget. This is the seventh treaty that’s been negotiated in 30 years — the seventh treaty in 30 years. With over 204 First Nations in this province, that means we only have 197 treaties left to go. With upfront payments of almost $100 million each, I can see where this is going.

And this treaty gets reopened every ten years for renegotiation and more payments. I would imagine that when we reopen those treaties, this treaty in particular, it’s not going to be that they say: “Okay, we’ve had enough. We’ll give back some,” or “We’ve done so well. We don’t need any more.” It will always be that the demand will be more and more.

That is what these treaties are doing when they claim to be helping a band become more self-sufficient while making the community more un-self-sufficient and reliant on government. I see this as irresponsible — irresponsible expenditure of taxpayers’ money, irresponsible conduct of how you actually manage money and how you make contractual arrangements.

My conclusion on this is that Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act, really needs to be reconsidered completely, if not taken right back to the drawing board and started again. The process of getting this treaty to the floor today to be debated, to my mind, has been an intentional, 32-year-long car crash.

A band of just 340 people are getting as follows — let’s just recap: a total of 51 square kilometres of Crown land in the Comox Valley; governing authority over those new lands as a separate level of government apart from federal, provincial and municipal governments; a $90 million one-time transfer of federal and provincial taxpayer dollars; $6.2 million more in additional yearly funding, on top of the tens of millions the K’ómoks band already receives each year; government forgiving $5.3 million in loans for legal bills they ran up during their negotiating process, which they felt no obligation to pay for themselves.

[5:55 p.m.]

You might be wondering: “What did British Columbians get in this treaty?” To my eye, nothing, nothing and more nothing. Talk about the art of the deal. We’ve been completely out-negotiated again. And I want to ask again. Who was at the table negotiating for British Columbians? Who? The other 98 percent of this province who are paying all this largesse.

Let’s not forget that this K’ómoks treaty, and I’m going to remind you, is the seventh treaty the B.C. government has negotiated, and the Kitselas treaty will be the eighth. That leaves 196 treaties to go, and they can all be renegotiated after ten years. Based on all the money being paid out in this K’ómoks treaty, imagine how much this will all cost when multiplied by 196.

The fact we are even considering Bill 20 for a vote is an insult to the intelligence of British Columbians who go to work every day, pay their taxes and try to contribute to their community. I don’t even see anything in this agreement that requires the K’ómoks band to contribute back to the community around it.

The federal and provincial government negotiators and K’ómoks band representatives can use pretentious language and ceremony to pretend this treaty is a great achievement, but it is not. Bill 20 is an insult to B.C. taxpayers and the residents of the Comox Valley, and I feel pretty insulted that as an MLA, this B.C. NDP government thought that we would vote in favour of an agreement so completely devoid of rational thought.

I urge all of my colleagues, both in the opposition and on the government side, to really read this treaty carefully. Go through it, page by page, clause by clause. Count up the money. Count up the land. Count up what we’re actually creating here — new levels of government, rights over all sorts of different things going on in this province, and no one really knows where this is leading. There is nothing here in the best interest of the general public of British Columbia.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I ask that this House vote against Bill 20. The K’ómoks Treaty Act and all these other treaties are through, and they are bad for B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the motion before us is Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Division has been called.

[6:00 p.m. - 6:05 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the motion is second reading, Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Madam Clerk will connect with members participating remotely. Please make sure your cameras and mics are on.

[6:10 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48
Lore	Blatherwick	Dhir
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Greene	Wickens	Kang
Begg	Arora	Higginson
Sandhu	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Phillip
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Chandra Herbert	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Shah	G. Anderson	Chow
Morissette	Valeriote	Botterell
NAYS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	Wilson	McInnis
Paton	Bhangu	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Dhaliwal
McCall	Maahs	Block
Stamer	Gasper	Mok
Davis	Boultbee	Sturko
Brodie	Armstrong	Kealy
Williams	Chapman	Bird
Doerkson	Luck	Tepper

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 17, codes of conduct.

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

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes (Codes of Conduct)
Amendment Act, 2026

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll call the chamber back to order, where we are going to call on our Minister of Housing to move second reading of her bill.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This legislation aims to ensure consistency and fairness in handling conduct issues across local governments by requiring local elected officials to adhere to a provincially prescribed code of conduct and standardized enforcement process.

The legislation requires each local government to engage an investigator who meets provincially established criteria, review code of conduct complaints, carry out investigations and recommend sanctions when appropriate.

The legislation sets out a range of sanctions that may be recommended by the investigator, the maximum sanction being a 90-day suspension without pay. Other sanctions include mandatory training, the issuance of an apology letter or a reduction in remuneration, among others.

The legislation also strengthens public transparency, recognizing that trust in local government depends on clear, accessible information about how conduct matters are resolved.

Investigators will be required to prepare summary reports after each investigation, and local governments must make these reports publicly available. Local governments will be required to publish an annual report that includes numerical data on code of conduct enforcement, such as the costs of investigations, types of sanctions imposed and the number of complaints investigated, among other measures.

[6:15 p.m.]

These measures ensure that communities have the information they need to understand how their local governments are responding to conduct issues and maintaining accountability.

The legislation is a clear improvement over the status quo because it replaces today’s inconsistent, voluntary local conduct process with a provincewide framework.

The legislation will strengthen accountability, fairness and public trust in locally elected officials by setting clear expectations for behaviour and creating a consistent, independent and transparent process for addressing misconduct.

I look forward to the debate.

Tony Luck: It’s a pleasure to stand here in the House today to debate Bill 17, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes (Codes of Conduct) Amendment Act — a bill that is probably long overdue, if you talk to many people. It’s nice to see it before the House, to be honest with you.

This represents a significant moment in the evolution of governance in British Columbia. While it may not carry the scale or breadth of some of the government’s recent legislative initiative, it reaches into a foundational aspect of our democratic system: the conduct, accountability and integrity of those elected to serve at the level of government closest to the people.

At its core, this legislation is a response to a growing and undeniable reality. Across British Columbia, local governments are experiencing increased strain not only from pressure of growth, infrastructure demands and service delivery but from internal governance challenges that affect their ability to function effectively. Instances of conflict within the councils, breakdown in relationship between elected officials and staff and a decline in public confidence have become more visible and more concerning, and it is being felt in communities across this province.

The background work supporting this bill confirms as much. Local government dysfunction is no longer isolated or incidental. It has become a provincewide governance concern with real consequences for workplace safety, staff retention and public trust.

These are not minor issues. They strike at the heart of effective governance and democratic legitimacy. In that context, the intention of Bill 17 is both understandable and necessary. The move from a voluntary framework to a mandatory one reflects a recognition that the previous system was insufficient.

Since reforms introduced in 2021 and implemented in 2022, local governments in British Columbia have been required only to consider whether to adopt a code of conduct. That requirement, while well-intentioned, stopped short of ensuring consistency or enforceability. It created a system in which standards could vary widely from one community to another, leaving gaps that undermined both fairness and public confidence and trust.

The evidence demonstrates that many municipalities had already acted without provincial government’s mandate. More than 70 percent of local governments have voluntarily adopted codes of conduct, and kudos to those municipalities that saw a need for that.

That fact alone is instructive. It suggests that the sector itself recognizes the importance of clear behavioural standards. However, it also highlights the problem: a voluntary system inevitably produces inconsistencies. When some communities operate under robust codes while others do not, the result is uneven accountability across the province.

Bill 17 seeks to address that gap by establishing a mandatory baseline. In principle, this is a sound and overdue step. It aligns British Columbia with the broader Canadian landscape, where codes of conduct for local elected officials are not optional but required. It also reflects years of policy development by organizations such as the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Local Government Management Association, both of which have emphasized that responsible conduct is not a peripheral concern but a core component of good governance.

[6:20 p.m.]

The province itself has acknowledged this principle, stating that responsible conduct is essential to effective decision-making, accountability and public trust. That position is widely supported. A local government cannot function effectively if its members are engaged in persistent conflict, if staff are subject to inappropriate conduct or if basic standards of professionalism are not upheld.

The need for a framework that addresses these issues is very, very clear. Yet as important as the direction of the legislation may be, the success of Bill 17 will ultimately depend not on its intent but on its structure. Good governance is not achieved merely by establishing rules. It is achieved by designing systems that apply those rules fairly, consistently and credibly. It is here that a closer examination of the bill reveals both strengths and significant areas for improvement. Not only do processes need to be done fairly; they need to be seen as being done fairly.

A useful way to assess the strengths of this legislation is through comparison with other jurisdictions. This government has often relied on comparisons as a means of defending its policies, and in this case, such comparison is both appropriate and necessary. Provinces such as Ontario, Saskatchewan and even Quebec have already addressed the issues of local government conduct. Their approaches provide valuable insight into what works and what must be avoided.

Ontario offers a particularly instructive example. In that province, codes of conduct are supported by independent integrity commissioners. I want you to remember that, independent integrity commissioners. These individuals are tasked with investigating complaints, providing guidance and recommending sanctions. As the Ontario Ombudsman has explained, the role of an integrity commissioner is to apply ethical rules and ensure that complaints are handled independently and fairly.

This independence is not a secondary feature of the system. It is the foundation of the system. The reason is straightforward. A system in which elected officials are asked to judge their own colleagues, particularly in contentious or politically charged circumstances, will struggle to maintain public confidence. Independence is essential not only for fairness but for the perception of fairness. Without it, even well-reasoned decisions may be viewed with skepticism.

Ontario has recognized this reality and continues to strengthen its framework accordingly. The direction is clear: greater standardization, stronger oversight and a continued emphasis on independence. This is an important lesson for British Columbia and one that Bill 17 has not fully embraced at this time.

Saskatchewan, by contrast, offers a lesson in clarity as well, and consistency. Its approach has been to establish a clear, mandatory requirement for codes of conduct.

Quebec provides perhaps the most comprehensive model. Recognizing the risks associated with local enforcement of ethical standards, Quebec established a centralized provincewide framework for municipal ethics. This system removes much of the responsibility for investigation enforcement from local councils’ CAOs and places it within an independent structure. The result is a system that minimizes political influence and maximizes consistency.

The lesson from Quebec is particularly important. It demonstrates that if the goal is to ensure fairness and public confidence, then the enforcement of ethical standards must be insulated from the political dynamics it seeks to regulate. This is not a reflection on the integrity of individual councils. It is a recognition of the inherent challenges of self-regulation in a political environment.

When Bill 17 is viewed through the lens of these jurisdictions, a pattern emerges. The bill adopts the language of reform. It recognizes the need for mandatory standards and structured processes. But it does not fully incorporate the structural elements that make those systems effective. Independence is not clearly guaranteed. Safeguards against misuse are not fully developed. Procedural fairness, while acknowledged, is not comprehensively codified. These gaps create real risk. One of the most significant is the potential for the complaint process to be used as a political tool.

[6:25 p.m.]

The policy work underlying this bill has acknowledged that codes of conduct can, in certain circumstances, be used to target minority voices or to advance factional interest. This is not a speculative concern. It is a known risk, and it must be addressed directly.

One of the most concerning structural flaws in this bill is the potential designation of the chief administrative officer of the municipalities and cities as the officer responsible for handling code of conduct complaints. The CAO is not an independent actor. They are hired by, report to and ultimately serve at the pleasure of council. To place that individual in a position where they are expected to assess or manage complaints involving the very people who control their employment creates an inherent conflict, both real and perceived.

It asks the CAO to move beyond their administrative role into one that is quasi-judicial, placing them squarely in the middle of political disputes, workplace tensions and personal dynamics within council. That is not only unfair to the individual….

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: You’re welcome to pause just for a moment.

Thank you, Fraser-Nicola. Carry on.

Tony Luck: Thank you.

It is not only unfair to the individual in that role. It risks undermining the credibility of the entire process. No CAO should be put in a position where their professional independence can reasonably be questioned simply by doing the job this legislation requires of them.

Another concern is the burden placed on smaller communities. We’ve seen this before in other legislation, how sometimes a cookie-cutter seems to put extra, onerous tasks and requirements on smaller municipalities. While larger municipalities may have the resources to engage investigators, legal counsel and administrative support, smaller municipalities and regional districts often do not.

Without a clear framework for provincial support, the implementation of this bill risks becoming an unfunded mandate, one that places additional strain on communities already operating with limited capacity.

The issue of procedural fairness also warrants careful consideration. Complaints under a code of conduct can have serious consequences for those involved. They can affect reputations, careers and the ability of elected officials to serve effectively. As such, the process must include clear protection, notice of allegations, access to evidence, the opportunity to respond and the availability of an appeal — one thing that is missing from this legislation. Without these elements, the system risks producing outcomes that are not only unfair but are perceived to be unfair.

Even within the technical provisions of the bill, the importance of clarity is very evident. Clause 113.11, which addresses the indemnification of parties, raises fundamental questions about who bears the cost of the process and under what conditions. Indemnification may be appropriate in certain circumstances, particularly where individuals act in good faith. But without clear criteria, it introduces uncertainty and potential inequity. It also raises the broader issue of taxpayer exposure, as municipalities may ultimately be responsible for covering these costs.

These concerns do not undermine the need for legislation. Rather, they highlight the importance of refining it, making sure we get it right on the first go. Bill 17 has the potential to establish a stronger and more consistent framework for local government conduct. That is a good thing. To realize that potential, however, it must be strengthened in several key areas.

First, the bill should ensure that investigations are conducted independently. Whether through a provincial roster of investigators or a centralized integrity office, the process must be removed from direct political influence. This is essential for both fairness and public confidence.

Second, the bill should include clear safeguards against frivolous and vexatious complaints. A screening mechanism that allows for the early dismissal of such complaints would protect the integrity of the process and prevent its misuse.

[6:30 p.m.]

Third, the legislation should provide for a clear and accessible appeal mechanism. This would ensure that decisions can be reviewed and that errors can be corrected, reinforcing both fairness and accountability.

Without independence and an appeal process, the role of councils in imposing sanctions should be carefully limited. While councils may have a role in receiving findings, the authority to determine sanctions should rest within an independent body to avoid the perception of bias.

Transparency must be strengthened. Decisions, including the reason for these decisions, must be made publicly available, subject to appropriate privacy protections. Annual reporting would further enhance accountability and allow the public to assess the effectiveness of the system.

Finally, the province should provide the necessary support to ensure that all communities can implement the legislation effectively and equitably. This includes funding shared services and access to expertise.

These few recommendations are not radical. They are grounded in the experience of other jurisdictions, as I have outlined previously, and in the policy work already undertaken within British Columbia. They are practical measures designed to enhance the clarity, fairness and credibility of the system.

In conclusion, the bill represents an important step forward. It acknowledges that the existing framework is insufficient and that stronger standards are required. It begins to align British Columbia with national practice and reflects the growing recognition that responsible conduct is essential to effective governance in the province.

However, the bill is not yet quite complete. Its success will depend on the extent to which it addresses the structural issues that determine how it operates in practice. A code of conduct is only as effective as the system that enforces it. If that system lacks independence, fairness and transparency and an appeal process, it will struggle to achieve its intended purposes.

This bill is a very good start to addressing many of the challenges and dysfunctions we are seeing around the province. I don’t need to give a long list of some of the actions and councils that have been in the news in the last number of years, but this bill is a very good start in trying to address many of the issues that many of the councillors have had.

So the question is whether we will look at…. We have a chance to get it right the first time, and this side of the House looks forward to working towards getting it right, doing the tweaks that we need to and for the benefit of the citizens and politicians and all.

Ultimately, the measure of this legislation will not be found in its wording alone. It will be found in its application, in whether it produces outcomes that are fair, consistent and worthy of public trust. That is the standard to which this House must hold it to.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll be fairly brief, but I’m pleased to speak to this today. Myself and the Third Party caucus are supportive of these measures — adding standardized code of conduct and mutual dispute resolution processes to local government elected bodies.

While it’s important for local governments to remain autonomous, it’s also important to allow a respectful environment for municipal staff and residents, empowering staff to speak up if responsible-conduct issues arise. The member for Fraser-Nicola notes that we don’t need to go through a long list, but we’ve seen conduct issues in local governments across the province, and this bill makes it clear that we, as provincial representatives, are not okay with inappropriate behaviour by a few bad actors.

This is a transition away from the previous framework that allowed local governments to create their own. Some did; some did not. The requirement was merely that they consider it, which is not very specific.

Approximately 68 percent of all municipalities and 81 percent of all regional districts have adopted a code of conduct, and 29 percent of local governments do not have an enforcement mechanism for their code. I’ll say that when there’s no enforcement mechanism, that renders a code of conduct toothless. Rules, generally, without enforcement send, in my mind, a pretty strong signal to what we’ll call bad actors.

[6:35 p.m.]

I’ve lived this on both sides, as a municipal elected official and as a regional district and municipal staff. We know that, typically, the best time to implement a code of conduct is when council is functioning well. So I’m hoping that the beginning of the new terms that will start in October of this year is the right time for these to be implemented.

And that’s a question I’ll have in committee. Some of these come into effect on royal assent, but these pieces are by regulation, so I’ll be asking the question of when the government expects them to have them in by regulation, because I think right at the beginning of the term is appropriate.

Additionally, I’m quite supportive of removing the reference to the mayor as head of or CEO of the municipality as well as curtailing their unilateral ability to suspend a municipal officer or employee without the consent of the whole council. Some mayors in B.C. seem to be unaware that we have a weak mayor system, and I think this is an appropriate reminder.

We do have some concerns about the differences between small and large municipalities. Current systems cost local governments due to long processes and losing court cases. However, the proposed system requires local governments to pay for investigators’ work.

I’ll just touch on another area. I’m not sure if I understand the member for Fraser-Nicola’s concerns from my reading of the bill. The CAO or the prescribed officer is simply administering the complaint and then referring it to investigator, not adjudicating, but it’s an area that we’ll be watching when this goes to committee stage.

So with apologies, I’ll just pick up on the resourcing. Municipalities in B.C. have very different levels of resources. For some, paying for an investigator won’t be a problem but, for others, could be a significant barrier. A mandated, standardized process on all municipalities is something that we support, but it may end up costing smaller localities a lot more proportionately.

We support this government considering avenues to financially support the processes of smaller and rural local governments, making sure we recognize the important role they play and the often limited resources they have.

As I said, I’ll be brief. I’ll conclude quite quickly by saying that we’ll always be supportive of efforts to provide safe, civil, healthy and welcoming environments for people working and living in municipalities across British Columbia. I think we’re all aware that we’ve seen, we’ve been witness within this chamber, to examples on why we probably need a code of conduct in here, but that’s for another day.

I believe this is a positive step forward for municipalities in B.C., and we look forward to inquiring further on a few specifics at the committee stage.

Darlene Rotchford: I couldn’t agree with my colleague more. I think we could all use a little more decorum in all levels of government, and we need to set by example. I think, hopefully, we can all agree with that.

Interjection.

Darlene Rotchford: See my friend even…. Right? We could.

I rise today in strong support of Bill 17. As those in this House know, I also came from local government. The local government responsibility conduct legislation is at the very heart of public trust within our democracy and institutions.

At its core, this bill is about something simple but profoundly important: respect. And I think we can all agree the world needs a little more of that — respect in how we treat one another, respect in how we conduct ourselves in positions of public responsibility and respect for the people who put their faith in us to serve.

During my time with the township of Esquimalt, I talked quite proudly about my council and how we acted together, and that didn’t always mean we agreed. We had 4-3 votes, but we did so with respect with each other, and we came back the next day and did it again.

People in communities that make up Esquimalt-Colwood and across British Columbia deserve local governments that work together, that focus on solving problems and that make decisions of best interests of the people they serve. They deserve councils and regional boards that are focused on building housing, improving infrastructure, supporting families and strengthening local economies, not bogged down in internal conflict, dysfunction or costly disputes.

Yet we know this is not always the reality. Across the province, local governments have been telling us clearly and consistently that the current system is not working as well as it should when it comes to addressing conduct issues.

[6:40 p.m.]

When we’ve seen situations where interpersonal conflicts spiral into prolonged disputes, we have seen allegations of bullying, harassment and disrespectful behaviour, sometimes behind closed doors but also very much in a public way.

We’ve seen staff placed in difficult and, at times, unsafe working environments, and we’ve seen these issues drag on, costing communities not just time and energy but, in some cases, hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in legal fees — money that, quite frankly, could be used for better things.

Perhaps most importantly, we have seen the impact it has had on public trust. When people see their elected officials unable to work together, when they see their disputes going unresolved, when they feel there is no clear or fair way to address concerns, confidence in our local government erodes. Once that trust is lost, it is not easy to rebuild. That is why Bill 17 matters. This legislation responds directly to years of calls from local governments themselves, from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, from the Local Government Management Association and from the B.C. Ombudsperson.

Since 2016, there have been multiple resolutions, six endorsed by UBCM alone, calling for stronger and more consistent responsible conduct measures. In 2024, both UBCM and LGMA highlighted broad support for a mandatory code of conduct. The Ombudsperson has also repetitively recommended legislative changes. So let us be clear. This is not the province imposing a solution from above; this is the province listening and responding accordingly.

Bill 17 will enable the creation of a single, provincewide code of conduct for local elected officials in British Columbia, and this is a significant step forward. Right now we have a patchwork system. Some municipalities have codes of conduct; some do not. Some have strong enforcement mechanisms. Others rely on informal processes or really no enforcement at all. In fact, even among those that have adopted a code, nearly one-third lack any meaningful enforcement tools. This inconsistency, quite frankly, creates confusion. It creates gaps, and in some cases, it allows for serious issues to go unaddressed.

A provincewide code changes that. It establishes one clear, consistent set of expectations for behaviour, no matter where you serve in our province. It ensures that all elected officials are held to the same ethical standards, and it provides predictability for councils and boards when those issues arise.

But expectations alone are not enough. We also need a fair, transparent and effective way to address concerns when those expectations are not met. This is why Bill 17 introduces a standardized complaint process. Under this framework, complaints will be assessed by an independent investigator. That independence is critical. It ensures that complaints are handled impartially, based on evidence and established procedures, not politics or personalities.

If an investigation is warranted, the investigator will conduct it and provide a report, including recommended sanctions where appropriate. Those sanctions could range from training and reprimands to suspension from certain duties or even a temporary loss of remuneration — an appropriate response based on the severity of that breach.

Importantly, the process also allows for informal resolution where appropriate. Not every conflict needs to escalate. In some cases, facilitated dialogue and mutual resolution can be the most effective path forward.

At the same time, this legislation builds its strong safeguards for procedural fairness. Complaints cannot be anonymous. Both the complainant and the respondent have the opportunity to be heard. Both receive the investigation report. Both decisions are made. Investigators have the authority to dismiss frivolous and vexatious complaints, including the ability to recommend penalties where appropriate. This is a balanced approach, one that protects individuals from unfair accusations while ensuring that legitimate concerns are taken seriously.

I also want to speak to the transparency, because accountability does not end with the investigation. Under Bill 17, local governments will be required to publish public summaries of those investigations. These summaries will outline the nature of the complaint, the investigation process and any recommended sanctions. If a council or board chose not to follow those recommendations, they must provide rationale, and that rationale will also be made public.

In addition, annual reporting requirements will ensure that communities know how many complaints have been received, how they’ve been handled and what costs were incurred. This level of transparency is essential. It gives the public confidence that issues are not being hidden or ignored. It reinforces accountability, and it helps rebuild trust where it may be damaged.

[6:45 p.m.]

Now, some people are going to ask, why a provincewide approach? Why not allow each local government to continue developing its own code? That answer is clear. It is consistency, and it is fairness.

While many local governments have made good-faith efforts to create their own codes, the reality is that a fragmented system can lead to uneven standards and, in some cases, the risk of codes being misused or weaponized within councils. A single, provincewide code eliminates that risk. It removes ambiguity. It ensures the expectations are clear and consistent across British Columbia. It strengthens public confidence that the same rules apply to everyone.

It also allows for efficiency. Local governments will have the option to share investigations through regional models, helping to reduce costs, particularly for those smaller communities that were mentioned.

At other times, by providing a clear and consistent process, the framework is expected to reduce the number and duration of disputes, saving money and allowing councils to focus on their core responsibilities.

Timing also matters. If passed, the legislation will allow the province to put a provincewide code of conduct in place for new councils and boards following the next local government election on October 17, 2026. That gives a clear opportunity to start fresh, with a stronger foundation for respect and effective government.

Not the last FCM but the FCM before that, I was in local government. For anyone who was in government at the time, we went to FCM in Calgary. One of the key points of that, of the topics we were having at that FCM, was talking about how we’re losing people in politics in local government — why people aren’t running again, why women aren’t running again, why younger people are not staying engaged.

One of the key themes that came from that was bullying and harassment. This is not just an issue in B.C. We talked about it coast to coast on councils and how different provinces were managing it. I feel like this is a tool when people think: “Why, quite frankly, do I do that to myself? Why do I run for local government?”

People do, I would hope, have the best of intentions when they do it, because local government is the heart of our community. It’s where you see people the most. It’s where you engage with them.

So if we want to start changing our culture about how politicians are treated when it comes to this kind of stuff, I think we start at the grass roots. We talk about it. We look at it. We talk about those codes of conduct — how we want to be treated, how we want each other to be treated.

I want to emphasize that the work will not be done in isolation on Bill 17. The code itself will be developed in consultation with those local governments, with sector organizations and with Indigenous partners. Their voices, their experiences and their perspectives will be essential in shaping a framework that works for everybody.

This includes ensuring that a code of conduct meaningfully addresses issues such as discrimination and racism. By establishing clear expectations and a fair process to address breaches, we are taking a step towards safer, more inclusive environments in local government, environments where all people are treated with dignity and respect.

Again, coming from local government, we had many votes of 4-3 for very important topics in my community, and we didn’t always agree. But respectful debate is really important. When you’re having that dialogue, giving the councils the tools when they’re dealing with difficult council members who are unable to do that is so important.

This bill recognizes an important principle: local governments are in the best position to make decisions with their own members — but with a clear, accountable framework. While independent investigators will assess complaints and recognize sanctions, the final decision will rest with council and board. This encourages accountability among peers and reinforces the importance of responsibility.

At the same time, the requirement to provide public reasons for decisions ensures that this authority is exercised transparently.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is not about punishment. It’s about responsibility. It’s about ensuring that when issues arise, they are addressed promptly, fairly and efficiently so that councils and boards can return their focus to what really matters: serving their community. At the end of the day, this is what it’s about.

It’s about the family trying to access housing. It’s about small business owners navigating local regulations. It’s the senior relying on community service. It’s the young person looking for opportunities close to home. They are not concerned about internal disputes or procedure gaps. Quite frankly, they don’t care. They simply want their local government to work and to work well together.

Bill 17 helps make that possible. It provides those tools. It sets those expectations. It builds the foundation for respectful, accountable and effective local governments across B.C.

I am proud to support this legislation. I believe it reflects the voices of local governments. I believe it is responsible to real challenges. I believe it will strengthen public trust in the institutions that serve our communities every day. I encourage all members of the House to support Bill 17.

Noting the hour, I reserve my time, and I adjourn debate.

Darlene Rotchford moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 9 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jodie Wickens moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

We’re on clause 2.

On clause 2 (continued).

Hon. Diana Gibson: I would like to move an amendment to clause 2 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[CLAUSE 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

2 Section 5 (1) (a) is repealed and the following substituted:

(a) in the opinion of the head of the public body, provides enough detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a reasonable effort and in a reasonable amount of time, to identify the record sought, .]

The Chair: Would you like to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

Hon. Diana Gibson: The initial wording was wording that exists elsewhere in the act and was consistent with wording elsewhere in the act. Also, it continued to be under the oversight, as per section 42 of the act, of the commissioner.

[2:55 p.m.]

In engaging with members, we discovered that it was causing substantial misunderstanding and concern and have proposed that it be removed for better clarity of the oversight of the act.

Rob Botterell: The removal of “in the opinion of the head of the public body,” this amendment, certainly, is an improvement but does not address other weaknesses with the clause.

The question I have is: could the minister elaborate on why the phrase “in the opinion of the head of the public body” was proposed to begin with so we can understand more about the rationale for amending it to remove it?

Hon. Diana Gibson: This was about providing clarity. The “head of the public body” is where responsibility sits for the determination and is consistent with language used elsewhere in the act. However, because of misinterpretation of what the intention of that was and lack of understanding about the oversight of the act by the Privacy Commissioner as per clause 42, we have proposed to amend it.

Rob Botterell: The “in the opinion of the head of the public body” would suggest, with its removal, that it’s unclear who the decision-maker will be in this clause.

Could you clarify the specific section of the act that outlines who is responsible for making this determination?

In a decision of Celia Francis on February 29 of 2024, it was made clear that the process involves a number of steps. It would be helpful just to be able to alert the public and those that are reviewing Hansard at a future date where the specific clarity comes, in terms of making this particular decision, right at the beginning of the request process.

[3:00 p.m. - 3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Although I’m not familiar with the case being referred to specifically, what I can say is that if that complaint was made under the prior wording, with our amendment, that existing wording would stand, which means jurisprudence….

I’m assuming you’re referring to a decision of the OIPC, though I don’t know the case you’re referring to specifically. Jurisprudence on the existing wording would apply as, with the amendment, the existing language would apply.

The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?

A Voice: Division.

The Chair: Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on May 19, the division on the amendment to clause 2 is deferred until the start of orders of the day of the next sitting. Clause 2 is stood down pending the division. We will move on to clause 3.

Clause 2 stood down.

Points of Order

Kiel Giddens: Point of order. I would like to have a ruling from the Chair on the proposed amendment to clause 3 that was listed on the order paper.

The motion that was provided says “by deleting clause 3.” I’d like a ruling from the Chair whether this is the correct process for it, to have it on the amendment or on notice, or if it should have been voted down in a duly voted Committee A process.

The Chair: Thank you very much, again, for your point of order. Yes, the correct procedure would be to defeat the clause and then bring forward the amendment. That being said, we appreciate the fact that the minister has brought forward the intention to have the clause defeated. With that being said, I think it’s fine.

Kiel Giddens: Just to understand the ruling from the Chair, as the amendments are included on the order paper, is that in order or not, or are we voting on clause 3 as is?

The Chair: Again, I appreciate your question and the point of order that’s been raised. At this point, the amendment hasn’t been moved, so there’s not really a discussion to be had.

We are on clause 3.

[3:10 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I’m asking for a point of clarification. I am ready to speak to clause 3. But on clause 2 and the amendment, now…. The division is deferred, and then after the division, the vote will come back to clause 2?

Correct. Thank you.

Kiel Giddens: Point of order again. Just on the motion to defer the vote, it says, from the Government House Leader…. He moved that pursuant to standing order 16(4), division called in Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, that an amendment standing in the name of the Minister of Citizens’ Services on the order paper be deferred until the start of the orders of the day of the next sitting.

Just to understand the voting procedure, I think…. Given that it is not necessarily required for it to be included on the order paper, the correct vote would be for that to occur in Committee A here, as opposed to in the main chambers, just given that it was not a requirement to have it as an amendment or on notice in this case.

Can I get a ruling from the Chair on that?

The Chair: The House Leader is very clear that pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on May 19, the division on the amendment to clause 2 is deferred until the start of orders of the day of the next sitting. That is very clear, and you understand that.

Yes, you may have a view that it should be in this committee, but that’s what was voted on and the House adopted.

Debate Continued

The Chair: So we’re on clause 3.

On clause 3.

Rob Botterell: This section of the act sets a standard for response which is without delay. This was intentional. The 30-day response time limit is intended to be an outer limit. If some or all records could be released before the 30-day time limit, then this section requires that every reasonable effort be made to do so. Why is the amendment…? “Without unreasonable delay” — why is that proposed?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The wording here of “without delay” is something that is different in the context today than when the bill was initially drafted. It implies that someone is going to get a 2,000-page personal, complex file full of third-party information immediately. What has changed since the act, of course, is the volume and complexity of information and also people’s expectations of what “without delay” means in a time of instant email and communication. This creates unrealistic expectations.

Elsewhere in the act, the duty to assist and the time limits apply. This change was never going to change the duty to assist or the time limits and wasn’t meant to. However, because of misunderstandings around what this could have implied for people and the failure to understand the duty to assist and time limits and oversight that is elsewhere in the act, we have proposed an amendment to remove that wording.

I would move the amendment to clause 3 standing in my name on the orders of the day so there are no changes in section 6(1):

[CLAUSE 3, by deleting clause 3.]

The Chair: The amendment as presented is not in order, so we’ll continue with the clause as it is.

We’re on clause 3.

Amendment ruled out of order.

Rob Botterell: The explanation given by the minister raises additional questions with respect to clause 3 in its unamended form, which is: to respond “without unreasonable delay.” The apparent explanation provided for inserting the word “unreasonable” was that the world has changed, and perhaps those of us who spend our days reading legislation — which is, I think, actually a small percentage of British Columbians — would somehow be reassured.

[3:20 p.m.]

For applicants, I think the expectation of the legislation under clause 3 is “without delay.” Inserting “unreasonable delay” creates exactly the uncertainty that British Columbians and applicants worry about. Adding “unreasonable” suggests that the test is no longer without delay, and meaning has to be given to “unreasonable.”

I’m curious, when this clause was originally drafted, how the minister defined “unreasonable” for the purposes of this clause and what it adds to the test. It would be helpful to have a definition of unreasonable in the context of this clause. The minister must have not unreasonably expected that it would change in some fashion or another the test in clause 3.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member opposite. For clarification again, this is being introduced for clarification only, to avoid the mis-expectations of something being immediate that may involve a significant amount of work and time. The reasonableness test, as we’ve discussed and canvassed in this House already, is a high bar set by the Privacy Commissioner’s office. That test would continue to apply.

Additionally, clauses 6 and 7 — clause 6, the duty to assist, and clause 7 on time limits — already also cover the high bar set in terms of the obligation to assist in a timely fashion. So this was intended as clarification, and because it’s causing such misunderstanding and concern, it was suggested to be withdrawn.

Jody Toor: I hear that the minister says that this clause means that the government was just trying to amend so that there was more clarity, removing misunderstanding.

My question is: why did the government originally propose replacing “without delay” with “without unreasonable delay”? What problems was government attempting to solve through that wording change?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As has been discussed already today, this was for a point of clarification. The problem trying to be solved, and the rationale, has been explained already.

Jody Toor: The minister just mentioned…. Just for clarification, was the existing obligation to respond without delay unclear?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As has been stated previously, this change was intended to provide clarity, not to change obligations covered elsewhere under section 6(1). Misunderstanding around this is why we propose it be withdrawn.

Jody Toor: I think what is important here is not that the government removed the phrase “without unreasonable delay” but that the government has proposed the change in the first place. So that’s why these questions are coming up.

I get it that you have the clarity and you’re trying to give us that information of the misunderstanding.

The concern that many British Columbians have shown, not just to, probably, the government, but to myself…. I had about 10,000 people sign a petition that was handed and I presented in the House. Replacing the obligation to respond “without unreasonable delay” shifted the standard away from the firm obligation and towards a more subjective framework. The fact that the government is asking that we remove the language suggests that these concerns were major and legitimate enough to warrant reconsideration.

So while the wording may no longer remain in the bill if it gets amended, I believe it is very important for this committee to understand why the change was proposed originally and what problem the government was attempting to solve through that wording.

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

Hon. Diana Gibson: This change was introduced for clarification to help manage public expectation where it could be misunderstood as to how immediately a response — even submitted, say, online in the middle of the night….

The threshold for interpreting “reasonable” is a very high bar set by the Privacy Commissioner’s office. However, misunderstanding around that oversight has caused concern that led us to remove this, to not pursue this amendment.

Jody Toor: What evidence from the public body operations justifies weakening the existing without-delay standard, and how will this change be tracked through the ministry to ensure it does not lead to longer overall response times?

Hon. Diana Gibson: We are no longer pursuing the change.

Sheldon Clare: I think one of the key aspects of this particular clause that is a point of concern and difficulty is the word “reasonable.” When we’re trying to comprehend this clause, if we can get our minds around exactly what reasonable means, then we’d have a better understanding.

Would the minister be able to define for the House exactly what is meant by the term “reasonable,” including all of the legal ramifications thereof?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As has been discussed, the Privacy Commissioner’s office sets a high bar for defining “reasonable.” However, we are no longer pursuing this clause.

[3:45 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: In terms of the clause, was the government attempting to provide ministries with greater discretion regarding delays? Delays are often an issue when people are seeking access to information.

What was the goal here? Was this about giving the government more ability and flexibility, or is it about giving more access to citizens? What’s going on? Is this greater discretion regarding delays, or is this better access for citizens?

Hon. Diana Gibson: We are no longer pursuing this change in this section.

Clause 3 negatived.

On clause 4.

Jody Toor: Why was it necessary to change the wording from “a request described in section 5(1)” to “a request that meets the requirements of section 5(1)”?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The purpose of this clause is to clarify that when requests do not meet the requirements of section 5, the time limit for response will not begin until those requirements of section 5 are met.

Jody Toor: Does this amendment create a stricter procedural threshold for applicants?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: No, this does not make stricter procedural thresholds for applicants.

Sheldon Clare: In clause 4, it requires that the applicant have written proof of their authority to ask a question. Does not any citizen, by virtue of their citizenship, have the authority to ask a question of the government regarding access to information and a freedom-of-information request?

What special authority is required? What determines that, and how is that adjudicated? Does not being able to provide some sort of authority to ask the request mean that the request is automatically denied?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: What the member, I think, is referring to is section 5 of the act, which refers to the criteria for which a person can act on behalf of another in cases such as a minor. The criteria for this is laid out in regulations, which we are not changing.

Sheldon Clare: How will the wording affect applicants in practice? Will public bodies be required to provide detailed written responses when they determine that the request meets the requirement of section 5(1)?

Hon. Diana Gibson: In terms of how this applies to the applicant in practice, this clarifies that when requests do not meet the requirements of section 5, the time limit for response will not begin until the requirements are met. In terms of the written reporting, we are not changing the procedures for criteria under 5.

Jody Toor: Would this new wording in section 7 make it easier or more difficult for the Privacy Commissioner to review a public body’s decision?

As well, why is the ministry so intent to make it easier for ministries to dismiss FOI requests right at the door?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: This does not change the oversight of the Privacy Commissioner, nor does it pertain in any way at all to dismissal of requests.

Jody Toor: What safeguards prevent pressure on applicants to consent to long extensions? By changing the language in section 7 to “a request that meets requirements of section 5(1),” does the amendment expand the head’s power on the determination of a request?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The member opposite is referring to something that is in a later clause. We’re on clause 4.

Sheldon Clare: Does this amendment move the freedom-of-information process further away from accessibility and toward procedural compliance? I wonder. Is the government concerned that ordinary citizens may now feel that they need legal or institutional expertise to successfully file requests?

The process seems to increase the burden upon people wanting to file requests. I suppose the concern could be that the ministries could use procedural requirements as a way to manage workload pressures rather than to improve or assist in transparency. We have heard that workload is an issue in this, and we’re wondering. Is this a factor as well?

Does this move the process further away from accessibility and towards procedural compliance, and does this give people the need to have legal or institutional expertise to be successful in filing requests? Is this also about workload pressures rather than improving transparency?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Not at all. This is about helping people to get the information they need, helping us to find that information and clarify their request. It has to be read in the context of the broader act, which includes the duty to assist, which sets a very high bar. Of course, the oversight of the OIPC is retained, which sets a very high bar as well.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the response to the question. I thought that was quite helpful.

My next question is: why is there an appearance, at least, of government strengthening procedural thresholds instead of strengthening FOI staffing and response capacity? There is an appearance that what this change does is exactly that.

I wonder. Does the government acknowledge, at least, the concern that clause 4 operationally reinforces the broader discretionary authority that was introduced in clause 2?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, member opposite, for the opportunity to speak to the work our government has done to improve service delivery, investing in new technology and new staff and proactive disclosure — 17 categories already and a new one in Bill 9.

Our government has shown ourselves to be looking for every innovation to ensure we’re delivering for British Columbians. Also, the oversight for this, as has been discussed previously, is continuing under the clause that pertains to the oversight by the Privacy Commissioner’s office that continues to maintain that. So it does not introduce that discretion.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

Jody Toor: The proposed change in clause 5. Clause 5 amends section 10 to allow the head of a public body to extend the time for responding to an FOI request if the applicant consents to the extension in the prescribed manner. The clause also removes subsection 10(1)(d) and updates related reference throughout section 10.

I have concerns that I can go into my questions with. Some of them are regarding how applicants may feel pressure to consent to extension, operational delays may become normalized, ministries may increasingly rely on extensions rather than improving response capacity, and consent may not always reflect equal bargaining powers. It could weaken urgency around timely disclosure.

I want to explore whether voluntary consent becomes operational pressure on applicants to accept delays, rather than the government improving FOI response performance. The key concern that I have here is whether the applicants are truly consenting freely or whether they are being placed in a position where refusing extension can cause risks such as slower cooperation, narrow searches or stalled processes.

My question to the minister is: why was it necessary to create additional authority for applicant consent extensions?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: It’s important for the member opposite to know that consent has been in the legislation for years. What this change does is reduce administrative burden, making it more efficient and us better able to better serve the applicant.

Jody Toor: If a governing body seeks consent to extend the time to respond and the applicant doesn’t consent, what happens then?

Hon. Diana Gibson: In that case, the criteria for an extension is laid out in section 10.

[4:20 p.m.]

Jody Toor: Does the government acknowledge that applicants may feel pressure to consent to delays in order to maintain collaboration within the ministries?

Hon. Diana Gibson: It’s important to note that the circumstances for an extension are quite limited where it would be permitted by the Privacy Commissioner — that they would need to seek approval from the Privacy Commissioner, and those circumstances are limited. If the consent isn’t there and those circumstances aren’t met, the extension would not be taken.

The provisions for procedural fairness and duty to assist ensure that public bodies would not be putting on that pressure. However, if an individual didn’t feel they were being treated fairly, they would have recourse to the Privacy Commissioner’s office, which sets a very high bar.

[4:25 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: In that circumstance, how are applicants advised of their rights to appeal to the commissioner? What steps are taken beyond simply providing them a letter?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, member opposite. This is an important question and one that we take very seriously.

Complaint information is shared at each stage of the process with the applicant, including their process of seeking consent and as per the FOI procedures and agreement with the Privacy Commissioner’s office.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee is going to take a short ten-minute recess and will return at 4:45 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, back to order. We are on clause 5.

[4:45 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I have a series of questions on clause 5, which allows the head of a public body to extend the time for responding to a request by a period consented to by the applicant. I just want to confirm my understanding of some aspects of the clause. Then I’ll have some questions.

This section of the act, as I understand it, sets out the circumstances in which the 30-day time period for response to a request may be extended by up to 30 days, and the amendments provide for longer extensions, with the consent of the applicant. My initial questions are: am I right? Is that correct?

Maybe it would be helpful if you could recap the reason for making this particular amendment.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you for the question.

The purpose of this is to enable public bodies to extend the time limit for responding to FOI requests when applicants consent without also requiring approval from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This is about reducing administrative burden, making it more effective for applicants by improving the service through reducing administration and burden.

The Chair: If I can remind all members of the committee that when the minister or the member is speaking, I’d really be a lot happier if everybody else was biding quiet, please. I don’t mind you speaking while everybody’s thinking — great. When the member or minister is speaking, if I could have it fairly quiet in the room, I’d appreciate it. Thank you so very much.

Interjection.

The Chair: Are you challenging the Chair?

Interjection.

[4:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Very good. Thank you so very much.

Rob Botterell: My next question is: who did the government consult with, and did the government consult with applicants using the legislation regarding this change?

If you could elaborate.

Hon. Diana Gibson: This change does not affect the applicant experience. It doesn’t change the applicant experience. What it does is the change affects the OIPC and consultation with them under this clause.

We consulted and engaged extensively with the OIPC in the process.

Rob Botterell: The step that this change creates or eliminates is the step requiring the approval of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. So the effect of that is that the applicant no longer has the knowledge or has the understanding or has the assurance that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has approved the extension.

My question to the minister is: does that not change the applicant experience? I mean, the applicant now is dealing with the public body to determine whether to consent to an extension beyond the 30-day extension without the knowledge that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been involved.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: It’s important to recognize that consent was already a part of this provision, this clause. We’re not changing that. This is about the back-end administrative procedure. It is about reducing the administrative burden and increasing efficiency.

The OIPC was engaged extensively and retains oversight if there are any concerns.

This is going to help streamline the process.

Rob Botterell: If my understanding is correct, the commissioner will not be involved in the extension request. That will now occur between the applicant and the public body to effectively reduce the administrative burden on the Information and Privacy Commissioner for reviewing these.

[5:00 p.m.]

How does this change interact with the balance of section 10? What steps will be in place for the applicant to receive information on the reason for the extension? When can a response be expected, and what sections give the applicant the ability to complain to the commissioner…?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the main chamber. We will recess. I expect everybody back in their seats at approximately, and do not take my approximately long, 5:20, please. Thank you so much.

The committee recessed from 5:01 p.m. to 5:20 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you so very much, committee, for getting back here. It’s appreciated.

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, back to order. We continue on clause 5.

Rob Botterell: My question is: how many FOI requests in 2024-25 exceeded the 30-day extension time limit in section 10(1), and what other metrics are available in relation to this category of requests in ’24-25 — i.e., response time exceeds 30-day extension time, pages, processing days?

I understand the ministry and the government keep statistics on FOI, so I’m interested to know the volume of requests that exceeded the 30-day extension time limit and any other metrics that are available.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Timelines and processing days are in the FOIPPA annual report, which is available publicly.

Rob Botterell: Can the minister refer me to the page in the annual report that actually provides the answer to my question?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The specific raw data in the FOI report can be found in the appendix, which is on pages 13 to 17.

Rob Botterell: I have an FOI request from an applicant that made a request last summer in relation to the incorporation of Okanagan Falls. They’ve given me permission to share their experience in relation to their request. I’ll give you a sense of their experience, then I’ll get to some questions about this that relate to clause 5.

Recognizing that there’s a principle, certainly, that guides freedom-of-information legislation that access delayed is accessed denied, here’s an overview of the timeline and extensions that have occurred.

On August 8, 2025, the initial request was made. A tentative response date was provided of September 19, 2025. On August 20, 2025, freedom-of-information fee payment was issued of $420. Then on September 20, 2025, that fee was paid in full by the applicant.

Then on October 16, 2025, an FOI extension request was considered and was approved and extended until December 2, 2025. Then on November 28, 2025, the FOI extension request was extended to January 16, 2026. Then on January 20, 2026, an FOI extension was granted and extended to February 13, 2026.

On February 11, 2026, an FOI extension request was extended to March 9, 2026. Then on March 9, 2026, an FOI extension request had the request approved to be extended to April 22, 2026.

[5:30 p.m.]

Then on April 20, 2026, an FOI extension request was approved, extending the request deadline to June 4, 2026. So we’re well on the way to having an August 8, 2025, request, which the act envisioned would be responded to within 30 days, and a 30-day extension being up to a year and still no response.

There are a number of concerns here. I certainly feel this level of delay seems unreasonable. What we should be seeing in this section are changes to legislation that would fix situations like this. As far as I can understand so far, subject to the minister’s questions, it would only make this situation worse.

I have a series of questions in relation to this clause and the potential for extensions to be longer than 30 days without approval of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Can the minister speak to how this change would impact a request like this and how this change would result in a request like this being dealt with more quickly?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I don’t know the details of the specific case being referenced. It would be highly inappropriate for me to comment.

What I can say is that the clause we’re discussing here at this moment pertains to the situation where an applicant has consented to the extension, and a reminder that the Privacy Commissioner’s office has oversight of all aspects of the act, including extensions.

Rob Botterell: This is not a hypothetical. I have the consent of the applicant to share any information the minister would like.

The fact is that we have an act that was intended to see requests responded to in 30 days, without delay. Part of the reason for the “without delay” is that if there is some information that was available before the whole filing cabinet was available, you would have that information provided.

Here we have an applicant, and this does relate to this section, that makes a request on August 8, 2025, pays $420 in fees, and here we are in May of the next year, and there’s still no response.

When we look at this amendment, which deals with extensions, and realizing that this amendment has not passed yet, whether it will pass or not…. We’re dealing with the old regime, where it’s the approval of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to extension…. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has repeatedly approved extensions and, in doing so…. There should be information about when a request can be responded to, the reason, and so on.

Here we have an example of a problem request, certainly from a freedom-of-information point of view, that this clause, as far as I can determine, will have no impact on addressing the delays that this applicant has….

What does that mean? That means that we’re addressing the administrative burden on the Information and Privacy Commissioner so that the applicant can deal directly with the public body and, in so doing, relieve some administrative burden on the information privacy. I don’t see how that in any way addresses the delays that we see here. It just facilitates them by eliminating administrative burden on the commissioner.

When this amendment was drafted, there’s no outer limit for any request. This could be on the never-never plan for years. I can’t imagine most applicants would freely consent to the government taking longer to share information than they have requested.

[5:40 p.m.]

Can the minister speak to how this amendment will ensure that an applicant is not coerced into accepting a delayed timeline, and is there any accountability in this act, as amended, to prevent other applicants experiencing this delay, which is almost a year?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member opposite.

Just a reminder. This is about the situation where an applicant has consented already to the timelines, to the extension.

Just to correct something that you said, the applicant does not deal directly with the OIPC presently. The applicant deals with the public body. After consent has been given for an extension, the public body would then need to seek approval of the OIPC for that extension, which has already been agreed to by the individual.

That’s the step we’re looking to remove, not just to reduce administrative work for the OIPC but also the public bodies in terms of that extra process so that we can streamline the process to better deliver for individuals.

There are guardrails in that it is subject to the oversight of the OIPC. The duty to assist applies. The high bar that the OIPC holds public bodies to would continue to apply. They oversee every clause of this act and have the right to investigate. That ensures that people who are not feeling it’s fair have recourse and that the public bodies are being held to a high standard.

We’ve talked elsewhere today about the work we’ve been doing to improve FOI timeliness through things like new innovative technology, innovations in proactive disclosure, additional staff. That’s a separate conversation. What we’re discussing today is one step of administrative process that we wanted to remove.

Rob Botterell: You just mentioned, Minister: “better deliver access.” What this amendment would do is eliminate the requirement of the public body to seek and obtain the approval of the commissioner’s office for extensions.

I thought you’d have it at your fingertips. I haven’t looked at the annual report, but I do know from an appeal order, district of Summerland, Celia Francis, adjudicator, February 29, 2024, order F24-15…. I do know from reading this particular order that when dealing with the matter, the applicant to the commissioner’s office provided detailed information on the hours that were involved and the dollars that would be expended in dealing with a particular request. The district of Summerland was able to provide fairly detailed information, not high-level boilerplate statistics.

[5:50 p.m.]

The question I have is: with this proposed change, what is the forecast reduction in administrative burden that is so enticing to make this change? The reduction in administrative burden on both the commissioner’s office and public bodies — what is your forecast in terms of dollars saved, hours saved, FTE savings?

I’m sure you wouldn’t, with respect, Minister, propose a change where you didn’t have a forecast outcome for the change to justify all the work that is being done, so I’m curious.

To summarize: what is the forecast savings in administrative burden on the commissioner’s office and on the public bodies subject to the act of this proposed change?

The Chair: Member, I’m just going to remind you to try and not use “you.” If you could say “the minister” or…. Thank you. I appreciate that. That just makes it going through the Chair. Thanks so much.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to correct something that the member opposite has stated — that no longer would there be a need to seek approval from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for extensions. That is not the case. This, we’re discussing, of not needing to go and seek that approval, is only in the case where an individual applicant has already agreed to that extension.

The procedures for approval and extension circumstances would otherwise be the same as they are today. People do consent often. Applicants often consent, but they don’t have to, as is clear in the discussion we’ve had already.

This is about deploying resources as efficiently as possible.

Rob Botterell: Through the Chair to the minister, my question was: what are the forecast savings? Most of these sections that we’ve been looking at look, to me, more like an administrative burden reduction cost-savings exercise as opposed to improving access to information for applicants, which I have a fundamental issue with.

Leaving that aside, back to my original question. What are the forecast savings from making this change?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Committee members, division has been called in the chamber. We will recess from here.

I’m hoping everybody can be back by 6:20. Thank you so much. We will see you shortly.

The committee recessed from 5:58 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.

[Susie Chant 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. We are on clause 5.

Rob Botterell: I believe we are awaiting a response to a question, from the minister.

Hon. Diana Gibson: We are doing the work to ensure that resources are being used as efficiently as possible and determined that this step would be something that would help with being able to deploy resources more effectively.

Rob Botterell: I’ll just note for the record that public bodies and businesses and entities that are either, in the case of the business sector, using shareholders’ money to do work or, in the case of government, using taxpayers’ money to do work would normally — in the case of changes to legislation, changes to policy, changes to program — be expected, at Treasury Board, to explain the benefits that would come from a particular change to legislation in much more concrete terms.

In this environment of a $13 billion deficit, respectfully, I would’ve expected more detail, and, if there wasn’t more detail forthcoming, that there would be a clear explanation of a plan to have that greater detail in effect, because we are effectively changing the system on the basis of cost savings and on the basis of reduced administrative burden on the commissioner’s office without any concrete information about what we’re actually hoping to achieve. In the world that I’ve been in for many years, one would expect much more detail. That is only part of the issue with this clause.

[6:20 p.m.]

In this specific case, the information that the applicant is seeking is time-sensitive for their community decision-making in relation to the incorporation of Okanagan Falls. So with this proposed clause, how does the minister propose to ensure that applicants that are seeking current information are served rather than receiving the information after multiple extensions?

That is perhaps of historical interest, rather than the purpose for which this act was created — to enable the applicant to have the information the applicant deems necessary to hold a public body to account or to otherwise participate in issues.

This goes to a specific question related to this clause, which is: how does this clause and the amendment help to ensure that applicants receive information in a timely manner? Further, what controls or guidance or protections are there when the applicant and the public body are discussing an extension? What resources does the applicant have available to them when they make the decision either to accept an extension or decide to appeal it to the commissioner?

My final part is a three-part question. What accountability does the commissioner have to make a timely decision if there is an appeal made to the commissioner on an extension request?

Those are my questions.

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In terms of the questions the member opposite has asked, the issues around OIPC oversight and guardrails have been asked and answered.

The questions pertaining to this clause have been asked and answered, and the balance are dealt with elsewhere in the act.

The Chair: Shall clause 5 pass?

Division has been called.

[6:30 p.m.]

The Chair: If the committee is agreeable, we will waive the time. Is there agreement that we can waive the time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Thank you so much. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote, and your Whips have taken care of that.

The question is: shall clause 5 pass?

Clause 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Parmar	Sandhu
Sharma		Gibson
NAYS — 5
Banman	Dew	Botterell
McInnis		Maahs

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of clause 5 to keep the bill intact in its original form and as adopted at second reading. Clause 5 has passed.

If I could have quiet in the committee room, please. We are proceeding.

On clause 6.

Jody Toor: Clause 6 proposes changes. Clause 6 removes lack of detail as a formal reason for extending response timelines under section 10.

When reading clauses 2, 4 and 6 together, my concern is that the structure of the FOI process appears to be shifting away from assisting applicants in clarifying requests and towards stronger procedural gatekeeping over whether requests proceed at all.

Under the previous framework, if a request lacked detail, ministries could work with applicants through clarification and extensions. However, with the increased attention on whether requests meet the requirements and the expanded choice given to the ministries regarding sufficient detail, I believe it is important for this committee to understand whether these amendments are creating additional procedural barriers for ordinary citizens seeking access to information.

[6:35 p.m.]

I have some concerns that I can mention, and then I’ll ask some questions. Interact with clause 2 to create stronger upfront procedural barriers…. Requests may now face rejection or procedural challenge rather than extension and assistance. This could also reduce incentives for ministries to work collectively with applicants and shift focus towards the procedural instead of facilitating access.

One of my questions: why was lack of detail removed as a reason for extending timelines?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to clarify that this is about a redundancy now, because it’s already addressed in an earlier clause that clarifies that public bodies can pause the time limit for responding while seeking clarifying information from the applicants. There’s no need to retain the public body’s ability to extend the timeline for the same reason.

Rather than the concern the member opposite has around increased procedural barriers, this in fact actually prevents that. Leaving it herein would have enabled additional delay, which we didn’t want.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

Rob Botterell: Clause 7 is a new section of the act that creates a new discretionary “may,” class-based exemption from disclosure regarding judicial comments on legislation and policy. This is a new exemption. Imagine that. A new exemption.

My question is: what other jurisdictions in Canada have this exemption?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Already, under section 3 of FOIPPA, almost all judicial records are excluded. There is some potential ambiguity, which this clause is about clarifying. The purpose is to ensure the independence of the courts, which is a cornerstone of our democracy, and allowing public bodies to have full and frank discussions with the judiciary.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned. Thank you very much for your efforts this afternoon.

The committee rose at 6:45 p.m.