Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Amna Shah: It is my honour to introduce the former MLA for Surrey-Whalley Bruce Ralston, who is here with us in the chamber.

Bruce is a respected leader whose dedication to public service and our provincial community has made a lasting impact across British Columbia. With 20 years of service as an MLA and also, I think, five years of service on Surrey city council, Bruce is known for his integrity, his community-building and his desire to create meaningful, positive change across this province. He has earned the admiration of all of his colleagues and all those who’ve worked with him.

I have a special place in my heart for Bruce. He is my mentor. He is a guide who helps me be the most effective advocate I can be for my community. It’s such a pleasure to see him here today.

Will the House join me in making Bruce Ralston feel very welcome today.

Brennan Day: It’s my privilege today to introduce Trevor and Karen Stevenson and their son, Dash, from the Comox Valley. They are extremely active in the agricultural community with Comox Valley Farmers Institute.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I have three special guests to introduce and welcome today.

Kevin Harding is the director of innovation and safety policy within the Ministry for Housing, working to advance affordable housing and keep B.C.’s technical safety system strong.

He’s joined by his wife, Ekaterina Kan, who is a deputy district registrar with the Supreme Court of B.C. and who recently became a Canadian citizen; and her mother, Yulia Kim, who’s visiting Canada for the first time and enjoying the beauty of our province.

Please join me in welcoming them to the House today and on congratulating Ekaterina on her Canadian citizenship.

Harman Bhangu: I know you’ve heard me speak a lot about my dad, but today my mom is in the House, Jasvinder Bhangu. She’s the reason why I’m here — all her sacrifices and everything.

Mom, I thank you very much.

Also joining her is my wife, Courtney; my son, Bal Bhangu; and my daughter, Audriana. Me and my daughter, Audriana, had a great time at the equestrian facility in my riding before we came over here yesterday. She loves horses.

Would the House really make them feel welcome.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d like to extend a warm welcome to representatives that I think are in the Speaker’s gallery, from Innergex Renewable Energy and representatives from the Stellat’en, Nadleh Whut’en, West Moberly and Westbank First Nations.

They’re here to discuss successful wind power projects — all majority, 51 percent, First Nations–owned — selected from B.C. Hydro’s 2024 and 2025 calls for power. There is a significant list, which I will share with Hansard and people who are here. But we’re very honoured to have them here, and I look forward to meeting with them, as do other members of the House, throughout the day.

Jody Toor: I don’t often get visitors, especially family or loved ones, but today is a very special day. My parents are visiting, and they’re here watching question period for the first time.

I just want to take a moment to express my gratitude for everything that you guys have done for me, being my parents — your love, your support and your guidance. Especially when I felt that I doubted myself, you guys were always there to support me. For that, I am forever in gratitude and indebted to you guys. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. There aren’t enough words to describe the love I have for both of you.

Thank you for being amazing parents. I love you both.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I had a fantastic meeting today, and I am pleased to introduce to the House representatives from the Canadian Propane Association, an organization playing a vital role in advancing cleaner, reliable and affordable energy across our country.

Their work supports communities, industries and innovation in sustainable fuel alternatives. Their efforts highlight the importance of collaboration between government and industry to achieve both environmental and economic progress.

Something that the House might not know is that if you switch from diesel to propane, you save 40 percent on GHG emissions, which is really incredible.

Steve Kooner: I rise today to recognize two devoted parents, dentists Dr. Stalinjeet Gill and Dr. Navpreet Gill, and their incredible team standing with them in support of their son Gurmoh Gill. Gurmoh is here, along with their other child, as well.

They have walked all the way from Vancouver to the Legislature, step by step, to raise awareness and support for their son Gurmoh, who is battling a rare and fast-progressing neurodegenerative disease referred to as spastic paraplegia type 4, often referred to as SPG4.

May the House please welcome them.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: In the Legislature today is my favourite person, my best friend and my husband, Brian Wickens. I’ve talked about him many times. He needs no introduction. People tell me all of the time how amazing he is and how lucky I am to have him, and I believe them.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Brian Wickens to the House.

Larry Neufeld: My colleague from across the way beat me to it, but I would like to reiterate a welcome for the Canadian Propane Association — Chris Crawford, Courtney Seir-Todd, Clint Hillman, Kellen Foreman, Katie Kachur and Nancy Borden.

As we all know, propane is one of the cleanest-burning fuels available. And with world events, certainly, there is a massive uptick in demand for the product. I believe that British Columbia should be proud to be able to provide that very valuable fuel to the world.

Please help me make them feel welcome.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Joining us in the gallery today are 45 students, grades 9 to 12, from Reynolds Secondary, which is a school in my community well known far and wide for excellence in its robotics club, band, sports and also as the former high school of Premier John Horgan.

I hope that all my colleagues can make our guests feel very welcome today.

Elenore Sturko: I want to join with the member for Richmond-Queensborough in welcoming Stalinjeet and Navpreet Gill and their son Gurmoh and his little sister, who is five years old, to this Legislature.

As my colleague mentioned, they walked from Canada Place in Vancouver all the way here this morning to the B.C. Legislature. I had the opportunity to join them on the last leg of that journey from the Gurdwara Singh Sabha Sahib. It was a really meaningful walk. Not only are they raising funds for their son who needs treatment of his rare genetic disorder, but also they have identified other gaps for families who are experiencing the same thing dealing with rare diseases.

I thank them so much for their advocacy. I thank them for their strength, for the courage they’re showing. I encourage all British Columbians to help out if they can.

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

Sunita Dhir: Today in the gallery, I have some special guests. Without them, I would not be here, literally. I have my parents. My dad, Dr. Prem Jethi, is a retired agriculture officer, and my mom, Mrs. Surjit Kaur Jethi, is a retired principal of a high school. The values that are needed for this job — kindness, service, hard work — are taught by my parents.

Along with them is my little sister, Monika Dhir, and my brother-in-law Sundeep Dhir. Monika and Sundeep have been through thick and thin with me, and they have supported every decision, right or wrong, that I have taken in my life. I’m very happy to see them here today.

I welcome the House to make them feel very welcome.

Misty Van Popta: In the chamber today is MP Tako Van Popta, Member of Parliament for Langley Township–Fraser Heights. Yes, we are extended family, but he’s clearly the more popular politician, as I often get asked: “Are you related to Tako?” Somehow I don’t think he often gets asked: “Are you related to Misty?”

He has been the federal shadow critic for Pacific Economic Development, often engaging in businesses up and down the B.C. coast. As a lawyer by trade, he has recently been assigned as chair of the Conservative task force on property rights. A fantastic grandpa to my daughters, a great representative to Langley.

Will the House please make him feel welcome.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: A couple of weeks ago I was at the Luxton Spring Fair, and I had a young 11-year-old by the name of Jack Clifford walk up to me and say: “I know who you are, and I’m interested in politics.” It’s almost a bit of a déjà vu because that’s kind of how my start in politics started.

In the gallery, just from meeting him a week ago, is grade 11 student…. Sorry. He’s 11 years old, so he’s probably grade 5 or 6 at Centre Mountain Lellum Middle School, with his dad, Carl.

[1:45 p.m.]

We just hung out over the lunch-hour. We got a chance to check out the chambers, to go into your office, Mr. Speaker — a very clean office, I might add; well done — as well as check out some other parts of the building. It melts my heart when young people express an interest in politics, especially at the age of 11.

Will the House please join me in making Jack and his dad, Carl, feel very welcome today.

Lynne Block: I am delighted to introduce Ella Van Enter, my newest CA, who is beginning in June.

How much does she love the Legislature? Well, there was a newscast being filmed right in front of the Legislature, in front of the fountain. All of a sudden, the camera got diverted because Ella’s fiancé was down on bended knee, asking for her hand in marriage. And she said yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I would like the House to make welcome Lorin Palat and Jenna Lamb.

Please stand.

Laura and Jenna are here today to watch me present a petition about dog and cat breeding here in British Columbia. They are very keen grade 12 political science aficionados.

I think we all want to encourage that level of interest and engagement, so please join me in welcoming them.

Larry Neufeld: For my second introduction, I do recognize that my colleague the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions already introduced this group. However, the Innergex Renewable Energy group that is attending today has a dignitary with them that is from the beautiful riding of Peace River South.

I would like the House to help me make him feel welcome — Chief Roland Willson from the West Moberly First Nations.

Mable Elmore: In the gallery today, we have students from the Reynolds Secondary School flexible studies program visiting the Parliament Buildings as part of an educational project facilitated by the legislative internship program: legislative interns Bethany Shymko, Priya Minhas, Jenna Inch and Keira Emes; together with the flexible studies teacher Brad Cunningham, who has been supporting students in a model parliament and learning more about democracy in British Columbia.

Can you please join me in making the students and their teacher feel very welcome.

Sheldon Clare: Visiting us today from the wonderful borough of Quesnel in Prince George–North Cariboo is my constituency assistant Adam Schaan, who’s joining us in the gallery here today. Adam provides invaluable assistance, making me look absolutely fantastic, and occasionally listening to my lyrics and pre-screening them before I sing them in the House.

Would you all please join in making Adam feel very welcome.

Stephanie Higginson: We must be near the end of session with all these family members in the House.

I am so pleased to have two people visiting who are not my constituents but they’re my people. My parents are here — my stepdad, Len, and my mom, Susan. Look, he’s trying to get my mom to stand up; she won’t. That’s Len, beside him is Susan, and they are the best parents and also the best campaign volunteers anyone can ask for.

Thank you for coming. Thank you for everything you do so that I can be down here.

Kristina Loewen: Well, I’m really glad that my daughter is here because with all these family members, if she wasn’t, I think I’d be feeling a little bit lonely.

So would the House please help me to welcome my daughter Brielle Loewen. Brielle is an incredible girl. She’s beautiful, she’s funny as heck, she’s smart, and she keeps me going. She’s my biggest cheerleader and encourager, and she’s actually an inspiration to me.

For those of you who followed our story a little bit, she has been through a lot of struggles. But she is doing so well, and I couldn’t be more proud of her.

Please join me in welcoming her.

Ian Paton: Being the last week here of our spring session, I’m really pleased to have my beautiful wife, Pam, join me for a couple of days.

With her are our good friends from Tsawwassen, Roy and Monica Toigo.

Please make them feel welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I’m mindful that all these introductions are chewing into my estimates time this afternoon. The Finance Minister looks very happy.

I wasn’t sure whether it would be three or four days earlier or one day late with this, but it was my oldest granddaughter Zoey’s fourth birthday yesterday.

Will the House please help me wish her a happy birthday.

Members’ Statements

Girmitiya Remembrance Day

Garry Begg: On the 14th day of May, I was honoured to join members of the Fiji Canada Association in their hall in Surrey celebrating together Girmit Day. The government of British Columbia officially proclaimed May 14 as Girmitiyas Remembrance Day to honour the historical contributions and resilience of indentured Indian labourers, the Girmitiyas, particularly those who migrated to Fiji.

Girmit refers to contracts under which tens of thousands of Indians were transported by the British Empire between 1834 and 1920 to work on sugar plantations in Fiji. May 14 marks the 1879 arrival of the Leonidas, the first ship carrying indentured labourers.

We gathered to honour the history, courage and legacy of the Girmitiyas — the men, women and children who left their homeland under the indenture system and journeyed across oceans in search of a better future. The word “girmit” comes from the mispronunciation of the English word “agreement.” But for those who signed those agreements, the journey was far more than a contract. It was a story of sacrifice, hope, resilience.

Beginning in the late 19th century, thousands of Indians were taken to countries such as Fiji, Guyana, Trinidad, Mauritius and South Africa to work on plantations. They endured separation from their families, difficult working conditions and uncertainty about their future. Yet despite these challenges, they preserved their culture, language, faith, music and traditions.

Girmit is not only a remembrance of suffering. It’s also a celebration of endurance and achievement. It reminds us all of the importance of unity, dignity, equality and human rights. It teaches, I hope, future generations to value freedom, opportunity and cultural heritage.

May we always remember their journey, honour their legacy and inspire future generations to build a world rooted in justice, understanding and peace.

Chilliwack Hospice Society

Á’a:líya Warbus: Since 1986, Chilliwack Hospice has walked with people through their most difficult moments. While no one can truly be prepared for the phases of life we must all face, Chilliwack Hospice provides services to those dying, their loved ones and the resulting grief, walking with families step by step so no one has to navigate this process alone.

Some of the most essential parts of health care aren’t delivered in a hospital wing. They’re delivered in available side rooms, someone’s home and school hallways by charities that stretch every dollar to meet a need that keeps on growing.

The philosophy at Chilliwack Hospice is simple yet profound: holistic, compassionate care that treats each person with distinct dignity so they can live fully to their last moments and loved ones can support their family members without the added stress. These volunteers sit bedside in hospice, visit people in their home and offer caregiver circles, vigils and relaxation treatments that help people breathe again when the world feels as though it is falling in on itself.

My own family has felt the care in our time of need when grief has become all too familiar yet all-consuming. Chilliwack Hospice Society offered the kind of counselling and community that carried us when we could not see our way forward. The grief groups and counsellors were willing to work with us where we were at. They were willing to partner and adapt to traditional customs to create space that invites people in, reducing barriers so we could learn from each other every single step of the way.

[1:55 p.m.]

To the staff and the volunteers and the donors, all of the partners of Chilliwack Hospice Society: thank you. You create a culture of care to provide a critical service that, unfortunately, at one time or another, we all need — one conversation, one vigil, one walk at Sardis Park at a time.

On behalf of the people of Chilliwack–Cultus Lake, please accept our gratitude and please know that your quiet, steady work is changing lives.

Artificial Intelligence
Infrastructure and Investment

Rohini Arora: There has been a growing discussion about AI data centres being developed here in British Columbia, including projects connected through the federal government partnerships with private companies as part of building Canada’s sovereign AI infrastructure. The federal government is positioning this as an important economic opportunity for the future. There is no question that AI and digital infrastructure will be part of Canada’s long-term competitiveness, but we also need to be clear about what that means for British Columbians.

These facilities require significant electricity, major infrastructure investment and substantial water and land use. That raises real questions about energy capacity, affordability, environmental impact and the pressures placed on local communities here in B.C.

There is also an important national interest at stake. Building sovereign AI capacity here in Canada helps ensure that Canadian data research and critical digital infrastructure are not left vulnerable to the laws or political decisions of foreign governments, including countries like France. We’ve seen them move aggressively to protect their own digital sovereignty, and Canada should be thinking carefully about this as well. That’s why the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that these projects deliver real benefits back to the communities that host them.

If we are going to build and host this level of industrial-scale digital infrastructure in B.C., then a portion of the value created should be reinvested locally. That could mean supporting renewable energy expansion here in B.C., investing in infrastructure that growing communities depend on and advancing Indigenous rights and reconciliation through meaningful partnerships, economic participation and long-term community benefits.

We can stay open for business and continue attracting investment into Canada’s digital future, but we cannot do it at the expense of working people, Indigenous communities or the environment. The federal government has a chance to lead in a way that is responsible, balanced and fair, and British Columbians will expect nothing less.

Abbotsford Blueberry Farms

Bruce Banman: Today I rise to talk about one of Abbotsford South’s finest exports, one of British Columbia’s great agricultural treasures and one of the most versatile foods you can find. I’m talking, of course, about blueberries.

Now, blueberries may seem small, but they’re mighty. You can put them in pancakes, muffins, smoothies, pies, jams, salads, sauces, yogurts, oatmeal, ice cream or simply eat them by the handful while pretending you’re only going to have one.

Abbotsford blueberries are not just a snack; they are what and part of who we are. Our community is known as the Berry Capital of Canada, and that title was built on generations of hard-working families. These growers are up early, working long days and managing weather, labour challenges, rising costs and marketing pressures — all to produce a crop that is enjoyed here at home and around the world.

British Columbia is known for its highbush blueberries, and depending on the season, you may find varieties such as Duke, Bluecrop, Draper, Liberty, Elliott, Aurora and Calypso. Each has its own flavour, timing and purpose, from sweet fresh eating to baking, freezing and processing.

They are also good for you. Blueberries are high in fibre, rich in antioxidants and linked to benefits for heart health, brain health and overall wellness. In other words, this may be one of the rare times where you can taste something that tastes fantastic and is actually good for you.

In Abbotsford South, blueberry farms support local jobs, suppliers, processors, markets, tourism and roadside stands. They also bring people together through events like Berry Fest, where our community celebrates the farmers, families and flavours that make Abbotsford so special.

All the good news is that the blueberry season is just around the corner. Fresh B.C. blueberries are usually at their best in the summertime months, especially in July and August. This year farmers are expecting a bunker crop, so I encourage everyone to come on out to Abbotsford. Bring the family to a U-pick, stop at a roadside stand, fill a bucket, fill your freezer and support our local farmers right here at the source.

Small berry, big impact, very Abbotsford.

[2:00 p.m.]

Airport Workers Day

George Anderson: I rise today to recognize Airport Workers Day and the more than 224,000 dedicated professionals who form the backbone of Canada’s aviation sector.

Here in British Columbia, our airports are economic engines and strategic gateways connecting our communities, our businesses and province to the world.

From Vancouver International Airport on Sea Island to Nanaimo, Kelowna, Prince George and airports across this province, tens of thousands of skilled professionals show up every single day to keep British Columbia moving. At YVR alone, 28,000 people come to work each day, supporting 115,000 jobs across the province and contributing $13.5 billion to B.C.’s GDP annually.

In my own region, Nanaimo Airport, YCD, has an economic impact of $31 million and, together with its partners, employs more than 200 people.

These are not small numbers. They reflect the extraordinary economic impact that airport workers carry every day on behalf of every British Columbian. Airport workers represent a diverse workforce across the aviation system, from engineers and technicians to ground crews, cargo handlers, emergency responders, security staff, customer service teams and logistics specialists. They support every stage of airport and air travel operations.

They are also helping drive the digital innovation, sustainability work and operational excellence that keep Canadian aviation safe, reliable and world-class. As B.C. navigates shifting global trade realities, airport workers are on the front lines, ensuring British Columbia is competitive, connected, resilient and ready for the future.

Today I ask this House to join me in recognizing airport workers across British Columbia and Canada and in thanking them for their professionalism, dedication and the pride they bring to their work every single day. Our province is stronger because of you.

Rolling Barrage Ride
and Events to Support
Mental Health of First Responders

Misty Van Popta: The topic that I am going to speak about today is something of national interest but with a local flair.

In 2016, Scott Casey, a retired infantryman with the Royal Canadian Regiment, envisioned an event he called The Rolling Barrage: Coast to Coast Ride to Combat PTSD, a charitable motorcycle ride. This event was designed to bring together veterans and first responders from across Canada to raise awareness around trauma and mental health for those who serve and have served.

This is a 10,000-kilometre ride, starting with a tire dip in the Atlantic Ocean and leaving Newfoundland on July 31; 135 riders will travel across Canada and finish the ride in my hometown, the township of Langley, on August 22.

Langley has embraced this event, and on its tenth anniversary year, it is stepping up to host three different fundraisers. The Langley RCMP and both the Langley city and township firefighters are also engaged in this fantastic event. With the help of our local champion, RCMP constable Dennis Bell, it is sure to be another great year of community supporting first responders.

We all understand the impacts and reality of PTSD that first responders and military men and women experience. Their careers put the lives and safety of everyday British Columbians ahead of their own lives and safety. Events like this are important to keep highlighting an often invisible condition.

This year B.C. stops will be made in Cranbrook and Princeton, and it ends in Aldergrove. If you are in those communities on August 20, 21 and 22, please cheer on these brave riders. If you can’t attend, consider attending a local fundraiser at one of Langley’s best establishments, the Barley Merchant, on May 27, or at our local legion on May 30 and July 4.

We all know and love a police officer, a military personnel member, a search and rescue member, a paramedic or a firefighter. Supports to their mental health is of the utmost importance.

To all the riders in this year’s event: we wish you fun, safety and camaraderie. Godspeed.

Point of Order
(Speaker’s Ruling)

The Speaker: Hon. Members, on Tuesday, May 19, the member for Skeena raised a point of order regarding comments made by the Premier during oral question period earlier that day. The Government House Leader made a submission on the point of order at the end of the sitting day on Thursday, May 21. The Chair took the matter under advisement, has had an opportunity to review the Hansard transcript and now is prepared to rule on the point of order.

[2:05 p.m.]

The member for Skeena submitted that the Premier misled the House through his comments. As the Chair noted in a ruling delivered on April 20, such an allegation is extremely serious, and the Chair must examine any evidence that proves that the statement was misleading, that establishes that the member — in this case, the Premier — making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect and that establishes that the member intended to mislead the House in making the statement.

Based on the submissions made to the Chair, that high threshold of evidence has not been met in the matter at hand. At the heart of the matter is a dispute on the characterization and interpretation of words spoken by the Premier, which are not, by their nature, unparliamentary. The member for Skeena felt that those words were a mischaracterization and took the opportunity to correct the record through her point of order.

The submissions of the member for Skeena and the Government House Leader point to what appears to be a matter of debate, which is not for the Chair to wade into. The Chair has no further remedy to offer and therefore deems the matter closed.

As the House enters its final sitting week this spring, the Chair implores all members to be mindful of the language they use in this House and to be respectful toward one another in the course of debate.

Oral Questions

Early Childhood Educators in Sooke

Reann Gasper: School district 62 is proposing to cut early childhood educators across the district.

The president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees: “When you remove even one line of connection between a student and a trusted adult in their school, you make it harder for every other student to find safe places and supportive spaces to learn.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. Why are children losing vital classroom supports while this government continues to claim education is a priority?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to thank the member for the question. We’ve been very clear on this side of the House that protecting education, public education, is a top priority for us. That’s reflected in the budget that we have before us this year.

In light of incredibly difficult financial circumstances, we made the decision as a government to continue to invest and increase investments in public education. This is significant.

The member well knows that local boards make local decisions, so these are conversations to have with the local board. But we at the province are going to continue, year after year, to invest in public education, as we have done over the last nine years, because we value it.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Reann Gasper: Eleven kindergarten classes will suffer the loss of these vital supports.

The Minister of Forests was a school trustee and a chair of this school district. Will the minister stand up for his young constituents and guarantee that these educators won’t be cut?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I know that the Minister of Forests, as well as every member on this side of the House, values public education. That’s the reason why one of the very first things we did when we became government was put $1 billion into the system. That additional $1 billion, plus increases in the education budget, year over year, every year that we have been in government, shows how much we value public education.

We know that budgets are a difficult time for everyone — for here in the province, for local school boards. These are decisions that are made at the local level, and the member’s community should be talking to their local school board.

We on our side will continue to invest, like we did this year.

[2:10 p.m.]

Education Assistant Funding
in K-to-3 Classrooms

Á’a:líya Warbus: Education is a vital part, and we value education on this side of the House just as much as every other parent in British Columbia.

It has been two years since this government promised an educational assistant in every kindergarten-through-grade-3 classroom. Since then, we’ve seen school districts like Surrey be forced to let education assistants go, instead of hiring them.

My question is very simple. Why is the Minister of Education allowing kids to age out, and when will she deliver on this government’s promise to have an educational assistant in every single British Columbian classroom?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to thank the member for the question, because we know how important the work is that our EAs do in classrooms every single day, which is why we increase public funding for education, year over year, so that districts have the tools they need.

We know that this is a difficult budget year all around, for everyone. In light of that, our government chose to invest in public education, and we increased our budget, which went directly to districts. Districts are making decisions at the local level, and I know the member knows that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Lisa Beare: Those conversations should happen at the local level. We, on our side, continue to invest and continue to support the work that’s happening within the ministry and our K-to-12 workforce to increase EAs in classrooms.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Á’a:líya Warbus: This is a government that has consistently overpromised and underdelivered, and this time they’re doing it on the backs of our kids.

Let’s take a look at what the B.C. federation of teachers has got to say about this budget. They called it a maintenance budget for public education. They say that the figures that the minister is doing victory laps on right now actually reflect student enrolment estimates and the rising number of students with complex needs.

We have some of the fastest-growing school districts in British Columbia right now, and this budget is not going to cut it. Instead of funding supports for students in need, this minister has signed off on 26 percent raises for superintendents, with car allowances.

Tammy Murphy, president of CUPE 728, said: “We’re still behind the ball. I don’t even see how they can catch up.”

My question is very simple. Will the minister just admit that the NDP never intended to follow through on their campaign promise to have K-to-3 classrooms in British Columbia have an education assistant in every single one of them? If you are going to fulfil that promise, can I have the date today?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I want to thank the member for the question. It gives me a chance to let the member know that we have over 80 percent of our K-to-3 classrooms that have an EA in them now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. Lisa Beare: We are continuing to work with our K-to-12 workforce table to increase the amount of EAs and to fulfil those commitments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Lisa Beare: We did significant work over this past year. As well, the member may know, in the teachers collective agreement, additional supports were provided for things like learning assistance resource teachers, increased supports in counselling. These sorts of things are being invested in by our government.

Local decisions, including executive compensation, are made at the local level, and the member should be having the conversation with their school board about that. Our priority is going to be to continue to invest in education, which we’ve been doing year over year.

Disability Assistance Rates

Jeremy Valeriote: Here’s a sampling of pleas we’re hearing from British Columbians with disabilities, for the record. “In B.C., being disabled and unable to work is punishable by neglect and deep poverty which can lead to death.” And: “We are beyond desperate.”

Disability assistance rates in British Columbia are still $1,000 per month below the poverty line. Under CARGA, the 2025 cooperation agreement, this government committed to review these rates and make recommendations for future increases. One year into that agreement, that review hadn’t even begun.

[2:15 p.m.]

If it’s okay with the minister, please, can we skip the part about how it’s our fault because we walked away from CARGA? Making progress on basic dignity for persons with disabilities should never have hinged on having two Green members constantly asking when. It’s reasonable to expect that work to have continued.

Is this government unable or unwilling to raise rates without constant pressure from two members of this Third Party?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you very much to the member for giving the opportunity to talk about the work that we have been able to do.

Guided by our poverty reduction strategy, throughout the course of that work, income assistance rates have gone up 74 percent in British Columbia. We’ve also increased earning exemptions three times and invested considerably into designing the kind of employment programs that meet people where they are so that they can lift income in addition to assistance rates so that they can also be supported to do work that’s meaningful in their communities.

We know that both of these supports and both of these investments are important. I am grateful to the work of the Third Party for accelerating our implementation of changing the spousal rule, something that the disability community had long called for. That also included raising earning exemptions so that people can keep more of their earned income in addition to having the supports of income and disability assistance.

That work is vitally important. It’s work that we’re committed to do and will continue to do.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: We’re used to hearing what used to happen under the bad old days, nine to 25 years ago, but the rates haven’t been raised across the board in five years, despite rampant inflation.

Adequately supporting persons with disabilities isn’t an act of charity; it’s a necessity. This is who we are. When we lift up those who need it most, everyone benefits, and British Columbia is stronger — less pressure on our health care system, greater community connection, larger workforce, less spent on policing.

British Columbians are struggling to pay for life’s basic necessities. People are skipping meals to pay their rent, choosing between filling prescriptions and filling the fridge.

I didn’t hear an answer from the minister, so I’ll ask again. When will the review of social assistance and disability rates committed to in 2025 be made public, and when will she raise the rates?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The consultation that we did with people across British Columbia — over 10,000 inputs that we got over the two years that we gathered advice from people about how they wanted to build supports for people with disabilities and people who need income assistance, people experiencing poverty — is what set the course.

With respect to the Green Party, we take our instructions from people with lived experience. And 75 percent of the people that participated in that public consultation were people with lived experience of poverty. That is being implemented across government. That’s why we protected low-cost child care. That’s why we’ve made prescription birth control free. That’s why we’ve had zero-interest student loans. That’s why we’ve protected the B.C. family benefit.

Across every ministry, you’ll see investments in people that are tackling the terribly increased cost of living because of global inflation and chaos south of the border. That’s work that we’ll continue to do in every corner of our government on this side of the House.

Funding for Neurodegenerative
Disease Treatment

Steve Kooner: This government talks about doing the work, but British Columbians are being left behind in services, effective services, in this province.

I’m just going to show one example right now. Gurmoh, a three-year-old, is suffering from a rare and fast-progressing neurodegenerative disease called spastic paraplegia type 4, SPG4. The family was told by the Health Minister’s own chief of staff that the ministry had reviewed all available funding streams and that there was “nothing available” to help their child get access to life-saving treatment.

Gurmoh’s condition is worsening by the day and could leave him paralyzed and in unimaginable pain, yet his parents are being forced to fight both the disease and the system. This is a complete shame because the parents up there are practising dentists. They have been servicing our health system in this province. But now they’re being left behind.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

[2:20 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Why is this NDP government telling desperate parents that there is nothing available instead of exhausting every possible option to save this little boy’s future?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I want to welcome the Gill family to the gallery today, and I’m looking forward to having my own personal opportunity to meet with them later this afternoon.

I think we’ve all been very deeply moved by the journey that the Gill family is undertaking to do something that we know that every parent in British Columbia who has a child suffering from a rare disease or an ultra-rare disease, as is in this case…. It is going to take every effort they possibly can, and we want to be there to support them in every way that we can too.

That’s why I directed my staff, upon learning about this, to meet with the researcher at McGill University. They have done that to understand the type of infrastructure that is required, the type of research and processes that are required to bring in specific gene editing therapies. We are making remarkable advances in medicine and in research every single day. They provide the promise of hope, but we have to go through the steps in developing this, and that’s why the ministry has undertaken that.

Further, the officials at the ministry have met with officials in the province of Quebec to understand what kind of interprovincial partnerships are possible in standing up the infrastructure for this very, very specific type of gene editing therapy that is needed.

Of course, everybody wants to do everything that is possible to help this young child and provide the promise of hope for other families whose children are suffering from conditions like this. Again, I look forward to meeting with the Gill family and doing everything we can.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Steve Kooner: It’s a shame. The family is up in the crowd right here in the gallery, and this minister said that she’s looking forward to the family making every effort to meet their needs. The government should be taking leadership here. The government should be taking leadership.

The family is in the gallery, and they’re racing against time to secure $8 million for gene therapy treatment.

The federal government has $1.4 billion in a national rare disease funding strategy available. Where is this government?

Will the minister commit to intervene and immediately explore emergency funding so Gurmoh can have a fighting chance, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Let me be very clear. I think the member understands that is not what I said. I said that our ministry is doing everything that we can to support this moving forward and undertaking the work that’s required.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: All parents, all people are going to want to do everything that we can.

I want to be very clear though. Gene editing therapy is a developing technology. It is very specific to an individual. Unfortunately, unlike some other diseases, there is not one pharmaceutical…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …there’s not one drug that can be instantly provided overnight. It will take some time. That’s why ministry officials have met with the McGill University researcher…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …to understand the investment and the time that’s required to stand up the very specific infrastructure required for gene editing therapy.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Member, wait for your turn.

Hon. Josie Osborne: But I also want to clear the record and correct it. The expensive drugs for rare diseases and the bilateral agreement that we have with the federal government for $194 million over three years is for pharmaceuticals and for therapies that are already developed, that are already approved by Health Canada and that have gone through the approvals process at the Canadian Drug Agency. This is a very different type of experimental therapy.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Again, we have met with the researcher. Our officials have met with the government of Quebec. They have met with the family. I will do so this afternoon so that we can understand everything in the realm of possibility.

Broadway Transit Project
Traffic Diversion Impacts

Harman Bhangu: Businesses between Cambie and Alberta Street are preparing for the worst. The executive director of the Cambie Village Business Association, which represents 400 businesses, said: “The small, independent restaurants and retailers will be struggling.”

[2:25 p.m.]

When you divert traffic, you divert everything. Businesses are paying the price because of this government’s failure to build projects on time.

My question to the Minister of Jobs: if he won’t help these businesses, will the Minister of Housing stand up for businesses in her community which have been abandoned by the minister?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’m happy to respond on the initiatives that the ministry has undertaken while this project has been underway to ensure a minimum of inconvenience as possible to the businesses that he’s talking about in the area.

By the very fact that there is traffic diversion taking place…. The work was done with traffic engineers, with the city of Vancouver, with the local businesses to understand exactly the challenges that they’re facing. I can tell the member that, without that rerouting that’s taking place, the inconvenience would last for twice as long.

The reality is that those decks have to be removed and the underground infrastructure replaced. That work is underway. The time period is being reduced from 14 months down to six months. That’s a significant improvement.

At the same time, working with the businesses to ensure that the rerouting is done in a way that allows for things such as parking to be taken into account, ways in which we can improve that…. At the same time, pedestrian access is still there, in place, so that pedestrians can go to the businesses impacted. The critical thing is to get it done as quickly as possible, and that’s what these changes and the rerouting will do.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Harman Bhangu: Clearly, the minister forgets their promise of this. It was supposed to help with FIFA traffic.

Months of lost customers, blocked access and empty storefronts are pushing small businesses to the brink. We have already seen a bike shop and a grocery store close their doors. The government stood by while these businesses were left to absorb the losses.

My question to the Minister of Jobs: how many more businesses have to fail before this government admits to abandoning these communities?

The Speaker: Before I recognize the minister, I want to caution the member for Surrey North not to use electronics during the question period.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: This government has never abandoned communities and will always stand up for communities every single time. That’s why we work with the business communities when traffic rerouting has to take place.

We will continue to do that — whether it’s through the Jobs Ministry, through my ministry or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It’s working with the businesses that are impacted to develop ways in which the impacts are mitigated. The ministry is working to be able to provide alternative routes of access for them. That’s what we are going to continue to do, and that’s what we will always do.

Provincial Sales Tax
and Support for Small Business

Gavin Dew: The CFIB has said: “When we talk to small businesses around the province, one thing is clear. The cost of doing business is too high. When costs go up for small businesses, prices go up for everyday people, and jobs are put at risk.”

B.C. has already lost more than 40,000 jobs so far this year.

When will this government stop ignoring small businesses and reverse their poorly timed PST expansion?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member and I canvassed this, as well, during estimates. It’s vitally important that we continue to support small businesses.

We know, due to global uncertainty that we’re dealing with right now due to the war, that we’re seeing fuel prices push up, having a real impact on our businesses, and then you add, on top of that, tariffs. It is a bit of a perfect storm.

Despite the challenges, we still continue to be leaders in this province, leading the country both in investments into our province and GDP growth.

I met with the BIAs this morning, and we had an important conversation about things that they’re hearing from the front lines. What they’re hearing is that they continue to need skilled people. That’s why this budget is doubling the funding for trades training so that we can have people skilled up to take the employment opportunity.

[2:30 p.m.]

They’re seeing $88 billion of potential investment coming to this province, which means a lot of economic activity. They see the positive side of that. They want to see more supports to protect storefronts from vandalism. The $16 million in this budget to support communities and, in particular, target repeat offenders is welcomed.

We’re going to continue to do the work to support small businesses because they are vital for the success of this province.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Gavin Dew: This government continually points to geopolitics and to a small business tax cut almost a decade ago which was worth, at most, $2,500 for a qualifying small business.

But $2,500 doesn’t come close to offsetting the costs this government has piled on — higher payroll costs, carbon costs, property costs, insurance costs, more red tape, rising costs from the public safety crisis, growing uncertainty around land title and now a PST expansion on services that businesses rely on.

Why does this government continue ignoring the real-world cost burden that is forcing small businesses to shut down, sell out or leave B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: B.C. has one of the lowest small business taxes in the country. The member talks about cutting red tape — as he says, increasing red tape. That’s not factually true. We have made the largest reduction of red tape in the country’s history by removing interprovincial trade barriers for goods to be sold. Let me repeat that again: the largest red tape reduction in Canada’s history — significant.

We’ve heard from the restaurant industry that they needed to get alcohol costs lowered, so we sell alcohol to small business restaurants right now at wholesale price. We heard from them that they need skilled, trained-up professionals to be able to take employment opportunities. We doubled the budget for skills training in this province. We heard that we needed to reduce permitting times. We put investments into that. We’re seeing investments come online to this province.

We’re going to continue this work. There are a lot of small businesses across the province. They vary in different sectors. We continue to meet with them. We continue to find innovative ways to reduce barriers so they can be successful. Their success is our success.

Correspondence with Vancouver
City Council on Natural Gas
Heating Policy for New Housing

Trevor Halford: May 19, the Minister of Housing decided to send a letter to the mayor of Vancouver on an issue before them, and we learned that the mayor of Vancouver quickly fired off his own letter back to the minister.

He says: “It reads like an eleventh-hour attempt to intervene in an active Vancouver city council debate on energy choice and affordability.” He goes on to say: “You are advocating that the Vancouver council not pass a motion that would improve housing affordability and energy choices for residents.”

What’s interesting about the letter that was sent out by the Minister of Housing is neither the Ministry of Energy nor the Premier were copied on it.

My question is a direct one to either the Premier or the Minister of Energy. Did they know about this correspondence and direction from the Minister of Housing to the city of Vancouver?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes.

Trevor Halford: Well, that’s just perfect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. The member has the floor.

Trevor Halford: We’ve got a Minister of Energy and a Premier and maybe some other selective members of that cabinet that are talking daily about their championship for LNG and, potentially, a phase 2 investment. So this minister and this Premier….

The Minister of Energy signs off on a letter from the Minister of Housing interfering in a council decision about banning natural gas. In what world does that make sense — that you have a Minister of Energy that thinks it’s okay for us to interfere in a council decision that bans natural gas?

My question is to the Minister of Housing. Does she impose her will to ban natural gas in homes while her government champions natural exports?

[2:35 p.m.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member seems to have missed, in his description of events, the decision on May 1 by the five joint-venture partners to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in LNG Canada 2, an announcement made by the Premier with the head of LNG Canada and the federal minister of energy and mines.

The fact of the matter is that our approach focuses, yes, on clean energy in British Columbia because it’s fundamentally important and it’s a huge advantage in B.C. We have announced — and no questions from the hon. members about this, but they’re opposed to — 14 clean energy projects in B.C. They’re opposed to them while complaining that there’s not enough electricity. They’re opposed to the North Coast transmission line.

They are talking about the government’s record of LNG — which, I will remind the hon. member, is six projects either completed, under construction or approaching final investment decision. That’s six compared to zero for all the years before that.

So you bet, in British Columbia, we support clean energy. You bet, through our CleanBC plan, we’re making improvements all across our system. And British Columbians are joining us. They’re choosing heat pumps in record numbers. They’re choosing EVs in record numbers. We are leading Canada on clean energy, and we’re doing it in housing, in electricity and in every other area.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the Merit Commissioner’s 2025-26 annual report.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Petitions

Jennifer Blatherwick: I rise to present a petition from members of my riding, 88 signatures to petition more regulation for dog and cat breeding.

Jody Toor: I rise to present a petition signed by 1,236 people on behalf of women living with PMOS, formerly known as PCOS, a condition that affects one in ten women, including Becky, whose personal story helped inspire this petition. I am honoured to present this petition to the House today.

Brennan Day: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the 37 homeowners in the Queneesh trailer park in Courtenay, who are, unfortunately, struggling, being displaced as the mobile home has been announced to close.

It is also accompanied by a letter to the Premier. They wanted me to pass this along to spur some action.

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 18 — Extension of
Sitting Hours on May 27

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 18, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper. It will extend sitting hours to 9 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, to provide allotted hours for the Premier’s estimates.

[That, notwithstanding Standing Order 2 (1), the adjournment time of the sitting of the House commencing at 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, be modified to 9 p.m.

And further, that this modified time of adjournment extend to the application of Standing Order 3 and to the interpretation of the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House in the Sessional Order adopted by the House on February 19, 2026, enabling certain proceedings of the House to be undertaken in three sections.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call motion 19 on the order paper.

Motion 19 — Appointment of
Sergeant-at-Arms and
Permanent Officer Status

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 19, of which notice has been given in my name, seconded by the official opposition House Leader and the House Leader of the Third Party, on the order paper:

[That, effective July 6, 2026, Jason Laidman be appointed Sergeant-at-Arms and hold the status of a permanent officer, in accordance with section 39 (1) of the Constitution Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 66).]

Jason Laidman brings more than 30 years of experience in municipal policing, most recently serving as deputy chief with the Victoria police department. Jason brings a familiarity with the legislative precinct as well as extensive leadership experience in public safety operations, governance and workforce management.

Jason has extensive experience with planning and command of major events, demonstrations and dignitary visits, including those on or around the precinct. He is skilled at emergency management and organizational readiness, leading coordinated responses in dynamic conditions and ensuring teams are prepared to address evolving risks.

[2:40 p.m.]

Jason’s family has deep roots in public service. His spouse is a retired police officer who has also served with the provincial government for several years. He has two adult daughters. One currently serves as a police officer, while the other is pursuing studies with aspirations for a career in public service.

Outside of work, Jason is an avid runner and profoundly supports causes such as the Wounded Warrior Run B.C. and B.C. law enforcement Run to Remember.

Jason joins us in the gallery today, and I would like to congratulate him on his appointment and joining us here in the Legislative Assembly.

Finally, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to our current Sergeant-at-Arms, Ray Robitaille, who has served with distinction, humility and honour in this role since 2021.

Ray, on behalf of the Legislature, thank you sincerely for your work. I hope you enjoy your much-deserved retirement.

And Jason, welcome to the Legislature.

Á’a:líya Warbus: We would also like to extend our extreme gratitude to Ray Robitaille as he moves on from his official capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms.

All of the wonderful work that he has led in this House, making sure that we all feel safe and secure — both in the building, around the building — in our roles as MLAs. He’s oftentimes the very first one to answer a call of distress. He will handle matters personally when anyone has a question about safety, and it’s been an extreme pleasure to be working with him.

We’d also like to extend our congratulations and our welcome to Jason for joining the Legislative Assembly family and being appointed Sergeant-at-Arms.

His family clearly has a history and a dedication to public service, and the running — it runs in the legislative family as well. We are all trying to look for ways to improve our lives outside of sitting in the Legislature, so that kind of inspiration is much needed here.

We really, really appreciate both of you. Thank you so much.

Rob Botterell: I’d like to raise my hands too for all of your great work in modernizing security for our members and staff. I wish you the very best from the House.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I’d be remiss if I didn’t remind the House that there will be a recognition in the library tomorrow at lunchtime to recognize the achievements and accomplishments of Ray as Sergeant-at-Arms.

The Speaker: The question is adoption of the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates for the Ministry of Finance.

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

In Section C, the Birch Room, continued committee on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance
(continued)

The Chair: Members, we will call the chamber back to order, where we’ll call on the Minister of Finance to read the vote.

On Vote 27: ministry operations, $29,430,000.

Jeremy Valeriote: I have an hour, and I’m filling in for our Third Party Finance liaison, who may or may not join us. I’ll do my best to fill his shoes.

Starting off with the Liquor Distribution Branch. The projected government revenue from the LDB was over $1 billion each year from 2019 to 2025. In this year’s budget estimates, the revenue from the LDB will be under $1 billion, at $945 million, and this is projected to decrease each following year.

Recently LDB announced plans to allow producers to deliver packaged refreshment beverages directly to wholesale customers. These products are currently distributed only through the public liquor distribution system, and the BCGEU has publicly stated that this change is a “betrayal of a written commitment to consult the union before making changes to liquor distribution policy.” When polled, 86 percent of British Columbians want public revenue to be considered in liquor policy decisions.

So I have a couple of clarification questions. The first question is: what projected impact will direct delivery of refreshment beverages have on LDB revenue now and into the future?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Recognizing that the Green Party may be asking questions beyond the vote that I called, we’ll go ahead and call the larger sum so we can have a broader area for the Greens to be able to ask their questions.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $381,863,000 (continued).

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’ll get an answer to your question in just a moment.

The Chair: Thank you for the clarity, Minister.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question. A couple of things first to sort of frame this up.

The first is that the BCLDB falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, no longer the Ministry of Finance. So we can provide some overview for the member, but any detailed questions really would be directed to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The member is asking about targeted operational change that is intended to strengthen B.C.’s liquor manufacturing sector and improve flexibility within the supply chain while maintaining the public distribution system. There is no expected impact to government revenue, as the LDB will continue to collect markup on these sales.

The LDB will continue to distribute all imported refreshments, beverages, wine and spirits. And any newly available space in the LDB’s warehouse will be filled with other liquor products, including non-stocked wholesale products, NSWP. As a result, no job losses are anticipated.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll focus on the finance-focused questions.

I understand that there…. I don’t think the minister said revenue neutrality, but that’s what I take it to mean. Could the minister share details about how the government reached this conclusion that it would have no impact on LDB revenues?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is asking about a policy that’s currently being rolled out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I think the tie-in to the budget estimates that the member is bringing is the question of: given our budget estimates, are they expected to change due to this policy?

I’ll answer it in light of that — what I understand to be the question. No, there is not expected to be an impact to government revenue. The member asked: “How do we know that?” Modelling is what we use in estimates. It’s based on the fact that the LDB will continue to collect markup on these products, as they previously would have.

Jeremy Valeriote: Appreciate the markup clarification for the second time.

I’m hoping this might be within the purview of the Minister of Finance. I’ll just state that privatizing part of the public liquor distribution system without careful study of the impacts to revenue could carry risk. It sounds like it has been modelled. But we understand unionized workers in the sector were not consulted.

I’d like to ask the minister if, through her ministry, producers were surveyed to project what kinds of volumes would be diverted away from the public system and whether consultation was done on the producer-retailer side.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d like to direct the member to take this question to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It’s not part of our budget work or estimates, and I think they’ll get a fulsome answer were they to direct the question that way.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you. I’ll move to a different topic.

Recently an organization called Squamish Helping Hands, which is a non-profit housing organization in the riding I represent, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, along with 39 other non-profit housing organizations in the province, was transitioned from the Community Social Services Employers Association of B.C. to the Health Employers Association of B.C.

I met with Squamish Helping Hands, and they expressed concerns that none of these organizations were consulted before this union transfer. None of these organizations have a commitment from the government that the cost related to the transfer will be covered, and all organizations said that the transfer will exacerbate budget challenges. At least 800 employees will experience a reduction in annual earnings due to wage reductions and changes in hours of work.

Right before this change was to come into place, the ministry informed them of a year-long pause to implementation, requiring them to unwind the preparation for the administrative changes that were made, so a huge administrative burden that costs at least one and likely many small non-profits a lot of time and money and impacted trusts with employees. There are some large service providers that may be able to do this smoothly, but smaller ones are comparatively limited.

My question to the minister is: if this change is to go ahead in the future, how will the ministry work with these organizations to ensure they’re prepared and have adequate time to make the necessary changes?

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for your patience as we switched people and got the folks who had the right information to be able to help me with the answer to this question.

The member is asking about these 39 community organizations that have been part of the community social services collective agreement and are now transitioning into the health sector agreement. That transition is going to happen April 2027, so there is some time. The work on this transition is being undertaken now.

A couple of things that I’ll just comment on about that transition. The first one is in recognition that folks working in the housing sector do a tremendous amount of work. Often it’s work that really parallels a lot of the work that folks in health do. There’s a lot of support work for people who are in that sector. It’s largely in recognition of the nature of that work that they’re now levelling up to be at the same level as folks in the health sector agreement.

Jeremy Valeriote: I understand, perhaps, the overall benefits, but I think the minister would agree that for the 800 employees who will have their earnings reduced, it’s a pretty startling change for an administrative change that really does impact trust. I spoke to an executive director that has to represent this decision to their employees. It really erodes morale, and it erodes trust. So in terms of….

I guess there are two questions here, and I apologize. They’re somewhat related. This transfer that will go ahead in April 2027 will have administrative costs associated. Will the ministry fund the costs associated with making this transfer, and how does the ministry intend to address the earnings reduction for affected employees?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: For the member, the way that I’ll explain this is that there are about 2,500 people that are impacted by this change from the community social service collective agreement now going up to the health sector agreement.

There is work underway right now between the HEABC and the unions, and they’ll be addressing the question of impacts on salary. It wouldn’t be really appropriate for me to presuppose any outcomes from those negotiations.

I will share with the member that there is a recognition that there will be additional funding needed, and that has been included in this budget within the wage mandate. That, of course, reflects that, overall, there will be a wage lift for these workers.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll change gears. Still on the revenue side but to talk about our favourite topic, the carbon tax.

The minister well knows that on April 1 of last year, the carbon tax was officially removed after 16 years. The government’s justification was affordability, if I’m summarizing fairly. British Columbian economists have stated that consumer carbon pricing was not a contributor to the affordability crisis. Instead, it was likely an overall benefit to lower-income consumers, with the rebates and social services that the billions of tax dollars provided in government revenue.

In the years since the carbon tax was removed, gas prices have risen back above the levels prior to the tax’s removal. These are and may be mostly beyond the government’s control, but that’s part of the problem. The government has induced many British Columbians to continue to rely on the unpredictability of fuel supply and gas vehicles — lowering incentives to buy electric cars, eliminating EV rebates and lowering the 2035 sale mandates — all while losing government revenue of over $2 billion a year.

How does the government plan to recover the loss of $2 billion in net revenue that the carbon tax provided?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has asked: how does government intend to address the revenue loss from carbon tax? I think the first thing I’d want to highlight is that this was a very significant tax break for British Columbians at a time when they really needed it.

Government is taking several steps in Budget 2026 to update the tax system, including increasing the first income tax rate bracket from 5.06 to 5.60, with offsetting increases to some tax credit amounts to help make sure that we’re also protecting the lower-income British Columbians. We’re also expanding the PST tax base to include some professional services, which is more in line with other Canadian provinces.

This is in addition to making government more efficient through the work that we’re doing with our efficiency reviews and our expenditure management, which has been significant, and, very importantly, to continue our deep, deep focus on economic growth.

I’ll also add that despite the removal of the carbon tax on April 1, 2025, government chose to maintain many of the measures that were actually funded by the carbon tax. For example, we maintained the lower second bracket rate at 7.70 for income between $50,000 and $100,000, and that essentially protects people from experiencing a tax increase in those areas.

The reduction in small business corporate tax rate that happened in 2017 was funded by the carbon tax. That reduction was from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. It would’ve been logical to raise it back up again, but we know that small businesses are also feeling the impact of the trade war and decided not to do that measure.

[3:20 p.m.]

Also, the increase to the small business corporate tax threshold from $400,000 to $500,000 we kept in place, and maintaining a number of income tax credits, like the B.C. home-renovation tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities and the B.C. SR&ED tax credit.

There are a number of other examples, but I think you get the point that we didn’t just cut across the board in regards to addressing the revenue from carbon tax. We’re taking a more nuanced approach with an eye to affordability for individual British Columbians and also B.C. businesses.

Jeremy Valeriote: Just following up on the…. I want to focus on the lowest tax bracket. I think I heard the minister say that combined with tax credits, it would have a minimal impact.

Can the minister confirm that for people making under $50,000, despite raising the rate on the lowest tax bracket, it will essentially be neutral for people in that lowest tax bracket?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked about the tax rate changes in the lower tax bracket, and that was a change from 5.06 percent to 5.60 percent. We have offset the cost for British Columbians with lower incomes through an increased tax reduction credit. So while the average tax impact for all British Columbians is $76 in 2026, more than 40 percent of British Columbians will actually see tax savings overall.

B.C. will still be the lowest-income jurisdiction for individuals earning $149,000 of income, although the impacts will vary by taxpayer, based on the type of earnings they particularly have. For example, an individual that’s working full-time, 40 hours, and earning a minimum wage will be able to claim the basic personal tax amount, CPP and EI tax credits and the B.C. tax reduction credit, which will offset the increase.

Similarly, seniors will also be able to claim increased tax credit amounts under the basic personal amount, the age amount and the B.C. tax reduction credit as offsets to this increase.

[3:25 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the detail and updates to the tax code. With a $13 billion deficit, we don’t think they go as far as we would like to see.

I’m also conscious that the budget documents extensively mention the province’s economic investments to provide future revenue. Government has defended the record deficit by continuously referencing the need to invest more in our economy as global uncertainty grows, and Look West in particular signals that this government believes the key to B.C.’s economic future is through natural resource development.

Our own economic history has demonstrated that economic reliance on natural resources is unreliable and depends on a boom-and-bust cycle of the global economy. We’ve seen the total yearly government revenue from natural resources go from $2 billion to $6 billion and back down to $3 billion, all in only a six-year time span.

Our health care, social services, child care and housing supports can’t afford the re-pacing that coincides with these economic downturns. The budget has proved that uncertainty causes pauses in necessary government spending and increases in taxes sometimes impacting working-class British Columbians. Examples are many: the halt of the community housing fund, pausing of $10-a-day child care, expansion of the PST, just to name a few.

My question to the minister: what does the minister see as a plan envisioned to move B.C. out of this boom-and-bust economic cycle?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question. I think the natural resource sector, of course, is always going to be deeply important to British Columbia, and there’s much work underway addressing the impacts we’re seeing from the trade war and also really looking for new opportunities to expand in the natural resource sector.

I do also want, of course, to highlight the fact that one of the great strengths of British Columbia is that we have a diversified economy. That has provided us resilience and stability, even in these very difficult times.

I’ll highlight for the member specifically, in regards to the Look West strategy…. The Look West strategy is not just a natural resource strategy. Of course, that’s part of it, but there’s so much to the Look West strategy. It includes the marine sector. It includes quantum. British Columbia is one of the leaders in quantum technologies. This is extraordinary. It’s a tremendous opportunity for British Columbia, and the leadership being provided by these really exceptional companies is quite something to behold. We see opportunities in the biotech sector.

In this particular budget, in addition to the Look West strategy, you see $400 million put aside specifically to unlock investments in partnership with the federal government and with corporate partners to ensure that we’re drawing investments into British Columbia. I’ll share with the member that prior to that specific designation of a strategic investment fund, when I was the minister on that file, we too made direct investments. In that case, it was in particular to our biotech strategy, investing in companies like Stemcell, the largest biotech company in Canada.

Seeing the growth in that sector — B.C. now has the largest biotech sector growth happening in Canada — has been really extraordinary. It creates not only jobs, but it also actually helps British Columbians in terms of solutions, things like personalized health care and cancer treatment.

[3:30 p.m.]

When I was touring one of these organizations, I met people who were moving back to British Columbia because they had degrees in this area and were working in biotech but had to go to other countries. The person I was speaking to had been living in Germany for 15 years. Now we’re attracting them back to British Columbia.

So in my view, I think that the diversity that we have in our province and the investments that we’re making, the diversity that we see represented in the Look West strategy — that’s the future of our province.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the minister.

In Budget 2026’s expense by function, natural resources and economic development are combined into one category, with $4.27 billion budgeted. The Third Party is concerned that this is a signal that government may not be looking at economic development in a broader lens to reflect the diversity of our economy, particularly given how small the natural resource sector actually is, in terms of both government revenue and contributions to GDP.

At the same time, spending on the budget line item “Natural resources and economic development” is projected to shrink each year, an average annual decrease of 4.7 percent, the largest decrease among the categories listed in the budget.

I appreciate the minister’s outlining of other things in Look West besides just LNG and mining, in terms of marine industry, quantum, biotech. Can the minister fill in where renewable energy fits into this category and how it will be supported with a declining share of operating expenses?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question in regards to renewable energy. Not a spot where I can specifically point out that line item in the budget, because, of course, the renewable energy is happening largely through calls for power with B.C. Hydro.

I will point out to the member that on page 164, you can see that B.C. Hydro’s numbers are increasing significantly — 587 actuals, ’24-25; forecasted 712 in ’25-26; ’26-27, updated forecast.

I think it’s important to highlight that just this year alone there’ve been ten major wind projects that have been announced as part of the calls for power, and we know those are done in partnership with nations as well. There’s a strong devotion to renewable energy that is being expressed through projects at B.C. Hydro, and you’ll see them captured in that budget line item on page 164.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister explain which discrete aspects of natural resources and economic development line item are decreasing to cause this average annual decrease in overall spending?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll do my best to explain this to the member. It’s just been highlighted to me. I’m on page 166 of the Blue Book.

I believe the member is referring to natural resources and economic development, a deduction of 4.7, on average. I think that’s the member’s question: why are we seeing a decline?

If you look in actuals 2023, you can see it’s 7.9. In 2024, actuals are 6.7., and then forecasted numbers are lower. You see the forecast numbers at 4.8, 4.3, 4.3, 4.1. This isn’t actually capturing a deduction. What it’s capturing is that the actuals have the real numbers, whereas the forecasts, of course, don’t.

The money that is spent on EMCR statutory response or forest fire statutory or held in contingencies will not be captured in those numbers in estimates. It would really just be rolled in and expressed in the actuals after an event happens. So it’s really an accounting expression rather than a deduction that we’re expecting to see.

Jeremy Valeriote: I was able to follow that on that page, so it’s appreciated.

I’m running out of time, so I’m just going to ask about what’s innovatively been called re-pacing some of the pauses and “to be confirmed” line items announced by this budget. These affect close to home, for me, long-term-care facilities, hospital construction, child care services, affordable housing, transit and others.

[3:40 p.m.]

These specific reductions in funding will have downstream strain on many other existing services, like the health care system, housing supply and affordable food.

So we’ve noted that sometimes, as is probably necessary, the ministries can be somewhat siloed. Has the Finance Ministry conducted an analysis on how these budgetary delays will cut across ministries and anticipated the likely strain it will create across many ministries?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question about…. We’ve used the word “re-pacing.” It really means changing timelines.

I want to talk specifically about his question on long-term care. The way the member framed it was: in making this change to pause long-term care, are there impacts down the line on other services, and so on?

I actually see this as quite the opposite. If we continue to spend the amounts that we’re seeing long-term care come in at, $1.9 million per bed, that is going to have an impact on our ability to do other things. Those numbers aren’t acceptable. It is the correct decision to stop and to look at how we can get those numbers down. That is the correct decision.

It’s also important to note that we continue to build significant long-term care while we’re doing this work. It’s 1,142 long-term-care beds in Nanaimo, Colwood, Vancouver, Richmond, Cranbrook — an important step towards addressing the province’s long-term-care needs while at the same time pulling back on some of the long-term-care projects that were coming in at the higher levels.

There are a number of tools that we can employ to bring down the cost of long-term care. The Ministry of Infrastructure is leading this work and doing a full analysis on how we can get those numbers down and then get back into building long-term care quickly and ensuring that we’re getting those numbers down.

Contrary to the way that the question was framed, by bringing down costs in long-term care, we will be able to do more. We will be able to do a better job of providing for British Columbians, and we’ll be able to ensure that we continue with our long-term-care program.

Jeremy Valeriote: I have some questions on the PST expansion.

The textiles industry, largely due to fast fashion, now contributes 10 percent of global carbon emissions. The UN Secretary-General, on fast fashion, said: “Dressing to kill could kill the planet.”

We suspect that PST increases to textile improvements would discourage individuals from clothing repair.

I have a constituent, who runs a yarn shop in Squamish and is not isolated to Squamish, expressing strong concerns regarding the increase in costs. This tax increase will cost her business and many like hers. This small business owner informed us of the potential equity concerns with tax increases on some of these specific goods. In the case of textiles, her position is that the biggest impact will be on women and women-owned businesses and British Columbians who are trying to get by in this affordability crisis.

[3:45 p.m.]

Has this government considered either the environmental, in terms of fast fashion, or equity implications throughout the evaluation process of the PST expansion?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There were a number of different things in that question, so I’ll take a crack at it, and the member can let me know if I’ve missed something.

I’ll just share that I also worry about the impacts of fast fashion and am a big believer in pre-loved clothing and shoes, and so on. It remains true that those are also PST-exempt.

I think the member mentioned that they were talking to someone who I believe has a textile factory, if I understood correctly, and was worried that the PST changes might deter that person from upgrading their machinery, I’m assuming. We do have a manufacturing tax credit that is introduced in Budget 2026, of 15 percent. That might be something for the member’s constituent to explore.

I do know that we have a letter from a constituent in the member’s riding, and it might be partly what the member was referring to. I’ll share that we’ve responded to that by letting them know that…. They asked about a differential between perhaps having natural fibres not taxed and synthetic fibres taxed. We haven’t gone that direction.

[3:50 p.m.]

We really are wanting to be more aligned with other provinces and bring our PST tax code up to date with other provinces as one of our drivers, in line with Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the provinces with HST. They’re already taxing sewing and knitting materials, for example. Applying PST to both synthetic and natural fibres is consistent with how taxes apply in other provinces.

To ensure that British Columbians can still access affordable, tax-free clothing options, the PST exemption used for clothing and footwear under $100 remains in place.

Jeremy Valeriote: I will just use my last minute to read a question into the record. I’m hoping the minister can answer at a later date. This is on behalf of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, who has a constituent, long story short, who was prevented from taking occupancy of her home in Sidney, B.C. by New Zealand’s quarantine rules around the COVID-19 pandemic.

Because they were delayed moving into their home, they were issued a property tax bill, and this seems…. To my colleague, this is a cut-and-dried case of well-intended government tax policy that is failing a specific British Columbian.

The question is: will the Minister of Finance meet with the member and the constituent to rectify this situation that is punishing the constituent through no fault of their own and costing thousands of dollars?

I’ll leave that one there.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: A specific question like that we would treat as casework, and we’d be happy to receive it at the Ministry of Finance and work to find resolution for that constituent.

Peter Milobar: I’ll be delving into GCPE for the next little while. I’m not sure if we need a staff change-out.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Mr. Speaker, while we await our new colleagues to join us, may we have a five-minute biobreak?

The Chair: You certainly could. Five minutes it is.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you.

The Chair: We’ll be in recess for the next five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 3:57 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. We will call the chamber back to order.

Peter Milobar: I’m wondering if we could get the numbers of the full-time-equivalents for GCPE for last fiscal; what, this fiscal, they’re slated to be; and what, in fact, they’re slated to be for the remainder of the three-year fiscal plan that we’re dealing with today.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The total average active employee, FTE equivalent: 2025-2026, last year, 301; ’26-27, 297; ’27-28, stable, 297; ’28-29, stable, 297.

Peter Milobar: Can the minister explain then…?

Actually, I’ll take a step back. Can I get clarification with the way the beginning of that answer is worded? Does that mean there are no other open positions, that these are just filled positions? There is no outstanding funding, and these are strictly the cap. The max, all in, for GCPE would be the 301, now 297, 297 and 297.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The total headcount, which would include unfilled positions, would be 318. There’s no intention to fill those positions. The number that will be filled positions, FTE equivalents, going forward this year and through the fiscal plan, is 297.

Peter Milobar: So 301…. In a year, you’re down 4, which is about a 1 percent reduction in GCPE employees. And 15,000 jobs are supposed to be getting found. It’s about a 3½ to 4 percent reduction. Why is GCPE exempt from coming in at even what would be the basic average?

Surely, when we’re talking about front-line staff, front-line pressures, the ability to provide services that British Columbians need, having a layoff-free area within government communications seems like an odd starting choice to be protecting the jobs.

Why is the job situation with GCPE seeming to be 100 percent stable, confirmed by the minister, no change whatsoever for the three years of this fiscal plan, despite the fact that this government is looking for 15,000 jobs over the course of this three-year fiscal plan?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The reduction, 318 to 296, is a 6.6 percent reduction. But I do want to mention that Budget 2026 and the fiscal plan capture our initial work on an efficiency review. There is more work to come, so we do expect to continue this work over the coming years.

Peter Milobar: What is the projected expenditure for polling or research, whichever buzzword the government would prefer, for this year as well as the subsequent two years in the fiscal plan?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The estimate for Budget ’26-27 is that 1.5 percent of their base budget will be spent on research.

Peter Milobar: Sorry, could I get clarification of 1.5 percent of the base budget? Is it 1.5 percent of the advertising budget of $2.5 million or 1.5 percent of the base budget of $30 million? Could I get a dollar figure?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The number is $432,000, which is 1.49 percent of the overall base budget.

Peter Milobar: Does that $432,000 come out of the advertising, STOB 67?

Also, is there a projection for next year and the following year for polling?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s out of STOB 60, and in ’27-28, that number will be flat. In’28-29 as well.

Peter Milobar: Then out of the $2.337 million for advertising, how much of that is being spent on Meta and other online advertising?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll go through a couple of different areas in regards to social media spending.

In fiscal year ’25-26, government spent approximately $367,000 on Meta advertising. That represents about 3 percent of total media spend. The campaigns included wildfire prevention and preparedness; drought awareness; immunization campaigns, including measles, HPV and respiratory illness; sexual violence prevention; HelpStartsHere, which is mental health and substance use; seasonal and public safety messaging in regards to floods and extortion awareness.

In regards to additional social media spends, in fiscal ’25-26, government spent approximately $139,000 on TikTok advertising on things like health care recruitment in the U.S., HPV vaccination, sexual violence prevention, HelpStartsHere and economic opportunities related to skilled-trades training.

We do not currently advertise on X. We do spend about $37,000 on Snapchat advertising. The campaigns included HPV vaccination and sexual violence prevention.

Peter Milobar: Just to get clear, though, the minister said $367,000 was about 4 percent. If it’s coming out of advertising, the STOB for last year was $3.5 million. This year it’s $2.37 million for advertising. I’m just worried…. We keep throwing out the percentages there of the overall budget of GCPE versus the actual advertising budget or the STOB item. So it may be 4 percent of the budget, but it was 10 percent of the advertising budget, if I heard that correctly.

I appreciate there is a need for public awareness, but there was, last I checked, great fanfare, and we canvassed this a bit last year, about buy local, buy Canadian. It was actually supposed to be very clear that changes were supposed to be made, that cuts were supposed to be made.

I’ve heard from a great many local media, both in print and radio and every other medium out there, that they have concerns around government not supporting smaller, especially in the smaller towns, with advertising dollars at the expense of Meta advertisements and other U.S.-based advertising vehicles.

Has there been any change of policy? Has there been any clear direction given by this government and, if so, why is that continuing, to still see that spending through GCPE specifically?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The province prioritizes Canadian-owned media in its paid public information campaigns. The member asked about: is there a policy in place? It’s by practice. The practice is that more than 50 percent of media spending for B.C. audiences is directed to local media outlets.

The objective, of course, is to reach British Columbians effectively, and that requires a mix of channels and a mix of formats, including digital, print, radio, television, out of home and in multiple languages.

Peter Milobar: I’ll just jump back to the FTE question then. Has there been any internal modelling or discussion, given that the advertising budget did go down this year?

I will give the ministry their due for that. There is less spending in advertising, yet there hasn’t been a commensurate reduction in staff. We have the same amount of staff to spend $1 million less in advertising. The bulk of that, it sounds like, is a cut to local, small newspapers and publications and the like.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Why is there not an adjustment? If the goal of government is to try to rein in spending anywhere and everywhere, bring down the government propaganda of the advertising budget to be strictly sole public informational–type commentary, to keep staffing at the same level for one-third of the amount of money that we’ll be purchasing with….

I would say that it’s actually more than one-third less advertising being purchased. As we all know, advertising rates tend to go up over time, so there would actually be less product needing to be produced with the same amount of staff over the next three years, projected.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I will remind the member that we have seen a 6.6 percent reduction in staffing at GCPE this year. That has been reflected.

I take issue with the member’s choice of terminology in regard to using the word “propaganda” to talk about these campaigns. Let’s talk about what we’re really informing people about. Wildfire prevention and preparedness. Drought awareness. Immunization campaigns — HPV, for example. We know that we can actually eliminate cervical cancer with a strong HPV campaign and our new test-at-home kits.

These are very significant campaigns. Sexual violence prevention. It’s very upsetting and true that we are seeing an increase in domestic violence in our province. These campaigns are important. A mental health and substance use campaign called HelpStartsHere. And, of course, seasonal and public safety messages around floods and extortion. Also our new Intimate Images Act — a campaign to help people understand how to access protections under that act.

I do just want to put on the record that I do not share the member’s perspective that these are propaganda. These are important campaigns that inform British Columbians of information they need to have and tools that they can access.

[4:30 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Can the minister clarify? She just said there was a 6.6 percent reduction in staff, yet she said they went from 301 to 297. I’m a little confused how that translates to 6.6 percent.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We also described that the allotment was 318 positions. They weren’t all filled. That’s where the 301 number came from, so when you look at the 318 to the 296, 6.6 percent.

Peter Milobar: Sorry, is the minister suggesting that the 15,000 FTEs that the government is looking for are just simply vacant positions that hadn’t been filled, maybe were approved but not yet hired for? I think we need to get a clear understanding where these 15,000 positions are if the minister is going to be using that.

We had 301 filled positions. It’s down to 297. That is not a 6.6 reduction. It doesn’t really matter for the last couple of years. If you haven’t been operating at 318, you haven’t been operating at 318.

Is that how this government is planning on finding these 15,000 positions, by actually just not filling empty positions that have been empty for a couple of years on the books?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’ll walk through a few more numbers in regards to how this has worked with GCPE. Of course, there are a number of different tools that are being employed here.

In December 2024, we brought in a hiring freeze. It wasn’t a budgetary item. It was in response to, as you’ll recall, the announcement of tariffs and the need for us to take action on expenses.

Prior to that, the ’24-25 number was actually 336. It was the ’25-26 number that was 318. That was the approved number but was only hired to 301.

I think it’s important to understand there are a number of different things going on — the hiring freeze, the reductions that are being made through that and the efficiency management process.

In addition, there is, in Budget 2026, for the public sector more broadly, a 15,000-person reduction over the next three years. So the public service has been under a hiring freeze since December 2024. The public sector, referred to in Budget 2026, will be reducing 15,000 employees.

Peter Milobar: Well, a lot of what the minister touched on in her examples previously, in response to my using the word “propaganda,” was around those public service announcement campaigns, which I’m assuming frame up the bulk of the $2.3 million worth of advertising. I said at the time that I can understand the need for those types of campaigns.

Is the minister suggesting that the only duties GCPE has are coordinating advertising and messaging within that $2.3 million spend and on those particular subject matters, or does the GCPE have a broader mandate of tasks that they perform, those 297 people? If so, can the minister enlighten us on what those other areas are that they devote their time to as well?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re really getting into what GCPE’s mandate is. GCPE covers government communications and public engagement. It’s the province’s central communications organization and is responsible for delivering government communications to the public. It ensures British Columbians receive clear, timely, accessible information about government programs and services and priorities through media relations, digital and social media advertising, web communications, crisis communications and multilingual services.

Just to drill down a little bit further and, hopefully, to get to the member’s question, it includes roles like the following: editorial services, events and corporate planning, information management, multi-language services, media-monitoring insights, media relations, planning and performance, writing and content strategy, ministry communications and issues management.

Peter Milobar: That’s the area of propaganda that I was referring to, to be clear, because otherwise we’re spending $2 million a month to manage $200,000 worth of advertising budget a month, because the topics that the minister brought forward that were being advertised and pushed out are serious and do need public attention to them.

Everything else — the media relations, the corporate events, the cabinet communications, ministry communications, crisis communication — the average person would see as people crafting a message for the minister and pre-empting within a media sphere to get messaging and a tone and a framing of an issue. So that’s why we spend $25 million a year on this area, on staffing, not to spend it on $2 million worth of advertising. If we did, that would be a pretty scary concept — that we’re spending ten times as much on monthly staff to place $200,000 worth of advertising.

So with that in mind…. I want to be 100 percent clear about this. I do not question the skill sets and the expertise of people in GCPE if I’m asking these questions. In fact, I recognize they’re very good at what they do. But GCPE is just what the government uses directly.

[4:45 p.m.]

I wouldn’t want the public to think that there are only — only — 297 people in communications for government, because we all know there are health authorities. We know there are universities. We know that there are school districts, and the list goes on and on.

Within all of those government entities, has the government tasked GCPE to use their expertise at all to try to figure out how to perhaps reduce the overall burden and cost pressure that this ever-growing communication sphere has created across government at a time that they’re trying to find 15,000 FTEs and cost savings? Or are all those other arm’s-length agencies within government left to their own devices, and we’re not asking the expertise within GCPE to help guide how that should be framed, moving forward?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: GCPE does coordinate with folks in the broader public sector, specifically with health authorities, and they cooperate quite regularly, really focusing on efficiency of resources. That’s also true in campaigns with Crown corporations. But primarily, GCPE focuses on core government.

I will share with the member that the work that we have coming up with efficiencies within the broader public sector will go through in the next few years. We have much to do in regards to expanding our efficiency reviews. Some of that work is already underway in terms of the review of the health authorities and the work that’s been going on in the post-secondary review.

Peter Milobar: That pretty much finishes me up with GCPE this year. We’re on a bit tighter of a timeline today than other years.

I’ll be moving on to lotteries and then probably BCFSA to finish out the day, just to give a heads-up to the other staff.

[4:50 p.m.]

Last year we canvassed quite heavily around the push from Ontario and other off-site online gaming platforms that we’re trying to get regulated into B.C. Has there been any change or update as to the status of where we’re at with that side of the industry?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is an area that we’re monitoring quite closely. The member will know, largely because of the member’s relationship in Kamloops to the location of the work that goes on here, British Columbia has a very robust program and is, in fact, an award winner in terms of player safety in this space.

We want to be very cautious of any changes that we bring, so we’re monitoring what’s happening in other provinces. For example, Ontario, which has already brought in changes and opened their market, will have a report that’s forthcoming. We expect an update from Ontario within the next month or two. We’re in contact with them about some sharing of information about how this is playing out on the ground in Ontario.

We also know that Alberta is moving forward on July 13 with opening their market, and we’ll be watching very closely as well.

Peter Milobar: Last year there had been some lobbying efforts brought forward from the industry. What lobbying efforts over the last year, since we last canvassed this, have been happening? Has there been an uptick on number of meetings, requested meetings? How aggressive is the shift being pushed?

Especially with, as you say, Ontario reviewing and Alberta getting ready to implement, things seem to be percolating along. There seem to be more sites and different sites coming on stream as well. Just what is the state of that lobbying effort and that push?

There’s obviously a lot of fixed-location employment tied to gaming centres and casinos within the province, and there’s a lot of worry around competition, obviously, but more so competition when it’s not even in a regulated space within B.C. Those lost revenues result not just to the local operator but to gaming funds in general and, also, are bled off with no benefit to community or the government whatsoever.

So where are we at with that lobbying effort that’s happening? Are meetings still happening, and if so, how many?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m looking at a list of lobbying meetings, and I would describe the lobbying effort from the online folks as robust. I can share with the member that I have had one meeting this year with lobbyists.

We also meet with land-based casino owners who…. I think the member, correctly, has summarized their thinking on this, that there’s concern about a potential deleterious effect for land-based casinos.

I think it’s really important, though, to get to the underlying question, which is: what is the goal of the lobbying? I’ll share with the member that, for me, this decision is not a decision that I would be swayed on by lobbying. For me, it’s going to be an evidence-based decision, should we move forward with any changes. I think once one opens the market, it’s pretty much impossible to go back.

So moving carefully and slowly and really taking a look at what’s happening on the ground in other jurisdictions, on what the implications are, what the effects are — particularly for young men, for example — and really being thorough in our analysis is what would guide any changes, were there changes to policy.

Peter Milobar: Slowly and carefully is a good thing and, frankly, I would suggest that just about every government gets characterized as the “slowly” part more often than not. It didn’t matter….

I think back to my days at city council, when we were thinking we would be the forerunners of fibre for the whole city. We thankfully didn’t embark on the next, future phases, although B.C. Lotteries and the city hall benefited from that because we got municipal government buildings and schools onto fibre way ahead of the curve. But it was recognized that we could not compete with the private sector on how fast they can move. All of a sudden, Telus came in and put fibre everywhere, and Shaw upgraded their technologies and everything else.

Point being, government does not move, typically, fast. This is not a shot at anyone in particular; it’s just reality.

We’re in an online gaming sphere, though, and I think of how long it took to bring in single-game betting where we can be cautious and safe. I agree with that in terms of flooding the market with online, but it’s still online, and it is still accessible, especially with VPNs and everything else.

If we don’t have the product people want, if we’re not competing, opening it up, you’re guaranteed to lose it. But whether you open it up or not, if the online product we have isn’t keeping up with the trends, we’re losing out regardless, and that’s a big concern as well. So what are the plans with the whole PlayNow platform to try to stay relevant and current?

I look at online sites that have exploded over the last little while. I hadn’t heard about it. I’m now well aware of Polymarket for various, obvious reasons, to some. That seems to be a website and a gaming site designed around futures betting, and it seems to be quite popular. There are other sites like that out there.

[5:05 p.m.]

What is the state of play, so to speak — pun intended, I guess — with lotteries to match what is going on in the market? It is not realistic to think that government can just say: “We’re not going to regulate, therefore this is not happening in our province.” It is happening.

There are two ways to address it. We try to get better geofencing in, but we also try to make sure our product is competitive and able to stand up against it. So where are we at on that competitive side of our sites?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member and I agree on this point. I think it’s absolutely true that remaining competitive and bringing out new, compelling products that can compete with these larger players is really important.

To that end, we will be bringing out a new platform. The platform for PlayNow is being replaced in the fall to better compete in the market. It will also include a new offering, which is a sports betting platform that will come out as part of this new platform.

Important to recognize that all of these offerings will include the player health initiatives that the province is well known for.

I will highlight to the member that just last year there were more than 1,200 new games that were launched for this goal — of course, to provide compelling content.

Peter Milobar: In terms of the dollar figure attached to these — the overall impact to the industry; the dollar figure of loss, both the government revenues and also impact to brick-and-mortar operations within the province — what calculations have been done on that?

And what, more importantly, has been done to try to prevent the proliferation and the loss of those revenues — and illegal websites?

That’s essentially what they…. Not essentially. They are illegal in B.C. yet operating, apparently with impunity, while still negotiating a way into the market.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It’s quite hard to get a measurement of the illegal market. By the very nature of the activity, it’s challenging to estimate the size of the market and the corresponding revenue. PlayNow, of course, as the member has rightly identified, is B.C.’s only legal online gaming website and has operated since 2004 and continues to see year-over-year revenue growth.

We recognize there are challenges, primarily because illegal businesses just don’t share their profit statements, of course. But our best estimate, including PlayNow’s lottery and B2B revenue shares…. We estimate that BCLC has captured half — 51 percent is our estimate — of the online gambling market in B.C. We know there has been a significant increase in illegal operations attempting to enter B.C. through aggressive marketing and acquisition efforts, much of it being successful entering B.C.

Since the government of Ontario opened its market, there has been this influx of advertising for sites which are regulated in Ontario but operate illegally in other provinces, including our own. This really blurs the line between those sites and provincially regulated gambling, like PlayNow, which creates revenue and jobs for respective provinces.

The member also asks: “What’s to be done? What are we doing?” In 2022, BCLC joined with other regulated provincial organizations to create the Canadian Lottery Coalition, the CLC, to combat illegal online gambling activities through education and collective legal action. As part of its actions, the coalition intervened in the Ontario reference case on international liquidity, emphasizing fraud and money laundering concerns.

Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries, with the support of the CLC, successfully undertook litigation and secured an injunction against the illegal online gambling operator Bodog, which has been marketing directly to Manitoba residents and across Canada. The CLC also supports Bill S211, an act respecting a national framework on sports-betting advertising, now in second reading in the House of Commons.

Peter Milobar: There has been quite a shift over the last year in terms of some of the brick-and-mortar ownership models. There has certainly been a bigger push within Indigenous nations to acquire licensing, either fully or in partnership, as an economic growth option for them. But as we just canvassed, with the online push into B.C…. That’s also making the numbers at brick-and-mortar a little more tenuous, at best, in terms of what we’re seeing.

[5:15 p.m.]

Have there been discussions with nations around the revenue agreement that brick-and-mortar casinos have in order to operate within British Columbia, in terms of a change of that or an expectation of a change with that with the change in ownership as well?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Casino sales, including the recent sales to First Nations, are private commercial transactions. These sales are subject to standard closing conditions, regulatory approvals and financial due diligence.

BCLC conducts financial due diligence before entering into an operational services agreement, an OSA, as they would with any buyer, with a gambling services provider, including assessments of financial risk and operational capacity.

The independent gambling control office, the IGCO…. Their role in casino sales is regulatory due diligence. The IGCO is responsible for registering operating entities and senior employees under the Gaming Control Act, the GCA, and ensuring operators comply with GCA and supporting regulations.

Consistent with other commercial transactions, the province does not impose additional conditions on casino sales beyond the current due diligence and regulatory approvals.

Peter Milobar: Well, let me be a little bit more specific, because that did not touch on the meat of the question.

Specifically, have there been any requests that a casino that is either wholly or partly owned by a First Nation be allowed to remit less revenue to the province for reconciliation purposes?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has asked whether there are requests from First Nations in regards to the commission’s structure with casino purchases. Yes, there have been requests that have been historic — also, I think, one that is current — that we look at a change in the commission’s structure through a reconciliation lens.

I will share with the member that there are no such formal agreements in place and no formal requests of that nature on the table currently.

We do also receive requests for commission structure changes from municipal governments, as well as First Nations.

Peter Milobar: Have BCLC and the government taken any review of the impact and the potential impact of the provisions with DRIPA in relation to these requests, moving forward?

We have a court case right now where a hydro project that was bought into and signed off on a contract by a First Nation at a set rate is now being taken to court because, under DRIPA, they feel that they should be getting it at a different rate with B.C. Hydro, in terms of the rate paid for the power generated.

What type of lens has the government put on these agreements with the potential, moving forward, under the provisions of DRIPA?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: BCLC considers these transactions commercial transactions — which, of course, they are — where a licence is being assigned from an existing contract to a new purchaser, a new operator.

BCLC does have a consultation process, as one would expect, for any substantial change. The BCLC consultation process is guided by the Indigenous reconciliation plan. I’ll give you an example of a time when consultation occurred recently with the expansion of the Parq casino. BCLC consulted in regards to that change.

The Chair: Member for Kelowna Centre.

Peter Milobar: Wrong K town, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Kamloops Centre.

Peter Milobar: Very few things I like to correct in the transcript, but that one I have to, or I get run out of Kamloops.

The reason I’m asking these questions is because…. And there is a difference, frankly, between an operator being consulted about more slot machines coming on the gaming floor or the product mix on the gaming floor and discussions with a nation that is looking to acquire and/or operate and provide the exact same operation as they’re acquiring it.

I ask that because my understanding, and the minister can correct me if I’m wrong, is that we have 16 gaming centres in the province, and ten are now First Nations–owned. Two of them, I believe, are specifically on First Nations land. The rest are not.

I don’t take issue with First Nations seeing this as an economic avenue for their nation or anything like that at all. I understand they’re paying market value, and they’re making an investment decision as any other industry can. But we also have to recognize that there is a different expectation of a First Nation ownership group, potentially, under the provisions of DRIPA than if I got a conglomerate together and went off to buy a casino or a gaming centre. That’s just the political reality of British Columbia as we stand here today.

What I’m not hearing from the minister, though, is whether or not those discussions have, in fact, been taking place at a serious level; whether or not there’s just unilateral…. There is nothing to negotiate or discuss about the remittance structure of a gaming centre. Whether it’s Indigenous-owned or non-Indigenous-owned, none of those rules change.

Again, in the backdrop of some of the other cases that we’re seeing coming forward, things can change. Now, I’m not saying that the government has agreed to change. What I’m trying to find out is whether or not those discussions have been taking place.

We’re talking about an industry that is struggling. Let’s be honest about it. At a brick-and-mortar level, it is struggling. They provide a great entertainment value in the communities they’re in. They provide great dollars back to the community in terms of the local host program and the community gaming grants that get generated from the money there, the general revenue that gets generated to government.

[5:30 p.m.]

Obviously, B.C. Lottery is in my riding, quite literally in my riding, Kamloops Centre. We’d be in big trouble if they moved the headquarters to Kelowna Centre, so stay in Kamloops Centre.

I’m not trying to be down on the industry at all, but they’ve had challenges post COVID. That’s no great secret. They’re stable, but they’re not maybe where they would’ve liked to have been. So purchasers may see an opportunity is coming in, but purchasers could also be seeing an opportunity when you have…. My understanding is these acquisitions….

The vast majority are since January of 2025 — of those ownerships that I’m talking about, those ten. There seems to be a shift over the last year — quite literally a year, a year and a half — of “this seems like a good investment vehicle for our nation to get into,” when most others in the gaming sphere are looking at the books and saying: “I don’t know that the bottom line is necessarily there for us to jump in and buy out a competitor.”

But if you didn’t have to have the same remittance structure to the government as those other ones do, suddenly the books would look very differently, and we’re talking about $425 million annually at the gaming centres that those ten would be generating, by my calculation.

What discussions have been had? Has there been a very clear, emphatic, “No, we are not changing the structure,” or is it still an ongoing conversation with government and First Nations around the government remittance policies and percentages and structure around casinos and gaming centres and bingo halls in British Columbia, depending on the ownership?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: There are still lots of folks making money at land-based casinos. I’ll share with the member that it’s a different model that the First Nations who’ve bought these opportunities are employing.

Look, for example, at the Great Canadian Casino. Their departure created an opportunity for First Nations to purchase those assets. Great Canadian Casino is owned by Apollo Management, which is a private equity firm. Their objectives are a little bit different than the objectives of the nation who’ve bought some of these assets.

The objectives differ in that they are longer term for the nations. It’s really about local ownership. It’s about creating jobs. It’s about long-term investment in their community, instead of just pulling a fast buck and worrying about shareholder numbers and getting money out in a more quick timeline, and really is seen as a long-term investment.

I understand that there have been investment dollars available to First Nations through the First Nations Finance Authority, which is stood up by the feds.

If I misunderstood, Member, please correct me.

I think I heard the member say that ten out of 16 land-based casinos are owned by First Nations. The numbers that we have are a little bit different, which are that there are 36 land-based casinos, and 13 of them are First Nations–owned or in the process of becoming First Nations–owned and –operated.

I do want to answer the question the member asked, which is: what are the meetings about? What’s happening in terms of: will there be a different model in regards to the commission structure? I answered that question prior by letting the member know that yes, people had made those requests, First Nations had made those requests, and other folks had made those requests in different times. I believe there’s one nation that currently is looking for that outcome. That’s not a direction we are currently going.

When we receive requests from municipalities or from nations that are looking for a structural change, we always do meet with people and have those discussions.

Peter Milobar: Just so we’re on the same page, I agree with the 36 number. I had 20 casinos and 16 gaming centres. I had split it out that way. And ten gaming centres is what I was talking about, so 13 is probably three actual casinos, or more traditional casinos, versus…. Let’s face it. It’s pretty hard to tell the difference between a casino and a gaming centre these days, but welcome to B.C., where we rename things slightly different even though they do the same thing.

Again, I have two casinos in my riding. I might be the only MLA that actually has two. Well, I have a gaming centre and a casino, I guess, technically, in my riding, and Lottery’s headquarters. So this is not an MLA that’s standing here because he’s anti-gaming, by any means.

I think in the interest of time, though, it’s probably prudent for me to switch over to BCFSA, and we’ll dive into a few things before they ring the bells at six o’clock.

[5:40 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: It was brought to my attention over a year ago, right after I had been elected and took on the portfolio as the Forests critic, that there were some serious concerns when it came to the Interior lumberman’s pension plan.

Now, in context, this plan goes back, probably, over 30 years ago. I think it goes back to the ’80s, almost 40 years ago. To put it into context, I believe that even back then, as far as 30 years ago, there was a thought that there was a possibility that the Interior lumberman’s pension plan may have a challenge when it comes to having enough workers continually to put money into this plan to be able to pay out those pensions in the future.

It’s very similar to the IWA pension plan that had the same challenges back in the ’80s and ’90s with the significant changes in the amount of workers in the mills and seeing a serious reduction in the amount of workers that were able to put money into that pension plan.

Now, I still have questions, and I’m hoping that the minister’s staff can give us a little bit more of an understanding on where we are today in this. A couple of things that come to mind is the fact that I think we can all agree that this pension plan was underfunded. There were red flags attached as far as 20, 25 years ago in having challenges with this pension plan. Through subsequent governments, they’ve tried to make changes in trying to get it right.

This government has had responsibility for this plan for, I think, over nine years. And I’d like a bit more of an explanation as to how this occurred, why it was continually underfunded and where this last employer rule came about.

The reason I’m asking that question is that I’ve talked to many people in multiple industries in trying to get an understanding how…. If I was an employer, like I was with my father, and I hired somebody that worked for me for a couple of years and then they went on to a different job, and then I found out that that person, a couple of years after that, decided they were going to apply for their lumberman’s pension, and now I could be on the hook for possibly 20 years of an unfunded liability that I had no responsibility over….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the member has the floor.

Continue, Member.

[5:45 p.m.]

Ward Stamer: This is very troubling to myself and many employers in our industry, where they faithfully paid into this fund for the employees that they had under their care, and now they are looking at unfunded liabilities from another employer that they had no control over.

Now, I would’ve thought that this government and previous governments would’ve identified that if employers were not putting money into this fund on behalf of their employees, somebody would’ve made them do that, whether it was the government that made them do it or whether it was the licensee that was cutting the cheque to the employer that would then funnel the payroll back down to their employees.

Why are we now in a situation where the government is coming looking for money from people that, really, had no control over what happened, or somebody has passed away, and now they’re looking at surviving spouses or their kids to pay this unfunded liability?

What’s more troubling is that we’ve got employees that have worked faithfully in our industry for 25-plus years that are now being asked to take up to a 50 percent haircut on an expected pension because there’s not enough money in this fund to make those monthly payments for their pensions.

Can the minister and her staff give me a little bit more of an understanding of where this last-employer rule came through and why the government hasn’t looked at other options to get this pension plan right and not have to try to squeeze it out of people that weren’t necessarily responsible for it in the first place?

[5:50 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Just a reminder for members to refrain from taking photos in the chambers.

Recognizing the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you, hon. Chair.

This is a complex and difficult history with this particular plan. A couple of things I want to point out first. This is a private pension plan, and the decisions on this pension plan have been made by a private entity through the role of trustees. I’ll share with the member that on August 28, 2025, the trustees filed a termination report to terminate the plan’s defined benefits component effective April 30, 2025.

The termination of the logging division’s defined benefit component involves 42 active employers and 123 inactive employers. The report estimates the average defined benefit solvency ratio for the logging division at 80 percent as of April 30, 2025. The trustees for this plan made a decision in December 2021 to freeze the last-employer clause, something that the member raised as a particular challenge, and that decision was made to 2021.

Where this plan is now is that the trustees are working on collecting solvency deficits from employers or determining if they are insolvent. Solvent employers have five years from the date of plan termination to fully fund their deficit.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:02 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:07 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Steve Morissette: Section C reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section A reports progress on Bill 9 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

Motion M205 — Mandatory Orientation
Course for MLAs
(continued)

The Speaker: Members, the House is going to proceed with deferred division on Motion M205.

[6:10 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.]

Members, the question is on Motion M205 as amended.

[6:20 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 — 40
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Rattée	Wat
Kooner	Banman	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
Armstrong	Kealy	Chapman
Bird	Doerkson	Luck
	Tepper

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

[Rohini Arora 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 Act, 2026, to order.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Jody Toor: While the amendment may appear technical on its surface, I believe it is important for this committee to recognize that even small wording changes can carry major legal and operational consequences over time, particularly when limiting language is being removed.

My concern is that by removing the phrase “the research purpose….” This committee needs to clearly understand whether the scope of disclosure authority is being broadened in practice, whether the existing safeguards are being weakened and, more to the point, whether this creates greater flexibility for the future beyond what was originally intended today.

I also believe it is important to examine whether this amendment could gradually expand authority through operational policy or future practice without those changes being clearly visible to the public. Technical amendments should not be simple, be assumed to be administrative housekeeping when they may alter how privacy protections and disclosure limitations function in practice. For that reason, I believe that this committee deserves a clear and detailed explanation regarding why this wording was removed, what legal effect government believes it creates and whether any privacy or oversight concerns were raised during the drafting of this amendment.

My question was: why was the phrase “the research purpose” removed from this section? What concern or operational issue was government attempting to address through this wording change? Was the existing language considered too restrictive?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As to the question specific to the reason for clause 10 asked by the member opposite, the amendment allows the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to focus on their core responsibility, which is evaluating the privacy implications associated with using personal information.

This change allows the decision about research purpose to be with research ethics boards, which are better positioned to assess research purposes, which they already do in parallel to the commissioner’s approval, and they have rigorous processes for meeting ethics review.

[3:00 p.m.]

Jody Toor: What legal or operational effects does government believe removing this wording creates? Has government conducted any analysis regarding how this amendment changes understanding in practice?

Hon. Diana Gibson: This is an operational change which has an impact on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which was consulted.

Again, to clarify, this is about ensuring the Privacy Commissioner’s office can focus on their core area of responsibility, which are privacy implications, and that research purpose can be reviewed by research ethic boards, which is their core area of expertise and where rigorous processes are in place.

Jody Toor: Does this amendment broaden the disclosure authority in any way? If government believes it does not, what particularly prevents broader understanding in the future?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: No, this does not broaden scope, because this is about a duplicate process, where the research ethics boards already do the review through their rigorous processes.

Also, it’s very clear in this clause that the Privacy Commissioner maintains oversight of the privacy implications.

Jody Toor: If this amendment is purely technical or administrative, why was a legislative amendment necessary at all? Could the same objective have been achieved through the policy or operational guidance instead?

The Chair: Members, just a reminder, through the Chair.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Because it is stated in this clause, “the research purpose,” and that’s a duplicate process, it needed to be addressed through a legislation change.

Jody Toor: Through you, Chair, to the minister: could future governments rely on the removal of this wording just to justify broader disclosure practices than what may currently be intended? What safeguards prevent that from occurring?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As has been stated already, clearly, the Privacy Commissioner’s office retains oversight of the privacy implications. The answer to that question is clearly no, and because the safeguard is that the Privacy Commissioner retains oversight of any disclosure and privacy implications.

Jody Toor: What measures are being undertaken to prevent personal information disclosed for research under this streamlined process from being used for secondary purposes?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I think it’ll be helpful to clarify for the member opposite that this doesn’t address scope of information-sharing for research purposes, which is dealt with elsewhere in this clause. What the clause we’re speaking to is about is use of information for the purpose of contacting a person to participate in research, and the commissioner retains oversight, which is the safeguard.

Let me read it as it would stand amended. “The commissioner has approved the use of the information for the purpose of contacting a person to participate in research and the manner in which contact is to be made, including the information to be made available to the person contacted.” That is specifically what we’re speaking to here today.

Jody Toor: Do other provinces require commissioner approval of research purposes for similar disclosure? Does B.C. follow suit?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The majority of jurisdictions across Canada do not require OIPC approval of research purpose.

[3:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Why are the other provinces taking a different approach, or alternatively, why is B.C. taking a different approach than all the other provinces?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Just for clarification for the member opposite, the choice that we’re making to amend this clause aligns with the vast majority of other jurisdictions. It will align us with those that have taken the same approach as us to not have the OIPC approve research purpose.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Jody Toor: My concern with this clause is that it appears to create major expanded authority for a Connected Services provider and a public body to disclose personal information to one another within connected government systems.

While government may frame this as a modernization or improved service delivery, I believe this committee must carefully examine the scope of these disclosure powers, the safeguards protecting personal information, the level of citizen awareness and consent involvement, and what limits exist to prevent the gradual expansion of information-sharing across ministries and connected platforms over time.

Some of my concerns I’ll go over just to keep on record, and then I’ll get into some of my questions. My concern is that this clause majorly expands authority to disclose personal information between connected government systems. I’m concerned that it creates broader infrastructure for data sharing across ministries and public bodies.

I believe the long-term scope of these disclosure powers remains unclear and may expand over time. I’m concerned these provisions may lead to increased sensitivity of personal information across connected systems. I believe many citizens may not fully understand how widely their personal information could circulate under this framework.

Why is the government creating new authority for Connected Services providers and public bodies to disclose personal information to one another?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In answer to the question of why this change is being made, currently people must sign in and out of different websites to access services, repeatedly providing the same information. Connected Services is an option for people who would choose to access a digital platform to get their services faster and in a more seamless way.

It remains opt-in only. People who choose not to use it can continue to access their services in the way they do today.

Jody Toor: What digital services or functions under section 69.3 will these new disclosure authorities in subsections (10) and (11) support? What categories of personal information may be disclosed under this new framework?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to remind the member opposite that the data governance would still be under the general principle of public sector privacy, which is that the data has to relate directly to and be necessary for the program or service that it’s being collected or disclosed for.

Jody Toor: Could sensitive information such as health, disability, housing, education or income-related information eventually be shared under these provisions?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: In the case where an individual chooses to use this platform to access a program or service, then either they would be giving information directly related to and necessary for that program or service or agreeing for it to be shared in applying for a new program or service.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

Again, the limit here is that it is a program they’re applying for. The information has to relate directly to and be necessary for the program or service they are applying for. It, of course, continues to be under the oversight of the Privacy Commissioner’s office.

Jody Toor: Can citizens request a record showing where their information has been disclosed?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The program will be designed to be transparent for the user.

Jody Toor: My question was: will the citizens be able to see where their information has been disclosed? What independent oversight exists regarding disclosure practices under connected service systems? Can future governments expand disclosure authority through regulation or ministerial direction?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: There were a number of questions asked. I’m going to address them separately.

First, with regards to citizens knowing where information is disclosed, this is a people-driven process. They are coming in and applying for the service or program. They will know what’s being accessed and shared, because they are applying for that service or program.

With the question about independent oversight, we have thoroughly canvassed in this committee already the independent oversight by the Privacy Commissioner’s office of every clause of this agreement. That should be very clear to the members opposite at this point.

Also to, “Can disclosure be expanded?” the answer is no. That’s why we’re putting this in legislation.

Rob Botterell: Thank you to the minister for the answer to that question of my colleague.

Just moments ago my colleague asked: “Can citizens request a record showing where their information has been disclosed?” The minister indicated that the process was transparent and then, in the recent answer, indicated that citizens would know what information they’re providing because they’re authorizing the provision of that information or the use of that information.

When you describe the process as being transparent, I think citizens would want to be able to know, say, if they provided authorization for some health care information, that if they requested, they could be provided with a simple summary of where that health care information was shared across government. So they would know which ministries have it, which entities have it, and be able to have an overview of where their personal information went after they authorized it.

Is that type of transparency going to be available to citizens?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Yes, an employee can ask for a record, but to remind and help clarify for the members opposite on this, if information is given for a particular program or purpose, it doesn’t get shared unless there is another program or purpose that the individual is accessing and choosing to access that also requires that information — that it is necessary and required for that program or purpose. The limits on how their information gets shared are tied to a program or service they are accessing that requires, and for which, that that data is necessary.

Jody Toor: Does government acknowledge concerns that this creates a framework for centralized intergovernmental information-sharing beyond traditional ministry boundaries?

Hon. Diana Gibson: We have been very clear in previous questions that this is not about creating a centralized data system and centralizing data. So the answer to the question is no and, again, that the accessing of data and information is tied very closely to and limited by it being required and necessary for the program or service that the individual is choosing to access.

The Chair: Committee, we will take a short recess, and we’ll be back at 4:05.

The committee recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9 back to order. We’re on clause 11.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Jody Toor: My concern with this clause is…. Understanding how broadly these information-sharing agreements may eventually operate, what safeguards exist around the exchange of information between jurisdictions and oversight bodies in how government intends to protect transparency, privacy and public accountability as these coordination powers expand?

Why was it necessary to expand authority for information-sharing agreements between oversight bodies? What operational gap existed under the current framework? And why were existing coordination mechanisms considered insufficient?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The purpose of this clause is to enable the Privacy Commissioner to engage across jurisdictions on emerging privacy issues. A glaring example of this, of course, right now would be AI. This enables the Privacy Commissioner to engage, through information-sharing agreements, with other access-and-privacy regulators within Canada.

The second half of this clause, the second part of it, deals with the guardrails which are the conditions under which they cannot share information and the kind of information they can’t share. Just as a note, I think it’s important and relevant to the members opposite that this does come as a special committee recommendation from the committee where broad engagement was done.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jody Toor: What categories of information may be exchanged under these agreements? Could personal or sensitive investigated information be included? Are there categories that are prohibited from this exchange?

Hon. Diana Gibson: It’s clear in the new subsection (1.1), which specifies that the commissioner may not exchange information that they received to review a complaint related to an access or correction request.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the answer to the question.

Next question is about statutory limits. You sort of hinted at this in the last response, but are there other statutory limits governing what information may be shared? Where are those limits written, and are they policy, legislation or by agreement?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The statutory limits are set through this clause as well as further set through the information-sharing agreements that are referenced in this clause and elsewhere in the act.

Sheldon Clare: You said elsewhere in the act, but where else in the act?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The information-sharing agreements?

Sheldon Clare: Yes. Thank you.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Most relevant to this clause would be the definition in 69(1).

Sheldon Clare: Is it possible that personal information obtained during investigation could eventually circulate between jurisdictions, and will citizens be notified if this occurs? Would individuals be able to request records showing where their information has been shared, and would there be a response forthcoming?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The answer to your question is no, because section (1.1) of this clause includes the prohibition of sharing, and it includes information obtained as part of a review under section 52(1).

Just to re-clarify what the purpose of this is, it’s to facilitate collaboration and knowledge-sharing between jurisdictions.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

In terms of protecting privacy and the safeguards within these agreements, are there mandatory security, retention or destruction standards, and who verifies compliance with those standards?

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: A reminder, as we’ve discussed, section (1.1) of the clause we’re discussing sets clear boundaries around the disclosure of personal information obtained as part of a review, so this wouldn’t really apply.

It’s important for you to know, also, that the elements you’ve discussed are standard language in information-sharing agreements.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response.

Will these information-sharing agreements be made publicly available, and if not, how would citizens understand how their information may circulate? In that case, what transparency mechanisms are in place?

Further to that, and I guess it’s a related question so I might as well put it on the record at the same time: who approves the terms of these information-sharing agreements? Is there any independent body that reviews or approves them, and is the legislator informed of these agreements?

[4:40 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: First, it’s worth noting that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has guidelines for information-sharing agreements that are publicly available and that include the elements that have been discussed.

A reminder again that section 1 sets out the limits as to information that cannot be shared, which includes information acquired as part of an investigation, under section 52(1).

Also important is that this clause has guidelines around with whom the Privacy Commissioner can share information, which are information-sharing agreements with other access and privacy regulators within Canada — also recognizing that the Privacy Commissioner’s office is an independent office whose mandate is to protect privacy.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you for the response to the question.

You mentioned that this covers jurisdictions within Canada. Are there any situations in which jurisdictions outside of Canada might be included in these information-sharing agreements, and if so, how would they be controlled, audited or examined?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The language of this clause is very clear that the answer to this question is no. It’s articulated in clause (k): “under the legislation of another province or of Canada.”

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for the nice, clear response.

My next question is about oversight. What oversight mechanisms govern information exchanged across jurisdictions, and can these agreements be independently audited, and what recourse exists if information is mishandled?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I remind the member opposite, in terms of the clause, that it is tightly constrained to only others similar to the commissioner that have the powers and duties of a commissioner. It already exists as a provision under the privacy act. It was a recommendation of the special committee.

The Chair: Just a reminder to all members to direct your questions and responses through the Chair.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to the minister, could future agreements extend beyond the current intended scope, and what safeguards would be in place to prevent any gradual expansion over time?

One wonders if future governments would be able to broaden these agreements without legislative amendment.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The answer is no. The statutory limitations in this clause are designed to prevent that.

Sheldon Clare: This question is about the origin of these expanded authorities. Did the Privacy Commissioner request these expanded authorities? If so, what specific concerns or operational needs were identified? If not, who, then, initiated these changes and why?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The origin of this clause came from the special committee, based on a submission by the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and is designed to facilitate the tightly scoped collaboration and knowledge-sharing between jurisdictions.

Sheldon Clare: To the minister: thank you for the answer to the question.

In the discussions regarding this clause, were any concerns raised regarding interjurisdictional privacy risks, were any recommendations made to strengthen safeguards, and how were those concerns addressed?

Hon. Diana Gibson: As we’ve canvassed fairly thoroughly already in this discussion, the safeguards are built into this clause.

[5:00 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: Does government acknowledge concerns that increasing information exchange capacity may gradually broaden the circulation of sensitive information beyond what citizens reasonably expect? How does government define reasonable public expectation in this context? What safeguards ensure information-sharing does not gradually exceed the original intent of this legislation?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Asked and answered.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

Rob Botterell: I rise to move an amendment to clause 13. I’ll just provide a copy to the Chair.

[CLAUSE 13, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

13 Section 43 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

(a) by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) the behaviour of the applicant is abusive or malicious, , and .

(b) by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following:

(c) responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of

(i) the public body, or

(ii) the government of British Columbia, or

(d) the request is

(i) an abuse of the right to make a request under section 5 or 29 because the request is repetitious or systematic, or

(ii) excessively broad.]

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

On the amendment.

Rob Botterell: This amendment responds to the need for tools to address the concerns regarding aggressive behaviour from applicants. While I do have some hesitations on the appropriate oversight of how determinations will be made on what is considered abusive or malicious behaviour, I can support this part of the change.

This amendment also removes section 13(b) that grants the government additional powers to disregard requests that “unreasonably interfere with the operations of (i) the public body or (ii) the government of British Columbia.”

I do believe that we need tools to address bad behaviour, but I do not believe that, as written, there is enough justification for the broad overreach in 13(b). That is why I am proposing this amendment to clause 13, which only keeps the changes related to abusive or malicious behaviour and removes the rest.

The Chair: Members, the amendment is in order. We will take a very short recess to make copies for all the members to read.

The committee recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:11 p.m.

[Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members, I call the Committee of the Whole back to order.

Hon. Diana Gibson: We do not support this amendment.

Rob Botterell: By way of further explanation of the amendment, there are really two components.

One is to ensure that the amendment covers the behaviour of an applicant that is abusive or malicious.

The second part is to remove section 13(b). For the past 34 years, when a public body asked the commissioner to authorize the public body to disregard a request under section 5 or 29 and the grounds are that responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body, there is an additional test because the request is excessively broad or is repetitious or is systematic.

The effect of not making this amendment would be to give current and future Information and Privacy Commissioners an additional ground on which to authorize a public body to disregard a request and in doing so deny an applicant the legal right of access to records enjoyed by others.

This additional ground has, as we’ve talked about in other sections…. There’ve been lots of discussion about checks and balances on unreasonable interference with operations. In this section, if it weren’t amended, those checks and balances would be removed, and it would be no longer necessary to have a reason that the request is too broad or repetitious or systematic.

Those tests have stood the test of time for 34 years, and it will not be difficult for a public body to construct an argument that responding to a request unreasonably interferes with the operations of a public body or the government of B.C., especially in these times when there’s a large deficit and government chooses to prioritize other programs and services. And yes, it is true that the commissioner oversees this, but the commissioner is bound to administer the legislation as written.

With this amendment, the section is restored so that there actually is a test that the request has to both have an unreasonable impact but also be too broad or repetitious or systematic.

[5:15 p.m.]

Further, without this amendment, there will be no guidance given to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It is equivalent to giving the commissioner a blank cheque in terms of how the commissioner applies it. That’s going too far, and frankly, this opens up all sorts of different reasons than the request is systematic or repetitious or excessively broad.

We need to find other ways to address concerns rather than giving the commissioner a blank cheque that has no checks and balances. That’s why I’m supporting this amendment to go back to the original language, because the original language has stood the test of time, and there’s no justification for creating such a great big loophole in this act.

The Chair: Seeing no further remarks on the amendment, the question is the amendment to clause 13.

Division has been called.

[5:20 p.m.]

Members, is there agreement to waive the time?

Leave granted.

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

The question is on the amendment to clause 13 of Bill 9 moved by the Third Party House Leader.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Clare	Botterell	Maahs
Stamer		Luck
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Dix	Kahlon
Gibson		Shah

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

Hon. Diana Gibson: I move the amendment to clause 13 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[CLAUSE 13, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

13 Section 43 is amended

(a) by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) the behaviour of the applicant is abusive or malicious, , and

(b) by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following:

(c) responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of

(i) the public body, or

(ii) the government of British Columbiathe ministry of the minister responsible for this Act, or

(d) the request is

(i) an abuse of the right to make a request under section 5 or 29 because the request is repetitious or systematic, or

(ii) excessively broad.]

[5:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Is there any debate?

On the amendment.

Rob Botterell: Madam Chair and members of the committee, this amendment has not…. There’s been no justification provided for this amendment. Procedurally, at what point will we hear from the minister on the detailed rationale for this amendment?

The Chair: The minister is welcome to make a remark.

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you, members opposite, for the opportunity to speak to this clause.

Clause 13 is about ensuring that malicious or abusive behaviour towards public employees can be addressed, and this is about the health and safety and safe workplaces in public bodies. As we’ve seen across many parts of our society, there has been an increase in the mistreatment of people, and this includes violence, threats and extreme mistreatment of public workers. That’s part of what clause 13 is doing.

The piece addressed in this amendment is about extending the ability to seek relief, under clause 13, to the government of British Columbia when unreasonable interference is experienced across multiple ministries. This speaks to the second part of what this clause is doing, which is ensuring that where requests are excessively broad, repetitious or systematic, public bodies are able to seek relief from the Privacy Commissioner.

Demonstrating these in combination makes accessing that relief unjustifiably difficult and has dissuaded public bodies from applying. The amendment to the amendment is about ensuring that the government of British Columbia, when multiple ministries are experiencing these challenges, can seek relief as well.

Rob Botterell: My understanding of the amendment, as I read the order paper, is that under…. Clause 13 is amending section 43. In subsection (c), the phrase “the government of British Columbia” is repealed or deleted, and “the ministry of the minister responsible for this act” is substituted.

I’d appreciate an explanation, because that is the substantive amending change that I see. I don’t understand the rationale for that proposed amendment.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Through thoughtful discussions with other members of the Legislature about the government’s intent on the updates to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, and this clause in particular, it was identified that there was some concern with this clause as proposed, and while maintaining the intent of the clause, this proposed further amendment brought forward provides additional clarity.

Rob Botterell: What is the difference between “the government of British Columbia” and “the ministry of the minister responsible for this act” and the rationale for changing the term?

Before the minister responds “asked and answered,” the answer previously provided did not provide an explanation of “why make this change?” other than “some MLAs somewhere in this Legislature asked for it.” That raises some additional questions.

My first question is: why? Why make this change? What is the effect on the operation of this section of making this change?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The intent of this clause has been described already, but I’ll reiterate it again because it seems to be not fully understood.

The intent of this change is to ensure that those working on FOI within the government of B.C. can have the ability to seek relief under this clause when unreasonable interference is experienced across multiple ministries.

The wording here in the amendment to the amendment tightens the scope such that it’s very clear where that responsibility sits, and it continues to achieve what was our original intention with clause 13 while tightening the scope of it to avoid the misinterpretation and concerns that were being raised and that we were hearing from MLAs.

Sheldon Clare: The minister mentioned that there were concerns raised, but we didn’t hear what those concerns were. What specific concerns were raised about the clause as it stands that necessitate this change?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The amendment that we’re speaking to provides more precision on the intent of the provisions outlined in the bill. It tightens and narrows the scope while maintaining the intent of the clause as it had been designed.

Rob Botterell: If this amendment were to proceed, the clause would then read: “responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the ministry of the minister responsible for this act.”

Can the minister explain what it means for a request to unreasonably interfere with the operations of the ministry of the minister responsible for the act and illustrate the answer with some examples?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Our government has a centralized FOI service that supports ministries. This change allows that branch to be considered under this clause.

Amelia Boultbee: This amendment appears to reflect some feedback that, if I’m not mistaken, was reflective of conversations that I had with the minister and her staff, so I’d like just to clarify the operation of that.

Taking a look at the original clause 13, my understanding is that the way it’s worded, the entire government of British Columbia is captured in the original — which, to my mind, was too broad. Is it correct that the amendment reflects splitting it into a much-narrower, two-part piece, which is the ministry itself and whatever ministry or public body is actually receiving the FOI?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member opposite for the clarification. This does narrow this clause from the government of British Columbia to the ministry of the minister responsible for the act.

It tightens the scope, and I want to take a moment to thank the MLAs who engaged, in good faith, on improving this legislation.

Rob Botterell: I would like to return to an earlier question, part of which was not answered. This clause, with the amendment, would enable the ministry of the minister responsible for this act to apply to the commissioner for approval not to respond to a request because it would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the ministry of the minister responsible for this act.

My earlier question…. I’ll just rephrase it. Can the minister provide some examples of circumstances in which the minister’s ministry would apply to the commissioner for approval to disregard a request because it would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the minister’s ministry?

[5:45 p.m. - 5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: I think it’s important to clarify that this clause is under the oversight of the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner, who would authorize this request.

“Unreasonably interfere” is already in that act. There is existing language, existing jurisprudence criteria already established. This is about just ensuring that the hard-working staff in the centralized FOI team are considered in that.

Rob Botterell: We’re dealing with the amendment, and I can see a full day of questions coming once we deal with the amendments, back when we get to whatever the ultimate form of this clause is. So I’ll save some questions for that day.

The question I have here relates directly to the amendment, to understand the clause “the ministry of the minister responsible for this act,” because that is the proposed amendment.

My question is: what does “the ministry of the minister responsible for this act” add to the wording that is in place now?

In the normal course of events, if a public body’s operations were being unreasonably interfered with and the commissioner decided that the request could be disregarded, surely that would end and eliminate the workload on the ministry of the minister responsible for this act. If the FOI request is stopped by order of the commissioner, then indirectly and immediately any workload of the ministry of the minister responsible for this act effectively ends because the request no longer….

My question is: why is this needed, this amendment, at all?

Hon. Diana Gibson: It might help to clarify a little bit where the centralized FOI team sits. They sit under the ministry responsible for the act. If an FOI is directed to a particular ministry, their hours would not be considered in that, under this clause.

This change enables them to be considered by the OIPC under this clause.

Rob Botterell: The earlier question, which I’m still seeking to have answered, is not whether there’s oversight of the commissioner or whether the commissioner actually decides which requests can be disregarded and which ones can’t. But I come back to my question. Can the minister provide some examples of where the ministry, the centralized part of government dealing with this act, would request the ability to disregard a request to the commission?

I’m not asking about what the commissioner may decide and the commissioner’s oversight. I understand all that, although I’ll raise some more questions about that. I’m interested in just some examples so that British Columbians can understand and have an example, a potential example.

[5:55 p.m.]

What are the circumstances? Up until this amendment, there was an additional set of tests — repetitious, systematic or broad. So my question is: what are some examples?

Hon. Diana Gibson: By way of an example, any ministry accessing this clause presently…. Without the amended language, the work of the centralized FOI team would not be considered.

Rob Botterell: Can the minister provide some examples of the centralized work that would support a request to have an FOI request stopped in its tracks to the commissioner?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’m going to reiterate that there is existing language, existing criteria under the OIPC in jurisprudence. I have nothing more to add.

Rob Botterell: Yes. On the amendment to clause 13, very briefly, tomorrow I will want to raise questions about the centralized ministry structure and how it relates to this amendment.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:00 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act, to order.

On clause 3 (continued).

Brennan Day: I want to begin by saying I was very disappointed to not have a chance to speak to treaty during second reading, because I think it’s really important to understand this treaty and its effect on Comox from a local lens as well as acknowledge the extremely hard work of the treaty team and the multiple councils that have seen the treaty get to this point. I’ve been in close contact with them, and we want to work with them, but it is our job here as opposition to make sure that concerns are tabled and adequately addressed by government.

I want to begin with saying that I do believe that treaty is the right path forward for British Columbia. I believe the K’ómoks band deserves the opportunity to move beyond the Indian Act and towards stronger self-government.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’ve tried to treat this file with the seriousness it deserves, and it has now been caught up in a lot of outside narration that I don’t think is particularly helpful for the discussion we’re here to have today. I also don’t want to pretend to be a fourth-quarter quarterback here in a process that’s been underway since 1991.

With that, we’ll get into the importance of committee stage. I will note that the most vocal critics of this treaty have chosen not to participate to this point in the committee stage, which I find very disingenuous because it is important to hold the treaty to account.

With that, I don’t want to have an asked-and-answered response on this because I was in committee room the other day when the upfront cash component was discussed here in the room. I think it’s important that the province also answer the question regarding the land component and the estimated valuation behind that because it is a substantial sum of property with multiple different uses, including the timber and other things.

I want to make it clear that the cash component is not an unreasonable amount. We’re talking a school or a school and a half in the grand scheme of what it costs to build today in British Columbia, and I think that needs to be put in context for this treaty.

I’ll get to the question. Can the minister tell us what the total value of the land package in this treaty is and, in addition, just clarify what the ongoing annual compensation portion of this treaty will be? In 2018, the figure cited by the government for the land component was about $113 million in land and $37.4 million in standing timber. The land values since 2018 in the Comox Valley have increased by 35 to 40 percent.

Could the minister please confirm when the last value estimation was done on the land portion of the treaty, and what the current value of that land is today?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s good to see the member for Comox here to discuss the K’ómoks treaty. Certainly happy to answer questions, as there’s lots of good support in the valley but lots of questions, and I think it’s always good to answer them.

The member said: “Don’t do an asked-and-answered.” I do think that it’s important to respect the House’s time and that when a question is engaged fully in this room, that that be the historical record, rather than any time somebody comes in can ask the same question that was asked earlier. However, the member did want to understand the ongoing financial commitment from the government. I think we had a couple of questions on that last time, but I’m happy to state it once more, just in the spirit of collegiality.

[2:55 p.m.]

It is $400,000 ongoing for government supports and operations. There is financial…. For about 20 years, there will be continued supports for…. In terms of ongoing, because that was the question, it was $6.8 million in self-government funding through Canada; $400,000 per year in interim annual provincial funding for K’ómoks lands and resource management activities; and approximately $1.6 million in annual support to K’ómoks, over 20 years, towards park management for Sandy Island, Seal Islets and Wood Mountain, but that’s to end after that 20 years.

In terms of the other question, as has continued to be practised from when the opposition had been in government, as is still the practice today, the land valuation is a cabinet confidence matter.

Brennan Day: I do think it’s important that we understand what the estimated value of that land is. I guess the question that won’t break confidence is: when was the last time that the government assessed the value of that property as part of this treaty? The numbers I have are from 2018, at $113 million. Property prices have gone up 35 to 40 percent minimum over that time.

I can do that math, but I would like to know when the government last assessed that value because it does affect the total value of this treaty quite significantly.

I do think it’s important that we are transparent with British Columbians on the total cost of treaty because this will be, as the minister has stated multiple times, a precedent-setting treaty that will establish precedent over the rest of the province. There are 200,000 First Nations individuals living in the province of British Columbia. If the treaty package is worth $1 million per individual, that is important to understand as part of this treaty.

However, again, it is up to government to be transparent with those figures for British Columbians so that we can truly understand what we’re looking at, going forward. Without a plan, this will never be resolved. We need to set that precedent now, which is why it’s so important that we have this fulsome discussion.

So if the minister could please confirm the last time that the government did a land valuation on the property in this, it would be very appreciated.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll see what I can find out and what we are able to share here.

I don’t believe I’ve said that this treaty is precedent-setting multiple times. I’m not sure if the member has quotes that he’d like to share. Each treaty is certainly engaged with on a nation-to-nation basis, government-to-government-to-government, so each treaty is very much an individual package. I don’t think I would have used those words, but if the member is able to share, as he said I repeated it multiple times, I’d be interested.

Brennan Day: I find it very frustrating that the government cannot be forthcoming with the value of the land in this treaty or even of when the government last assessed the value of that land, given the massive changes we’ve seen in property value across British Columbia, with an outsized increase in the Comox Valley. If, in 2018, $113 million was the estimated value of the properties in question, that number has gone up dramatically. It is important we understand that, so I will just reiterate that.

Going to the precedent-setting statement that I made earlier, I’ll move into the next section, which is actually the living treaty language. I think this is probably one of the most important structural questions in this treaty, which is leaving a lot of questions open for myself and many, many legal critics and treaty experts in the province.

I say this as somebody that has been very clear from the outset that I want to support the treaty as the best path forward in B.C. I do not think the alternative, which is leaving more and more of these questions to long, expensive litigation, is good for K’ómoks, good for the neighbouring nations or good for the Comox Valley or British Columbia at large. But because treaty is the right path, we have an obligation at committee stage to understand the model we are being asked to approve.

This treaty adopts what has been described as a living agreement model. The treaty itself says that it is a living agreement. This is a departure from previous treaties. K’ómoks now own public materials to say that periodic renewal allows the three governments to open parts of the treaty to renegotiate every ten years, including because of legal development, environmental changes or what they describe as a me-too clause, if another treaty gets something that is not already included.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Now, that is materially different from the old full and final settlement language that was in previous treaties like the Tsawwassen Final Agreement, which says that it constitutes the full and final settlement of the Tsawwassen Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title, and those rights are modified and continue as modified under the agreement. Tsawwassen’s own agreement does have a periodic review date of 15 years, not the ten-year renewal which we’re contemplating in this settlement.

[3:00 p.m.]

What caught my attention is that the recent reporting for Tsawwassen’s support for ratification of the K’ómoks treaty says that Tsawwassen is currently undergoing its own 15-year periodic review and that its proposed modifications are tethered to the ratification of the K’ómoks and Kitselas treaty bills.

My question to the minister is fairly straightforward, and this, again, is why we’re potentially opening Pandora’s box here. Does the passage of this treaty set a practical or legal precedent for reopening existing treaties to seek similar ten-year periodic renewal language or similar living-agreement mechanisms, including in the context of ongoing treaty reviews like Tsawwassen’s?

If so — because that is what Tsawwassen is saying, not me; the Delta Optimist reported that yesterday, I do believe — how many other treaties are potentially going to be reopened because of the passage of this treaty, when it comes to the living treaty language, that don’t already include that type of periodic review language in them?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member might note we discussed the differences in how the treaty process has evolved over time in the last sitting. We discussed around the modification to living agreements but really about how they function the same in the sense that the section 35 rights are expressed through the treaty.

The discussion around living agreements, meaning there’s no certainty and that this is somehow brand new…. The member, in his question, mentioned periodic renewals in the Tsawwassen treaty, and a number of the other modern treaties have the periodic renewal.

The approach here is much the same in that if all three parties agreed that they wanted to make changes, then they could at that period. In terms of the other modern treaties, the member may know of — I believe he may have even voted on them — changes to the ɬəʔamɛn treaty, for example, which were not actually brought forward after the periodic renewal period but prior to, I believe.

So modifying laws, modifying how we work together, is not new. That’s how the treaty process has worked up to this date. This continues that process and that approach, where all parties would have to agree to periodic discussion around whether they needed updates to the treaty for a variety of reasons.

Just to be clear on the legal question: is there something in this treaty that, then, requires us to change all the other treaties? No, there’s nothing in this legislation that would require that. There is interest, obviously — the member noted Tsawwassen — in seeing updates to language more along the lines of this treaty in a couple of places.

I think one example might be ɬəʔamɛn Nation. We made modifications to their treaty — I believe it was last year — with reference to a living agreement as well. So this is very much in keeping with how we’ve been working with modern treaty nations.

Brennan Day: The ɬəʔamɛn agreement was a final agreement. I will thank the minister for thinking that I was in government at that time. I’ll take that as an acknowledgement. I don’t believe we did vote on that in the House.

If the answer is yes, which it seems like it is in Tsawwassen and the other treaties that are potentially reopened by this, has the government done any assessment of what the downstream impacts of this could be on future litigation, on the treaty administration and on the growth of the bureaucracy that’s going to be required to support these regular reviews?

[3:05 p.m.]

Again, we have a number of treaties that are already signed in this province that will obviously be opting into this language. There’d be no reason for them not to. But the ongoing cost and management of this is something that the government needs to consider.

What efforts have the government done to price in that sort of ongoing obligation as part of the bureaucratic budgeting and forecasting?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just for the member to know, I think he said that I said yes. Again, I don’t think I said yes. I think I said that other treaty nations might be interested, but they might not be. In fact, my answer was no, that this does not create a legal obligation on other nations to follow along. I’d appreciate if that could be clear, for the record.

Also, to the member’s statement that he wasn’t here when the ɬəʔamɛn treaty amendments were passed, I believe he was; they were passed in May of 2025. In fact, amendment 4 included the ʔayʔaǰuθəm language, changing the title of the ɬəʔamɛn final agreement to an agreement ʔaʔǰɩnxʷegəs, which means “a good relationship with someone together.” It added language that recognized the treaty as a living agreement that provides a foundation for evolution and an ongoing relationship amongst the parties.

If I remember, I think this was actually passed almost unanimously — not quite, but we were close. So it was certainly a good day here in the Legislature working with ɬəʔamɛn.

Yes, to just confirm again, this is not about creating a new bureaucracy to look at agreements once every ten years. This is about continued governing relationship work with nations, just as if the city of Vancouver approached the government and said, “We need amendments to the Vancouver Charter,” which I know have come through this House a number of times. In this case, it’s a ten-year review — not every year or every time somebody wants a change but to look at it in a ten-year period.

If it makes sense for government, if it makes sense for Canada, if it makes sense for K’ómoks, then we can make a change, but if not, then we keep talking. That wouldn’t require a legal obligation or bureaucracy to do it. We, in fact, have staff who manage the relationships that we do that work with already. It doesn’t increase that load. In fact, in many cases, working with treaty brings us to greater certainty. It reduces the extra work that can come when you have uncertain obligations or requirements.

Brennan Day: I know the minister is being very careful in his wording here, saying that there is no obligation for the other treaty nations to look to modify their treaties to the ten-year process. Obviously, there is a considerable benefit for them doing so. I guess the question is the open language, the me-too clause — and that’s the words from the treaty negotiation team, in terms of being able to opt in to some of these future treaty developments, whatever those may be, or changes — with a ten-year renewal period.

Is there anything preventing all of the other existing treaty nations currently from advancing living treaty language into their own treaties, based on the passage of this treaty, or can they already do that independently of this treaty? Does this set a precedent for them to then say: “Me too. We would like into that process. We would like to be able to open these treaties up every ten years”? Does this set that precedent?

I think that’s very important for people to understand. It does not give us that finality which was in those previous treaties. That, as it has been described to me by the treaty team and the K’ómoks band, is potentially a very good thing, but it also potentially opens up a whole bunch of future litigation for people opting in.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If I might ask a clarifying question. I’m not understanding the difference the member sees between the old periodic review, periodic renewal and what we present with this treaty here. They both operate very much the same way in the sense that people can make a request for change. We can consider it, and if we say no, then it doesn’t happen. If we say yes, then we work on it together.

So if the member can describe the difference as he sees it, it would help us understand what he’s asking.

Brennan Day: The previous treaties, even in title, were final agreement treaties. That was noted right in the language, which is very much different than a living language treaty in this.

If there are periodic renewals in the other ones, what were they? Were they consistent? Does this new language in this treaty potentially, then, retroactively, if they opt in…? Again, I know the minister was extremely careful about his language, describing it as they could potentially opt in, but there would be no obligation to opt in.

I recognize that that is a distinct change. Is there the possibility that the new language, the living treaty language, materially changes the ability for nations to retroactively negotiate for rights and title within the scope of the treaty? Can that now be adopted if this treaty is passed by other final agreement treaty nations?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse or anything. I’m just trying to understand. The member seems to suggest about this retroactive negotiation that it leads to a whole bunch of lawsuits and uncertainty. The treaty expresses the section 35 rights of the K’ómoks people. They are expressed in the treaty, and they cannot be expressed outside of the treaty.

A periodic renewal, a periodic review, doesn’t change that fact. The only thing it changes is that, effectively, 15 years to ten years is the difference between the former and the current. So in terms of saying that it’s going to open up a whole bunch of retroactive stuff, it can’t, unless all parties said: “You’re right. We think the treaty needs to be completely changed.”

If all three — Canada, B.C. and the K’ómoks — said they wanted to change everything, well, then they could have that conversation. But I imagine they would still have to connect with the public. They would still have to do their due diligence, all of those kinds of things. But the K’ómoks Nation was very clear that this is the treaty they support, this is the treaty they want, and this is the treaty that we as a government and Canada negotiated to support.

A theoretical, down the road, what other nations might want to do based on this treaty, could be a point for discussion. I think the legal fact, though, is that, again, the only change here is to go to ten instead of 15, effectively. The treaty still expresses the will of the nation, of Canada and of B.C.

[3:15 p.m.]

It’s not about opening the door to new lawsuits at this renewal period. In fact, it expressly says in the treaty very clearly what the treaty is about and what you can’t do outside of it. It doesn’t allow for extra work outside of the treaty to try and get stuff that wasn’t in the treaty just at the ten-year renewal because somehow it opens up everything. It doesn’t. It only allows the parties to make the request to have discussions at that stage.

Brennan Day: Based on the potential compensation here, a group of 340 people that represent the K’ómoks First Nation, obviously, would opt in to this treaty. It’s a great deal for them. I do think we need to acknowledge that, and I do think this is a great step forward for both the K’ómoks Nation and the Comox Valley.

But I do want to be very clear about the language. What I’m asking is: by passage of this treaty, does it pass a precedent that will be used by other nations to reopen their treaties to incorporate living language into already existing final agreement treaties?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, I might not term it precedent-setting, so I would disagree with the member there. I certainly would agree that there is interest in seeing it used in other treaties and other treaty nations asking about it and trying to better understand it. I wouldn’t be surprised if other treaty nations came forward and said, “We would like to do something similar,” either with pre-existing treaties or upcoming, potential treaties.

That being said, it has to be agreed upon. You can make a request, but it doesn’t create the obligation that it has to be followed in the sense of…. The legal language is clear.

And in terms of precedent, I think the member might remember, again, as I mentioned earlier, the ɬəʔamɛn amendments that, indeed, shifted the language to become a living treaty. In that sense of language and precedent-setting, certainly, it’s already been something that the House voted on and approved in 2025.

Brennan Day: You mentioned that there has been interest expressed by existing treaty nations to potentially go to the living treaty model. Could you please let us know what existing treaty nations have expressed that interest and at what point those discussions would potentially start to happen?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This is about the bill itself and the legislation, not the estimates process.

Brennan Day: I’ll move on. This will be a repeat question, so I mean, I expect it to be a fairly simple, straightforward answer.

From the outset of this process, I’ve tried to be extremely clear that I believe that treaty is the right path. I’ve also tried to be clear to the members of my riding that one of the reasons that treaty is the right path is because negotiated agreement is, obviously, far better than litigated uncertainty, and that’s what we’ve seen in British Columbia.

Over the period of the vote on ratification to this treaty to now, obviously, the legal exposure and attention that Indigenous reconciliation is getting in this province has increased dramatically and has shifted substantively. That’s why it’s extremely unfortunate we’re having this conversation now on treaty with that as the backdrop.

Because so many people in the Comox Valley never read the treaty…. Let’s be clear. Nobody does. You can do all the consultation in the world. People are always going to be last-minute commentators on it.

[3:20 p.m.]

I’d like to confirm once again, clearly and unequivocally for the record, that all private property not specifically identified in the treaty and its supplemental documents as current treaty land, former K’ómoks private fee simple land, subject to the consent mechanisms in the treaty or as land that may in future be added through the explicit process set out in the treaty — willing seller, willing buyer — is outside the treaty land package and not put at risk by this agreement.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, as has been clear, as I’ve stated many times over, despite some folks spreading misinformation, any private land is only on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis, and the land that is in this treaty package, as described by the member, is the private land that is in this treaty package.

Your homes, your businesses, if they are not owned by K’ómoks, if they are not part of this treaty package, as expressed by the member, are not in any way affected in the sense of someone else taking ownership or anything like that.

So very clearly, the land is Crown land, the land is K’ómoks-owned land, the land is reserve land that’s currently owned by K’ómoks. Then there are a few pieces that they’ve purchased as well. But the member correctly identified the lands that are in versus the lands that are out.

Brennan Day: I think this is extremely important to make sure we get right, because that is, obviously, given the backdrop of all the other legal problems going on in this province, probably the key issue that I’m certainly hearing in my office. The misinformation around that, and the conflation of this with other legal decisions, is obviously problematic.

Related to that, can the minister confirm for the record that this treaty, once ratified in its current and unamended form — as that is not an option, unfortunately — does not create a mechanism by which ordinary, privately held lands in the Comox Valley, beyond those expressly identified in the treaty architecture itself, can later be swept into treaty lands without the legal processes and consents expressly contemplated in this agreement?

I’m asking the question in a different way, but I do think it’s important. Again, the government has not done a great job of reassuring the public on this through the decisions that have happened over the last year, and I want to make sure it’s on the record so I can stand by my decision when it comes to the vote.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the member for acknowledging the misinformation that some people have been sharing — including a number of politicians, unfortunately — around land claims, land rights, what your role is in this province. I appreciate him speaking out about that as well.

The question, really, is: are private land owners shielded from claims for new, exercisable section 35 rights under the treaty, for any exercisable 35 rights under the treaty? And the answer is very much the same as I gave before, that private land owners are fully shielded from claims for new land claims by treaty nations.

Treaty nations agree in the treaty that they will not assert Aboriginal title to any lands, including privately owned lands, or assert any other rights not set out in the treaty. Future lands cannot be added to the treaty unless the treaty nation owns them in fee simple and B.C. and Canada consent to the addition.

Brennan Day: We’re going to move on to woodlot licence W0085 and the two other woodlot licences that are part of this treaty package. I’ve got a bit of a preamble here, and I will provide the minister with the written comments from the woodlot owner in terms of how this process was done. Much like the overlapping claims problem, the process is written down and doesn’t seem to have been followed correctly.

I want to focus very specifically on the process of this because, in my view, that’s where the committee can do some of the most useful work and make sure we get concerns of the residents on the record.

The bill is clear enough about the legal end state. Section 15 provides that woodlot licences W0085 and W1677 expire 25 years after the effective date and are non-replaceable and that the identified area of W0026 is deleted 25 years after the effective date. It also says that the Forests Minister may enter into an agreement for replacement land or compensation, but it does not say the minister must agree to that compensation.

So the legal effect is plain. That is a language choice in this treaty. What is not plain, I think, and what needs to be better understood and deserves to be on the public record is how the affected tenure holders were treated through the process that got us here. The material submitted to me by the holder of woodlot licence 0085 paints an extremely troubling picture of how this process has evolved to this point.

[3:25 p.m.]

Mr. Kevin Griessel describes a multigenerational operation. He sets out that the woodlot application process began in 1990, that Kevco Timber was awarded WL0085 in 1991, that the family has managed it since 1991 and that it has received repeated recognition for stewardship and excellence in management, including a 2004 excellence in management award, a 2015 private forest stewardship award and a 2019 Forest Minister’s Award for Innovation and Excellence in Woodlot Management.

He also makes a broader point about these woodlots, what these woodlots represent in communities like ours. He says that they are not just timber tenures. They are community green spaces, rec areas, wildlife habitat and places that support small-scale local forestry, local subcontractors, value-added manufacturing and wildlife risk reduction in the rural interface, which that woodlot certainly is. He says, and I think this matters a lot, that the loss of even one of these businesses to the communities can have a ripple effect on the broader economy.

What I really want to get to, though, in this is the process. Mr. Griessel states that over many years, the message they received was essentially that there would be no negative effect on the licence, that the Crown portion would go to K’ómoks only if they agreed to sell the licence willingly or if they were offered and accepted a suitable replacement property in return. If they wished to stay in their current licence area, that would be their choice.

Then he says that during COVID, letters were sent to neighbouring property owners indicating adjacent Crown lands would be going to K’ómoks — as they have, or they will be — and that concerned neighbours contacted the woodlot holder before the affected licensees themselves had been told their woodlots were not only on the table but effectively included in the package.

He points to Bill 28, which was passed in 2021, as the turning point, saying that it changed the framework from “must replace” to “may replace” in the language, removing what had previously been the protection for Crown tenures affected by treaty.

He then says that after COVID, when the licensees finally met with MIRR negotiators, they were told that the woodlot had already been formally offered to K’ómoks and that they only had two options — immediate forfeit for compensation, which to this day they say was never actually quantified with a dollar value for them, or a one-time 25-year extension with forfeiture at the end and no further compensation.

He writes that the option to stay on the land they have managed now for over 30 years successfully was simply removed and they were told, in effect, that the decision had already been made and there was nothing that they could do. He also says that when they pushed back and proposed alternative replacement areas, the file was passed back and forth between the Ministry of Forests and MIRR, with each acting as though the other were responsible.

It’s something we see fairly regularly. I’ll point to the estimates process and B.C. Ferries. The Ministry of Transportation is just one of a number of examples where passing the buck seems to be the standard.

He writes that the option to stay on the land they had managed for over 30 years was simply removed and they were told, in effect, that the decision had already been made. So with that, neither committed to anything beyond working on finding a replacement area. He quotes one meeting where after asking why B.C. Timber Sales land could not be used to replace treaty-affected woodlots, they were told, “The Ministry of Forests has no appetite to replace woodlot licences.”

Then there is the district lot 88 process. The submission says WL0085 and WL0026 began working directly with K’ómoks, that a land swap involving district lot 88 was proposed by K’ómoks, that significant professional work was done at the woodlot owner’s expense to assess that property and that after that work, the parties entered into a signed MOU with K’ómoks dated October 11, 2024, very close to the signing of that treaty in which K’ómoks supported replacement of the unit-based schedule B lands with an equal and comparable area and identified district lot 88 as the preferred area of investigation for that land swap.

The MOU says, amongst other things — I’ll provide it to the ministry; I’m sure they have it — that the K’ómoks supports Kevco in maintaining a replacement area. The replacement area must be equal and comparable. K’ómoks supports inclusion of the affected lands within a new area-based licence, preferably a woodlot licence, and both parties agree to collaborate with the Ministry of Forests and MIRR and seek prompt approval of the area replacement.

Then according to the submission from Kevco, K’ómoks had an election, the option disappeared and no formal explanation was given why. After months of follow-up, they were simply told that K’ómoks had pulled it off the table and that they should have known that by now. The submission says six figures were spent by two small businesses, Kevco and Chinook, which is one of the other licence holders, only for it to vanish without any formal notice or explanation.

[3:30 p.m.]

I want to be very careful here. This is not technically private property, if you want to be very specific, but certainly the intent and the ongoing use of woodlots are very unique to British Columbia in that they are multigenerational and have an ongoing local forestry impact.

I’m not asking the minister to litigate every factual disagreement between the parties in one answer, but I am asking for a clear chronology. The committee is owed, the affected tenure holders, an answer, because this is an unresolved question in this treaty that seems to have been lost, ignored. I understand people have limited bandwidth to deal with these issues. Certainly, K’ómoks has been extremely busy with this process.

My question to the minister is: can the minister walk this committee through, step by step, the process by which the holders of W0085, W1677 and W0026 were informed that their licences or licence areas would be affected? What options were formally offered to them at each stage? Which ministry was actually responsible for pursuing the replacement land, and what replacement areas were actually evaluated?

What became of the district lot 88 proposal? Is it still on the table or not — and the October 11, 2024, MOU, which now seems to have been withdrawn? And whether the government is satisfied that the process afforded to the tenure holders was fair, transparent and conducted in good faith.

Again, this treaty does set the process up. If the process is flawed, I think we have a responsibility here to identify those shortcomings in future, to try and rectify them today. Certainly, reconciliation can’t be done at the expense of others, and this seems like a place where that process failed.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not going to get into all the he said, she said. “This happened that meeting. This happened that date. We disagree with that argument. They disagree with this argument.” I think the focus the member has is: can we find a way to work with these woodlot operators? Can we find a way to work with them so that they can see their future?

There were a number of creative approaches the member referenced around looking at replacement lands, looking at other options. We’re still very much engaged in those conversations with both the woodlot operators and K’ómoks and the Ministry of Forests, I should say quite clearly, because we know the value woodlots have in communities and certainly…. In fact, I heard that from the K’ómoks Nation members, as well, about how they value the woodlots and the local businesses and the jobs that come out of them and they want to find a way together in the future.

Certainly, I don’t have new information to say this has been solved, that an agreement has been reached. But there is a continued interest from my ministry and Ministry of Forests, it’s my understanding, to work through these issues with the woodlot licensees.

[3:35 p.m.]

Brennan Day: Thanks to the minister for the response. I don’t think that’s going to be a particularly reassuring response to the woodlot owners, who are now being swept up in this a little bit unnecessarily even though an MOU was signed, which seems to have collapsed. They’ve never been given an actual offer of what that cash entitlement will be.

I guess we’ll go back to first principles here. Can the minister identify clearly which ministry had lead responsibility for replacement options for W0085, W1677 and W0026? Was it MIRR, or was it the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Replacement lands would be held through the Ministry of Forests, and, of course, we would be involved in as much as we’ve been supporting the treaty and supporting the work to get us to this stage.

Brennan Day: Who will be the lead ministry in this, and why has this broken down? I get that ministries don’t love to talk to each other. I feel at this juncture, now that we are going to vote to pass this treaty, likely this week, it’s important we understand who they will be dealing with, since we have a number of years here before the treaty takes full effect. This is one of the outstanding items that does need to be resolved.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, the member mentioned that we have some time to work this through. Of course, there’s the period before treaty effective date, which could be three years, could be a little less, could be a little more.

Indeed, in the case of 25 years of, at least at this stage, a continued commitment for support for the woodlot licensees to continue their work, obviously you’d want the answer and a bit of a solution sooner than that end of the period, given the need to make investments and the need to plan for the future, and so on. In terms of….

Treaties really are an all-of-government approach, so when we make a request through negotiation and coming forward with a proposal, obviously, we are supported in that proposal through the Ministry of Forests. They will assess their work and assess what they need to do. Can they agree to this? Can they support it? Can they find a path at least to work with us on it?

Certainly, my team has very much been taking the lead in terms of leading those conversations with Forests. In the end, of course, decisions have to be made at the Forests table that are not made at my table. So in that sense, they are the lead in terms of making a decision around the impact and what the future looks like around these woodlot licensees and how they work with Forests.

We’re very much at the table because we want to make sure that we’re doing our job, as well, to find a harmonious pass-over, so to speak, or harmonious handoff in the sense of how these arrangements are made.

Brennan Day: I guess I will follow up to the minister.

Can the minister confirm whether Bill 28 changed the effective protection for treaty-affected woodlot licences by removing the mandatory replacement model to a discretionary replacement model? Given that that’s the case, will this minister commit today to settling this issue with these three affected woodlot licensees?

There is no current mandatory replacement for these and, obviously, this is something we don’t want to have sour this relationship right out of the gate with K’ómoks and the broader community in these important areas.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To our legal team’s understanding, the bill the member mentioned, Bill 28, does not actually have an association with these woodlots. They’re not connected in terms of the argument the member was making. It doesn’t actually apply in this legislation. They’re not the same thing.

Also, for the record — I know the member mentioned it as well, acknowledging that these are not privately held lands — these are Crown lands that the member is talking about, where members of the public were given the ability, through their work, to use those lands as woodlots. Just to be clear, these are not private lands, because some people might suggest otherwise.

We do continue to see the value in working with the woodlot licensees. We see the value of woodlots across British Columbia, and I think we’ll continue to support those conversations and discussions to find a way. That being said, it’s important to know that the licences would be converted to 25-year licences.

That’s quite a considerable amount of time to make decisions around the future. We’re hoping that those decisions and discussions get resolved sooner, obviously, but a 25-year guarantee for use of Crown land is a lot more than most people get when it comes to tenures. Certainly, we’re glad that we’re able to make that agreement with K’ómoks and with Canada to support continued woodlot operations, and we’ll continue to support that conversation.

Brennan Day: It does take a fair amount of time to grow a tree. That’s why the woodlot licence programs have been so beneficial, because of the long window you have to manage those responsibly. Short-term management of timber lots, as we can see from many other examples on Crown land, generally have negative environmental consequences on long-term sustainability for the forest, of which this is an extremely important piece of recreational land, as well, in the Comox Valley.

I would say that the lack of mandatory replacement for a swap here is a concern, and I would again urge both the Ministries of Indigenous Reconciliation and of Forests to get back to the table on this and try to address this.

The onus now is on this woodlot owner. There is language in this treaty where they will be responsible for replanting and returning it to that state for a crop they will never harvest. Again, we need to be very careful when it comes to the management of this property through this transfer, because there could be some substantial negative consequences.

I guess we’ll go back to a sunk-cost question on this. The submission from Kevco and Chinook says that six figures were spent investigating the DL 88 option after K’ómoks proposed it and the MOU was signed. Did the province know these costs were being incurred? If so, what duty did the province think it owed those small businesses before allowing that process to collapse without any formal written explanation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, the province was not party to those conversations between a private company and the K’ómoks Nation. So of course, as we were not part of it, the member’s characterization of us allowing those talks to collapse is probably more of a political argument. We were not involved in those conversations, so we couldn’t have been involved in the discussion or be characterized as the member did.

[3:45 p.m.]

Brennan Day: Certainly, the base of this problem is that the buck has been passed between your ministry and the Ministry of Forests, and there has been no resolution. Yet we’re sitting here in committee stage of this treaty. Again, I would just reiterate the importance of getting those two ministries into action to try and settle this.

We’ll go to the public transparency piece of this consultation. At the Union Bay Hall open house, the submission says the map shown to the public did not identify the woodlot licence areas as being included in this treaty, even though now they are, even though the affected licensees say the decision had effectively already been made.

Can the minister explain why the public record at that stage did not clearly show the impact on the local woodlot licences during a local public consultation proceeding?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Back in 2022, my understanding is the lands that were shared at that time were the lands as they were negotiated — as had been decided upon, as had reached agreement between all parties — and that any lands that were added later were because they were negotiated later, that they were approved later to be part of a lands package. But the 2022 lands that were shared at that time were the lands as reflected in the agreement-in-principle and were the only lands that had been negotiated at that time.

Brennan Day: I think we’ll go back to the process problems. You’re saying that these lands were added after the consultation process in Union Bay had occurred. Was consultation reopened at that time, given the scope and size of the additional lands that had been added with the addition of these woodlots at that point?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that as additional lands were added to the package, the local governments, local stakeholders were reached out to. There were on the website updates, as well, of information around additions and with maps, and so on. Really, it was an iterative process where the bulk was discussed in those open meetings, and then a few additions were added.

[3:50 p.m.]

We were clear, my team was clear at those meetings — both in public and, I believe, in writing as well — that this was not the complete land package, that there were still some more that would be added in through future negotiations. That was expressed at that time.

Brennan Day: Given the process problems we’ve discussed today, is the minister satisfied that the multigenerational woodlot holder, who said he was first told there would be no negative effect unless he agreed or was suitably replaced, and who was later told the decision had been made and his licence would effectively be lost on a may-replace basis, was treated fairly?

Again I’ll ask the minister what timeline this ministry and the Ministry of Forests have at getting some resolution to this, because I can’t, in good conscience, vote for an open-ended question when it comes to something like this. This sets a nasty precedent that small woodlots near communities like mine and in other areas of the province are going to be used as really easy bargaining chips, going forward.

It’s a sticky issue, but these are community forests that are used by multiple communities in this province. If we are putting them on the table, we are going to have a hard time properly managing those forests, going forward, if they can be negotiated away without just compensation.

I’d just like to see what the minister is going to do and give us some sort of timeline on when this is going to be resolved. It does seem like bargaining was started in good faith. It doesn’t seem like there’s any malicious intent here. But at the end of the day, we have an open-ended question on a treaty that is now going for final ratification to this House. I think that is a question and an issue that needs to be addressed by MIRR and by the Ministry of Forests in a fair and equitable way to avoid future problems with treaties that are coming down the line.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, let’s remember the local context here. This is not just anywhere in British Columbia. This is Vancouver Island, where, because of the impact of the Esquimalt-Nanaimo land grants, there is very little Crown land in the Comox Valley. That has meant that we’ve had to find creative ways to create a land package while trying to limit the immediate impacts on small operators.

I hear the member share his frustration and concern about the operators. I know my team looked everywhere. They sought creative ways so that they would not be part of the package. But in order to make the package viable, what we’ve done is provide a guaranteed 25-year term, which continues under the woodlot program. The transitional measure is really meant to alleviate the impact.

We understand there’s an impact and would allow the operators to transition their operations if that’s a choice, if they want to move that operation. Certainly, we’re continuing our dialogue with Forests around how we can support, whether it be a replacement or some other avenue, if they’re looking to do something different.

I hear the member’s concern. I’ll continue to work with the Ministry of Forests, with my team, because I think that, again, we want to make sure that these processes work for everybody. Treaties, I believe, when done well, lift everybody up and give an opportunity for new prosperity, which we currently are being denied because of the existence of the Indian Act and other barriers to that prosperity.

So we’ll continue to do that work, and I appreciate the member’s continued interest in the file.

Brennan Day: I didn’t hear a commitment there to a timeline, but I will say that this particular issue goes to the integrity of the process itself, whether it was done fairly, negotiated in good faith.

There have been memorandums of understanding between the K’ómoks Nation and the woodlot holders that have been since disregarded, yet that land continues to be part of this treaty.

I would highly encourage the Ministry of Forests…. Again, I’ll put it on all parties to get to the table on this and resolve this, because it is a critically important step in ensuring the integrity of the process and making sure there are no loose ends where we don’t want to give the critics of this process the ammunition to claim that private property rights are potentially at risk in B.C. Certainly, when it comes to these long-term Crown woodlot licences that are managed over generations, that is certainly how it will be seen by critics.

[3:55 p.m.]

We’re going to move on now, since you mentioned the Dunsmuir land lease and the E&N lands, which, we can all agree, was a bad decision and, we can all agree, should be open, public Crown land. If we want to have that discussion to reopen that and protect the watershed in the Comox Valley, you have my absolute full support for that particular conversation. I don’t think Mosaic will back me up on that, but that is certainly a massive concern in the Comox Valley.

We’re actually going to be talking about the Island Rail Corridor, the E&N Railway right-of-way. I want to focus on this through the lens of clarity, continuity and process again, because I think there are two levels to this issue.

There’s the big-picture level, which is whether the province has done an adequate job of preserving the integrity of the old railway corridor as a contiguous public asset for future transportation, future commercial rail, future passenger rail or, at the very least, a continuous multi-use trail. We have seen the impact in the south Island when that route gets broken up, limiting our options for much-needed public transportation on Vancouver Island.

Then we need to look at the very practical local level, where businesses and property owners in places like Courtenay are dealing with immediate uncertainty over access, rear servicing and who actually has authority over that land. From the outside, it certainly looks like underused chunks of property that are just backed onto by several businesses in Courtenay, on Piercy.

I’m going to be very careful here, because I did upset K’ómoks First Nation when I advocated on behalf of the businesses because they were represented with the Island Corridor Foundation, who is now managing that property. However, they’ve had legacy, grandfathered access to the rear of these properties along the Comox rail corridor that runs through the city of Courtenay.

What I find interesting, however, is that at that time, it was identified by KFN that that property was potentially under treaty. I do not see that specific property included in this treaty. However, I do see several future additions noted here that are Island Corridor property.

I’m just wondering how the treaty team is going to deal with the Pentledge 2 rail corridor, the Pentledge 2 expansion lands. That’s on the other side of the river. There’s never been rail there. I don’t think that’s particularly contentious, but it does limit the possibility of rail going north of the Comox Valley, east of the Comox Valley.

The Piercy Road accommodation parcel, the Southlands rail corridor…. Probably the most important one is the section through the Union Bay lands, because that does cut the potential for rail, effectively, to the north Island in half because it would affect the continuity of that corridor.

What consideration has the treaty group given to the Island Corridor? We know that there are other sections that are under a bit of a back-and-forth bun fight over who will manage it, going forward. If we lose the integrity and continuity of that corridor, we lose the potential for rail on Vancouver Island forever. There was a reason they protected it. We may not like it. I’m just wondering what the position is.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes. I, too, am interested in the opportunities of that Island Rail Corridor. I know down in the south Island, they’re talking about kind of a reconciliation pathway. They’re looking at other opportunities. It certainly does feel like an opportunity, but it’s a challenging one for sure, given the legal landscape, given the lack of use, given many years, and so on.

I think the parcels the member has identified are approved for pre-addition to the treaty, but K’ómoks would have to decide to purchase those lands, so they’re not currently owned by K’ómoks.

[4:00 p.m.]

In addition, I believe Island Corridor Foundation would have to agree to sell those lands. And to my understanding, in terms of their current framework and their current approach, I find it difficult to believe they would sell unless there was a commitment to continued access, whether it be for rail or pathway or other opportunity in the future.

Brennan Day: Given that those private lands could have been protected through a statutory right-of-way provision, which is…. You know, we see that all over this treaty. I’m just wondering why that option wasn’t chosen to protect the integrity of that corridor through these lands. If it doesn’t get used, it doesn’t get used.

Again, my parents have an E&N right-of-way right through their property that’s been there…. I doubt there’s a train going into Dove Creek any time soon, but the possibility was there, and that’s why it was left open. I do think it’s extremely important that we protect that property.

Was there a choice? Was it because ICF is managing this corridor now, and it couldn’t be protected as statutory right-of-way? What assessment was given in this treaty? There are several piecemeal chunks, as we move along the treaty map, that are potentially affected, as you say, for future purchase.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s a very interesting question, and it’s one that speaks to, I guess, a question of how government, over many years, has chosen to operate in terms of pre-approved additions to reserve lands. I think historically, the approach when land has become pre-approved for addition to reserve is not to put a whole bunch of conditions on it, as it’s the pre-approval to reserve. There may be future interests down the road.

I think there’s some question which I don’t have an answer to yet, but I would be interested in getting a further answer on it. It may take some time with legal briefing, and so on. I don’t want to waste the member’s time here today.

In terms of the conditions upon the Island Corridor Foundation as well, in terms of what expectations and legal obligations they have when it comes to the opportunity for sale…. For example, what obligations they have in making such a choice may well preclude some of the things that could happen on that land. I’ll see if I can get a fuller response to the member post this discussion.

[4:05 p.m.]

It’s an interesting question that, certainly, I want to engage with as potential other treaties up and down the Island make their way through systems or discussions or negotiations.

Brennan Day: It would be great if we could open that broader discussion. Again, like I say, it has become a bit of a strange dispute in a certain number of businesses that have had historical access to what effectively was Crown land.

Now that that Crown land is being traded away in treaty, which is fine, it’s creating some jurisdictional problems with ICF, the K’ómoks First Nation, the city of Courtenay and these business owners who, effectively, were told by ICF to pay $5,000 to access the back alley that they’ve been maintaining for 30 years, which is just prickle bushes and dirt lot.

Then K’ómoks got upset at me for advocating on behalf of businesses, one of which is an employer of about 50 individuals, Natural Pastures Cheese, which has some amazing products from the Comox Valley. I think it’s very important we have a reasonable discussion around this.

I do think the missed opportunity, if we break up that rail corridor, cannot be understated, whether it’s through treaty or otherwise. That is in the benefit of everybody on Vancouver Island — First Nations and otherwise — to maintain that continuity and make sure that it’s not used as a bargaining chip in treaty.

Unfortunately, in this, those lands have been included for future use. I understand that it’s only a possibility. I do think that there was a lack of foresight in just saying that those strange cut-throughs are off the table so that we can maintain that continuity for our future generations.

I think I’m going to potentially leave it there. I do want to close my line of questioning, and I think I’ll probably have a few more once the stakeholders I’ve spoken about today have a chance to dig into the conversation today.

I did want to discuss the Queneesh mobile home park, and I want to do so very carefully knowing that it is not a treaty issue, necessarily, but it is certainly having a substantial negative impact on a number of individuals at that park.

If the minister is unaware of the background, the park has given two-year notices of eviction to the tenants of that trailer park. They have been told it will be up to them to remove their trailers. That will be on their cost, and it has effectively reduced the value of those trailers to zero in most cases, because they are not movable. We have an extremely vulnerable population living in that trailer park, many retirees, many struggling with cancer, many individuals with special needs. Over 100 people in 37 homes have effectively lost their nest egg.

Now, I do not want to put the blame on K’ómoks. We have seen what happens down here with Songhees in a very similar situation, that was tested in court, in which they’re meeting their obligations as buyer beware on First Nations leasehold property. The reality, however, is much different because they are not protected by the Residential Tenancy Act. They are not protected by the provincial Mobile Home Act. They are not protected, and certainly the federal government will not get involved in this dispute because of the precedent it will set. And that actually doesn’t matter to those 100 people.

Can the minister explain exactly what is meant by the replacement of Queneesh mobile home park — this park is in the treaty because it is mentioned specifically, lease on the effective date — and what legal rights or continuity that replacement lease provides and whether it changes anything for the existing residents? Again, we’re on a 22-month timeline for their eviction.

We don’t know when treaty will be settled. My assumption, again, is that the leases were terminated so that they didn’t overlap from federal jurisdiction to K’ómoks. I think that’s a reasonable assumption based on what’s happening, because it’s cleaner that way. Again, certainly not for the 100 residents and 37 houses that are now worth $1 that were on the market, some of which were bought 12 months ago.

So there is some question about being upfront with how long that lease was going to last. Has the province considered the park residents’ circumstances when agreeing to the replacement structure that is noted in the treaty on the Queneesh mobile home park?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member is correct. Of course, the decisions of the K’ómoks Nation are the decisions of the K’ómoks Nation. They’re not the decision of the B.C. government. Any references to leases, in this case to the mobile home park, simply reference that, yes, if there is an agreement that is being held at the federal level, which then transfers through treaty effective date into K’ómoks decision-making ability, as is the case with this park in the sense of the legal obligation and how that structure works….

The province did not have any involvement in management decisions or decisions K’ómoks made around what they were planning to do with that property or other leases or agreements in that sense. Certainly, that would have been held at the K’ómoks Nation level, as it is very much their territory, their lease, their discussion.

Brennan Day: Can the minister explain exactly what is meant by the replacement of the Queneesh mobile home park lease “on the effective date” — that’s the wording from the treaty — what legal rights or continuity that replacement lease provides and whether it changes anything for the existing residents of the park legally, and whether the province considered the park’s residents’ circumstances when agreeing to that replacement structure in the lease?

This is obviously a well-known facet of the current K’ómoks land. They’ve been there for a considerable amount of time. There are 100 members there. There are 340 members for K’ómoks. So it is a substantial population on that land base, and I think that just needs some clarity in terms of why that decision was made and the wording.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Some legalese that I had to sort through.

In the minor-changes provision in the treaty, there is the possibility for minor changes. So in the case of a lease that a nation might have — it could be, as the member mentions in this case, the trailer park; it could be a business lease, another lease — it’s currently listed in the appendices. However, should a lease finish before treaty effective date, through the minor-changes provision, that lease could then be deleted from that.

Now, if the lease continued, if there were an interest that’s ongoing in that interest, then that allows that provision to continue post-treaty as well. That’s why it’s listed currently, because it was a snapshot in time, in the sense that that lease and that obligation is there. How they choose to arrange that interest over the next while will impact what change could exist at treaty effective date, if any.

Of course, that is common in these treaties, common in legal agreements, in terms of ones that take place over time like this one does.

Brennan Day: Thank you for the response, Minister. I guess that does explain the timeline that the residents have been given.

I feel that all government agencies need to be made very aware of the problem that is currently unfolding in that trailer park. The trailers largely are unmovable. They are now valueless. In fact, people will be on the hook for their disposal if they don’t abandon them. People have mortgages owing on property that is now unsellable.

I understand that this is ex parte, probably, to the treaty itself, but the timing, as you’ve just outlined, certainly driven by this treaty, has triggered that eviction, to clean the slate. I don’t hold that against K’ómoks, but I would draw the attention of both your ministry and the Ministry of Social Development to the 100 individuals that are going to be displaced.

We know that when Songhees undertook the same action, many seniors did end up living in cars on the streets. There are currently three Songhees, former residents of that park, living in tents. So we understand that capacity. I think it is incumbent upon governments to ensure that those individuals are properly taken care of through the system, because through no fault of their own, they are being caught up in what, I would say, is an unintended consequence of this treaty action.

Although it doesn’t need to be considered…. The legal grey area is clear, unfortunately, that nobody has responsibility, either through the RTB or the Manufactured Home Act, to deal with this. It will be left up in the air. Again, it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths.

I’ll go back to the woodlot licences again, and I will restate, for the record, that I agree with the minister that this does not affect private property. However, these unresolved issues can be conflated into something that they are not, given the background of what we are going for. I believe it should be incumbent upon everybody to ensure that those issues are taken into account, because people are struggling with this, whether it’s the woodlot licensees or the people that are getting displaced.

With that, I’d like to thank the minister for his time. I may be back in the next couple of days to ask some follow-up questions on specific responses.

I’ll hand it over to the member of the Green Party.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I thank the member for his engagement on this.

Just to be clear on one issue that I wanted to be absolutely certain of, it is the Island Corridor Foundation that owns the land that the business owners you’ve mentioned have the challenge with. The question is not K’ómoks at this stage.

Even should treaty pass, it will still be Island Corridor Foundation, so that issue that the business owners have is still very much with Island Corridor Foundation. That may change in the future but certainly not in the near future, so I’d urge him to pass that on to his constituents so that they know who to engage with on that one.

I appreciate the questions.

[4:20 p.m.]

Brennan Day: My apologies.

Just to confirm then, there is no interest currently from K’ómoks that is in this treaty, in terms of property that borders onto Piercy within the city of Courtenay, that is under either current or future claim by K’ómoks under this treaty?

If you could just confirm that for the record, I think that would make the negotiating parties a little more clear.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As I stated earlier, it’s a pre-approved addition, but they have to purchase it. So it’s not pre-approved in the sense that it’s already been approved, treaty passes, it moves into treaty land. It’s land that…. At some point in the future, should the nation want to make an offer that is then accepted, it would then start the approval-to-reserve process or approval-to-treaty-lands process.

That would take a few more steps than…. It’s currently not treaty land. It’s pre-approved to become treaty land should a purchase be made and, of course, the seller be willing to sell it.

Jeremy Valeriote: I just have one outstanding question from last week.

To really quickly recap, we all recognize this treaty has been in the works for 30 years and an incredible amount of work has gone into it. I mentioned, in my second reading comments, that our role as MLAs sits squarely within the legislative process, so this means most of us in this room had not been up close with this treaty until very recently, which makes sense.

With that in mind, I’m wondering if the minister can detail how much time and what form of notice was given to neighbouring First Nations that this treaty act would be brought to the provincial Legislature for consideration.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the patience. There’s a lot of work that could be shared in terms of an answer to that because…. One staff said: “Well, 2008. Go back then.” But to be realistic, that was very broad at that time.

[4:25 p.m.]

To get up to more close to present day…. And 2008, I think that’s when I joined this place, sorry. To get a little close to the present day — yesterday’s man here, oh boy — would be to say that in 2024, we had the initialling ceremony, which was…. I know, certainly, neighbouring nations were well aware of that. In that process, it certainly was well known and shared that we do the initialling.

Then the next step is nation ratification, so community vote on the treaty. At that point, of course, in 2024, there was a public, online version of the treaty shared for anyone to see, including a land package as well.

In 2024, as I said, there was the initialling, nation ratification and then everyone knows the next step to that, after nation ratification, is provincial ratification and then federal ratification and then treaty effective dates. It’s well known, certainly in the negotiation world, that that is the process. That has been the process B.C. has followed for many years in terms of treaty implementation and shouldn’t have been a surprise to anybody.

The Chair: Thank you. Actually, the Chair is going to call a ten-minute recess. We’ll return at 4:35.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act, back to order.

We are on clause 3.

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay. Let’s take a brief recess until we have the quorum.

The committee recessed from 4:37 p.m. to 4:38 p.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon again. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act, back to order.

We are on clause 3.

John Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s answers to many questions from this afternoon. We talked last week about the value of the treaty. I know the member from Comox asked the question, and the minister responded accordingly, in terms of the amount of money, the breakdown of the money, the amount of hectares, all those kinds of things.

I did ask a specific question of the minister last week, and I’d like to repeat the question because we didn’t really get an answer, which is the value of the land, particularly the land that becomes title land. Ultimately, that becomes the whole package in terms of the value of the deal, so I just would like to give the minister an opportunity to provide some numbers, if he could, in terms of the value of the land component associated with the K’ómoks treaty.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m advised, similar to the answer I gave last week, that again, the common practice has not been that that land value is shared. It’s a cabinet confidential number, as it was, I’m told, under previous governments as well. I certainly can take other questions around land and how we chose packages, parcels, etc. But in terms of the valuation, I’m told that is confidential.

John Rustad: I understand the sensitivity around this. I’m just going to throw some numbers out there. The minister can say yes or no or not say anything.

The number is important. When you start talking about British Columbians, start talking about the size of this, the value of this treaty overall, start talking about what it would be if all 204 nations signed treaties…. It’s important to have some numbers around this just so that British Columbians understand what we are doing here in terms of the treaty and what we’re getting in terms of the treaty, as well as what we’re providing.

The number that the minister has provided was a total of 33 square kilometres in total land. Of course, that’s not land. That is the total area of the treaty.

So 10.4 square kilometres of private land or title. I call it title land. The minister, I believe, calls it treaty lands as opposed to treaty territory. So 10.4 square kilometres of that and then another 18 square kilometres that could be potentially purchased by the K’ómoks Nation as pre-approved additions. Let’s leave that out because that’s not part of it at the moment. Let’s just talk about that 10.4 square kilometres of land that is considered treaty land or the equivalent. In the rest of the world’s understanding, around the province, it’s private land.

When you look at property value in the Comox Valley of undeveloped land — in other words, land that doesn’t have a home on it or a building of some structure on it — it’s just a lot. The average price for a lot is around $350,000 to $450,000, and those lots vary in size between 0.1 and 0.3 of an acre. So let’s say an average of 0.2 per acre at $350,000. Take the low end of the value of that land.

Now, that’s about $1.75 million per acre. The 10.4 square kilometres is equivalent to 2,570 acres, roughly. When you do the math, that’s equivalent to about $4.5 billion. At 350 people, that’s equivalent to $13 million per member of the K’ómoks Nation in just the land value. Plus there’s a cash component that’s on top of it.

The reason for asking the value is it’s important to know, for the people of British Columbia, what is being put on the table in terms of the value of this treaty on a per-capita basis. Now, those numbers may vary, and I understand some value…. Some land may be worth more than others in terms of what that 10.4 square kilometres is. But I do know — and we’ll get into looking at specific packages, piece by piece — that there is significant value in that they’ve chosen which lands to include as part of this.

At that rate of $13 million, roughly, per person, when you start doing the math around the province, if all nations were to sign treaties, we’re talking about a value of around $2.6 trillion in total value for nations, for the 200,000 or so Indigenous people in this province. It’s not an insignificant number.

[4:45 p.m.]

So perhaps…. I know the minister is saying that these numbers are confidential. I know these numbers were batted about when it was the Lheidli T’enneh treaty in Prince George, which was not ratified. But when it was the Tsawwassen treaty…. I don’t recall seeing the numbers around the Maa-nulth treaty or the ɬəʔamɛn treaty, but it’s easy enough to do the math within those areas as well.

I think there would be value if the minister could explain to the people of British Columbia, and the people particularly in the Comox Valley, what that number is in terms of treaty settlement so that then we can really get a better understanding of what it is that British Columbia and Canada, the taxpayers of British Columbia and Canada, are putting on the table to create some form of certainty through the process of treaty.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I thank the member for his question. I think, certainly, I understand his interest in speaking around the value of land and what the value would be to the K’ómoks Nation.

I think it’s just as important to look at the value of the land that we all share in this province and the value that it has lifted up, the economic opportunity, the trillions upon trillions that have been made historically in this province going back to time of settlement, in that sense.

Earlier we talked about the E&N land grant and the impact that that had certainly on the K’ómoks People and the K’ómoks Nation in terms of territory, ability to use the land. When the member looks at the size of the K’ómoks historical use area compared to what we’re looking at in this treaty, it really is about….

[4:50 p.m.]

It’s quite a minute portion — it would still be described in that way — in the sense of having exclusive use as we’re talking about in this treaty.

I think the other thing is that it’s challenging, of course, when you try and extrapolate one type of property and use it as a stand-in for unserviced lots, rural lots, lots that that really can’t be used because of access. To say that they’re all the similar price range, I think, is challenging.

Again, I would come back to that this treaty unlocks the opportunity for (1) greater prosperity in the region; and (2), more certainty in the region, as it’s clear what is in the treaty, what is not and what is certain outside of the treaty lands, the broader treaty area — how it works, how it operates.

It leads to, I think, the unlocking of opportunity in the Comox Valley that we haven’t seen before. That’s because, in part, the nation was locked out of that opportunity, which created uncertainty in and around the Comox Valley, which is being addressed through this treaty.

John Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer, and I understand the sensitivity in the issue.

You’re right that there are obviously huge differences between serviceable and unserviceable access, non-access, but I also know that looking at the treaty package, looking at the lands selected, the lands were selected for a reason. That was to be developed or land that has those potentials. There wasn’t interest in land that didn’t have access or those types of things.

Now, there’s a mix. There’s some other land in there, but the bottom line is it’s a lot of money per person. When you do the math there on the private property, $2.2 trillion roughly, maybe $2.5 trillion, I think, is the total value of private property in British Columbia today. I’m pretty sure if you go around, the average person in British Columbia doesn’t have $13 million dollars in value in their property, so there’s obviously a pretty significant amount of value that is being created here.

And yes, there’s the certainty for the province, although they still have to go through all the consultation and accommodation and everything else that’s required. So nothing really has changed from this treaty for the benefit of British Columbians, only that there is defined structure to this, but section 35, essentially, all still applies.

In any case, I’m not saying that a treaty isn’t a good thing to do. I’m, obviously, supportive of the treaty and treaty process, but it’s important to put the value in terms of what it is that we are achieving and that value that’s in there for British Columbians and what we are paying for that. As the minister is well aware, 204 nations around the province — the amount that is sitting there is a big price tag.

Now, the argument you could say is “well, it’s land; it’s not money,” that side of things, but it’s still a tremendous amount of opportunity. I would agree with the minister when he says the K’ómoks Nation, as well as all First Nations, historically, have been shut out. They haven’t had the same opportunities ever since Confederation, so there is a wrong that’s there. There’s a value in terms of it.

I don’t think we should be shy talking about that value so that British Columbians understand that this is the price of reconciliation. This is the price that we need to do in British Columbia. I don’t think we should hide that number from them. If British Columbians support that, great, and I think the majority of British Columbians probably do support the idea of treaty, but, at the same time, we need to be upfront, just letting people know.

It’s unfortunate that the government has made the decision. I was part of previous governments. I don’t recall that ever being really talked about or out there, although I do remember seeing the numbers back in the day when other treaties had come forward. I think it’s a policy change that government should think about just in terms of transparency.

At the end of the day, especially in the environment we’re in in British Columbia today, where there’s a certain amount of distrust that’s going on — particularly with DRIPA, with everything that’s happening — it’s important that we make sure that people in British Columbia understand what this is and what it isn’t. Numbers are part of it, so anything that’s hidden gets blown out of proportion. Who knows how that plays out? Without facts, numbers get out there, and there could be push-back because of it.

[4:55 p.m.]

With that, I recognize I’m not going to get the number from the minister in terms of this, and I respect that. Unfortunately, the minister’s hands are tied because of government policy, but it is a little unfortunate, just in terms of it. I think it’s an important number to think about, just in what reconciliation means and how we achieve it everywhere around the province.

For example, a cash settlement. In some areas that don’t have the land value, that don’t have a thing, is that an appropriate thing? What would that look like per person? What does that create, in terms of things?

There are many First Nations in this province that really don’t have the same type of land opportunities that K’ómoks does or that Tsawwassen did, which doesn’t have the same sort of value. There are other ways that reconciliation could potentially be achieved to conclude reconciliation in the province. Like I say, I just wanted to put that on record, through this. In terms of the process, I think it’s important to have these things out there as part of the conversation.

With that, I will pass it over to my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: I think my friend from Nechako Lakes raises an interesting point here.

I just want to address something before I move into my line of questioning that I’m going to dig into here. Perhaps it’s my lack of experience in the role and understanding some of the processes that government follows, etc., and having an opportunity to learn that. I think it’s really important to get straightforward, on the record.…

I feel like my colleague probably knows this process a little bit better than I, but I still think it’s interesting to address, because I agree with everything that he said. Never more than today, transparency is very important as we’re doing this. It’s actually critical to the process.

I think there’s a hunger in the public to have a greater understanding of what the shared cost of reconciliation truly is. I firmly believe, if we’re going to pursue a process such as treaty, that we are as upfront and open with the public as possible, because I feel like that lack of transparency either draws people to their own conclusions.… Some people would maybe choose to make things up, and others get very frustrated about that.

I just want to ask the minister a question, for the record, following up on my friend’s question, talking about cabinet confidentiality when it comes to the value of the land in the land package. Could the minister confirm that, yes, in fact, cabinet has what’s called a really good estimation of the land value for this treaty package and that it is under cabinet confidentiality not to share that with the public?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, as would have been the case when my colleague the member from Nechako Lakes was the minister, it’s still the case here. Cabinet discussions, of course, are confidential.

Scott McInnis: I understand, I think, the answer from the minister. I just think it’s a difficult policy to pursue when the public surely, at some point, is asking and will be asking about the value of land transferred under the treaty, and the answer is: “That’s confidential information.”

I certainly don’t think that is a helpful policy to pursue. I don’t think it’s in the best interest of all British Columbians. I certainly believe that people can deal with the truth when they have it. It’s the lack of truth which, again, frustrates people, has them draw their own conclusions, make things up, like I said.

I’m going to ask the minister: does he feel like in this treaty, the K’ómoks treaty, that not disclosing the land value is helpful in the public engagement with reconciliation in general?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As much as I could share my feelings about a whole bunch of things, feelings aren’t really relevant to the actual legislation itself that we’re here debating and the treaty itself.

I would say, in terms of the question of transparency, that I did hear from a number of members in second reading where they talked about transparency. They, I think, made the claim — I remember one person saying — that they’d only been given one week, or maybe it was two weeks, to be able to see the treaty, that we had kept the treaty away so no one could see it, that we should have given more time.

The treaty itself, to be clear, including land, was publicly available since 2024, including what the land package looked like, so people could think about the land pieces involved. They had the opportunity through town halls, open houses, online and more to engage on these issues. So very much, we do care about what people think in terms of the values they place in their community.

Given the tight land package that exists in the Comox Valley because of the E&N land grant and our commitment, an ongoing commitment, to ensure that private property is protected, of course, we’re looking at a very limited set of lands to consider. So certainly, that’s why we want to make sure that the public is engaged on those questions.

The questions the other day around the Boy Scouts and if their camp was going to be maintained, questions around how certain islets might be used — all those things go into our consideration when we do this work. Certainly, considering what the public believes and how they feel about land that might be part of a package is something we take into consideration quite deeply.

Scott McInnis: For the record, that was me that was complaining about the time to review the treaty before debating it. I’m a member of the Legislative Assembly and critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I was, up until the time that this treaty was introduced, obviously busy with several other issues with the Indigenous file that this government is struggling with.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

I didn’t have time to casually go through the treaty, not knowing when it was going to come forward.

[5:05 p.m.]

For the minister to essentially say that, well, it was on a website since 2024, and they should have just figured it out, I think is really unfair and disingenuous to the public, because the treaty was posted on a website somewhere. If I didn’t have an opportunity to look through the treaty and engage with it, certainly Joe Public probably didn’t even know it was existing.

So that was a very interesting answer from the minister, to essentially say: “Well, the public should’ve just figured it out two years ago when it was posted on our website.” I really don’t think that that type of answer is steering towards what I’m trying to get at here, that probably making an effort to provide a little bit more information to the public here would be ultimately helpful in this process.

I know the minister probably looks online, and there are certainly some unfair things that are being said about the treaty and some vitriol pointed toward the K’ómoks Nation and others, which is certainly unfounded. But when it comes down to the basic premise of understanding the value of the land that the province is transferring to the First Nation as part of a treaty, it’s not a far-out idea or something people should be ashamed about for asking.

I’m quite disappointed to hear that answer from the minister, that people should’ve just looked it up on the website two years ago, figured out how much land was there and maybe drawn their own conclusion into the dollar value. That’s not good governance, and that’s leading to some of the issues that I know the minister doesn’t like very much and that I don’t either.

I’m going to ask if, for the minister, for his government, for this treaty and the subsequent treaties coming forward, there is a desire to change the policy around disclosing land package value so that the public at least has a chance to digest transparently what is happening with treaty.

Again, it’s a done deal, essentially, right? The land package has been presented. This isn’t something that’s in secret, but the value of the land is.

And I get it. My friend from Nechako Lakes was part of a government that had that process and that protocol in place as well. I also don’t think that “because they did it from 2001 to 2017” is a good reason to continue that, especially now with access to media. I’m sure when Nisg̱a’a was signed, most British Columbians didn’t even know it was happening. Now people are keenly aware of this stuff.

So I’d like to ask the minister: is there a desire within his ministry to at least advocate, on behalf of his ministry or at the cabinet table, that disclosing this information is extremely important to the public?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just to be clear, in terms of the suggestion that it was just put up on a website and people should just go look at it, there was actually an incredible series of town halls, community meetings, engagements with local government, local businesses. There were question-and-answers, quite extensive in the region, so much so that the mayor of Comox, the mayor of Cumberland, the chair of the Comox Valley regional district, the city of Courtenay all came out to say they support the treaty.

They support the engagement work we’ve done on the treaty. They supported the outreach and how much they’d been involved in the process so that they could represent the region in these conversations around land.

[5:10 p.m.]

There was actually quite an extensive community consultation on it where people were directed to the website for further questions on the treaty.

Probably one of the most important things that we’re involved in as a ministry is the treaty work, because these are, as the member knows now, quite comprehensive arrangements and agreements. That work didn’t occur when the treaty got brought to the Legislature. That work has been underway for quite some time and certainly worthy of doing the work to engage with those that have been involved in this for such a long time.

The question, certainly, is one of cabinet confidence. I don’t get to make a decision one way or another on behalf of cabinet. That was the way, as the member mentions, under his colleague as well. Certainly, it also involves a question of Canada, and the treaty partner as well, in terms of agreements on what can be shared when.

I’ll take that back under consideration, because I want to find a way to build even more of a case for treaties and for the prosperity and certainty that they will unlock in this province.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister at least acknowledging on the record that it is an issue that’s important to people.

I’d be curious — I’m not going to ask it on a question — if the people in the Comox Valley, if the government has any data…. Was there a survey sent to every household or anything like that, that provided any feedback as far as: did they know the treaty was happening? What do they think of certain high-level components of the treaty to see exactly how well…?

I get it. The mayors were engaged and supportive. That’s fine, but that’s not necessarily speaking for the broader community of tens of thousands of people who live there. I’m not going to bother asking that in a question, but it would be interesting to know. I think, certainly, outside of that area…. A treaty is an agreement between Canada, British Columbia and the K’ómoks Nation. Specifically for this one, that involves Canadians, British Columbians and the K’ómoks First Nation. I think, certainly, outside of the treaty area, nobody had any idea that this was being brought forward.

I think it’s just really important now that people are engaged, the treaty has been tabled in the Legislature and we’re debating it here today…. People want to know this information. I think it’s extremely important that the specifics around things like a land transfer value…. At least the public has an opportunity to know what that is.

I’ll just wrap up this specific line of questioning. Can the minister just confirm that the public will never be made aware of the total land value package from the K’ómoks treaty?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member may learn about me that I don’t predict the future, so I’m not going to confirm that there will never be an opportunity. I cannot predict what will happen tomorrow, let alone today. So I won’t engage in theorizing about what may occur in the future.

To follow up on the discussion around who was engaged during the negotiations, there’s quite an extensive list, I know. In the spring of 2022, approximately 300 letters were sent to owners of property adjacent to proposed treaty lands. Canada and B.C. have been consulting around the overlap in shared territory interests on an ongoing basis. We’ve held briefing sessions with all treaty negotiation partners, delivered presentations to local governments, processed timelines, proposed land package. Engagement has continued as we discussed in our earlier questions.

There were several local government presentations, four open houses with 340 participants, four community events for further discussion. There was a treaty engagement, public engagement.

[5:15 p.m.]

A what-we-heard report described what had gone on, participation rates, feedback, questions collected, along with responses from the partners. Of course, in preparation for the spring legislative session, we continued engaging with following interest holders. So local government engagement, again, continued through this year with Comox Valley, Campbell River and Strathcona regional district.

Additional letters went to other local governments to see if they had interest and wanted to be engaged on these questions, including the Islands Trust and the village of Sayward. We continued that work with interest group holders, groundwater licence, Crown land tenure holders, road access users, other interest holders, chamber of commerce, other private business owners that had interest, NGO engagement, non-governmental organizations — Comox Valley Watershed Society, Nature Trust, Tsolum River Restoration Society — and there’s more.

There’s quite an appendix of files that I could relate to, but it was extensive in the region. I know the member maybe referred to the broader B.C. question. I can say that instead of “nobody outside of the region knew about it,” in fact, I’ve heard from quite a few — maybe it’s just because of my ministry: local government interest; NGO interest; and, of course, other First Nation interests in the Comox Valley treaty as well.

So quite a bit, but it just may not have crossed the circles that the member might be working in. Fair enough. There’s always more to do to reach people to ensure that they know about what we’re doing with treaty, what we’re doing with local First Nations and how it could benefit them and in their communities.

Scott McInnis: I want to shift over. I’m going to go through a line of questioning about a specific section of the treaty, chapter 13, around co-management. This is kind of an interesting….

[The bells were rung.]

Sorry, Mr. Chair. I don’t like to talk over the bells because I lose my train of thought.

There’s quite an interesting section here around co-management, as I mentioned, and I’m going to read a couple of things, pick them apart from the treaty, into the record in a moment.

As I understand it, and I invite the minister to correct me if I misunderstood, we have the treaty area, obviously the treaty settlement lands within the treaty area. But this co-management chapter deals with the broader treaty area, which could be defined as the asserted traditional territory of the K’ómoks People, K’ómoks First Nation.

It appears to me that this is one of the elements of the treaty which is new to modern treaties. I know in just doing a brief search of some of the other modern treaties, there were things like… I believe they were called joint fisheries committees with ɬəʔamɛn and Tsawwassen and Nisg̱a’a, etc. — setting up tables to look at how fisheries could be looked at and potentially managed between the nation and the province.

But the co-management provisions here seem to be a new element of the K’ómoks treaty, and again, it broadens out into the wider asserted traditional territory.

I’m just going to read the principles under chapter 13 of co-management to get started, and then I’ll go through my questions and kind of back up here a little bit, because I think there are some things we need to dig into to really understand what this means.

Principles. No. 1: “The development of a co-management agreement in accordance with this chapter will be based upon (a) implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including aiming to secure the free, prior and informed consent of K’ómoks for land and resources decisions within the K’ómoks traditional territory; (b) K’ómoks exercisable section 35 rights; and (c) recognition of K’ómoks Aboriginal rights and title, including the inherent right to self-government in accordance with this agreement.”

[5:20 p.m.]

Now, the first thing I find interesting…. I know we kind of canvassed this a little bit on Thursday, looking at section (a), and the minister had delineated between what UNDRIP says and what they have here in the treaty, “aiming to secure the free, prior and informed consent.” But under UNDRIP article 19, it’s “in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent,” not the “aim of securing.”

This is interesting for this co-management chapter, because if there aren’t agreements made under this co-management provision, it goes to binding arbitration. It’d be really interesting for the minister to explain how principle 1(a) will be viewed, potentially, by an arbitrator aiming to secure free, prior and informed consent — and UNDRIP article 19. Remember, UNDRIP is an authoritative lens for the interpretation of this agreement, which says “in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent.”

So I’m quite interested in this section and how that would look under an arbitrator’s lens potentially. Again, we do have some issues with overlap, obviously, in the traditional territory of the K’ómoks and other surrounding, neighbouring First Nations. So having, potentially, in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent…. It could result in legal challenges under co-management agreements.

I’m going to start from a high level here before I get back into the actual treaty document itself, because I think there are some really important things to identify on the record here in the co-management section and some of the language therein. I’ll start high level, and then we can dig into it a little bit deeper.

How does the treaty specifically define this co-management, and where does that co-management end and shared decision-making authority begin?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be clear, for this treaty, as of right now, the only proposed co-management approach is around the estuary agreement.

However, he’s correct. The language of the treaty does allow for that to potentially happen if the parties agree to enter into a process. Really, what this does is it allows the establishment of a process to collaboratively develop frameworks and, if successful, negotiate potential shared decision-making agreements regarding land and natural resource decisions after the effect of the date of the treaty.

All parties must agree for any agreements to be entered into, and the treaty does allow for the consideration of the full scope of shared decision-making context, including collaboration, co-management, consent and joint decision-making. But it doesn’t obligate acceptance of any specific approach.

Just to correct something the member said, only a dispute in respect of whether the parties acted in good faith in the co-management agreement negotiations would proceed directly to binding arbitration. So it’s really about the behaviour of the parties in the negotiation, not the outcome of the negotiation.

[5:25 p.m.]

Obviously, if somebody was refusing to answer phone calls, emails, not participating at all in a process, well, that’s not good faith. So that’s what could proceed to binding arbitration, if there was the lack of good faith, which is pretty consistent for legal agreements across the province.

I know the member will have other questions. But again, to be clear, the text of the treaty is what’s prime, is what’s paramount here, as we discussed last week. Of course, other interpretive aids can be used. But the text, if it says, “aiming to seek consent,” that is what we are aiming to do, and that is what the requirement in the treaty speaks to.

Scott McInnis: I’m just going to take a second here.

Under point 15, good-faith arbitration, it says: “Within 60 days of a party delivering notice that it is withdrawing from efforts to collaboratively develop a framework pursuant to paragraph 3 or to negotiate an attempt to reach agreement on a co-management agreement under paragraph 8, any party may refer the question of whether any party failed to participate in those processes in good faith to be finally determined by an arbitration under the dispute resolution chapter without having to proceed through stage 1 or stage 2.”

Could the minister just clarify for me then. Is that saying that if either party fails to enter into an agreement in good faith, it goes to binding arbitration? Let’s say the province comes up with an idea and presents it to K’ómoks. They say: “We’re not interested in that.” Could the province then take them to binding arbitration to enter into that, and vice versa? Is that what I’m hearing?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: First off, there’s nothing requiring somebody to participate in an agreement. In the member’s example, if the nation didn’t want to participate in that shared-use decision-making process, they could say no, and then there wouldn’t be a process around shared decision-making, because, obviously, one party is not participating.

However, if you entered into a process…. Again, let’s say, using the member’s example, you entered into a process. You were starting to have conversations. You were both participating in good faith. Maybe you decided, “Actually, this process is not going the way that we want it to go,” or whatever. “It doesn’t work for us now.” As long as you participated in good faith, you could say: “I choose to leave this discussion. I don’t want to continue it.” That would be fine.

Where it wouldn’t be fine is if you entered into a good-faith discussion with your partner and said, “Yes, we’re going to do these things,” they went away and did a lot of work, and you did no work and did not actually respond anymore to phone calls, just disappeared — ghosted them, effectively. Well, then there would be a process. They entered into work, they did work in a good faith with you, and then you ghosted them on the situation.

So that’s where the question of binding arbitration could come in, but the characterization or suggestion that somehow one partner could force another into the process — that couldn’t happen, because it has to be reached mutually that you agreed to start a process and then participate in good faith through that process. It’s really about protecting from bad-faith actors.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister clarifying that. So it sounds like only after an agreement has been entered into and by which one of the parties acts in bad faith, then binding arbitration could be a form of resolution, not one party really wanting some sort of co-management agreement, the other party disagrees, and binding arbitration is used to bring the parties together to sign something. I think that makes sense to me.

With these co-management agreements, do they create legally enforceable joint authority over land use decisions?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m going to try to clarify one part and then get the member a fuller answer to the other part.

To be clear, and maybe I wasn’t clear on how I stated it, if one of the parties said, “We want to investigate a shared use decision–making framework for XYZ,” the other party is expected to consider it, to take that request as a good-faith request, to consider it in good faith. So you can’t just blow them off.

You don’t have to agree to do it. You just have to consider the request in good faith and respond in good faith, so show your work, that you have considered what the other party is interested in, and then make your response. If you didn’t, that’s when it could go to binding arbitration.

To be clear, it’s not just a…. There is a process to that, to ensure good faith. I shared a few of the potential decision-making processes which could be established under a co-management agreement. They may include: “(a) collaborative management processes or boards, (b) collaborative planning, (c) consensus recommendations to a decision-maker, (d) replacement of an existing decision-maker with an agreed-to joint body or joint decision-maker, (e) delegation of decisions, (f) consent-based decision–making, (g) agreements on policies, procedures and standards or best practices to be applied or (h) any other arrangements agreed to by the parties.”

To be clear, that does not mean that entering into a co-management agreement all of a sudden changes the law or something like that. In fact, the treaty does not empower the province and the nation to enter into a joint decision-making agreement without further approval. So just approving the treaty doesn’t all of a sudden empower the minister to enter into a whole bunch of joint management decisions without further approvals.

Any side agreement negotiated under the co-management chapter could not, by itself, alter provincial law in respect of who makes the statutory decision. Side agreements do not prevail over the provincial law. Provincial legislation would be required to give effect to any agreement which proposed to alter the statutory decision–maker — i.e., joint decision-making agreement or the statutory decision–making process; consent agreement — for any decision.

[5:35 p.m.]

Now, to show how the difference is, this chapter talks about creating a legal structure that could be considered in the future. But in order to use that structure, further legislative changes would be required if it impacted the statutory decision–maker.

Where we have made or proposed to make a change for a kind of shared decision-making process is the estuary agreement. It’s an example of where this has been done through the treaty.

The treaty implementation legislation is required to give the relevant parts of that side agreement the force of law. So it’s built into the treaty, that specific agreement. It can be used as an example to show that if any future decision-making were made around land in the treaty area, a similar sort of proposal or process would be required of coming to the Legislature, sharing how the decision-making process would work and amending whatever the existing legislation might be to allow that to take shape.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister’s answer on that.

I’m going to ask a similar question just for clarification, using an example, because I don’t think I understood the last component of the minister’s answer. Just as an example, let’s say that there were, between the province and the K’ómoks First Nation, a consent-based decision-making agreement around forestry within the treaty area. Would that agreement, then, come forward as legislation in the Legislature? What does that agreement look like when it’s in place? Is that just a cabinet decision that’s signed off on?

Again, there are some interesting things on the list here: energy and mines, forestry, lands, wildlife, water, submerged lands. These are pretty important things. Is this something that actually comes to the House to be debated, or is this just signed off between the provincial government and the First Nation and then brought forward?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Agreements or frameworks that are agreed upon through the co-management chapter would require, explicitly, legislation. So if they were going to be changing a statutory decision–maker to a different model, it would come back to this House for a decision.

Scott McInnis: I’m going to come back to that in a second.

Just back to the minister’s answer a few moments ago. He did clarify the standard for binding arbitration. I appreciate the minister doing that, explaining how if one party brings a co-management idea, for lack of a better term, to the table, one party is expected to at least look at it in good faith but may not accept it.

I’m wondering if the minister could walk me through, a little bit, what the standard is for good faith in that initial piece, which would put the potential agreement aside or move it to binding arbitration. You know, if you have two parties, and I come to you and say, “Here’s the idea I want to do,” you say: “Thanks, I’ll take it under advisement.” You come back to me in two weeks and say: “No, I’m not interested.”

I’m just curious what the criteria are for acting in good faith before it goes to binding arbitration. I think that’s really important that we understand that.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Paragraph 7, I’ve got:

“Good-faith obligations under paragraphs 3 and 8 require the parties to, among other things: (a) enter into the development of the framework or negotiations, as applicable, with a goal of reaching a mutually acceptable outcome; (b) provide timely disclosure of sufficient information and documents to enable a full examination of the subject matter; (c) respond appropriately and in a timely manner to bargaining positions; (d) not unreasonably reject a bargaining position of the other party; and (e) act consistently with the standard of good faith as articulated in the common law.”

So “good faith,” in this context, is really intended to track the common-law definition of the term. We’re not creating new terms or new legal understandings here. The hope is that parties are…. Well, parties are obligated to enter — it’s not just a hope — into discussions with the goal of achieving a mutually beneficial outcome. That’s really the continued use of good faith in this proposed law.

Scott McInnis: Appreciate the minister clarifying that, especially for the issue, which he did address, about just entering into agreement and what that good-faith obligation looked like.

Within the co-management chapter of the treaty, we’re looking at co-management bodies. I do have a few questions about those bodies. I’m just going to start off. What is the precise legal status of these co-management boards, advisory bodies or planning authorities created under this chapter?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The short answer would be that it depends on what you’re trying to do.

If it’s an advisory body that does not have any legal teeth, in the sense of they’re there to give you advice, and then you’re going to make your decision based on advice and other decisions….

Okay. Now, if it’s a legal decision-maker…. You know, if you’re replacing a statutory decision–maker with a different body, that would require legislation, as mentioned. I think, at that time, whoever the minister was that was moving that would be able to provide better information around the legal status of the way that operation was set up.

As this is just very much enabling legislation, it doesn’t tell us what the future looks like in terms of the legal status of those arrangements, since they don’t exist yet.

Scott McInnis: That, I think, answered one of my next questions.

Just curious about the creation of these boards or advisory bodies. Who appoints them, and how are they actually established?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It would be, certainly, between the province and the nation, in terms of deciding how those bodies would be set up through a legal agreement. Of course, that’s in the future, but it would be very much a joint decision.

If you were going to enter into a shared decision-making arrangement, depending on how that decision was come to and how extensive that shared decision-making arrangement looked like, it would differ based on what sort of approach you were taking.

Scott McInnis: I’m just thinking for a second about that answer. Let’s say…. I’m just wondering. The minister may not have an answer for this.

[5:45 p.m.]

If there was an appointment made, let’s say at the K’ómoks level, with members of elected and hereditary government, and there was a dispute over that appointment, how would that be resolved?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we are a little ahead of ourselves in that no agreements have been made, but in that sense, this is very much enabling. Commonly these agreements will have a dispute resolution clause built into them.

Now, of course, if there’s an internal dispute to one party or another, they have to work that through internally, through their processes. Certainly, the understanding would be that any agreement made to create such a framework would require a dispute resolution process in order to continue good government.

Scott McInnis: Subject to these bodies and boards, committees being created…. Are they subject at all to any sort of judicial review?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As is our legal tradition here, of course, decisions made by a statutory decision–maker — whether or not it be the existing statutory decision–maker, or if a shared-use decision legislation was passed, and so on — are judicially reviewable, so there is the ability to question a decision.

I can’t speak theoretically about agreements and decisions that a future government might make in using this chapter, but the standard has been that they are legally reviewable and that they have to fit within the format of our understanding of the law in this province, of common law, with transparency, good faith and all those other aspects that we discussed.

Scott McInnis: Is there anything within chapter 13, within the co-management provisions here, which would alter or anyhow in any way, shape or form constrain the province’s traditional authority over Crown land management?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The clear one in chapter 13, in terms of modifying decision-making, in terms of shared decision-making, I referred to earlier. It is the K’ómoks Estuary agreement. That’s in terms of shifting how we do decision-making around the estuary.

In terms of the rest of chapter 13, we’ve covered off the discussion around what could be, in terms of potentially entering into agreements down the road. But again, those would require coming back to the Legislature for fuller legal changes if the statutory decision–maker was being changed, if there was that constraint or a different approach to getting to decision. That would require coming back here.

So in terms of this treaty and this legislation we’re bringing forward today, very explicitly, it’s the K’ómoks Estuary that I think the member’s question would most directly relate to.

[5:50 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I know we’ll get to the estuary, but I’ve been wanting to ask this question since we started. Why was the estuary agreement separate from the actual treaty itself?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Obviously, the K’ómoks Estuary is incredibly valued by the K’ómoks Nation, and I think both as a cultural, spiritual, economic…. It ticks all the triple-word scores, and so on, in terms of protection and in terms of revitalization — the work they’re doing there around the salmon, archaeological, etc.

It was important to K’ómoks Nation — it’s my understanding — to have the agreement recognized in the treaty. In terms of the processes and the work, in terms of how that is to be set out and how that’s to work…. It wasn’t felt that all that detail needed to be in the treaty itself, and that’s where the side agreement came to. It’s acknowledged in the treaty, but the work of putting the side agreement together, I guess, happened in parallel, because it’s much more detailed in terms of just that finite area of land and water and underwater.

I think that’s probably the best way to say it, and I guess that’s why the co-management chapter is there. Potentially, we can look at it in other areas but in a different way. Very much, we were ready to go on the estuary piece, and that was the highest priority for K’ómoks.

Scott McInnis: Gosh, I don’t want to get too ahead of myself, but I’m just curious. Looking at the similarities or differences between the estuary agreement and what a potential co-management agreement could look like, would it be fair to assume that the estuary agreement that was signed is in some way like a front-loaded or timely delivered co-management agreement?

Would they look the same? Would the estuary agreement look the same as a co-management agreement that could come later, or is it an entirely different model altogether?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To be very precise, the agreement around shared decision-making around the K’ómoks Estuary is the agreement we have. It’s the agreement that we understand. It’s the agreement we’ve worked on together to come to agreement on. Obviously, it’s an agreement.

[5:55 p.m.]

In terms of future agreements, I don’t want to presuppose what a future minister or a future government might decide to do in terms of how that process would work.

As I mentioned, shared decision-making can take many forms — from very much the deep end to very much more of a kind of informed, just-a-consultation of an approach. There’s a range there. But I don’t have any other co-management agreements that we’re in development with K’ómoks to say, because our focus has been on the treaty and the K’ómoks estuary agreement as they marry together.

All that to be said, it depends on what a future government might want to arrange, and of course, that would have to come through the House if it had any sort of effect on the statutory decision–maker.

I wanted to take more questions, but I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:56 p.m.