Contents

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Tony Luck.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Jennifer Blatherwick: I am very pleased today to welcome to this House members of the Butterfly Support Network. I would like to have the House welcome Erin Sowerby Green, bereaved mother of Briar; Kimberly Lockhart, bereaved mother to Wilder; Nick and Laura Bordignon, with baby Marcus, who are bereaved parents to Makayla.

Thank you for the work you do to support bereaved parents across British Columbia.

I ask the House to welcome them.

Macklin McCall: I would like to welcome two constituents of mine visiting here today from the riding of West Kelowna–Peachland: Thomas Hogge and Deborah Lynn MacGregor. It’s great to have them here to see the work we do in the House and the democratic process in action.

Will this House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

The Speaker: Minister of Water, Land and…. Resource Stewardship. It’s a mouthful. It’s such a mouthful.

Hon. Randene Neill: Thank you, hon. Spuh-uh….

I’m so sorry. I’m a little bit punch drunk.

[Laughter.]

The Speaker: You can continue now.

Hon. Randene Neill: Okay. Not only is it Leg. Friday, but it is also an incredibly important day because 40 years ago today, the Minister of State for Local Government and Rural Communities was born, and it has made this side of the House so, so much better.

I’m hoping everyone can help us wish her a very happy birthday.

Lynne Block: This coming Sunday is my wonderful grandson Fraser’s seventh birthday. He is such a keener and an absolute duck to water with ice hockey. Passionate about it.

Will the House please help me wish him a very happy birthday on Sunday.

Darlene Rotchford: Bear with me. I have four introductions to make in the House today.

First and foremost, I would like to welcome Valerie Chamberlain, the interim lobby coordinator for south Island for BCNU; and I would like to welcome Caitlin Jarvis, the regional council member for BCNU. I had the privilege of spending a day at Victoria General Hospital last week celebrating our nurses on south Vancouver Island.

Can everyone give them a warm welcome and welcome to the House.

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I would like to introduce members of the Sikh community who are here from the Lower Mainland and are involved in community advocacy. Please join me in welcoming Raj Singh Bhanda from Guru Nanak Jamaz Heritage Society, Jaymeets Singh Bal, Kanwar Singh Randhawa, Kushiar Singh, Aman Singh, Yadwinder Singh, Arsh Singh, Maninder Singh, Mehak Singh, Iqbal Singh.

Please join me in welcoming them in the Legislature.

Darlene Rotchford: Also in the House today, I have two BCGEU members. It’s always an honour when I can stand up and support union sisters from my union. First, we have Rebecca Massey. She is a young worker from Local 1201, with our administrative professionals, out of Prince George Courts. She is also on the article 29 joint labour-management committee.

Good luck. As a young worker who started when I was not as young as I am now, it’s always great to have young workers in the House.

[10:10 a.m.]

Last but certainly not least, someone who is known to this side of the House, DJ Pohl, who is the vice-president in BCGEU for admin services. DJ and I go way back. She is a force to be reckoned with, to say the least. She represents admin professionals. She has represented her local labour council. She is an environmental advocate who kicks me in the butt regularly and reminds me of what’s important.

Personally, I would not be here. She is a union sister and a friend. And because it wouldn’t be anything funny without it, DJ, I also like my fluff in the form of bunnies. That is an internal joke, and you will forever take it with you.

Please welcome them both to the House.

David Williams: As everybody knows, when we’re here in the chamber and in Victoria, there are people at home that do a lot of the work behind the scenes. I’d just like to wish a happy birthday to my biggest supporter, and that would be my spouse, Denise.

I am wishing you a happy birthday.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In the gallery today, we have four representatives from a great B.C. company, Terra Remote Sensing. It is an aerial marine survey mapping company based in North Saanich, B.C., that has been involved with a lot of infrastructure projects, disaster mitigation and environmental monitoring in our great province.

I’d like the House to welcome Dave Mostyn, Dean Johnson, Ted Roesch and Taylor Davis.

Kristina Loewen: Today it’s a pleasure to welcome Livvy McMahon and Brandon Castor to the House.

I met Livvy about a month ago at a conference in Kelowna, Inspired City Summit, and we had a great connection. It turned out she lived nearby here and had never been. We’re happy to welcome her and her colleague. They work with M3 Development, specializing in affordable and supportive housing development projects in British Columbia. I know she is looking forward to her tour today.

Would the House please join me in welcoming her and Brandon to the House.

Hon. Kelly Greene: It was such a pleasure to look up into the gallery today and see my cousin-in-law Erin Greene, now Sowerby Greene. We met when we were much, much younger, and I am so proud of the work that she has done, turning her grief into action to help others.

Trevor and I send you our love.

George Anderson: I rise today to congratulate a group of exceptional grade 12 students from Dover Bay Secondary School in Nanaimo: Haitao Yuan, Thomas Grounds, Jack Bannister and Cody Croft. At the 2026 Skills Canada British Columbia provincials in April, these students won a gold medal in the mobile robotics competition for secondary students. On May 28 and 29, they will be in Toronto, along with over 500 competitors from across Canada, competing in over 40 skilled trades and technology competitions.

Will the whole House please join me in congratulating Haitao, Thomas, Jack and Cody on their provincial win and wish them the best of luck representing British Columbia in Toronto.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to welcome two members of our community that have done so much to build our community.

Mannu Sandhu is a community leader. She does so much work with the International South Asian Film Festival. She’s an incredible international actress in her own right and now is also a fitness icon.

I can’t wait to get some tips in a few months from you.

As well, her husband, Raj Aadmi, is a fitness icon in his own right as well as a community builder, a philanthropist, a CEO. He has one of the coolest car washes in our riding, SpeedWash, as well.

I just want to welcome them to the House. If the House will please join me in welcoming them.

Rob Botterell: It’s my honour and pleasure to introduce to the chamber former MLA Adam Olsen and SȾÁUTW̱ First Nation and chair of the W̱SÁNEĆ school board Chief Pelkey.

I always appreciate their visits, and I hope the House will join me in making them feel very welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I would like to welcome and introduce my good friend Todd Stone. I’ve been told he is here in the building. He is the president and CEO of the AME, known as the Association for Mineral Exploration.

I just want to say that Mr. Stone, since he took this job, has been a very strong advocate for the sector. Working together, we were able to deliver fixed permitting timelines to the sector in the province of British Columbia. We are the first province to do it. Similarly, working together, we were able to bring in, in the year 2025 the highest amount of exploration expenditures, which is $751 million. I look forward to working with him in moving forward to make the mining sector more strong.

I would like to ask the House’s members to please make him feel welcome.

Dallas Brodie: It’s my very great honour today to introduce a group of young men who are seated in the gallery. They are here with their teacher Tim Stevens, a social studies teacher. His students are in grades 11 and 12.

They are from St. George’s School, which is a private day and boarding school for boys in my riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. They are a mix of classes and are here today to watch question period and learn about the B.C. provincial system in person as a year-end trip.

Please welcome them into the House.

Steve Kooner: I’d also like to welcome Raj Aadmi and Mannu Sandhu as well. I know them from the community.

Welcome, you guys.

Amna Shah: I am quite pleased to welcome Tim Stevens to the precinct here today along with his classes. I had the pleasure of meeting Tim at the B.C. Teachers’ Institute on Parliamentary Democracy last year. Tim is an incredible teacher who has such passion for education all across this province and having his students involved in the democratic process here.

Will the House also join me in welcoming an incredible teacher from Vancouver.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M245 — Young Workers
Income Tax Relief Act

Tara Armstrong presented a bill intituled Young Workers Income Tax Relief Act.

Tara Armstrong: I move that a bill intituled the Young Workers Tax Relief Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill seeks to rectify the neglect that our youth have suffered on the part of our government’s reckless spending and excessive taxation. Today home ownership is unattainable, unemployment is climbing, and wages are stagnating. And 77 percent of British Columbians who have left the province have been under the age of 40 — millennials and Gen Z.

The Young Workers Tax Relief Act will address this generational crisis. This bill, firstly, will reduce the income tax burden of B.C. taxpayers that are under the age of 40 by 50 percent.

Older generations came of age in the most prosperous time of western civilization, where success was the norm, not an exceptional story. Today it is quite the opposite. This bill will reinstate the norm that B.C. youth deserve and that a living wage is not a luxury. It will make life affordable again for young British Columbians by letting them keep more of what is theirs.

The second major component of this bill is a mandatory 50 percent reduction in public spending over the next five years — the single biggest public spending cut in B.C.’s history. The government has consistently been running the highest deficits in our history, and they’ve been dropping this mounting debt on the laps of young people to pay off for years. This bill will end the unsustainable loop of recklessly borrowing on our children’s credit, and it’ll finally invest in their future.

It’s the duty of a civilization to preserve its achievements for future generations. The Young Workers Income Tax Relief Act will give Gen Z and young millennials the relief they need after years of neglect.

I submit this bill to the House.

[10:20 a.m.]

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

Motion approved.

Tara Armstrong: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for a second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Peace River South
Area and Constituents

Larry Neufeld: I rise today to speak of something that’s quite dear to my heart, and that, of course, is the community of Peace River South, or the riding of Peace River South; and, more importantly, the beautiful people that live in that region. This region is not only a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family but also one of the true economic engines of British Columbia, and I think that’s quite often forgotten.

Every single day the hard-working people of Peace River South help drive the provincial economy forward. Our region produces the energy that heats homes and powers industries. Our farmers and ranchers help feed communities across Canada and beyond. Our forestry sector supports jobs, manufacturing, while our tradespeople, truck drivers, contractors and small businesses keep northern British Columbia moving.

From natural gas and forestry to agriculture, mining, tourism and transportation, Peace River South plays a critical role in generating the wealth and economic activity that supports services and infrastructure throughout this province.

Our riding is also home to critical infrastructure that connects northeast British Columbia, including the Taylor Bridge — an important transportation link relied on every day by residents, workers and industry — and, of course, the very well-known Site C dam and the lesser-known, perhaps, Peace Canyon dam. As I’ve said, the true strength of Peace River South is its people.

Northern British Columbia has always stepped up for this province. The people of Peace River South ask for very little in relation to what we provide. When Peace River South succeeds, British Columbia succeeds. Our region is more than a point on a map. It is a major contributor to the prosperity of this province and a reminder that the hard-working people of rural and northern British Columbia remain essential to our collective future.

Reconciliation and
Meaning of Favourite Song

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: A member across the way recently shared that his favourite song is “Beds Are Burning” by Midnight Oil. It happens to be mine as well. I wanted to speak about what this song means to me.

It’s a song that has endured for a reason, not just because of its sound but because of what it asks of us. At its core, it speaks to responsibility, particularly when it comes to land, justice and consequences of looking the other way. The bigger message of the song…. The lyrics point to disposition of Aboriginal land, broken promises, inequality and the moral responsibility to fix it.

The line, “How can we sleep when our beds are burning?” continues to resonate because it captures something uncomfortable but true — that awareness carries with it an obligation to act. Here in British Columbia, that message is all too real. It connects directly to the work of reconciliation, to the question of land and title and to the need for meaningful partnership with Indigenous Peoples. These issues are present, ongoing and require our collective attention.

What I appreciate about what the member raised — that song — is that it reflects a shared understanding, at least in part, of those responsibilities. It is worth recognizing when there is common ground in principle, because progress often begins there.

I want to thank the member for raising it. It’s a reminder worth sharing that the work before us is not just political but moral and that we each have a role to play in ensuring we respond to those words.

Sikh Community
and Remembrance of History

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Today I rise to recognize members of the Sikh community gathered at Sri Guru Nanak Gurdwara Sahib in Surrey, including families connected to Tarn Taran Sahib and Baba Bakala Sahib.

[10:25 a.m.]

The lives and sacrifices of Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji teach us to stand with truth, courage and justice, even during hard times.

This week also marks the 112th anniversary of the Guru Nanak Jahaz, an important part of British Columbia’s history. This story connected to Vancouver reminds us that it is important to remember history honestly and respectfully.

As June starts, many Sikh families across British Columbia remember the painful event of June 1984. For many people, this time brings memories of loss, pain and suffering that still affect families today. Public institutions must remember history with honesty, respect and dignity.

Sikh British Columbians have contributed greatly to this province through business, farming, transportation, education, public service and community leadership. Moments like this remind all members of this House, of every political party, about this importance of truth, remembrance and respect for the democratic institution.

May this assembly continue to honour history with truth, remember the past with dignity and support equality with honesty and integrity.

Butterfly Support Network

Jennifer Blatherwick: I welcome to the House members of the Butterfly Support Network, a B.C. non-profit that wraps assistance, resources and community around families that are experiencing pregnancy loss, infant loss and infertility.

Their work is so important because there is so little preparation and structure built around the real and common challenges to having children. As we move from childhood into adulthood, we learn about the hushed secrets that are often kept from us as we grow inside our own families and the hidden losses that permeate the adult world.

As a society, we have become more open, but the loss still happens in shadow for many families. Being able to reach out and receive support from others who have walked that path is invaluable, because there are so many of us who walk it alone. One in four pregnancies end in loss, and one in six couples will navigate fertility challenges every year in British Columbia. These losses, the painful waiting and the grief are real, even though so often there is nothing for the outside world to see.

Parents and families can feel so alone. The Butterfly Support Network is there to help, and they do. The volunteers and members of the network have helped thousands of people navigate infertility or perinatal loss by offering support programs throughout B.C. — including free counselling, support groups, peer support, bereavement resources and community events — to ensure no one navigates this journey alone.

This work is done by volunteers who understand this from walking the paths themselves. They have turned their experience into a shining light, making sure families across B.C. can receive genuinely understanding support.

I thank them for their deeply human, important work, and I ask you to join me.

Biodiversity

Rob Botterell: Where do you look when you need clarity or calm? The top of a mountain, a forest trail, the ocean at sunset. What did Emily Carr paint when she searched for inspiration? Not the concrete jungle but rainforests. And where do scientists look for their next discovery? To the stars, in the fungi beneath the tree bark, in the hidden systems of the natural world.

Every scientific breakthrough, every budding idea is inspired by the things we find in nature — by the buzzing bee gathering nectar from the petals of a flower, by the salmon swimming upstream to return home, by the nurse logs beneath ancient Douglas firs.

We often speak of nature as though it exists somewhere separate from us, as though we are tourists amongst its wild petals, as though we are merely in its presence to document or observe. But nature is not an exhibition in a museum, nor is it a barrier to our aspirations. It is alive around us right now.

[10:30 a.m.]

As we know from watching Indigenous People and knowing of Indigenous Peoples’ stewardship of the lands for millennia, everything is connected.

Tomorrow is World Biodiversity Day, a day established by the United Nations to raise awareness and understanding of biodiversity issues and celebrate the rich variety of life on earth.

In B.C., we have a lot to celebrate — salmon returning, the restoration of cultural burning practices, the protection of endangered caribou — but there is still urgent work to do. B.C. has more species at risk than anywhere else in Canada yet remains one of the only provinces without stand-alone species-at-risk legislation.

We have a choice right now. When future generations look to us, will they read about our choices in the caption at a museum or see it on a walk through the forests?

Elder Abuse

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss an important topic, elder abuse.

Initially, I want to recognize I’m speaking on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən, specifically the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm, and, at home, the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh. The way the Indigenous People revere their elders sets a positive example for all of us.

Elder abuse is defined as an action or inaction by someone in a position of trust, such as family, friends or caregivers. It results in harm or distress to an older person and can be physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, financial or just plain neglect.

Often more than one type of elder abuse occurs at the same time. According to a new Stats Canada report, the victimization of seniors by family members has reached a record high. It has increased by 49 percent since 2018.

Financial abuse accounts for 62 percent of reported cases, which is consistent for British Columbia. It can include misusing of seniors’ property and/or funds, bank cards or power of attorney; theft or forgery; sharing the senior’s home without paying a fair share of expenses; unexplained disappearance of personal belongings, such as jewelry; undue pressure to move from, sell or relinquish their home or other personal property; or legal documents that they don’t understand.

Protection for older adults in B.C. includes preventing isolation, taking action when an older adult confides in you about a situation of abuse and helping them create a safety plan if needed.

If you suspect or know of someone that is experiencing elder abuse, they can call 866-437-1940. There is an agency that is based out of New Westminster — they call themselves SHINE; they started in 2018 — that has done amazing work to help adults in finding housing if they’re at risk of losing housing or finding safe housing if they need it.

I just want to say thank you to my friend Alison Silgardo for championing that cause.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to welcome someone to this House that actually needs no introduction in this House and spent nearly 20 years in this House. The Hon. Mr. Harry Bains is here, in the House, today.

He has spent his life fighting for workers’ rights — first, 20 years with the IWA, followed by 20 years in this House fighting for workers’ rights and then as a Minister of Labour, making so many advancements for workers across our province.

I’m truly grateful for all the work that he’s done. He’s a true mentor to me. I know that he could be sitting in this seat still if he wanted to, for the next 20 years. But he is someone that creates space for others, makes sure that he mentors up the next generation and really makes sure that we all are able to create this next generation of people that will fight for working people, fight for solidarity and fight to make sure that we are leaving British Columbians better tomorrow than they are today.

Thank you for being here.

Would everyone please make Harry Bains feel very welcome.

[10:35 a.m.]

Oral Questions

Government Process for
Title Agreement with Tāłtān Nation

Scott McInnis: Thank goodness for freedom of information.

The Public Land Use Society has obtained an FOI that reveals a foundation agreement between the British Columbia government and the Tāłtān Central Government. This agreement involves land transfers, governance restructuring and recognition of Tāłtān Aboriginal title and rights over 21 percent of British Columbia. The agreement was supposed to be finalized in the fall of 2025 — all in secret, yet again.

My question to the Minister of Indigenous Relations is a very simple one. Is there a completed final agreement which recognizes Tāłtān Aboriginal title in the northwest, yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, I don’t know what the member’s definition of “secret” is. If you typed in Google, “Tāłtān B.C. government,” you could find your way to one press release, two press releases, three press releases, all around what the member is talking about.

This process has actually been underway for quite a number of years. There have been public releases. There have been press conferences. There have been questions about it. So I would encourage the member to try to use Google more than to use conspiracy theory when it is public.

Now, in terms of the actual substance of the member’s question, there has not been a final agreement made. In fact, if the member wants to know why, it’s because we’ve been working with the Tāłtān First Nations to unlock billions of dollars in mining opportunities…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …in the northwest of this province, leading to thousands upon thousands of jobs. That’s been our focus.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Scott McInnis: I am sorry to upset the minister today. I asked a very simple question about that foundation agreement, and yet again, and to no surprise, I didn’t get an answer for British Columbians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Scott McInnis: Is there a completed final agreement which recognizes Aboriginal title for the Tāłtān Nation in the northwest of B.C., yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I recognize it’s hard to use Google, and I recognize it’s hard to pivot when I’ve given you an answer. I was very clear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m sorry the member’s colleagues scream so much. I know it’s hard for him to hear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: But we’ll put on our listening ears, and maybe we’ll hear the answer, which is…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …that, no, there’s no final agreement made with Tāłtān. In fact, we’ve been working with them to unlock billions in opportunities in mining right now.

We’ll continue the conversations, but I would encourage the member to use the internet for research, or he can ask me. I’ve been very clear. If he has questions, he can follow up with me.

Oh no, the member can actually check the Hansard record, and he can follow up, but instead he chooses to…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Member. Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, enough.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: …throw out accusations instead of actually asking real questions to solve real problems.

Federal Government Tax Reduction
Program for Homebuyers

Linda Hepner: Almost two months ago 11 of B.C.’s leading industry groups asked the Premier to pursue the same federal housing deal that Ontario got. Today an Ontario family buying a home qualifies for up to $130,000 in combined tax relief. A B.C. family buying today gets nothing. But this Premier has lots of time to fight Ottawa on pipelines.

Today will the minister tell British Columbians if this government will fight for an equivalent deal for B.C. families, yes or no?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks to the member for the question. I’ve been very clear in the public and media that B.C. is working hard at negotiating a bilateral deal with the federal government and that we are fighting hard for British Columbians to ensure that B.C. gets a deal that is as good as Ontario’s.

[10:40 a.m.]

We are in those negotiations, and we look forward to having something to announce soon as part of our ongoing work to reduce the cost of delivering housing that is resulting in a stabilization of housing prices and that’s resulting in increased vacancy rates and decreased rent prices.

I’ll note that members opposite have opposed nearly all of the actions that we have taken on housing that are seeing progress for British Columbians. We will continue that work, including negotiating with the federal government to ensure B.C. benefits as much as Ontario has.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Linda Hepner: Look, the market for first-time buyers has effectively frozen. Ontario has taken action while B.C. does nothing. If the NDP believe they are good friends and good listeners, they should now listen to British Columbians.

I want to ask the minister directly: can you commit…

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Linda Hepner: …to getting an agreement with the federal government to get new homebuyers and activate, for a stalled industry, the relief that they deserve?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, we are working very hard at this, not in slogans but in detailed bilateral negotiations with the federal government. That is the work of government, and we hope to have something to announce soon.

As I said, that is one piece of a broad suite of actions that we have taken as a government to address housing affordability. It is starting to make a difference. We know that work needs to continue. And again, we will continue.

But members opposite have made it clear that they would take us far backwards to years when housing prices were skyrocketing, when rents were skyrocketing out of control, when whole buildings were sitting empty. We heard complaints all of the time from communities.

We have been listening to residents. We have been working with industry. We have made a substantial difference, and we will continue that work.

RCMP Critical Response Unit
Information-Gathering Activities

Jeremy Valeriote: The B.C. Greens have long called to disband the RCMP’s critical response unit, or CRU. It’s timely, with former MLA Adam Olsen in the House.

CRU has faced hundreds of complaints and multiple court cases for systemic Charter violations, but these government enforcers seem to be getting more powerful. A B.C. RCMP media relations officer said that CRU “does not monitor treaty negotiations but that it is briefed during secretariat meetings by other ministries that are directly involved in those discussions.”

To the Minister of Public Safety: what information about treaty negotiations are government ministries providing to the critical response unit, and for what purpose?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thanks to the member opposite for the question.

The critical response unit supports situational awareness and cross-government coordination on public safety, employee safety and the protection of critical infrastructure. This work is coordinated through the critical incident secretariat of government.

This group does not monitor lawful advocacy or political activity, does not monitor specific groups, climate initiatives or treaty negotiations. The province fully respects the right to peaceful, lawful protest and the constitutional independence of First Nations in their negotiations with government.

I would be pleased to speak further with the member opposite about any further questions.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: According to the same media relations officer: “CRU provides updates to the secretariat regarding current enforcement actions in any anticipated protest activity.” I fail to see how that’s not monitoring some of these protests. This is in exchange for the information the ministry provides about treaty negotiations. The secretariat maintains, as the minister said, situational awareness of treaty negotiations and climate action.

So to restate, CRU is a paramilitary group that polices protests. Why is CRU collecting surveillance information about treaty negotiations? What use is that information to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you for the follow-up question.

I will reiterate that the secretariat really advances situational awareness and cross-ministry coordination around public safety. There is no monitoring of specific groups or treaty negotiations or specific initiatives.

[10:45 a.m.]

This is, really, sharing of information in this cross-ministry coordination group. Information might be shared that may or may not have an impact on public safety, but it is shared to monitor events, to monitor situational awareness and to really support any work to advance public safety that sometimes does occur.

I will also say that there are proper channels and independent civilian oversight of the critical response unit and a complaint process for anybody that should wish to make any complaints or ask questions or concerns.

Taylor Bridge Conditions
and Replacement

Jordan Kealy: Imagine for a moment you are setting out on a midsummer drive and you have never been to my region before. You have heard about how beautiful the North is and want to experience it for yourself on a new motorcycle.

As you are cruising along Highway 97, listening to your music and taking in the scenery, you get to the mighty Peace River and proceed across the bridge, but you never saw the hole in the grading on the bridge. In that moment, one preventable moment, your life is changed forever.

To give context to the House, Taylor Bridge is not much smaller than the Port Mann by span or height, but the deck is open grading that is always having to be repaired. This is now the third time in less than a year that I have stood in this House raising concerns about the Taylor Bridge. I was just sent two pictures a couple of days ago of four new holes in the bridge decking. The grouping of the four holes is no smaller than the size of this podium.

The Speaker: Question, Member.

Jordan Kealy: This is on a regular basis.

The question is: is the government waiting for a preventable tragedy before it finally acknowledges the patching of this bridge is not a plan and gives the North a ten-year financial plan to commit to replacing the Taylor Bridge with a new one?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As the member is well aware, on a number of issues when it comes to the Taylor Bridge, work is underway within my ministry in terms of a long-term replacement for the Taylor Bridge. We recognize….

Interjection.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I was responding to the member who asked a question. He’s been very politely listening, but I see that sometimes others seem to want to chirp in. It would be nice if they just listened to the answer.

There’s $40 million that has been spent in terms of doing that planning work for around the bridge. There is work that is underway in terms of the approaches to the bridge and determining the geotechnical work that needs to be done. At the same time, I can tell the member that we’re looking to advance the project so it can be part of the infrastructure capital plan of the province.

At the same time, I want to assure the member that the bridge is regularly inspected in terms of its safety. Repairs are made on a constant basis. I appreciate the continued advocacy from the member and the member from Peace River South in terms of advancing the Taylor Bridge, but the government continues its work, and that bridge is safe.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jordan Kealy: I mentioned the holes in the decking and the dangers they pose to drivers. In previous questions, I mentioned the reports obtained by the ICBA after they waited nine months for the FOI request regarding special imports from 2020 to 2025 on the bridge. Metal fatigue does not reverse. When the steel is cracked, welded and cracked again, it does not return to its original strength.

How many times does this minister expect northern residents to accept “we’re monitoring it” only to find ourselves back in the same line of questioning again after another hole is discovered, after another critical structure repair is needed?

My question. Can the minister tell this House today what the exact given lifespan is left in this bridge? At what point is it critical to initiate that ten-year financial plan for the bridge to be initiated? This has been talked about for the past 20 years.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. In terms of the lifespan of the bridge, it is inspected on a regular basis. At the same time, repairs are made as they are needed. It is inspected by professional engineers, by professional experts, where safety is the number one priority, not just for them but also for government. Report after report, that bridge is safe, hon. Member.

[10:50 a.m.]

We know that it is coming to the end of its life. We know that it will have to be replaced. That is why work is underway in determining: what are the structural things on the north slope of the bridge? What are the geotechnical issues that need to be addressed? That work is underway.

At the same time, we also do additional work, maintenance work and repair work, to make sure that bridge stays safe. Independent inspections say that it is, and that will continue.

Expansion of Provincial Sales Tax to
Services and Support for Business

Elenore Sturko: My office has been inundated with letters from business owners and constituents who are struggling to make ends meet. Rising costs are forcing businesses to put plans for new hiring and expansion on hold as spending habits change and sales decline.

As financial pressures rise, this government is adding insult to injury by choosing to add PST onto services that businesses are legally required to use. One constituent said: “It seems like this government is punishing small businesses for hiring accountants.” At a time when our economy is struggling, businesses and consumers need some good news, and they need a helping hand.

My question is to the Premier. Will he do the right thing and pause his plan to expand the PST on October 1?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

Our PST program is one of the most narrow PST programs in Canada, and expanding the PST program carefully is work that we undertook in Budget 2026.

It’s important to recognize how valuable small businesses are to British Columbia, and we continue to support small businesses in a number of ways. We have one of the lowest small business rates. In fact, it’s 25 percent lower than it was when we began in government and changed the rate. We’ve reduced the EHT payments that small businesses have to make.

We know that small businesses are feeling the impact of these tariffs and this challenging economic time. That’s why we didn’t make those changes, even though they were attached to the carbon tax credit. We’ll continue to work with the small business community. They’re so important to us.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Elenore Sturko: British Columbia relies on the revenues that are generated by small and medium businesses to pay for the core services that we rely upon, like education and health care. In 2024, 32 percent of B.C.’s GDP was attributed to small business activities.

Due to rising costs, many businesses have shelved their plans to expand or hire new employees. Worse, many are choosing to close or relocate out of B.C. But instead of giving businesses a break, this government is piling on costs, expanding the PST on October 1.

When the NDP’s disastrous 2026 budget dropped, the Finance Minister said: “This is about protecting core services like health care and education.”

My question to the Premier is: how is he protecting core services when he is driving the businesses needed to pay for those services out of this province?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think it’s important to recognize that when businesses are hiring folks into British Columbia, one of the things that people consider is the quality of our health care program, accessibility to housing — the things that in fact this side of the House continues to support.

Budget 2026 made sure we’re protecting health care, made sure we’re protecting education, also while making small changes to the PST.

Bowser Island Encampment in
North Vancouver

Lynne Block: Two years ago I wrote to the Minister of Transportation to shut down a homeless encampment in my riding, Bowser Island, which now has a mayor and is a gated community. An entire year later, in March 2025, the minister stated: “It’s about finding them an alternative place to go.” Garbage and waste are overflowing into the Capilano River, never mind the crime increase.

Another year has gone by. There has been no relocation and no action. So I would appreciate a straightforward answer from the minister, without equivocation or obfuscation.

My question. Will the minister commit today to having Bowser Island cleaned up by June 30 of this year, yes or no?

[10:55 a.m.]

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

We share the member’s concerns. We know that encampments are not a safe, long-term option for people. It’s why we’ve been working closely with the district of North Vancouver as well as other local governments to deliver both temporary shelter and housing spaces as well as delivering long-term, purpose-built supportive housing that allows people to come indoors. That’s work we’re actively engaged in with the district, and I’m grateful to the mayor and council there for their leadership.

I’m happy to follow up with the member on details.

Emergency Services and First
Responders in Downtown Eastside

Macklin McCall: The Downtown Eastside has gotten so bad that Vancouver fire rescue services are forced to stop responding to calls involving life-threatening and serious injuries due to staff burnouts. In the first three months of this year, there were almost 6,000 emergency calls from Fire Hall No. 2 in the Downtown Eastside. More than half of these were medical calls.

The provincial director for Ambulance Paramedics of B.C. said: “Maybe that’ll shine a spotlight on how many ambulances should actually be put into service.”

How does this government plan to address these emergencies on the Downtown Eastside now that firefighters no longer have capacity to respond to calls?

Hon. Terry Yung: Thank you to the member for the question.

I spent four years down there. I know it’s a tough situation here. We’ve always been working closely with the fire department, the union and also EHS, which is the ambulance services, to make sure that people in distress in the Downtown Eastside get the help they need at the time they need it.

We’re going to continue to look at other means of lessening the burden on both the fire department and EHS. I can assure you that EHS actually attends quite quickly. If you have ever spent time.… I know you’ve spent time in the Downtown Eastside. Often they are the ones that are well equipped for medical emergencies, a little more than the fire department.

Ongoing negotiation and arrangements are going to be in place to make sure that people get the help they need when they need it. We also have to support the first responders out there that are doing a really difficult job.

Supportive Housing Lease at
Downtown Eastside Hotel

Heather Maahs: This government has been keeping a 140-unit hotel, an SRO, open for just two tenants over the past two months. One left, but the last remaining tenant, Robert, has been offered multiple different housing options but is refusing to leave. Atira, the operator of the Colonial Hotel, said the contract to operate expired at the end of April.

This is costing taxpayers $550,000 for two months. How can the Minister of Housing justify spending over half a million dollars to house one person?

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is a private building. This lease was first signed in 2013. After many years of not being able to get the private landlord to do adequate upkeep to the building, it was the decision of B.C. Housing to relocate folks to end that lease.

We’ve been engaged in that work, tenant to tenant, finding good, stable alternative housing for people and moving them out to close down that lease.

I can report that all of the tenants under the supportive housing agreement have now been relocated. There is one remaining tenant who was a tenant of the private landlord before the agreement and is not part of the Atira contract.

I can also say, as I’ve said here before, that we continue our work to build purpose-built, dignified supportive housing in communities all over the province.

[11:00 a.m.]

As part of our Downtown Eastside provincial partnership plan launched in 2023, we’ve worked with partners to open approximately 1,100 new or renovated spaces for Downtown Eastside residents as of April. We continue to make sure people have places to go and are partnering to open another 678 spaces for Downtown Eastside residents just this year, building good solutions for people for the long term.

Carihi Secondary School
Fire Recovery and Restoration

Anna Kindy: Considering that this government is running a $13.3 billion debt, they’d be concerned about spending over half a million dollars for one room without bathrooms.

On that note, it’s been more than 540 days since the fire at Carihi Secondary School, and over 900 students in Campbell River continue to face significant disruption to their education. They are on a reduced schedule, travelling to other schools for basic programs like PE and band and without essential facilities such as athletics and culinary and theatre spaces. These are not extras but are foundational to a healthy, connected high school experience, especially when we are seeing the rate of mental health issues skyrocketing in our youth.

The community has called for action, yet there is still no clear timeline for reconstruction. Can the minister provide a date for when Carihi Secondary will be fully restored?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: What happened at Carihi High is truly tragic. We have seen so many situations, so many examples of where fire has ravaged our valued school system across the province. On November 21, 2024, as the member said, a structural fire led to the closure of two wings of Carihi High.

I can assure the member that the project to restore the school is supported in Budget 2026, and my ministry has been working with the school district on a business plan for this project. I spoke with the school district chair, Craig Gillis, a couple of times in the last few weeks. I was very grateful to him for giving me an update on the progress of this work. I agree that this kind of work, when it comes to structural fires, can often be very frustrating and complex for school districts.

I’ve committed to him that my ministry will expedite this. We expect to be able to provide an update before the summer.

Action on Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Trevor Halford: Yesterday I asked two very direct questions to the Attorney General, and I want to follow up on that again today.

We are days away from the end of this legislative session, a session in which the Premier got up and said that we would have legislation to deal with the fallout from DRIPA. This minister has said yesterday…. She touted, in her mind, the benefits that they’ve seen from DRIPA, albeit while they’re in court dealing with the fallout from DRIPA.

I am somewhat skeptical that this House will be back in the fall to deal with DRIPA. So my question is very specific to the Attorney General. Will she have legislation ready to go for the fall session that will deal with DRIPA, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think they ran out of questions over there. We’re recycling some from yesterday.

I’m really happy, actually, to give an update to the House on some news that we heard this morning — that the Supreme Court of Canada granted our leave application. We were successful in getting leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is an avenue to address the legal challenges that is open to us now, along with the discussions that we’re having with various stakeholders about solving DRIPA. We’re going to get there, and we’re working hard at doing that.

[11:05 a.m.]

[End of question period.]

Mandeep Dhaliwal: I rise to seek leave to move Motion M213 standing in my name on the order paper.

The Speaker: Members, the member has moved the motion. It would require unanimous consent to move further. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member. Leave is not granted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Take your seat, Member.

Petitions

Jennifer Blatherwick: I rise to present a petition of 770 signatures asking the assembly to pass legislation improving supports for individuals and families experiencing pregnancy or infant loss.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call the deferred vote on Bill 9, so I call committee on Bill 9.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

On the amendment (continued).

The Chair: Members, we are in committee.

Members, yesterday a division was requested on the amendment by the Minister of Citizens’ Services to clause 2 of Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. Pursuant to the motion adopted on May 19, 2026, with respect to Standing Order 16(4), the division will take place now.

[11:10 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.]

Members participating online, we would ask that you have your cameras on and microphones ready.

Members, the question is on the amendment to clause 2 of Bill 9 on the standing orders paper in the name of the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

[11:20 a.m.]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49
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	Boultbee	Sturko
	Brodie
NAYS — 42
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Halford	Rattée
Wat	Kooner	Banman
Hartwell	L. Neufeld	Van Popta
Dew	Clare	K. Neufeld
Rustad	Wilson	Valeriote
Botterell	McInnis	Paton
Day	Bhangu	Toor
Hepner	Giddens	Dhaliwal
McCall	Maahs	Block
Stamer	Gasper	Mok
Davis	Chan	Armstrong
Kealy	Williams	Chapman
Bird	Luck	Tepper

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee sits adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:22 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:23 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: The committee on Bill 9 reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Point of Order

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Point of order, unparliamentary language from the Minister of Education and Child Care, calling my motion on Sikh genocide and human rights “gross,” which is racist.

I ask for an apology to all Sikh community in the gallery and all the Sikh community and that the minister retract.

Hon. Lisa Beare: First off, absolutely, I want to clarify the comment. It was inappropriate that I called the Leader of the Opposition gross. I do withdraw that comment.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Lisa Beare: I apologize to anyone in the gallery if there was any offence. But I do withdraw the comment to the Leader of the Opposition, calling him gross. I apologize.

Trevor Halford: I take great exception to the comments.

The member for Surrey North stood in this House to put a motion forward on Sikh genocide, which the government had a prerogative to nay, and they did. That is their right to do, to deny him that, which they took. But the Minister of Education does not have a right to come into this House and determine that motion to be gross.

I believe that she needs to apologize not just in this House but outside to that entire community, which….

The Speaker: Member, the minister stood up, and she has already apologized and withdrawn her remark.

[11:25 a.m.]

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

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

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 11:29 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

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

The Chair: We are beginning the estimates of Finance. Do you have any opening remarks or anything?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d first like to begin by thanking my team for their support in our upcoming estimates. I am joined by Jonathan Dube, our deputy minister; Jeremy Hewitt, ADM; Alexander Chandler, ADM; Chris Skillings, senior executive director; and Steve Hawkshaw, ED.

I look forward to the questions from the member, discussing our future operations in this budget.

Peter Milobar: I’ll endeavour to have the minister still be looking forward to my questions as we hit hour 15, but we’ll see where that goes.

In terms of the overall budget, I have been looking through and searching and searching, and I’m unable to locate…. I’ve had many, many property owners and people in Richmond asking with great interest where exactly the mortgage-backing program the Premier has promised for people in Richmond would be in this budget.

[11:30 a.m.]

Can the minister point to where in this budget the Premier’s commitment — prebudget, that mortgages would be backstopped by the provincial government for people in Richmond, based on the Quw’utsun ruling — resides?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The Ministry of Finance is working on a guarantee of support of private property owners seeking to renew or refinance a mortgage in the title area. This guarantee is a targeted initiative only for the 46 properties in the title area, 20 of which currently have a loan or mortgage registered on title.

The purpose of the guarantee initiative is to preserve the status quo with respect to mortgage financing in the title area during the government’s appeal of the court proceeding. Eligibility will be limited to registered property owners in the title area and only if they are denied loans or loan renewals due to the Quw’utsun decision.

The member may have other questions. I can share more about this program and implications in the budget on the next question.

Peter Milobar: Thank you for that.

Where in the budget does that liability exposure of backstopping mortgages come into play, and what’s the dollar value in this budget?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The work on this loan guarantee continues. In fact, the meetings on the implications of the Quw’utsun decision are happening quite regularly. I attend them. We continue this work.

But I will share with the member that even when the loan guarantee is in place, there won’t be any fiscal impact shown in the budget until the loan is, in fact, drawn upon, until the guarantee is drawn upon. So it won’t actually have a number attached to it until it’s, in fact, enacted by a user.

Peter Milobar: Is the intention, then, that this only gets triggered by the user if the bank requires it, or can the user request it regardless of whether the bank is asking for that type of backstop or not?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The design of the program is such that it would be available should the borrower be able to show that a bank had, in fact, denied their renewal or application because of the Quw’utsun decision. Then they would be able to have the government backstop that guarantee to the loan to the bank. The government would only be required to make a payment should there be a default by that user.

Peter Milobar: I recognize the scope and scale might be different, but just for simplicity’s sake, if the government had to backstop $100 million worth of loan value, would that have to start showing up as a potential liability on the government’s books, and if so, where?

Elenore Sturko: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Elenore Sturko: I’m really excited to welcome to this place students from Don Christian Elementary School, in my riding, and their teacher Taylor Spence. So 40 people here — 38 grade 5s, two adults — braving a field trip over here to Victoria.

I had an opportunity to meet these students, and I can tell you that they’re very curious about how our provincial government works. They knew a lot, actually, about taxation. They had a lot of questions for me about how money gets spent in this province and why their parents are paying so much tax.

They would be curious, probably, to know that right now what’s being debated by my colleagues here is actually the budget for British Columbia and the taxes that are getting collected and how they’re being spent.

Will the House please join me in making students, adults and teachers from Don Christian Elementary feel most welcome.

The Chair: Indeed, welcome to everyone. The gallery is full. It’s nice to see so many youth in our gallery today.

[11:40 a.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Before I respond, I, too, would like to welcome the students who the member has said are learning about taxes. When you go to take your swimming lessons, that’s supported by tax dollars. Your teachers’ salaries, your school are supported by tax dollars. Things you touch every day are supported by tax dollars. Taxes aren’t always evil. They help you, so let’s not forget that aspect as well.

Back to the issue at hand. We’re discussing loan guarantees and how they are expressed in the budget.

The member asked a question: do the loan guarantees, before drawn on, show up in the budget? The way that this will work is that the loan guarantees will be part of the overall debt forecast report, and that is reported out on a program level at year-end. So there would be a statement of loan guarantees that you would see in public accounts.

But I do want to highlight for the member an important point, which is that the ministry is not aware of any lenders refusing to renew residential mortgages based on the Quw’utsun decision, but we are prepared if needed.

Peter Milobar: The reason I ask about where it would reside and the exposure in terms of having to account for it as a liability is because this is predicated on one court ruling, and we don’t know what future court rulings may or may not be.

Coming from Kamloops, people are highly aware of a filing that was filed a year after the Quw’utsun filing first started to go through court. At the time it was filed, it was pretty boilerplate, a standard way to file claims and court actions by nations, so people with private property really weren’t worried or had no concerns around how the filing was made.

What has changed is the ruling in the Quw’utsun versus the filings that have been working their way through the courts for the last seven to ten years. Now those same filings are suddenly being viewed through a completely different lens, based on the ruling in the Quw’utsun case. Because it’s an actual ruling, that has now changed how people are viewing these existing actions in court.

It has led to a lot of concern around the province, which has led to even the Premier saying: “Well, yeah, people should be concerned if they have private property.” At times, he has said that. At times, he has said something completely different and contradictory. At times, he has said there are no problems with banks. At other times, he said that the province is going to backstop mortgages. So trying to figure out the scale and the scope and the complexity of this….

Has the government modelled or taken into consideration the precedents a backstop creates with the 46 properties — I believe it was 46 properties the minister mentioned — and what that implication means in terms of the approximately $2½ trillion of assessed value of private property in this province, depending where future court rulings go? They all have the same type of language filed in court that the Quw’utsun case had back in 2014, that will now be starting to be viewed through the same lens that the ruling in the Quw’utsun has, until there is a change with appeal.

What is the government’s reaction or position or change and ability to pivot, to cover off mortgages in terms of backstopping in other areas, other than Richmond, if we start to see those court rulings while we’re waiting for the appeal to work through a lengthy process at the appeals court? It is a massive dollar figure of assessed value, let alone market value, which would typically tie into the mortgages, both commercial and residential, provincewide.

Has the government taken into account the full risk exposure that embarking on a plan like this actually creates for government? Or does the government think that they can simply silo this off, only deal with 46 or so properties in the Richmond area, and the rest of the province is out of luck?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Our Premier has been clear. Government will protect private property rights and stand behind home and business owners whose properties are in the declared title area, as determined in the Quw’utsun decision. At the same time, government is pursuing a negotiated path forward with Quw’utsun that respects these property rights.

The guarantee is a targeted initiative. It’s only for the 46 properties in the title area, 20 of which currently have a loan or mortgage registered on title. It does not set a binding legal precedent for similar support in respect of declared title area anywhere else in the province.

Peter Milobar: Well, given that this process, as far as I’m aware, doesn’t exist for private property backstops currently, will any such program have to come with any legislative change, any legislative amendments, any new legislation? In other words, will it have to come to this chamber to actually be debated, either in a miscellaneous stats bill or as a stand-alone piece of legislation, given that we’re creating a potential liability for the taxpayer?

We don’t know what the funding, actual exposure, could or couldn’t be. We don’t know what the risks and the parameters will be, and we don’t know the scope, moving forward, whether it’ll be limited to these 46 or not.

What is the process for the government to actually action this, should someone pick up the phone and say: “My bank just told me I can’t get renewed”? Is it just simply a brand-new risk-exposed piece, that the government can unilaterally decide through Treasury Board discussions or cabinet discussions that we could potentially expose the taxpayer based on a quick opinion that there is no precedent-setting, without knowing what future court cases are?

Or is it actually going to be a process where this Legislature will be involved, and the broader public will then get a better sense of the true exposure, how this program would actually work and the legislative mechanisms that are enabling government to actually do this? Which changes have to be made to enable the government to do that? Because if you can’t point to an actual dollar figure set aside in this budget document, I can’t ask questions about that specific dollar exposure.

[11:50 a.m.]

I would think that would mean that we would need to have some sort of legislative change, so that it is a bit of an open-ended program at any point in time but has been at least through some process of scrutiny in this chamber before it can be actioned by anyone from the public being able to tap on government’s shoulder and say: “We need to action this.”

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This will not be a statutory program. The program, in its design, is capped at $150 million. The program is contained to the area from the Quw’utsun decision — as I’ve described, 46 properties in the title area, 20 of which have a loan or mortgage registered on the title.

I will also share with the member that in my discussions…. As we’ve been exploring this with a number of different banks in the province, they do not see this as a large risk to them. They do not perceive that there will be a situation where a loan guarantee will be necessary.

This program was committed to, and the work to stand it up has been an effort to ensure that the people who are affected by this decision know that, should this happen, the government would be there for them. But it’s considered quite low risk that they would draw on this program. It’s contained by its very nature because it’s specific to the outcomes of the Quw’utsun case.

Peter Milobar: Well, thank you to the minister for that.

Capping and everything else sounds wonderful, but there are many areas of the province, in the Cariboo, the Tŝilhqot’in area, where ranchers and other owners are worried about what this court ruling may have on the impact of how their area has now been viewed, moving forward, when they go in for renewals.

So I guess the question to the government is: why…? The Quw’utsun ruling is based on a very specific geographic area, I get, but there has been great concern around other large areas of our province with previous rulings of land mass area, where it’s not inconceivable that a bank, based on the Quw’utsun ruling, would then rule that you cannot renew your mortgage in a completely different area of the province not because of the court ruling specific to that area but because of their concerns about where we’re headed in a general direction.

[11:55 a.m.]

So why is a mortgage backstopping program, if it’s not seen to be one that will likely be actioned very much, if at all, being so constrained if it’s the parameter or the reason for the backstop that should be the backstop, not the geography of the backstop?

What does the government say to all those other people in the rest of the province that have concerns, to allay their concerns that if they did bump up against this, they’re left on their own, but if their ranch happened to be in the affected area of Richmond, the government would actually help them?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Government has been clear that we will continue to protect the private property rights of British Columbians and will stand behind home and business owners who are impacted by the Quw’utsun decision. Our government is taking action in a number of ways, appealing the Quw’utsun decision and also direct negotiations with the Quw’utsun Nations. This particular loan guarantee is in regards to an actual outcome from a specific decision.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee sits adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed at 11:58 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

Sunita Dhir: Section C reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Brenda Bailey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:31 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

Clause 2 was stood down pending the outcome of the division on the amendment proposed by the minister. As the division was taken earlier today, we will return to consideration of clause 2.

On clause 2 as amended.

Rob Botterell: My first of a number of questions on clause 2 as amended: how many orders have been made under section 5(1)(a)?

Hon. Diana Gibson: There is a sectional index on the website of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner where that can be found.

[11:35 a.m.]

Rob Botterell: The purpose of committee hearings isn’t to give the MLA asking the question a reading list for late-night perusing. The purpose of committee is to answer the questions. With the greatest of respect, I find the answer provided on this question somewhat dismissive.

The fact is that there has only been one order on this section. I wanted to ask to find out if the minister was aware of that and could actually answer a simple question. Instead, I’m given a reading list, which I find less than helpful.

Let me help the minister. There is an order, F24-15, district of Summerland, Celia Francis, adjudicator, who has long experience at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I know that because I hired her in 1991. The date on this order is February 29, 2024. There is only one. This is what we call in the legal field “obiter,” where the adjudicator points out, in paragraph 75, guidance for the district, and for anybody who takes the time to read this order, on how to handle current and future requests.

The reference in the order is that requests for records must comply with section 5(1)(a), which says that a request must provide enough detail to enable an experienced employee of the public body, with a reasonable effort, to identify the record sought.

My question is: if there has only been one order in relation to this section over the last 34 years, and that order does not squarely deal with a dispute about the application of section 5(1)(a) and simply references it as a consideration in the processing request, why change this section, the section as amended, when there is no evidence in the orders over — let me just repeat that — 30-plus years?

I have to do the math again. Let me just check my notes. I just want to get it right. What was it? Oh, 34 years. There hasn’t been a problem for 34 years. Why change this section?

The Chair: Member, I just would like, before the minister continues to answer the question, as we sit in committee, that we be respectful. You may not like the response that’s given by the ministry, but I’d ask that your tone be measured in relation to the work that we’re trying to do here. Thank you.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The clause here is about a reasonable amount of time, referring to the provision of additional detail to help identify the requested records. This is to incentivize applicants to respond with clarifying details so that the officers can help the applicant get the record they need.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:29 a.m.

[Sunita Dhir in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

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

On clause 1.

John Rustad: I thought the minister might want to make some opening comments, but I guess we’ll go straight into questions.

[11:30 a.m.]

When I’m reading through the treaty — I’ve read through this treaty and, of course, many other treaties in the past — there are some significant differences.

As we start off with this, I’m hopeful that the minister will have a little bit of latitude in terms of some of the broad questions that need to be asked as we start this on section 1. I’m sure when we get into section 3, there will be a lot of information, a lot of questions that’ll need to come as we go through the treaty clause by clause in that whole process.

We’ll do our best to try to be concise as we go through and do this. My colleague and I will be sharing the duties, obviously, as we go through and talk about this.

I’m sorry, Madam Chair, but I do have to make one quick comment. I really do hope that I’m not going to be required to use Google to get questions answered on this treaty, as there is a lot of information that does need to be answered, and the minister does seem to be fond of using Google and telling people to use Google. But there is a purpose for having a minister, and the minister’s purpose is to be able to answer questions of his ministry and, in particular, answer questions of things that are of importance, such as a treaty.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. There’s some stuff that is only appropriate for question period, and we’re going to focus on Bill 20 here.

John Rustad: I do appreciate that. I do believe I have an opportunity to add some comment as I lead into a question, but I will certainly follow the direction of the Chair as we go through and talk about those things.

Particularly, I looked through this, and I started off right away looking at the differences between this treaty versus other treaties. And there are some basic questions I need to ask in terms of why there are those differences between other modern treaties.

Of course, we have the Maa-nulth treaty in British Columbia, which has been successful with the nations there, moving forward in a good way. We’ve had the Tsawwassen treaty and the success that they’re doing. We have the ɬəʔamɛn treaty and what’s going on there. Of course, outside of the B.C. modern treaty process, we’ve had the Nisg̱a’a, but it still is considered a modern treaty.

We had a couple of treaties that didn’t go through. One that was ratified and went through but, obviously, wasn’t implemented was the Yale. Then the treaty that was not ratified with the Lheidli T’enneh — a couple of attempts going through that, but that one failed.

When you look at those, there wasn’t anywhere close to the controversy of those, although for Lheidli T’enneh, obviously, there was a lot of push-back from other nations in terms of the overlap issues. Yale being one of the Stó:lō Nations, and there being 22 or 24 different nations associated there, so much of that territory is shared in terms of their cultural and spiritual significance. I understand why that one did not proceed through with this.

But we are in a situation where things have changed dramatically. One of the things that, obviously, points out right from the beginning of this is right in the preamble of this treaty, where it says, “and whereas the K’ómoks treaty advances the objectives of the United Nations declaration on the rights of the Indigenous Peoples,” which is something that is not included in the previous treaties.

I think we need to have a little bit of discussion with regards to that, because it makes me wonder what exactly is the objective. What exactly is it that is trying to be achieved through this treaty that is different from what other treaties achieved?

The process of going through treaties and the process of doing this is to reconcile the differences to come to an understanding of section 35; to be able to create the opportunity for self-governance, for self-support, for success; to change the outcomes that have so plagued Indigenous people in British Columbia, whether it’s health, whether it’s education and so many other factors, which have been absolutely, quite frankly, terrible over many, many decades. It’s an opportunity to be proud and to fulfil the culture and to have those potentials economically, culturally and socially.

In addition to that, the opportunity for the province is to create the certainty, create the stability that is necessary to be able to see opportunity, going forward, and avoid court cases and avoid the kinds of issues that we’re seeing, far too often, these days, particularly under this government — the government that has said their whole goal was to try to avoid this, yet we have seen tremendous groundbreaking and significant court cases that we hadn’t seen in previous years due to the approach that this government is taking.

[11:35 a.m.]

I just want to start, because I know we’re going to be short on time here this morning. I’ll just start with giving the minister that opportunity, that opening opportunity, to perhaps explain why in the preamble it says: “Whereas the K’ómoks treaty advances the objectives of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples….”

The first question to the minister on that would be why that particular clause has been included in the preamble. I’m sure we’ll have many other opportunities to talk about this in other parts, both within the act as well as within the treaty itself, when we get to that opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. I just want to remind that the minister will go over the preamble after the questions are answered. So we can just focus on clauses for now.

John Rustad: Just for clear direction, you’re saying that we have to get through the entire treaty before we have the preamble, which sets the stage for this debate?

The Chair: That’s the usual course, yes.

John Rustad: Well, in that case, perhaps I will give the minister an opportunity, if he’d like, to explain that or choose not to explain why this is being included as part of the preamble.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m certainly mindful of the Chair’s direction around the fact that, yes, the preamble is largely and traditionally, in this House, debated at the end of getting through the clauses, but the member did ask about a little broader question, maybe, instead of focusing on the preamble, because we’re not debating the preamble currently. He had a bit of a broader question around what has changed.

I would say that I’ve heard in a number of the second reading speeches concerns about why this doesn’t extinguish, explicitly, the rights of the K’ómoks Nation and why this is a living agreement. I think the reality is that nobody is frozen in time and that life changes.

That’s why we have built into the treaty a ten-year periodic review, where we can take a look at elements, if all members agree they want to. They don’t have to, but that allows us to look at potential changes if we need to. Maybe something new is happening in the region that we need to be aware of. Maybe the government needs a change to fix something that it sees as important, whether it be Canada, B.C. or the local nation.

The other interesting change, I think, is really about how we acknowledge that the section 35 rights of the nations are embedded in the treaty. They’re expressed through the treaty. They’re not beyond the treaty. They’re not outside of the treaty, but they’re expressed explicitly through the treaty. So there are not rights outside of that, but it’s built right into the treaty, not extinguishing those rights but seeing them as being fully expressed through the treaty.

The UN declaration the member mentioned — yes, it’s referenced in the treaty. I think we will get there as we go through, but really, it’s acknowledging that Canada and B.C. adopted the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples as a tool to help us work through issues. Of course, one of the reasons it’s referenced is that, indeed, one of the calls to action in the UN declaration is about making treaties with Indigenous Peoples. That’s certainly what we’re trying to do here.

[11:40 a.m.]

John Rustad: We will get to being able to talk a little bit more about UNDRIP, certainly, as we get into the discussions going through, but I’ll just make a few other comments with regards to that.

The reason for asking the question, which I will, obviously, repeat as we get into other things…. We advance with the objectives. When you look at the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the debate from the UN, it was meant to be a guiding principle. It was not meant to be law. It wasn’t meant to be brought in that way. That’s why I’m wondering just what those objectives are that are being defined here. When it was supposed to be a guiding principle, now it is going to be enshrined into law.

We will get to that as we get into the discussion, I think. Certainly, under section 3 of this bill, when we get into the treaty, there are all kinds of references there that will need to be talked about with that, the K’ómoks treaty in general. I was the minister back….

Some time after I became minister, I remember sitting down with the K’ómoks Nation, and they were not interested, at that time, in advancing the treaty beyond. I was curious as to why, and there was significant concern about section 35 and how those section 35 rights would be redefined. Then it was some other concern about moving it through. And I’m just….

Things do change over time, obviously. People’s opinions, people’s perspectives changed, but also, like I say, the approach seems to have changed by this government in terms of the modern treaty versus the treaties that were done in the past. That’s why I’ve asked specifically, or asked initially, about the differences and why, suddenly, things have changed and whether that was the deciding factor as to whether the K’ómoks move forward — whether or not things had to change.

Perhaps, if I could, just in a very general question, ask for some of those specifics in terms of what is required to change or what did change as part of bringing this treaty forward versus the previous treaties that had been reached in British Columbia that made it to a place where the K’ómoks People decided that yes, this was the right thing for them to do.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, as we get into specific clauses, there’ll be the ability to get more into detail. But I’d say that, and it’s following up on my response to the member’s first question around the section 35 rights, indeed, he’s correct.

Members did have concerns around the extinguishment model, around the suggestion that rights would be extinguished. Instead, a rights recognition model has been brought forward. Really, what it does is that under this model, K’ómoks has agreed not to assert rights other than as described in the treaty, including title rights.

Instead of saying that your rights are extinguished or no longer there, your rights are expressed through the treaty and only through the treaty. It is the modification which, I think, has certainly increased interest in treaty-signing amongst many nations as one of the key changes that nations were seeking.

[11:45 a.m.]

John Rustad: I find that curious because I do believe I remember, and maybe I remember incorrectly, that the existing, previous modern treaties never talked about extinguishing but as defining those rights under section 35, in terms of those rights under treaty.

I’m curious as to why the minister uses the language “extinguishment,” because, unless I’m wrong with those other treaties, those other treaties don’t extinguish section 35. They just give definition to those section 35 rights. Perhaps if the minister could just clarify that for me.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Recognizing the time, I’ll be quick.

We’ve gone from what…. A similar debate actually happened around the Nisg̱a’a treaty, with some changes, obviously, since that time. “Cede, release and surrender” was the existing model to look back on. “Modification” was the new model, which was what we were seeking to do through that process, and modification has been the process up to the proposal, the legislation before us today. Modification was seen by nations to still involve extinguishment.

Instead, the new approach is that we still acknowledge they have the rights, but the rights are held only within the treaty, and any rights that are existing outside of the treaty can only be expressed through the treaty. If they’re not in the treaty, then they are not expressed.

I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.