Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 9.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:34 p.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: Thank you, Members. This morning a division was requested on the amendment by the Minister of Citizens’ Services to clause 13 of Bill 9, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act of 2026. Pursuant to the motion adopted on May 19, 2026, with respect to the Standing Order 16(4), the division will now take place.

[1:35 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.]

Thank you, Members. I’d like to remind members to have a seat, please.

I would like to remind members that are participating remotely to have your videos on, please.

The question this afternoon is the amendment, by the Minister of Citizens’ Services, to clause 13 of Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Amendment 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	Boultbee	Sturko
NAYS — 41
Loewen	Kindy	Milobar
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	Chan
Brodie	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 1:48 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:49 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate, Ministry of Finance.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 9, the FOI bill.

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

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 1:50 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance
(continued)

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

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Carry on, Minister.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I understand that we’re joined in the gallery today by some very special students that are visiting us from Vancouver.

My colleague, the minister and MLA from your riding, asked me to welcome you.

These are students from the Vancouver Talmud Torah Elementary. They’re joined by their teacher Shalon Sims.

It’s a pleasure to have you in the House.

Would the House please join me in welcoming these students.

Debate Continued

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Finance critic for allowing me to enter the debate in the Ministry of Finance estimates to ask a brief question.

I want to ask a question about data centres in the province and how B.C. Assessment treats data centres. The ministry staff may recall that during UBCM last year, the district of Mackenzie met with staff from both B.C. Assessment and the Ministry of Finance to seek a change in how data centres are classified within B.C. Assessment’s classifications.

Last week at NCLGA, they passed a resolution on this, and I’ll just read the resolution into the record. “Therefore be it resolved that NCLGA and UBCM request the province of British Columbia and B.C. Assessment include high-energy digital infrastructure, including but not limited to AI compute centres, high-performance computing data centres and bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining facilities in utilities or class 5 light industry.”

The reason this is important is that the district of Mackenzie has been bringing this forward. They actually have a bitcoin operation within the district’s boundaries. They have ambitions and will be converting much of that to AI computing as well. They have no problem with that. I think there is broad support in the community. It has been a very good corporate partner that is there.

The issue is that the classification for assessment is class 6, which is used for office, retail, hotels and warehousing. There was a significant amount of power used, obviously, with this facility. We’re basically taxing at the same rate that we’re taxing a coffee shop in Mackenzie a data centre that is taking up power that could be used for other industrial purposes in other higher-value tax classifications.

[1:55 p.m.]

I was wondering if the ministry has any update from B.C. Assessment on that request from the district of Mackenzie and if the ministry has a position on this. If not, would they consider taking this forward to review at this time?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you to the member representing the community of Mackenzie on this issue.

We did have an opportunity to meet with them last year on this topic. A couple of things I’d like to share with the member. We shared this advice with the town of Mackenzie as well. In regards to their needs for electricity, it’s a direct conversation with B.C. Hydro, really, to identify the community’s power needs.

In regards to B.C. Assessment and any change in policy that may come, we do look at tax structure every budget cycle, so those are opportunities to look there.

But I want to just take a moment to describe the competing challenges that we’re dealing with in regards to AI and the use of our clean energy. Of course, British Columbia has some of the lowest-cost clean energy in the world, and as such, it would be a target, an area where people would like to come and set up many, many of these types of companies. We saw that in the rush to set up bitcoin, which we had to limit, and now AI data centres.

At the same time, it’s really important to support innovative industries that do need access to data centres. That’s work that, really, essentially, has been led by the Ministry of ECS, the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’ll share with you the decision made in that regard. Clean energy is, of course, essential to B.C.’s economic success, and demand is growing very quickly. By managing demand carefully and directing power to projects that deliver the greatest long-term benefits, including jobs, we will build our province while protecting affordability and reliability for British Columbians.

At the same time, we’re creating a clear path for emerging industries like AI to quickly and effectively get the power that they need, positioning British Columbia as a leader in innovation and data sovereignty.

Through Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, and a new regulation, there’s now a requirement for prospective AI and data centre projects to take part in a competitive selection process to access clean energy. B.C. Hydro is implementing this legislation through 2026 in the call for demand for emerging industries. The allocation targets for these projects are for as much as 400 megawatts for the first two years.

Peter Milobar: Thursday when I was questioning around contingencies, the minister said that in response to the member’s question, it is true that the negotiations took longer than expected and that the cost of the mandate did go up. That is captured in the increase in the contingency fund. The contingency fund last year was projected to be $4 billion this year. It is now $5 billion, moving forward, and last year was projected to be $4 billion — not just this year but the subsequent year.

Can the minister confirm, then, by her answer, that that means that the mandate, the negotiations with the public sector, has been $1 billion more than the government expected?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member is aware, the mandate did go up. It was higher than we had originally planned for.

I’m not able to share with the member the precise number. There are still tables in negotiation, and the number is captured in the contingency fund. Those tables are still at the table negotiating.

Of course, in the contingency fund, there are a number of components that add to the increase. Every year, we look at what the contingencies are expected to be. It includes things like wildfires, increases in statutory caseload demands and emerging risks as well as the wage mandate.

Peter Milobar: All those other things are captured every year. Historically, if there is not a negotiating year, contingencies are $1.5 to $2 billion. It went to $4 billion last year and has now jumped up to $5 billion.

[2:10 p.m.]

I think it is reasonable, given the minister’s unwillingness to reveal if the extra $1 billion is 100 percent attributable to a cost overrun within the mandate at a time when the government is touting cost-efficiency and finding every dollar and being very efficient with the public service…. I think it’s a valid question to be asking and deserves an actual answer.

If you consider that a portion of contingencies is required for things, as the minister just said — wildfire and other areas — that means a very large percentage of cost overrun to the mandate. If the $1 billion…. That means the government…. It’s by a magnitude of anywhere from 25 percent to 40 percent more expensive of a mandate that they are negotiating right now than they were expecting or they wouldn’t have needed to put $1 billion into the contingencies. They could have put half a billion dollars or $300 million.

They don’t just throw $1 billion at a time into contingencies. All you have to do is look at the historical tracking of contingencies to see that it’s not just a round number exercise from the ministry.

The minister confirmed on Thursday, as well, that the process to establish these numbers hasn’t really changed. The ministers have, but the machine behind the minister that churns out projections and cost estimates calculates things in the same manner.

That is why we’re asking. Can the minister shine a light, then, on the $13½ billion deficit? How much of that $13½ billion would be considered operating and/or structural deficit? In other words, it’s ingrained in. It’s not a one-time phenomenon within the budget; it is an ongoing cost to government. They are not meeting their obligations and essentially needing to use the credit card to pay the bills.

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Carry on.

Introductions by Members

Korky Neufeld: On behalf of the MLA for Delta, who’s not in the House, I’d like to just welcome Beach Grove Elementary and teacher Dale Cotter, who’s here with 37 people — 25 grade 5 students and 12 adults.

Welcome them to the House, please.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey: It would not be accurate to say that all things are remaining the same and the only pressure increasing on the contingency fund is the mandate. That would not be accurate.

It is true that we see caseload pressures continue to push forward, primarily from health but also from social services, and they change year to year. That’s largely managed within the contingency vote, as is much of the wildfire and flood, as well, and other areas where contingencies are used for residual risk. But it is also true that the majority of the increase is pressure from the mandate.

I’ll mention to the member that there is a lot going on in the contingencies area. We use it in multiple ways. We hold risk in the contingencies. As we have described, we hang on to funds that may come into play as a result of negotiations. There is still that work going on. Not all of the 172 tables have settled.

We also manage statutory pressures within contingencies, and we move programming funding from contingencies into regular programming should a program be continuing and originally funded out of contingencies. So that’s some work that happens as well.

I’ll mention to the member that the efficiencies work that we do, that we have been leading in the last year and a half. We use the contingencies as a way to help manage down as well, so that we can ensure that we are reducing spending where available.

There are a lot of different puts and takes that happen in contingencies. It’s not a simple representation of just one or even five things. It’s many things at play.

[2:25 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: I’m sorry. I’m 25 minutes in. I’m two questions in.

The question was actually: how much of the $13½ billion deficit would be considered structural or operational? In other words, you’re using a credit card to pay the deficit. That took 15 minutes to get a non-answer on an answer that should be relatively quick and easy at the tip — I would hope, running record deficits — from the Finance Ministry.

I’ll ask that question yet again, and yes, I’ll ask two questions at once, because it seems to be the only way to maybe get one of the two questions answered.

If we can’t talk about dollar figures with the mandate, what is the percentage of the increase? In other words, if the minister and the government were expecting a $2 billion settlement package, was it 25 percent higher than expected, 50 percent higher than expected? I’m not using $2 billion and expecting the minister to acknowledge the $2 billion. I’m just using it as a representative example. I don’t need the dollar figures.

What is the percentage increase to the mandate that was unexpected by this government, that they are now settling these contracts with that cost increase at?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member asked two questions. The first one was: how much of the $13.3 billion…? How much of that is structural, and how much of that is operational? That was the question. Of course, the member recognizes that that $13.3 billion is simply the math between revenue and expenses and includes both operational and capital.

The member will have heard me acknowledge that we have a structural deficit, and that is why we are doing the work to make structural change. That’s how we need to tackle it. We’re reducing the size of the public service by 15,000 people over the next three years. We’ve made moderate changes to the tax structure, and we’re doing significant work in regards to expenditure management, including a $3.5 billion reduction across this plan.

It’s also important to recognize that you can’t simply cut your way out of a structural deficit. You must also continue to build, and we have a very, very aggressive plan to build our economy. We’re moving forward with major projects in many, many different ways.

There’s more than $80 billion of potential investment coming into the province. When the federal government identified their projects of national significance, half of them were in British Columbia. Our Premier today is meeting with the other Premiers and the Prime Minister — again, deeply focused on economic growth for British Columbia. That’s definitely part of the solution and work that’s very important to us.

Peter Milobar: Well, let’s try this for a third time, shall we?

The deficit is $13.3 billion. For the third time, how much, in dollars, of the $13.3 billion is the structural deficit? It shouldn’t be that hard of a number to provide.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I believe that I’ve answered this question, so I would say asked and answered.

When I stood up last, though, I didn’t answer the second question. My apologies. The member had asked specifically for a breakdown in the difference between our initial negotiating mandate and the mandate that has been settled with some of the unions. I’m not able to provide that because there are still negotiations occurring, a number of tables still in negotiations, and it would prejudice those negotiations.

Peter Milobar: So let’s see. We have a Finance Minister that refuses to give even a percentage of cost overrun of public sector mandate negotiations — a percentage, not a dollar figure attached to anything, not a baseline starting…. What the percentage is — she won’t give us that.

Despite the minister’s spin on her answer of talking about what she feels she is or isn’t doing in the budget, there was no dollar figure on what the structural deficit is. You cannot talk about it being capital and operating and structural and then talk about a $13.3 billion deficit and not know what the structural deficit is in the province.

I find it incredible that we have the whole Ministry of Finance staff in the room and watching on TV and not one person can tell us what the structural deficit in dollars is of the $13.3 billion. That is not an unreasonable question on behalf of the public of British Columbia.

What is the dollar figure of the structural deficit in this year’s budget that comprises the $13.3 billion deficit?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We believe we’ve answered this question, so I would ask the member for clarification if he thinks that’s not the case.

Peter Milobar: That is not the case. The question has very clearly been, repeatedly, for the dollar figure — the dollar figure that comprises the $13.3 billion total deficit in this budget. How much of that $13.3 billion figure is comprised of a structural deficit in the province?

The minister has talked all around it but has not given an actual dollar figure. It is simply impossible for the government to compile a budget that shows a $13.3 billion deficit without knowing how they calculated the dollars to get there. Certainly, some of the dollars had to be capital; the rest would be operating and structural. That is what the question is.

If they don’t want to tell us what the structural is, then just tell me what the capital deficit is, and I’ll subtract the two off. But it is simply impossible to believe that you could create a budget document…. You can have the heads of the public service repeatedly meeting with the BCGEU last year, talking about a structural deficit and the tough times the government has and having a dollar figure attached to that. Then this year, suddenly, it’s impossible to tell, in dollars, what the structural deficit is.

I’m asking for the dollar figure. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it, but I can keep trying if that’s not clear enough.

[2:40 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Kelly Greene: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Kelly Greene: It’s very exciting to look up and see some young, excited faces to be here today. From Vancouver Talmud Torah, we have teacher Shalon Sims with 27 folks altogether. We’ve got 24 students plus three adults visiting us today.

Right now we are doing estimates for Finance. There are questions from opposition to our Finance Minister. Our Finance Minister responds with answers to opposition.

I hope you enjoy your time here. Welcome to the seat of democracy in British Columbia.

The Chair: Welcome to everyone joining us in our gallery today.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I think where we’re having difficulty currently is that there are different ways of defining what the member is after here in regards to deficit. Obviously, what’s reported on page 1 is our overall revenue and expenses leading to the $13.3 billion. I believe the member is looking for a percentage of what is structural deficit.

Why we’re not able to give the member a percentage is that the member is using — I understand, if I’m correct — operating and structural as one and capital separate. In the way that the budget for the province works, our representation includes amortization, including capital spending, so it’s not able to be broken out in the way that the member seems to be wishing that it were.

What I would say to the member, however, is that the way that I understand the question of structural deficit is: is it sticky? Is it not changing? Is it ongoing expenses versus expenses that are one-time expenses? You can see very clearly in the budget and in the fiscal plan that we have continued deficits. This is structural deficit.

That is why we are making structural changes. You have to address structure with structure. The structural change of reducing 15,000 in public service is a structural change to address the deficit. The question of a moderate raise of tax is a structural change in that, year over year, it will have impact on the deficit, bringing it down over time. These are structural changes in order to respond to a structural deficit.

[2:50 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m trying to use it in the same way that the head of the public service used it when they talked with the BCGEU before the mandate negotiations and talked about, I believe, a $10.9 billion structural deficit, operating deficit. It was used to try to soften up the unions, to say that there’s no more money, that the cupboards are bare.

I’m no lip reader. I’m pretty sure I saw one person mouth $11½ billion about 20 minutes ago, half an hour ago. That’s how long we’ve been trying to get an answer on this.

The government has come up with a number when it suits them. What was the result of that, sharing it with the BCGEU? Well, we’ve just heard that we actually have mandates that are more expensive than the government expected.

The government went in, tried softening up the public sector by saying that we’re running a structural deficit — there’s no money; the cupboards are bare — and gave a dollar figure then. Here we are a year and a half, two years later. Not only can we not get a dollar figure, other than acknowledging it’s more expensive than they expected, but they can’t even tell us a percentage that it’s more expensive by than they expected.

It’s around and around we go. I’m just looking for a dollar figure. It is impossible, to me, to believe that the government doesn’t understand what dollar figure I’m looking for. But it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, and we’ve wasted now almost an hour going around with a bunch of non-answers. Ten to 12 minutes to turn around and give a non-answer. If it’s going to be a non-answer….

Now I understand what projects feel like in this province, waiting for an answer from this government. Just turn around and give a non-answer, and then I’ll go on to my next questions. I don’t need to wait 12 or 15 minutes to be told a non-answer so I can re-ask the question again and again. But I don’t know how the public, the bond rating agencies, the public service — anyone — is supposed to have confidence in this government if they can’t answer basic questions on how they structured and created their budget.

A three-year budget means they should know what is ongoing and carrying forward to the next year, as the minister just acknowledged. But they don’t want to put a dollar figure to it, and I accept that the minister’s answer is that it’s not a linear line. You can’t just simply take it to the next year or the next year. That’s why I’m trying to find out how much of it is ongoing.

For some reason, the government doesn’t want to give that answer up. I think the public actually deserves to have that number. I think the public actually should know just how much of a mess has been created by this government and how hard it’s going to be to retract it out, because there will be an election sometime in the life of this fiscal plan.

We’re going to have a government running around making promises again, just like we did last election when they ought to have known the true fiscal state of the books as they were making promises around $1,000 grocery rebates, around teacher assistants in every K-to-3 school, every classroom. The list goes on and on. Seniors bus passes. None of them costed properly. None of them could have reasonably gone into the fiscal plan because the government ought to have known, but apparently, maybe not.

Maybe that’s the scary part. Maybe we’re running a record deficit and no one in the Ministry of Finance actually knows what’s happening with the books. I don’t, personally, believe the staff don’t know what’s going on with the books. I think the minister is unwilling to give us the actual straight answer on what’s going on with the books.

I’ll move on because it is ridiculous in the extreme. On page 64, we have TBC, a new phrase for capital projects. This is where the infamous re-pacing suddenly, magically appeared.

Now, we have the Burnaby Hospital. If you go in the wayback machine and look at last year’s budget, three-year fiscal plan, that Burnaby Hospital would’ve shown you that it actually was slated to be completed in 2029. I should say “and Cancer Centre.” It was slated to be completed in 2029.

[2:55 p.m.]

Is it still the minister’s contention that that project is, in fact, still proceeding and not just simply being cancelled?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes.

Peter Milobar: Well, that’s interesting, because if you jump forward just one page turn, to page 67, we have chart 2, “Major health care projects currently under construction.” It goes with a schedule of completion from 2026 all the way to 2033. Now, keep in mind that the Burnaby Hospital and Cancer expansion was on the books to be completed in 2029, and now it’s being re-paced.

What do we have? St. Paul’s Hospital, Cowichan Hospital, 2027; Centre for children and youth living, 2028; Kamloops cancer centre, 2028; Royal Columbian Hospital, phases 2 and 3, 2029.

Okay, we’re getting into the range of that Burnaby Hospital. Nanaimo cancer centre, 2029; clinical research and support centre, 2029; new Surrey hospital, 2029; Vancouver General Hospital operating rooms, 2029; Cariboo Memorial Hospital, 2029.

All have been on the books for a few years, all well underway, as was the Burnaby Hospital when it suddenly, magically came up with TBC. In fact, it came up with TBC…. I forgot to point this out. Costs to December 31, 2025, $45 million. We’d actually invested $45 million already up to the end of 2025 on the Burnaby Hospital and B.C. Cancer Centre redevelopment, phase 2, which was originally scheduled for 2029, now TBC.

Cariboo Memorial Hospital, 2029. Surely, it must be next on this graph. I’m sure the people at home are on pins and needles wondering about this. What’s the next project? Oh, the University Hospital of Northern B.C. redevelopment, 2031.

Okay, well, re-pacing — 2029, 2031. It must be in that time frame, surely. No. We jump to Richmond Hospital redevelopment, all the way out to 2033. Seems to be the end of the graph. Look at that. It hasn’t been cancelled, according to this minister. It has been re-paced. It’s at least been re-paced, apparently, according to page 67, by more than four years. No actual timeline, no 2034, 2035, 2036 — nothing. Just $45 million invested to December 31, 2025, and a cancellation.

What year is the Burnaby Hospital, phase 2, if it has not been cancelled, projected to be completed?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In the face of fiscal pressure, trade instability, high material and labour costs, we need to make careful choices with our fiscal plan. Government has reviewed its capital plan as part of efforts to maintain the province’s debt-to-GDP ratio, among the best in Canada. A sustainable capital plan is required to ensure that we can support our investments over the long term.

A key component to this approach is to strategically sequence major projects and, where possible, redesign projects at a lower cost. The province continues to build the schools, the roads, the transit, the hospitals and the health facilities that people need.

Specifically in regards to Burnaby Hospital phase 2, we know how important this project is to patients, to families, to staff and to our Burnaby community. I want to be clear that phase 2 of the Burnaby Hospital project will move forward. We understand the need for more health care and cancer care capability in the Lower Mainland and remain committed to this project.

While the new tower opened to patients recently, there have been delays to the project’s full completion, which provided the opportunity to reassess the overall pacing and redevelopment of the hospital campus. Further work is needed to ensure the scope meets the needs of the community and can be delivered with the approved budget. The work that’s undergoing right now will lead to us having a timeline, which we’ll release soon.

Peter Milobar: Well, that was an interesting answer, considering I hadn’t asked the question previously, to have a two-page, well-typed-out briefing note to speak from directly and read from directly instead of addressing the actual question, which was why it’s no longer still on the graph on page 67.

That means it’s a project that has no discernible timeline period, because 2033 is the deadline on that — seven years from now and still nothing. So $45 million invested in that project up to December 31, 2025, cancelled, and the project designers and everyone associated with the project let go of their contracts just recently — so another six months’ worth of work, pretty much.

[3:05 p.m.]

Most design teams on projects of this size, scale and magnitude work on a percentage basis of the overall value of the project — all the large engineering firms, design firms. Hospitals are very complicated to design, with all the systems needed in place. Every hospital is a little different, depending on what specialties are going to be accommodated for or not and the mix of acute care beds versus ICU versus everything else.

If I were talking about Surrey, I wouldn’t even have to mention maternity, because they’re not putting that into the new Surrey hospital. Why would you do that in the fastest-growing part of the province? But I digress.

Point being, there were a lot of costs still being incurred by the government between now and when the contracts were cancelled. How much was paid out to cancel the contracts? How much was expended on Burnaby Hospital phase 2 from the $45 million declared of the project costs being expended by December 31, 2025, on page 64, to when it was cancelled?

How much of those are actual penalty costs by the design teams and the various professionals that have now been relieved of what they thought were their contractual obligations to design and build a hospital for the residents of Burnaby and the surrounding area?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Our understanding is that there are not break fees or cancellation fees associated with this. We do not have detailed accounting available for the member and the public yet. It’ll be part of public accounts. Q4 is not yet closed.

Peter Milobar: Q4 is not yet closed, but this was cancelled — officially, publicly cancelled after Q4. Is the minister saying the decision to cancel and terminate all contracts was approved by the government before the end of Q4?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The re-pacing was communicated to the health authorities on budget day. We expect the majority of impact to be captured in Q4, which will be part of public accounts.

The member is correct. There may be trailing amounts that will be in Q1, which will be in September of this year, and then, going forward, on our major projects list after that.

Peter Milobar: To make sure I’m interpreting the accounting on page 64 correctly, this all gets rolled up to $3.42 billion of capital projects. Total approved projects with adjusted timelines is part of total taxpayer-supported debt. I’m assuming that relates to taxpayer-supported debt, on page 1, of $142.897 billion.

Is this $3.4 billion included in the $142 billion? Has it already been removed?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The question is whether the $3.42 billion for this capital project is part of the $142 billion — a.k.a., is it rolled up into that $142 billion? The answer is no, with the exception of the cost to date, which is included in that $142 billion. The rest is captured later in the ten-year capital plan.

Peter Milobar: Sorry. Is any, then, of the $61.881 billion part of that $142 billion?

[3:20 p.m.]

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m responding to a question that was…. The $61 billion on page 64 — is it part of the $142 billion? It is a bit apples to oranges, this comparison. Essentially, the $61 billion represents the lifetime cost of those particular projects, their whole life into the future, whereas the $142 billion is capturing cash flow of capital projects over time that are experiencing cash flow during that particular year. All of the projects’, pages 60 to 64, cash flow rolled up is the $142 billion.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you to my colleague for an opportunity to ask a couple of questions here.

[3:25 p.m.]

During question period today, the minister talked a lot about 1,100 new long-term-care projects coming online. Now, this is at a time when we have 7,800 seniors on a waiting list. The seven cancelled long-term cares account for around 900 net new beds, now indefinitely on hold and creating a future lag in the delivery system roughly two to three years from now.

The NDP government promised 32 new or upgraded facilities in 2024, but to date, we have only seen Richmond approved to proceed while seven got the axe. The NDP also promised to deliver 5,000 new beds by 2030. Given construction timelines, projects would need to have shovels in the ground by 2028, with design work starting in 2026.

My question to the minister is: what is the targeted, year-over-year capital plan to address the lag that re-pacing of the seven long-term-care projects will create? Can the minister confirm that her ministry will green-light an additional 4,000 beds in next year’s budget in order to hit the 5,000 beds target by 2030?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member for Langley–Walnut Grove’s question in regards to long-term care, the first thing I want to make sure people understand is how important long-term care is to the people of British Columbia. I think the member who asked this question certainly knows that. Certainly, we know that as well. That is why we are building 1,142 long-term-care beds in Nanaimo, in Colwood, in Vancouver, in Richmond, in Cranbrook. These are important steps towards addressing the province’s long-term-care needs.

We were seeing extraordinary cost increases to some of the projects. They were coming in at $1.8 million per bed and higher. I mean, imagine that — $1.8 million per bed. You could buy a condo in downtown Yaletown for $1.8 million per bed. These are extraordinarily high numbers. It’s just not possible for government to keep spending at that rate. It would make it…. The way that I think about it is building Rolls-Royces when we need to be creating many, many Toyotas.

It’s important that we look at how to do this differently, and that is the work that’s underway. How can we ensure that we’re providing dignified, high-quality long-term-care beds that meet the needs of British Columbians but are not so wildly expensive?

The Ministry of Infrastructure is leading this work, and they’re looking at questions like: do they all need to have this highest level of acute care facilities, for example? Is it possible that there are different levels of long-term care? Is it possible that we could use some of the modular design and builds that we’ve seen coming online?

I’ll share with the member opposite that I have visited schools that have been built using modular school additions, and you wouldn’t even know it was a modular build. They’re very high quality. They’re twice as fast and half the cost. A solution like that will enable us to be able to provide more long-term care at lower prices so that we can continue to meet this significant demand.

[3:30 p.m.]

It is about meeting the demand that has us pull back on the long-term-care projects that have been pulled back on. It’s so important that we get this work done, that we can provide more long-term care, and that’s the work that the Ministry of Infrastructure is leading.

Misty Van Popta: I will get to the $1.8 million figure, perhaps, in my next question.

But the question on the floor was: what is the targeted, year-over-year capital plan to address the impending lag that’s going to be in the delivery system in about two years from now? How will we be making up to meet the 5,000-bed target by 2030?

Based on the minister’s own answer, the Minister of Infrastructure has indicated that we’re going through a design review, so realistically, in the construction world, that should be understood — well under a year. So we should know by next year what the design guidelines will be for moving forward to get the costs down.

What is the work that’s happening in the Finance Ministry now to make sure that in next year’s 2027 budget we have a plan in place to not only make up for this lag in the delivery system but to also keep hitting targets?

I will re-ask the question to the Finance Minister. What is the anticipated targeted, year-over-year capital plan to address the lag of re-pacing these seven projects and to make sure that we hit the “5,000 beds by 2030” target?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We will be working closely with the Minister of Infrastructure when they provide the results of their very extensive work on this and coming up with the plan to drive this forward.

I think it’s important to recognize that every budget provides an opportunity to assess what is needed in our capital requirements going forward. It’s important also, I think, to note that this funding is being held. It’s still in our ten-year capital plan, and we’ll be rolling forward with a new plan once we see the results from this work being led by the Ministry of Infrastructure.

Misty Van Popta: If the minister could just re-clarify. The funding that’s being held — is that for the seven that were re-paced or for the additional 25 promised long-term-care facilities that haven’t even been announced yet?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m requesting a five-minute biobreak.

The Chair: We will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back into session.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I believe that we have some students here visiting us from Vancouver.

Is that right? Yes, great. Welcome. Welcome very much to the chamber.

We have students from Vancouver’s Talmud Torah Elementary here in the chamber with their teacher Shalon Sims.

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m hoping that the members will please join me in making them very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The funding is being held for the projects that have been re-paced.

Misty Van Popta: That doesn’t add reassurance that within the next ten years, or at any particular time frame, we’re going to get those seven re-paced, let alone the additional 25 that were promised.

The exercise of re-pacing is said to address a fictitious $1.8-million-per-bed dollar value. However, those costs can be directly attributed to the design guidelines put forth by this government that they now seem to be reworking because they understand how expensive their designs are.

My understanding, and hearing the confirmation from the minister, is that this period of review to bring those costs down is happening now. I did solicit that during estimates with the Infrastructure Minister and that work is well underway, and the reality is that that work should be completed this year. That signals to me that the next batch of long-term-care homes that were promised in 2023 and 2024 should be using those new guidelines and shouldn’t also be hitting costing concerns, because they’ll be using the new design guidelines.

Assuming that those work to get the cost down or finished by the next budget cycle, will the minister please confirm her intent to fund the seven long-term cares and also the next batch that was promised in 2023 and 2024?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Any decisions of that nature will be part of the budgeting process.

A couple other small points I wanted to share with the member in regards to this file. One is that in addition to the work that is underway in regards to long-term care…. We continue to build a lot of long-term care, not only the capital projects through the health authorities but some long-term care that’s also included as part of their operational funding — for example, 200 beds that are opening in Prince George.

But there is also really important work underway in the Ministry of Health to help people age at home. So it is not going to be a blanket solution for everyone, having opportunities both to access high-quality long-term care that meets people’s needs and also really improving and creating really good opportunities for people to age in place as well.

In answer to the member’s question, decisions in regards to the next steps will be part of the budget process.

[3:45 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta: That wasn’t overly clear which budget process. The minister had previously said that she was working with the Infrastructure Ministry, but when I had talked to that minister, she had said my questions are a decision of the government and a question best directed to the Finance Minister.

So when it comes to the budget process, I’m asking you specifically. Can we be assured that in the budget cycle of 2027, the next coming budget, we will see these seven long-term cares reactivated and an overarching capital plan to fund the next batch of long-term-care projects — the 25?

We’re not talking of the funding and operations for aging in place. That’s not what the campaign promises were. The campaign promises were to deliver 32 long-term-care facilities, whether renovated or new facilities. I would like to get an answer on the record of what that plan looks like.

If this minister is in charge of when those dollars are spent…. Although she will defer to the Minister of Infrastructure, the purse strings are in this ministry. I would like to get on record what the targeted capital plan is year over year to hit our 2030 targets and if she will guarantee in 2027 that we will see these seven long-term cares reactivated as well as new announcements made.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As I described, the Minister of Infrastructure is leading the work on the redesign and will bring forward that work to the Minister of Finance. The Ministry of Finance will do our work in regards to what will be included in the budget, and that’s what’s coming our way.

Peter Milobar: It wouldn’t be NDP government if there weren’t fingers pointing back and forth as to someone else’s fault. The Minister of Infrastructure says it’s ultimately the Minister of Finance responsible, and the Minister of Finance says, “Well, no, go back and talk to the Minister of Infrastructure,” and all that results in is seniors not getting long-term-care homes built at a time when they’re finding it harder and harder to stay in their own homes.

Switching gears a little bit and kicking over to FIFA. I’m assuming FIFA is part of contingencies. It was not that long ago, with a predecessor Finance Minister, when FIFA was actually referenced in the contingency description, and the minister insisted that FIFA would not cost $1 billion and that that was ludicrous and ridiculous. There’s no way that would ever get to that dollar figure.

Here we are at $624 million and climbing, with the minister of sport saying that that’s an old number from 2025, and of course, there are going to be inflationary pressures and other situations with the dollars.

Does the Minister of Finance have a handle on how much of contingencies will be needed for FIFA this year? How much of that $5 billion will, ultimately, be required for FIFA? What is the total amount of expenditure that this government has approved for FIFA?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The first thing I’ll mention is that the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture is giving an update very soon on updated budget estimates in regards to…. This is a very fulsome estimate including the city of Vancouver, PavCo, federal government contributions — all the work that has been done to really pull in funding and provide those estimates. That is imminent.

The way that the spending from contingencies will be visible is through public accounts, of course, as it always is. In ’24-25, the member could look at page 98, for example, where we had $10 million in that year. In the public accounts that are coming up, of course, if we look at Tourism, Arts and Culture, we’ll see spending for FIFA and then, of course, the following year for the final accounting.

[3:55 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: The minister is the head of Treasury Board. I’m assuming that these spending approvals would have been through Treasury Board. If not, we would’ve already seen a line item in the budget, surely, for FIFA spending and what has already been pre-approved for spending.

Has there been a limit capped on what has been approved for FIFA, or is it just a rolling dollar figure with frequent updates and requests for more money?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: A question in regards to: have we put caps on spending at FIFA? There are some areas where we have been able to have some limiting control and other areas less so.

I’ll identify for the member that the area where we’re experiencing the most risk in regards to cost is in regards to public safety and security, which also is the thing that’s most important to us and, really, is the driver behind the work that we’ve done with the federal government to secure funding from them. The member will know that we have secured $100 million from the federal government to assist with those costs.

We’ll have more information on an overall updated estimate on FIFA in the coming short amount of time from the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Peter Milobar: This isn’t meant to be disrespectful in the least towards the minister of sport and tourism, but I find it hard to believe that they were just given a blank cheque to go out and make agreements and spend whatever they feel was needed or requested by FIFA.

Surely, there either had to be a pocket of money that was identified by the Finance Minister and given authority to the minister responsible to make those decisions within that funding envelope…. Or are there multiple ministers involved? Public Safety — is PSSG involved as well as Tourism? There are multiple facets to these cost pressures.

Who, ultimately, is approving the final decision on whether or not things get approved, and what is the ceiling? Is it just truly an open cheque, as the late Premier Horgan first described FIFA being when the government first said no to FIFA — that they weren’t about to give a blank cheque?

[4:00 p.m.]

It’s starting to sound like this has turned into a blank cheque if the government can’t provide any detail in Finance estimates around the maximum exposure ceiling that the government has pre-approved within the budget that we are dealing with right now.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In the last two or three budgets, really, we’ve held funding in contingencies for FIFA. The way it works when we structure it in that way is that any movement of those contingencies has to undergo quite a rigorous process through Treasury Board management.

The cost estimates that will be coming out in the coming days will present a range that will be low to high in terms of what we expect the final cost to be, and the member will see those numbers shortly.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’re very conscious that this is not, in fact, a blank cheque, that what we’re doing instead are very regular visits to Treasury Board and Treasury Board management over this process, which has been very rigorous. You can go back and take a look at the June 2025 update, which showed the total gross costs and all of the different components broken down. That’s what we’ll be seeing in the coming days from the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture that will update these numbers for us.

Peter Milobar: To make sure I understand the minister clearly, it’s not actually going to be a detailed update. It’ll be a detailed update with a low and a high and a possibility of what we may spend or not spend. So not a whole lot of certainty, other than the fact that it’s starting to feel like an adult game of “Pin the tail on the donkey” here.

It might be $624 million on the low end. It might be $1 billion. “We’re not really sure. Here are the possible scenarios, and we’ll tell you after the event’s over, but you’ve got to wait until the end of May for us to even give you a range.”

What’s the point of all the delay? Two years ago, when you had $1 billion in contingencies identified as FIFA…. I said it’s FIFA-related, and the minister — not this minister; the previous minister — kept saying: “We’re never spending that much on FIFA. That’s ridiculous.” And here we are.

If we can’t get a finite, detailed costing two weeks or so before games are starting to be played, it does sound like a blank cheque, if you don’t actually know what the costs are. If we’re saying it might be higher, it might be lower, but it won’t be lower than $625 million or $624 million — better be exacting….

We’re thrilled that the federal government gave us possibly 10 percent of the cost of FIFA at the eleventh hour, forgetting that they gave Ontario an $8 billion housing fund at the same time. I guess that’s about comparative. We might as well take a victory lap. Or Alberta got a cheaper carbon tax than we got, but we’ll take the $100 million. Chalk one up for B.C. Go, Team B.C.

Is the minister saying that with this FIFA update, the minister has not instructed the Minister of Tourism and Sport to provide a detailed and accurate accounting of what the cost of FIFA is, that it’s instead going to be a range of high and low potential costs of what FIFA is going to cost?

When that happens…. I’m not holding my breath that it will happen before we’re ending this session, because the end of the month is after we’re done in this session.

Let’s just say, in some miracle, it actually got released tomorrow, before Premier’s estimates started — god forbid we have transparency during Premier’s estimates — and the low is still magically at $624 million and the high is somewhere in that $1 billion range. I think we’ve all been around politics enough to know what will happen. The opposition will say it’s $1 billion, and the government will keep insisting it’s $624 million.

That is the problem when we start getting a range of a high and a low after waiting months and months of questions upon questions being unanswered, with being told: “Trust us. There’ll be an update soon.”

How wide of a range, if there’s going to be a range as the minister just said there will be, are we expecting? Is it within $100 million range, or is it just a wide-open range of the FIFA wish list versus what the government is prepared to talk about?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is asking questions that will be readily available in just a short amount of time in the update that’s coming from Tourism, Arts and Culture. I don’t want to presuppose anything that’s coming with that information. There will also be a detailed accounting, of course, after the event, once all of the variables and risks are locked in and we know exactly what they are.

If the member is interested in sort of a framework in which the costs are considered, to see it, also the low and high and the categories, I can refer the member to appendix 1, June 2025, public update on FIFA 2026 costs. Of course, those numbers will be updated shortly, as I’ve mentioned. But the categories and who pays what and the level of range — I think those things remain accurate. That update will be available to the member shortly.

[4:15 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Given part of the mandate for the Minister of Finance is to find all cost savings and drive down the cost of government and spending, was any direction given by the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Tourism to rein in FIFA spending?

Was there any cap set for the cost of things like the hospitality suite, or was that at whatever the going rate was, and the province was fully committed to having to accept that hospitality suite at whatever cost it was deemed to be? Did the province have the opportunity to reject acquiring the hospitality suite for the games? We understand it could be anywhere from $500,000 or higher for the seven games.

What was the direction by the Minister of Finance in her quest to find savings for the taxpayers around direction around the suite and the costs associated with it?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Treasury Board directive in regards to FIFA World Cup 2026 match tickets and FIFA Fan Festival premium tickets.

We issued this directive with my signature on it, effective date May 1, 2026. There are a number of policy objectives that are captured in this directive: that provincial World Cup tickets are handled properly and transparently; that provincial FIFA World Cup ’26 tickets are used in accordance with statutory, regulatory and appropriation provisions and not used for personal gain; and that provincial FIFA World Cup ’26 tickets are used economically and efficiently to advance the province’s objectives, including economic development, and to support revenue generation by the city of Vancouver to help offset the city’s publicly funded FIFA World Cup ’26 hosting costs.

[4:25 p.m.]

I want to highlight a couple of things. Specifically, the member has asked about the investment attraction suite. There is a lot of rigour that is built into the use of tickets for this suite and who will be included in this suite. There are limitations to this, including being limited to CEOs and chairs of boards and the limited number of those. This is all spelled out in the directive.

There will be no more than two tickets for ministers for games, and that will be for official functions. The ministers will be chosen depending on the specific function required at those games.

Tickets may not be used for staff recognition or retention purposes; provided to spouses, family members or additional personal guests. They may not be transferred; sold for any other kind of contest, sweepstakes or promotional purposes; or provided to a contractor as part of compensation for goods and services.

I think, really, what we want to highlight is that we have heard stories of other events around the world where elected members brought family members and friends, and it was a situation where there was personal gain. That is not at all the directive that is in front of us.

We, in fact, are going to ensure that the opportunity that British Columbia has in hosting this World Cup helps us drive forward our objectives for revenue development, for economic development and to continue to grow our province. That’s what the suite will be used for.

I know that the minister responsible, the Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth, has a rigorous process by which he’s designing the invitations to that suite, focused specifically on different sectors and who from that sector will be coming together, international investors that will be coming in. Again, rigour will be applied. I know that that minister would be happy to speak to the member about it.

I will go ahead and pass a copy of this directive to the member for his records.

Peter Milobar: Again, I asked a dollar question — budget estimates, Finance Ministry. Every time I’ve asked a dollar question, I get a process-and-procedure answer back. I appreciate the detail that the minister went into, but the question was whether there has been a cap set by her in terms of the cost of the suite or if it’s just open-ended at whatever the rate FIFA sets.

Did the government have the ability to say no if they deemed it to be too expensive, or was it just that they had to take a suite and it had to be whatever the price was? If so, what was the dollar figure that this minister would’ve approved under the backdrop of supposing to rein in costs of government?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has asked a number of times for the numbers on this, and I’ve made it clear a number of times that those updates are coming soon. He’ll be able to have those numbers available to him.

In the meantime, the question in regards to: “Is there a blank cheque, or does the Minister of Finance have any input…?” It’s true that there are some non-discretionary costs when you take on an event like FIFA — things like required updates to the facility, the type of grass or non-grass that is used at the facility.

There are particular expenses that come with it when you host FIFA. Those are kind of locked in. The Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport has been under very clear instruction to do everything possible to keep costs down on this event and has complied with that instruction.

We’ll have more to say in regards to those numbers as they’re released in the coming days.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m reading from a five-page document, signed by the minister on April 30, 2026, that she just provided to me. On page 5, under “Accountability”: “(b) if the government of B.C. or a government organization is subject to a purchase agreement in relation to provincial FIFA World Cup ’26 tickets, it will strictly comply with the terms of that agreement.”

The minister signed off on these directions. I’m asking what the cost is of what she agreed to. If she doesn’t know what the cost was when she signed off on a directive that says the government of B.C. is subject to a purchase agreement in relation to tickets and will strictly comply to the terms of that agreement, that sounds like a blank cheque.

Did the minister know when she signed off on this directive — April 30, 2026, which was not that long ago — what the cost of the suites were going to be, or did she not know what the cost of the suites would be, which would fall under “strictly comply with the terms of the agreement” around tickets allocations for FIFA World Cup 2026?

It has to be one or the other. Either on April 30, the minister knew what the cost of the suites was going to be and she should be able to provide that figure today, or she didn’t know and she signed off on a directive that creates a blank cheque for obligations under FIFA that the government was unaware of on April 30, 2026.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I suggest to the member that there is a third option, which is that the minister does know and is deferring to the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport to give their update, which they have planned in the coming days.

Peter Milobar: Well, isn’t that just wonderful for the public that we have a Minister of Finance that’s responsible for all of these budgetary pressures, the spending, who signs off on a memo from the end of April of this year — so a couple of weeks ago — has the answer and in the middle of budget estimates, where the public is supposed to get those answers and the opposition is supposed to get those answers, won’t even provide a basic sub-answer to the overall FIFA question.

I wasn’t drilling in and asking for the final breakdown of every single expenditure. I was asking about a very specific component of it. The minister has now just acknowledged she knows.

Madam Chair, I look for direction from you. My understanding is that in budget estimates, if the minister actually does know the answer and has been asked, they are compelled to answer the question. I believe…. That’s what I was always understanding was the way this place was supposed to work in the interest of transparency and openness.

In fact, we’re debating Bill 9, a FOI bill, down the road, just down the hall, that would actually make it even harder to get public information.

I guess I’d ask Madam Chair for some direction here. If the minister is saying she actually knows the answer to a question being posed in budget estimates, a financial question on something directly under her, is she not compelled to answer on behalf of the public and the opposition? Could I get a clarification on that, please?

The Chair: Member, in my role as Chair, I’m not able to compel answers. But certainly, I think, it’s the understanding in the budget estimates that the opposition asks questions and the government provides answers.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I just want to make the point that I think it’s very reasonable for me to….

[The bells were rung.]

I’ll wait for the bells to end.

I just want to say that I think it’s very reasonable to allow the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture to do the update that they have planned. They’ve been working diligently on this file. It’s a very important update, and for me to take something away from this work I don’t think is appropriate. It’s a matter of a number of days until this information is fully disclosed to the public. The ministry is very happy to do any high-level updates, which we’ve been doing in this process, and I think that’s the correct way to move forward.

Peter Milobar: Oh, the irony that the bells were ringing there for a vote about the FOI legislation I just talked about. The government is putting up a fight, kicking and screaming, to make sure that they can restrict access to information, and we have it on full display right here in budget estimates.

It is shocking to me. We couldn’t get an answer with a dollar figure of what an operating deficit is from this government earlier on in this.

We can’t get a clear answer on what the percentage cost overrun of the public sector agreements is — we can find that out after the fact — not how much the government is overspending, even by a percentage, and a percentage not even attached to an actual dollar figure, just so we have an idea of the scope and the scale of the ineptitude of the negotiations that are happening right now while we’re supposed to be keeping costs under control.

The minister’s best answer is that they feel it’s reasonable that they don’t answer questions they actually have the answer to, after acknowledging they have the answer that was directly related to a memo the minister provided to me 12 minutes ago that was dated April 30 that she signed. The minister sees no problem with that whatsoever. Talk about a government that has lost touch with transparency, accountability and what it means to actually answer reasonable questions, budgetary questions, dollars attached to those budgetary questions in the middle of — wait for it — budget estimates.

[4:40 p.m.]

How dare the opposition try to do their job on behalf of the public. How dare we. Shame on us all.

Let’s try this then. When you look at the three-year capital plans, we see three years ago that tobacco tax revenues were projected to be $510 million this year. Last year the government changed that projection down to $450 million. This year it has been downgraded again to $311 million. From $510 million to $311 million in the same span of the fiscal plans laid out in front of us.

Can the minister explain why tobacco tax revenue has dropped by almost 50 percent? Now, I would use percentages instead of dollar figures because we can’t seem to get dollar figures out of the government today during budget estimates, but if the minister would prefer to use numbers, it’s $200 million or almost a 50 percent reduction.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member has asked a question about declining tobacco tax revenue year over year in multiple budgets, and there are two parts to this story. One part of the story is good news, which is that it’s driven by changing consumer behaviour and that consumption is down in British Columbia. We have one of the lowest tobacco uses in Canada. That part is good news.

But we also know that the illegal tobacco is competing with the legal tobacco. That is one of the reasons why we’re undergoing a review of our Tobacco Tax Act, and that review is underway.

Peter Milobar: Given a demonstrated loss of a minimum of $200 million…. I say minimum $200 million of tax revenue because, frankly, I don’t believe that it’s because consumption has gone down. We heard from industry repeatedly over the last several years, and there is no way government hasn’t heard repeatedly from industry, about the ever-increasing proliferation of illegal tobacco.

As the economy worsens and it becomes even more attractive for people to buy, it becomes a problem. It becomes a very clear tax problem of a minimum of $200 million, because that doesn’t actually account for the lost revenue in the first place. In other words, we should have been collecting several hundred million dollars more in tobacco tax revenue despite this drop.

I talked to one operator just recently that on a Saturday would normally sell almost 1,000 packs of cigarettes. Sold 98. It was 98 instead of 1,000.

Talked to another operator in a country setting, in my former riding, a small store. The van literally pulls into his parking lot, and they open the back door up and sit there and sell cartons of cigarettes to people walking into his store in his own parking lot. It’s not a theoretical. It’s happening at an ever-growing pace.

What steps, what funds has this Finance Minister approved for extra enforcement to try to protect the tax revenues of the province of B.C.? With the spinoff of public safety improvement, organized crime crackdown and public health…. We don’t actually know what’s in those illegal cigarettes because they are not made to any safety standard or held to any safety standard in manufacturing whatsoever.

We’ve watched a steady decline in tobacco tax revenue over the last couple of years, and it sounds like the government is content to chalk it up to people smoking less. They acknowledge illicit tobacco, but they don’t acknowledge that it’s a significant part in all of this.

[4:50 p.m.]

What change, what direction, what extra funding, what significant steps are going to be taken? Saying you’re going to study it longer doesn’t improve the situation. The industry has been raising the alarm bells about this for years now in British Columbia. Surely, it doesn’t need that much studying; it needs actual enforcement.

What is going to be done in the short term to combat illegal tobacco, the health impacts it winds up creating, the loss in revenue it winds up creating and the organized crime it actually helps to embolden within British Columbia?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re talking about the decline in tax revenue from tobacco. I want to be clear that there are two things happening at once.

[4:55 p.m.]

It is true that tobacco use is down, particularly among young people. There’ve been a number of independent studies that have shown that. It’s down for deliberate reasons — high tobacco taxes, comprehensive indoor smoking bans, restrictions on advertising and retail displays, packaging requirements, public health campaigns, smoking cessation programs and growing stigma. These are having an impact.

I’m not raising that to argue with the member. I agree with the member that there is a problem with illegal tobacco. We know that to be true. We have heard that. As the member has heard, we’ve heard that as well. That is why we have a dedicated investigation unit working on this issue. They work regularly with police forces all across the province.

I’ll share to the member that since 2012, with police, we have seized over 55 million grams of illicit tobacco. This includes in 2026, 33 seizures. We know that there is more to do, and the work that we’re doing on the Tobacco Tax Act, that review that’s underway…. This is one of the drivers behind that review.

Peter Milobar: In terms of the overall impact with the tobacco taxes in general, what specific measurements are the government using, other than sales, then, to convince themselves that usage has dropped? When I use the eye test, I see more people out smoking these days than I have in several years.

To give people at home an idea, when we’re talking about illegal cigarettes, when a pack is around $20 these days, $18, you can buy illegal cigarettes anywhere from $3 to $5 a pack. You can walk into corner stores that are selling the regular brands and say, “No, no. I’m looking for the $5-a-pack cartons,” and they’ll sell you a carton of ten packs for $40 or $50. That’s the difference in pricing we are talking about, for the viewers at home.

It’s not conceivable, when you see a difference in price that significant, anywhere from 90 to 75 percent cheaper, that people…. I don’t understand how the government can say with certainty and with such confidence that people aren’t smoking as much. They just simply aren’t buying tobacco that is triggering tax.

What measurements are the government using then? They’ve acknowledged there’s the illegal side. They’ve acknowledged that they’re doing some enforcement and some seizures, which is good. But to make statements that people are smoking less to the tune of a 50 percent reduction in taxation seems like a bit of a stretch. If the drop in revenue isn’t tied to a drop in consumption, and we know we’ve already been losing money, that means we were losing a significant chunk to the illegal market over the last two years than we previously were.

What measurables are the government using when it comes to tobacco use and tobacco taxes that are tied to it? This is a significant tax revenue. It used to be a significant tax revenue piece for the government. It used to be $500 million. It’s now down to $300 million, if they’re lucky.

What measurements are they using on the consumption side that gives them certainty that the drop in revenues is tied to a drop in consumption and not just a shift to the illegal market?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I have been very clear in each one of these questions that there are two things going on. There is a decline in smoking rates, and we have challenges in regards to illegal tobacco. I in no way implied that illegal tobacco was not a challenge.

I don’t need to get into a back-and-forth with the member in regards to smoking rates. You can refer to the Canadian Cancer Society website that specifically spells out that British Columbia has seen a decline in smoking rates, and it particularly looks at the usage among young people. There are many studies out on this. It is not for the Minister of Finance to do this research.

I’ve mentioned to the member that we, too, share the very strong concern that illegal tobacco is impeding our taxation, but it’s also causing many other problems, as all illegal activity does. We’ll continue this very important work, which includes ensuring that we continue to seize illegal tobacco.

I will share with the member that I’m getting a little tired, and I flipped a number. I said that since 2012, we’ve seized over 55 million grams of illicit tobacco. The correct number is since 2021. We, in conjunction with police, seized over 55 million grams of illicit tobacco. There is a lot more work to do on this. It is one of the drivers of the work behind updating and modernizing the Tobacco Tax Act, and that review is currently underway.

Harman Bhangu: I want to follow up on something from the Transportation estimates.

When we left that discussion, the Minister of Transportation made it clear that long-term funding for TransLink is being worked on by the Ministry of Finance. That’s why I’m here asking today.

Right now there has been a short-term fix, but everyone knows there still needs to be a real plan to pay for this, going forward. That is supposed to be in place by 2027. People want to know, especially with talk around a potential election later this year, whether this is going to mean a road tax.

[5:05 p.m.]

My question. Can the minister outline what specific revenue tools are currently under consideration by the Ministry of Finance to address TransLink long-term funding requirements?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This work is underway. I’m not in a position to share any final decisions yet, but I will make it very clear, as did the Minister of Transportation, that we are certainly not in favour of road pricing.

Harman Bhangu: Can the minister confirm whether the province is evaluating options that would result in increased cost to drivers, including road tax, vehicle levies or similar measures?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: On this side of the House, we are not in favour of tolls and we are not in favour of road tax. That’s not the direction we’ll be going. We continue to work closely with TransLink as we consider future revenue tools, being mindful, of course, of the costs that people are facing.

Harman Bhangu: I just want to get this on the record. Given that a long-term funding plan is not expected until 2027, can the minister confirm whether the province will provide clarity before the fall on what revenue tools are being considered, including whether road tax forms part of the plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Third time. We are not considering road tax.

[5:10 p.m.]

Harman Bhangu: I just want to go back to the part where I said it’s not expected till 2027. Can the minister confirm if the province will provide clarity before the fall on what revenue tools are being considered?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: This is work that we’re doing with TransLink and the Mayors Council to provide them a tool which, then, they will decide how to use. That work is for 2027, so we’re not expecting to make an announcement in the fall. This is work for 2027.

Peter Milobar: I just want to get clarification from the minister that I’m truly reading the budget correctly — that, in fact, on page 1, the budget estimate for this year is a $13.3 billion deficit; next year, $12.165 billion, which is $1.2 billion less; and then $11.4 billion, which is another $800 million less, $900 million less. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: As the member knows, that is correct.

Peter Milobar: The minister has been talking about the spending discipline and fiscal discipline to get to a path of balanced budget, and that’s why they’re taking these hard measures. The bulk of the 15,000 FTEs that will be seen and that will be lost to find these efficiencies and cost savings and make government more cost-effective, to bring that deficit down, will be found in ’27-28 and ’28-29. Is that correct?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’m on page 27 of the blue book, expenditure management and workforce reduction targets. In 2026, the member will see, in terms of expenditure management savings, $950 million; workforce reduction targets, $200 million. In 2027-28, expenditure management savings, $1.24 billion; and workforce reduction targets, $800 million. In ’28-29, expenditure management savings, $1.32 billion; workforce reduction targets, $1.850 billion. For a total over the fiscal plan, expenditure management savings, $3.51 billion; workforce reduction targets, $2.85 billion.

[5:15 p.m.]

Peter Milobar: Well, it’s interesting, because those total savings on page 27 the minister referenced are a higher number than the reduction in the deficit. So the deficit is going down by $1.2 billion, yet the total net savings is supposed to be $1.377 billion next year. The deficit is going down by about $2 billion over the two-year period, yet it’s $2.4 billion in net savings, apparently.

More importantly, when you go: “How are you funding everything…?” Then you go to page 79, and not only are the savings going to be outstripped but you have extra taxation in each of those years, new taxation — not from economic growth; new taxes that are in this budget.

The net taxation difference in this budget, from taxes that have been readjusted either downwards — very minor downward adjustments compared to the increases that we see…. In fact, I can see one, two, three, four taxes that went down in this year and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten that are new or increased. The following year, it’s the same — one extra new tax credit, yet 11 new or increased taxes — and the same in the following year.

Again, just the straight revenue side, you look at the deficit going down by $1.2 billion but taxation next year increasing by $1.5 billion on new and increased taxation — not economic growth.

Can the minister explain how on the one hand they are talking a good game of really reining in spending and getting our economy growing and that’s how we’re going to get back towards a balanced budget, when, in fact, brand-new, never-before-seen taxes are actually adding $757 million net this year, $1.521 billion the following year and $1.937 billion on year 3 of this plan? All new taxation. Didn’t exist before this budget this year.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The first thing I’ll say is that there are a number of different things happening concurrently, of course, in Budget 2026. We are very focused on reducing government spending. We’ve done that through an expenditure review that is ongoing. We’re doing that through a reduction of 15,000 valued members of the public service. These are difficult decisions.

[5:20 p.m.]

We have modest increases, as the member has highlighted, in regards to the tax system, and when we do this expenditure work, it is also true that some of the reductions that are being made through expenditure work are reinvested. Again, looking at page 27, you’ll see that there’s a line called “Funding reinvested in core services.”

We know how important it is for us to continue to protect the services that are core to British Columbians. These are difficult times. We are in the middle of a trade war that is having an impact and, also, now the supply chain challenges that are coming from the Strait of Hormuz. These international issues seem so far away, but they are having an impact, and they’re having an impact on our bottom line. They’re having an impact on investment decisions.

It’s really important to highlight the investments we continue to make. Now, we could have made a decision to slash spending on health care or slash spending on education, but that would have had a huge impact on British Columbians, and that’s not what they want us to do.

I draw the attention of the member to page 9. In Budget 2026, in addition to making these very difficult and careful decisions about how to bring down spending, about how to make reductions, primarily focusing on administrative roles and making modest changes to the tax system, we’re also protecting core services. You’ll see those highlighted in table 1.2.1, “Protecting core services people rely on,” page 9.

In this budget, we make additional investments in health, mental health and addictions care — over the fiscal plan, the three years, $2.769 billion.

We make additional investments into K-to-12 education, so key for people — over the three-year fiscal plan, $634 million.

In child care…. We know that child care helps people get back into the workforce. It’s a very important investment for people. We’ve been able to bring down child care costs for people. It’s an affordability measure as well as an economic measure. In this budget, over the three-year fiscal plan — $330 million invested into child care.

We make supports available for children and youth and expand access to support needs — $475 million over the three-year fiscal plan.

I could go on. These are important decisions that we’ve made to do two things at once: to protect British Columbians and the services that they rely on, those core services; and also to be deeply focused on how to bring down costs where we can, targeting those reductions in ways that won’t impact front-line services.

Peter Milobar: Well, that all sounds well and good, but the reality is there are still billions of dollars of new taxation in this budget that get downplayed quite significantly by the minister at a time…. She’s right. Times are tough. That’s probably why people are buying illicit tobacco instead of regular tobacco, because they can’t afford the regular tobacco right now.

In terms of the overall approach by this government, though, as it relates to the ongoing deficit and trying to get our way out of the mess that we’re in, can the minister let us know, based on this fiscal plan and based on the newly announced changes to the Canada funding agreement around health care and the transfer…? What does that do in the short term for planning purposes?

I believe the number I saw was that it could be anywhere up to a $2 billion or $2.8 billion cut to federal health transfers. I may have that number wrong. That’s why I’m looking for a clarification. But if that’s the case, does that automatically mean that the deficit in ’28-29, right now, would be pushing $14 billion if changes aren’t made between now and then, when the budget comes forward?

[5:25 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I believe the member is asking about the fiscal cliff. There had been an increase in the Canada health transfer by the federal government after COVID. That is due to go back to a prior rate in ’28-29. That has been included in the budget assumptions.

I will share with the member that I sit on the FPT. This is a table of federal, provincial and territorial Finance Ministers. This is an item of much discussion, as the member could imagine, and the pressure to ensure that this fiscal cliff is not realized is very significant.

We’re meeting again in July, and this will be a point of discussion with the federal Finance Minister.

Peter Milobar: Just to be clear, then, when this budget was being created — back in November, December, January — and published, the minister had already accounted for and was fully aware of the health transfers and changes that were scheduled to take effect.

I just ask that because the way it was portrayed in the media and the way the minister talked about it in the media recently, it seemed like this was a new revelation, that it was unknown, that there was great concern, that the federal government was changing the agreement to deal with their own budgetary issues and that it was coming on the backs of the provinces.

I don’t disagree that we should have all the money we can possibly get. I’m trying to understand the way it was conveyed recently versus the reality. It sounds like this was actually fully accounted for and expected and, in fact, budgeted for in this document, heading forward, so it was not really a big surprise. This is an ongoing negotiation, and if it doesn’t change, there’s nothing that comes as a shock to the government.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, we’re aware that there is a planned reduction in ’28.

I think the member is referring to a comment that I made to the press when asked, in regards to the spring update from the federal government: “Is there anything that you would like to have seen that was not included?” Because I’ve been advocating with the other Finance Ministers to ensure that this fiscal cliff does not come to reality, I responded to that question by saying that, yes, I would like to have seen that there was a commitment from the federal government to continue at this level of funding. That was the comment that I made in the press.

Of course, if we are successful and if the federal government does continue to provide this level of funding, that will show us a reduction in our deficit.

Peter Milobar: It’s being like a cigarette, tobacco settlement all over again.

[5:30 p.m.]

In terms of the freezing of the personal tax brackets, this has been…. I canvassed this a bit during the budget bill itself, but I don’t think the public fully, obviously, were watching committee room conversations or anything like that — not that the masses are watching this either.

I want to make sure I understood the minister’s answer correctly that the tax freeze that will generate $960 million in this budget document is the tax bracket.

For those watching at home, what you normally would see for paying income tax calculated on gets adjusted each year. In this case, the government has frozen that rate so it doesn’t keep going up, so the taxation on your earning threshold stays the same. The earning threshold stays the same, so your taxes go up, which means the government will generate an extra $960 million in taxation over the life of this fiscal plan.

Now, I had made the assumption, erroneously, that at the end of the three years, there would be a reset and a catch-up of those tax brackets, and we would catch it up. But the minister, in the middle of the bill debate, seemed to indicate that no, once the freeze gets lifted, we just start back up from the freeze point, and that extra $960 million of taxation is just baked into the system. In other words, you’ll always be paying that higher tax rate perpetually because your tax bracket has been lowered comparative to inflation.

Why was the decision made, first off, to freeze the tax brackets for three years and not to have a catch-up period, as well, once the freeze comes off?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re discussing de-annexation. De-annexation helps raise revenue without having to further raise taxes. Government is balancing the need for tax revenue to protect the core services that British Columbians rely on and the need to reduce the impact to taxpayers. To maintain this equilibrium, the measure will be temporary, beginning in 2027 through 2030, and will be monitored throughout. Despite the change, B.C. will remain one of the lowest income tax jurisdictions in Canada.

The member asked why this particular time frame. That is both to align with the fiscal plan and also to make sure it’s a temporary measure that we’re tracking and keeping tabs on. The member asked why no catch-up at the end. In fact, at the end, we’ll be looking very carefully at the results, the actual rate of inflation that occurred during that time frame and also doing an interjurisdictional scan comparing taxation rates for British Columbians to other Canadians, with the objective of ensuring that we continue to have a comparably low taxation rate.

Peter Milobar: A couple of things to unpack on that answer. Sorry, what has changed between now and when the bill was debated in committee stage? When I asked in committee stage, that was not the answer.

It was not that at the end, there will be a comprehensive scan and review and assessment with other tax jurisdictions. It was that there would be no catch-up and that the freeze would be lifted, but it would just continue on as it did in the past, only starting at the freeze as a starting point.

Has something changed from when I asked direct questions in committee stage and was supposed to be getting the similar answers? What exactly has changed?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: Yes, the bill does behave as the member has outlined, and I will point out to the member there is no change in how I’m representing this.

On Tuesday, March 31, at 6:05 p.m., I can see in the transcript that I said: “As we approach the turning back on of the bracket, it is a time to review the impact.” That’s what I’ve just described to the member.

Peter Milobar: The other part of the previous answer was…. One before. The minister said this is a way to not increase taxes. It’s going to collect $1 billion more in this fiscal plan. The minister seems to think that’s not an increase in taxation.

Does this bracket freeze just apply to new taxpayers, people that aren’t currently paying income tax in British Columbia, or is it in fact $1 billion extra being collected off of the exact same pool of taxpayers, with the addition of a little bit of population growth if we’re fortunate enough to see that over the next little while? If so, can the minister explain why characterizing $1 billion of taxation to her is not considered an increase of taxation?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is correct. I misspoke. I should have said it does not increase tax rates.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m sure everybody that’s paying that extra $1 billion will be relieved to know they’re not paying a different tax rate, just paying more actual dollars. You know, that’s actually what matters to people’s household budgets — the dollars, not the tax rate.

To that end, what was the basic personal exemption last year? What is it this year? And what is it for the remaining years in this fiscal plan?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: In 2025, the basic personal exemption was $12,932. In 2026, it’s $13,216, and that remains flat throughout the fiscal plan.

Peter Milobar: Minimum wage will be going up on June 1, and it will go up June 1 each of the following years. For people earning minimum wage, the basic personal exemption — in other words, the amount they can earn before they start triggering paying income tax — will not go up for the life of this fiscal plan. So even the basic personal exemption has been frozen with the tax bracket freeze. Is that correct?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: We’re discussing the impact of tax changes in this fiscal plan on minimum-wage earners.

I’ll share with the member that if an individual has employment income below $26,750, they will continue to pay no taxes. If an individual is a full-time worker earning minimum wage and claiming no additional credits or deductions, then this individual would pay. If they’re working 30 hours a week, they’ll have a $30 tax savings for the year. If they’re working 35 hours a week, it’s a $2 tax savings for the year, and 40 hours a week is a $2 tax savings, basically a break-even.

This is based on the individual claiming basic tax credits and deductions for an employee — i.e., the basic personal amount, CPP and EI tax credits, B.C. tax reduction credit and a deduction for enhanced CPP contributions. These amounts would be lower if the individual claimed additional deductions — for example, union dues; child care expenses; RRSP contributions; and employment expenses like motor vehicle costs, supplies and special uniforms.

When considering the actual amounts claimed by taxpayers, an individual earning an annual income of about $37,500, which is minimum wage on 40 hours a week, would see an estimated savings of about $1,700. Income of $33,000, 30 hours a week, a savings of $35; and $28,200, 30 hours a week, a savings of more than $50 for 2026.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m sure people that work minimum wage on 30 hours a week are glad to know that they can make RRSP contributions to lower their tax hit. I hate to break it to the minister, but most people earning minimum wage, if they’re only getting 30 hours at their workplace, probably have a second job, because they’re not able to survive otherwise.

When you see the tax rate for the first $50,000 that you earn go up in this budget and you see tax brackets frozen in this budget and you see the minimum basic personal exemption that you can earn frozen in this budget — which means that as your income goes up, you still only can earn the $13,316 before you start triggering into tax territory — people earning minimum wage will see their taxes go up.

A lot of the things and a lot of the deductions the minister is talking about for people on minimum wage, they simply can’t access because they’re trying to survive with rent, with groceries, with other things in life. So it’s a great theoretical exercise, but the reality is these are tax changes that are going to bring in $1 billion extra in revenue a year.

Now, the tax bracket has a calculation next to it, the freezing of the tax brackets, but I didn’t see a calculation of the freezing of the basic personal exemption. Why was there not a calculation of the freezing of the basic personal exemption and what that would do for government revenues? Why is it just the tax bracket that has a calculation next to it?

[5:55 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: To the member, I’m excited to see his newfound interest in people who are earning minimum wage, after the work on that side of the House for many, many years to make sure that it did not increase. Since the NDP came in, in 2017, it has increased every single year — from $11.35 to now at $18.25, which is leading the country.

The member asked a question in regards to where the changes in the freezing of the personal exemption are shown. It’s rolled up, so I’m not able to provide a specific number to the member on that. But I think it’s very important to note that the work that we did….

While we increased taxation modestly, we designed it in such a way that it’s designed to protect the lowest-wage earners in British Columbia. In fact, more than 40 percent of British Columbians will not experience a tax increase or will have a reduction in taxes because of this specific design to ensure that we’ve increased tax credits for the lowest-wage earners among us.

I think that’s where I’ll leave it.

Peter Milobar: Well, I find it remarkable. Every time I ask for dollars on any modelling that has been done, anything today, it’s: “Well, we haven’t done that. We don’t have that. It’s rolled up.” Yeah, it might be rolled up. Someone had to make the calculation. That’s why I’m asking, because it’s not in black and white in the document.

The personal basic exemption was frozen for a reason, and that reason was to generate money for government. It’s simply not acceptable or good enough that the minister yet again is trying to say that we actually don’t know how many dollars that decision is going to result in. It’s not believable.

We had the minister say she actually knows the answer to a question around FIFA and dollar figures, but she won’t give it today.

We had the minister say that despite the head of the public service publicly acknowledging that they have a structural and an operational deficit, even last year going into negotiations with the unions, they can’t tell me what that dollar figure is out of the $13.3 billion deficit.

We’ve asked what the percentage of the public sector agreements is over and above, higher than what the government thought they were going to be spending on these agreements — not the dollar figure, not the baseline, just the overall percentage of extra cost associated with these agreements. The minister did acknowledge on Thursday that the public sector agreements are coming in more expensive than the government had anticipated. “Anticipated,” hopefully, is another word for “budgeted for.”

We have an extra $1 billion added to the contingency funds this year, next year and the following year — from just last year’s projections of the contingency funds.

So I don’t think I’ve been too unreasonable today trying to get actual dollar figures out of the minister and all of her staff, all of the people that are doing these calculations. It’s not fair to them. I’m willing to bet they’re actually providing a number that the minister is refusing to give.

If they don’t have a number, how did these decisions get made? How do you make tax policy changes that say we are going to freeze the basic personal exemption for the lowest-income people in our province and stand up on the one hand and say they’ll pay less tax, but you don’t know how much tax it’s actually going to collect by freezing it? How do you know the one but not the other? Why will this minister and this government refuse to provide any clear answers when it comes to these questions?

[6:05 p.m.]

I would like to take a minute, since we have the time, to clarify, because the minister seems very fixated on my time in government — both in question period and everything else. So let’s be abundantly clear for the minister of my time in government, shall we?

It was 18 days. I was elected in 2017. I didn’t have a PS behind my name. I didn’t have a ministerial title behind my name. I was as backbench as you could get for 18 days. The minister seems to think I had a hand in decisions that were made 16 years before that.

If she wants accuracy in this place, let’s get it straight. They have been government for nine years. This is this minister’s budget. This is this minister’s modelling on how they are generating revenue — an extra $1 billion in personal income tax in this budget. It was this minister’s decision to freeze the tax brackets to generate that $1 billion. It was this minister’s decision to freeze the basic personal exemption.

I have simply asked how many dollars the freezing of the basic personal exemption is going to generate. The minister’s answer is she doesn’t know. No one in the Ministry of Finance knows. Someone just thought it was a good idea and let’s throw it in there. Who knows if it actually creates money or doesn’t create money for government, whether it impacts low-income people or doesn’t impact low-income people.

The one thing I can say, I guess, if I’m the minister, with certainty, though, is that we’ve taken other tax measures to save money for those same people. It makes one wonder why the minister doesn’t want to put a dollar figure on a tax policy change she is responsible for — no one else in this chamber.

I’ll ask again. What is the dollar impact for the freezing of the basic personal exemption in this fiscal plan?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The member is asking about a specific component that is rolled up into another category.

On page 79, when we look at the Income Tax Act changes, the fourth bullet down — the third one after “Income Tax Act” — says: “Freeze personal income tax brackets and non-refundable credits.” The “non-refundable credits” includes the personal exemption, so that is the broader category that the member is asking about. You can see the numbers across the plan: $60 million; $309 million; $590 million.

To talk further about the non-refundable credits, we can look at…. It’s referenced on page 82. It talks about including the basic personal amount, the age amount, the disability amount. The change will have a greater effect on British Columbians with higher incomes. That’s how it has been designed.

The member would like a breakdown of those two different components. The non-refundable credits of the numbers expressed here, the first year, ’26-27, are $19 million; the second year, ’27-28, are $95 million; and the third year, ’28-29, are $177 million.

Now, I recognize that the member has asked not just about all the non-refundable credits that are in this category but specifically about the personal exemption. My team is able to get that for the member, but we don’t have it on hand yet. We’ll provide a note to the member on that particular number.

Peter Milobar: While collating those documents, I had asked on Thursday if there was a written direction to ministers — not to overall ministerial operations but to ministers — specifically about their own personal travel, their own travel for ministerial purposes. What direction was given, in writing, by the Finance Minister to the ministers to make sure that their own spending on what would be considered ancillary spending…?

[6:15 p.m.]

I recognize travel is part of the job, so I’m not saying there should never be travel. But what changes to policies of expectation, to the ministers themselves, was conveyed by the Minister of Finance?

I didn’t get anything conveyed over to my office in writing of what’s there. I’m hoping there is something, and I’d just like to know what direction was provided by the government.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I am responding to a question in regards to what guidance we have provided to ministers in regards to reduction in expenses and, particularly, travel. I will share with the member that in the budget letter that I provided this year, we were quite directive. The budget letters are not just for the ministries; they’re also for the minister. Budget letters set out a range of expectations and requirements that limit discretionary spending. These are both, as I say, to the minister and to the ministry’s office.

Examples of budget letter direction limiting discretionary travel and prioritizing alternative options such as video conferencing…. Any non-essential travel requires the deputy minister’s approval, even for the minister. Requiring deputy minister approval for any new or renewed professional service contracts and many other things — conferences, business meeting expenses, furniture and equipment, and it goes on….

Specifically, I’ll highlight that STOB 57, which is the travel category, limits discretionary travel. This is for non-essential conferences and meetings. It must be restricted and alternate options prioritized — for example, video conferencing. Ministries must have an approved framework to minimize travel costs, limit greenhouse gas emissions and restrict discretionary travel and the number of ministry participants travelling to a meeting.

[6:20 p.m.]

Pre-approval by the deputy minister is required for in-province and out-of-province travel. Only approvals for essential travel related to the direct delivery of government services can be delegated to an ADM. Pre-approval by the Deputy Minister to the Premier is required for out-of-country travel.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

Seeing no further questions, we will call on the minister to…. Thank you.

Vote 26: ministry operations, $381,863,000 — approved.

Vote 27: government communications and public engagement, $29,430,000 — approved.

Vote 28: B.C. Public Service Agency, $115,350,000 — approved.

Vote 29: benefits and other employment costs, $1,000 — approved.

Estimates:
Management of Public Funds and Debt

Vote 47: management of public funds and debt, $3,797,749,000 — approved.

Estimates: Other Appropriations

Vote 48: contingencies, $5,000,000,000 — approved.

Vote 49: capital funding, $6,153,166,000 — approved.

Vote 50: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 51: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 52: tax transfers, $2,466,000,000 — approved.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee sits adjourned.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:24 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

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

George Anderson: Section A reports completion of Bill 9 with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Next sitting.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Section C reports progress on Bill 20 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 1:53 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

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

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

On clause 13 as amended.

Rob Botterell: We now have clause 13 as amended in front of us. My first question to the minister is: who requested this amendment? Who did government consult with regarding this amendment? Did the government consult with users of the act on this amendment?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As has been discussed previously, input from the general public was gathered through the special committee process. For this clause, it addresses concerns raised by the broader public sector, and the OIPC was consulted.

[2:00 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I would just note for the record, on the consultation that the minister referenced, that 29 out of 34 of the special committee recommendations made by the all-party committee in 2022 are not reflected in this legislation. The five out of 29 recommendations and related consultation that are reflected in this act as proposed do not include any reference to consultation on this amendment.

I’ll move to my next question, and that is…. As the minister responsible for the legislation and responsible for seeking approval…. With a request for legislation, to have the legislation drafted, as the minister responsible for, as we’ve learned, consulting with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and public servants within the B.C. government and, ultimately, as the minister responsible for this legislation….

The clause we have in front of us, in its current form, provides for a public body to apply to the commissioner to be able to disregard a request that would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body or the ministry of the minister responsible for the act.

I also note, in preparation for this question, that if clause 28 of Bill 9 passes, this section will be retroactive and could encompass public bodies applying to the commissioner to disregard requests as far back as time goes. My question relates to the 5,867 requests made between 2024-25, ’23-24 — the FOI requests.

My question is: can the minister provide some examples to the public of British Columbia, when the minister took forward the request for legislation, on the potential impact of this amendment and the forecast number or hoped-for number of requests that would be caught by this amendment?

[2:05 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: When someone abuses their access rights under FIPPA, it can have very serious consequences for the access rights of others by overburdening a public body and impacting that public body’s ability to respond to other requests. It can also harm the public interest by unnecessarily adding to a public body’s cost of complying with FIPPA.

Just a reminder for the members opposite that the language we’re speaking of is existing language. The OIPC has been adjudicating these kinds of requests for decades and holds a very high bar as to when they approve a public body’s request to disregard an access request. We anticipate very few cases.

Rob Botterell: The minister just indicated that we expect very few cases. In fact, over the past 34 years, under the previous language before the amendment, there were two cases. So the question arises: why make this amendment?

Two observations. First of all, the orders of the commissioner up until now will not be applicable because the amendment to the legislation removes the guardrails that the request needs to be systematic, repetitive or too broad and replaces it with simply a test — that is, “unreasonable interference.”

So the test is going to be much broader than before, and the previous precedents don’t answer the question of how it will be applied. The minister is suggesting that there might only be a couple.

My question is: first of all, have I got that right? Then the second part is: can the minister give me an example of a request that would be unreasonable in the sense of interfering with the operations of a public body but not systematic, repetitious or too broad?

What is the new category that goes beyond systematic, repetitious or too broad? What we are doing here is eliminating those three guardrails. So the drafters of this legislation, under the direction of the minister and with the approval of a request for legislation, must have thought that there was an additional category of requests that would not be caught by “systematic,” “repetitious” or too “broad” or there would be no reason to amend the legislation in this way.

My question, once again, is: can the minister give me some examples, or give British Columbians some examples, of requests that are unreasonable but not systematic, repetitious or too broad?

[2:15 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record, what I said was that we anticipate few cases.

Also, correcting for the record, the guardrails remain. While we have uncoupled the tests, the tests in and of themselves remain the same, and the jurisprudence of the OIPC would continue to guide interpretation.

Overall, this clause has been narrowed through engagement with the MLA for Penticton-Summerland, and I thank the MLAs who engaged in dialogue to build a better bill.

Rob Botterell: The minister just stated that the provisions that will guide the commissioner’s work applying this section as amended will be the same criteria. For the record, what I take from what the minister has just indicated is that the amendment will have no impact at all because the criteria that the commissioner will apply — instead of being stated as systematic, repetitious and too broad, as defined in orders — will simply be applied without being stated in this section.

That’s good news. That means that this section will have no impact at all on operations and will not in any way expand the types of requests that are eligible to be disregarded. It’ll be the minister. It’ll be the Legislative Assembly that will be monitoring the commissioner to ensure that the commissioner does not engage in scope creep.

I’ll move on. That’s great news.

[2:25 p.m.]

My final question is: what procedural safeguards are there that in terms of the oversight of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s work are available? Obviously, we want to ensure that the procedural safeguards are in place. What are the procedural safeguards that the commissioner will be subject to in his decision-making?

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record, the statement by the member opposite of what I said in the previous answer and his interpretation are incorrect.

With regards to the question being asked, the procedural safeguard oversight of the OIPC has been thoroughly canvassed in this committee.

Rob Botterell: The minister can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, the minister is saying that the commissioner will be guided by prior decisions in which the check and balance on “unreasonably interfere with operations” was that the request also had to be systematic, repetitive or too broad. That’s on the one hand. Now what we’re hearing from the minister is: “No, no. I never said that.”

That’s fine. I accept that. I accept that assurance from the minister. But what that means is that the clause does have impact and that it does allow the commissioner to make rulings on authorizing a public body to disregard a question when it is not systematic, repetitious or too broad.

My question is: what are the additional ways in which the commissioner is now enabled to disregard a request?

Clearly, the change in the act, by the minister’s own comments just a moment ago, is that “systematic,” “repetitious” and too “broad” are not the only criteria that the commissioner will consider. When the request for legislation was done, when the drafting instructions were created for this section, there must have been a sense that systematic, repetitious and too broad was not enough.

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record, I will read in again what I’m on the record as having said. While we have uncoupled the tests, the tests in and of themselves remain the same.

Rob Botterell: “Asked and answered. The clause is the same.” That’s how I interpret your answer, and that’s how British Columbians will interpret your answer — that the commissioner will not be expanding the operation of this section.

[2:30 p.m.]

I’ll go to my final point, and I’ll then happily turn matters over for further questions and so on to my colleague.

This is a statement for the record. It has been brought to my attention by an applicant who has extensive legal background that he has evidence — this relates directly to the review of decisions under this section, so this is germane — that the commissioner’s office is repeatedly breaching administrative law principles of procedural fairness related to the review and handling of FOI complaints.

I understand the applicant has raised these concerns with the Information and Privacy Commissioner to no avail. Yesterday the applicant raised these concerns with other arms of government.

This is a matter of very serious concern, because throughout these committee hearings on Bill 9, the minister has assured British Columbians that they can rely on the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ensure, both procedurally and substantively, that the commissioner will uphold the right to access and protection of privacy set out in section 2 of the act when interpreting and applying the Bill 9 amendments we are considering.

The applicant I am referring to is Dr. Dosmukhamedov. He is a legal scholar, an independent policy analyst and formerly a senior associate member and research fellow at the University of Oxford.

What assurance can the minister provide the public of B.C. that the minister will meet with this applicant and the commissioner to review and determine how these serious procedural complaints can be addressed and provide a public statement, and until such time as these concerns have been fully reviewed and addressed, there will be no further consideration of Bill 9 at committee?

Hon. Diana Gibson: There are clear processes for review of the OIPC and appropriate pathways. I’d like to keep the discussions to the clause in question.

[2:35 p.m.]

Jody Toor: I’d like to table two amendments for clause 13.

The Chair: Go ahead. Then, if you’d like, you can speak to the amendment now, while we look into whether it’s in order.

Jody Toor: My first amendment that I’m tabling removes the terms “abusive,” “malicious,” “repetitious,” “systematic” and aggressively “broad.”

[Clause 13 is amended by striking the following shown as struck:

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 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.]

On the amendment.

Jody Toor: These terms were vague, undefined and could have been translated too broadly against journalists, researchers, advocacy groups or ordinary citizens trying to obtain information from the government.

The purpose of this amendment is not to stop government from dealing with requests that genuinely create operational problems. The purpose is to make sure freedom-of-information laws remain focused on transparency and public access rather than giving government broad liberty to reject requests based on subjective language.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess, and we’ll call the committee back once we have a determination of whether or not the amendment is in order.

The committee recessed from 2:36 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back to Committee of the Whole on Bill 9. We are reviewing the amendment to the amended clause 13. The amendment has been ruled in order.

The mover has spoken to the motion. Would the minister like to respond to the amendment?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I’ll be speaking against the amendment. I disagree with the premise behind it, because the guardrails are there with the high bar that is set by the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner, appointed by an all-party committee.

The terminologies that are in there continue to be tests in the language, as discussed on the record.

Rob Botterell: I’ll be supporting this amendment, but I think it’s fairly important for the record why I will be supporting this amendment.

Part (b) of the amendment says: “by striking out ‘or’ at the end and by repealing paragraph (c) and substituting the following,” and “responding to the request would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body” and then the portion that’s struck out is “the ministry of the minister responsible for this act” and also “the request is an abuse of the right to make a request because the request is repetitious, systematic or excessively broad.”

I just want it on the record. Apparently, the minister and I disagree. The indication we have, based on…. The way I interpret what the minister has said is that “unreasonably interfere” will be interpreted in the same way in the future as it was in the past, whether or not the words “repetitious,” “systematic” or “excessively broad” are included.

On that basis, I support the amendment.

The Chair: On the question of the amendment to the amended clause 13, shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Welcome back.

Seeing as how we are all assembled, can I get agreement to waive time?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Excellent. Thank you.

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote. The question is on the amendment to the amended clause 13.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Dew	Botterell	Maahs
Stamer		Luck
NAYS — 5
Routledge	Parmar	Begg
Dix		Gibson

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 amended form as adopted in the House.

We are returning to the question on clause 13. On the question of the amended clause 13, are there any further questions?

Seeing no further questions on the amended clause 13, I ask: shall clause 13 be carried?

Division has been called.

[3:05 p.m.]

Thank you, Members. Seeing that we are all assembled and that we have now reached five minutes, I ask for consent to waive time.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Fantastic. Thank you so much, Members.

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote. The question is: shall the amended clause 13 pass?

Clause 13 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Parmar	Begg
Dix		Gibson
NAYS — 5
Dew	Botterell	Maahs
Stamer		Luck

The Chair: Members, there being an equal number of votes for and against, the Chair must make a casting vote. The Chair votes in favour of the amended clause 13 to keep the bill intact in its form as adopted in the House.

We have passed clause 13. Now we are moving on to clause 15, as clause 14 was passed earlier.

However, we will take a five-minute recess and return at 3:15.

The committee recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:16 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back, Members.

We are now returning to Bill 9 on the question of clause 15.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

Jody Toor: While this amendment may appear technical, its operation reinforces the expanded extension framework created earlier in the bill, including the extension based on applicant consent. I believe it is important for this committee to understand how these interconnected amendments may collectively affect timelines, procedural fairness and the balance of power between applicants and the public bodies within the FOI process.

Why was it necessary to amend this section to incorporate section 10(1.1)?

Hon. Diana Gibson: This change is just about making the act consistent with the changes in clause 10, and the questions asked by the member opposite were canvassed thoroughly in the discussion of that clause.

Jody Toor: Clause 16 may look technical because it only updates a reference, but the concern is that it helps reinforce and embed the expanded extension system created in clause 5.

Is this amendment helping strengthen the broader extension authorities government introduced earlier in this legislation?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member opposite for the opportunity to clarify that clause 16 does not address extension provisions but is about maintaining the commissioner’s power to review public body time limit extensions.

Jody Toor: Could these interconnected amendments collectively prolong to longer FOI processing timelines, and if they do, what safeguards ensure that applicants are not pressured into consenting to extensions?

Hon. Diana Gibson: That issue was thoroughly canvassed when we discussed clause 5.

Jody Toor: Does government acknowledge that technical amendments can still have meaningful operational consequences for applicants?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: It’s not appropriate for me to speak in big, general terms. With regards specifically to this clause, that is not the case. This is about maintaining the power to review public body time and extensions and confirming and affirming the oversight that helps address the very concerns you’re raising.

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

Jody Toor: Clause 17 proposes changes to section 69(5.2) so that the ministries must notify the commissioner during development of integrated programs or activities and only provide the privacy impact assessment if the commissioner requests it. My concern with this clause is that it appears to reduce the automatic disclosure of privacy impact assessments to the commissioner and instead shifts the responsibility onto the commissioner to request access.

As government expands connected systems and information-sharing throughout this bill, I believe that this committee must carefully examine whether this amendment reduces proactive privacy oversight at the same time government is increasing coordinated data collection and sharing powers. Why did government move from automatic provision of privacy impact assessments towards a request-based model?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The change here is because the broad requirement means that even minor updates or extensions of CIPAs, privacy impact assessments, must be submitted to the commissioner for review and comment. The OIPC receives a large volume of these that is administratively burdensome to review, many of which only have insignificant changes or extensions. This notification process provides the OIPC the flexibility to review and comment on the ones they identify as significant.

Jody Toor: Does this amendment reduce proactive oversight by the commissioner? Why would the commissioner now have to request access to privacy impact assessments rather than receiving them automatically?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: For the record, this does not apply to all privacy impact assessments broadly. It only applies to common or integrated programs or activities, CIPAs, being proposed by a ministry or ministries. Proactive oversight is not reduced, because there is a requirement to notify the OIPC.

Jody Toor: Could important privacy concerns be missed if assessments are not normally provided? What criteria will determine whether the commissioner requests a particular assessment?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The Privacy Commissioner will continue to review these as they always have.

[3:35 p.m.]

Jody Toor: As the minister just said that the commissioner will continue to review the assessments, were any concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner regarding this change? If so, how were those concerns addressed?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The OIPC was consulted in the process of this clause, and no concerns were raised.

Clause 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Jody Toor: Clause 18 applies a similar framework to non-ministry public bodies, requiring notifications to the commissioner while only providing privacy impact assessments upon request. This clause appears to apply the same shift in privacy oversight to non-ministry public bodies by moving from more proactive review towards a request-based model for privacy impact assessments.

Given the increasing complexity of connected systems, integrated programs and interagency information-sharing throughout this bill, I believe that this committee should carefully examine whether this amendment weakens the independent oversight at a point and at a time when stronger safeguards may actually be required.

Why was the same request-based oversight model extended to non-ministry public bodies? What operational problem was government attempting to solve?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The purpose for this change and the oversight remain the same, as discussed in the previous clause.

Jody Toor: Why should the burden now rest on the commissioner to request privacy impact assessments rather than automatically receiving them? Was the previous automatic review process considered too restrictive or inconvenient? Does government acknowledge that there is a major difference between proactive oversight and oversight that depends on the commissioner first identifying a concern?

How can the commissioner identify concerns requiring deeper scrutiny without usually receiving the assessment in the first place? Is government effectively shifting privacy oversight from automatic review towards selective review now?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The answer to the premise and the question is no. This does not reduce proactive oversight because of the notification requirement in this clause.

Jody Toor: Could this create inconsistency oversight depending on whether assessments are requested? Could similar projects receive different levels of scrutiny then?

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to remind the member opposite that this only refers to proposed common or integrated programs or activities and that the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner continues to determine the appropriate level for review.

Jody Toor: Does government acknowledge that integrated systems operated by non-ministry public bodies may still involve highly sensitive personal information, including health, housing, education, disability or income-related information?

Why is the government expanding connected systems while reducing automatic privacy review? Does government acknowledge concerns that these changes are moving in the opposite direction?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The answer is no. We’ve already spoken multiple times to the automatic notification provision that continues to maintain that proactive oversight.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Jody Toor: The proposed change for clause 19 to repeal section 69(5.5)…. Whenever government repeals an existing safeguard or oversight provision…. I believe it is important for this committee to clearly understand what protection or requirement is being removed, why it is being removed and what practical effect that repeal may have within the broader privacy and information-sharing framework created throughout this bill.

What particular did section 69(5.5) previously require or protect, and why did government decide to repeal this provision?

Hon. Diana Gibson: This clause simply removes notification requirements made redundant by amendments introduced earlier, which will require public bodies or the minister responsible for the act to notify the commissioner of proposed common or integrated programs or activities.

Jody Toor: What operational or legal effects does this repeal create, and was the previous subsection creating limitation government no longer wanted?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Asked and answered.

Jody Toor: Does government acknowledge that repealing even technical safeguards may still have major practical consequences over time?

Hon. Diana Gibson: This is addressed in another section of the act, so the answer is no.

Jody Toor: Were any concerns raised during the removal of this subsection during consultation or drafting? Was any consultation done outside, or was it just within the ministry?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: As we have canvassed already quite thoroughly, this language is not necessary because it is addressed elsewhere in other sections.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

Jody Toor: I just want to have some things on the record.

Clause 20 creates an entirely new Connected Services provider framework. This clause allows government to designate public bodies as Connected Services providers and establish centralized online service platforms; facilitates sharing of personal information between public bodies; identifies services individuals may qualify for; and authorizes the minister to direct how personal information is shared, categorized, formatted and coordinated across systems. This clause defines sharing as “collection, use and disclosure of personal information.”

My concern with this clause is that it appears to create the framework for centralized coordination and sharing of personal information across connected government systems, ministries and public bodies. While government may describe this as modernization or improved service delivery, I believe this committee must carefully examine the scope of these powers and the level of ministerial direction involved, the safeguards protecting personal information and how government intends to maintain transparency and public trust, as more personal information moves between connected systems.

Why is an FOI bill being used to create an entirely new Connected Services and centralized information-sharing framework? Why was a stand-alone legislation not introduced for a framework of this kind of scope?

Hon. Diana Gibson: We have canvassed this previously in this committee, but it’s a good opportunity to remind the member opposite that this is not just freedom of information, but it’s a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[3:55 p.m.]

That is precisely the place where we can ensure the maintenance of safety and oversight for people’s personal information that this deserves.

Jody Toor: As I had previously mentioned, the clause also defines “sharing” and “collection.” I just want to ask: why does the definition of “sharing” include collection, use and disclosure, rather than simple disclosure alone?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The term “collection, use and disclosure” is common language in the act.

Jody Toor: Could future governments expand these systems’ operations through regulation, ministerial direction or policy without legislative amendment? What safeguard prevents function creep, where systems gradually expand beyond their original purpose over time?

Hon. Diana Gibson: We have thoroughly canvassed the oversight and safeguards of this bill in other sections.

Just a note to add that, in fact, we’ve added additional proactive oversight under section 6 of this clause.

The Chair: Thank you. We will take a five-minute recess and then return in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:00 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: We are returning back from a brief recess. We are on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. I am calling the committee back to order.

Jody Toor: How will the government ensure operational convenience does not gradually outweigh privacy protection and informed public consent?

Has government conducted a comprehensive privacy and cybersecurity risk assessment for this framework, and if they have, will those findings be publicly available?

Hon. Diana Gibson: In answer to the question, again, to reaffirm, the reason Connected Services is in this act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, is because this is where we maintain the protection of personal information.

Connected Services will also, of course, be required to comply with government privacy and security requirements.

[4:15 p.m.]

Jody Toor: I see that the minister didn’t answer one of my questions, so I’d like to ask again. Will those findings be publicly available?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Summaries of all privacy impact assessments are published on the government website, and that will continue.

Clause 20 approved.

On clause 21.

Elenore Sturko: On clause 21, I’d like to propose an amendment. I move, in committee on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026, to amend as follows:

[CLAUSE 21, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

21 Section 71 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the head of a public body

(a) must establish categories of records that are in the custody or under the control of the public body and are available to the public without a request for access under this Act, and

(b) in the case of records in the custody or under the control of the public body that contain personal information about an individual, may establish categories of those records that the public body may make available to the individual without a request for access under this Act. , and

(b) by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) The head of a public body maymust not require a person who asks for a copy of a record available under subsection (1) (a) to pay a fee to the public body.]

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

On the amendment.

Elenore Sturko: I would, Chair. I appreciate this opportunity.

For my constituents that might be watching, I think it’s important that you know that in committee, I don’t have a vote. I’m not a designated voter of this committee, but I thought it was important to bring forward this amendment. I hope that others in this room who are voters will consider it, and I appreciate the opportunity to bring my point of view on this amendment and on this clause forward.

[4:20 p.m.]

The amendment that I’m proposing is that we continue to allow the public bodies to, without a request, disclose information that they might have about the individual but that we actually don’t charge people money for that.

I think that there’s been some controversy over this bill, that the public has doubted the transparency or the willingness of government to be transparent. Transparency between government and the public of British Columbia is one of the foundations of our democracy. Building that trust and establishing that the public feel that they have access, particularly to information that affects them personally, I think, is one of the most important parts of dealing with freedom-of-information requests and the protection of privacy in this province.

I think that an act of good faith and willingness on the part of this government, particularly in a time when people are struggling financially…. We’re having economic struggles in our province right now. One of the ways that we can do this is, in this new portion of our legislation, to not allow public bodies to charge people for that, whether they’re going to get a driver’s abstract or whether they’re going to get any other information that this might pertain to — that we don’t allow, at this time, fees to be placed upon individuals for getting that information that really pertains to the individual.

I have a couple of quotes here that I want to read that I think are actually pretty important to illustrate what I’m bringing forward in this amendment. I’m going to read a quote by Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey from September 22, 2025.

He says: “A healthy democracy relies on engaged and informed citizens. A robust and well-functioning access-to-information system builds trust between public bodies and the people they serve. It’s our single strongest defence in the face of a bombardment of misinformation and disinformation and growing mistrust of institutions. All public bodies in the province benefit when they are transparent to the people they serve.”

I’ll also read one more quote from Commissioner Harvey, and it comes, actually, from a Business in Vancouver article that was published earlier. It’s talking about the cost to the media and others when they apply for access-to-information, freedom-of-information requests.

While I recognize that that charge comes from a different section of the act and a different application of these requests, I think that it’s so pertinent, because it really does show how, over time and depending on the scope of a person’s request, the amount of money that they could be expected to pay is actually quite substantial.

This is from an article in Business in Vancouver. It says:

“How about $10, $20, $30? No. Thanks to some clever little changes made by the good folks at the B.C. government recently, the true cost to apply for information on what the government is doing has spiked to an eye-watering $280. The reason is simple. Government no longer helps people get information from across its many ministries.

“So if you want to know how much the provincial government spent on, say, catered meals for its executives, rent for its offices, travel for its upper managers or consultants for sensitive files, you are required to file 28 different freedom-of-information requests to 28 different ministries, offices and secretariats, each with separate $10 application fees.

“It’s an escalation that has caught the attention of Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey, who says that while it’s technically not illegal, it’s not the right thing to do either. ‘Can the government do this? Yes,’ he said in an interview. ‘Should the government do it? I’d argue what they should do is take a closer look at how they respond and find a way to respond to freedom-of-information requests that sends a message to the public about transparency.’”

I’d like to say that this amendment that I’m proposing, to not allow for the further fee to be charged under this new amendment to clause 21, is a way for the government to show that it wants to be transparent.

I recognize that there are costs to the government when it comes to having to find information for people. We have people who are being paid wages, who are taking time away, perhaps, from regular duties to find information that the public is requesting. But we want to also make sure that information is accessible. We want to make sure that we’re sending a message to British Columbians about the willingness of its government to communicate with people, to be transparent, even about things that the media might portray as being sensitive or embarrassing.

[4:25 p.m.]

Therefore, I hope that people will have a serious look at this amendment. I hope that they will, the government…. Recognizing that I’ve already had discussions with the minister and her staff about some of my previous concerns, which…. The government has made some amendments, and I was supportive of those amendments. I hope that they’ll take a look at this amendment too.

It’s not something that we discussed in detail, but it goes beyond just a simple $10 fee. I think that what I really wanted to articulate in this committee was the fact that even bringing this legislation forward, causing some of the controversy that it did, this is an opportunity for government to show its commitment to transparency, its commitment to ensuring that British Columbians can afford to access information that they are entitled to, particularly in this clause, where it’s actually information about the individual.

Thank you for the opportunity, and I hope that my colleagues here in this committee will speak to you and support this amendment.

The Chair: We will need to take a brief recess, and we will return at 4:35 p.m.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:36 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We have returned back from recess on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

The amendment is in order.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I want to clarify that clause 21(2) is specifically about preventing a public body from charging a fee for the proactive disclosure of someone’s own personal information. In fact, the reason this clause is here is to prevent fees from being charged on somebody’s own personal information being provided to them.

However, with regards to the amendment being proposed, we’d like to stand down clause 21 in order to give it due consideration.

The Chair: The request of the minister is that this clause be stood down.

Is there consent of the committee?

Division has been called.

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

There is currently a request by the minister to stand down clause 21 for further consideration. The committee initially did not give consent, so here we are at division.

Clause 21 stood down on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Routledge	Higginson	Sandhu
Gibson		Chow
NAYS — 5
Clare	Botterell	Maahs
Stamer		Luck

The Chair: Members, there being, essentially, a tie on this vote, the Chair has to break the tie. As such, I will be voting in favour to allow additional consideration of the clause.

We will take a brief recess of five minutes and return back at 4:55.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’re returning from recess on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

On clause 22.

Jody Toor: Clause 22 gives the minister authority to establish categories of records across ministries that may be made available without an FOI request. My concern with this clause is the extent of ministerial authority being created over determining what categories of record may be made publicly available without a formal access request.

While proactive disclosure may improve transparency, I believe this committee must carefully examine who controls these decisions, what safeguards exist and whether this framework may gradually centralize control over how government information is accessed and distributed.

Why is ministry authority necessary to determine categories of records available without FOI requests? What limits exist on the minister’s authority under this section?

Hon. Diana Gibson: This change is about ensuring the proactive disclosure of records containing an individual’s own personal information directly to them without requiring an FOI.

We’ve talked a little bit but maybe not enough about the proactive disclosure as a concept. This is about us being able to provide information to individuals without an FOI. Our government’s commitment to getting information to individuals that they seek and our priority for ensuring access to information has led us to create 17 categories already of proactive disclosure that enable us to provide information we know people frequently ask for, without them having to file an FOI.

Bill 9 creates an additional category, which is proactively disclosing a person’s personal information to them without having to request an FOI, which is what this clause does.

Jody Toor: My question to the minister. Does government acknowledge concerns this centralizes control over how public information is accessed? How will citizens challenge decisions regarding what categories are or are not made available?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The language that the member opposite is referring to, in terms of the minister responsible for the act establishing categories of records, is already in the act, and the oversight of that does not change. What this does is add one new category for personal information disclosure.

Clause 22 approved.

On clause 23.

Jody Toor: The proposed change for clause 23, as it reads, says that it clarifies that section 73 applies to records referred to in sections 3(3) and 3(5), including certain records excluded from the act.

Although this clause may appear to be a clarification provision, I believe it is important for this committee to understand precisely what records are affected, what legal effect this clarification creates and whether it changes how excluded records are treated under the act in practice.

Why was this clarification considered necessary? What operational or legal issue was government attempting to address?

Hon. Diana Gibson: Because of changes made in sections 3(3) and (5) that deal with exceptions, it was important in this clause to clarify that potential mistaken disclosure records that are not subject to FOIPPA are still included in the protection from legal suit under section 73.

Jody Toor: Could this clarification broaden the application of section 73 beyond previous clarification? If this is purely technical, why was this legislative amendment necessary then?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: No, it doesn’t broaden the scope.

Clause 23 approved.

On clause 24.

Jody Toor: Clause 24 has a proposed change that adds the formal definition of “Connected Services provider” to schedule 1 of the act. While this clause appears definitional, it formally incorporates the Connected Services provider framework into the act and therefore links directly to the broader power surrounding information-sharing, collection, disclosure and centralized coordination established elsewhere in this bill.

I believe it is important for this committee to understand the practical implementation of formally embedding this framework into this bill.

Why was it necessary to formally define “Connected Services provider” within this act? Does this definition operationally entrench the broader Connected Services framework established earlier in the bill?

Hon. Diana Gibson: The purpose of Connected Services — the scope, the oversight and protection — has been well canvassed already in previous clauses.

Sheldon Clare: Is it possible that the meaning or role of Connected Services providers could be expanded through designation powers?

How broadly does the government intend to interpret this definition in an operational sense? Does the government acknowledge, for example, that definitions often shape future statutory interpretation and operational authority?

What safeguards has the ministry put in, or that this bill contains, that would limit expansion of the Connected Services provider model over time?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: The answer is no. The guardrails, safeguards, scope and oversight for Connected Services and Bill 9 have been thoroughly canvassed in this committee already.

Clause 24 approved.

On clause 25.

Jody Toor: Clause 25 makes the amended section 3(5) apply retroactively to requests received before, on or after the section comes into force.

My concern with this clause is that it applies amended provisions retroactively to requests already in existence before this bill comes into force. I believe this committee must carefully examine why retroactive application was considered necessary, what effect it may have on existing access requests or proceedings and whether changes to the rules after requests have already been made raise fairness and accountability concerns.

Why did government believe retroactive application was necessary in this clause? What concern existed with applying the amendment only? Why was government considered about ongoing proceedings continuing under the previous framework?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you for the question. It’s important to recognize that this clause applies to duplicate processing, so where an individual would be getting or able to access information through another process like a legal process. Then making this retroactive would help with reducing FOI strain and eliminating extraneous legal costs in what is a duplication of effort.

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

Now, as the minister stated, this is about duplication. However, I’m wondering if this amendment could affect requests already underway under the previous legal framework and if applicants could be experiencing different rules if they’re involved in a dispute — rules that have changed partway through the process.

Is this not a concern that the government may have, that applicants may have relied on the existing rules when making requests? And would they not have had a reasonable expectation that the rules in place at the time of filing would continue to apply?

Could it be that retroactive application disadvantages applicants who are currently engaged in proceedings or access disputes? Could they be harmed by this change? Would they be losing procedural advantages or any rights under the new framework? Are there safeguards that exist to ensure that retroactive application is used narrowly and fairly in this instance?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Diana Gibson: We canvassed this issue very thoroughly when we were discussing clause 3. Other processes are more appropriate avenues and even could provide greater disclosure.

Clauses 25 to 29 inclusive approved.

The Chair: As such, the committee is going to take a short recess and return back at 5:35 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:23 p.m. to 5:36 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We’re calling the committee back to order on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026. We are now going to consider clause 21 and the amendment brought forward by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

On clause 21 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

Hon. Diana Gibson: Thank you to the member opposite for bringing forward the amendment suggestion and for the commitment to access to information the member opposite has shown in the discussions we’ve had about maximizing access to information under this bill.

Clause 21 is about ensuring that no fees can be charged for proactive disclosure of personal information, which I made clear earlier. It’s really important to ensure that people understand that for somebody who’s accessing their own information, this clause is about ensuring that those can be disclosed without a freedom-of-information request and that that will be done without fees being charged.

It does allow fees in some cases. It may allow fees, it says, for proactive disclosure of general information. This provision applies to over 2,900 public bodies subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. While ministries don’t charge for proactive disclosure in general — information disclosures — other bodies may. We haven’t consulted with those 2,900 public bodies that are impacted by this amendment.

Just to clarify what this applies to, this isn’t the fees for processing FOI and creating the proactive disclosure. This is about, say, a small municipality that has a request for information that they’ve made available through proactive disclosure that, perhaps, has a policy to have photocopy fees for provision of the documents. So it could be that kind of fee.

We won’t be able to support the amendment at this time but do, again, appreciate the member opposite’s commitment to access to information, which we share.

Elenore Sturko: I just want to ensure that I’m allowed to participate again. I already did speak once. Is it in order for…?

Thank you, Chair.

Just in regard to the statement from the minister, I appreciate her taking the time to do further consideration on clause 21. I went back myself during the recess to review section 71, which is what is covered in clause 21, these changes being brought forward by the government.

[5:40 p.m.]

What we’re talking about is information that is generally proactively available to the public without having to put forward a freedom-of-information formal application.

When I went back and read what section 71 is about, what the spirit of section 71 is and the information that would be provided to the public, it really is about things that would normally be accessible to the public. These are things that they’re not making any special requests for. These are things that, really, would be considered accessible.

We know that people are having a hard time economically. I also just read an article about how people are actually changing their eating habits because of a lack of available funds for people. So I understand that more consultation would need to perhaps happen with the large number of organizations that the minister referenced, but we’re talking about something that would be normally available to people.

Even charging a small fee for individuals — for example, for a photocopying fee…. I mean, these are things that actually don’t make information accessible. Even a small fee for a senior or someone on a fixed income or someone struggling to make ends meet in this province right now — $5, $10, $20 — could be the difference between accessing information that under section 71 is already available or would be proactively disclosed to individuals in British Columbia. Even adding a small fee can make that information out of reach.

I really do think that at a time when…. As I quoted earlier today, our Privacy Commissioner notes that we’re battling misinformation. People have lost trust in their public institutions. It’s vitally important for us to consider the message that we’re sending to the public. This is an opportunity to send that message that we do care about transparency. We care about allowing people to have access to information at the same time as we want to protect people’s privacy.

Yes, they may just be small fees that, as in the example that the minister gave, would be for things like photocopies or accessing a publication. But if this is information under this section which is meant to be accessible without freedom-of-information request things, that would be proactively…. We want to ensure that we’re not reducing people’s access.

I think that at this time when budgets are so tight, even a small fee, even a number, a handful of dollars, is making the difference here. And it would be, really, a great message for this minister, this government to send to the public of British Columbia, that they want to not put an extra cost burden.

If we really are only talking about photocopy fees…. I mean, I don’t know about anybody else, but municipal taxes are already very high. If we’re talking about the amount of money that people are actually paying for what they’re getting back, I would think that the cost of a photocopy wouldn’t be more than what other governments would be able to absorb. That’s something that the government will need to consult with them — and have them justify why they would need to be charging extra fees for these types of requests.

I get it that there are people who make repeated requests, but if I understand this bill correctly, and even some of the amendments that have been made that I discussed with the minister and her staff, the other amendments to get rid of things that are vexatious or things that are repetitive or things that are considered to be too broad of scope or, perhaps, not enough information are going to deal with those types of complaints — that people might be taking advantage of the system where there isn’t, for example, a fee charged.

While I respect that the minister says she can’t support this amendment, I really think that every one of us in this room needs to think about the message beyond just the scope of this — section 71, clause 21 — and think about the cost overall of getting access to information in this province, the importance of transparency to our democracy and how adding on even nominal fees chips slowly away at people’s ability to access the information that they should rightly have.

[5:45 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I rise to speak in support of this amendment. I will say that it struck me to the core of my being when this bill passed second reading, and it was very disappointing to see the independents voting in support of second reading.

But I’m setting that aside, because in the 1990s, when this legislation was passed, the NDP government at the time, the Attorney General of the time, Colin Gabelmann, stated on the record that fees would not be a barrier to access. And here we are. I won’t recite the history of the $10 fee, but here is an opportunity to respect the original architect, the Attorney General, of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and his commitment at the time that fees would not be a barrier to access.

So this is a simple, straightforward amendment. There was never a discussion that fees would be a barrier to access for local governments but not a barrier to access for ministries, or the other way around, or some public bodies and not others. It’s a question of showing leadership, and leadership is that fees are not a barrier to access.

This amendment by my colleague is something that I think we should all get behind.

The Chair: We’re on the amendment to clause 21. Seeing no further speakers, I’ll call the question.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 1:55 p.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act
(continued)

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

On clause 3 (continued).

John Rustad: Just before the break, the minister corrected some numbers that he had provided earlier — n particular, that the total treaty area was 34.4 square kilometres, not 33.4 square kilometres, in terms of the treaty territory; and that the treaty land, or the equivalent of title or private land as other people may consider it, was 1.04 square kilometres. I just want to make sure the minister restates that clearly.

Also, there’s a statement of 18 square kilometres of pre-approved additions. Can the minister confirm that number is accurate or whether that number needs to be revised as well?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, it’s 1.04 kilometres squared of K’ómoks private lands, and an additional 18.32 square kilometres have been identified as pre-approved additions to treaty lands. But those lands are not owned by K’ómoks. Those are private or, in other ways, held lands that would have to be purchased at a later date, should K’ómoks want to do that.

John Rustad: That means more than half, about 55 percent, of K’ómoks treaty lands could ultimately end up becoming…. Or treaty territory, I should say, ultimately becomes treaty land, to use the same language that the minister uses. That’s an interesting number.

Obviously, that would have to be purchased. That’s right. It’s not there, but that’s a pretty significant amount of land that has, also, significant overlap issues with other nations, in terms of potential title claims from other nations. I just want to….

I know we’ve been over this information before, but given the change of numbers, I just need to understand the legal ramifications of that, particularly the pre-approved additions to treaty and whether that land may be available to other nations, should they have a claim within that area, and what would happen.

Obviously, with 80 percent or more of the K’ómoks area being under potential claims from other nations, in terms of their territory particularly, that added area could be very significant.

I don’t understand the legal status of that area. I understand what the legal status is of treaty land. I believe I understand what it is of treaty territory, but I don’t understand what it is for those potential additions to treaty.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The work done to identify areas that could be pre-approved to add to the treaty, should the nation purchase them…. The process to identify those lands is the same as the process to identify what we are calling the treaty lands, that land base that we were just discussing. In terms of consultation, accommodation requirements, looking at potential impacts on section 35 rights of other neighbouring nations — all that work is done in the same way as it was done with the treaty lands.

It’s the same for the additional lands to add into the treaty lands. That work had to be done for that land too, so it would be very much tied to the K’ómoks treaty.

I think there may be further questions as we go around — legal questions of what should happen if a court made a ruling, what the allowances are in the treaty to deal with issues like that. But I’ll wait for further questions because that’s a different section.

John Rustad: I thank the minister for that. I’ll try not to go into hypotheticals at this point. I do want to jump into this and drill into this just a little bit. As we get into the other components of the treaty and we start trying to understand the rights, environmental assessments and all these types of things that go on…. I’m just wondering.

Maybe I’ll ask it in a different way, just for clarity. The areas that are additions to treaty land, once the treaty is implemented, are they treated the same as treaty territory? Are they treated the same as treaty land, or is there some different way that they are treated in comparison to the rest of the treaty?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If they are still outside of the treaty lands themselves, in the sense that they haven’t been purchased, then they continue in their present status in terms of rights and responsibilities that currently exist under the law. I won’t be as definitive, because some of it is Crown and some of it is Island Corridor Foundation, for example. So slightly different impacts, but the current status of how those lands can be used continues unless the nation purchases them and then has them become treaty lands.

John Rustad: That’s the way I would have interpreted it when I was reading through, but I just wanted to make sure. It’s clarity and on record in terms of it.

Could the minister provide a breakdown in terms of those 18 square kilometres — 18.32, I guess it is? Roughly 18 square kilometres — what’s the breakdown of that that is private land, that is Island Corridor land, that is Crown land?

Obviously, there is a difference if somebody is looking to develop land or to utilize land that might be Crown land versus private land and how they might consider that as possible treaty land. When we considered the land package, the stage 4 treaty for the NStQ, there was a lot of discussion around that. Obviously, if there’s an identification of land that might have been considered, then somebody may have wanted to try to access that because they could see how they could potentially make a profit from it.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m concerned. I’ve got a question, I guess, in terms of how these lands are going to be treated as these potential additions to treaty and, like I say, the difference in the various categories. If we can start off with just how much is in each of those categories, and then we can go on there for questions.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We’re just getting the member the breakdown on those numbers.

While we’re waiting for that, is there another question we might be able to get into?

John Rustad: I appreciate that that might not be right at the fingertips, so thank you for taking the time to bring the right people in to give you those numbers.

The reason why I’m asking, particularly when it comes to the Crown land or even some of the other land…. If somebody were, say, to go after a woodlot licence or want to be harvesting trees or some sort of activity that could potentially impact those lands, typically, lands that are considered for additions to treaty or that are considered as part of a treaty negotiation would basically have a freeze on them. It wouldn’t allow any sort of other activity to happen, because you wouldn’t want it necessarily to degrade or upgrade — or whatever the case may be — a piece of land in terms of where the value is.

How are these lands now going to be treated, the Crown land in particular but also the other components, going forward, until such time as the nation may make a decision as to buy it or not?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I might have to ask the member to pull out his calculator to move from hectares to kilometres, square kilometres and so forth, but I’m sure he can do it. We can work to have that translated as well.

What I’ve got is 1,592 Crown hectares as the pre-approved additions to treaty lands. There are 3.4 hectares which…. The 1,592 Crown currently are operating as woodlots. One woodlot is being operated by K’ómoks Nation themselves. Three other woodlots are part of that package as well, which we discussed yesterday and how that is to work. They would continue to be able to operate those woodlots for an additional 25 years post the treaty effective date, at which point they could then transfer over to K’ómoks for how they would choose to use them.

In terms of the 3.4 hectares, that’s currently held…. My understanding is the city of Courtenay is doing remediation work on that property, but it would transfer and become a tribal park, or I think that would become open-use land for that 3.4 hectares.

John Rustad: Okay. It’s good to know those areas. Thank you for that.

I didn’t hear a number for what was in the Island Corridor, that side of it. I’m sure the staff will be busy rushing to fill in the rest of the numbers in terms of the total 18 square kilometres.

So 18 square kilometres is about 4,500 acres. The numbers we’ll work through. I can work it through on the calculator. You don’t have to worry about that.

While the staff is trying to get the breakdown in terms of what’s on the Island Corridor…. One of the questions I will have on that is…. Should a rail line go through, obviously that changes the status of that land in terms of availability. Like I say, it becomes the….

My understanding of the woodlots — after 25 years, K’ómoks will then make a decision as to what to do to utilize that land. I’m assuming that would mean no compensation to the current woodlot owners after that 25-year period.

I’d want the minister to try to confirm that and also the number on the Island Corridor, if I could.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In the agreement in the treaty, it talks about the woodlots and that during the 25-year period, the woodlot licensees certainly could seek either replacement lands or compensation.

As discussed with the member from Comox yesterday, certainly my ministry is happy to support efforts with the Ministry of Forests to look at that issue. Obviously, we understand that woodlots provide good employment, good opportunity and good-quality wood products that we know communities need.

In terms of the Island Corridor, it would be 4.6 hectares approximately.

John Rustad: I’m assuming that there is no private land that was included as those potential additions to treaty, but I wonder if the minister could just confirm that.

In addition to that, while staff is looking at that question…. Obviously, that’s a significant amount of Crown land in terms of what its potential could be. How will that land be assessed in terms of value for an opportunity for sale or for addition to K’ómoks Nation? My understanding was the additions to treaty, as the minister described it, were to be purchased by the nation, so there’s a question mark in terms of that.

While that’s going on…. I’ve just got to step out for a second, but I do want to restate some numbers that I said yesterday with the minister, restating the number in terms of the total area. I’d said that the value, roughly, of that land was around $13 million per individual or about $4.5 billion. That’s about $450 million and $1.3 million per person, given the factor of ten that was out, in terms of what the minister had said.

I just want to make sure I state those numbers clearly. This is why it’s good to have the numbers out in the public so that the public can hear it and they don’t end up hearing information that might be wrong or that might be based on inaccurate numbers.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The additional private lands that could be purchased for a pre-approved addition to the treaty lands…. There are 253.6 hectares. My understanding is it’s Mosaic. That’s a private willing-seller, willing-buyer approach. Certainly, any values would be decided between the two negotiating parties.

In terms of the other lands the member mentioned, there is a negotiated protocol within the treaty around how that kind of purchase would take place.

I’m happy to take further questions.

Scott McInnis: Interesting line of questioning here that my friend from Nechako Lakes started. While he steps out, I just want to pick up on a couple of bits here as we chat.

Just in relation…. This is probably a very quick answer from the ministry. Just going back to the 1,592 Crown hectares that are available to be purchased and added to treaty settlement lands, I believe the minister said there were three woodlots there. The biggest one, actually, is owned by K’ómoks.

Could the minister just confirm for me the size of the K’ómoks woodlot within that 1,592 hectares, please?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I don’t think I said the K’ómoks one was the biggest, but if I did, I’ll correct the record.

There are four total woodlots. One is the K’ómoks woodlot, which is 353 hectares, approximately. The other three are 415, 429 and 388 hectares, approximately.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for clarifying the sizes of those individual woodlots. Actually, that would make…. According to the numbers, I think the K’ómoks would have the smallest one currently. I guess I was hearing things.

Interesting. So with the 253.6 hectares of privately owned land that would be potentially added to treaty settlement lands in the future, I’m just curious if the minister could outline for us on the public record just how that consultation went with Mosaic.

I’m really interested to understand how a private land owner would be subject to additional lands being purchased and added into treaty settlement lands, how that process took place with that private land owner in order to have them come on board, I suppose. Or is it a choice to come on board? I’m just hoping for some clarification around that process.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is that conversations between K’ómoks Nation and Mosaic are theirs. They’re having private discussions, but there was strong interest in that parcel being part of the treaty package. I won’t speak to how those negotiations are going because, obviously, they’re not mine. My understanding is there are conversations, and that is why this is in the package as a possibility. It doesn’t mean it will become a reality, but it is there, should there be a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Just to clarify one other point, the member’s colleague earlier talked about the cost of treaty per person using figures that he typed up himself. I wouldn’t use those figures. I don’t think they’re accurate. I can understand why he’s seeking a ballpark, but I wouldn’t use those numbers because there are a couple of factors that put them, I’d say, not within the realm of what is reality. We can talk about that at another time.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister clarifying that process.

Just to clarify there…. I don’t know if it’s appropriate for the minister just to shake his head and say yes. The province is not involved whatsoever in those conversations to facilitate that land transfer between Mosaic and K’ómoks, potentially as being added to treaty settlement lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We are not involved in those conversations about the K’ómoks desire to purchase those lands.

Scott McInnis: I do understand the minister wanting to correct the record around the value of the land on a per-person, per-member basis for each member of the K’ómoks Nation. That’s the challenge we sort of litigated yesterday, with not having the ability to understand the value of the land package. It’s why I firmly believe that in this treaty and future treaties, that should, absolutely, be something that is disclosed to the public as to the total value of the land that is being transferred in treaty settlement lands.

This is what happens. We’re forced to type in some numbers and do some rough calculations ourselves, based on various assessment models and things of that nature. I just want to be on record saying that it would be just tremendously helpful — it would put that conversation to rest — if there weren’t the cabinet confidentiality matter around the total value of the land package that’s being offered here in this K’ómoks treaty.

I’m wondering if the minister could just give us a sense and walk us through a little bit with…. We did do a rough estimation of 4,300 to 4,500 acres, which would equate to that 18 square kilometres of potential future land to be purchased by the K’ómoks Nation and added as treaty settlement lands into the treaty.

When it comes to the Crown land component…. Obviously, the minister can’t speak for any private land owners there. I’m just wondering if the minister could give us a sense of what sort of modelling, tools, criteria or rubric — whatever you want to call it — the government would use to actually value that land, assess that land, given a fair market value in order to actually put it up for sale to the K’ómoks Nation so they could purchase it and add it to their treaty settlement lands.

If the minister would just take a few minutes and perhaps walk us through what kinds of criteria are used to value that land.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s quite a bit, but I’ll reference. In the treaty, under the lands chapter, paragraphs 83 to 84, it says: “The purchase price of land, inclusive of timber, identified as H’kusam expansion lands in appendix E-1, part 1, will be calculated by applying $15,500 per hectare, Q2 2022 dollars, adjusted by the B.C. FDDIPI.” It continues on, but I just thought the member might want the reference number so he can go to the chapter. That is for the H’kusam expansion lands.

Then in terms of the purchase price of land identified as WL0026, WL0085 and WL1677 in appendix E-1, part 1…. That, again, is paragraph 81 in the lands chapter, page 99. It will be “the number of hectares of land purchased multiplied by the amount per hectare set out in appendix T, as adjusted for inflation by the B.C. FDDIPI, plus the value of the timber on that land as determined by….” Then it continues with further explanation.

If the member would like, I can read through around “jointly engaging a qualified professional to conduct a timber cruise in accordance with the applicable provincial policies.”

Is it useful? Maybe I can ask the member. No? Okay. But the member knows it’s identified in the treaty as to how we would do the valuation of those lands.

Scott McInnis: I’m curious. I may have missed this in the treaty, or perhaps it doesn’t exist. Just as far as any binding commitments, either on the government side or the K’ómoks side, as far as a scale up to purchase additional lands and add them to treaty settlement lands, for example, is there a clause which says “up to 500 acres every five years”? Anything like that? Is there any sort of standard for which the land must be or must not be purchased and added to treaty settlement lands?

In, let’s just take, for example, five years, could K’ómoks potentially purchase all 4,500 acres? I just wondered if there’s kind of a scale that’s needed to be followed in any way, shape or form for that when it comes to the purchasing of those lands.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No. There’s no timeline set out, so it could happen quickly if there were the dollars and agreement. Obviously, the private parcels are up to the private individuals.

It could also take many, many years. There may be no desire to move quickly, or there may be the lack of funds to move quickly. There are a whole bunch of reasons why it could take place, in one way or another.

[2:35 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: That’s helpful, just to understand, again, any sort of scale or timeline that’s potentially referred to for purchasing additional lands to be added as treaty settlement lands.

I think I’m going to leave the rest of the land bit. I was kind of picking up on my colleague before he stepped out.

I’d like to chat a little bit about governance, if I may. I have quite a few questions here that I’m interested in around governance related to the K’ómoks treaty. I think maybe we’ll start with a couple of high-level questions. Then we’ll sort of filter down from there, based on the answers from the minister.

Just quickly, when we’re talking about the constitution.… Let’s call it, for lack of a better term, a legal hierarchy which exists between the K’ómoks Constitution, eventually, and provincial law. Could the minister explain how the K’ómoks Constitution itself will interact with provincial law in practice? I’m thinking particularly where there could be any type of a conflict that arises between K’ómoks law and provincial legislation.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll speak generally, but if the member wants to get more specific, we certainly can do that.

There’s, as the member mentioned, the K’ómoks Constitution. K’ómoks law, any laws that they pass, must be consistent with that constitution.

Built into the treaty, there are processes so that if there are ever conflicts between provincial or federal law and K’ómoks law, there is a provision which states how those conflicts are to be resolved, which law would take supremacy or how you would work through that issue.

If the member wants to get more detailed, we could probably go through each one, one by one, but it was built very much so that there’s a clear path around how these laws are supposed to be interpreted.

Scott McInnis: I think we probably will dig into that as we move forward here. I’m just generally wondering if there is.… Does the province have any oversight authority into the K’ómoks procedure of drafting their own law? Is there any way that the government has to approve…? Do they have any ability to provide feedback onto specific laws or anything like that, or is that 100 percent under the jurisdiction of the K’ómoks Nation?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There are provisions in the treaty that speak specifically, for example, to children and family law and requirements the province has in terms of how those laws are to operate. For example, if K’ómoks decided to enact a law, the nation, in relation to those matters, would be required to provide B.C. and Canada with notice of its intention to exercise law-making authority. This would be followed by a collaborative process to identify matters needed to support implementation of laws.

If Canada or B.C. identified that there may be issues in terms of how our jurisdictions work together, for example, that would be identified at that time and worked through together then.

Certainly, that’s how child and family law is treated in here, but the member could certainly seek guidance on other areas of legal.

Scott McInnis: We’ll come back to some other examples. I am jumping around a little bit, but it’s just the nature of the way I wrote my questions here.

I was curious about something. I wanted to ask this at the beginning, and I didn’t. Under chapter 3, K’ómoks self-government, section 4: “The exercise of K’ómoks jurisdiction and authority set out in this agreement will evolve over time.” I’m wondering if the minister could enlighten us on just exactly what that means, exercising jurisdiction and authority and how that will evolve over time — some of those processes to take place.

I felt it was…. It was something that caught my attention. I’m sure the minister will have a pretty straightforward answer for it, but I was just hoping he could provide a little more meat to what that statement means.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As is consistent with other treaties, it’s about…. Just because the treaty says that you have the ability to do something doesn’t mean that every nation wants to do that something right away. In terms of child and family services, for example, the member may have heard of a nation drawing down the authority, bringing the authority locally that they didn’t before.

[2:45 p.m.]

Then they have that child and family law. They have that ability locally, which they didn’t have before. That would be the evolution or the development.

Also, the treaty talks about, for example, a police service. Currently B.C. provides the police services. If the nation wanted to move to a treaty nation police, there would have to be work done together over time, and that would draw down the authority to implement that kind of provision. Again, it doesn’t happen immediately. As in many things in the treaty, they are over time, as the nation decides and as we are able to respond.

Scott McInnis: The treaty does require a democratic K’ómoks government with elections at least every five years. Is there anything within that where the government has oversight mechanisms for the elections of K’ómoks members, governance disputes in the realm of K’ómoks elections? Is there anything that changes under the treaty here? Is Elections B.C. involved in any way, or is that 100 percent a separate authority and it’s all the oversight of the K’ómoks Nation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The elections, of course, are K’ómoks Nation’s own elections, so they set their own rules around how elections are to be run. Of course, the Charter, the treaty still apply, but in terms of internal governance matters, that is a matter for the K’ómoks Nation.

John Rustad: I understand we’ve moved on to the governance structure. I’ve got a number of questions around that as well. But one question I wasn’t able to ask before I moved on to that, which I thought I should just get on record, because I need to understand what it means….

Under page 19, 102, where it says “minor changes and corrections,” that after the K’ómoks treaty ratification vote but before the parties sign this agreement, the chief negotiators on behalf of each party may agree to minor changes in the agreement. I’m just curious as to what is defined by “minor changes.”

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Minor changes are not substantive. They’re not material changes.

The member’s earlier reference to sub 8(1), which is actually sub 8(l)… Arguably, if it was sub 8(1), that could be a minor change if it needed to be cleaned up. Now, of course, typographical errors can continue to be changed post treaty signing, but minor changes really are to reflect, just as it sounds, minor changes that don’t change the substance, the impact or the objective of the treaty.

[2:50 p.m.]

John Rustad: That’s good. I thought that was the case, but when you read on with that…. This next one, 103, actually talks about the editing changes that the minister had provided, so I just want to look for the clarity between the two, in terms of it.

In the self-governance, I’m not quite sure exactly where my colleague has gone in terms of the questions. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to follow through. But I will, perhaps, turn it back over to him to carry on with a question on that, and I’ll try to catch up with where things are at.

Scott McInnis: So the treaty does permit appointed members within executive or legislative branches, so long as a majority remain elected, as far as I understand, in the treaty. Is there a proportion somewhere that government could look at…? Sorry, is there…? What proportion of government could theoretically be appointed rather than elected in the treaty?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As provided in the constitution, a majority of the total members and total legislative members will be elected.

Scott McInnis: I just wondered. When we’re talking about the appointments of members within an executive or legislative branch, are there any clear restrictions on who may or may not be appointed to that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, K’ómoks will be responsible for their own membership in terms of membership rules — who is a member of the nation. Conflict-of-interest rules, generally accepted, would apply. Beyond that, the election process is very much within K’ómoks Nation’s own law-making authorities.

John Rustad: In terms of the governance structure, one of the questions that has always been out there is: who is a K’ómoks member? In many nations, it’s lineage — matrilineal. I’m just wondering. Is there some process as it’s laid out in here in terms of who is a…?

[2:55 p.m.]

[The bells were rung.]

I’ll wait for the four rings. I always think of it as a naughty class causing grief for the rest of us. Just joking, by the way.

I’m just wondering if it lays out in terms of how they will do that determination and if there is any appeal process associated with it.

I’ve got a number of other questions around this, but it’s an important question because there are many Indigenous people in B.C. who are no longer attached to what would have normally been considered their home nation because of how they’ve determined the official status of a particular nation.

Is there anything in the treaty that lays this out, and is there any process that anybody could follow to potentially get that overturned or be recognized as a member of the K’ómoks Nation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If I might refer the member to chapter 23 of the K’ómoks treaty. I don’t know that it would be useful for me to read page after page into the record, but there is a section around appeal process, around enrolment, around membership, eligibility criteria, applications for enrolment. Hopefully that will put the member’s mind at ease.

John Rustad: That’s good, and we will get a chance to look at chapter 23, I’m sure, in terms of it. I don’t know how I missed that. There we are. Through procedures, I thought that was just the more technical side. Anyway, okay. That’s good to know.

Just in terms of governance, obviously, there are going to be people living within the traditional territory as well as within the treaty lands that may not be K’ómoks members. Now, just in terms of the law-making ability, do those laws apply to their treaty territory as well as the treaty land or just to the treaty land? I’m just curious in terms of how those laws will be structured and applied.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Treaty nation laws apply to anyone accessing or living on treaty nation lands — so not the treaty area but the treaty lands.

For example, if a member of the public drove onto the treaty lands, they, of course, would be subject to the nation’s speeding and parking laws — those kinds of things.

For a nation member who lived abroad, the laws around election processes would still apply. They would not apply, of course, to a non-member who lived abroad, because that wouldn’t make sense. But yes, that’s how that would work.

John Rustad: It’s good to know that the laws that are passed by the K’ómoks Nation apply to the treaty land, not to the treaty territory. That’s an important piece to know.

In going through here, I think there were some provisions I read, but I want to ask this so we can get this into the record, as well, in terms of the rights of individuals who may not be K’ómoks members who will live, work or carry on other activities within the K’ómoks land — what the rights would be for those individuals.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In the self-government chapter, it talks about decisions affecting non-members, that K’ómoks institutions will engage with non-members in respect of K’ómoks institution decisions that directly and significantly affect those non-members. K’ómoks will provide non-members with access to the appeal and review procedures — and it references to paragraph 8.1 and the administration-of-justice chapter — in respect of administrative decisions that directly and significantly affect non-members.

John Rustad: It’s good to have that in the record. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the reference to 8.1. It’s nice to know. The reason, of course, for asking is that, obviously, there will be taxation. There will be other decisions that are made, and individuals living within those territories, obviously, don’t get an opportunity to vote in terms of that, which is what we’ve created in terms of treaties. It’s taxation without representation, but it is what it is.

Actually, I do have a question in terms of governance, because one thing I didn’t see in here as I read through and…. I’m thinking, obviously, to Nisg̱a’a, the first modern treaty. They had a very elegant solution and process for recognizing the Hereditary Chiefs and the Elders in terms of like a senate-type structure that was created within their treaty.

I didn’t see that created here. I just want to know if I’ve missed it or whether the K’ómoks Nation decided not to create something that would be utilized or recognize the Hereditary Chiefs that they do have or the Elder structure, similar to what Nisg̱a’a did.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, nations are individual in terms of culture, heritage, law-making, history. What might work for Nisg̱a’a may not work for somebody else, or it might.

In this case, the hereditary Senate, versus another structure, is not how it’s set up. In response to an earlier question, I spoke about how the majority of the executive and the majority of the legislature must be elected. How K’ómoks decides to work with a Hereditary Chief or another structure, of course, would be their choice.

John Rustad: Just to confirm, if they so desire to do something like that down the road, this treaty actually enables them to be able to create that kind of structure without it having to be specifically described in the treaty. Is that correct?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As long as any modifications made fit within the constitutional parameters that are in the treaty, then they could make a choice to do that.

[3:05 p.m.]

John Rustad: We’re going to have a number of questions as we get into the legislative components — obviously, it’s defined in here — and some of the other components.

Before we do that, our colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena has a number of questions that she’d like to ask, which will likely be wide-ranging across the treaty in this section. It’s probably the best thing to do, to give her an opportunity to do that now, as opposed to having to come back in as we’re trying to move through this.

I hope, with your indulgence, you’ll have an opportunity to be able to maybe answer questions. Then we’ll come back into governance and keep moving forward from there.

With that, I would turn it over to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Dallas Brodie: On page 4 of the treaty, it states that the parties involved — that being the K’ómoks band, the provincial and federal governments — have the common objective in recognizing the K’ómoks Aboriginal rights and title and inherent right to self-government.

My question is: is this agreement sort of legally agreeing with future Aboriginal title claims that the K’ómoks may make? It sounds like that’s saying that they’re committing to future concessions in this agreement. Is that your understanding?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We’ve covered these questions around how changes to treaty could be made, at what point, the fact that all three parties would have to agree to make any changes at a ten-year review period. I would refer the member to the Hansard record of the extensive back-and-forth I’ve had with other MLAs on that question, just to respect the committee’s time and respect the process, which suggests that we should keep our questions not repetitive.

I’m sure the member has other questions that might shed new light on the subject, but it has been covered quite consistently so far.

Dallas Brodie: Also on page 4 of the treaty, it’s stated that another common objective of the parties to the treaty is achieving equality with other Canadians in socioeconomic outcomes.

This is important, as this agreement is committing a lot of taxpayer money to a band that already receives outsized support compared to the average non-Aboriginal Canadian and the size of the population base there.

Have we got a definition as to what means “equality with other Canadians in socioeconomic outcomes” — like some criteria for what that means on a per-capita basis?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As we discussed earlier, these are common objectives. They are not binding objectives in the sense of being in the legal sense, but they are common objectives.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think — I would like to think, anyways — that we all share the same goal that everyone should have the opportunity to prosper, to have good jobs, to have good health care, to not face racism — to be able to live a good life where you’re not fearing for your safety; where you have the opportunity to raise a family in a good home; where you’ve got good air, good water; where you’re able to live in peace with your neighbours.

That’s the common objective in the sense that we’re trying to lift up K’ómoks Nation but, indeed, with all British Columbians. Certainly, I would expect that the national government would have a similar objective for all of Canada.

Dallas Brodie: This agreement is committing to a one-time transfer from the provincial and federal governments of $90 million, plus another $6.2 million per year for the establishment of “self-government,” on top of what they are now already receiving from the provincial and federal governments.

How was it determined that these sums would achieve enough to establish self-government, and what were the criteria used to establish that $6.2 million per year was required to establish self-government? Why was that broken out into a separate piece instead of just being subsumed in the $90 million being transferred and other funds already being transferred?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The figure the member cited is federal funding, which is developed out of a formula based on per capita, based on self-government needs for that nation.

Dallas Brodie: Well, the $6.2 million per year for self-government would come out to $18,235 per person per year to administer a government for just 340 people. That seems like a lot, considering…. I would assume that’s not going to take into account the actual salaries of the people working there. Is there an idea of how large this government will be, this self-government, and what specific mandates they will be required to undertake?

Will the self-government have to undertake things like establishing their own police authority, their own hospitals, their own first-responder units and the general things that a municipal government does? Will they be required to do those types of things? I guess, what is the scope of what the self-government will take on?

[3:15 p.m.]

What I see here is that we’re creating another layer of government which is going to be akin to a municipal government. And it’s a very small population, but still, a municipal government has normal commitments to the people it’s governing, and that would include things like maintenance of sewer, water, street signs, street poles, lights, electrical services, first responders, ambulances, police — all these kinds of things.

I’m wondering. Is self-government going to be responsible for those kinds of things? Precisely what do we mean by self-government at the rate of $18,235 per person in the band and a yearly sum that’s going to keep coming? What are they going to be doing with that money?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: While not exactly the same as a municipal government, nation governments are required to provide very similar services — things like sewer; things like roads; things like, in many cases, social services and supports for members.

They do more than that. They look at other things that municipal governments don’t look at. I know, for example, my own municipal government in Vancouver…. We don’t pay for hospitals. We don’t pay for health care through the city of Vancouver, but municipally we cover a lot of other things. So it is akin to a municipal government with some other additional layers of work that go beyond that with nation members.

The member certainly could read the treaty. It goes into extensive detail about what sorts of governance services are provided, how they’re expected to be provided. There are numerous chapters about that for the member to do further reading on.

Dallas Brodie: What happens…? Are there any assurance or enforcement mechanisms in this treaty that ensure that the money that is being transferred for the purpose of self-government will be used for that purpose? Are there any checks and balances, or is this going to be left to…?

What happens if the specific things that you’ve just pointed out that they will be responsible for aren’t happening, such as water, sewer — the kinds of things that you just mentioned? What if those aren’t happening? Who becomes responsible for that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just like for each one of us, the ultimate accountability is with our voters, with the people who choose to or choose not to vote for the member. In this case, if the local government…. If the nation’s government was not providing the services its members wanted, they would do something about it. I know they’re very much involved. They were very much involved in the treaty vote. They’ve been very much involved in local democratic governance, as would be expected for a local government.

[3:20 p.m.]

Dallas Brodie: The minister is comfortable that in the event that, for example, there are water problems or other issues going on in this band and under the regions that they’re now responsible for, this band won’t be returning to the provincial government or the local municipal governments to fix any problems there? The band will simply have recourse only to its chief and council?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, through treaty, through K’ómoks’ Constitution, there’s a strong expectation that the K’ómoks Nation, as they’ve said very strongly, don’t want the Indian Act hanging over their heads. They don’t want the yoke of the Indian Act around their necks.

They want to be able to stand on their own two feet and not have paternalistic governments trying to tell them what to do and what not to do because of racism, because of a history of not trusting them, because of the history of how this place came to be and the lack of relationship between Indigenous Peoples and governments.

They want to be able to stand on their own feet and be able to work in the way that they had since time immemorial, before some of the impositions of things like the Indian Act were brought in — the imposition of things like not being allowed to own land, not being able to have a lawyer, not being able to educate their own young people because of the imposition of provincial and federal law.

They are very much accountable to their membership, but they also are accountable to the region around them. That’s why locally elected leaders in the Comox Valley — the city of Courtenay, city of Comox, township of Cumberland; I’m sure I’ve called one of them a city that is actually a town, so apologies if they take that stuff very seriously — and the Comox Valley regional district have all come out so strongly in support of this treaty because of the partnership, because of the working relationship they have developed with K’ómoks Nation.

They’re looking forward to this treaty and are strongly supporting it because they know it will support the wider region.

Dallas Brodie: Your comments on the Indian Act, I fully agree with. The Indian Act should be repealed and, in fact, it was recommended in 1969 by, then, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien in the white paper. But it was opposed that that be repealed by the Assembly of First Nations, the 635 Chiefs, who went and said: “No way. We want the Indian Act.”

I agree with you, Minister, that the Indian Act has been a terrible blight on the Indigenous community in Canada and that it needs to go. I also want Indigenous people to own their land outright and be through with all of this paternalism. What I’m concerned about here is that we’re creating more paternalism and more open-ended deals for the Canadian and British Columbian taxpayers.

I have some questions about these courts that are going to be set up. There’s reference to something called K’ómoks laws and K’ómoks courts. Are there going to be separate courthouses established in the K’ómoks lands?

There are references to K’ómoks laws. What are these laws, and are they separate from the common law of Canada and the Criminal Code of Canada?

There are other concerns I have about this that I’ll just give in broad strokes here. What are the rules that are going to abide in these courts? Are they going to be rules that are predetermined by Indigenous principles, or will they abide by the rules of evidence that have been developed through the common law?

What will be the credentials and requirements for judges who are sitting on these courts? Can a band member opt in or out of these courts, or must they stay and use these courts that are now established? Who decides which courts you’re going to be subjected to?

[3:25 p.m.]

Just some broad questions there about that, and maybe, based on your answer, I might have some more questions about how this is going to work.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To respect members’ time, I’ll try and do this in two parts.

As mentioned to the critic earlier, on the opposition side, Canadian laws, B.C. laws, K’ómoks law will apply on treaty land. But if there is conflict between those laws, there are provisions built into the treaty in terms of which laws prevail so it’s clear how that process is to take place.

I will work on getting a further response to the member’s other question.

I think this…. The member is quite capable, I’m sure, to ask further questions. But the way it would work would be that should B.C. and Canada ratify this treaty, the treaty needs to then come into effect, after which K’ómoks would be able to decide on whether they will use the Provincial Court of B.C. to be their court or establish their own court to hear matters under their laws. This depends on what law-making powers from the treaty K’ómoks chooses to exercise.

As I mentioned earlier, it could be an evolution. It is unlikely that all of those legal authorities would be drawn down on day one. It would, in fact, probably take quite a while to work through those processes.

Before they choose to enact their laws, though, about a K’ómoks court, the nation would be required to provide B.C. and Canada with notice of its intention to exercise their law-making authority. This would be followed by B.C. and the nation beginning a collaborative process to identify matters needed to support implementation of these laws, such as operational matters and any impact on B.C. laws in terms of the direct treaty lands for K’ómoks.

I have more, but maybe I’ll await the next question.

Rob Botterell: Is it true that these provisions or similar provisions have been implemented in other treaties without difficulty?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Short answer is yes. This has happened before, and it’s worked well.

The Nisg̱a’a treaty provides law-making powers to the Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government for a Nisg̱a’a court, but they’ve never chosen to draw down that power, instead working through the Provincial Court.

Now, the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth treaties do not include authority to establish a court. Of course, each treaty is different.

The ɬəʔamɛn treaty does provide law-making authority to the ɬəʔamɛn Nation to recommend judicial justices to the Judicial Council of B.C., with jurisdiction to adjudicate offences under ɬəʔamɛn law in Provincial Court. However, they have not used those powers.

[3:30 p.m.]

Dallas Brodie: On that point that my friend just pointed out, other bands have established or decided to still stay with the provincial and federal court systems.

We did see, in the last year, that up in Haida Gwaii, a family and their friends…. It was decided that they weren’t behaving the way the band liked. They took forklifts and excavators and destroyed their homes and actually chased the family and their friends out of the Haida Gwaii area and then alerted the rest of the province, to other bands, not to allow those people onto their lands. They were being actually shunned according to Aboriginal law traditions, apparently. That’s what Ellis Ross said: “This is the way we do it.”

If this is the kind of thing we’re going to be seeing when laws are applied, is there any guarantee that this type of activity will not be happening? And if it is going to happen, what happens to those people who are pushed out of the system on the K’ómoks lands?

Are we supposed to take the people they don’t want and then deal with them in the provincial system that we have, the provincial and federal court system that we have in British Columbia? This is a direct example of self-government, self-determination and what has happened. They were tracked all the way down the province by journalists as they were chased from city to city and not even allowed to fill up their gas tanks.

What are we going to do about situations like that, where there’s a dispute? The politics of smallness are an issue. With a small group of people, there’s enmity between neighbours and these kinds of things happen, so what are we going to do? Is there any provision in this treaty that deals with that kind of thing, where we’ve got basically a good old-fashioned shunning taking place?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Canadian and British Columbia law will still apply. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will still apply.

K’ómoks law does not…. The treaty does not allow the creation of new criminal law. That’s a federal matter, and that continues to be the case here. I can’t comment on the matter the member addresses as I don’t have all the details that she references. But this is very much about treaty law for the K’ómoks Nation and not another nation or another location.

Dallas Brodie: Well, I think it was a fairly widely reported event that happened. It’s hard for me…. I’m going to….

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: I want to raise a point of order around the relevance of an example involving a completely different governance framework to the questions in front of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Member, for raising that point of order.

I am paying attention to matters of relevance, and I will ask the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to continue with her line of questioning, just bearing in mind to stick to the clause and the bill that we’re on, which is clause 3.

[3:35 p.m.]

Dallas Brodie: The agreement is reopened every ten years — this treaty. What is the purpose of reopening the treaty? What is expected to take place at the reopening of the treaty, in the mind of the minister?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We went through this question fairly extensively yesterday, so certainly, the member might be interested in that back-and-forth discussion. It helps fill in more of the detail that she might be looking for.

The periodic renewal — really, what it does is similar to other modern treaties. I’ll share this answer now, but I probably won’t go further into this, because we did spend quite a bit of time on it. It allows any one of the parties — whether it be B.C., Canada or the K’ómoks Nation — to make a request for a renewal or a review of the treaty.

Maybe there’s a certain aspect that’s not working as well as one of the members wanted. Maybe there’s a legal change that is requested. As nobody is frozen in time, treaties are not frozen in time. The law is not frozen in time. What it allows is for the parties to make a request for review. Other parties are obligated to look at the request in good faith, follow good-faith principles, but they’re not required to say yes to a request for change.

I know some members have characterized, in YouTube videos and other things, that this just allows the nation to do whatever they want and that it opens up, again, for a whole bunch more land and it’ll never end and so on. That has been a characterization I’ve heard some members make, which is unfortunate because this is not how the provision works.

It’s very much about good-faith discussions between treaty partners who are able to work with each other in good faith to respond to issues each other has. We’ve done that with Nisg̱a’a. We’ve done that with ɬəʔamɛn. We’ve worked through issues with treaties with other nations and responded to issues that we needed to update or fix for the betterment of the nation, for the betterment of the region, for the betterment of the province and Canada.

That’s how this periodic review, renewal operates. It’s very much in keeping with other modern treaties and that work to work collaboratively in good-faith discussions. Since we’re all here and we all want this to be a better province, let’s provide opportunity that we can do this in a practical process, an orderly way.

Dallas Brodie: This is going to be my last question. Just on the definition of “self-sufficiency,” what are we defining as “self-sufficiency”? Is there a point at which we declare the K’ómoks Band to be self-sufficient, and do we have a way of measuring when that outcome has been achieved?

To your comments, I think that people are concerned about this being for the betterment of British Columbia and for British Columbians. And there is some concern that if it is, we would like to see this move to a self-sufficiency phase. But is it going to get there? And what are the measurements that we will have that we can look at to say: “Yep, we’ve reached that, and we’re done here”?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess there’s no explicit definition in the preamble of what self-sufficiency means, but I would say that I think we’re all British Columbians. We’re all living here in a way that we want to ensure that each other has the opportunity to prosper; that each other has the opportunity to live a good life in a safe home in a good community with good-quality air, good health care, good water — all of the things that we would want for ourselves, in terms of how we would treat our families and how we would treat our communities.

In terms of that self-sufficiency, that’s the goal here with K’ómoks Nation. That’s their goal. That’s our goal, obviously, for the region, for all of us. But I think self-sufficiency is not so much: “Go away; be by yourself.” It’s also about acknowledging interdependence — that we are all dependent on each other and that if one of us is suffering, it’s going to impact each other.

I think, really, the idea behind treaty is about creating a better connection between us all so that we know how we work together; we know how we live together; we know what the expectations are for the future in our regions as best as we can, understanding that there’s unpredictability. Things change. Life changes. Things come up. But really, in this sense, it’s trying to unlock….

In terms of the member’s reference earlier to the Indian Act, of course, it’s to take that off so that the nation again can stand with pride, as they have long done in the region, and are looking forward to doing even more. The excitement they have for the prosperity they can bring to the neighbours, to everyone in that region, is really exciting to see.

Dallas Brodie: Speaking of the whole notion of living together — and we are all here together — are there any requirements put on the K’ómoks leadership? I couldn’t find anything in here that requires a standard of neighbourliness, reasonableness and giving back to the communities that surround it and ensuring that their cooperation will also be reasonably and freely and properly given to help the people around it who are not of the same ancestry, such that it is a truly reciprocal and happy arrangement between, basically, what are, essentially, all British Columbians.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member said she couldn’t find it, but for her clarity, chapter 5 speaks to how the nation is to work with the local government.

Certainly, so far, based on the response I’ve seen from local governments in terms of support for the treaty and support for working with K’ómoks Nation, that relationship is strong, and it’s one that has worked very well for the region.

John Rustad: I thank the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the minister, in terms of that exchange.

Going back to the self-governance component of the treaty, I’d like to ask a few questions, particularly when we start talking about family and children services. Obviously, there’s an effort by government, and I believe rightfully so, to transfer authorities, to make sure that children stay within the nations, make sure that the nations have the opportunities to determine what is best for those children. But there’s always the question out there in terms of potential liability, because there are, obviously, requirements by the government to meet those needs.

I’m just wondering. How has that authority been structured between the province and K’ómoks Nation as part of this treaty, and how will children that may need to be in care be addressed?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There’s a bunch more information — that’s the technical term — for that in the self-government section of the chapter. But of course, that would have to be negotiated with B.C. and K’ómoks, should they decide to draw down those authorities.

Usually when those discussions happen, there is conversation. There is negotiation around liability and how that transfers, how cases would transfer. Those kinds of things would all be taken care of in those negotiations, should they decide to draw down those authorities.

John Rustad: That’s good to know. Obviously, I know most nations — I suspect K’ómoks will be the same; it’ll be a priority for them — want to create the legislation associated with doing that.

It’s good to hear that particularly the issues of liability and stuff will be discussed in terms of how that’s done. Obviously, that’s potential for a huge challenge, I think, for any nation, taking on those responsibilities.

With regards to the laws, since the laws that they will create in self-governance, which would be, if they draw down on the authority associated with children and family services and writing their own laws…. We talked earlier about those laws applying obviously to title land, but how would those impact K’ómoks members who may be living outside of the title, outside of the treaty land? In other words, they might be living in a different community or even a different province.

How would those laws, potentially, be applied, or not, to members who are off treaty lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Obviously, some laws would be geographically restricted. A speed limit would be restricted to the treaty lands.

One that could be broader, should it be drawn down…. Children and family services, for example, could be not geographic. It could create obligations for K’ómoks Nation in relation to K’ómoks Nation children that do not live right on the treaty lands.

That’s one possibility, which we have seen before, in terms of similar but different approaches with other nations.

[3:50 p.m.]

Another one that wouldn’t be geographically restricted would be, for example, the election laws, which I mentioned. Maybe if you lived across the road from K’ómoks treaty lands, you could still be involved in the election if you were a nation member.

John Rustad: I think we’ll get into this a little bit further on.

Because we’re talking about members that are off treaty lands, this is actually an interesting question in terms of responsibilities of the nation and children in care or children who may need those services. It goes much further beyond that, obviously, with other members that may need services, whether that is addiction treatment, mental health or these types of things. That would be some members of the nation, but they’re off the treaty lands.

As they draw down and create their laws and authorities and implement this treaty, which, obviously, both federal and provincial governments will be partners in, I’m just wondering how those sorts of issues would be handled for members who are not on the treaty lands. What would apply? How do the province, K’ómoks and, potentially, the federal government manage those kinds of issues that are not directly on the treaty lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s hard to speak definitively about such a broad question because, of course, depending on which law, which legal agreement and where, it could change. It might be a different answer. I don’t know that I can give the member what he’s looking for unless he can be a bit more definitive.

In how a law shows up, there can be coordinating agreements, for example, where the province could make an agreement around a certain approach, around a certain.… I don’t know. I’m getting into the hypothetical, which I don’t like to do, but there are a number of approaches that could be made in terms of legal coordination, if that were required. Until the negotiations go on, in terms of which law-making authorities are used and how they are used, it’s difficult to answer that question.

John Rustad: I thank the minister for that, and I recognize these things are part of a negotiation. The legislation that’s created, all these sorts of things, will be going on.

What I’m trying to really nail down is just that sense of responsibility for its members who are off treaty lands. They may be scattered throughout the province. They may require mental health services, addiction services or children and family services. I’m trying to understand what the responsibility is of the K’ómoks Nation for its members that could be under stress of some type somewhere outside of their treaty lands.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As referred to earlier, of course, provincial law and federal law still apply. That’s also true for provincial programs or federal programs, unless, of course, we found agreement together around K’ómoks taking up that responsibility. Then that could change the fiscal relationship.

That’s not currently what we’re discussing. It’s not under the treaty in the sense that it’s part of the treaty. It allows those conversations, as I mentioned. It allows the drawing down of legal room. But in terms of requiring K’ómoks to create its own hospital because it’s now no longer allowed to use the local…. That’s not how it works. It’s very much that this is about building togetherness but also respecting difference.

Scott McInnis: I’m interested in some of the legislative authority around child care and K-to-12 education. It’s a complex space with lots of regulation and so forth, and I just had a few questions I wanted to ask in relation to that.

I know over my time as critic speaking with Indigenous People in British Columbia, whether it’s Métis or First Nations, there’s a strong desire to provide their own child care services within their communities, which I think…. I’ve seen a couple of them locally, and they’re fantastic places of learning for children.

I think these questions will probably be pretty straightforward for the minister, but I do want to ask them on the record. I know, after managing an independent school for a number of years and having two licensed child care spaces, the regulations are quite complex. It always made me very nervous when there would be an inspection from the ministry, making sure everything from cleaning standards to safety and everything else was being very, very strictly adhered to.

I’m wondering. Under the child care component, 106 and 107 say: “K’ómoks may make laws in relation to child care services on K’ómoks lands.” Number 107 says: “Federal law or provincial law prevails to the extent of a conflict with K’ómoks law under paragraph 106.” In relation to the child care question specifically, I’m just curious as to if the K’ómoks decide to enact their own legislation in relation to child care they will still be mandated to follow the strict regulations of child care in British Columbia.

I know there is an ongoing conversation around challenges with unlicensed child care facilities and, potentially, some of the vulnerabilities around that. I’m not saying that’s at all what the K’ómoks intend to do by any stretch of the imagination. I’m just simply always looking out for the safety of children and making sure that they’re cared for in a proper space under the proper regulations and rules.

Again, just ensuring that if that legislation were to be enacted, it would, in fact, fall in line with the provincial child care regulations which exist.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member almost answered his own question in his statement. Yes, Canadian and provincial law will continue to apply to child care. K’ómoks could make their own laws, but they have to be as protective or safety-focused as our provincial and any federal rules that might apply.

[4:00 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I figured that was the answer. I just wanted to ensure that onto the record.

In relation to kindergarten-to-grade-12 education, I just had a couple of notes I wanted to ask around that. Paragraph 116 talks about K’ómoks making “laws in relation to K-to-12 education on K’ómoks lands (a) for K’ómoks members, (b) provided by a K’ómoks institution.”

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

And 117, any K’ómoks law made under paragraph 116 will:

“(a) establish curriculum, examination and other standards that permit transfers of students between school systems in British Columbia at a similar level of achievement and permit entry of students to the provincial post-secondary education system; and (b) provide for the certification of teachers, other than for the teaching of K’ómoks language or culture, by a K’ómoks institution or a body recognized by British Columbia, in accordance with standards comparable to standards applicable to individuals who teach in public or provincially funded independent schools in British Columbia.”

There’s 118, which talks about the laws previously under paragraph 116. Law made under 116 “does not apply to schools under the School Act or the Independent School Act unless the school is established under the Independent School Act by K’ómoks institutions.”

I just have a couple of clarifying questions around that, which I’m hoping the minister can indulge me with. I guess first of all would be: if K’ómoks were to decide to draw upon legislation related to K-to-12 education for the establishment of an institution on K’ómoks treaty land, would that institution be mandated to teach standardized curriculum as is taught in schools across British Columbia?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It would be great if the member keeps going along this line of questions in this way, because he’s giving me the answers in his questions, which is great. Less work for us over here.

In terms of what he referenced, “establish curriculum, examination and other standards that permit transfers of students between school systems in British Columbia at a similar level of achievement and permit entry of students to the provincial post-secondary education system” speaks to the requirement for a similar curriculum. It may not be exactly the same, but you must be able to meet the same learning outcomes.

This would suggest that it may be the same curriculum with additions, or it may be the same curriculum delivered in a slightly different way in terms of how the K’ómoks Nation wants to teach the curriculum. But their students need to be able to have the same capacity, same ability to enter into a provincial post-secondary or a provincial high school. If you’re not familiar with the curriculum, you’re not going to be able to meet the learning outcomes, and thus you’re not going to be able to fulfil what’s required here.

So the answer is very much yes, they are required to maintain that same standard that we have in provincial schools.

Scott McInnis: I think that’s where I was just getting at, that it said…. It was a similar standard. Just ensuring that if K’ómoks does decide to draw up laws to create an institution or institutions for education for their members, there was some sort of alignment with learning outcomes, learning standards that exist in the province just so those students, when they graduate grade 12, are certainly ready with the foundational skills to enter post-secondary or the workforce or what have you.

[4:05 p.m.]

Let me just think about this for one second. Would there be any oversight from the Ministry of Education to ensure that those standards were being met for learning outcomes? Are there any sorts of…? Would K’ómoks students in those institutions potentially be under the guise of taking provincial standardized testing? Is there anything from the Ministry of Education just to ensure that a similar alignment of curriculum standards existed and that it was setting the K’ómoks students up for success that way, in alignment with traditional learning outcomes?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Should K’ómoks decide they wanted to create their own institution — a high school, let’s say — if there were an issue where there was a question of if they were meeting the standards….

Obviously, a treaty is an agreement between three parties, where we have to uphold our end, they have to uphold their end, Canada has to uphold its end. It’s not just the K’ómoks treaty. It’s all of our treaty. In that sense, if we had concerns that the educational standards were not being met, we could intervene in a sense of engaging our partner to look at getting to solutions for what that issue was.

I don’t think that would be an issue for K’ómoks, because I’ve seen how much they value education and how much they value their young people. But should, at some future date, that not be the case, the possibility of a provincial government working with K’ómoks to address what that issue is…. It doesn’t have to be education. It could be another issue that’s an obligation and responsibility in the treaty.

Then certainly, we know we’d all hold each other accountable, because we all care about the young people.

Scott McInnis: Yeah, I appreciate the minister’s answer, and I think that in no way was it saying that the K’ómoks would in any way, shape or form be setting their children up not to be successful — just ensuring that those checks and balances would be in place, potentially.

Is there anything in here which requires a separate governance structure for K’ómoks as far as a local board of education, an elected group of school trustees — anything like we see in the public education system — which would be required for the K’ómoks Nation to enact if they decide to draw upon that law?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If the K’ómoks Nation wanted to create a school board for that kind of purpose, they could. There’s no requirement. Certainly, that would be something that they could run out of the local government as well, as I know there are a number of models for taking care of education.

Scott McInnis: I think that was just what I was wondering, because I didn’t see it — if there was some sort of requirement to meet anything around governance.

I just wanted to ask quickly about teacher certification. If K’ómoks were to draw upon a law to establish an institution on treaty settlement lands for members for education, would those educators be B.C.-certified teachers?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member read out the qualifications in his earlier question, but aside from language and culture, all teachers must reach a comparable level to B.C. certification. It wouldn’t have to necessarily be B.C. certification if there was a comparable process, but of course, that assumes they draw it down and then they create a teacher education program that you can see as comparable in terms of effect. But I say that aside from language and culture.

Scott McInnis: Just interested in in the comparable certification process. Through what body would that be done? Would there have to be a basic letter of permission to then go through a process of comparable certification? It’s just a little bit unclear. Who would that body be to actually establish that yes, this person has the education and the qualifications to deliver curriculum for the K’ómoks children? Just a little more clarification around that, if we could.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just for the member’s information, a very similar provision exists in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty as well. The thinking is that if such a drawdown was expected that they wanted to create this institution and they were hoping to use teachers that were not B.C. certified, there’d be an expectation.

First, they’d have to notify us that that was something that they wanted to do, and then there would be work done to, I guess, find which organization would be comparable if there were a request to go a different route than B.C. teacher certification, which could take some time, obviously. Teacher certification isn’t an easy thing. Certainly, that would have to be something worked through, should such a request be made in future.

[4:15 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I just think it’s interesting because I’m not aware of a comparable designation body that exists in British Columbia to certify teachers, like I said, that they’ve met education standards, criminal background checks — all these important things that teachers must do before they’re officially certified.

I’d be interested to hear.… Maybe that’s something I can research on my own. I actually don’t know if the ɬəʔamɛn have a school of their own that they’re operating and what that standard looks like for them. It’d be something that maybe out of interest’s sake I could look at on my own time. But I do think it’s important.

I do think that should the K’ómoks decide to go down that road of education, and I highly encourage them if it’s within their means to do that, there are lots of benefits to that for the children to learn under that umbrella. It’s just that we’re making sure that there are still high standards to be met for education, again, to ensure that we’re setting children up to be successful. I’m sure that there will be.

I’m just a little bit curious as to, if we’re not going down the road of B.C. certification, what other avenues there are. I’d be interested in some more conversation around that, moving forward, because I’m just not aware of what else exists out there.

With that, I’ll leave my questions for K-to-12 education and pass it off to my good buddy here from Nechako Lakes to continue.

John Rustad: As we look at this, a lot of the questions that we’re asking — whether it’s education, children and families or such things — are trying to understand the nature of the treaty in terms of how these things will be implemented for its members. Of course, the big ones are health services and that whole side of things. Obviously, health is a very complex issue around….

Maybe this is hypothetical. I promise I’m trying not to get into that, but I’m trying to understand what the K’ómoks Nation is thinking in terms of how it will designate health services; how it will work through those health services in relation to the regional health district, in relation to the province and the services that would be normally available outside of the treaty lands.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, there certainly could be hypotheticals we could get into, but I’ll try not to, just to speak directly to the question.

K’ómoks is in the Comox-Strathcona regional hospital district. K’ómoks will join the Comox-Strathcona regional hospital district on the effective date. Modern Treaty Nations are required to contribute to applicable provincial services, regardless of whether they are exercising a property tax authority on their treaty lands or not. Applicable requisitions attributable to the Modern Treaty Nation lands are calculated in accordance with the legislation.

In the case of regional hospital districts, the applicable statute would be the Hospital District Act. The regional hospital district collects the requisition amounts directly from that Modern Treaty Nation.

If there are further questions on that, for further detail, I’m happy to try my best.

John Rustad: I was actually going to go off in a different direction, but since the minister has gone there, I actually want to talk about that relationship between the K’ómoks First Nation and the regional health authority — or particularly, the regional district health, whatever that structure is called.

Interjection.

John Rustad: Yeah, regional hospital district. Thank you.

Obviously, when new infrastructure is being put in — hospitals, clinics, these types of things — there is a cost-sharing agreement typically between the province and the area and the region. Typically, that’s 40 percent. Sometimes that’s negotiated at a different level, and each of the members who live within that region contributes as part of their property taxes.

Now, K’ómoks, of course, is collecting its own property tax, not through a regional district for that side of things. Or they may not collect property tax. I’m not sure how they would implement it. That’s going to be entirely up to them.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m just wondering. Is there an agreement in place already, or is this something that needs to be negotiated, in terms of how K’ómoks Nation members will contribute to the capital requirements associated with providing health services within the region?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I referenced the Hospital District Act. That act includes how the requisition process, the amounts and so on, are calculated through Ministry of Finance and how the distribution or acquisition occurs.

Probably best to refer to the Hospital District Act for those specific questions around how that act works.

John Rustad: Of course, I understand in terms of how those structures work within the province, but there’s, obviously, a relationship change in terms of the K’ómoks Nation and treaty.

For example, I remember when Nisg̱a’a treaty was done there, they joined the regional district. They’ve joined the regional health side. They’re part of that structure, contributing and all that kind of stuff.

I don’t know if that structure has already been set up or has been contemplated, which is why I’m asking that question of the minister.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Clause 10 on the bill…. Maybe the member wants to get to clause 10. It does directly speak to if, on the effective date….

I’ll jump forward, with the hope that the member might soon jump forward with me. “If, on the effective date, the letters patent for the Comox-Strathcona regional hospital district have not been amended to include and designate K’ómoks lands as a member of the district, those letters patent are deemed amended for that purpose.”

John Rustad: No, I’m not going to quite move forward to clause 10 of the agreement yet. I appreciate the minister’s offer in terms of it, but of course, as we’re going through, looking at this, there is a component here that does, in the treaty, talk about this, which is why it feels appropriate to ask those questions here.

There is a component here in this that I’m wondering about that I haven’t run across before, which are Indigenous healers. I’m just wondering what the intent here behind this is and how they would be plugged in and work with the health services being provided within the region.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member probably has come across this before, though in a different name. The ɬəʔamɛn treaty passed in 2014, I think. I should know this; we just celebrated the anniversary. It talks about Aboriginal healers. This is similar. It just talks about Indigenous healers, that they have the right to make laws authorizing individuals to practise as Indigenous healers on K’ómoks lands.

It does not include the authority to regulate medical or health practices or practitioners who require licensing or certification under federal law or provincial law or products or substances that are regulated under federal law or provincial law. The laws still apply, but K’ómoks will have the right to make laws in respect to Indigenous healers operating on treaty lands.

John Rustad: The reason why I was asking the question was I’m trying to understand the nature of what services an Indigenous healer would provide. Is it comparable to a doctor or a nurse? Is it something different entirely in terms of how they might be able to provide services to K’ómoks members or members of the public at large within the K’ómoks lands?

Like I say, I’m trying to understand just how they fit into the scope of health services, and I have a couple of questions about that afterwards.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, I wouldn’t want to be the one to define an Indigenous healer for an Indigenous nation. I think that would probably not go well. But it is defined in the law, inasmuch as it’s not like a doctor, because that’s a regulated profession. What I read into the record around regulated professions, regulated substances and those kinds of things would not be inclusive of the job of an Indigenous healer.

John Rustad: An Indigenous healer, then — I’ll just get a confirmation from the minister on this; I think I understand what he’s saying — wouldn’t have the ability to prescribe drugs or, perhaps, provide an IV or those sorts of things. It would be a different type of service?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Again, I’ll just point back to my earlier answer. They would not be able to provide drugs or medication in that sense, unless they were a licensed doctor or a licensed nurse. Now, maybe they would be both, and that’s a possibility, but if you’re going to be in the prescription world or medical services as we understand them that require registration, licensing and so on, that’s very much in the realm of doctor, nurse, licensed professionals.

John Rustad: I guess I’m still trying to understand exactly what services they’d be providing, but perhaps….

Interjection.

John Rustad: Madam Chair, if we could have a recess.

The Chair: Sure. We will take a ten-minute break and be back at 4:40.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

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

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 20 back to order.

We are on clause 3.

[4:45 p.m.]

John Rustad: Just another quick question on the issue of the Indigenous healers.

I’m trying to understand how they will fit in with the structure. I mean, will they have privileges in hospitals? Will they be recognized in terms of that?

If it’s just something that is just happening independently off on treaty land, that’s fine. I’m just trying to understand how they integrate in terms of any of the traditional — or, I guess you could say, Western — health care systems that we have structured.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As referenced earlier, Indigenous healers and the provisions that are in the treaty are only applicable to treaty lands.

If it was outside of the treaty lands, they are not applicable. It would be about K’ómoks Nation making decisions through their own legal process around what they would term an Indigenous healer, how that person could operate within their community — very much an internal-to-K’ómoks decision and discussion.

John Rustad: I want to go on to another topic. It’s not directly related, but it is next up in the things to look at, which is on liquor.

In particular, there are rules here that K’ómoks may make laws in relation to prohibitions and these types of things. I’m just trying to understand how that works in terms of…. I believe it says it allows them the opportunity to be able to set up and to distribute or sell alcohol, I believe, on land.

I’m trying to understand what that relationship is between provincial law and what could be set up on treaty land.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This is very much the same as in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty, that the nation would have the exclusive right to sell liquor within the treaty land itself, and it’s following the same process as the ɬəʔamɛn treaty.

Of course, there would still be provincial law applying, federal law applying, in terms of issues associated. But in terms of the sale of liquor, they would have, as the member referenced in the chapter, the right to do that on K’ómoks treaty land.

John Rustad: With regards to that, obviously they could…. Are they restricted in terms of selling only to K’ómoks members, or could anybody come and purchase alcohol within the K’ómoks treaty lands, wherever they have it set up on the treaty land?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As long as the person is of legal drinking age and they are allowed to purchase liquor, they would be allowed to purchase, should K’ómoks decide to get into the sale of liquor.

Now, it should be clear that they would still have to purchase through the B.C. system. There couldn’t be a deep-discount kind of thing, in the sense that there is a floor price that would be shared with other liquor operations.

John Rustad: The minister could just confirm, then, that the proximity rules that apply for the sale of liquor, which are typically within X number of…. I guess what I’m saying is that some of those rules that we have in British Columbia, in terms of where liquor sales could be done, would basically be overridden by the K’ómoks treaty. They wouldn’t have to follow those types of rules because they’re on treaty land. Is that correct?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Federal and provincial law do still prevail in the extent of a conflict with K’ómoks law. If there was a law that said, for example, you can’t set up a liquor store right across the street from a high school, that law would still prevail.

John Rustad: That law would apply even if it’s within treaty land. That’s good to know. It’s important to know in terms of it.

One of the things that they have set up here, that they mentioned here, is manufacturing — laws in terms of manufacturing or consumption. Obviously, we have laws in British Columbia around that.

How does that work in terms of…? What sorts of laws could be created by the K’ómoks Nation associated with manufacturing? For example, could they set up to produce beer or wine or other types of products, having their own laws? Would that override…? How does that work in terms of provincial laws?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Similar to some earlier answers, they do have the law-making authority in terms of manufacturing. However, provincial and federal laws apply. If the law was more restrictive or more safety conscious — I don’t know what you’d want to say — then that could apply. However, the law can’t be looser or more permissive than provincial law when it comes to decisions around manufacturing of liquor, for example.

John Rustad: I seem to think…. I mean, obviously, we have lots of craft beer and things that are being produced in British Columbia today, and I’m just wondering. Are there any restrictions against K’ómoks in terms of actually licensing for manufacture?

Obviously, they would have to follow the laws in terms of the product that’s being made within those restrictions, but I’m just wondering. Basically, can they set up a dozen factories, or whatever you want to call them, producing an alcohol product that there may be some sort of restrictions for in B.C., in terms of it?

I’m just trying to understand. I understand that they have the ability to create laws that would be potentially more restrictive, but I’m trying to understand what the nation’s ability is to be entrepreneurial and to go into business, creating those opportunities outside of provincial laws.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Provincial law still applies, rules that relate to manufacturing of alcohol. Or a factory or distillery might be another term, or a brewery. Those laws would still apply in terms of how that would be set up and that sort of approach.

If there were specific changes to the law that K’ómoks wanted to make in reference to things that…. I don’t know. I’m just trying to think hypothetically what they might want to do that would be different. Really, that would be up to them to make the case for what kind of legal change they might want to make.

I certainly haven’t heard anything from K’ómoks in terms of liquor distribution and manufacture and sale, but it is in there just in case that was an economic avenue that they wanted to follow.

Scott McInnis: Just along the same lines, a couple of questions about liquor control, liquor sales. Things of that nature could be a potential business opportunity for K’ómoks if they wish to pursue it, down the road. My line of question is around oversight and enforcement around that.

I know, for example, the penalties for an establishment…. I’m thinking of a private liquor vendor. For sales to a minor, the penalties are pretty strict. I just wondered if…. Related to those enforcement measures, would they be the same under this liquor control model as they would be for a private vendor that’s not on treaty land or a B.C. liquor establishment? Would that be the same sort of regime as it would be here in the treaty settlement area if the K’ómoks pursued that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Provincial liquor laws, again, would still apply in terms of enforcement and those kinds of things.

Now, there’s a possibility that the nation could decide that they didn’t think our penalties, provincial penalties, for sale of alcohol to a minor are strong enough. They could decide to bring in further penalty action, or something like that, through legal changes themselves to their own K’ómoks law. The same sorts of provisions, because it’s the same law, apply when it comes to liquor control on treaty lands.

Scott McInnis: I’m just curious. Would it be the liquor and cannabis regulation branch that would oversee that as well, or would K’ómoks also be required to establish their own body to oversee? If they made those penalties stricter, or what have you, would they have to set up their own regulatory body to administer that?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Provincial law would be overseen by provincial authorities, as is currently the case, or would currently be the case, for a liquor store. If there was a desire to set up an extra penalty or another penalty in addition to provincial law, that would be overseen by…. It would have to be a K’ómoks authority, so that would have to be regulated and enforced through their own local government.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that answer from the minister.

I’m assuming it’s probably a very quick yes to this. I’m just wondering about a local restaurant establishment perhaps in the treaty land that is serving alcohol and if employees there would be required to have their Serving it Right and follow those regulations, as well, that currently exist under provincial regulations.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes.

Scott McInnis: Just wondering. I didn’t see anything in here about cannabis sales, production, manufacturing — anything like that. Is there any language that falls under that regime, as well, for cannabis, or is it exactly the same as it is for liquor? I’m just not quite sure.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There are no provisions in the treaty with respect to cannabis, so that’s why the member didn’t see it, which means that provincial and federal laws will apply, as they did prior to the treaty effective date, and the province would be allowed to continue to take enforcement actions to encourage unregulated retailers — shut them down, that kind of thing — and focus on the regulated system.

John Rustad: I’m just curious about emergency preparedness and that side of things, really from a perspective…. I understand how this is structured here. It’s more from a perspective of liability.

For example, a forest fire starts in the province. If somebody is held responsible for it, obviously, they go after them. If the nation itself is found to be negligent through some actions that they authorized that started a fire that obviously went beyond the traditional territory into Crown territory or into other areas, there could be a significant liability.

I’m just wondering if there are any provisions or thoughts in terms of how a nation is protected against what could be significant liability, should there be a finding of negligence on behalf of the nation in a case of something like a wildfire or an emergency.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Two useful answers, I think, to the question.

First, in the forest resources chapter, paragraph 14: “On the effective date, the parties will enter into a wildfire suppression agreement that will set out how the costs incurred by B.C. for wildfire control on the K’ómoks lands for wildfires that originate on such lands will be shared by B.C., Canada and K’ómoks.”

Paragraph 16: “If K’ómoks caused or contributed to the start or spread of any wildfire due to its own wilful misconduct, K’ómoks’s responsibility for costs is not limited by paragraph 15.”

I’m sure I can follow up with more.

John Rustad: I’m just wondering about a building code. Obviously, with the treaty land, there is a desire by the K’ómoks Nation to do development, and it’s fully understandable, whether it’s housing or whether it’s other types of activities that they want to do. I believe they have the ability to be able to create a building code.

Once again, I just want to confirm whether that building code could…. For example, they may not want to go with the step code. They may not want to go with these types of things that the province is doing. Whether they have the ability to create their own building code or whether they have to follow the building code that the province and/or federal government may have implemented….

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under the self-government chapter heading “Buildings and Structures,” K’ómoks may make laws — the member is correct — in relation to buildings and structures on K’ómoks lands. “K’ómoks law may only establish standards that are different from or additional to those in the British Columbia building code pursuant to an agreement with British Columbia under paragraph 140.”

Paragraph 140: “At the request of K’ómoks, B.C. and K’ómoks will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement to enable K’ómoks to establish standards for buildings or structures which are additional to or different from the standards established by the British Columbia building code. Federal law or provincial law prevails to the extent of a conflict with a K’ómoks law under paragraph 138,” which was the first paragraph that I read.

John Rustad: So that I understand, they could enter into negotiation to create a unique building code if they so desired, but it would have to have been done through negotiation with the other levels of government. They couldn’t just implement it arbitrarily on their own.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: That is correct.

John Rustad: I want to give the minister as many opportunities as possible to get up and down. Just joking. Sorry. Got to have a little bit of a chuckle from time to time in terms of this, despite the fact that this, obviously, is of a very serious nature in terms of what we’re debating and discussing.

Regulations on businesses — I’m just wondering how that structure works. Can they create regulations or limitations beyond what may be provincially in nature? I know most municipalities regulate businesses, etc. So is it the same nature as what other municipalities are, or is there some other type of structure that could be implemented as part of this treaty?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In “Regulation of Business,” a heading under self-government: “K’ómoks may make laws in relation to the regulation, licensing and prohibition of business on K’ómoks lands, including the imposition of licence fees or other fees.”

K’ómoks law-making authority under that paragraph does not include the authority to make laws in relation to the accreditation, certification or professional conduct of professions and trades. Federal law or provincial law prevails to the extent of a conflict with K’ómoks law under that first paragraph I read.

John Rustad: I’m just wondering, as we move forward with this…. Obviously, in municipalities, other treaty nations, debt accumulation or access to capital is critical. I see that we have provisions here in terms of accessing long-term debt financing. Are these provisions the same provisions that have been laid out in the other modern treaties?

As I remember, when we originally set up Tsawwassen, we had to do some modifications for Tsawwassen to allow them access to certain financing tools. I’m just wondering how comprehensive this is in taking into consideration the experiences of other treaty nations.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, sort of similar, but K’ómoks will not be able to borrow from the Municipal Finance Authority. However, there are new provisions in this treaty created in such a way that it will allow K’ómoks access to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, through the federal system, so that they can access the pooled resources there for borrowing, as other nations or bands are involved in.

John Rustad: Just to confirm, I think I understand the answer to this question. But it’s one that comes up from time to time. It’s just in terms of default on debt and liabilities or assets that could be accessed by a creditor.

Obviously, when municipal governments borrow, if they get in trouble, they have to raise taxes, that side of things. However, it’s a little different in terms of the structure, I think, within the band. As we get into the land question, I’m going to be asking about ownership of the land and how that structure works.

I’m just wondering. If the band is unable to make payments on borrowed money, what structure is put in place to enable a creditor to be able to be kept whole in terms of the money that has been lent to the nation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Sort of similar to the Municipal Finance Authority, in terms of working with First Nations governments, there are similar provisions in terms of requirements if you’re going to get a loan. There are requirements on the person requesting a loan or, I guess in this case, the government requesting a loan. If they don’t meet those tests, they won’t get the loan.

[5:15 p.m.]

If they get the loan but then don’t meet the payments, well, just like any other creditor, your credit becomes due at some point. Then whether or not it’s…. I guess it would depend on the arrangement and the agreement that was reached in terms of collateral or payments or how that would be addressed.

Of course, each arrangement is unique in terms of each arrangement, so I can’t guess at every one of them, but that’s roughly how it would work.

Scott McInnis: Shifting gears a little bit. I’d wanted to ask about this earlier, and just our line of questioning kind of put us down this direction. I’m curious around the whole piece around delegating law-making authority under the treaty. I’m not really sure how that works, and I’d just like a little bit of clarification, if I could, from the minister.

The treaty does allow for K’ómoks to delegate law-making authority to other First Nations, public institutions, local governments — other legal entities, perhaps. So I guess my question is: how broad is this delegation power intended to be?

I just find it interesting with delegating law-making authority to another First Nation. Does that apply…? I’m just a little bit confused. Could the K’ómoks delegate law-making authority to their neighbour, which then impacts their treaty settlement lands?

I’m just wondering if the minister could give us a high-level overview of how that works, please.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If the member turns to the self-government chapter, starting paragraph 32, it discusses the delegation procedures, practices, as the member mentioned.

Just trying to think of an example that the member could connect with.

We talked about the First Nations Finance Authority earlier. One of the provisions could be that if you’re going to get a loan, you must be willing to delegate authority to us if you default on the loan, so that we could, I don’t know, require taxes to pay for the loan. That might be one example.

Another example could be maybe…. And this is a consistent provision that has shown up in the modern treaties that we have in B.C. Maybe there was a body. We talked about courts earlier. Maybe the different nations agreed to create a body that was a court to adjudicate their laws. There could be a delegated authority in terms of some of the authorities to that court which would be shared with other nations, for example.

Scott McInnis: Yeah. I just find it interesting. I guess it’s more my lack of understanding of the structure of how that actually works in practice.

I think just maybe another clarification question or two…. I’m just trying to wrap my head around under what scenario or circumstance the K’ómoks would want to delegate law-making authority away from their government, just so I can try to understand that.

[5:20 p.m.]

Could governance authority, effectively, be exercised by regional Indigenous entities not directly elected by the K’ómoks members themselves?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Delegated decision-making and delegated law-making authority are actually not that unusual. The province of B.C. does that, for example, with municipalities, in terms of giving that authority. It’s housed still within the province, in the sense that we could take it back, but in the way the structure has developed over many years, of course, the province has delegated that authority to local governments. I think in the example I gave, it’s not just the law-making, but it’s also looking at administrative authority.

You could designate another to enforce your rules. I think we mentioned policing earlier, for example. Maybe there was a group that decided in the region that they wanted a local policing authority to work on treaty lands. There could be an agreement with other local nations to build up that force and to have it apply. That might require a certain amount of delegating authority to that body. That might be a common agreement amongst nations.

In terms of the question, again, it’s about the treaty land itself; it’s not about the wider region. Again, I think it’s important to note that the paragraph includes that the delegation and the exercise of any lawmaking authority has to be in accordance with this agreement and the K’ómoks constitution.

So there would have to be a number of changes made before the arrangement the member suggested could legally even be possible. Right now it’s not possible, in the constitution, to just give all your authority away, unless it met the test of the constitution, which says the legislature and the executive are majority-elected, for example.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that from the minister. I think using the example of municipal governments was helpful. I was just trying to wrap my head around why K’ómoks would want that provision within the treaty. It’s just more of a case of interest than anything else.

These delegated entities — is it possible that they could create regulations which would affect non-members on the treaty lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Really, delegation cannot be used to circumvent the K’ómoks government’s responsibility and accountability to K’ómoks members and non-members or to carry out obligations under the treaty.

[5:25 p.m.]

Earlier we had discussed about how non-members would have to be given a voice or find a way that they can be consulted with, accommodated, depending on what sort of law-making was being done at the local K’ómoks level.

Scott McInnis: Just a couple more quick follow-ups on this line here.

Before there are powers delegated externally outside of the K’ómoks government, is there any provincial approval process that’s required within that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under the self-government chapter, delegation, certainly the only….

Agreement from B.C. and Canada would have to be sought and would have to be received if there was going to be delegation to any institution other than Canada, B.C., a local government, an Islands Trust body, a First Nation with a self-government agreement negotiated with B.C. and Canada that provides for receiving delegated authority, another First Nation government in B.C. or a public institution established by one or more First Nation governments in B.C., a K’ómoks public institution or any law-making authority of K’ómoks. That’s right.

Any law-making authority of K’ómoks may be delegated to those institutions, but if it’s a legal entity outside of those institutions, that must be agreed to by the parties. Also, if the delegated authority was for B.C., if Comox decided to delegate that to B.C., of course, we would have to agree to take on that delegation.

Scott McInnis: Yeah, that’s interesting. Thank you for that.

I just wonder, then, what the process is if there’s delegated authority from K’ómoks maybe to the province or to somebody else — if they have the unilateral ability to revoke that authority themselves.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes. So if somebody delegated authority out, they can claim it back in. However, of course, in delegated decision-making and delegated authorities, usually there is an orderly process where a legal agreement would’ve been struck to explain how transitions were to happen, notice periods, etc.

John Rustad: I’d like to ask just a few questions around the administration-of-justice component of the treaty.

Just starting off with the…. My understanding reading through this is that the nation has the ability to be able to enter into negotiation and enter an agreement with other police forces, whether it’s a municipal or a provincial police force, to be able to provide those services.

[5:30 p.m.]

I wonder if the minister could just clarify if he understands it’s the intention of the K’ómoks Nation to do that, or over time, is it the intention of the K’ómoks Nation to have its own law enforcement officers?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’m not aware of an interest in establishing their own police force for the K’ómoks Nation.

The treaty doesn’t speak to the ability of a First Nation to start their own police force. It does refer back to provincial law. Of course, the member will know First Nations can apply to the province to establish a designated policing unit, in accordance with the Police Act. But I don’t know of their intent to or not. Sorry, I can’t help the member there.

John Rustad: It was more out of interest, just to know where they’re going. Obviously, there are provisions in here in terms of being able to provide training and that whole side of things.

I’m just looking at it also from the perspective of enforcement of K’ómoks law. Obviously, K’ómoks is going to create a number of laws for its people, governing its people on its lands. It says that K’ómoks is responsible for enforcing those laws, but it also later talks about the fact that a police force, police officers, may be able to, at their discretion, enforce those laws.

So I’m just wondering how they’re going to handle that in terms of enforcing the laws that they’ll create on the land, how that’ll work and whether or not there has to be some sort of negotiation that creates the ability for those laws to be enforced.

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As mentioned earlier, of course, police services are responsible for enforcing provincial law and federal law. In terms of K’ómoks law, a police service may, in its discretion, enforce that K’ómoks law.

The treaties also allow the province and the treaty nation to negotiate an agreement for K’ómoks enforcement officers to enforce provincial natural resource laws, similarly for provincial enforcement officers to enforce treaty nation laws on the treaty lands.

John Rustad: I think I heard the minister talk about enforcement officers. I’m assuming those would be officers that would be the responsibility of the K’ómoks Nation to be trained and given the authority to enforce those laws.

I guess just a couple of questions. One basic question that I’d like to ask is whether or not those enforcement officers would have the ability to carry firearms or other types of equipment that a normal police officer would be licensed to be able to utilize and carry.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In the “Administration of Justice” chapter, heading “Enforcement of K’ómoks Laws,” paragraph 30:

“The parties agree as a general principle that K’ómoks be in a position to support the safety of K’ómoks enforcement officers, having regard for federal and provincial legal frameworks with respect to non-restricted firearms, restricted firearms, prohibited firearms and prohibited weapons, in a manner that is comparable to federal and provincial enforcement officers enforcing similar laws or performing similar duties in B.C.”

Very much the principle is that we want to make sure that K’ómoks enforcement officers have the same abilities and same safety and same requirements as we would expect to keep our provincial enforcement officers safe as well.

John Rustad: More what I’m trying to get at, I suppose, on that, is the training of these enforcement officers. Obviously, K’ómoks Nation has the opportunity, I believe, to be able to train their own officers, but it may require outside.

I’m just wondering about the standards of training, whether it’s the same as the Justice Institute or how that would be structured or whether the province would, potentially, provide that service for a fee to be able to train those enforcement officers.

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Paragraph 34 under “Enforcement of K’ómoks Laws.”

“If K’ómoks appoints K’ómoks enforcement officers in accordance with K’ómoks law under paragraph 26, K’ómoks will (a) ensure that those officers are adequately trained to carry out their duties, having regard to training requirements for provincial or federal enforcement officers carrying out similar duties in British Columbia; (b) establish accountability standards similar to those established by Canada and British Columbia for its enforcement officials enforcing similar laws; and (c) establish and implement procedures for responding to complaints against those officers.”

John Rustad: I’m just wondering whether…. Sorry, the point of the question that I had asked the minister was around who pays for that training. I’m assuming it is the nation itself that pays, but obviously, that’s a service that could be provided by the province. If that’s something that’d be done through negotiation….

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As would be expected, yes, K’ómoks Nation would be responsible for the training of its own enforcement officers.

John Rustad: Earlier we talked about a police force being, at their discretion, required or having the opportunity to implement K’ómoks law. I’m just wondering. Would there be additional training or other types of recognition or certification that would be required by K’ómoks for those officers to be able to provide those services, and if so, would that be something that would be once again provided for and paid for by the K’ómoks Nation — to provide that additional training that would be required of a police force?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There are at least two paragraphs that speak to this issue.

Paragraph 6 says: “K’ómoks and the chief of police will discuss objectives and operational matters that may affect the scope, content and delivery of any cultural training program developed under paragraph 5 prior to finalizing the program.”

And: “At the request of British Columbia or K’ómoks, B.C. and K’ómoks will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement regarding the delivery of any cultural training program developed under paragraph 5, including the timing, duration, frequency and delivery method of the program.”

If the parties are unable to reach agreement, treaty dispute resolution mechanisms would be triggered.

Scott McInnis: There was something that I flagged initially when I was looking through the treaty. I’m sure it’s a simple point of clarification for me, or I’m misreading it, perhaps, as well.

Under the “Administration of Justice” paragraphs 40 and 41, paragraph 40 says: “Notwithstanding paragraph 19” — relating to enforcement of laws, I believe — “provincial enforcement officers have the authority to and may at their discretion enforce K’ómoks law respecting lands and natural resources.” That’s followed by paragraph 41, which says that K’ómoks may make laws to limit the authority of provincial enforcement officers under paragraph 40.

I’m not sure if it’s just me. I find those to be a little bit contradictory. If paragraph 41 is true, where authority of provincial enforcement officers has been limited under law by K’ómoks, do they still have the authority to and at their discretion enforce K’ómoks laws respecting lands and natural resources, as it says in paragraph 40?

I hope that makes sense. I just wanted some clarification because I did flag that earlier as something I found that would be a little bit contradictory.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To clarify, I can understand why the member found them potentially contradictory. I don’t think they are, because what 40 does is it says the default is that the provincial enforcement officers may in their discretion enforce K’ómoks law.

Now, 41 says that if K’ómoks made laws to limit the authority to say, “No, in fact, only K’ómoks enforcement officers are going to enforce K’ómoks law on our treaty lands. You can enforce provincial laws, but our K’ómoks enforcement team are responsible for K’ómoks laws,” that would be the difference potentially.

It’s possible, of course, that provincial enforcement could do them all at their discretion, but 41 says that if other laws were made, that discretion could be shrunk to just provincial laws, for example, or maybe some K’ómoks laws but not all of them.

Scott McInnis: I’m assuming that this just applies to the treaty settlement land. Just to clarify that when enforcing provincial law, enforcement officers would have the authority to enforce provincial law. Would they need any sort of permission or acceptance from K’ómoks to be able to do that if they found that, in fact, there was an infraction or something or if, perhaps, they were called upon by a community member to enforce authority over something to do with land and resources?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under the paragraphs we’re discussing here, it’s very clear — at least in my mind, overall, and I’ve said it many times — that provincial law is provincial law, and provincial enforcement officers have the obligation to follow that law and enforce that law. Of course, if the treaty is a law as well or the treaty act becomes a law, there are certain provisions in terms of how things could be modified — in seeking agreement from other agencies, for example.

There are other possibilities, but very much provincial law is provincial law. Provincial enforcement is expected, and the only area that K’ómoks law, as discussed, could either be enforced through provincial enforcement or not would be if K’ómoks passed a law to say that these laws are for enforcement of this body and these laws are enforcement of somebody else, for example.

John Rustad: Just one question, or maybe more than one, in terms of the implementation of provincial law with respect to natural resources within the K’ómoks territory.

Everything we’ve been talking about before, so far to date, has been the implementation of K’ómoks laws and provincial laws on K’ómoks land. Number 16 has a reference that British Columbia or K’ómoks may ask to enter into negotiation in terms of the implementation or the enforcement of provincial laws respecting natural resources.

[5:50 p.m.]

I’m just wondering what the expectation there is in terms of what those negotiations could look like and what might be the ask from either party to be able to provide in terms of those services.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes. At the request of K’ómoks or B.C., either party could request a negotiation to attempt to reach agreement on an agreement for K’ómoks enforcement officers to enforce provincial law, respecting natural resources within the K’ómoks traditional territory or the treaty area.

To reach an agreement would involve things like ensuring safety standards, justice standards, training — similar issues to what we discussed earlier in terms of meeting a standard to be able to enforce a law. You have to have certain designated training and abilities to meet that test, but that would be a negotiation. If that request came through, there would be a serious look at that issue.

I know there are many nations, for example, that have guardian programs where they have people out on the land doing that kind of work as a natural enforcement officer. Of course, that would take some serious negotiation before that became the standard.

John Rustad: I appreciate that. I was just wondering specifically around the natural resources, what that would apply to. Does that apply to enforcement of, for example, the Forest Act or perhaps hunting — these types of things that would be happening associated with resource activities within the traditional territory?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If an agreement was reached, there could be a very similar approach to provincial enforcement officers, who are doing things like watching for the wildlife, for water, for forestry, land-based values, land-based laws and water-based laws too. In terms of how that enforcement would happen, it would be very much similar to the approach currently taken by provincial enforcement officers.

Scott McInnis: I just want to ask a few clarification questions around local government relations in the treaty, starting on page 81. I’m just reading through it. I did make notes of a couple of general questions I was hoping to have clarified here today.

I’m just wondering about potential governance disputes that could arise, perhaps, between the K’ómoks government and nearby municipalities and how those would be resolved — thinking particularly around land use, servicing, taxation, infrastructure, things like this. What is the dispute resolution mechanism that would be in place? Is that some sort of binding arbitration agreement or what have you? I’m just not sure. I wonder if the minister could shed a little bit of light on that.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think it would be a similar response to if one municipality had a dispute with another municipality.

The treaty talks about or speaks about establishing and maintaining agreements that set up principles, procedures and guidelines for the management of the relationship. That’s between K’ómoks, local governments or Islands Trust bodies as applicable. It talks about different ways that they can work together — coordination and harmonization of property tax structures, coordination and harmonization of the development of infrastructure, cooperative economic development, environmental protection, dispute resolution.

Really, what I’ve seen with K’ómoks is a real desire to establish — whether you call them a protocol agreement, a dispute resolution agreement — various agreements to find a path to working better together.

Scott McInnis: I’m just curious about the relationship between treaty governance decisions and something like municipal planning objectives, how that relationship works. It’s just a little bit unclear to me. I’m just wondering if the minister, from somewhat of a high level, could help me understand. Could those treaty governance decisions override, potentially, something like municipal planning objectives?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under the treaty, K’ómoks does not have the authority outside of K’ómoks treaty lands to override a municipality or something like that. That’s not how the structure is created. I know that K’ómoks has worked very closely with local governments in terms of, for example, land selection, looking at what the local governments were hoping to do in those areas so that they could plug into that opportunity and be part of that.

John Rustad: I believe, if I’m reading this right, K’ómoks may become a member of the regional district, as described. Obviously, there are discussions and what have you that would go on, negotiations that would go on. But there’s a tremendous amount of services that are provided within a region, whether that’s libraries or a pool or whatever other things may be available and that all members within a regional district contribute to and receive the opportunity to access.

If K’ómoks does not become a member of the regional district — obviously, that’s a negotiation that is yet to happen — how would the people living within the K’ómoks territory, K’ómoks land, K’ómoks members have access to those services, and how would that actually be arranged in order for them to be able to contribute towards those services?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Whether or not the K’ómoks Nation wants to join the regional district, it’s not part of the treaty. That’s a decision that would be up to them as a nation. I would say that the chair of the regional district has been very supportive of this treaty, as have the local mayors.

Certainly, I guess, in terms of the question of, “Well, how would you get access to regional services?” one of the examples given was that I have used the Victoria library, but I don’t pay property taxes in Victoria, so maybe I’m in trouble. If anyone has used a local pool…. I may have done that once or twice. I don’t pay the property tax to use that local pool.

I know that’s not the totality of the member’s question, but certainly, using regional facilities and not necessarily being a member of that region, in terms of the regional district, is fairly common across the province.

I do know that they have strong relationships with the local governments, and I’m sure those relationships will only get deeper.

John Rustad: I understand that, in terms of that. Actually, I’m very happy to see that the regional district and local governments are very supportive of this. Obviously, there’s been a lot of work there that’s been done, which is very encouraging, because, obviously, it could have created some pretty significant problems if that wasn’t the case. So I’m very happy to see that level of support. But it’s still….

The reason I’m asking is I often think to the situation — for example, whether it’s Terrace and Thornhill or whether it is other areas in the province where there are services provided…. Local governments are always stretched in terms of their budgets, trying to be able to provide those services and looking at the users of those.

For example, I live out at Klukas Lake myself, and Vanderhoof had a referendum about creating a pool. The majority of the people voted. So I pay…. Part of my property taxes goes towards Vanderhoof for providing that service to a local pool.

Over time, these sorts of things will need to be resolved, in terms of it, because as all people use the services, I think it’s important that they they’re able to contribute towards that, just like, for example, the health services.

That’s why I’m asking these questions, specifically, so that it doesn’t create an environment of friction down the road in terms of how these things go and what those expectations are. My understanding from the minister is there isn’t an agreement in place at the moment. There isn’t contributing towards that.

For example, when a service is provided to a non-treaty nation by a municipality, often that is something that is negotiated, and the federal government is responsible for paying for a band that may be receiving a service by a municipality, so there’ll be some sorts of agreements in place.

There are common types of agreements to be made, and I’m just curious in terms of it, because the treaty seems to be silent on that. I would have thought the expectation is that they would have been eager to be full partners in terms of how they would participate in that.

It’s normally done through a regional district. If they don’t join the regional district, obviously, there’s a question mark in terms of how that structure will be put in place.

Is the minister aware of any sorts of discussions or structure that would be put in place to address that, or is that something that’s still yet to be determined through negotiation, to ultimately decide to join or not to a regional district?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: While there is no formal process built into the treaty to require that cooperation or integration, my understanding is that there’s an informal working group with the Comox Valley regional district that meets once a month with the K’ómoks Nation to work on issues of common interest and continued discussion around areas that they can potentially work together going forward — whether around growth issues or otherwise.

John Rustad: Moving along at a rapid pace, I’d like to start off with some questions associated with the land package and the land component of the treaty.

There’s one question that’s just been in my mind. I don’t know if the minister can answer this question or not, but I just want to ask it. Obviously, back in 2013-2014, when there was the first court case finding of title land, there was a definition by the federal court in terms of what title land meant and what could be done and this sort of stuff. I see, as part of this treaty, that land….

The K’ómoks decision was to make that land fee simple, which has been done in other treaties as well. I’m just curious as to whether there was any discussion associated with making it designated as title land, similar to the definition of the Supreme Court of Canada through the Tŝilhqot’in case, and why they came to the decision that they wanted to do it as fee simple land.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It won’t be a satisfying answer, but it is what it is.

The term “treaty lands” was negotiated instead of “title lands.” Because those were confidential negotiations, I can’t speak to exactly why in that room they landed on “treaty land” instead of “title lands.” But I certainly could speak to….

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Sorry. Why they landed on treaty lands, as what the decision was, instead of title lands.

John Rustad: That’s unfortunate. I’d love to know the answer to that. Obviously, when you look at the Supreme Court definition of “title land,” it is pretty restrictive in terms of their ability to be able to develop and to utilize, which I looked at and shook my head, and I thought: “What on earth were they thinking?”

I don’t know what they were thinking because I wasn’t at the table in the Supreme Court of Canada. I can understand fully why K’ómoks would choose not to go that route, but it still leaves me wondering why the federal Supreme Court of Canada made that decision in terms of that structure, because it just makes no sense whatsoever.

Having said that, like I said, I did need to ask the question, because I was wondering whether that actually was part of a discussion. I’m glad to hear it was, but I imagine that discussion was actually relatively short in terms of how it went.

With that, I will cede the floor to my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: Into the lands section here, there are a number of questions, obviously, my colleague and I want to explore.

I think, just very simply to start, just in the interest of time to not…. I don’t like ending something in an awkward spot to have to come and pick up on the following day, because it gets a little bit messy with the way that I like to do things, and I’m sure the minister is the same way.

[6:10 p.m.]

With respect to the agricultural land reserve…. Now, I understand that the ALC Act does not apply on K’ómoks land once the treaty is fully implemented. I’m just curious. Within the treaty land package, how much designated ALR land was included in the final land package?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: So 555 hectares are in the treaty land package which are ALR. There are 193 hectares of ALR land that are in the pre-approved additions portion.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for clarifying the amount of land.

I’m kind of curious as to just the structure of this component of the treaty. There’s no adherence to the ALC anymore in K’ómoks land. There is, obviously, as the minister identified, ALR land which will become treaty settlement lands once the treaty is fully implemented. But the K’ómoks have seemed…. They are mandated on the effective date that they’re going to create a series of laws that will designate K’ómoks agricultural lands for a host of purposes that are clearly outlined in the treaty, from my understanding, some of which look very similar to what’s required of the use of ALR lands.

I’m just curious why — in drafting it this way within the treaty, as they do seem to be kind of overlapping in many ways — the ALC is not applicable anymore or enforceable, and the ALR just wasn’t left how it is. I’m just curious as to why in this treaty both the province and the K’ómoks decided to go down that route, because they essentially seem like they’re one and the same in many ways. I’m just wondering if the minister would enlighten me as to why that decision was made.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, the ALR discussion around legal changes is in clause 9, so if we’re able to move there, I’m certainly happy to discuss it at that stage. But yes, it does require the same sort of protection as the ALC Act. It just would be run through self-determination through K’ómoks’s governance structures.

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 6:16 p.m.