Hansard — Wednesday, May 27, 2026 Afternoon, Issue No. 186

First of all, I would like to wish my senior constituency assistant, Adam Schaan, a happy 40th birthday. He joins us in the gallery today along with Johnathan Raine, my other assistant from Prince George.

Happy birthday. All the very best.

Joining Adam, all the way from the Emerald Isle, Dublin, is Ronan Lynagh, a teacher and therapist with the integrative psychotherapy practice in Dublin, specializing in working with at-risk boys and men. Ronan is Adam’s cousin.

I make you all very welcome, and I hope the House will join me.

George Anderson: I rise to introduce three guests in the gallery today.

Joining us from White Rock are Kara Cunningham and Kent Lissack, who crossed the Strait of Georgia with their RV for some pre-summer island hopping. Kara is an editor, publisher, teacher and lifelong learner, now supporting people through end-of-life transitions. Kent spent 34 years in the energy industry and now volunteers with Bracelets4Buildings, helping build homes in Cambodia.

Also joining us, from Calgary, is Rolf Wenzel, whose company, Wildfire Innovations, builds mobile wildfire towers that help protect communities.

I would hope that the whole House will please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Brennan Day: I rise today to welcome Concrete B.C. into the gallery. They’re up top there.

Give a wave, guys.

Eric Anderson, Terrance Byrd, Matt Devries, Glen Furtado, Dean Neufeld, Greg Parker, Carly Pisterzi, Ryan Mathwig and Jason Saunderson. Ryan actually is a former colleague of mine. So fantastic to see them in there and all they do to build B.C.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: Today I am so thrilled that we have, joining us in the gallery, a whole group of shop stewards and representatives from the Compensation Employees Union.

If you would like to rise, folks.

The Compensation Employees Union represents about 3,000 people who work at WorkSafeBC, and they provide some of the most important supports to workers in our province. Indeed, they are, in many respects, also first responders. They are with workers at some of their most difficult times. They have been there at Tumbler Ridge. They have been there for Lapu-Lapu. They are there when workers are injured and bruised and need support.

I am so grateful for the work that they do to lift up working people in this province. The role of shop stewards is so important.

Would the House please join me in welcoming this group of supporters of B.C.

The Speaker: Member for Kootenay-Rockies.

Personal Statements

Message of Appreciation

Pete Davis: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see you.

[Applause.]

Well, I can sit down. Thank you, guys.

Today is a big deal for me. It’s a big milestone. Today is exactly, to the day, five months since my stroke that almost took my life. December 27 was the day I went into the hospital. For me to be here today is a huge milestone. I wasn’t sure if I was going to get here, but here I am.

I just want to thank some people.

The constituents of Kootenay-Rockies, for all of your warm wishes, your prayers, your help.

My regional association were in our house doing dishes, cooking food, doing the chores that I usually would be able to do, but of course, I couldn’t. They’ve just been there with us the whole time.

Of course, my family. My wife, Heather, and my four kids — Kaylee, Alyssa, Dylan and Tyler.

Thank you, guys, for looking after me when I couldn’t look after myself.

It’s an honour to be here. It’s an honour to be able to represent Kootenay-Rockies.

Thank you, guys, so much.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Welcome to the member. It’s really great to see him.

Game 4 is tonight. I’m a Canucks fan, a very proud Canucks fan, but like many in this House, we’re jumping on Team Canada.

Go, Habs, go!

I’ve got, I think, the world’s biggest Habs fan in the House. Chief Wilf Adam of the Lake Babine First Nation is here.

Chief, it’s good to see you.

He’s joined by his daughter Thelma Susan Adam.

Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Go, Habs, go!

Lorne Doerkson: I’m certainly pleased to introduce two gentlemen here today, Luca Calabrese and Matteo Calabrese. Luca is a student at UVic. Matteo is working at a mill in Williams Lake. They’re here to visit their brother and our intern, Massimo Calabrese. I hope that everybody will welcome them. I believe they’re going to be touring the precinct a little bit later today.

Please give them a big round of applause and welcome them here.

Darlene Rotchford: My sister is watching us because she has nothing better to do with her time, apparently, most days. The reason that today is extra special is, for anyone on both sides of the House who has had health things, my sister turns 50 today.

The reason it’s a really important birthday is not just because it’s a milestone. She had a core belief she would not make it to 50 because my mother died at 50 with a heart attack. So today for her is not only her 50th birthday. Today proves to her that it’s all about bettering your mindset.

So Chassidy, happy 50th birthday. I wouldn’t be here in this building without you.

Trevor Halford: As we wrap up spring session — my colleague just alluded to it — we have been joined and we have been supported by some fantastic interns. They’re here with us today, and I’d like to highlight them.

[1:45 p.m.]

We have Zofka Svec, Massimo Calabrese, Priya Minhas, Annika Clark and Emmanuel Adegboyega. Thank you for everything that you’ve been doing.

They’ve been writing speeches. They’ve been helping with everything — estimate questions, communications, research, all of it. They have been really the Swiss Army knife of our caucus over the last session, so I want to say thank you, and I look forward to….

You guys can pick out your desks now, because I’m sure that you will be back here in different fashion in the not too near future.

Thank you for all you guys did. It was a joy to work with you.

Hon. Nina Krieger: Joining us in the gallery are two members of our ministry team: Carly Parry, director of executive operations, and Alexis DiGeorgio, manager of executive operations. They keep our office running and our ministry moving, and I’m so grateful for the work that they do each and every day for British Columbians.

I hope the House will please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Korky Neufeld: May 27 is my wife Cynthia’s birthday. We’re very grateful to be growing older together before social media, because we did most of our stupid stuff before social media.

I just want to wish you a happy birthday, babe.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: At lunchtime today, many members on the government caucus had an opportunity to meet with the concrete industry, which does such an amazing job in building the infrastructure that helps to grow our economy and power our province.

They’re in the gallery today, and I’d like the House to make them all welcome and recognize the important contribution they make to British Columbia.

Misty Van Popta: In the gallery up above me is the first class from Walnut Grove Secondary, one of the three high schools in my riding.

It’s grade 9. Mr. Rogers is their teacher. The Gators are from a fantastic school, with excellence in sports, music, theatre and academics.

Will the House please make them feel welcome as they witness their first experience — hopefully, some question period.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Kevin Moroso is in the House. He’s a neighbour on Gabriola Island. He leads my riding association. He volunteers with Gabriola Pride, and he protects the workers.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Rob Botterell: It’s with gratitude and admiration that I rise today to say thank you to our interns, who have been with us since the start of the session this February.

Affectionately known — non-partisanly, of course — as the Green-terns, Kaden and Jenna have exceeded our expectations through their incredible dedication, strong work ethic and genuine openness to learning and engaging with the legislative process. Simply put, they are indeed GOATed.

From supporting policy and communications work to estimates, late-night sittings, even our cherished treaty Tuesday, our interns have been an absolute delight to work alongside and, quite frankly, they are very real for that. As they venture into the real world, the Green caucus wishes them nothing but success in all that comes next. We hope they continue to carry the same energy; enthusiasm; and, of course, impeccable aura wherever they go.

Please join me in giving them a hand.

Hon. Diana Gibson: In the gallery today, we are joined by Kelly Kurta, executive director of the Greater Victoria Festival Society, which hosts the Victoria Day Parade as well as other amazing events in the city.

Today I really want to give a shout-out to the festival society. They won the prestigious national Canadian Event Award for Best Cultural Event, beating out Invictus Games and Cirque du Soleil, a testament to the important work they do bringing together diverse community members and groups across our community — thousands into the downtown of Victoria — and platforming B.C. in a way we should be proud of.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

Rohini Arora: I just want to take a moment to shout out to my CA Anika Dhaliwal, who I have been working with for quite a while, almost two years now. She’s a third-year political science student, and today she helped me out by bringing out the Burnaby East Youth Council.

[1:50 p.m.]

I’d like to have the House welcome our chair, Jas Kaur; our comms coordinator, Gurjot Bhatti; and our events coordinator, Cairen Velasquez. They have been supporting me in Burnaby East.

The office is getting a wonderful mural that has been painted and drawn by an elementary school, and there is a professor that’s actually writing a paper on it to talk about how we can engage youth in civic education from a young age.

We’re super excited, and I’m so thankful to this team for coming out today to watch QP and for all the work they do in community. These are the next leaders in our province. They’ll likely be sitting down here one day.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I want to indulge upon the House to allow me just to give a special shout-out to my youngest child, who is graduating from U of T with their master’s degree next week. I couldn’t be more proud.

Congratulations, Esme.

Sunita Dhir: In the gallery today is my dear friend David Berson, who is a tireless advocate for the Jewish community in British Columbia. I really value his friendship, support and guidance so I can serve my constituents better in Vancouver-Langara.

Please make my friend David Berson very welcome here.

Scott McInnis: It’s my understanding that Mr. Stephen Bagan is here from Oak Bay High School with 21 students in grade 10. Mr. Bagan has deep roots in Columbia River–Revelstoke, especially with my predecessor, the MLA there.

I just wanted to welcome Mr. Bagan and all the students here this afternoon.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to acknowledge and thank an old friend I hadn’t seen in a long, long time. She chaired a board that I worked for back in…. DanceArts Vancouver was its name.

An incredible leader in the Jewish community, in child care, in the Society for Children and Youth — I acknowledge and welcome Fran Grunberg.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M248 — Chinese Heritage Month Act

Teresa Wat presented a bill intituled Chinese Heritage Month Act.

Teresa Wat: I move that a bill intituled Chinese Heritage Month Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill is plainly written, but it’s very historical and emotional. It has a clear and meaningful purpose: to proclaim the month of February each year as Chinese heritage month for all of British Columbia.

The history of the Chinese-Canadian community in this province is one that demands our recognition and our honesty. Chinese Canadians have been part of British Columbia since the mid-19th century. They helped build the Canadian Pacific Railway under conditions of systemic discrimination, laying the very tracks that connected the country from coast to coast. Yet rather than recognition, they were met with injustice.

From 1885 to 1923, Chinese immigrants were subjected to a discriminatory head tax, a burden placed on no other group. Then from 1923 to 1947, the Chinese Exclusion Act effectively barred Chinese people from coming to Canada at all. These are among the darkest chapters in the history of our province and this country, and we must not look away from them.

In 2014, the province of British Columbia apologized to the Chinese community for historical wrongs.

Today British Columbia is home to approximately 500,000 people of Chinese origin, one of the largest such communities anywhere in Canada. They are a vital and vibrant part of the social, cultural and economic fabric of our province. They are our constituents, our colleagues, our business owners and our health care workers. They have enriched every corner of British Columbia.

[1:55 p.m.]

February holds deep cultural significance for this community. It is the season of lunar new year, a celebration of renewal, family and community that is increasingly embraced by all British Columbians. Designating February as Chinese heritage month reflects this significance.

This bill is about memory, gratitude and celebration. It is an opportunity for all British Columbians to reflect on the remarkable history and lasting contribution of the Chinese-Canadian community.

I look forward to discussing this bill with all members of this House.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

National AccessAbility Week

Dana Lajeunesse: Accessibility is about fairness, dignity and ensuring that everyone can fully participate in the life of our province. I’m speaking today to recognize National AccessAbility Week, which takes place from May 31 to June 6.

This week is both a celebration and a call to action. It reminds us that accessibility is not the responsibility of any one group; it requires commitment and effort from all of us. Real progress is only possible when all levels of government work collaboratively with public and private organizations to remove barriers and create lasting change.

An accessible British Columbia means playgrounds that every child can play in, websites that anyone can understand and workplaces that everyone can access. It means public spaces that are designed for everyone, when information is accessible to all and workplaces strive to design for accessibility rather than inadvertently creating obstacles.

Most importantly, we must listen to the voices of people with disabilities. In the spirit of “Nothing about us without us,” lived experience must guide our decisions, our policies and our actions.

Across B.C., advocates, leaders and community members are showing us what is possible. Their leadership is helping to create a province where everyone has the opportunity to participate and truly thrive.

I invite all members of this House to join me next week in recognizing AccessAbility Week and in recommitting to the work of building a more inclusive British Columbia.

Special Olympics B.C.
and Support for Athletes

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to speak of an organization that makes a huge difference in people’s lives: Special Olympics B.C. Special Olympics B.C. consists of some 3,400 athletes and 2,200 volunteers across 55 communities. Special Olympics offers grassroots sports programs and competitions in many communities across the province.

At the local level, athletes with intellectual disabilities are given the opportunity to reach their full potential in the sports they play and to create lasting friendships with others. In Prince George, Special Olympics supports over 120 athletes, who compete in 14 different sports. Quesnel actively supports some 76 athletes. Many athletes compete in multiple sports.

Volunteers are the key to the success of Special Olympics. In Prince George, over 60 volunteers support athletes for special events, and many more join to support extra, larger events.

Recently the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and I were glad to meet with athletes Adam and Rita about the Special Olympics, along with coaches and organizers Susan Masich, former MLA Shirley Bond and Peter Goodall — to hear about challenges faced by Special Olympics but mainly about the tremendous benefits that participants, both athletes and volunteers, gain from being a part of Special Olympics.

This is an organization that has a dramatic effect on the health and well-being of everyone involved. Confidence, health and participation in all other activities are major benefits to athletes.

[2:00 p.m.]

Prince George Special Olympics will be celebrating its 40th anniversary with an event at the Prince George Railway and Forestry Museum, June 28, from one till three. Prince George hosted the 2025 Special Olympics B.C. Summer Games and was shortlisted to host the 2030 national games.

The 2026 Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics will be held tomorrow, Thursday, May 28, from three to 4:30, in front of the RCMP detachment on Victoria Street in Prince George.

There will also be the Special Olympics B.C. Classic on June 11, 2026, at the Mayfair Lakes Golf and Country Club in Richmond.

The question in your mind is: how can I get involved? You can get involved by supporting Special Olympics, by volunteering in one of those 55 communities, by adding to those communities, by donating or by supporting any of those events. Visit SpecialOlympics.ca for more information.

Menstrual Health Day

Jennifer Blatherwick: May 28 recognizes something that 51 percent of people experience for more than one-third of their lives. That’s why tomorrow B.C. joins the global movement to acknowledge Menstrual Health Day.

No one should be held back because of their period. Menstrual Hygiene Day, Menstrual Health Day and world global recognition of menstrual health are not only about awareness but about practical action. We need to continue to work to reduce stigma through awareness and education, to ensure that everyone recognizes that menstruation and periods and the end of menstruation are facts of life for more than half the population.

I want to be clear. The societal infrastructure that supports people who menstruate doesn’t need special attention. It just needs a similar level of open, practical consideration that other aspects of our biology receive. Menstrual health is about dignity, equity and full participation in everyday life. It means people can show up at school, at work and in community.

Research shows that about half of the people in British Columbia who menstruate have struggled to afford products, and no one should have to choose between food and menstrual supplies. This affects girls and women; Two-Spirit, non-binary and transgender people; families, parents and caregivers who support children and youth. They feel it too.

I want to acknowledge the important work that is happening across British Columbia in partnership with the United Way and in grassroots organizations. B.C. was the first province in Canada to ensure that there were free menstrual products in school bathrooms. This helps students learn without barriers.

There is more to do. We also want workers to participate in their jobs without barriers, people to be in public spaces without challenge, so B.C. joins that global movement toward a period-friendly world, where everyone has access to products and information and support without stigma or shame.

Beaver Lodge Forest Lands

Anna Kindy: I would like to take a moment to recognize and express deep appreciation for the Beaver Lodge experimental forest, an area of immense historical, ecological, recreational and community significance here in Campbell River. These lands hold a unique place in British Columbia’s forestry history.

First gifted in trust to the province in 1931, the Beaver Lodge forest was established specifically for the purpose of advancing reforestation and forest management practices. Over the decades, the forest has continued to serve as a living classroom, supporting research, resource management and environmental learning for students, professionals and community members alike. Its trail networks, diverse lands and carefully managed ecosystem offer not only scientific value but also a cherished green space that connects residents to the land and to our shared natural heritage.

Life for many people has become so busy and stressful, juggling work, family and so many other responsibilities. Free time for leisure has become precious. The positive impact of having Beaver Lodge lands as a place to walk, run, meditate and bring our kids and pets cannot be overstated.

Not everyone has the time or financial means to travel, and the ability to access Beaver Lodge lands as a centre of Campbell River allows everyone to get close to nature, which in so many ways helps us heal from the stressors of everyday life.

Beaver Lodge lands could not have happened without our dedicated community advocates, volunteers and local partners like the Greenways Land Trust, who have worked tirelessly to protect and uphold the original intent of the trust.

[2:05 p.m.]

Let us continue to honour this legacy by supporting ongoing learning, thoughtful use and enduring respect for the Beaver Lodge experimental forest and all it represents.

Simon Fraser University
School of Criminology

Paul Choi: I rise today to recognize one of B.C.’s true world-class institutions — Simon Fraser University and, in particular, its internationally respected SFU School of Criminology. A proud alumni myself.

SFU has become a global leader in research, innovation and public service. Its School of Criminology is recognized as one of the premier criminology schools not only in Canada but internationally, with faculty and researchers whose work has influenced policing, criminal justice policy, forensic science, cybersecurity and public safety practices around the world. I have personally seen the impact that evidence-based research and modern legal education can have on our justice system.

The university’s legal studies program is particularly important as B.C. continues to modernize and evolve its legal profession. The program provides students with practical legal education and interdisciplinary training that prepares them for careers in law, investigations, compliance, policing and emerging regulated legal professions.

At the same time, SFU’s work in police studies and criminology continues to bridge the gap between academia and front-line public safety. Its research in areas such as forensic investigation, cybercrime, extortion and evidence-based policing has contributed to real-world solutions used by justice and law enforcement agencies internationally.

Institutions like SFU are not only educating the next generation of leaders; they are helping shape the future of justice, public safety and legal education itself.

I want to thank President Joy Johnson, School of Criminology director Prof. Martin Bouchard, legal studies program director Prof. Margaret Hall, other faculty, researchers, staff and students at SFU for their continued contribution to B.C. and to communities around the world.

Value of Summer Vacations

Ward Stamer: There is something special about summer vacations, especially when we are growing up. Summer was freedom. It was the anticipation of that last school bell ringing in June and knowing the days ahead would be filled with adventure, laughter and endless possibilities.

The days felt longer, the evenings warmer, and life seemed simpler. For many of us, summer vacations were built around those simpler moments — camping trips with the family, swimming and fishing at the lake, road trips, backyard barbecues, campfires with friends and staying outside playing until the street lights came on.

But summer vacation wasn’t only about vacations and relaxing. For many young people, it was also the first taste of responsibility and hard work. Some of us cut grass around the neighbourhood, sometimes three times in the same week just so we could make a couple of bucks and go to the pool. Others ran lemonade stands on hot afternoons, hoping enough cars and pedestrians would stop by. Some babysat, some delivered newspapers and flyers or worked at odd jobs to earn a bit of spending money.

Then came that first real job. Maybe it was working at a fast-food restaurant during the lunch rush. Maybe it was pumping gas at the local gas station and washing windshields, or stocking shelves at a grocery store. Maybe it was working in the bush for your dad when you were 14 years old.

Those jobs may have been glamorous at the time, but they taught important lessons — responsibility, punctuality, teamwork and the value of earning your first paycheque, that first paycheque. There’s a real sense of pride that came from that first job, and even most of it went to snacks or gas money or saving for something special. It felt like independence.

Summer vacations have always brought us together to spend more time outdoors, more time with our family and friends, more time to enjoy ice cream and more time just to kick back. We are incredibly fortunate to be surrounded by beautiful lakes, forests, mountains and communities that truly come alive during the summer months, welcoming friends and visitors from around the world. Let’s share our summer and those vacation opportunities with everyone and remind ourselves there’s nowhere better to be than B.C.

[2:10 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Access to Maternity Care
Services in Hospitals

Trevor Halford: This year alone Peace Arch’s maternity ward has already been shut down 12 times. Now, we’re not just talking about a few days. This is weeks at a time that this maternity ward has been shut down. This isn’t something that’s happened as of recent. A few years ago it was almost shut down indefinitely by the former Health Minister himself.

This government has known about this crisis not only at Peace Arch Hospital but also multiple hospitals in British Columbia, when it comes to maternity wards. Have things gotten better? No. They have gotten considerably worse, sending families, sending mothers into panic at what is supposed to be a very special time.

Now, the minister has been questioned about this in the media in this House, and the answers are always the same.

So my challenge to the minister today is: can she get up in this House and assure my constituents that they will not have to deal with another maternity ward closure at Peace Arch Hospital? Can she guarantee that, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I can assure the member’s constituents that we will always put the safety of expectant parents and their babies first. That’s why, in the very challenging situation of health care worker shortages that we have seen, difficult decisions have been made to put that safety as the top priority and ensure that a mom and her baby get the very best care possible. That’s why the Health Authority works with expectant mothers and families to ensure that they know where services are available.

Fraser Health and other health authorities where these shortages have been experienced are doing everything they can to fill these gaps with locums and with other coverage. I am very happy to report that for Peace Arch Hospital, a new obstetrician is coming. This spring a job contract has been signed, and that person is coming from the United States of America. We are welcoming that person.

We know that that is one step towards stabilizing maternity services for Peace Arch Hospital. In the meantime, we’ll continue to work with those families to ensure that they get the best care possible at one of the many surrounding hospitals.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford: It’s not funny. It’s concerning. It’s alarming that this minister talks about the safety of patients. She should probably flip on Global News at noon to figure out the safety of a patient when it comes to expectant mothers. Absolutely a tone-deaf answer from this minister today.

I can tell you that it is the nurses and it is the doctors at Peace Arch Hospital, at every hospital in this province, that are doing their job. What they’re waiting for is the Minister of Health to do her job. That’s what they’re waiting for in this province.

We need to think about this. This year alone, between two hospitals, whether it’s Peace Arch Hospital or Ridge Meadows Hospital, we have 93 days closed for the maternity ward. That is this government’s record. That is that minister’s record when it comes to maternity care in this province. Expectant mothers in Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, White Rock, Surrey — across this province — should not have to deal with this level of incompetence.

My question is a simple one to this minister. Can she guarantee that the people of Surrey, the people of White Rock, the people of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows are not going to have to deal with any more maternity closures, yes or no?

Hon. Josie Osborne: I can guarantee that this government will stay laser-focused, as will I as Health Minister, on ensuring that we do everything possible to bring the stable, predictable maternity care services that we know people are depending on.

[2:15 p.m.]

But British Columbia is not alone in experiencing a shortage of health care workers, of physicians, of nurses, of other health care workers, and that’s why we’re opening a new medical school at SFU this fall.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: It’s why we’ve added 128 new medical seats at UBC. It’s why we went out with a recruitment campaign to the U.S. to ask people to come to British Columbia and be part of our public health care system here, with 581 job offers accepted already.

This is the work that needs to be done to build the health care system, to strengthen the health care system, to ensure that it is there for people. But we will always put a patient’s safety first and foremost, and that is why we will always work with families so that they know where they can go to get the health care that they need, including the delivery of their babies.

Obstetrician-Gynecologists and
Women’s Health Services

Anna Kindy: The minister well knows that an extra maybe 60 seats is completely inadequate when a full third of our doctors are trained outside British Columbia, and there are thousands of rejected applicants. It’s not just maternity care that suffers because of the shortage of ob-gyns in British Columbia.

Ob-gyns play a critical role in women’s health. Early detection and treatment of cancer can be the difference between life and death. Women across the province are facing longer wait times, and the quick access to treatment after diagnosis is critical.

How many more women will see their cancer diagnosed too late before this government addresses the shortage of ob-gyns in B.C.?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Those are, indeed, incredibly important positions throughout the health care system, to ensure that we have the ob-gyn specialists — the cancer oncologists, for example — the people who specialize in women’s health issues. That is why this government has been so focused on strengthening women’s health care by adding 128 new cancer oncologists to our system, doubling, almost, the number of gynecological oncologists here in British Columbia.

Again, expanding services in Kelowna to reduce the wait times not only in the northern and central parts of the province but having a reduction in wait times down in Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health…. In fact, because of the investments that we have made in expanding these services in Kelowna, now 90 percent of women in the Lower Mainland are reaching benchmark targets for their surgery times. That is the impact of making these kinds of investments.

We are going to continue to do this work. We are going to continue to support women’s health and reproductive health through changes like expanding the scope of service for midwives, increasing access to contraception services and making them free, by increasing public funding for in vitro fertilization — all of the things that we know are part and parcel of women’s health. This government is focused on that.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

Anna Kindy: I just have to comment on the doubling of ob-gyn oncologists. The previous minister promised three ob-gyn oncologists at Fraser Health, and they refused a job for somebody who trained in B.C. in oncology, in ob-gyn, in Fraser Health. Fraser Health has zero ob-gyn oncologists.

Maternity wards are closing or operating under strain. The shortage of ob-gyns is still very real across the province. Ob-gyns have been sounding the alarm for years. These warnings were ignored, like I just mentioned, and now we are seeing the consequence in real time.

Why are mothers and babies in B.C. left paying the price for years for this government’s inaction?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Just in case the member missed it, I just explained how this government has almost doubled the number of ob-gyns, gynecological oncologists in the province….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, shhh.

Minister, please.

Hon. Josie Osborne: Making these investments in places like Kelowna has made a material impact down in the Lower Mainland. We know that when the volume of service is required, the investments will be made in Surrey and Fraser Health as well.

[2:20 p.m.]

We know that in Fraser Health…. It is one of the fastest-growing areas of the province, and that is why this government is investing in a new medical school, a new cancer centre, new UPCCs, a new hospital that…. That side of the House, members who were in government at the time, said no and actually sold off the land where the Surrey-Cloverdale hospital could’ve been built.

The opposition’s choices would mean less doctors and nurses, less investment in health care. We’ve heard it from members on the opposite side of the bench before.

We know that this government believes in investing in the public health care system of British Columbians so that they have access, reliably and predictably, to the care that they need.

The Speaker: The member has a second supplemental.

Anna Kindy: How many ob-gyn oncologists are there in Fraser Health?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As I just explained….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Members. Let’s….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Let’s hear the minister.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We know that south of the Fraser is one of the fastest-growing populations in British Columbia. That’s why the choices of this government have been investments into services.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: There are women all over this province that need access to these specialized services. That’s why investing in Kelowna, in Interior Health, reducing the wait times there…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: …increasing access to service in the Interior and North has made a material difference in the Lower Mainland.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Josie Osborne: We will continue to take an evidence-based approach to the volume, the need, and make the investments at the time that they are needed. In the meantime, we will invest across the health care system in Surrey and beyond, in Fraser Health.

Foreign Investment and
Protection of Farmland

Jeremy Valeriote: We’ve talked a lot about economic sovereignty and data sovereignty in this House. Our food sovereignty is clearly also under threat.

In response to President Trump, this government has proudly promoted the Buy B.C. label, but it looks like that moniker also applies literally to B.C. farmland, with billionaires buying up ALR land as investments.

Near Merritt, an heir to the Walmart fortune now controls 1.2 million acres of farmland and is blocking the public from accessing public land. In my riding, in Pemberton Meadows, luxury real estate is booming as farmland is sold off for multi-million-dollar mansions, equestrian facilities and even landing pads for private helicopters. Farming operations are priced out or faced with unstable leases. In Dunster, an American billionaire who profits from ICE detention centres is buying up ranchland for a game hunter’s playground.

To the Minister of Agriculture and Food, arable land is the foundation of thriving communities, and its ownership needs oversight. What is this government doing to stop the ultra-wealthy from treating B.C. farmland as nothing more than a safe financial asset?

Hon. Lana Popham: I appreciate the member bringing up this question.

It’s a concern to our government as well and to me as Minister of Agriculture. Protecting farmland is essential, obviously, for food security, but it’s also essential to protect the integrity of rural communities and for having a place for future farmers to learn how to grow food for us.

The concerns I’m hearing are similar to the concerns the member is hearing. We’re hearing about corporations investing in agricultural land. This includes concerns about hedge funds, large corporations and non-farm investors purchasing that farmland for activities that do not qualify for farming and also taking that land out of production for farming, even to the extent that there are corporate farms that are planting bait crops for illegal trophy hunting.

So I think that the member does have a valid concern. I’m working with the Minister of Finance to better understand the extent of foreign ownership in B.C. My staff have been reaching out and working with the senior officials in Ontario and Saskatchewan to understand the changes that are underway there to address the same situation.

We have added tools into our toolbox through the Minister of Finance to understand who is owning land in B.C. and ending the hidden ownership of land in the province, and that does include farmland.

The Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[2:25 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I understand the Premier, in 2023, mused about solutions to underused agricultural land, so a lot of time has gone by.

As the minister notes, other provinces have taken legislative action, but it’s an easy win. B.C. is still seen as a great place for foreign investors because we have weak or no regulation.

The problem is data. Before we can solve a problem, we need to understand it, and much of the ministry’s data on B.C. farmland is either inaccessible or just doesn’t exist. The only reason we know about the American billionaire investments in Dunster, Merritt and Pemberton is because local farmers tracked the data themselves, paid out of pocket to pull land titles and drove door to door to record impacts on local residents and farmers.

We need public access to agricultural data, not just to track the securing of extreme wealth but also to track the spread of avian flu and other threats to our food security.

Will the Minister of Agriculture commit to providing transparency about who owns our productive B.C. farmland?

Hon. Lana Popham: As I mentioned in my previous answer, we have added tools into our toolbox to understand who is owning land in British Columbia. In fact, the Land Owner Transparency Act, which came in, in 2019, was the first of its kind.

There’s work being done on that currently by the Minister of Finance. The minister informed me as we were discussing this issue that there will be discussions on this particular issue as she goes to her FPT this summer.

So there is work being done. I’m happy to meet with the member in my office to run through what we’ve discovered and the solutions that other provinces have tried to implement, the effectiveness of those, and also examples of what we can do here.

I appreciate the concern about farmland.

Government Action on
Poverty Among Seniors

Kristina Loewen: My constituent Walter delivers day-old bread to seniors in an apartment in the heart of Glenmore, Kelowna. Last week an older lady told Walter: “We don’t eat until we see you.” Days later another senior woman called Walter from the hospital because she couldn’t afford her prescription. Our seniors have worked hard for everything that they have.

This minister’s mandate was to reduce poverty by 60 percent and, quite frankly, that is not happening. This minister loves to talk about how she’s reducing poverty with free birth control and affordable child care, but that is useless to seniors.

To the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction: will you admit today that your ministry is failing seniors?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We had a choice when we put this year’s budget together. We had seniors very much in mind — the protection of health care, protection of basic services, continuing to fund the SAFER grant, ways that we can make seniors’ affordability more possible.

We have, as a government, on the income side, for seniors…. As the member knows, because we talked about this in estimates, we have limited tools on the income side because once somebody turns age 65, they switch into the federal income support system, OAS and GIS.

Nevertheless, our government did make a decision to double the senior supplement, which is a top-up when individual seniors find federal income supports are inadequate. The B.C. Liberal government had never touched that supplement. We doubled it, and it is making a difference.

We, of course, are concerned in every part of…. We want seniors to have the very best life. We want them to have all the supports that they need. We’re concerned when we hear about seniors that are going without. I know this won’t be comfort to the member, but we have added tracking and new targets for poverty rates for seniors to our poverty reduction strategy, and the latest year of data that we have has the poverty rate having declined for seniors since….

We are building on progress. Our poverty reduction strategy is having an impact, and we’re determined to do more.

Health Care Facilities
and Government Management
of Capital Projects

Misty Van Popta: Seven long-term-care projects and phase 2 of the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment have now been cancelled — yes, that is cancelled — by this government. And 100 million of taxpayers’ dollars went down the drain because this government is incapable of building major projects on time and on budget.

Families and seniors were promised more beds, better care and expanded hospital capacity. They are now left with nothing.

[2:30 p.m.]

How can this minister justify wasting hundreds of millions of dollars by cancelling projects British Columbians were promised?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: We’ve canvassed this question and this topic many times in the House before. I can assure the member that all seven long-term-care projects, as well as phase 2 of the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment project, remain approved projects within the B.C. government’s capital plan. We are working with health authorities to get those projects back on track.

Because we are confident that we will be moving forward on these projects, the work that has already been done will continue to serve the purposes of the project, moving forward. For instance, at the Delta long-term-care site, pre-ground works and early works have been completed. Those foundational efforts will continue to serve whatever form the project takes into the future.

The work is not lost. The money has not gone to waste. It has gone to important work on projects that will continue to inform those projects, moving forward.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Misty Van Popta: The important work of this government is to make sure that British Columbians receive health care when they need it. The president of B.C. Care Providers said: “It’s hard to take any solace in the idea that they may be saving some money on projects that they’ve already got underway.”

The problem is that the government doesn’t have a plan. It is under this government that it has become too expensive to build in B.C. Take some responsibility.

Will the minister stand up, take accountability and admit that projects are too expensive solely because of her and the government’s incompetence?

Hon. Bowinn Ma: Since 2017, we have been delivering the single largest capital infrastructure program investment plan in health care in B.C. history. During that time, we have so far completed 15 major new and upgraded hospital and health facility projects, 16 long-term-care-home projects. We’ve delivered 48 urgent and primary care centres.

In Budget 2026, moving forward, we continue to invest in 17 major hospital and acute care facilities and an additional 14 long-term-care projects, six of which are actively under construction and eight of which are in pre-construction phase.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Bowinn Ma: All of this being said, there are absolutely some projects, including Burnaby Hospital redevelopment project, phase 2, and the seven long-term-care projects, which have faced cost escalations that we have deemed unacceptable. We are taking responsibility by working with the health authorities to get those costs down so we can continue to deliver those projects for British Columbians.

Availability of Long-Term-Care Beds

Brennan Day: Re-pacing their own projects because they’ve had nine years that have driven costs through the roof in this province.

We have nearly 8,000 seniors today in B.C. waiting to be placed into long-term care. The Minister of Finance, just yesterday, claimed 1,000 long-term-care beds are proceeding, but B.C. is already short 2,400 beds, and this budget has cancelled 1,200 more over seven projects.

After all the announcements, all the delays and all of these cancellations, how many beds are going to be short this time next year under this government’s deplorable record on seniors care?

Hon. Brenda Bailey: The other side is suggesting that government is responsible for increased costs. So let’s talk about these increased costs — increased costs in steel, increased costs in aluminum, increased costs all over the place. There is a government that’s responsible for these increased costs, and it’s your friends…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: …in the White House.

Government Response to Shootings
in Tumbler Ridge and Action on
Safety and Mental Health in Schools

Gavin Dew: Yesterday in this Legislature, the Minister of Education said: “Safety is my number one priority.”

[2:35 p.m.]

On May 21, Springvalley Middle School in Kelowna went into lockdown after two people were attacked with a knife on school grounds. A Crown prosecutor said: “There have been expressions recently and in the past that the accused wanted to kill someone and had taken steps to find weapons and guns.” The accused also allegedly told police after the arrest that their intention was to kill. The accused had been apprehended under the Mental Health Act multiple times between February and May of this year.

Almost four months after the Tumbler Ridge tragedy, can the minister tell worried parents today what changes have actually been implemented to school safety, threat assessment, mental health response, lockdown procedures and communications with parents?

Hon. Lisa Beare: I thank the member for the question because it’s always important to be able to talk to families here in British Columbia about student safety.

Here in B.C., we are a leading jurisdiction when it comes to safety for students in our care. We as a government want, like every single parent, to know that when our kids go to school, they come home safe. We have safety coordinators in every single school who are responsible for ensuring that they have safety plans in place for each school and in every district.

When we look at the tragedy that happened in Tumbler Ridge, I made it very, very clear to the community and to the province that there are multiple investigations taking place right now. We are waiting to see the results of those investigations so that we can coordinatedly take action to ensure that we continue to make safety our number one priority.

But I want families to know that we take trauma-informed, community-led, school-participated safety planning very seriously. What works in Victoria or Vancouver or Surrey does not work for north coast or Revelstoke. We need to ensure that we are taking local communities’ needs into account when building out safety plans.

Service Model Change for
Children with Support Needs
and Funding for Autism Services

Claire Rattée: Under this government’s new autism funding model, a mother from Fernie told me that her free services that are replacing the direct funding for her son would require her to drive four hours each way through two mountain passes just to access, costing her family more than $7,000 a year in fuel alone.

How is forcing rural families into self-funded eight-hour round trips for care improving access to services?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I thank the member for the question. I visited the member’s local child development centre that delivers really important services in her community and does travel far in rural, remote communities to deliver early intervention services, mental health services, other services that families crucially need.

I want all members of this House to know that we are making a historic investment that has not been made in a generation for children and youth with disabilities — 475 million new dollars into our system.

We are taking a blended approach, where families…. We are increasing direct funding to thousands more children, and we are investing in community-based services, because that’s what families and experts and service providers asked us to do through an extensive engagement process of over two years where we invested $4 million.

We will continue to communicate with families. Since we made the announcement, I have met with families, and I will continue to do so.

The Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: I appreciate that comment about connecting with the families because that’s what my follow-up has to do with.

That blended approach that the minister just referenced means that thousands of children are going without funding, and many of them are in situations like the one I just spoke about in Fernie, where they’re having to drive four hours away to access those free services that are replacing their direct funding.

This government has received formal reports from numerous advocacy groups warning that autistic people without intellectual disabilities are nine to 13 times more likely to die by suicide and that caregiver suicide risk also increases significantly when those supports disappear.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is the very group that this government’s own clinical guides identify as highest risk for suicide and the very group having their funding taken away by this government.

There have been emails, meeting requests, all of which have been ignored by this government over the course of the last few months. I have the receipts. I know that to be true for a fact. It is clear that this NDP government is not responding to families who are desperate for answers.

Since the Minister of Children and Families won’t listen to these urgent pleas for help, will the Health Minister respond to them and take these warnings of increased suicide risk seriously?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I have spoken at length in this House about children with autism not needing a one-size-fits-all approach to the programs and services that they receive.

I want the members to know that under our current system, you could have a family that makes over $200,000 a year with a child with autism who is indistinguishable from their peers, taking advanced-level calculus courses, get the same amount of funding as a single parent…

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: …who has a child with significant disabilities living on the poverty line. Our current system is not working.

Under the new system, funding will be delivered based on a functional need. So under our new system, individualized funding for autism is increasing. There are children with autism in our new system that will receive more funding.

In addition to that, traditional mental health services for neurodivergent children do not always work. That is why we are investing $80 million into highly specialized services in community. Families will not need to travel. There are multiple models of services that we know will work.

We are changing an unfair, fragmented system into a stronger, fairer system in the future. Communication is going to families. We will continue to communicate with them and work with them over the next year…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: …as these changes are made.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Korky Neufeld: I rise to present a petition to the House from Bradner residents of my riding regarding acquiring a liquor licence for the Bradner General Store.

The Bradner General Store is located in a small rural community….

The Speaker: Member. Member, you don’t have to read it. That’s fine. We receive the petition. Thank you.

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government
Services Committee

Paul Choi: I am pleased to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the 43rd parliament, intituled Interim Report on Statutory Offices, 2026.

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

Motion approved.

Paul Choi: I ask for leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Paul Choi: I move that the report be adopted and, in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is responsible for exercising general oversight of the province’s statutory offices. The committee typically meets with the officers in the fall to review and recommend their budgets and in the spring to receive operational updates.

This report summarizes the committee’s spring 2026 meetings with statutory officers.

During our meetings, we heard from many statutory officers about an increase in both the volume and complexity of their work. Committee members appreciated the effort that several officers are taking to improve workflows and efficiencies to help them respond to this increased workload while maintaining and remaining within their budgets.

The committee also considered the supplementary funding requests from the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth during these meetings. Our recommendation on this request attempts to balance providing an increased front-line capacity while also exercising fiscal restraint.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to extend our gratitude to all statutory officers, to their staff, for their important work. We look forward to engaging with them again in the fall as we consider their budget requests for the next three fiscal years.

I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation to staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard for their continued support.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members who are in this House for their dedication to this work and for their thoughtful contributions during our deliberations.

[2:45 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: I would also like to make a few comments about the report.

The committee’s spring meeting with statutory officers was a really important opportunity to receive operational updates from each of the offices and hear about what their key priorities and focus areas are going to be for the coming year.

This year the committee also asked for updates regarding the corporate shared service agreements, office space and lease agreements and grants that were being administered by the offices. Committee members continue to encourage our statutory offices to examine these areas of focus and other areas to find savings and efficiencies as they prepare for their budget requests for this fall.

I’d like to extend my appreciation to all the statutory officers for taking the time to meet with us and for their valuable work for all British Columbians. I would also like to acknowledge the members of the committee for their hard work and the staff of the Parliamentary Committees Office for supporting our work, as well as Hansard.

In closing, I would like to thank all of the committee for their work, and I look forward to heading out for public consultation on this year’s coming budget.

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

Motion approved.

Misty Van Popta: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

Misty Van Popta: I believe it’s the second class of Walnut Grove Secondary in the chambers that just arrived, grade 9s. They’re here today to learn about our democratic system. Unfortunately, they missed question period. It was a good one today.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Point of Order

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I’m rising on a point of order pertaining to allegations made by the House Leader for the Third Party in committee yesterday, in Section A.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a member may only raise a point of order regarding items in committee business in committee business. However, the committee has ceased to exist, and with the completion of the consideration of Bill 9, I was only able to review the Blues for the committee after the House had adjourned for the day. So this is my first opportunity to raise this point of order.

The House Leader of the Third Party stated: “It has been brought to my attention by an applicant who has extensive legal background that he has evidence that the commissioner’s office is repeatedly breaching administrative law principles of procedural fairness related to the review and handling of FOI complaints.”

Further, the House Leader of the Third Party requested that the Minister of Citizens’ Services determine with the commissioner how these allegations could be addressed in questioning the minister of what safeguards are in place for the commissioner to guide their decision-making.

Statutory officers report to the Legislative Assembly through the Speaker. A minister initiating an investigation would be an unprecedented breach of the principles of independence afforded to these officers as it pertains to the conduct of their statutory duties. These duties are generally structured in such a way that the officeholder exercises an extended scrutiny function of the executive branch of government on behalf of the legislative branch.

I quote from the special report No. 21 in April 1998, tabled by the statutory officers of the British Columbia Legislature, intituled Fundamental Operating Principles and Related Legislation.

“Statutory officers of the Legislature occupy a unique and valued position founded in the tradition of the Westminster model of democratic governance. They each play an important role in the process of holding the government accountable to the Legislative Assembly and the public. They are the elected members’ representatives — in large measure their eyes and ears — in monitoring and assessing government programs, procedures and performance. It is essential, therefore, that the roles of legislative officers are safeguarded.”

The allegations that were made are serious, being raised by the House Leader for the Third Party against an independent officer of the Legislature that requires guidance to this House on how to proceed.

First, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you test the application of Standing Order 40 on unparliamentary language as it would pertain to the independent officers of the Legislature. I quote pages 621 and 622 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, that “attacks against and censures of judges and the judges and courts by members in a debate have always been considered unparliamentary and, consequently, treated as breaches of order.”

I do not believe that this has been tested in this House, and I believe that the very notion of independence being questioned by the House Leader of the Third Party warrants due consideration and a ruling from you.

[2:50 p.m.]

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you outline the proper procedure for a member to provide clear evidence of malfeasance for the House to adjudicate and what other avenues exist, such as judicial review or through the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Are there any submissions on this point of order by anyone? If not, the Chair will take it under advisement. Thank you so much.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Josie Osborne: I have the pleasure to rise to table a report from the provincial health officer entitled Living Well, Drinking Less: Reducing Alcohol-Related Harms in B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Office of the Premier.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee debate on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

The tiny House remains closed.

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We’ll bring this chamber back to order, where we’re going to contemplate the Premier’s estimates.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $15,334,000.

The Chair: Are there any opening remarks that you would like to offer?

Hon. David Eby: I’d like to begin by acknowledging we’re on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations.

[2:55 p.m.]

I note that I’m joined by staff from the Premier’s office here today. I have Shannon Salter, Deputy Minister to the Premier; Tom McCarthy, Deputy Minister of Policy and Coordination; and Ben Bisset, project director. I want to thank all of them for their hard work on behalf of British Columbians.

I, first of all, want to reflect on this process. This process matters. This is a hallmark of our democratic system, the Westminster system, where everybody, including the Premier, within government is held accountable to the Legislature and, by extension, to the public. Estimates is a way the government is held to account. These are democratic institutions that are worth protecting in a tumultuous time when it feels like these institutions are under attack.

I am ready for a strong and thorough debate recognizing the context of this, which is ensuring that British Columbians get the answers that they need about the questions that the opposition has.

These are uncertain times, from the impacts of the war in Iran, in daily life for British Columbians, which we see at the gas pump. We see, in the grocery store, impacts of the Trump trade war on Canada. This is on the heels of the pandemic, global inflation, slowing global economies — so many challenges that British Columbia has seen and fought off.

We will do that, but in order to be successful, we need a self-reliant economy. Both here in British Columbia and as Canadians, we need to be able to stand on our own two feet. It has to be an economy that works for people, that supports people in having more money in their pocket at the end of the day. Higher wages. Supports in their communities like affordable child care, strong public transit and strong community infrastructure, including health care, especially in rural British Columbia.

We are moving in the right direction on these important issues. The spring session has really been about seizing opportunities. Here in this session, there have been laws about ensuring that British Columbia is able to seize the economic opportunities to grow our economy and create jobs and, also, training opportunities for British Columbians.

Just in the first four months of this year, more than $3 billion of investment in new mines. I was sitting around the table with other Premiers, western Premiers, just the other day. Our success here is the envy of many jurisdictions across Canada and around the world, but we do this as British Columbians to support the entire country.

We are excited about the opportunities in energy — LNG Canada phase 2. Reflecting on our accounts, somewhere around $80 billion of investment related to energy projects and 5,000 new trades-training seats so British Columbians are at the front of the line to take those jobs.

The happy news, just yesterday, is that our work here in British Columbia is supporting people in Germany that have shut off their access to Russian natural gas and have signed a $10 billion agreement with Ksi Lisims LNG to access B.C. natural gas. The reason why they choose our natural gas is that it is lower carbon than other jurisdictions, and it helps them in Germany to achieve their climate goals as well.

Over half a million British Columbians have been connected to a family doctor or nurse practitioner, to primary care, since 2023. We’re recruiting more health care workers from the United States than anywhere else, and we are thrilled that more than 2,000 American doctors and nurses have applied for jobs here in British Columbia and more than 700 have accepted those jobs.

We’re building a new SkyTrain in Surrey, a jurisdiction long overlooked for major capital investment, and a new hospital in Surrey as well.

For cost of living, we made a commitment to make housing more affordable. Rents are dropping faster here than anywhere else in Canada, because we built and we focused on building more rental housing and addressing some of the excesses in the market, including in relation to Airbnb. Prices are stabilizing in the housing market, giving people the hope that they may be able to buy into the market, but we know we have more work to do in that area.

We have a new energy savings plan from B.C. Hydro that will support families by reducing their hydro bills and put money back into their pockets for saving energy. We’ve opened more child care spaces. We have kept car insurance low. B.C. Hydro rates have been below the rate of inflation for the last several years, and we have some of the lowest car insurance rates in the entire country, with some of the best benefits.

We’re protecting schools and places of worship in this province from hate and attack and affirming the human rights code as a priority for this government, protecting people’s dignity and the diversity that makes this province a beautiful place to live.

[3:00 p.m.]

We are making this progress despite massive uncertainty. In fact, this uncertainty has spurred all of us as Canadians to do more. That is the commitment I made at the table with the western Premiers yesterday and I will continue to make on behalf of all British Columbians — that we will ensure this province is strong, that our public services are strong and are all in service to British Columbians and Canadians.

I will admit frustration to seeing the opposition voting no to key measures that will strengthen our provincial economy and our independence, like the North Coast transmission line.

To even see the member for Skeena voting against the North Coast transmission line, despite knowing that that will feed major projects in and near her constituency — Cedar LNG, Ksi Lisims LNG…. It will deliver high-capacity, high-voltage electricity to communities that have been underserved for generations. I don’t understand that opposition, but I know that it will not turn us away from doing what we need to do to build up this province.

B.C. has what it takes. We are focused on delivering, not just for people now but for the next generation in this province and a more secure and hopeful future for all British Columbians.

I look forward to the questions, and let’s get this show on the road.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you to the Premier, and welcome back from Alberta.

I also value this process. It’s a unique opportunity. I appreciate that it’s all debate in this House, but I’m going to try to approach it a little bit differently and provide a little bit of contrast with what I expect the Leader of the Opposition to bring. I’m trying to approach this with some genuine curiosity.

Just off the top — I mentioned it to the Premier one-to-one, but I’ll say it publicly, and I’ll explain why — I’m personally really impressed with the Premier’s leadership in Tumbler Ridge in February. It seems like a long time ago now. At the time, I felt genuinely, but maybe a little bit naively, that I wanted to try and help share this terrible burden that in this case, the Premier has to shoulder. The reality is that we’re all conditioned to look to one person, especially in challenging, tumultuous times.

A lot has been written about concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office and the Premiers’ offices across the country. I don’t know. I’m not in those rooms.

I’m going to try and use a bit of a case study to understand it a little bit better. It’s a little bit unfair because it’s a case study that’s very close to my heart, but it’s probably one tiny sliver of what the Premier deals with. I’m just going to talk a little bit about Sea to Sky regional transit because we’ve been talking about it on and off for some time.

Just as an example, it’s been grinding its way through the Ministry of Transportation and Transit slowly, from my point of view. Again, there is process to this, and I appreciate that the Premier’s had a meeting with local government leaders on this recently.

I’m trying to understand a little bit about whether this is a typical process or whether it lends credence to the idea that no new initiative can really get traction without a blessing from the Premier and the Premier’s office.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Thank you to the member for the question, and thank you for his kind words in respect of Tumbler Ridge, an incredibly challenging moment for the entire province that continues to this point. I think the hero of the moment goes to the many, many people of Tumbler Ridge who have stepped up together in so many different ways to rebuild their community and respond to that.

I thank the member for being there as part of a united, non-partisan message to the community that we were all standing together. It was important that he was there, and I appreciate his reflections on it.

On the important and welcome initiative of local governments and First Nations along the Sea to Sky corridor around transit, I know that this has been a priority of the member’s for some time. He and I have met on multiple occasions and shared the sentiment that this is an important project to serve a congested corridor, one that is seeing more and more traffic, and that strong public transit services are a priority for him and, certainly, for me and for our government.

To his specific question, work on initiatives is initiated by, led by ministries. Certainly, I’ve had ministers bring forward proposals that I was not immediately persuaded by, but I created the space for ministers to be able to advance those proposals, and vice versa. I think there have been ministers that have not been super enthusiastic about things I’ve suggested that they have been willing to carry forward. Collaboration, compromise and finding a path forward is the key in government — especially, I will say frankly, in a one-vote majority situation. Everybody has got to be pointing in the same direction.

A little reflection on the member’s query about how things work over here on this side. I do a lot of media on a lot of topics, which can lead to the perception that sometimes these files are all my files. They are not. This one, in particular, is being led by the Ministry of Transportation.

I had a meeting with the local government officials, with First Nations leadership. What struck me about the meeting was that here you have a group of leaders that are committed together to establishing this transit authority — one vote each. It is a completely unique model, including the First Nations full partnership with a vote at the table, and one vote regardless of contribution or population size. When you have local officials that are committed to work together in this collaborative way, I think that’s something that, as a government, we need to recognize and find a path forward with.

Another piece that I was advised by the Ministry of Transportation is that the model that they are presenting is completely unique in the province. Typically, regional transit is wrapped when we establish that. It’s wrapped together with the inner city, as well as each community’s transit service. What’s being proposed here is something different than that. It doesn’t mean that it’s bad or worse or better. It’s just different.

As the member will know, any time government has something that’s different, we need to understand all the implications for other communities before proceeding. In addition, the funding model that’s being put forward is also unique. The Ministry of Transportation is engaging, and the minister has also met with these leaders to engage on this important issue.

I am certainly supportive of transit up the Sea to Sky. I share the hope with the member that we are going to be able to deliver this as quickly as possible. The minister is working hard with his team, and I would encourage the member to check in with the Ministry of Transportation on this important issue for his community.

[3:10 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate the detail on that particular service and the perspective of how things work. I fully understand that ideas are pitched back and forth. Well, I don’t fully understand it, because I haven’t ever been in that situation, but I can imagine, in a team scenario, this needs to happen.

You know, $15 million probably sounds like a lot, and I’m sure the Premier will take questions from others about it, but if it is the nerve centre of the government, it probably should be well resourced, so I won’t ask about that.

The Premier has been in office since 2022. It probably seems like a lifetime ago, but in historical terms, it’s still a relatively new cabinet. As this government progresses in its mandate, does the Premier feel like the team is jelling and he can devolve more responsibilities to his ministers and maybe have to speak on fewer files?

Hon. David Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. I have been incredibly proud of our cabinet and our entire caucus. It’s just remarkable and unprecedented times in the province to have our biggest trading partner attacking us, global instability and war. We’ve come through the pandemic as a legislature. The reordering of relationships around the globe is significant and ongoing.

Through big, big challenges, this team has stuck together. It has not always been easy, but it has been crucial. We share a dedication to making lives better for British Columbians in whatever ways possible, ensuring that the economy works for people, that there are strong public services and that we’re supporting families with the challenges they face. That, I think, brings us together.

Just to the member’s question about media, it is a bit of a challenge, I would say. As a Premier, if you’re not doing scrums regularly with the media where they can ask you on any file of any minister, then you’re not available, and you’re secretive. If you do too many scrums, then you’re not letting your ministers talk on their files. There is a challenge in constantly trying to find that balance.

I have an incredibly experienced and deep bench of ministers that speak on their files. I would say all of our caucus members are incredibly capable and regularly speak out on issues in their communities. I have every confidence in their ability to do that.

Whether that always gets covered when I do a scrum at the same time, who the media chooses to ask questions to…. These kinds of things are beyond my control, but I strive to be available to the media to explain to British Columbians what’s happening, and I encourage my ministers to do the same on their files.

[3:15 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m just going to ask a question or two about the overall economic context.

The opposition has got a lot of attention in criticizing the lack of action on some big-ticket promises from 2024. I won’t list them. Some of them are kitchen-table issues. You know, a $1,000 grocery rebate was never particularly on our radar, but we know that many British Columbians are still finding it difficult to balance their finances, keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, find a family doctor.

What I’m hearing pretty consistently from this government is that to fund the services that we all know are needed and that we want to fund, we’re turning to an economic development model that has worked in the past.

I’m presupposing this puts the government into a bit of a bind, because moving to a greener, lower-emissions economy takes longer than the political term, needs the lead time that is even longer than the lifespan of most governments, and we never get to see the fruit of those investments. We’re seeing it again at a federal level to some degree, the same rationale that led to the Trans Mountain expansion. We need revenue to invest in renewables, bring in carbon price signals, electrify our economy.

Just for the record, obviously, this caucus is fully in support of electrification.

We’re hearing a lot about…. The Premier just mentioned LNG Canada 2, Ksi Lisims, the contract with Germany. I’m hoping to get to hear the Premier’s reflections a bit about this kind of grand bargain on funding our economy now so that we can progress into the future.

Long term, does he feel like we’re setting the conditions to progress beyond some of these fossil fuel bargains? We would love to think that they’re happening in the near, near future, but we know this is going to happen on an undetermined timeline. But does the Premier feel like those conditions are being set for this transition that we know is inevitable?

I’ll just note that it’s famously said that we can’t continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and meet our climate targets. I’m sure that’s met the hard reality of being in government and trying to provide jobs and economic development. I’m just curious whether those conditions are in place for the longer-term energy transition that we’ll see.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: First of all, let me thank the member for his work with government on the CleanBC review. Our commitment to that work continues.

It’s important to understand the context that CleanBC set up for the province to be able to be in position where we are now. For example, No. 1 in electric vehicle sales in Canada, No. 1 in hybrid vehicle sales in Canada, No. 1 in growth of heat pumps in Canada, a 50 percent reduction in methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, among other notable accomplishments. We seek to continue that progress specifically.

The member talks about the pressing affordability issues facing families. In B.C. Hydro, we have rates that are 12 percent below the rate of inflation, considering where they were in 2017. That makes a difference for families, as does the new hydro saver program that allows them to reduce their usage and access free digital thermostats for people with baseboard heaters, that are very expensive to run through the winter in many parts of the province, for using electricity.

[3:25 p.m.]

B.C. Hydro, in the context of having some of the lowest rates in North America — it’s us, Manitoba and Quebec because of our hydro legacy dams — is really the emblem, certainly, in terms of growth in the province and electrification of our work here.

A $36 billion capital plan for B.C. Hydro, the largest probably since the ’60s. Fourteen clean energy projects across the province, the majority of them owned in majority by First Nations all across the province. A current call for firm power that is out and that we hope will include proposals around hydro, geothermal and other firm sources of energy. We are blessed in this province to have the opportunity to be able to deliver affordable electricity and to use it to grow our economy in a clean and sustainable way.

That’s not all. I would recommend to the member — I know he’s familiar with the document — just another look at the Look West strategy. This is the strategy put together by government to outline our economic priorities in the province. The member is interested in industries and progress beyond LNG, and he’s right. We need to ensure that we are a diversified economy. We don’t know what the world will bring us.

In the Look West strategy, you will see sectors as diverse as shipbuilding, where we have more than doubled employment; life sciences, where we’re the fastest-growing life sciences sector in Canada; our tech sector, with ambitious goals about growth in tech and, thanks to the Web Summit that we landed, a huge opportunity to showcase British Columbia’s tech sector and the opportunities in it; the manufacturing field, including the growing aerospace sector, particularly in the interior of the province, in the Kelowna area; B.C. wood products and value-added initiatives using our sustainable wood products to create long-term jobs by adding value to the wood that is harvested in British Columbia.

Agriculture. We landed a half-a-billion-dollar dairy processing plant in the valley, called Vitalus, that will single-handedly increase milk production by 17 percent across western Canada and produces those milk powders that people use to supplement foods. When you read the “high protein” this and that, usually they’re using these powdered dairy products that are produced in places like Vitalus.

We also have Nanak Foods and Punjab Milk products that are opening major processing facilities and shipping to export markets around the world. Vitalus ships to Africa, China, Europe and South America, for example.

We are seeking a diversified economy. That does include energy projects like LNG projects but by no means is exclusively focused in that area.

The goal with all of this is to create high-paid employment opportunities for British Columbians, which is why training is a key part of the budget, giving people the opportunity to go out and train for these jobs that are created in all of these different sectors. That includes Red Seal training and also includes a significant addition of tech seats across the province at universities in British Columbia, to give people the opportunity to be able to move into these jobs, STEM employment seats across the province.

It is an ambitious plan but one we think we can realize and certainly one we’re very proud of.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m pleased to hear that work on CleanBC review continues, and I want to say I appreciate that the Minister of Energy has been kind enough to keep me informed on some pieces of that.

I do appreciate the diversity of Look West. I’ve looked west through it many times. I was out in the Premier’s riding at UBC last week and pleased to hear about some of the support on tech and life sciences, and I know that skills training is going on well beyond that.

I only have an hour, so I’m going to cover a few different topics. Moving on to ask about the state of the public service.

This time last year I asked the Premier about the support for the public service, and there was quite a discussion about the impact of tariffs and plans essentially changed on a dime. The Premier talked about many late nights in the B.C. Public Service trying to pivot for this eventuality.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we all know, many public servants are grappling with the same challenges affecting all British Columbians — rising costs, environmental challenges like droughts and wildfires. Those challenges continue, and we’ve seen some labour disruption in the fall with the BCGEU strike.

In response to an increasing deficit, I understand there have been some adjustments made. I believe that the number quoted in the budget was 15,000 public service jobs, and some of those will be through attrition.

I’m wondering if the Premier can provide a summary of where the government is at in terms of public service — I believe the term used was “efficiency gains” in the B.C. Public Service — and mitigating against some overall job losses through that work that’s underway.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: There are two numbers in terms of targets for government. The first is the broader public sector, and that’s the bigger number because the public sector is bigger and includes the SUCH sector. Then there’s the public service. The public service is a smaller number. That’s core government, ministries, service delivery by the provincial government and that kind of thing. For the broader public sector, our target is 15,000, and for the public service, our target is 2,500.

I can provide an update to the member on the public service target. As of March 31, we had reduced the public service by 1,760 people since we began this work. As of the end of April, that number was now 1,857, and that reflects a reduction of 4.5 percent of the overall size of the public service.

For the public sector, the planning work with the sector is underway. We’re being very careful because we want to focus on non-front-line positions to ensure that British Columbians are protected and able to access front-line services, regardless of whether it’s core government. We’re not talking about teachers and nurses here. We’re talking about finding those opportunities to reduce administration and bureaucracy and redirect savings where we can, certainly to deficit reduction but also, in some cases, to reinvestment to improve the quality of services.

For example, in the health sector, $260 million in savings was identified, delivered and then redirected into higher-priority core services. Within the natural resources sector, the $34 million in savings from non-essential spending reductions was reinvested towards enhancing permitting staff to speed up permitting while maintaining high standards. Examples like that.

I hope that’s of assistance to the member.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thank you for that clarification. I should always trust the interns. They had 2,500, but the 15,000 number stuck in my head.

I appreciate it’s a modest reduction of 4.5 percent. We know, and I’m sure the Premier knows better than I do, that Gordon Campbell’s government damaged the public service quite severely in 2001, as written about by one of his former ministers. By all accounts, it took decades to build back morale and functionality.

Can the Premier describe what stopgaps would be put in place to prevent overburdening? I have a number of Reddit quotes from unhappy public servants, and that’s not unusual for any large organization. I won’t play gotcha with the Premier on this.

What measures will be put in place to prevent overburdening as the number is reduced — overburdening overworked, under-resourced or understaffed areas within the provincial public sector? Will there be adjustments made to keep the public service whole and intact?

[3:40 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Our goal with the reduction in the size of the public service is not to lump the same work on to a smaller number of people but instead to be thoughtful about the work itself. Is there duplication? Is there opportunity for streamlining?

We see this in our permitting work. How do we maintain high standards and also reduce the permitting time and the number of hands it passes through? Are there ways that we can provide information readily to project proponents, whether it’s a home or whether it’s a giant industrial site, without having to require a public servant to recover the information, bring it forward and deliver it? It’s just on a website. You can just go and have a look at where your project is. These kinds of initiatives are really where we’re focusing our attention.

In terms of, overall, how we’re approaching this work, we’re trying very hard to avoid just blanket voluntary retirement, terminations — those kinds of things. What we’re doing this work through is attrition, and also when a position is no longer going to continue because we’ve found duplication and we want to address that duplication.

There is a program within government where individuals can be redeployed to other areas so that we don’t lose talent within the public service, which is something that you can lose when you say: “Okay, well, everyone’s got to cut by 10 percent.” You can lose some very talented people, and sometimes they’re the first ones out the door. So being extremely cautious about that is very important.

The other piece of work that is guiding this is the ratio between supervisors or management and front-line workers. Getting that ratio to be consistent with recognized benchmarks is a key part of this work as well.

I do want to talk about the remarkable work of the B.C. Public Service. It’s something I was not aware of in the opposition benches until I crossed over, just the exceptional work that’s done every day when we have a Tumbler Ridge, when we have a wildfire, when we have an emergency. These folks work 24-7. They are incredibly innovative in their work. When I was Attorney General visiting a court registry or the sheriffs, the dedication that people have to serving the public is remarkable.

We also try to recognize excellence within the public service. I know it’s been the subject of critique in the media, but the Premier’s Awards are, to my mind…. This is something that started under the B.C. Liberal government. I think it’s an important mechanism to formally recognize excellence in the public service as a career choice that people make. When they really excel and are exceptional, they should be recognized and given a pat on the back.

I mean, frankly, every public servant deserves that, but there are some remarkable accomplishments in this career path. We will continue to do the Premier’s Awards despite the critique, because we believe firmly in recognizing excellence in the public service.

I hope that gives the member some perspective about how we’re approaching this work and recognizing the significant amount of work that we ask the public service to do every day, expressing appreciation for that. We’ll continue to try to find ways to recognize that work through fair compensation, through recognition of excellence.

I know every British Columbian, if they had the opportunity to see…. This is what our judges in the Premier’s Awards always say: “If only British Columbians could see what the public service is doing to deliver service for British Columbians, they would really have a different perspective on the operations of government.”

So that’s something that…. I thank the member for the thoughtful phrasing of his question: recognition of the work of public servants.

Jeremy Valeriote: I am going to ask a question or two about reconciliation and Indigenous relations. I recognize that there is a minister in charge of that, but these are maybe specific to the Premier.

First of all, I want to recognize the Premier’s candidness that this is the hardest file he’s ever worked on. That kind of vulnerability in leadership, I think, is really important. It’s fairly uncommon. From my point of view, it looks incredibly complex and challenging.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ve been a little frustrated. This Third Party caucus position is probably no secret. I’m a little bit frustrated about leaders talking about a pursuit that has an end — like, when will reconciliation end?

I’ve just done a media interview on Joffre Lakes. I’m pretty unequivocal in saying there’s a fair bit of political opportunism going on here, and it’s a wedge issue that fits, unfortunately, right into our adversarial system. There’s been a lot of mis- and disinformation going around. I’m seeing a spike in anti-Indigenous racism.

I think I’m being fair in saying that the communication of the plan around this has been murky, unclear. I understand it’s a work in progress.

Before I look forward, I want to look back briefly. It is my view that the tone was set fairly early on here in terms of some mixed messaging.

With respect, I really want to ask the Premier to help me understand why, early on in this discussion publicly, the Premier conflated the Quw’utsun decision with the Declaration Act. I feel like it’s playing into the hands of some anti-reconciliation forces and that these two — I’m not a lawyer, but the Premier is — are somewhat separate and that we’ve now devolved into a discussion about whether to keep DRIPA or not.

I’m curious why the Premier put those two things together early on in this conversation.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Certainly, I am happy to take the member’s advice, but bluntly, I have tried really hard to separate the two court decisions.

The Conservatives have done a significant amount of work to conflate the Declaration Act and the Quw’utsun decision — one based on section 35 rights under the constitution, and the Declaration Act being provincial legislation, not constitutional law.

The two court decisions did come very close in time to each other, within about four months. They have been a big challenge for us, and not just for us. I think it has been a challenge for our relationship with Indigenous leadership but also, more broadly, for the relationships of Indigenous communities with the broader community in the province. I’ve heard lots of concern about how these decisions have landed in different communities in the province.

Just for an update for the member, my understanding is that the argument is closed in the Quw’utsun case, where Justice Young was reconsidering whether or not to reopen that matter. It’s before the court. We recently received leave to the Supreme Court of Canada on the Gitxaała Declaration Act decision out of the Court of Appeal. We’ll be advancing our arguments there.

There are lots of examples in this province of reconciliation work lifting people up, whether it’s through treaty, agreements around major economic projects, reconciliation agreements or Indigenous initiatives. For example, we are working with xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ on an affordable homeowner initiative that would not otherwise be available except for our partnership with them. We expect about 2,600 families to benefit from that initiative.

You’ve got Red Chris mine, Eskay Creek, Highland Valley Copper in the mining sector, projects that would not be where they are except for cooperation, support and partnership with Indigenous people in the relevant territories. And then, of course, Ksi Lisims LNG, an Indigenous-led initiative that recently signed a $10 billion agreement with Germany around LNG supply.

When we do this work, it lifts all boats, and we have to continue to deliver on that.

The court decisions have been a challenge. I’ll take the member’s advice if at some point I inadvertently conflated them, but I have been spending some time trying to differentiate. Again, I’m sure the member will understand this is a deep and complex issue, not an easy one to communicate, given the legal complexities of it, and one that calls on all members of this place to do our best to be clear about what the state of the law is in the province and where we should be going.

Jeremy Valeriote: My last question, sadly. I’m almost…. Well, we’ve got a few minutes for an answer, but not a lot of time left.

It must be the end of the session, because I’m being interviewed. Our interns interviewed me and asked me what I was most proud of. I’m terrible at these questions, because reviewing a year and a half of life in a split second is not easy for me.

The first thing that came to mind was the cooperation agreement that we were in, in 2025, which we call CARGA. Even though it didn’t end particularly cleanly or well, I’m actually quite proud of the structure and the discussions and the communication that it engendered. I think they’re really valuable.

I can only imagine the number of competing interests and factions and coalitions the Premier needs to hold together in this job. I’m not asking entirely tongue-in-cheek. I’m curious. Is it a relief to not have to deal with the Third Party anymore? If so, I’d just appreciate hearing the Premier’s reflections on any lessons that came out of it that might be worthwhile in future dealings when we have more than one party involved in the confidence of the House.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I understand why the member was proud of the CARGA agreement and what we accomplished together under that agreement. It was a good agreement, and it was important work we were doing.

The member asked if I am relieved to not have to work with the Third Party. No, actually. I enjoy working with the Third Party. Well, there’s one component. I appreciate not having to continually re-engage with the proportional representation question, but that is the sole exception to the rule.

I think we did good work together. I was disappointed that, in my understanding, the Green Party did not want to continue with it.

I could run through the accomplishments. I think the member is aware that there are seniors who are housed; there are people receiving urgent primary care who would not have; and we’re No. 1 in heat pump adoption, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles and massive clean energy initiatives through B.C. Hydro. You can see the influence of those conversations even if the formal agreement doesn’t continue.

Trevor Halford: Timing is impeccable. I feel I kind of walked into an awkwardness of a third-party relationship there. I hope they can work it out, and I wish them all the best in the future as they move on and go forward.

I want to thank the Premier for the time. I want to thank his staff for their time and patience as well, as we go through this.

A couple of things really resonate with me and, I think, with a lot of British Columbians right now. The fact is that we have a record deficit that seems to be going only one way, and that’s up, with the highest taxation levels on the backs of some of our most vulnerable.

Whether I’m in the grocery store or on the soccer field or at my daughter’s dance, the frustration that people have is immense. They’re angry. They’ve got a lot of questions. Some of those questions we’ll canvass during this estimates. People feel like they’re spending more and they’re getting dramatically less, whether it’s in health care, other services or just transparency.

I had one person come up to me the other day. They were actually…. I think this comment is just. They were….

It doesn’t matter what your perspective is on the policy, on the project. I think John Horgan had a lot of respect from British Columbians. It didn’t matter if you were a Conservative, a Liberal, NDP, Green. I think Mr. Horgan had a lot of respect in this province. The fact that a dam was named after him…. I think that was a special moment for him and his family. I know other people may have other opinions based on all the positions that he held, which he was very up front and transparent on, as he was with everything.

[4:05 p.m.]

This person made a comment to me that stuck — that things over the last few years have changed dramatically. Things seem to be centralized. The transparency of the government seems to evaporate — inconsistency, blame, political wedges and overall ignorance on some of the most important files that touch British Columbians. We’ll canvass those files, whether they’re health care, transportation, taxation. We’ll go through those.

I think one of the key things, and the Leader of the Third Party touched on it, is regarding some of the challenges we’re seeing on the Indigenous file. Now, I know the Premier is quick to call out our party’s position on this, but our party’s position on this since the campaign in October of 2024 has been consistent. The Premier’s position has been anything but.

I want to read some quotes into the record:

“If a court considers a provincial law to be inconsistent with the UN declaration, this amendment does not allow the court to read in, read down or find that law to be of no force or effect. This is consistent with the limits of the Interpretation Act but also with the understanding that substantive work of amending existing laws in our province or introducing new laws being consistent with the UN declaration must be done in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous People in accordance with section 3 of the Declaration Act.”

Those were the Premier’s words, November 22, 2021, in this very room here.

My direct question to the Premier. If he needs to consult staff, I’m not sure they were there with him when he did this. Does the Premier have any regrets in terms of how he introduced the Interpretation Act in 2021?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I’d like to take a moment to recognize that the Leader of the Opposition…. The next couple of days are his last days as leader. The Conservative Party will be choosing a new leader.

I wanted to recognize his service for the people of British Columbia. The Leader of the Official Opposition is not an easy job, especially in these times, I would say. I know he has a family and that it has surely called him away, so I want to thank his family, as well, for supporting him in this job.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’ll be a long afternoon, I’m afraid, just given how we’ve started here. But I will begin with some gentle corrections to the record.

The member insists that we have increased taxes on British Columbians. In 2022, the net provincial tax for a family with $30,000 of net income was $1,400 less than it was when we formed government. By 2026, it was $1,600 less than when we formed government. For a family earning $60,000 of net family income, the net provincial tax…. Oh, I’m misreading the form. I’m going to start this again.

For a family earning $30,000 of net income in 2022, they would have received $1,400 back from the provincial government. In 2026, that amount grew to $1,600 back. In 2017, they would have received $189.

With $60,000 of family net income, in 2022, the family would have paid $1,600 in net provincial tax. In 2026, that number dropped to $643. That’s like $1,000, that number…. In 2017, they would have paid $4,198.

For a family at $80,000 of net income in 2022, they would have paid $3,385 in provincial tax. In 2026, that had dropped to $2,663 in provincial tax. Back in 2017, we formed government. They would have paid $5,600 in provincial tax.

Finally, $100,000 of family net income in 2022 would have paid $5,623 in net provincial tax. In 2026, $4,601 — so $1,000 less. But of course, in 2017, they would have paid $7,444 in net provincial tax.

It’s important to clarify the record on these important questions. British Columbia has the lowest provincial income taxes for people with incomes up to $149,000 in the entirety of Canada.

On the important topic of the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the continued context of the opposition’s attacks on the Declaration Act is that it is an obstacle to development in the province.

In just the first few months of this year, we have had over $3 billion in major mine announcements or expansions, including Eskay Creek, a $1-billion-a-year project that will create hundreds of good jobs and a joint environmental assessment between B.C. and the Tāłtān Nation. Cedar LNG just signed a contract with the German government for a $10 billion offtake agreement. This will be one of the largest First Nations majority-owned infrastructure projects in Canada enabled through this work.

The fact is that we have $88 billion at least in major projects moving forward that rely on strong relationships with Indigenous people in this province.

The member says that their position has been clear on the Declaration Act. Well, I am afraid that has not been the case. In a recent column in the Times Colonist, the House Leader explained that the Conservative position apparently is that the Declaration Act needs to be looked at, repealed and then reworked so everyone is on the same page and that the Conservatives are advocating what she described as “a new framework” for recognizing constitutional rights. I’m curious about what that would be.

But in any event, it’s pretty clear that the opposition is admitting that repealing DRIPA is not the end of the story as far as they are concerned. I’m curious about what they think it is.

There have been some challenging court decisions. I certainly have acknowledged that in many forms. One of them does address the Interpretation Act as well as the Declaration Act. Four judges have heard this matter, a trial judge and three Court of Appeal judges.

[4:20 p.m.]

Two judges agreed with government’s position and understanding of the Interpretation Act and the Declaration Act and that this is a matter for government to work on. Two judges in the Court of Appeal agreed with the applicant that the Declaration Act was something other than what I believe every member of this House, when we voted for it unanimously, believed it was.

We have been granted leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. We’ll get clarity from the court and be able to move forward. We’re also at the table with Indigenous leadership, finding a path forward together.

This is a very challenging file. The member and his colleagues know — they have said it in this House — that British Columbia was settled without treaty, and the consequence of that, the recognition of Indigenous rights and title under the Canadian constitution, is that we are required to sit down with First Nations and find a path forward together. That will continue to be the focus of our government — to try to stay out of court, try to reach agreements together and find that pathway forward together.

Trevor Halford: I appreciate the early words of the Premier. I do, sincerely.

On the latter part, in terms of just setting the record straight, it’s important that we make sure we get our positions out there.

The Premier…. I would challenge him right now, as we have record lines at food banks across this province, that he go and give the stats that he just did and ask if everybody is feeling okay. I think he would get a much different reception than one he’s probably thinking he would get.

I’ve just got a very easy question to the Premier. It shouldn’t take that long. Who introduced the Interpretation Act in 2021?

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

[4:25 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member rightly did not refute my very clear explanation of the reduction in taxes payable by families in the province. Under the period from ’17 to ’26 or from the period of ’22 to ’26, the reductions are significant. In the most recent budget, we increased a tax credit for low-income individuals, people earning under $25,000, by $115, bringing it to $690.

The member clearly said that I was wrong in the numbers that I put forward about taxes, that people were lined up at food banks and that I wasn’t responsive to that concern. I’m outlining to the member exactly how I’m responsive to the concern about people lining up at food banks — $115 additional tax credit for people earning under $25,000.

We’re helping people save on their hydro bill by as much as one-third, focused on low-income individuals, specifically people with baseboard electric heaters, supporting them with smart thermostats as well as cash rewards for reducing power use.

The average asking for rent is down 13.9 percent since 2023 because we’ve built more rental housing and because we’ve addressed and continue to address speculation.

We’ve lowered auto insurance rates and frozen basic rates for six years now. The members, obviously, when they sat on this side of the House, were projecting a 33 percent increase, and they continue to advocate for private auto insurance despite the challenges faced in Alberta.

We cut child care costs in half, on average, saving families an average of $7,200 a year. More than 394 people have benefited from free prescription birth control. More than 276,000 families will receive the B.C. family benefit this year. There are huge challenges around affordability faced by British Columbians, but not just British Columbians — people across Canada and around the world, most recently because of the impacts of the war in Iran.

Now, the member also asked me about the Declaration Act. I was Attorney General. I introduced the provision under Premier Horgan, at the time, the Interpretation Act. I said, at the time, in response to then Attorney General critic Mike de Jong, about the intent behind the introduction, that the general principle in section 2 of the Interpretation Act is that the Interpretation Act applies to every enactment unless a contrary intention appears.

Where a decision-maker is faced with two possible interpretations of the public interest in making a decision, the Interpretation Act in this circumstance would, we intend, instruct the decision-maker to prefer the interpretation of the public interest that is consistent with the principles of the DRIPA legislation.

The member asks me this question in the context of the Gitxaała decision and where the court went, because they did specifically mention the Interpretation Act.

[4:35 p.m.]

I would like to take this opportunity to walk through my understanding of this, recognizing that we have received leave to the Supreme Court of Canada but it is not yet before the court.

It is clear that the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples can be relied on by the courts as a source for interpretative aid. That was clear in the case law even well before the Declaration Act. It has only ever been a question of the amount of weight that a court would give it.

Section 8.1(3) of the Interpretation Act was previously understood to apply where there is not a contrary intention within a provincial law. I took the member to my introduction of the bill and the debate when I covered this issue. More recent decisions, including Quw’utsun and Gitxaała, have cast doubt on that understanding.

The basis of the understanding was that section 2 of the Interpretation Act says that no provision of the act, including section 8.1(3), should be relied on by the courts any time there is a contrary intention in the legislation. Based on the common law, this includes both express and implied intention. Using the modern principle of interpretation, legislation should be read in its entire context, not just looking at a single provision.

Prior to Gitxaała, there were many reasons to believe that the common law supported this understanding. In accordance with the case Quebec Attorney General v. 9147-0732 Quebec Inc. from 2020, the presumption of conformity should not apply to an international instrument unless that instrument is binding domestically.

Courts had previously agreed that UNDRIP is non-binding in Canada, yet the majority in Gitxaała concludes that the presumption of conformity applies to UNDRIP. They conclude this not just based on section 8.1(3) that the member asked about but based on provisions of the Declaration Act and based on similar wording found in the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

Provincial law may, under current law, at times, provide something that on the face of it is inconsistent with section 35, Aboriginal rights under the constitution. However, in that realm, it’s understood that the law must only do so as part of a justifiable infringement. Circumstances for justifiable infringement are limited but can include, for example, matters related to public safety or preservation of an endangered species.

The B.C. Court of Appeal decision, in my opinion, blurs what the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is and leaves unclear whether it is an interpretive aid or whether it is a freestanding source of rights like section 35. The decision does so without analysis of the UN Declaration Act as it relates to interpretation versus substantive and immediate implementation.

I hope that’s of assistance to the member about the introduction of the bill, as well as the context of the Gitxaała decision in our seeking leave to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was recently granted.

Trevor Halford: Thank you to the Premier for that comprehensive answer. I thought that might happen. I think we’ve got to mark this moment in history here, because we just spent more time on this than the Premier allowed for debate, when he was Attorney General, on the Interpretation Act itself. In fact, it was double the amount of time that the Premier allotted for debate on the Interpretation Act that he introduced, which is now, obviously, very problematic.

I want to read a few more quotes into the record here. This is directly from the Premier. If I get these wrong, I’m sure the Premier will correct the record.

“But to be frank, it’s absolutely crucial that it is British Columbians, through their elected representatives, that remain in control of this process, not the courts. Too much rides on it in terms of our province’s prosperity and certainty, going forward. So I think it just as likely or perhaps more likely that we would proceed with amendments to provide clarity around what was clearly intended when we introduced this legislation, and the court appears to have some confusion about that.” That was the Premier at Canadian Press, December 5, 2025.

There are a lot of quotes here, and we can pick and choose. The Premier then goes on to say: “There is significant concern among the public following a couple of major court decisions, and I have to say I share that concern.” That was April 4.

[4:40 p.m.]

Another quote. I want to get to around this time, because I think this is where the British Columbians have a lot of confusion, frustration, uncertainty with the Premier’s direction on this.

This is from January 20, on CBC. He says: “Recent court decisions have created real confusion about what the Declaration Act is and what reconciliation means in its practice.” Then we go again: “Reconciliation is the business of government-to-government relationships between provincial governments, the federal government and First Nations. It is not for the courts to take over.”

Then we get another quote from the Premier — same date, January 20, probably the same interview on CBC. “That’s why we’re going to amend the Declaration Act in the spring, to make the intent explicit.” Those are the Premier’s words.

The Premier then goes on. This is April 3 on Global. He uses the words “huge legal uncertainty.”

Then another on April 4. The Premier is doing a lot of media on this. “There is significant concern among the public following a couple of major court decisions, and I have to say we share that concern.”

Here’s another one. This one’s the same day, same interview. “We are having to move quickly to make amendments in order to address some serious legal liabilities that were created by the province through the court decision. Nobody is excited about this process. Certainly, I’m not, and First Nations leadership are not.”

The Premier then does an interview with Business in Vancouver. It says that at the start of the year, he promised to change the law and that he will “move as quickly as possible.” Now, I think those words are fairly straightforward from the Premier.

That was leading up to…. The last quote I gave was April 20. So on April 20, there’s also a press release issued from the Premier’s office, and I’ll read it in its entirety. It’s not a long one. Very rarely do you get press releases issued on Sundays, but this one was a special day. I’ll read it into the record.

I’ll use a name here because it’s listed in the press release, Madam Chair.

“Premier David Eby and the First Nations Leadership Council have released the following statement regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act:

“‘The government of B.C. will not be introducing legislation to suspend or amend DRIPA or UN declaration–related provisions in the Interpretation Act in the spring legislative session. The government and the First Nations Leadership Council are committed to working together with all First Nations leaders on a path forward to discuss and consider the government’s stated legal concerns, while upholding the title and rights and human rights of First Nations.

“Together we commit to a genuine collaboration to find solutions as soon as possible” — I want to emphasize this part — “and before the fall legislative session.’”

Those are the Premier’s words, April 20.

Following that we come back into session, and the House Leader of the government does an impromptu media avail where he has to backtrack on the Premier’s commitments to introduce legislation — that the Premier made days earlier all over the media, to various stakeholders throughout the province — creating confusion, chaos, in his own words.

In fact, the Premier was so confident about what he was doing and confident about the support that he had within his caucus that he was going to make this a confidence vote. He said that on CKNW, on Jas Johal’s show. “Absolutely, this will be a confidence vote.” Those were the words of the Premier.

The problem is the Premier did not have the confidence of his caucus, obviously. He didn’t even go out and do the media himself. He had his House Leader do it. That would be embarrassing. I’d be embarrassed, too, if I changed my position six, seven times.

What amazes me is that through this whole process…. This is kind of a pattern of behaviour that we have with the Premier. It’s always somebody else’s fault, somebody else’s problem.

[4:45 p.m.]

I asked the Premier a direct question about who introduced the Interpretation Act. It took him about 15 minutes.

The Premier says later in interviews, once he did his scrum…. Finally, he was chased down by media, he was able to do a scrum, and he said he was tapped on the shoulder by the Attorney General. “She came to me and told me she believed that there was a route to reach an agreement like this. We had those conversations over Saturday and Sunday.” An additional quote: “I want to thank the Attorney General for tapping me on the shoulder and creating the space for the conversation to happen with the First Nations Leadership Council.”

Now, I understand that there is shared blame, shared accountability in the mess that this Premier has created through his lack of due diligence when he introduced an interpretation act and literally gave it 14 minutes in this House to debate and then invoked closure on it. I’d be embarrassed by that too.

I’d be embarrassed if I had a position that changed seven times over 90 days. I’d be embarrassed.

I’d be embarrassed if I said I had the confidence of my caucus, of my cabinet — that I am so willing to do this, to get these amendments passed, that this will be a matter of confidence before the House, and then have to get corrected by his Government House Leader. That would be embarrassing.

But embarrassment is not the problem. It’s the fact that this Premier has continued to add layers and layers of chaos due to his incompetence and due to his unwillingness to be transparent with British Columbians.

So my question to the Premier is a direct one. What is the timeline for any legislation to come to this House? Is the Premier still on track to get amendments forward in this fall legislative session?

The Chair: Just a reminder. When reading quotes or press releases, if the name is mentioned, in the House, just use the titles.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member and I have different perspectives, I think, on a few things, but one of them is, frankly, in response to an evolving situation. I think it is important to respond to changing circumstances.

The member will know that it was government’s intention to introduce legislation that would temporarily suspend key provisions of the Declaration Act. That was a temporary solution that would require a lasting, durable solution to be put in place. What the Attorney General created was the space with Indigenous leadership to sit down — not just Indigenous leadership, but key stakeholders and others — to craft that durable legislation.

I still have the same concerns — the member read a number of quotes — about the implications of the court decision. The question was whether to take the six months leading up to the fall session to try to find that durable solution with stakeholders, their partners and Indigenous leadership that would last and that would be responsive to the court decision, or not. I made the decision that we would take those six months and that we would do that work with our partners to try to find that path forward together.

It is not a guarantee that we will, but it is my sincere hope that we will. We’ve come through challenging matters before. The member was right when he read my quote — that I am not happy that we are in this situation. It is the result of a court decision from the B.C. Court of Appeal. We have also appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the member will know that we were granted leave, which means we will be arguing that in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.

It may be concluded before the fall session. Regardless, we’re at the table. We’re working together, and our deadline for that table is the fall legislative session.

The important question, I think…. Estimates give us the opportunity, potentially, to have these exchanges. I say “potentially” because it’s not necessarily the case.

[4:55 p.m.]

I do understand the opposition’s position that we should repeal the Declaration Act. They don’t believe that the Declaration Act is supporting the $88 billion in major projects that we have in the province. They don’t believe that that’s part of the reason why our economy grew faster than expected, why we’re only one of two provinces to show year-over-year growth or that it is enabling some of the major mine and energy investments that we see. They don’t believe that. I understand that.

Their stated policy position is to repeal the Declaration Act, which I understand. But then when their House Leader says: “Yeah, well, we would repeal it, but then we would rework it so everyone’s on the same page….” Then in their leadership contest, people have a variety of opinions about Indigenous People, I will say. I won’t go into it, because we’ll see who shows up. But I’m curious about what the perspective is.

What happens the day after repeal? What happens with the agreements around children and youth, around language preservation, about environmental assessments that are enabling thousands of jobs? What is the path forward, in a province that was settled without treaty, that doesn’t end in significant litigation?

The member says repeatedly that there is chaos. Money talks — $88 billion in major projects, leading Canada in economic development. Proud of that, and we’re going to continue that work.

I do think there is a significant risk of major litigation and the loss of projects in a world where the act is repealed with no plan for what to do on the next day.

I know it’s not the Leader of the Opposition’s question period. They have a new leader coming. They’re going to explain how that works from their perspective.

From my perspective, building these relationships, trying to stay out of court where we can and partnering to develop the province in a way that lifts everybody’s boat is the way forward. The court decisions are a challenge to that work. I acknowledge it. I’m not happy about it. There is a reason for us to do this work. There was a reason why this work was unanimously supported in the Legislature.

I think it’s unfortunate that today we had protesters out on the front lawn engaging in residential schools denialism. I think that is part of the challenge that we need to face as a province — pushing back on this kind of open, divisive and hateful rhetoric. One guy was holding a sign that said “Get digging.” This is talking about dead children. That is the current tenor out there.

I think it is an imperative for all members of this place to articulate what the vision for the relationship with Indigenous People is. I am and remain curious about where the Conservatives will land on that, given the House Leader’s comments.

Trevor Halford: Numerous times the Premier cited urgency. That position has obviously changed. It has changed multiple times. But he cited urgency, and he cited court cases. He cited 20 court cases that have been amended by the Gitxaała court decision.

Can the Premier list any of those court decisions for us in the House today?

[5:00 p.m. - 5:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I have checked in with the Attorney General’s team, and I’ve been advised on two points related to the member’s question.

First is that revealing a list of cases would be revealing legal advice, which we do not do.

The second is that doing so may include government’s legal interpretation of what a petitioner is doing in amending a particular petition or court document. In doing so, the government may be taking a position that is inconsistent with what the applicant or petitioner thinks that they were doing in amending the petition.

What I can provide the member are situations where we have had actual decisions from the court. I hope that will assist the member in understanding why I still feel this is an urgent matter and also believe that if we can find a durable solution within the next six months, we should.

The first is a matter related to ICBC. An individual has brought a claim in relation to enhanced-care benefits from ICBC. The person’s care benefits were cancelled when they failed to show up for an independent medical exam, and the person made claims in court against ICBC in this regard. ICBC applied to move the claim to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, which is where enhanced-care-benefit claims typically are heard in the province.

During that litigation process, which is now headed to the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff amended their pleadings to rely on the Declaration Act and the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, referencing Gitxaała in arguing that the lower court decisions did not read the relevant provisions of the applicable law in harmony with section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act. Here we have a court considering the application of the Declaration Act to ICBC enhanced-care benefits.

The second is a class proceedings act. Again, this is a procedural decision but still a decision from the court. A proposed class proceeding relates to the historic Willingdon School for Girls in British Columbia. The plaintiffs made various allegations against the province, including allegations of systemic negligence and infringement of a dozen or so novel asserted Aboriginal rights. The plaintiffs cited the Declaration Act and provided supplemental submissions post Gitxaała.

The province opposed certification of the class action on two main grounds. Ground 1, the province has Crown immunity for actions predating the 1974 Crown Proceeding Act. No. 2, the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert collective Aboriginal rights.

In the certification decision, the court held that it is not plain and obvious that the tort and equitable claims by Indigenous subclass members are precluded by Crown immunity. They held that the Declaration Act might change Crown immunity for Indigenous plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs had argued that the prospective nature of the Crown Proceeding Act is inconsistent with the Declaration Act and UN declaration. In other words, the plaintiffs argued that the Declaration Act makes the Crown Proceeding Act retrospective for Indigenous plaintiffs.

I hope this assists the member in understanding the concern that the government has and why we believe we need to address this issue.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’m no lawyer, but that certainly sounds like the Interpretation Act changes that the Premier brought in as the Attorney General have made one confusing legal mess of things in British Columbia.

At the beginning, in the Premier’s opening statements, he waxed poetically about the Westminster system and how wonderful it is to be in budget estimates where the public can hear full scrutiny and disclosure from the government on things of importance to the public.

Yesterday when I was in budget estimates with the Finance Minister, I was actually heartened by some proactive disclosure at the same time as we were debating Bill 9 in a different chamber, which is FOI legislation which would severely restrict people’s access to information from the government. The minister proactively disclosed a document to me, the Treasury Board directive she signed off on, on April 30, while I was questioning around costs of FIFA.

Part of the directive she signed off on, on page 5, is 5(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 this Treasury Board directive. It’s got her signature on it. She provided it, fully and wholly, over to me.

The problem is that then I asked a question in relation to the document she then provided. I said the minister signed off on these directions.

[5:10 p.m.]

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 the directive that says, “the government of B.C. is subject to 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 on April 30, 2026, which was not that long ago, what the cost of the suites was going to be? Did she not know what the cost of the suites would be, which would fall under “strictly comply with the terms of agreement” around ticket 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.

To which the minister shockingly replied — again, proactive disclosure: “I suggest to the member there is a third option, which is that the minister does know and is deferring to the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, and Culture to give their update, which they plan to do in the coming days.” This, to the outside world, might sound like a reasonable answer.

In fact, I believe Madam Chair was in the chair when I asked her whether or not ministers are expected to answer questions that they’ve actually fully acknowledged they have the answer to in the middle of budget estimates which, based on her signed directive, she is directly responsible for. But the minister refused.

So I would like to give the Premier the opportunity, as the head of government, to answer that question which, obviously, government does have the answer to. It may be in government’s convenience to release it as a package with the minister after this House rises, conveniently not before the Premier’s estimates. But his own minister….

By all accounts, everyone agrees in most…. You have the Attorney General and you have the Finance Minister. Those are the two big heads of ministerial roles.

She has acknowledged she signed a directive on April 30 of this year to make sure you fully participate in all ticket packages required by FIFA. It was a direct question around what the cost of the suite package is. Not how they were being allocated, not who was going into the suites — the cost.

She replied she has the answer but refused to give the answer. That is not acceptable. I hope the Premier would think that’s not acceptable, as well, for the public.

So what is the actual cost of the suite package for these seven games that this government has agreed to under the provisions of the FIFA contract and the Treasury Board directive signed by his own Finance Minister on April 30?

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

Hon. David Eby: The member was asking about a five-page document received from the Minister of Finance that he asked about in estimates — on page 5, a provision around accountability, subsection (b), related to terms of an agreement with FIFA around tickets.

I’ll say to the member that we have a comprehensive update on costing and revenues on Friday. I recognize the member’s frustration that it is not while we’re sitting. Our plan had been in June. We brought it forward. We’re working with federal and municipal partners to the end of the month. We had a huge amount of interest in the numbers. I’m happy to advise the member that we are committed to making responsible investments that reflect the scale and importance of this event.

On security, it’ll be part of the update this week. I can tell the member we will spend what we need to spend to keep people safe. The federal government has confirmed, and I am grateful for their support, that we will be receiving $100 million for safety and security to defray some of these costs. The safety of people and visitors from around the world is our top priority.

Other cost considerations include our decision to make the FIFA Fan Fest general admission free so that British Columbians can be part of the festivities and watch the matches for free. There are premium reserved seats, but our goal is to make this as accessible as possible for British Columbians in every part of the province.

It’s also important to note that a significant portion of the host city costs are offset by the MRDT, or what is more commonly known as the hotel tax. So it’s paid for by people staying in hotels, not by general taxpayers. That was indicated in our cost estimate for next year, and those revenues will be included.

The member’s question was related to this accountability piece, but I really feel he’s actually asking about a suite that the Ministry of Jobs has purchased to be able to host business leaders and investors during this international event.

The world is coming to British Columbia, and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to attract international investment. The Minister of Jobs is launching something called B.C. Business House, which is a business networking venue that will put a global spotlight on B.C. and its key industries. As part of this, we have purchased a ten-person suite for the seven matches to host investors, business partners and stakeholders, to showcase B.C. investment opportunities. Guests will include global executives and senior business leaders and investors whose participation aligns with B.C.’s priority sectors and investment attraction goals.

Now, the ministers will be providing a cost update tomorrow. I don’t want to get ahead of their work, but I can tell the member that, in comparison, the previous government spent $18 million during the Olympics on business hosting. That included three suites that were purchased at B.C. Place, Rogers Arena and Pacific Coliseum. I can advise the member that our B.C. Business House initiative is much more modestly priced, but we definitely want to seize the opportunity of the world coming to Vancouver.

I don’t know if there was some confusion about the member asking about an agreement or what, but the cost of the suite is $475,000. It was published on May 21 by Bob Mackin, so six days ago. If that’s what the member was asking about, he can find it in the public domain.

[5:25 p.m.]

If he’s asking about the specific agreement related to government organizations, subject to purchase agreements and strict compliance, I’ll have to get back to the member on that, but I hope that the $475,000 is the number that he’s looking for.

Peter Milobar: Well, the first part of that answer took quite a while, to have the same almost answer regurgitated that I had from the Finance Minister. I would assume it was just a pre-printed speaking note that they were working off of.

I appreciate the $475,000 figure. That is what I was asking. That’s what I was asking for the better part of 40 minutes yesterday and getting a tap dance around, just various ministers. I am not questioning at this point the validity of a suite or not a suite.

For further clarification — because, as much as Mr. Mackin does great work, I think the Premier would agree that maybe we shouldn’t just rely on online news sources as opposition to have all of our answers answered for us in estimates, or we wouldn’t need to come into this chamber at all — is the $475,000 cost for the suite per game or for all seven games?

Hon. David Eby: That is for the duration of the tournament. It’s all seven games.

Trevor Halford: Thank you.

I thank my colleague as well.

Just a quick question. The facility at B.C. Place is owned by the province of B.C. Why is the province of B.C. purchasing a suite for a facility they own? Did they not work that into the agreement they had structured with FIFA?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member may recall these types of arrangements with these international sporting organizations from his time working in the then Minister of Small Business and Economic Development’s office, Iain Black. What happens is that the international sporting organization takes over the entire building under the agreement.

It’s slightly different, though, in FIFA’s case. They sublicense, I understand, a number of suites to the host city, in this case, Vancouver. We don’t have any agreements with FIFA for this suite. This agreement is with the city of Vancouver. FIFA pays rent to occupy the venue during this time and to have full control of the facility during the time of the World Cup.

The expenditure here is relatively modest compared to the $18 million that was spent during the Olympics on business hosting. I note that the Leader of the Opposition was the staff member who worked in the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development’s office when they ran their program that cost $18 million.

Consistent in terms of the understanding of the opportunity that’s here to attract international investment…. Qatar will be playing in Vancouver. The Prime Minister has visited Qatar and sought to attract investment to Canada. It’s an opportunity for British Columbia to put on a show and welcome and offer those investment opportunities to continue to drive jobs and opportunity for British Columbians.

These are the kinds of opportunities that we are pushing for through this process. There were three suites that were booked during the Olympics and paid for out of that $18 million. One of them was B.C. Place. This is a process that government has gone through before in terms of international sporting events.

Trevor Halford: Just a quick question. I see, through the kind of ticketing policy that this government has talked about, it says max two ministers per game. Each minister can bring one staff. Is that a bureaucratic, ministry-level staff member; or is that political staff; or can it include both?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: This is for staff. It’s not for friends or romantic partners or anyone other than staff. It could be, under the policy, either public service staff or political staff.

I think, practically speaking, when you have a minister, or when I’m attending, it is most likely to be political staff. I think the member is well aware of the important work done by political staff, especially at large events, when people are bringing out business cards and asking for things of government in terms of meetings or, in this case what we’re particularly seeking, investment leads. That is the hope here.

I note that this ticket policy is a significant departure from government’s ticket policy during the Olympics, which the member will be familiar with because he ran it out of Iain Black’s office. That resulted in 143 free tickets to Olympic events going to MLAs, which were overwhelmingly used for men’s hockey.

We’re taking a different approach than the member did when he was with the B.C. Liberals and Iain Black. Part of this is recognizing that a lot of people want to go to these games and not everyone is able to do that, so making the games available but also requiring that if members of public service or politicians wish to attend, they buy their own tickets and get in line with everybody else. That is an important principle for us here.

Trevor Halford: It is good of the Premier to go down memory lane there.

I think we probably had much different experiences at the 2010 Olympics. I was a proud Canadian, proud British Columbian. I did go to a couple of games. I went to Canada-Germany, U.S. men’s hockey, and I went to Canada-U.S. It was a preliminary round. I didn’t go to the gold-medal game.

I remember that because I went to those games with my dad, and it was great. I went with my dad, and we were lucky enough to get tickets through the lottery system, which we paid, obviously, face value for. It was probably one of the greatest times that I’ve had with my dad. It was a great event to do.

I’m not sure what the Premier was doing at that time. I think he was passing out business cards to people that were disrupting the Olympics. I chose to celebrate, put on my Canadian jersey and cheer on Team Canada while the Premier cheered on the protesters that were trying to disrupt the games. There were different priorities in 2010 for both of us, I guess. But I do find it….

The Premier mentioned…. He talked about business cards. I just did, about the Premier handing out his business cards to protesters and others, offering free legal advice. Then he just mentioned political staffers and business cards.

You would think going into a suite at an event like this, where ministers are allocated one ticket for staff…. Would that not be a deputy minister, an ADM, somebody who manages a lot of those relationships with external stakeholders? I fail to grasp how, at a time….

I, honestly, still, to this day, do not know a single person, besides maybe people who sit on that side of the House, that is going to a World Cup game. I’m going to watch, but I’ll watch from the comfort of my home or my friends’. I will not be in a luxury suite.

I do find it odd that if two tickets per minister are being allocated, that that would include political staff. You would think if they want to maximize those opportunities, it’s usually the deputy minister, associate deputy ministers that are managing those relationships at a high level with multinational corporations, not executive assistants or ministerial assistants to various ministers.

I understand it’s important to hand out business cards and things like that. I’m not minimizing the work political staff do. I did that job. But I just find it odd that the Premier is now saying that those precious tickets that very few British Columbians will get to experience are now going to be handed out to NDP political staff.

[5:40 p.m.]

Can the Premier confirm that NDP political staff will be going into those luxury boxes for those games at the World Cup?

Hon. David Eby: Thank you to the member for the question.

It’s certainly possible, as I said in my answer, that there will be deputy ministers or other members of the public service attending with the minister. The minister will make a decision about who will provide the best assistance to them, given who’s in the box, and so on.

I understand the member is trying to make a point here, but political staff includes, in my office, my chief of staff, the principal secretary, who is the….

Interjection.

Hon. David Eby: Hon. Chair, if we need to take a break, I’m happy to take a break.

The political staff of my office include the chief of staff, a principal secretary. These two people hold major relationships with key stakeholders that we are seeking to land major investments with. They play a crucial role in delivering those.

The member recalls serving as a political staffer in the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development office, which I’m sure was important for him in those formative years. But there are serious senior political staff in the Premier’s office that are landing multi-billion-dollar investments in this province, that have significant relationships. So there is a spectrum of political staff, public service staff.

But I’ll tell you what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to do the same system that the Leader of the Opposition ran during the Olympics.

I’m glad he had that great memory of buying tickets and going with his dad. I think that’s great. That’ll be our policy for politicians and political staff and members of the public service. They’ve got to buy tickets if they want to go to the games and make those memories with the people they love, if they’re able to get tickets, recognizing that it has been a challenge for a lot of people to get tickets to this.

The system that he ran with Iain Black was that MLAs got 143 free tickets to the Olympics that people didn’t get access to — very popular Canadian men’s hockey games, the victory ceremonies, the opening and closing ceremonies. We’re not doing that. So I thank the member for his feedback. We are running things differently. It’s not an $18 million luxury suite.

He talked about boxes. That was his program — multiple luxury boxes. Our program is one box, $475,000 versus $18 million to host and attempt to land significant investment. It’s the same understanding about the opportunity but a different approach to taxpayer dollars.

Trevor Halford: Well, I don’t think there’s ever been a better time to be an NDP insider than as we go into the World Cup, and I’ll give you an example of that.

A couple of weeks ago we saw an order in council where a former minister, NDP member Rob Fleming was appointed to the PavCo board just in time for World Cup. Will Mr. Fleming be receiving any tickets for any of the World Cup games coming up?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The policy, page 4 of 5 — this is section 3. I will just read the relevant bullet. “Subject to the limitations and with the prior approval of the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, provincial FWC26 tickets may be acquired and used by a limited number of designated officials. That includes ministers, board chairs and chief executive officers of government organizations where attendance is required for the performance of official functions as a representative of the government of B.C. or the government organization.”

Then it goes into conditions — only one staff member. But specifically to the member’s question, in the case of government organizations, only the board chairs and chief executive officers may use the provincial FWC26 tickets, and there can be no delegates.

The current chair of PavCo is an incredibly talented Indigenous leader, Gwen Point. I’m sure her name will be familiar to members on the other side. We are honoured and glad she is serving as chair. If she is required to attend for the performance of official functions, she would be the only PavCo representative on the board that would be able to attend under the policy, and the relevant section is section 3.

I’ll just advise the member that at some point I’m going to need a few minutes’ break. I don’t want to interrupt flow, but if there is a natural break, if we could let me know, and I’ll ask for ten minutes.

The Chair: Yeah. It’s dinner time, so we will call a recess for 15 minutes. We’ll be in recess.

The committee recessed from 5:50 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: We will call the chamber back to order, where we are contemplating the Premier’s estimates.

Trevor Halford: I thank the Premier for clarifying that policy, but just one follow-up on that question that I did ask him.

Does that mean…? Obviously, the province of B.C. runs B.C. Place Stadium, so when we talk about PavCo directors, minus the chair, which the Premier laid out very clearly, does that mean that no directors of the PavCo board will be receiving tickets, whether in a luxury box or anywhere else in B.C. Place? No PavCo directors, minus the chair, will be receiving tickets?

Hon. David Eby: We had a second look just to see if there was some piece that we weren’t understanding in the member’s question.

Mr. Fleming is a board member at PavCo. The policy is clear. The only person this policy finds PavCo…. The only person who is potentially allowed to receive a ticket is the chair of PavCo, Gwen Point, and only if she is required to attend as part of her duties as the PavCo chair.

Rob Fleming is not the PavCo chair. He is a board member. As a result, he is prohibited from receiving a free ticket under this policy, as are the other board members.

I hope I’m not missing a nuance. I feel like it’s the same answer, but happy to provide that clarity.

Trevor Halford: Just before we took the break, the Premier talked about access to tickets. Again, I’ll reiterate. I’ve said many times I don’t know anybody that is going to these games.

[6:10 p.m.]

I just want to see if there was a chance or an opportunity by the province when they worked out this deal with FIFA when it came to ticketing. Prior other jurisdictions did this. They weighted the tickets so that British Columbians would have greater access, greater odds, greater chances to get those tickets.

I’ve coached youth soccer. I know there are a lot of families that I think were hopeful to get tickets who came up short. Perhaps if they seek employment in one of the ministers’ offices, they can get a ticket now. For the majority of people, that’s not possible.

Did the province ever advocate, ask, have an opportunity to weight the tickets when they were released to the public so that British Columbians would have a better chance of participating in these games?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The short answer is…. I’m advised that, yes, the province did ask for weighted access for ticket buyers and that, during phase 2, weighted access was given to ticket buyers in British Columbia as part of FIFA’s ticket sale process.

It’s my understanding that the city of Vancouver also has a ticket program. I don’t know about that program, but as a host city, they do get access to tickets.

I can advise the member that we share his interest in young people being able to access World Cup matches who might not otherwise be able to. On May 14, I issued a press release about a program, through the provincial government and PavCo, supporting organizations that help youth that would face barriers to accessing the World Cup because of poverty or health challenges or other issues.

There is a draw taking place for 350 tickets. Organizations that are selected in the draw will get ten tickets each for distribution to young people to be able to attend World Cup matches; 350 tickets will be distributed that way.

Not everyone will be able to come to the game, but we still want people to be able to enjoy the World Cup. That’s why we made the fan festival free. For example, the amphitheatre will offer a free general admission floor. There’s about a 2,600-person capacity on a first-come, first-served basis during match days.

We’re directly funding 32 municipalities, regional districts and First Nations across the province to host free public events and watch parties to ensure British Columbians can participate in World Cup festivities.

They are Alberni Valley, Campbell River, Central Coast regional district, Comox Valley, Coquitlam, Cranbrook, Delta, Fort St. John, Gibsons, Kamloops, Kelowna, Langford, Langley, Maple Ridge, Nanaimo, Nelson, New West, North Coast regional district/Haida Gwaii, North Okanagan regional district, North Vancouver, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Prince George, Revelstoke, Richmond, Salmon Arm, Sechelt, Surrey, Terrace, Tofino, Tumbler Ridge, Victoria and Williams Lake First Nation.

The broader fan festival site at Hastings Park–PNE will have 28 days of live entertainment, more than 60 free performances with national and international artists and a strong representation of B.C. talent.

[6:20 p.m.]

This has also created other opportunities in other parts of the province. Because the Lions were displaced from B.C. Place, we directly supported Touchdown Kelowna to bring two B.C. Lions regular-season games to the Okanagan, which will give a unique opportunity for Kelowna football fans and the tourism industry there.

We’re doing our best to find ways for everyone to be able to participate across the province, wherever they are.

Peter Milobar: Again, following up on a couple questions that the Finance Minister was unwilling to answer.

When I look back on the public sector agreements that are being agreed to and the timeline, there was a mad flurry. All of a sudden, what looked like there was going to be massive labour unrest in the province…. Agreements started to be signed, conveniently right before the NDP Convention and the Premier’s leadership review and leadership vote where unions have delegated votes. Coincidence, perhaps? We leave that to the court of public opinion to figure out.

The concerning part about budget estimates this year was when I asked the Finance Minister if the public sector agreements are more expensive than the government expected and the answer was that they are. That was the concern, many people’s concerns, when we saw the flurry of agreements starting to be signed right before the Premier’s leadership review at his NDP convention — that the public was being sold down the river with expensive labour contracts because the Premier needed an approval rating at his leadership review.

Now, when I asked the minister if she could provide a percentage of how much more expensive these agreements have been than what the government was anticipating them to be, she refused to answer. I’m not asking what the dollars are. I’m not asking what the baseline was. I’m simply asking: is it 10 percent higher than the government was originally anticipating when they budgeted for their mandate and negotiations — 15 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent?

Right now this government has had to add an extra $1 billion to contingency funds this year, next year and the following year, higher than they did last year, in anticipation of this year or around the mandate. The quick math makes it look like it’s anywhere from 20 to 25 percent higher than the government anticipated for the cost of these settlements.

What is the percentage of higher cost to these public sector agreements that are being settled by the government than what the government anticipated they were going to be?

[6:25 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member is not correct with his innuendo. The government has been in a process with labour for an extended period. There are 182 agreements covering 456,000 unionized public sector employees. This includes agreements with various segments of the public sector — K-to-12 teachers, support workers in April, doctors in April.

In May, just a few examples. The member was particularly interested in the BCGEU. The BCGEU is not affiliated with the B.C. NDP and does not attend convention. Regardless, there was an eight-week strike, September 2 to October 26. He suggests this was a masterminded plan to curry favour. I suggest that it is a tough strategy. It was a challenge for GEU members. It was hard on them and their families. It was, we recognize, a part of the process when we negotiate agreements with organized labour in this province.

In that context, I want to say how much I do appreciate the work of labour in the province of British Columbia. I’m very excited about the work we’re doing around skilled-trades training. I want to thank those public sector union members who deliver health care, who teach our kids, who support our kids, who support people in need, who deliver care in our hospitals — doctors, nurses, health science professionals, so many remarkable people in this province. Negotiations are never easy or fun, but they are a necessary part of the work.

The member asked a very specific question about the contingencies and $1 billion, which he suggested is attributable to labour agreements. I believe that the Minister of Finance covered this in detail with him. She’s the best source of information for this. She pointed out that the member would not be correct in attributing the full $1 billion in contingencies to labour agreements and, also, that it is prejudicial to outstanding tables, of which there are still outstanding tables in the province, to disclose that information the member was seeking.

I look forward to the next question.

Peter Milobar: Well, I’ll quote the minister directly. “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.” That was the end of the answer. That was the “full answer” just before 2:35 on Thursday.

Now, I followed up by asking what the percentage increase is of that cost. The minister refused to say it was all contingency fund. Fine. I took her at her word on that, even though she said it’s captured in the increase in the contingency fund.

I’ve now asked the Premier what the percentage is. I haven’t asked what the baseline dollar figure is. I’m asking: what is the percentage increase that this mandate is costing more than what the government anticipated it would when they started entering contract negotiations?

[6:35 p.m.]

That seems like a reasonable number to get from the government. It’s not going to compromise bargaining positions. No one knows what the starting point was. No one knows what the dollar figures are.

No one knows, out of that extra $1 billion in contingencies, which took it from $4 billion to $5 billion, a 25 percent addition to it, whether that’s fully attributable to the mandate or not. Maybe it’s a 30 percent increase to the mandate, and you need all of it and more. That would still make “captured in the increase in the contingency fund” accurate as well. We don’t know.

For the government to try to hide behind: “We’re still in negotiations, so we can’t answer that.…” They’ve already acknowledged that their cost of the mandate went up and they’ve put money in the contingency funds to help account for it. I’m not asking for any dollar figures. I’m simply asking: what is the percentage increase that the mandate went up and that the government was not anticipating? That is a fair, valid and reasonable question that I think the public would be interested in.

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member pretends that this is a new policy, just like he pretended that government bargaining was driven by the NDP convention. This has been the policy of government, including when the B.C. Liberals sat on this side of the House with many of the members on the other side now. It continues to be the policy, and it’s not something that’s just made up. There are 150 outstanding tables where government is still in bargaining.

The member canvassed this in great detail with the Minister of Finance. He read one small portion of one exchange. She was very clear that 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. She said very clearly to the member: “I’m not able to share with the member the precise number. There are still tables in negotiation. 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 wildfire increases, statutory caseload demands and emerging risks, as well as the wage mandate. The bargaining work continues.

We hope to reach good agreements with the hard-working public service in British Columbia and the public sector, generally. I thank the member for his interest in that.

Peter Milobar: Look, it’s pretty rich coming from a Premier that tried blaming the housing market on Asian surnames and then tried walking away from that report.

Let’s be clear. I didn’t create the narrative about the agreements being signed right before the Premier’s leadership review. That was in the media. The Premier had no problem quoting media earlier in these estimates.

I haven’t asked for a dollar figure once today. I wasn’t asking the Finance Minister for the dollar figures. It’s the Finance Minister that offered up the information that the public sector agreements are more expensive than the government had budgeted for.

You have the head of the public service advising the Premier tonight. Surely, the government knows what percentage extra than they were budgeting for that these agreements are.

I made that very clear in my first answer. Is it 10 percent? Is it 15 percent? Is it 5 percent? We don’t know. The Finance Minister wants to be evasive about it. The Premier wants to walk away from that question and try to drag other stuff in that is completely unrelated to the question.

The question is quite simple and straightforward. His own minister…. And the Premier can say I’m parsing down from a long conversation; I am. The actual quote, the full, in its entirety, response to me from the Finance Minister: “In response to the member’s question, it is true that negotiations took longer than expected and the cost of the mandate did go up. That is captured in increase in contingency fund.” End of statement right there. That’s not pulling a snippet. That’s not pulling a small portion of it. That was her complete answer.

Why is the Premier not wanting to let us know? Is it 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent? Again, I’m not asking for what the baseline is. We can’t calculate anything if we don’t know what the baseline is.

You’re not exposing any negotiating ploy. The unions have heard the minister very clearly say that there’s extra money in contingencies and that the agreements are more expensive than they were anticipating from the government. I didn’t force the minister to say that and reveal that as part of the negotiations protection. She did on her own. But because she has now done that, the public deserves an answer. What is the percentage of the mandate cost that is higher than what the government anticipated?

If you use $100 as a representative example, if the government was assuming they could use $100 to solve the mandate, is it now $110, so a 10 percent difference? Is it $115, so a 15 percent difference? Now back the dollars out of that part of the example. I’m not asking for dollars. I’m not asking for a baseline. I’m simply asking for the percentage. What is the percentage extra?

[6:45 p.m.]

This is a government that says they’re trying to save costs. This is a government that says they have to remove 15,000 jobs from the public sector to try to keep costs under control. At the same time, they are admitting they’re negotiating contracts that are more expensive than they budgeted for.

I think it’s a completely relevant question to ask. I think the actual 500,000, or close to 500,000, public service and public sector workers out there might be interested to know, too, at a time that they’re watching 3 percent to 4 percent of their colleagues lose their job.

What is the percentage? If their government is not prepared to give the percentage, why are they being so secretive about it? Not because of the bargaining mandate, because this would not expose anything to do with the bargaining mandate. Why will the Premier not give us an answer? Why will he not give British Columbians an answer — and those 15,000 people that are about to lose their jobs, apparently under the guise of cost control — while they are openly admitting that they can’t negotiate a contract within the confines of their own budget restraints?

Hon. David Eby: While I am glad to have the questions from the member about that, just to clarify, a part of my strategy for the leadership review at the NDP convention was not an eight-week strike with the BCGEU. That was not part of a sweetheart deal to get a better leadership vote. I don’t understand the logic of the member’s allegation. In any event, I’m happy to clarify that for him.

The key question that he keeps asking, though…. I don’t understand here, as well, how he doesn’t understand that that would reveal the mandate. It’s very straightforward math to work from the number that he is seeking with the public mandate and understand for those 150 remaining tables what the situation is.

I tell the member we’re in negotiations. Revealing the number compromises those negotiations. It’s not something new that our government just thought up to prevent the member from getting the number that he’s seeking. This is something that was the position when many of the members over there sat on this side of the House.

I try my best to provide information to the member that he’s seeking, but on this one, I have to be firm. We are in negotiations. It is the continuing position of government that we can’t reveal that number because it would compromise the negotiations at the table.

Trevor Halford: I want to pick up on a couple of things the Premier said just prior to us going into FIFA. Just maybe a couple of questions before we get into the meat of it.

I think this is an important one for British Columbians. It’s fairly direct. What is the Premier’s plan if the province of B.C. loses the Gitxaała appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: There are two tracks that are going right now.

One is court. The member is right. We’ve been granted leave by the Supreme Court of Canada to make our arguments about the Court of Appeal decision in Gitxaała. We are looking forward to receiving the guidance from the court on their interpretation of the legislation.

That’s not the only piece. The member says: “Well, what happens if not successful at court?” That’s why there is a second track. At that track, we are engaged with First Nations leadership, with a target date of the fall legislative session, to identify the opportunities for a negotiated resolution of what we freely admit is government’s concern about the Gitxaała decision.

That table will assist us a great deal in the direction that we’re going to take. The court’s guidance may arrive in time to assist. It may not. The key here is that our hope is to reach that durable solution with our partners in this work with First Nations leadership in the province, with the target date of the fall session. That was the case even before we received leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Trevor Halford: I don’t think that the Premier’s answer inspires a lot of confidence, but we’ll take it for what it is.

The Premier should know this, because he was there. He was responsible. He stood a couple of desks over while he introduced the legislation and then defended it, albeit for under 20 minutes, in terms of the Interpretation Act.

Did this government ever conduct a legal risk assessment on whether DRIPA and/or the Interpretation Act could fundamentally alter existing provincial laws?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: At the time of the introduction of the Declaration Act, the relevant minister was Scott Fraser. The Leader of the Opposition was Andrew Wilkinson.

[7:00 p.m.]

Here’s what Scott Fraser said back in 2019 on a bill debate on the Declaration Act: “To be clear, this bill doesn’t in itself change the laws of B.C. It commits us to an action plan and to aligning our laws with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, over time. When legislative changes are proposed through this process, they will, of course, come to this House for full debate.” Then again: “I just want to be clear. Bill 41 does not bring UNDRIP into legal force and effect.”

The Leader of the Opposition at the time made a speech about why he was supporting the legislation. He made some important comments. It feels like a million years ago that we were having this level of debate in the House.

“Questions will arise. This process of change, reconciliation and a modern approach to engaging with Indigenous People will generate many questions, as everyone involved needs certainty.”

He continues:

“As a society, we’ll need to address them, respecting the needs, hopes and dreams of everyone involved, most especially the people in all our communities, because that is respectful engagement, and that is the foundation of reconciliation. The reward will be opportunity for everyone in British Columbia, a chance to get ahead, to realize their dreams right here in British Columbia.

“Everyone in this province must feel that sense of belonging, that British Columbia is our home, that we’ll be respected here, that we’ll all have a full sense of citizenship and will be treated with respect and dignity each and every day.

“That’s why I’m proud to stand here in this chamber and welcome an opportunity for real, substantive reconciliation among all the people of British Columbia. We have a long journey still to go, and we must continue that journey in good faith together.”

Then he voted, of course, in favour of the legislation.

With respect to the Interpretation Act, in debate, I said the following.

“In response to the member’s question, that is correct. It would be easy to read this amendment in isolation from the rest of the Interpretation Act and perhaps come to the conclusion that it functions perhaps like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where that is a law that invalidates laws that are inconsistent with it. That is not how the Interpretation Act functions.

“Where there is a clear and contrary intention, where the law is not consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that is clear in the legislation, then that’s that. This doesn’t serve to overrule that.”

Of course, that is where we parted ways with two out of the three judges in the Gitxaała decision. The member seeks the release of, one can only assume, legal opinions from government. I’ll just remind the member that we are currently in court on Gitxaała, and we will not be releasing legal advice.

It is safe to say that the statements in the House reflect the understanding of government, the opposition, on the Declaration Act and the understanding of the government, the Attorney General at the time — that was me — in terms of the Interpretation Act amendment that was introduced.

Trevor Halford: Sorry, just to clarify the Premier’s earlier comments, was he indicating that…? It is hard to hear him for some reason. Was he indicating that myself made the comments? Was that what he was reading into? Were those my quotes that he was reading in? I just….

The Chair: Thank you, Member. Just through the Chair.

Hon. David Eby: The Leader of the Opposition at the time was Andrew Wilkinson, and those were extended quotes from Andrew Wilkinson during his speech before he voted in favour of the Declaration Act.

Trevor Halford: Thank you for that clarification.

I don’t think the Premier either heard or understood what my question was. I wasn’t actually asking for the release of a legal risk assessment, whether it was for DRIPA or for the Interpretation Act, which he introduced. I was asking if one was done. I’m not asking for him to table it, produce it.

I would assume that one would have been done. Maybe not, given the state that we’re in today. Was a legal risk assessment done on either DRIPA or the Interpretation Act?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member is, in fact, asking about legal advice. The existence of legal advice, the content of legal advice, is privileged, and there is always a risk of government inadvertently waiving that privilege.

We’re currently in court on these exact matters. I’m not interested today in opening up a whole new front, but what I can do is provide the member with general advice about the process of this government and my understanding of the process of the previous government around statutory amendment or statutes coming forward to government for consideration by government in introduction to the House.

In the regular course of business, the submissions go to legal counsel as part of an overall review the government does with a number of different lenses to understand risk, whether it’s legal, fiscal, policy. Obviously, the legal risk analysis is conducted by Ministry of Attorney General lawyers to assist government in understanding the implications of any particular statute that is brought forward.

I hope that assists.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank the Premier.

A little while, maybe an hour, back when we were talking about some of the court decisions, not court decisions but some of the cases that are before the court, he referenced ICBC.

I can assume, because ICBC is before the courts and because it now does reference…. I’ve got the Premier’s comments here that he made a short while ago, where it does reference the Declaration Act, does reference Gitxaała, so I can assume that that was one of the cases the Premier was referencing when he was talking about the 20 court cases reflected by the Gitxaała court decision.

Is that correct?

[7:10 p.m. - 7:15 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: It’s just taking a little bit of time on the member’s question. I don’t know if he wants to go to another one while we continue the work in the background on that. Just recognizing there’s limited time here, rather than waiting for the…. We just want to be accurate.

Trevor Halford: I’m pretty surprised by that, because that information was given today by the Premier, like an hour ago. Now for them to say they need more information…. He was the one that brought that forward. Okay.

The Premier gave the example of ICBC, not me. He’s the one that has been going in front of the press and talking about 20 court cases that can be impacted by this court ruling. Those are the Premier’s words, not mine.

I understand that he’s frustrated, but he should be frustrated at himself. I know his habit is to try and blame other people around him, but at the end of the day, the responsibility is his. It was his when he sat in the Attorney General’s seat, forced through an Interpretation Act in 12 minutes and then brought closure in — and then may or may not have done a legal risk assessment.

Well, I think the verdict is in. It was pretty legally risky. I’m not a lawyer. The Premier is. But I can tell you, from what we’re seeing now and how this is playing out, either the then Attorney General, now Premier, gave bad legal advice to cabinet, which is maybe par for the course…. I think this Premier has lost in court more than he has won, whether it’s Trans Mountain or other projects.

He’s the one that cited the ICBC case, not me, so if he needs more information, I’m sure his staff will work diligently to get that. But here’s the problem. The Premier has opened the door now. So ICBC, a Crown corp of this government…. We’re talking about litigation that is now referencing Gitxaała and DRIPA legislation.

If the Premier can reference one case, I’m sure he can reference others. When it comes to the Ministry of Energy; when it comes to, let’s say specifically, B.C. Hydro, are any of the 20 cases the Premier referenced related to B.C. Hydro? If he can cite ICBC, he can cite other Crown corps here.

[7:20 p.m. - 7:25 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I think that some of the disconnect here is coming from pleadings that are in front of the court. I explained to the member earlier a couple of reasons why we were not able to provide him with a list.

[7:30 p.m.]

The difference between pleadings, which are the documents that you file in court, and court decisions, which I will endeavour to provide the member with information about…. I was able to share the ICBC component with him not because ICBC is a Crown corporation but because there has been a decision from the Civil Resolution Tribunal.

On the B.C. Hydro matter, there was a matter where the Declaration Act was pled. There was a judicial review of an EPA for the Brandywine Creek hydro project. The applicant in that judicial review was the Líl̓wat First Nation, and they were not successful in their application. It was one of the 20.…

It’s important. The member has the press release with the number 20 in it. Pleadings, documents that are filed in court, amended…. This was a point in time. There could be additional pleadings that have been filed. They could, like the Brandywine case, be being considered actively by a court.

This is an ongoing process, and it remains the government’s priority to resolve this by the fall legislative session and, also, why we’re appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is a concern, certainly that I have, about these filings, about the risk, and also a desire to reach a lasting solution, which is why we’ve set the six months to sit down with our partners and key stakeholders to be able to try to craft a lasting resolution to this issue created by the Gitxaała decision.

Trevor Halford: We’ll come back to ICBC in a moment here.

Almost a year ago to the day, we debated, just down the hall, Bills 14 and 15, legislation that this Premier put forward, whether it was the Minister of Energy or the Minister of Infrastructure. Obviously, the Premier is aware that there was a very significant reaction from First Nations communities on that legislation, both Bills 14 and 15.

Let’s talk about Bill 14 for a second. A press release issued May 29, 2025: “The First Nations Leadership Council expresses profound disappointment with the passage of Bills 14 and 15.” I’m going to read a couple of quotes here. BCAFN Regional Chief Terry Teegee stated: “The passage of Bills 14 and 15 represents a new low point in the relationship between the provincial Crown and First Nations.”

Another quote here. I’ll read a quote in from Robert Phillips, First Nations Summit political executive. He states: “Regrettably, the province forced closure on bills last night that are in direct contravention of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and which are resoundingly opposed by First Nations and others.” I’ll end the quote there. That was on Bill 14 and Bill 15.

Now, my colleagues and I…. I remember that, because I was in the room. We’ll focus on the Minister of Infrastructure. We questioned her extensively about the duty to consult, in which she admitted, very directly, that they failed to meet that bar. That was the Minister of Infrastructure’s words when it came to the duty to consult. Primarily, that was on Bill 15. It’s the Minister of Infrastructure, and we’ll have those comments into the Premier very shortly here.

My question to the Premier. If we have a member of his executive council going on public record saying that they came up short on their duty to consult with First Nations on that piece of legislation that the Premier, I believe, did through closure…? I might be mistaken on that, but I can correct the record if I am. Would that not open the door for further litigation on any projects that are associated with Bill 15?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: The member is asking me for legal advice that I respectfully decline to provide.

Trevor Halford: I can’t believe it took the Premier of this province, who’s a lawyer, who’s a former Attorney General, over ten minutes to come up with that quote. That is pretty remarkable, pretty telling about the leadership that we have in that current office right now. We’re in trouble.

I asked a very direct question. The Premier should know the answer to this, so I’m going to ask it again. Sorry if it’s inconvenient for him. I know it’s getting late, but he’ll have to power through.

[7:40 p.m.]

Bills 14 and 15. Bill 15. We had the Minister of Infrastructure, on record, apologizing for the province’s failure, in their mind, to properly consult on that piece of legislation. Bill 15, the major projects. Now, I know that the Premier has overseen a lot of major projects being cancelled. Whether they’re in Burnaby, whether they’re in Delta…. They’re throughout the province.

The Premier has announced them, and then the Minister of Finance has cancelled them. That’s how it works. I get that. But I would think…. Specifically on Bill 15, are there any court decisions pending that reference major projects with the province citing lack of consultation?

Hon. David Eby: We’ve canvassed the issue of pleadings that have been filed in court and why I’m not able to provide that to the member. That’s still the case.

I wasn’t totally clear, though, just to the member’s question. The duty of government to consult on major projects, like major resource projects or other projects, is not created by the Declaration Act. It is under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. That is where the duty to consult arises from and a significant number of cases in the province of British Columbia.

Trevor Halford: I think the Premier misheard my question. It wasn’t about specific major projects.

Why I asked the question to the Premier was the lack of consultation on that bill. That’s what I said, specifically on Bills 14 and 15.

I’m talking about Bill 15 right now, and it relates to major projects. I asked the Premier…. We will pull the minister’s remarks regarding Bill 15 and her apologies for the lack of consultation on that.

It wasn’t about any specific projects that this province has probably cancelled. It was about the legislation itself, which I referenced in this May 29, 2025, press release from the FNLC. It’s a pretty straightforward question.

The Premier is the one who cited ICBC here today. He referenced that case. Now he doesn’t want to talk about this stuff anymore. I understand it’s inconvenient for him because he’s the one that set this up.

I would imagine that if we are now seeing the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples being used in our courts regarding ICBC and enhanced-care benefits, I would think there would be a long, exhaustive list of other things that this province touches, whether they’re clean energy projects…. Well, if it’s ICBC, it could really be anything, right?

The Premier of the province stood in this House today and said one of the major concerns he’s got here is that we have a case with ICBC. You know what? I agree with him. It seems crazy to me that that would be before our courts being argued.

What’s even worse is he’s the one that set the table for that to happen. It was him. Now he can’t figure out what to do. He’s the one that went out and cited these 20 court cases. The urgency for him to come into this House and put forward legislation he was so confident in that he was going to have a confidence vote….

[7:45 p.m.]

It didn’t work out well for him. Somebody had to come and clean up that mess.

The point of it is, if there is a court case…. If this Premier can cite a court case regarding ICBC and DRIPA, then he can cite every other court case that’s pending right now as well. So why won’t he do that?

Hon. David Eby: The member seems concerned that I’m inconvenienced by his questions or something along those lines. It’s not the case. I’m glad to take his questions here till the scheduled time. I’m available to him to do my best to answer the questions.

I’ve tried a couple of times now. I’ll try again to explain the distinction between where the court has issued a decision or the tribunal has issued a decision and pleadings or documents that have been amended and filed in court. That’s why I was able to canvass these different cases with him and why, with respect to the documents that have been filed, I’m not. I’m not sure what else I can offer the member on that.

The member said that a number of major projects have been cancelled in the province. That’s not the case. We have $88 billion in major projects. We have 37 projects on our list that we’re fast-tracking. Many of these projects are in partnership with First Nations.

We’re leading the country in private sector investment. I was really proud to be at Western Premiers and talk about what’s happening here in British Columbia, not just for British Columbians but for all Canadians — the jobs and opportunities that are being created here and the training opportunities for British Columbians to take the advantage of those jobs, noting that many of those projects are in partnership with First Nations or are First Nations projects. That is how we get big things done in the province, in the context of a province that was settled largely without treaty.

I hope that assists the member in clarifying.

The member mentioned Burnaby and Delta, referring to Burnaby Hospital and a long-term-care home in Delta.

[7:50 p.m.]

It is correct that we have paused those projects. They were not headed in the right direction. The Delta long-term-care project was $1.8 million a bed. That’s not an acceptable outcome. We have to deliver a lot of long-term-care beds in this province, and getting that project right is important for the people of Delta and for the province.

A similar issue around the Burnaby Hospital expansion. We needed to intervene there and get that project back on track. I’ve sat down with the hospital foundation, with staff at the hospital. They explained to me their concerns about the direction the health authority was going and their concerns related to budget overrun risks, and so on. This gives us an opportunity to reset and ensure we’re supporting the people of Burnaby.

I was at the Burnaby Hospital for that meeting. The original building is a very, very old building. There were many opportunities for governments to replace that hospital. It was the B.C. NDP that had completed phase 1 of the two-phase expansion and renewal project there at Burnaby Hospital, just like it was the NDP that did the Surrey hospital instead of selling the land.

With respect to the member, we are delivering major projects for people in the province, both on the private sector side and on the public side. We are going to make sure, through the Ministry of Infrastructure and her team’s work, that we do it responsibly.

Trevor Halford: I am sure his Burnaby MLAs will be very comforted and satisfied with his answer there. I know that the rest of Burnaby won’t be. They’ll be pretty disappointed, as they tend to be.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I want to go back to Hansard here. I should have remembered this. It was my question, directed to the Minister of Infrastructure, related to Bill 15. It was May 15. We talked about consultation, and this is the comment that was made by the then and now Minister of Infrastructure.

She said: “I want to acknowledge that we did not follow the interim approach that our government had agreed on, and that was clearly the error that we had made. We set to work on a shortened consultation timeline. That did not meet the interim approach, absolutely. The member is correct about that.”

“Given the feedback that we are now receiving from First Nations leaderships, that was clearly an incorrect assumption or assessment. We clearly did not judge the situation correctly.”

That was during committee stage of Bill 15. The government then brought in closure, as it tends to do.

I’m not asking the Premier for legal advice, but I would think that those comments, made by a member of his executive council, are very problematic, given the reality in the world that we live in, which is directed by legislation that this Premier put forward himself in this House, which he may or may not have had a legal opinion on. We can’t figure that out.

I think this is where the public is growing really frustrated. I think this is where First Nations are growing really frustrated. I think this is why we’re seeing a level of chaos that we haven’t seen in British Columbia before, because we’ve got a Premier that is responsible for the legislation, a top law official in our province, who debates it for 12 to 18 minutes and brings in closure. Now we’re dealing with the reality of that chaos playing out.

I would think that the comments on record by the Minister of Infrastructure on Bill 15 would be legally problematic. I’m not asking for the Premier’s opinion on that. That’s my opinion.

[7:55 p.m.]

When we had news releases a year ago from the First Nations Leadership Council saying that this government has violated the Premier’s own legislation, it’s no wonder we’re seeing situations and topics now like ICBC dragged into our court to deal with DRIPA.

The Premier may choose to answer this. He’ll probably take 15, 20 minutes. This is a pretty simple question. I’m just curious myself. When the Premier stood in this House and defended that legislation, introduced that legislation, did he ever think there was a reality where that could be used on an ICBC case?

Hon. David Eby: I know the member just fundamentally disagrees at this point with the Declaration Act, and his government would repeal it and replace it with something else. I don’t know what that is yet. I guess it depends on who’s elected the new leader on Saturday. But for our side of the House, we’re moving British Columbia forward. That means working together to deliver prosperity for everyone.

Now, we do not agree with the Court of Appeal decision in Gitxaała. That’s why we appealed the decision. That’s why we sought leave, and we’re glad to know that the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear our appeal.

At the same time, we’re sitting down with First Nations leaders to find a path forward that will provide a durable solution to these issues. The Legislature here unanimously supported the Declaration Act as it was originally intended, and our goal is to get back to those original intentions.

[8:00 p.m.]

The member is…. I’m not sure why, what the agenda is, and I won’t attribute a motive, but I note that he continually advances arguments against investment in British Columbia and seeks, for whatever reason, to undermine the decisions of major companies that are putting billions of dollars into our province, suggesting that they are wrong to do so. The reason I say that is because it’s clear we are delivering nation-leading investment right now.

From December to January alone, there were new mine permits generating over $3 billion in private investment — thousands of jobs. B.C. and the Tāłtān First Nation worked together to approve Eskay Creek. That’s a $1-billion-a-year project that’s going to create hundreds of good jobs. Cedar LNG, one of the largest First Nations majority-owned infrastructure projects in Canada, is under construction right now. Ksi Lisims LNG just signed a $10 billion agreement with the German government for off-take. The ʼNa̱mǥis agreement on forestry is resulting in higher harvest levels in forestry and greater predictability for families on the north Island.

So $88 billion in proposed projects on the way in the next three years. Within this year, the largest private sector investment in Canadian history, we hope, because we’re working hard, reaches final investment decision. That’s LNG Canada phase 2. That $88 billion in projects would be at risk if the Declaration Act was repealed. Our commitment is to ensure DRIPA is realized as was originally intended by elected representatives, working with our partners, not the courts.

With the Declaration Act, last year our economy grew faster than expected. We were one of only two provinces to outpace our growth from the previous year. We have Shell acquiring ARC Resources in northeast B.C. We have Anglo Teck locating their head office, the largest head office ever in B.C.’s history to locate in our province, a huge vote of confidence in our mining sector. The Eskay Creek mine and Red Chris mine expansion — together 2,000 family-supporting jobs subject to Declaration Act Agreement, us and the Tāłtān working together to deliver that project.

Now, the opposition has advanced arguments that we stop conversations with First Nations. That is a recipe for chaos for these projects. That is the threat to jobs and family.

It wasn’t so long ago, on their platform in 2024, that they said: “The Conservative Party of British Columbia believes that economic reconciliation is the cornerstone of any lasting solution to the challenges faced by Indigenous communities.” Well, now they say you shouldn’t talk to First Nations. Now that the projects are delivering real results, they’re looking for an opportunity. Now they seek to undermine that investment. Why? Why are they doing that?

We’re showing what we can accomplish when we work together. We’re building this province, and we’re building this country together, and I’m proud of that. There are challenges, and we are working through those challenges through the court system and with our partners. But we’re also working together to deliver good jobs for British Columbians in every corner of this province.

Trevor Halford: Obviously, the Premier is taking issue with some of the comments I’ve made on this subject, but my comments aren’t…. I think there have been others outside of this Legislature that have spoken on this, and we’ll go through those right now.

“We’ve got this lull in the economy. The private sector is really lacking confidence about making investments in B.C. Layering on top of this, we’ve got these real fundamental questions about how our democracy works and how our system of property rights works here in B.C., all of which would lead investors to pause.” Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of the vice-president of policy with BCBC, David Williams, on December 9, 2025.

Here’s another one from BCBC. This is actually May 6. It said that 98 percent of respondents are very concerned about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act applying to all laws in this province, something we’ve canvassed with the Premier here over the last little while.

Here’s another one. This is May 6, 2026: “The message from business leaders is clear. DRIPA isn’t working.” That was from the president and CEO of BCBC, Laura Jones.

[8:05 p.m.]

The Premier referenced a number of things in his last answer. But when he talks about some of the projects in his mind that happened as a result of DRIPA, I’m just wondering if any of those projects were based on a model of co-governance. So a very direct question. Any of the projects that the Premier mentioned in relation to the nations — do any of them have a condition of co-governance to them?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: Here are the quotes from business leadership on the introduction of the Declaration Act.

Greg D’Avignon, B.C. Business Council:

“Business Council of British Columbia membership is optimistic for the long-term potential of B.C.’s UNDRIP legislation to advance meaningful reconciliation. Together, we can collectively inform the work ahead, building on the experience and success of nearly 500 agreements formed over the past two decades between business and Indigenous People, many of which incorporate UNDRIP principles.

“Successful implementation will also require support for nation-building and capacity-building to enable Indigenous Peoples’ full participation in shared decision-making processes while creating the needed clarity and greater certainty for business, investors and the people of B.C. as we pursue opportunity and prosperity together.”

Val Litwin, president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce: “With reconciliation in mind, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce provincial network first adopted a policy on UNDRIP in 2018 and recommended the declaration serve as a basis for reforming laws and policies in B.C. We believe this legislation is the start of a long-term conversation that has the potential to lead toward clear and meaningful collaboration between government, Indigenous groups and the business community.”

Kendra Johnston, president and CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration: “Mineral explorers in B.C. are leaders in reconciliation, with many companies already employing practices that are aligned with the principles of UNDRIP.”

I could go on. There were many business leaders who spoke in support of the legislation.

To the member’s point, well, that’s fine, but what have the results been? From December to January, B.C. approved new mine permits that will generate over $3 billion in private investment and thousands of jobs. In the last year, a new or expanded mine was permitted in our province every four months. That is the fastest pace British Columbia has seen since the beginning of the 21st century, in the last 20-plus years. We have never seen mines permitted at that level or that quickly while maintaining high standards.

I’m not clear about what the member means by co-governance, but I can share with the member that B.C. and the Tāłtān Nation worked together to approve Eskay Creek and Red Chris. These are mines that would not have happened but for the ability for us to work together on the approval process to be able to get these billion-dollar-a-year projects that are going to create more than 1,000 jobs.

Mount Milligan. We cut permitting time in half, a $400 million investment. Artemis Gold’s Blackwater Mine — generating $2.3 billion in provincial revenue, strong partnerships with First Nations.

At this pace, by 2040, new and expanded critical minerals projects could represent an investment opportunity of $44 billion for our province. Independent reviews of what’s happening in the province by E&Y and the B.C. Mineral and Coal Exploration Survey…. Mineral exploration expenditure in the province was $750.9 million in 2025. That was the highest number ever in the province and a 36 percent increase compared to ’24, 64 percent higher than the average over the past decade.

Annual exploration expenditure increased despite overall Canadian investment decreasing. In B.C., we increased while overall Canadian investment decreased, and global exploration decreased while B.C. expenditure increased.

The total mineral sector employment has increased by 14 percent since 2017, which is a number that sounds modest until you realize that that means it’s now over 40,000 workers in the province, including over 4,000 in mineral exploration.

The work that we’ve done here enables us to be the first province in Canada to have introduced fixed permitting timelines. The results are clear in terms of exploration. Mt. Wilson Silica Ventures — notice of work for their Longworth silica project approved in just 44 days. J2 Metals copper and molybdenum project — notice of work went from application to approval in just 54 days.

This is DRIPA at work. Six new or expanded mines approved since 2022: Cariboo Gold, ’23; Quintette restart, 2024; Highland Valley expansion, ’25; Dome Mountain restart, 2025; Eskay, 2026; Mount Milligan expansion, 2026; Copper Mountain expansion, 2026. The member will note the acceleration.

[8:15 p.m.]

Working in partnership with First Nations is a necessity in this province. It was reflected in the comments of the business leaders when we introduced the Declaration Act. It is a legal imperative. The failure to do so sterilizes opportunities.

We saw that with the Taseko Mines application for a permit in the New Prosperity gold project where the Tŝilhqot’in People were not involved. One of the largest deposits in North America had been discovered. The government at the time, now many of whom sit in the opposition benches, did not involve the First Nation, rushed through the permits, and the project still has not gone ahead.

It is certainly a cautionary tale about where we may be going under the Conservatives. Depending on who wins the leadership election on Saturday, it’s either going to be someone who thinks we need to repeal all of the Declaration Act and the reconciliation work or someone who literally thinks that you’re in a conflict of interest if someone in your family is Indigenous.

That is not an acceptable framework to do business in British Columbia. I guess we’ll have those debates after Saturday, but the results of delivering major projects together in partnership is significant.

Trevor Halford: There are a few things to unpackage there in the Premier’s comments, and we’ll do that.

I do thank the Premier for his acknowledgement that whoever wins on Saturday night will be the next Premier of our province. I take that…. I and many other British Columbians share his optimism.

He read into the record a number of quotes. What he did not read in were any of the dates on the quotes. If I were him, I probably wouldn’t have done that either. Just like if we read in a number of quotes, whether it’s from the Minister of Energy and his opposition to TMX, LNG Canada, almost every other resource project while he sat on the other side of the House or the Premier losing in court every time when he went to go fight the good fight against TMX. Not good. Yeah, not good. Better call Saul.

Here’s the thing. My question was a direct one on co-governance and some of the projects that the minister referenced. I asked a very specific question if any of those projects entered into a co-governance model.

I know it’s late, but the Premier’s staff should’ve, maybe…. Or the Premier should know, or the Minister of Energy is sitting right there. It’s their own press release I’ve got right here. It’s January 26, 2026.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: So maybe when we do the Premier’s estimates next spring, you’ll be in that chair.

Interjections.

Trevor Halford: Why aren’t you making phone calls for your leadership campaign? That’s what I would ask.

The Chair: All right, Members.

Trevor Halford: You’re on your phone quite a bit.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Trevor Halford: The Minister of Jobs has got his headphones in right now, so maybe he’s soliciting donations and memberships because we know he’s got plans on another job. We know the public are…. Well, we’re hoping that at some point, there’s a switch there, so we will see.

My question, again, was a very direct one on co-governance. It’s in the government’s own press release, January 2026, of this year. Tāłtān. “This agreement represents a step forward in the co-governance relationship between the B.C. government and the TCG.” Co-governance, that’s what I asked. It took the Premier 20 minutes to figure that out.

When they enter these projects with First Nations, are they entering a level of co-governance? That was my question to the Premier. It’s outlined here in this news release.

[8:20 p.m.]

I would imagine if it’s good for one nation, it’s good for all. So why is it that they’ve entered into co-governance with one nation? Is that par for the course now?

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I appreciate the member clarifying what he meant by co-governance. It’s helpful. I actually did, in my last answer, address the Eskay Creek project, which was the press release that the member was speaking about. It is a significant one. It’s very exciting.

The Tāłtān First Nation and British Columbia sat down together in a collaborative assessment process about the environmental impacts of the Eskay Creek mine and worked on conditions to protect issues of concern to the Tāłtān in partnership at the table.

This may have been the first such process in North America. In any event, we certainly feel it’s historic, and Skeena Gold rightly is very proud of this and excited about their new mine. Randy Reichert, who is the CEO of Skeena Gold and Silver, said:

“This is a defining moment in our company’s history. I thank the Tāłtān Nation for their partnership and collaboration over the last ten years. The issuance of the environmental assessment certificate reflects this collaboration and reinforces Eskay Creek’s position as setting the standard for responsible, world-class development in British Columbia. I further send my appreciation to the Skeena regulatory engagement team for their tireless efforts in advancing a rigorous environmental assessment.”

This is a previously operated underground mine that’s going to be redeveloped as an open-pit mining operation, a significant economic impact. We’re talking about approximately 1,000 construction jobs, more than 770 operational jobs, $1.2 billion in provincial revenues alone from it.

The member drew my attention to a bullet in the backgrounder. The bullet reads as follows:

“The agreement represents a step forward in the co-governance relationship between the B.C. government and TCG. Consent agreements, such as the one in the Eskay Creek assessment, advance reconciliation, provide clarity and predictability in the environmental assessment process and establish innovative new ways for the EAO, Tāłtān and project proponents to work together.”

The member said: “Well, you did this in Eskay Creek. You’re doing this on Red Chris.” I can advise the member that we have a mandate to do this work on the Yellowhead mine with the Simpcw First Nation. This was actually at the request of the proponent because they knew this was the way to get their project moving. That’s exciting as well.

The member said: “Okay, well, if you’re doing it for these projects, why wouldn’t you do it for every project? Isn’t every nation the same on this point?” The short answer is no. Every nation is not the same on this point. There are different realities facing different First Nations in the province. Some are treaty First Nations. Some have reconciliation agreements. Some, like the Tāłtān, have been working on mining-related projects for many generations.

[8:30 p.m.]

It is different in different parts of the province with different First Nations. What we do is meet the First Nation where they’re at and work with them and the project proponent to find paths forward. That’s how we’ve had the success we’ve had in moving projects forward and that we’re so excited about as a government. It will continue to be the way that we do this work.

The section 7 agreement that enabled Eskay Creek mine to go ahead is one tool, but there are many tools, and we use them in cooperation and negotiation with First Nations and project proponents to find that path forward.

Trevor Halford: Based on that, a simple question. The Premier referenced co-governance. I appreciate that. My question is: who is the final decision-maker on development under the terms of this agreement, the Tāłtān or the province?

Hon. David Eby: The permit exists for the project. The decision about whether or not the project goes ahead is the company’s, on final investment decision. I think they’re pretty excited and ready to go.

What the government and the Tāłtān did was collaborate on the environmental assessment to mitigate impacts from the project on the community, but the ultimate decision about whether the project goes is the company’s.

Trevor Halford: We’ll come back to those comments in a second.

Terry Teegee, Regional Chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, on April 28 of this year in the Vancouver Sun when asked if we are now in a position where roughly 200 First Nations are co-governing this province with the B.C. government, says: “Yes, that is exactly right.” Does the Premier agree with that assessment?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: I was asked this question about the Regional Chief’s comment on CKNW. I said that at the end of the day, we’ve got parliamentary representatives that are elected from every part of the province. We have to vote on the laws. There will be times when we disagree with First Nations. Ultimately, it is the supremacy of parliament. We’re bound in on issues related to rights entitled by section 35 in the constitution. That is the ongoing situation in the province of British Columbia.

The section 7 agreement with the Tāłtān was enabled by this parliament in a unanimous vote. Section 7 enabled us to sit down with the Tāłtān and collaborate on an environmental assessment process to allow this $1 billion project to go ahead. That is an important thing in a province where you have Tāłtān with the rights and title in this area.

The ability to go to court, challenge government decisions and other things…. When we can sit down together, work it out and deliver the project quickly, that is a huge advantage to the project proponent; the province of British Columbia; and, ultimately, the country of Canada.

Trevor Halford: We’ll come back to this, I believe, tomorrow.

I think we have a few more moments. The rise of antisemitism has been dramatic in this province. It’s been, unfortunately, dramatic across the world.

I want to go back to the Premier’s last estimates in May. He declared that this government would continue to adhere to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. We had an event today on the definition of antisemitism. Can the Premier point to what actions his government has taken since his commitment to the IHRA declaration in May of 2024 to address the ongoing and dramatic rise in antisemitism in this province?

[8:40 p.m. - 8:45 p.m.]

Hon. David Eby: We’ve taken a number of actions to fight antisemitism, and we note with concern the rise in antisemitism in British Columbia, across Canada and around the world. I know there is huge anxiety in the Jewish community about it, and that’s why we’ve taken steps to do what we can at the provincial level here.

Some items include a new B.C. prosecution service hate crime policy, including the wilful promotion of antisemitism, making security funding available for synagogues and other organizations to help keep them safe and updating provincial policing standards to support police investigations involving hate crimes.

We pushed Ottawa to amend the Criminal Code to ensure law enforcement can take hate crimes to court and hold perpetrators accountable. Ottawa introduced new legislation to this effect.

The member will be familiar with our initiatives to introduce mandatory Holocaust education in schools. We launched the racist incident hotline so that people can bring forward information to us who may be nervous about otherwise bringing it to police. Also providing funding to community groups fighting antisemitism.

The member will also be familiar that we passed legislation in this House in March protecting access to places of worship and schools. This is preventing people from interfering with people attending places of worship, including synagogues but also other places of worship, such as mosques, temples, gurdwaras and churches, as well as schools. I know there is continued interest in that, not just related to antisemitism-related issues but generally to the conduct of some people around schools.

We’ve also provided direct grants, through the civil forfeiture grant program anti-hate stream, to eligible places of worship and cultural community centres and other at-risk groups. The funding is provided on an annual basis, and we’ll continue to provide that support.

The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General has funded the B.C. hate crimes unit with an additional $734,000 to quadruple the unit from two officers to a team of eight, including a dedicated intelligence analyst.

In 2025, we used $4 million from the federal Community Resilience Fund to improve hate crime reporting across police departments, develop dedicated antisemitism training for law enforcement to provide additional security for synagogues and places of worship, respond to threats against elected and public officials and build police capacity to respond to public-order challenges motivated by extremism generally. And $125,000 of that investment went directly to building that standardized antisemitism training for police, free of cost, in both official languages, through the Canadian Police Knowledge Network.

I know that our work on this continues, and I thank the member for that important question.

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

Motion approved.

The Chair: Committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:48 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:49 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

Susie Chant: Section A reports Bill 20 complete without amendment.

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

Hon. Mike Farnworth: At the next sitting.

[8:50 p.m.]

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a submission to the point of order made by the Government House Leader earlier today, for your consideration, in regard to the context of my statements made in the Committee of the Whole, to the Minister of Citizens’ Services during the debate of Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Throughout the course of the debate, the minister repeatedly reinforced the discretion of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in terms of the interpretation and application of the legislation. This is appropriate. The legislation broadens the discretion of the commissioner.

I submit that Standing Order 40 does not apply to my comments. The standing order states: “Members are prohibited from speaking disrespectfully of the Sovereign, the royal family, the Governor General or the Administrator of the government of Canada.”

The reference from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, regarding “attacks and censures of judges and the judges and the courts by members in debate” is a matter of practice not directly referenced in the standing order.

Statutory officers are not referenced in either Standing Order 40 or House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, pages 661 or 662. The reference to judges and courts is specific and limited in nature. The judiciary is a separate branch of government responsible for interpreting the decisions made by the institutions such as this assembly and does not have the ability to present to this House or the members within it.

I note the relevant precedence on the discretion of the Chair regarding matters of debate. In a 2019 decision by Assistant Deputy Speaker Hughes regarding sub judice matters, it was ruled: “Practice has evolved so it is the Speaker who decides what jurisdiction the Chair has over matters sub judice. In 1977, the first report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members recommended that the imposition of the convention should be done with discretion. When there is any doubt in the mind of the Chair, presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate.”

There is, however, a substantial difference between the judicial branch and statutory officers. Statutory officers are not part of the judicial branch. They are appointed by the Legislative Assembly. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner monitors and enforces compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1996, which Bill 9 was amending.

I appreciate the Government House Leader emphasizing the importance of the independence of their office. That is the genesis of my statement to the minister in debate. My request to the minister was not to initiate an investigation — those are the words of the Government House Leader — but to raise concerns regarding the current discretion of the commissioner, which is directly impacted by and being broadened by the legislation.

My statement to the Minister of Citizens’ Services was directly related to the content of the bill before the House as it related to the ability of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to fulfil the duties that they are being asked to perform under the bill that was currently being debated. Further, it did not bring the Information and Privacy Commissioner into disrepute. It simply sought clarity on how the responsible minister understood their responsibilities could be carried out with the use of a real-world example as a case study.

Special report No. 21, referenced by the Government House Leader, Fundamental Operating Principles and Related Legislation, outlines principles of accountability of the officers of the Legislature, which states: “Officers of the Legislature should be accountable directly to the Legislature for carrying out their legislative responsibilities and for the administration of their offices.”

I would, therefore, seek guidance from the Speaker as he considers the point of order raised by the Government House Leader. If the Speaker in his ruling considers that the operations of parliamentary officers operating under this branch of government and as it relates to legislation currently before this House and the operations of the judicial branch of government are both out of order for the members of this House, how does that impact the ability of this House to perform our functions as they relate to the legislative decisions before us and the delivery of functions by parliamentary officers whom we appoint?

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Minister of Citizens’ Services has regular contact with the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. The minister had several amendments to legislation and stood down clauses to “give it due consideration.” Given the latitude of the minister regarding concerns pertaining to other clauses, it was not unreasonable for me to request similar considerations to look into the concerns I raised.

I would request the Speaker to provide guidance on how this House navigates concerns with officers of the assembly and the role ministers play in learning about those concerns and would benefit from your guidance on how to consider complaints regarding statutory officers, moving forward.

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The Chair thanks both the Government House Leader and the House Leader of the Third Party for their submissions. That will help the Chair to put the ruling together on the subject matter. Thank you so much.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

[George Anderson 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).

Brennan Day: One more day to go in this session, and welcome back to the treaty team.

I’m going to start off with some questions on the estuary agreement. I do think, based on the briefing we got, it’s fairly clear. I just want to make sure we have it on the record.

I’ll begin with my reading that this treaty and the associated estuary framework contemplate a significant foreshore-and-estuary-related governance structure adjacent to existing K’ómoks lands. That matters not just locally, but I think it is also a matter of precedent. We know there have been some foreshore conflicts in other areas, like the Sunshine Coast.

The agreement itself is explicitly tied to the K’ómoks rights in the estuary and creates a consent-based decision-making process for Land Act dispositions in that area. Can the minister explain whether the foreshore-and-estuary-related structure contemplated here is unique to this treaty and whether the province has assessed what precedent it may set for future treaties, particularly where foreshore access and marine-use issues are likely to become contentious in other parts of the coast?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There are two different agreements or two different discussions in the member’s question. There’s the delegated foreshore agreement, which is not the same as the estuary consent agreement.

The delegated foreshore agreement, I’ll cover that one first. It’s very much like a municipality having the right to make bylaws around foreshore issues — things like you can’t light off fireworks here or you can’t have a big beach bonfire. Those kinds of agreements that municipalities have, it’s very much similar to that. The ɬəʔamɛn Nation has a very similar structure built into their treaty.

In terms of the K’ómoks Estuary consent agreement, this is very particular to the realities of that estuary, to the realities of K’ómoks history and heritage in that estuary. It is very limited, but it is about a consent-based decision-making process.

It’s triggered by an application coming forward. It could be a lease, a licence of occupation, an easement or right-of-way, under sections 11(1)(a) or 32 of the Land Act, within the estuary. To be clear, current operations there are grandparented into the system, so they’re not impacted in the same way that maybe a future application would be.

The application would first be collaboratively reviewed by a team of B.C. and K’ómoks representatives, who would attempt to reach consensus on a recommendation to provide to the decision-makers for both parties. If that team can’t reach consensus, the parties can seek assistance from senior officials to try to reach a consensus recommendation.

Once this team has done its work, K’ómoks would then provide B.C. with its written decision on whether it consents to the application, which must be made in accordance with the agreed-upon principles set out in the estuary agreement.

If K’ómoks consents to the application or does not issue a decision within a set time, the B.C. decision-maker can then approve or reject the application. If K’ómoks does not consent, the B.C. decision-maker must also refuse the application and would provide written reasons to the applicant for its decision, including information provided by K’ómoks regarding the basis for its decision to not consent.

The agreement does set out clear timelines for each step in the decision-making process as well.

Brennan Day: There is a dispute mechanism in there, but it does act as a bit of veto over use.

I guess the question, then, is: are any of the current users, leaseholders, rights holders in that affected area…? Are there any known conflicts that have not been resolved in that area?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The two current users or current folks who could be impacted but won’t be would be the CVRD and Manatee Holdings. Both have been communicated with. There is no impact now, there’s no impact in the future, and that’s been communicated very clearly with them.

Just to be clear, this process ensures transparency, procedural and administrative fairness, a few approaches. The agreement would be published in the Gazette before it becomes effective. Each applicant, of course, would be advised of the decision-making process under the agreement. There are clear timelines, as I mentioned. The decisions would have to be provided in writing and must include the basis for the decision if there’s an agreement not to consent, if that is the decision.

If requested by the province, K’ómoks will provide documentation and rationale supporting any decision, which may be disclosed to the applicant. If they do not issue a decision in a timely manner, B.C. may approve or reject the application at its discretion. Applicants may also seek a judicial review of decisions under the agreement, and it is intended that the Judicial Review Procedure Act would apply to any such judicial review.

Brennan Day: I’ll just talk about some potential future.… Probably we could anticipate some potential conflict here, just based on the boundaries that I see in the agreement over the estuary area. Historically, the Courtenay River channel was dredged to maintain the old mill site, which is now the Kus-kus-sum site, which is actually part of this treaty.

While it’s unlikely that works of that kind would be required again to the same scale, there are still active marine access interests in the Courtenay River, which — for all the members paying attention at home, an interesting fact — is the shortest river in the world. This includes a federal marina at the Courtenay Slough and the airpark marina. The question isn’t really theoretical. At some point, there will have to be a decision made to either shut down those facilities or dredge the channel for access.

If future dredging, channel maintenance or related works were ever required for navigation access or public infrastructure reasons, this agreement appears to create a new layer of consent-based review in the estuary, which I don’t necessarily think is a bad thing. But how would any future works, channel maintenance or marine access work in the estuary be dealt with under this agreement?

While most of the channel itself is not in the estuary agreement — I think it’s probably excluded for a reason — there certainly is a section in front of the current KFN land that is. How would any future dredging channel maintenance or other marine works in the estuary be dealt with under this agreement? Has the province assessed whether the consent-based structure here could create delay, uncertainty or conflict for future navigation-related works that may still be needed in the public interest?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, certainly, I understand the interest in the longer term and interest in timely decision-making.

The Chair: Hold on for a second.

Member for Abbotsford South, you’re not to be on an electronic device during the committee meetings.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just to say that we care about timeliness as well. I think that’s why we’ve built into the agreement requirements for timely decision-making. They’re actually built into the agreement.

We’ve also built into the agreement that principles like decision-making processes must be predictable, transparent and administratively fair. Decision-makers must be accountable for their decisions. The decision-making processes must be effective and coordinated.

Of course, we’re trying to reach consensus where possible. If this agreement didn’t exist, similar requirements, maybe not quite to the same extent, in terms of respecting K’ómoks Nation’s section 35 rights…. The member will know it’s a very rich archaeological area. Those impacts would have to be heavily considered for any sort of dredging. Ecological principles around fisheries, etc. — those kinds of things would still have to be followed without this agreement.

This agreement, I believe, makes it a bit clearer in terms of how we are to approach these issues and, I would argue, could actually lead to timelier response because the processes are clear with an administrative process with time requirements for permitting.

Brennan Day: I think that’s the perfect lead-in to my next question. Section 6.6, which deals with this consent and then the province going along with it, I think, is interesting.

We have had challenges. I know K’ómoks has in the past, and I don’t think it’s unique to K’ómoks. They adopted the policy for archaeological permitting through KFN on lots in the identified potentially archaeologically sensitive areas. When they started it, there was a huge delay. We have a shortage of archaeologists in the province. K’ómoks has a limited capacity. They’re busy with treaty and many other things. It did become an issue. It has cleared itself up now, which is fantastic.

I guess the question is: if one of the proponents, KFN or the province, does not stick to the timeline, what’s the enforcement mechanism? At the end of the day, we need that certainty on the project timeline. If, for instance, KFN was busy with other things, and they certainly will be as they move into this executed treaty, how does that get dealt with?

The Chair: Just a reminder to the member for Abbotsford South, again, to get off your electronic device. If not, we’ll be removing you from the room.

Going once. Twice.

Clerk, can you please remove him from the committee room. Thanks.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The way I understand it would work is if there was a proponent wanting to come forward — the member used the example of dredging, but it could be easements or something like that as well — there would be an application made. It would be forwarded to K’ómoks.

My understanding, and I may have to correct myself, is that that starts a 40-business-day process for K’ómoks to look at the issues. There then would be a meeting between the province and K’ómoks to look at what they’ve considered, that the province shares our view, and so on, at which point that starts a 30-business-day period where K’ómoks could then have their ability to consider their decision, write it up, get it to the province for decision, either pro or con.

After that 30-business-day period, if there was no response because somebody was too busy, there’s an opportunity for a notice to go to the nation to say: “We’re waiting for a decision here. We need to get going here.” That starts the clock on a 30-business-day clock, after which point, if a decision has not come through, the province can then make a decision and notify K’ómoks of the decision one way or the other.

Brennan Day: I think we need to put that kind of language in all permitting in the province. That would certainly speed things up for a lot of people. That’s great. Thank you for clarifying that.

This agreement is largely procedural and ceremonial. I grew up in the Comox Valley. I understand the importance of the estuary and the archaeological significance there, but with Land Act dispositions, consent-based decision-making and the review structure here, it also says it is not itself a treaty or a land claims agreement within sections 25 or 35.

Can the minister confirm clearly and on the record that this estuary agreement will not in its present form give K’ómoks the ability to limit or close ordinary marine access through these waters? If there is any scenario in which access through the estuary could be restricted in future, what legal mechanism would govern that, and who would ultimately hold that jurisdiction? It is a fairly big change.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This is a very narrow approach in that it’s very clear that nothing in the agreement or in the treaty affects navigation. It’s clear that if, whether you be a stand-up paddleboarder or a kayaker or a sailboat or whatever, you found your way in there, that is going to continue. That access is clear, and K’ómoks has been clear in their intent to continue that.

Brennan Day: I think my last question, then, is…. It’s only because I know the area pretty well and do a lot of boating there. There has been a growing mooring ball field in the estuary for some time, in the bay. Some of them are legitimate. Most of them are registered, but anybody can throw a concrete block with a rope on it into the estuary. Those are considered to be somewhat private property, and there’s free access right now.

I guess the question would be…. There appears to be a substantial mooring field. There is. If that’s correct, then the public is entitled to know what this agreement means for the people who are currently using those mooring balls.

Appendix A shows a broad estuary area in and around the Comox Harbour, which there is, and that’s where the mooring balls are located. The agreement applies a consent-based regime to certain Land Act dispositions within that area, as we’ve explained.

[3:20 p.m.]

Can the minister explain how existing mooring uses within the K’ómoks Estuary are expected to be administered going forward; whether K’ómoks would have the ability in future to require renter fees, which are not uncommon for mooring fields in public or provincial parks; and whether the province has fully worked through the jurisdictional overlap with the federal government over issues like moorage in that area?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, I know the issue of mooring balls or mooring buoys, and you see them up and down the coast. It is an issue that I know coastal communities struggle with, because sometimes the clarity of provincial, federal — even in my neighbourhood in the West End — municipal…. If the boat washes up on the shore, how far up the shore is it? Those kinds of things come in.

In this case, very clearly, this does not give K’ómoks any rights to charge rent for mooring buoys. The issue still remains one outside of that authority. Whether or not those mooring buoys are registered, whether they have the right to be there or not, I couldn’t say, but that’s not in this treaty. It’s not in this side agreement, in terms of giving it new authorities to deal with that issue. That’s an issue that continues outside of this treaty.

Scott McInnis: I’m going to ask a few sort of high-level questions for clarity before my friend from Nechako Lakes digs into a couple of more detailed pieces here.

When I was reading through just the beginning of chapter 6 with lands, I had a couple of questions. It could be just very simple clarification if I’m misreading something here. Just hoping to get a little clarity from the minister on paragraph 2, which I will read, and it’s referring to paragraph 1(a) to (d), talking about the actual lands and the size of the land.

It says: “For greater certainty, the quantums in paragraph 1 will be finalized by the completion and filing or deposit of adequate surveys under paragraph 110, and the parties may update paragraph 1 in accordance with paragraph 103 of the general provisions chapter.” I read that as, when we’re looking at the appendices and we have the outline of the various land parcels, that there still needs to be kind of a final survey to be completed.

I’m just wondering. I guess I’ll start with: is that, in fact, the case, that there’s an extra process to go through to finalize the actual boundaries for the land? Is that, in fact, the case as I’m reading it?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Should this treaty pass this House, at that point, survey work would be done because some of the surveys are old, some of the areas have not been surveyed in the sense of being absolutely certain of the corners.

[3:25 p.m.]

There might be some slight shift. As the member knows, some of these areas are certainly more rural and would not have had a traditional survey like you might have had in the city for a city lot or something like that.

Scott McInnis: Okay, that makes sense. I did read the survey sections which are referred to here with paragraph 110.

Just a couple of follow-up questions to that. Whose responsibility is it to actually pay for the final surveys? Is that actually up to the nation, or is that a provincial responsibility?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The principle around who pays for which parcel is that the party that currently owns that parcel pays for the survey of that parcel. Provincial Crown would be us. Federal land would be them of course. And then K’ómoks land would be…. Private land for K’ómoks would be them.

Scott McInnis: That’s what I had assumed. Just reading through with my colleague here, I just wanted to make sure that was certain.

Could the minister provide, perhaps…? How do I say it? Is there any possible variance to the final hectarage estimates of 3,441.8 hectares? Could the minister shed some light on, potentially, once these final surveys are done, plus or minus how that final number would change from what we see here?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The areas are currently based on GIS, so there is a possibility of some slight shifting, which is not uncommon, I think. The other issue that could occur is that, potentially, erosion could have slightly changed the bounds of certain sections.

It’s not uncommon. For example, in this House, I believe, there’s been a practice for quite a few years where park boundaries get updated because of better technology, because of potential changes. I know this House has dealt with this issue. They’re usually very minor, and I would expect this to be the same.

John Rustad: Just to confirm, the minister has talked about who pays for the surveying, and I understand that. It depends on who owns it.

Obviously, there is significant interest in the new lands, the potential additions to the treaty, the 18.2, whatever that is, square kilometres, which is a tremendous size and area. I believe all that is currently provincially owned land, but there is going to be an attempt by the K’ómoks First Nation to purchase that land.

Typically, what I’ve seen in the private sector is that you purchase the land, and you go out and survey that land. It’s not necessarily the previous owner that’s required to survey it prior to a purchase. I’m just wondering if there are any differences between those additions to treaty lands in terms of how that’ll be handled in surveys and costs.

The Chair: Just a reminder to members that there’s no eating whether you are virtual or in person.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In the “Lands” chapter, it talks about that specifically. Paragraph 87 says: “K’ómoks is responsible for the preparation of any adequate surveys required for the addition of pre-approved addition lands to K’ómoks lands under paragraphs 71 to 84.”

[3:30 p.m.]

John Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s answer on that just for clarity purposes. As I was reading through that, I didn’t notice that, so thank you for pointing that out.

One of the challenges, one of the issues, of course, is going to be the various standards that British Columbia has and the responsibilities that K’ómoks will have. I was reading through particularly the section on ecological lands and the responsibilities that would be undertaken by the K’ómoks Nation associated with those ecological lands. If I read this correctly, they’ll manage ecological lands in a manner which protects sensitive, vulnerable or at-risk species and their habitat.

It doesn’t mention anything about following provincial or federal laws that may apply to what those standards are. I wonder if you can provide some clarity in terms of how those laws will be created or applied with regards to ecologically sensitive land.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under this model, provincial and federal laws would still apply. However, I can also add that the K’ómoks Nation has a consistent interest in preserving the ecological area that this refers to, in part because it is a very important habitat for spotted frogs, which is a species that needs extra protection in this province.

John Rustad: The reason for asking, of course, is obviously that rules, provincially and federally, may change, and the K’ómoks Nation may then have to implement different rules based on what would change provincially or federally. I’m just wondering how that changes versus laws that K’ómoks may create with regards to any ecologically sensitive areas.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The language in the treaty speaks to K’ómoks managing their ecological lands in a manner which protects sensitive, vulnerable or at-risk species and their habitat. In terms of them updating laws or something like that, it’s more about how they manage that land.

Of course, if there’s a provincial legal change or federal legal change that might, for example, really impact the spotted frog, they would have to take that into account and respond accordingly.

[3:35 p.m.]

John Rustad: As land is managed, particularly ecologically sensitive land, accidents do happen, issues can arise, intentionally or otherwise.

I’m just wondering where the liability sits if, for example, for one reason the nation doesn’t manage it quite to the level that’s required or requires some alterations to those ecologically sensitive areas for its own cultural or economic interests. I’m wondering how that is managed, given that they are K’ómoks lands under the treaty.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, as I mentioned earlier, provincial and federal law applies, so if there was an issue that triggered one of those laws, there could be action.

However, the member will also know that disputes can be responded to in a variety of ways. There could be, if need be, moving to the dispute resolution chapter where the argument would have to be made that one of the parties wasn’t responding in good faith or not following the terms of the treaty, and then there could be that process.

There could also be a variety of methods, whether partnership, engagement, education or support in a variety of ways, because we’re partners in this. We in B.C. want to continue to see the spotted frog, and I’m sure that is the same for the K’ómoks People.

John Rustad: Something I wanted to say…. I asked the minister yesterday, with regards to lands, why they chose fee simple land rather than title land. The minister said it was a negotiation or a conversation which is confidential and that he couldn’t talk about it, which I fully respect. I understand that.

As fee simple land — which is what the private lands are, and I’ll relate this to the ecological side as well down the road — I’m just curious. Are all the lands held by the nation in trust for the people, or will the members have an opportunity to actually own their own land?

In other treaties, if I remember correctly, the land is being held collectively by the nation. I’m just curious as to how that structure would be for the K’ómoks.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Some of the land currently is owned by a corporation owned by the K’ómoks Nation. The land will be…. Some of that would maintain that, but the other parts of the land would be owned by the K’ómoks Nation.

They haven’t decided yet on exactly how they will shape the land for their members and how their members will have an interest in that land, exactly what approach to take. I know there have been a number of approaches with previous treaties, so they’re looking into that issue now.

John Rustad: The reason for asking is that it’s obviously a pretty important issue. I’m a little surprised that the nation hadn’t determined the path that they were going to go, associated with land, before they entered a treaty. I would have thought it would’ve been a significant question from members of the K’ómoks People in terms of how the land will be managed, how it will be owned. Is it collective? Is it individual? Is it structured in terms of how that may transfer?

The reason for asking this is…. Under the Indian Act, bands that are under that process don’t own the land. It’s owned federally in trust for the nation, and because of that, the nation decides who can live on the land and who doesn’t.

There was a case in my riding, for example, where there was an elderly lady whose family had moved away, and her husband had passed on, and the nation wanted to move her off her land — off the land that she had grown up on, she’d looked after and she’d been part of — because they wanted it for another family.

I gave her a ride. She was hitchhiking of all things, and I just gave her a ride into Prince George because she was going in to see a lawyer to see if there was any way she could fight to be able to stay on the land that she was so connected with.

This is why I’m asking what this process is. Obviously, it’s not that, because that’s what the Indian Act in federal was. But I’m curious as to how K’ómoks is going to manage this on behalf of its people, whether they will have a say or whether K’ómoks will have a say in terms of who may occupy a particular piece of land at any particular time.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The example the member gave, I think…. K’ómoks wanted to be clear to their members that “on the effective date, K’ómoks will grant or issue to each holder or joint holder of an interest set out in appendix F-2, part 1(a), a form of tenure giving that holder at least the same rights with respect to the described parcel of K’ómoks lands that individual held immediately before the effective date, modified to reflect the ownership and law-making authority of K’ómoks over those lands.” That’s in the “Lands” chapter, paragraph 47.

The meaning, of course, is that if you had, for example, a home on the K’ómoks reserve and your family was there and that was understood that you had that form of tenure, post–effective treaty date you must give that holder at least the same rights with respect to the described parcel that the individual held immediately before the effective date.

To be clear, the conversation of exactly what form is that tenure is what the conversation is that’s going on. It’s not “will there be tenure?” but exactly what form that will take.

John Rustad: I’ve got a number of other questions along this line, but maybe just a simple question. Is K’ómoks planning to utilize the services of the B.C. land assessment or the B.C. land title office in terms of how it will register this, or is it going to create its own process similar to…? I know some of the other nations have taken different approaches in terms of what they’ve been thinking about doing.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: They intend to use the land title office.

John Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s willingness to be prompt in terms of these questions, because, obviously, there’s a lot of material that we’d like to get through associated with, certainly, the land side but with so many other components of this treaty as well.

Under page 91 where it says “the creation and disposition of interests in K’ómoks lands,” it states in here that: “Subject to this agreement, the K’ómoks constitution and the K’ómoks laws, K’ómoks may, without the consent of Canada or British Columbia, dispose of its fee simple estate in any parcel of K’ómoks lands to any person.”

I’m just wondering. “Any person” — does that mean foreign interests, a non-member, members only? Is there some structure that’s put in there? I’m trying to understand how they plan to manage these lands collectively or individually.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The answer is that, yes, K’ómoks would be able to sell land that is part of their treaty land. The member said “to any person.” Any person that would be eligible to buy land in B.C. would be able to purchase that land.

Now, to be clear, it would still stay K’ómoks land, just as if in New Westminster the city was selling a lot, it would still stay part of New Westminster. Of course, this is the nation instead of a city or district, but the connection is the same.

John Rustad: I appreciate that it remains as K’ómoks land so that the treaty land itself will not change, how it’s considered in terms of used or owned within that, and the laws, as such, apply.

Obviously, one of the interesting components, of course, is that K’ómoks can create laws that could impact those properties. Those properties could sell to somebody other than K’ómoks members, and they still wouldn’t have a vote or say in terms of what those laws are. I know there’s a dispute process and all those sorts of things that go on. It’s just an interesting component.

The reason why I was particularly just looking at that is because I don’t recall seeing that in previous treaties. There was always a significant concern about the dilution of treaty land to other interests and how that may impact the treaty nation’s interests and how they want to develop things. That’s why I was specifically asking about that, because I don’t remember seeing that. Maybe I just missed it.

If the minister has an opportunity, is this similar to what has been in other treaties, or is this something that is new for this K’ómoks treaty?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member didn’t remember it, but it is there in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty — a similar approach to what we’re discussing here.

In terms of his statement about how if somebody purchased land but they weren’t a K’ómoks member that they might not have a say, they do have a say if the matter impacts them. As we discussed — I think it was yesterday or the day before — if there is a matter, a bylaw or a law that K’ómoks is looking to make that has impact on non-K’ómoks members in that area, there is a provision to require consultation, more so if it’s deeply impacting the person, less so…. Then, of course, the member did mention the dispute resolution process.

[3:50 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: It would be helpful, for my understanding and following on the questions my colleagues just raised….

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

I know in the case of the Maa-nulth treaty, and the Huu-ay-aht Nation in particular, that the treaty lands are held collectively. Then the citizens of the nation, through their elected representatives, and so on, developed a land act and that the land act set out the ways in which tenures could be granted.

In the case of Huu-ay-aht, there was an approach taken, which I’m not saying is going to happen here, where there would be 99-year leases. In order to facilitate financing, you could mortgage the lease. If you defaulted on the payments, for the balance of the 99 years that land could be made available to somebody who is not Huu-ay-aht.

I guess it’s a big question, but is the approach being taken in the K’ómoks treaty generally in line with other prior treaties, or is there something quite unique and new in terms of the land provisions?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s certainly not unique to this treaty. I mentioned the ɬəʔamɛn treaty, for example. The member mentioned, in the example he used, about how there was a consultation with the Maa-nulth government, how he did that work.

In this case, subject to this agreement, the K’ómoks constitution and K’ómoks law, if there was a disposition choice, it would have to be made at the elected level, representing the reality of the K’ómoks treaty — the treaty, obviously, and the constitution as well.

Certainly, it would be under law-making authority, the land section. It, of course, talks about fee simple estates, any lesser estate or interest, mortgages, leases, licences, permits. There are a range of conditions in here that K’ómoks has the right to create on their treaty lands.

The Chair: Member for Nechako Lakes.

John Rustad: I appreciate that, hon. Chair. You’re welcome to come visit Nechako Lakes sometime. It’s a beautiful area to come to. Great for fishing, for camping, for families. It’s an absolutely fabulous region of the province.

I was looking at the law-making authorities associated with land. There was a disturbing sign that I had noticed many years ago — I don’t even know if it’s still there — down in the Okanagan Lake area, which restricted…. The sign was basically limiting people’s access to the band members only. It was a foreshore, a beach area, and obviously, there was a little bit of controversy around that.

The K’ómoks Nation can make trespass laws or those sorts of things. I’m just wondering if they have the ability to restrict access to treaty territory or treaty lands, associated with who may access it or at what time of year they may be able to access lands that may otherwise normally be accessible by the public.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Treaty land, and I think we, again, need to be very specific with our language…. We’re not talking treaty area; we’re talking treaty land. The K’ómoks Nation does have the right to set trespass laws. As we know, a number of nations, for example, during COVID said, “We don’t want just anybody coming into our community,” so they said: “We’re going to do some restrictions on that.”

We’d already discussed the issue of under the high-tide line — that that’s still accessible. That’s not impacted. We discussed a number of the parks and wood areas that will continue to allow public access.

Really, when we talk about some of these areas of private access, K’ómoks-Nation-member-only access, it really will be at their discretion, as it is currently. That would continue.

John Rustad: In speaking with K’ómoks, that reiterates what their intentions certainly were around that. Just because there have been a number of controversies around closures of parks and these types of things for cultural purposes, I didn’t know if K’ómoks had any intentions or any thoughts around that in terms of their lands or within their area. That’s why I particularly asked the question. Like I say, I didn’t have any indication from them that this would have been an issue, but I thought maybe I should ask the minister just to get it on record.

With that, I’ll pass it over to my colleague.

Scott McInnis: Again, just some clarification on a couple of pieces here.

With the provincial expropriation of K’ómoks lands, 119 talks about that generally there won’t be expropriation of land but that the province holds the right to do so if needed. I’m assuming a provincial expropriating authority would be things like utilities or roads.

I’m just wondering, because I don’t think it says it here. In that case of an expropriating authority using treaty land for some sort of provincial interest, is there any type of compensation model for that? Obviously, if there’s a roadway going through, it’s taking away some of that treaty land.

I’m just wondering if the minister could shed some light on what that looks like if there has to be land expropriated for something and what terms or agreements are in place to ensure…. Is there land that’s transferred elsewhere or cash? How does that look?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s a bit technical, so if the member is okay, I’ll refer him, since it is a publicly available document, to appendix O-1, paragraphs 16 to 18. It goes through the formula around how expropriation would be done and how compensation must be met.

[4:00 p.m.]

The member is right. Looking at things like utilities…. That’s traditionally what we look at, and that’s common in modern treaties.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister just clarifying that.

Just moving on to the K’ómoks water lots. I’m interested in what this looks like and the process therein. As I see it, the province, essentially, leases the specific area of water highlighted. I’m looking on page 519 of the appendices related to the Gravelly Bay area, a 99-year water lease that’s provided to the K’ómoks from the province around that.

I guess, really quickly…. It looks to me like the extent of those boundaries is not finalized yet, as some of the other boundary areas, as the minister described earlier, are not dialled quite in exactly as of yet.

I’m just curious about the relationship between this specific water lot and the estuary and the differences or similarities when it comes to things that my friend from Courtenay-Comox raised around pieces like any access, anything around mooring buoys or anything like that. Is there anything that changes under the lease that’s different from the estuary agreement itself?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: My understanding is there are two water lot parcels.

One of them is currently in use by the Department of National Defence. Through our work with K’ómoks in the treaty, K’ómoks will continue to allow that use for that water lot for Department of National Defence. They are in negotiations with DND in discussion around that water lot, but that use will continue.

The other water lot is a very small lot in Gravelly Bay on Denman Island close to the ferry terminal. Its use is for access of kayaks or canoes for K’ómoks Nation members to get onto the island, so it will not impact or impede others’ abilities to access if they have property in that area or other use of that bay.

Scott McInnis: I’m curious. With that specific water lot, Gravelly Bay, I’m just wondering what the reason is behind creating a specific water lot there.

[4:05 p.m.]

The minister alluded to allowing members to enter. As far as I can see here, there is a parcel of land at the bottom, at the south end, which would be K’ómoks land. Why was it necessary to carve out a specific water lot for that access? Could it not have been accessed as just regular water, or why was that necessary?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This probably is a gravelly bay. Actually, I did a quick look. I think it’s because of what the bay looked like. It was gravelly. There you go.

It’s actually about economic development. K’ómoks Nation wants to start a kayak-canoe rental business on that location, so to have a dedicated water lot…. They could have done it in another way. They didn’t have to do it through treaty, but they wanted the security of the long term, that they can work there long term.

That water lot is going to be used for a kayak rental business, to get people access. You know, sit and have a coffee as they wait for the ferry. Then maybe instead of taking the ferry, they can kayak over to the other side.

I don’t know. I wouldn’t do that. That channel can be a little strong, but there you go.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister clarifying some of that around Gravelly Bay, the water lot.

It is a small area, 0.3 of a hectare. It’s not a large tract of water for this lot. I’m just more curious as to the intent of the use of the area. The minister was talking about K’ómoks perhaps setting up a kayak rental and canoeing business maybe on the shore on that small parcel of the K’ómoks land there.

Again, is the intent to have that water lot to…? Is it more of a safety zone for some of that recreational use and to identify that maybe power boats and things like that should stay out? I’m just trying to get to the bottom of that…. I don’t want to call it an exclusion zone because that’s not what it is. Let’s call it a safe zone.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, it’s not just water for moving around and boating in, but likely a dock would be built there. Obviously, if a dock is there, somebody else can’t use that area. They may want to ensure exclusive access use for that dock so that not just anybody showing up with a boat can pull in there and take over the use when you’re trying to get a kayak in the water or something like that.

It is an interesting history on Denman Island for the K’ómoks Nation. This idea of coming home is what I’ve heard it referred to, for some of them, with the Pəntl’áč People and that history within K’ómoks. It’s a fascinating history.

Sorry. I should sit down. I just get excited about learning about this stuff.

Scott McInnis: Maybe just another question or two about this. Again, I’m just trying to wrap my head around the use and reasons behind the water lot. It’s not something I’m overly familiar with.

Again, the K’ómoks would reserve, with that lease from the province, exclusive use and occupation of the water lot, which would in turn provide any sort of exclusive decision-making within that water lot as well. Am I correct in saying that?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s still provincial law. How a water lot can be used by K’ómoks is the same as how a water lot can be used by any other person that has a water lot.

John Rustad: Earlier here we were just talking about the surveying and who covers the cost, whether it’s the province or the federal government or K’ómoks in terms of the surveying costs. I can remember in my days of being in this ministry when we were talking about the need to do some surveying, particularly when it came to one of the other land agreements, that cost can be pretty significant on the area.

I was just curious. Since the cost of surveying the provincial land is going to be borne by the province, what is that cost associated with implementing this treaty, for surveying the provincial lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Getting those surveys done is a competitive process. I don’t want to give the member a figure and then in estimates, in a year or two years from now, have him say: “Well, you promised it would be this amount, and it’s actually that amount.” I can’t give him a figure around exactly how much it will cost because we don’t have those costs yet.

John Rustad: I understand, obviously, going through that, that you don’t have a direct budget in terms of doing this, but it is significant. You’re going to need to go to Treasury Board and ask for that. Now, the implementation date is still down the road, so there’s still a little bit of time, but surely you must have some sort of estimate, maybe on a per-kilometre basis or per-hectare basis or whatever the case may be, of what normal surveying would be.

The reason I’m asking this question is that there was some debate a decade ago in terms of the process that could be used and recognized for surveying, whether it had to be ways and means of going through and cutting and all this kind of stuff or whether it could be done through more modern technology, in terms of how it was laid out. I don’t know whether that conversation advanced at all, so I’m trying to understand what the potential liability to the province is in terms of the cost, which could be significant.

Then the next follow-up question is the technology that is being considered to be used or considered to be acceptable. Part of this, of course, is that there may need to be a change in some regulations associated with what would be acceptable for surveying costs. That’s why I’m asking.

If the minister can at least give some sort of idea of the process that’ll be used and a rough cost, that would be good. We can extrapolate from there. I can promise the minister that two years from now, I won’t be going through the estimates process with him and saying: “But you said.”

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The first thing that would have to be done in terms of surveys and land surveys to address this question is…. Well, the treaty would have to pass, but then what would occur would be an assessment of the lands and a look at exactly which ones had the appropriate surveys done in terms of what time, when they were done, if there could have been an issue of erosion — those kinds of things. What areas don’t have appropriate surveys?

I think the member can appreciate this. Instead of me trying to guess at which ones were surveyed, which ones weren’t, what the cost approximately per hectare would be…. That would probably not be the right approach. If we are in a competitive process and I say that the government is willing to spend X dollars for each hectare, well, then it’s not a competitive process anymore, in the sense that people will be able to bid to what I’ve said.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Right. Then it becomes the floor, exactly.

The member well knows how things can work with government and private procurement sometimes. We’re going to be careful about that.

In terms of the question around what technologies and surveys would have to be done with instructions issued by the surveyor general, lidar currently does not replace legal surveys. It’s useful, no question, but in terms of the standards, it can’t be the technology that would replace the legal surveys, even though I know the member has made a passionate effort in that regard.

John Rustad: Which I did a decade ago, and I will still continue to argue the case. Part of it is that I’ve actually gone through the old survey books from the late 1800s, early 1900s and gone and found corner posts and gone through notes and all that kind of stuff. It’s a very expensive process, which kind of….

There’s, like I say, better technology today, but somehow we’ve got to get thinking outside of that box. That’s not the minister’s job, and it’s certainly not associated with this treaty, although I would ask him to consider joining me and asking for that to be approved, to drive down those costs down the road.

Moving on from that survey cost. I understand the minister’s reluctance to be able to provide a number. I suspect it’s in the tens of millions in terms of what those costs will be, the surveying costs, but in any case, we’ll find out in the future. Now I guess I will have to ask the minister specifically about this down the road.

The minister said that after the treaty is passed through this House — I assume he’s also saying after it is ratified by the federal government — there would be a process, then, to start trying to do the assessment of what that cost would be and scheduling it. Can the minister kind of detail a timeline in terms of that?

Obviously, there’s relatively limited capacity in terms of surveying within the province and the work that needs to be done. We’ve got this treaty. We also have the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum treaty, which may be coming to a legislature near us soon, assuming the Legislature might be sitting this fall. There will be a tremendous amount of work that would be required associated with all these treaties, so I’m wondering what that process is in terms of timing.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I know there’s a real interest in getting this done soon. It’s a negotiation, but it would be.… Certainly, K’ómoks has an interest in doing this, even before it goes to the federal process, so that the land could be properly registered in the land title office at effective date.

In talking with the team, there’s very clearly, I think, an orders-of-magnitude difference between the member’s view of what it would cost to survey and what the team thinks, in the sense that we don’t estimate it would be tens of millions of dollars.

That’s for a few reasons. It’s a smaller land package, with a number of them already surveyed appropriately. It’s not starting from scratch. We think that it’s more manageable and that it will be a more efficient process, so it shouldn’t take that long to have prepared. In terms of “will it be done by X date?” I don’t have that information today.

John Rustad: That’s fair enough. I must admit I keep thinking about the 18-point-etc. square kilometres of potential additions.

Sorry, you’re right. It’s only 1.04 square kilometres, so that isn’t as large as what’s been going through my head, which is that bigger number.

I just need to confirm with the minister, just in terms of lands.… One of the big issues that came up many, many years ago was a case where land was transferred to a First Nation and there was a significant environmental issue with the land. The remediation, the work that needed to be done, was very, very expensive and borne by the province.

I just want to understand. I think it’s laid out in here, but I think it’s important for the minister to put it on record so that if there is a significant environmental issue which may come up, which is unknown at this time in terms of land that is transferred and becomes K’ómoks land, the liability for any remediation or issues that may come up would not be with the province but would actually be with K’ómoks.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There are a few answers there. There are two parcels that we have identified as currently needing remediation or previously needing remediation as we have continued through this process.

One of them, I understand, had some remains of an old ski operation. K’ómoks members actually went up and volunteered and spent a good amount of time cleaning that area up so that it’s to a standard that we would feel good about transferring.

The other one, Kus-kus-sum…. We, as well, will require a certificate of compliance before transfer could take place. There is significant remediation work going on there as well.

The agreement states that B.C. is not required to prepare or provide a site profile for any lands transferred to K’ómoks in accordance with the agreement. We’ve done our best to make sure that we can find any potential issues that might need remediation.

However, down the road, if something was discovered, if it was B.C.’s fault, like we did the damage, we would still be held liable for it as we would previously, I believe. If it is some other company or another organization that caused the damage, we would work with K’ómoks to go after them for the remediation that they would be required to do under provincial or federal law.

John Rustad: Before I get into the next line of questioning on this, I request a brief recess.

The Chair: I will give you a five-minute recess.

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay. Because both sides are being nice and agree, it’s ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, we will call the committee back. Just as a reminder, we are on clause 3.

John Rustad: As we’ve been talking about all the lands that are becoming treaty land, K’ómoks land, I’m wondering. As I look at it, it appears this way, but I think I want this on record as well. Are transportation and utility corridors excluded from the definition of K’ómoks land?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I guess what we colloquially call Crown corridors, so highways and those kinds of things, are usually excluded. There is a provision that the member might be interested in…. I say “usually” because they are in most cases, in this treaty.

The one area that is a little different is…. B.C. Hydro worked out an agreement with K’ómoks prior to treaty in terms of statutory right-of-way access, and so on, for B.C. Hydro lines. That’s referenced as one of the appendices to the treaty.

[4:40 p.m.]

John Rustad: I noticed those in the appendices. I was wondering a little bit about that.

The major highways, rail corridors and those things are excluded, which is good to know. The question is now as you get into more of the side roads. It’s not necessarily a highway. It wouldn’t necessarily fall under “highway.” It might be a regional district road that would go through.

Obviously, there are a lot of them throughout the whole territory, and there would be a significant number that would go through the treaty land. I’m just wondering if all those sorts of roads are excluded or whether there is some sort of provision.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under chapter 10, “Crown Corridors and Rights of Way,” paragraph 19, K’ómoks roads are part of K’ómoks lands, as the member mentioned.

“K’ómoks is responsible for the maintenance and repair of K’ómoks roads. Subject to the terms of this agreement, K’ómoks roads are open to the public unless designated otherwise by K’ómoks. They may temporarily close K’ómoks roads for safety, public order or cultural reasons.

“K’ómoks may permanently close a K’ómoks road. Before K’ómoks permanently closes a K’ómoks road, K’ómoks will (a) provide public notice and an opportunity for affected persons to make representations to K’ómoks and (b) notify the operators of public utilities whose facilities or works may be affected.”

Then just in terms of the public utilities question the member asked earlier, for his reference, in “Crown Corridors and Rights of Way,” paragraph 25 talks about some of the abilities for a public utility in terms of how they would work on K’ómoks lands.

John Rustad: Thank you for that, Minister.

I’m just looking at one map here in particular, but I was looking through the other maps. It does say on the maps quite clearly “Crown corridor,” where we do have the roads and the rights-of-way.

I’ve run across, throughout time…. I’m saying that liberally because there are many things that I’ve looked at over the years where there are lots that have gazetted access, but it actually hasn’t got a road or a corridor built yet. This is something that may not actually show up on a map but may have been originally intended to have land access and a corridor or road built to it.

I’m just wondering, in situations that will come up — if not this treaty, it may be in other treaties — where there is private land held that is not developed and there is a note with regards to potential access that may not have been in here, how that would be handled in terms of the guaranteed access to the lands that may not have been identified as part of the exclusion from the actual treaty land.

In other words, you may have a situation where it has become treaty land. However, there may have been some commitment in prior years, prior decades, to being able to allow for access to that land. How would that be dealt with?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under chapter 9, the “Access” chapter, it speaks to access to estates and fee simple.

Where we know…. Paragraph 15 says: “K’ómoks will allow reasonable access to at least as favourable as that which existed immediately before the effective date across K’ómoks lands, at no charge, to the land set out in appendix F-3, part 2, or to any subdivided portions thereof.”

Paragraph 16 says: “Where no other reasonable access exists across Crown land, K’ómoks will allow reasonable access across K’ómoks lands to any fee simple estate adjacent or in close proximity to K’ómoks lands.”

John Rustad: I’m glad to hear that. I’m glad we have that on record because there are obviously lots of people that are concerned about access and that side of things, so it’s important to have that on record that there is that commitment by the K’ómoks People and that it’s actually been considered through treaty with the province and the federal government in terms of access for these lands.

There are also many areas where…. Well, perhaps not many areas, but there are a number of areas that are considered now to be or would be, once this treaty is passed, K’ómoks land, treaty land — it’s so much easier to call it “title,” but anyways — that may have been used as trails, recreation, people out walking the dog or going out horseback riding or these types of things through those lands.

I’m just curious in terms of: will people still be able to access it? Obviously, if K’ómoks makes a decision to develop and to change the nature of the land, that would change the trails. In the meantime, if K’ómoks does not do any development on those areas, would people still be able to carry on with the activities that they normally would today, which is to be able to go out and walk the dogs or ride a horse or these types of activities that they like to do?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In the “Public access to K’ómoks public lands and K’ómoks tribal parks” — that’s the heading; it’s in the “Access” chapter — paragraph 21 speaks to allowing reasonable public access to K’ómoks public lands and K’ómoks tribal parks for temporary recreation and non-commercial purposes, and then it has a list of some of the things that wouldn’t be allowed, so mischief, nuisance — those kinds of things on those lands.

In terms of the K’ómoks private lands — the current reserve, for example — the nation has the right currently, as they would have the right in treaty, to decide how those lands are used.

I can’t speak to a specific horseback riding trail or something like that because I don’t know the land well enough to describe what they might intend for each portion, but certainly, public lands…. We’ve spoken about parks. We’ve spoken about Wildwood Forest. We’ve spoken about some of those other things in previous questions.

John Rustad: A lot of this comes from people not understanding what treaty is, what treaty isn’t, access — those types of things. There is the potential that the sale of land might be more challenging, that the sale of a lot by private individuals might be more challenging or that there could be an impact in terms of home prices or land value because of just the fear of the unknown. I think the treaty is good in terms of laying this thing out. I think the minister is being very clear in terms of this.

Is there going to be an effort to make sure that this information is out to landowners so this sort of fear of the unknown can be dispelled? How is this process going to be undertaken for non-K’ómoks members that are within the territory and might have land adjacent to what will ultimately become K’ómoks land?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Certainly, I would appreciate the member’s help, the member from the Comox Valley, in helping to educate his constituents around these issues and how they work. People look to us as leaders to help identify what the real risks are. I know it’s the job of the opposition to raise questions and ask questions that I’d appreciate your help in providing answers to.

In terms of what we plan to do and what K’ómoks Nation plans to do, we’ve already written to landowners that are adjacent, so that has already occurred, to give them a heads-up about what’s going on. We certainly have responded to questions and will continue to do so.

Should the treaty get to the effective date, I’m sure that K’ómoks Nation will also continue to do their outreach to neighbours. They work very hard to build those relationships. We’ll continue to do our work of both helping educate the broader public about what treaty means and impact on private property rights.

I’ve heard from some realtors who have said that they would love to be able to say that they were selling land in a treaty area, that they were selling homes in a treaty area, because they can speak to the certainty on the land in terms of K’ómoks rights being respected and a treaty has been signed in terms of how those section 35 rights are to be expressed on the land and in that broader treaty area for the K’ómoks People.

I think, in fact, it’s a very good-news story, and it’s one that I hope more people will identify with and understand. This is what we’re doing in treaty. It’s building that certainty and building through the work and through heavy work — there’s still work to be done — of negotiation, conversation, collaboration.

I might mention…. It might be useful now. There had been earlier questions. It’s slightly a bit of a shift, but just to say it now because I’m not sure if I’ll get an opportunity to.

The member mentioned, I think it was on Monday or maybe last week…. Anyway, Chief Roberts was here with Wei Wai Kum First Nation. I thought I should just share with members because there is interest. They have proposed an alternative approach to resolve overlap issues, and we’re considering their draft proposal they brought to us for looking at the treaty disputes using Indigenous law.

We’ve met with them to discuss their proposal. We followed up, summarizing some of the takeaways from that discussion. They have responded with modification based on that discussion to their proposal, and our teams are looking forward to scheduling another discussion with them after we’ve also had a chance to discuss their proposal with K’ómoks this week.

The proposed process involves other parties, Canada and K’ómoks as well. They will each need to decide whether they would participate, and we certainly are encouraging them to do so. We’ve met with Canada to discuss the proposal. We met with K’ómoks this morning. They had questions regarding the proposal. We’ve also emailed and connected with Wei Wai Kum legal counsel to request meetings and further follow-up to discuss questions.

To be clear, if this bill passes, it does not reduce or detract from our intent to continue to explore this proposal with Wei Wai Kum, Canada and K’ómoks because we are serious in our intent that we want to make sure that treaty helps raise everybody up, that it doesn’t lead to further conflicts, that we do consider each other’s and each nation’s interests here.

Just to put that on the record. I didn’t want this to be a surprise, that these kinds of conversations are continuing. I think it’s, in fact, important that as we discuss legislation relevant to the treaty, we also understand that these processes continue.

[4:55 p.m.]

John Rustad: I very much appreciate the minister providing that information.

Two questions. I want to talk a little bit about the information the minister just provided, but just prior to doing that…. Obviously, there needs to be an authoritative source in terms of answering questions about treaty, particularly things like access and property values and these types of things, property protection.

One of the things about this, of course, is that it’s defining K’ómoks section 35 rights, what they will and what they will not exercise. A big part of that is they will not have the ability to put a title claim forward impacting private property. There’s a definitiveness that comes from that for people’s protection.

I think it’s important that there’s a definitive source that people can go to that answers questions, maybe even be able to pose questions and get the answers and that kind of stuff. Is the government considering setting up some sort of site, a website or some other social media or online presence, that would be able to provide that kind of information and certainty to people that might have these questions?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: We agree with the member that education is very much important around treaty; how they work; what impacts could be positive, negative, any sort of impact. The reality is, I think, both.

We currently have an Engage B.C. website — which was set up, I think, initially for discussion probably five, six years ago now — where a treaty is posted, where you have information around the maps, those kinds of things. There’s an active email inbox that people can send their questions to, and the team works hard to respond.

We’ll continue to do that work with local governments too, to help share that information — myself, if there’s a need to go and discuss with locals. Certainly, if the MLA is interested in further education, further discussions so that he can share that information too, we’re keen. I know K’ómoks Nation is as well.

I believe the MP for the area…. We’ve briefed him. We’ve had an extensive briefing with him, sharing how the treaty works, that there is no impact on private property.

I understand there have been some requests where he said he needs a briefing because he thinks there’s a concern for private property. Well, he’s had his briefing, and he was told at that time that private property was not impacted. I know it makes good political theatre, but that’s not, in fact, the issue, as he was told at that briefing.

John Rustad: The minister mentions he’s interested, if available, to go out and do something in person. Perfect. Can we arrange it for tomorrow afternoon just before the budget vote?

It’s getting later in the afternoon. I can’t help but try to get a chuckle out of the minister.

I’d just like to make a suggestion. Make sure you’ve got a link for K’ómoks treaty so it makes it simpler for people to go and directly be able to find it. I’m pleased to see that that’ll be available because, hopefully, it makes it easier for us to get out there to public and just simply say: “Here is where you can go for authoritative source of information in terms of it.”

Regarding the information that the minister provided in the process with Wei Wai Kai on the overlap, I’ve got a bit of a curious question.

Obviously, the goal here is to have treaty with K’ómoks and also treaty with the other nations. That’s a process that’s been ongoing. Is it possible to have treaty territory overlap?

For example, one nation has said that 80 percent of their territory is within the K’ómoks treaty territory. Obviously, there are significant overlaps of interest. There are significant overlaps of interest today in terms of section 35 rights. Is it possible that, through a treaty, you might actually end up with treaty territory — not treaty land, because that’s different, but treaty territory that could actually be overlapping one another?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The answer is yes. In fact, in this treaty specifically, we know ɬəʔamɛn and K’ómoks have overlapping areas. They have a protocol agreement, so this treaty would overlap with their treaty area in that way.

Also, whether it’s Wei Wai Kai or Wei Wai Kum, their interest in treaty, for example, could still be upheld. We’re certainly interested in their interest in treaty too, and understand that, yes, you can have those overlapping areas.

The other thing, just to mention. I talked about the Engage B.C. site. I should also mention the B.C. Treaty Commission as a very authoritative source for people to better understand treaty. Working with Chief Commissioner Abbott and all commissioners…. We’re interested in how we can support the B.C. Treaty Commission to do even more education work because, of course, they are a very authoritative source on how treaties are made.

Scott McInnis: I might be…. Oh, maybe not. I was going to say I may be cutting the grass of my friend here, but I want to look at some of the subsurface resource components here and just dig in a little bit to what is in the treaty versus the appendix and try to draw some connections. We may flip through this fairly quickly.

I see on the appendix K-1 that certain sections of parcels have “all subsurface resources.” Others are subject to certain provisions.

Really quickly to start off, are there any subsurface resources here, specifically in the areas that say “all subsurface resources”? Is there anything that’s excluded? We’re looking at minerals; sand and gravel; natural gas; petroleum, potentially. Is there anything which would be excluded from that definition of “all subsurface resources”?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: K’ómoks will own formerly Crown-owned subsurface resources under treaty land, but existing subsurface tenures can continue under provincial law. There is a new policy approach to subsurface resources in the K’ómoks treaty because of the E&N land grant, specifically, to resolve the uncertainty of ownership and enable the province to be able to transfer whatever subsurface resources it does own to K’ómoks. An independent adjudicator process will be established to assess subsurface ownership claims under K’ómoks land within the E&N land grant area.

Operational details remain to be developed by staff with the Ministry of Attorney General, my team and the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. Valid claimants would, of course, retain their ownership. Where no valid claimant is found, those subsurface resources will first be vested in the Crown and will then be included in K’ómoks lands after the adjudicative process is complete.

We commit to completing this process within five years after the effective date of the treaty, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

Scott McInnis: I’m just curious. Like I said, we may whip through some of this really quickly. There are just a few components here that, due to my own fault…. I didn’t do, perhaps, enough due diligence on chapter 8, so I’m just looking for some clarification.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Are third parties able to purchase subsurface rights from the K’ómoks Nation? I’m just wondering if other outside parties are able to come in and purchase those rights for the resources.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes. K’ómoks can sell subsurface rights under the land. They can also do things like collect royalties — do the kinds of things that you would expect if somebody was involved in mining.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

I’m just curious. There has been a conversation around mineral exploration and some of the changes because of Supreme Court decisions around consultation frameworks, etc. Would there be any circumstance where prospectors could — obviously, it would have to be with the permission of the K’ómoks — stake claims to mineral rights and go through that process that currently exists off treaty land on Crown land?

Is there anything within chapter 8 which alludes to non-members from outside the community coming in and participating in mineral exploration? Again, it would have to be under some sort of agreement with the K’ómoks. Is there any such agreement that exists, or is the mineral exploration component only exercisable for K’ómoks members themselves?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If K’ómoks owns the subsurface rights, it would be their choice if they wanted to sell them. If they wanted to invite a miner in for exploration, they could charge fees as they would want to or not, as the case may be. It doesn’t have to be a K’ómoks member who does that exploration. Really, it would be a matter for the K’ómoks Nation government to make those sorts of decisions.

Scott McInnis: It makes total sense to me that there could be, perhaps, some sort of K’ómoks law that is drafted to allow mineral exploration from others if that was to be the case.

I’m just wondering if the minister could enlighten us, on the record, about chapter 8 and the ownership of subsurface resources. Is this a new provision in modern treaties, a new chapter, to have the treaty nation actually have full ownership over those subsurface resources?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No, it’s not new. It does happen in other modern treaties. The only difference is the E&N land issue and the adjudicated process because it’s not completely clear on certain pieces around “is there a valid claimant?” That’s why the adjudicated process exists.

[5:10 p.m.]

In other treaties, that process wouldn’t be there because it’s much more clear, in those cases, who the claimants are, who has the land rights, whereas the E&N is a specific circumstance we have to deal with, with his treaty.

Scott McInnis: Just looking through here, and I made a note of it somewhere.

Maybe the minister can just clarify that under an agreement with a resource extraction company, a producer that’s brought in, if something is found, the K’ómoks can receive fees, rents, royalties or charges other than taxes.

I’m assuming the answer is no, but under this arrangement, the province holds no jurisdiction to collect any sort of mineral tax revenue from those resources whatsoever?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The tax treatment…. When it comes to mineral resources, the province would vacate that room. We would not be charging provincial taxes on that. That would be more about the economic development potential, for example, for K’ómoks, if they chose to pursue that path.

Scott McInnis: Obviously, there are some important questions here because subsurface resources and the potential extraction of those resources are a complex and complicated space. Just trying to understand the K’ómoks law-making authority versus some of the existing provincial legal authority that exists.

I’m assuming the answer is yes, but when it comes to development of any potential resources within the K’ómoks lands, again, I would assume that K’ómoks does not have the ability to create K’ómoks laws around environmental assessment processes or anything like that. That would still fall specifically under existing provincial legislation when it comes to the environmental assessment process?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In chapter 6, the “Lands” chapter, it says: “Notwithstanding paragraph 67, federal law or provincial law in respect to subsurface resources prevails to the extent of a conflict with K’ómoks law under paragraph 65.” So some elements continue to be subject to provincial and federal law.

In terms of the environmental assessment process, the process outlined in the K’ómoks treaty is generally in alignment with the process available to all First Nations that are participating Indigenous nations in the Environmental Assessment Act. These provisions align with what’s generally provided to First Nations at the deep end of the consultation spectrum.

It was updated to increase clarity of understanding on what K’ómoks can expect when consulted in relation to projects that require a provincial EA in their territory — so the broader territory, not speaking just to treaty lands but to the treaty area.

Scott McInnis: Just really quickly, if the minister could answer, does K’ómoks hold any specific ownership of subsurface resources beyond treaty land and into treaty territory?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No.

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that. I knew, 99.9 percent, that that was the case.

Perhaps it is getting late. We’ve had a lot of debate on certain things, and I may have misheard the minister in the previous answer about the environmental assessment process. He touched on consultation with other affected nations, perhaps, but I was just, more generally, speaking broadly about the entire environmental assessment process that one needs to go through, say, somewhere else on the Island that’s not on treaty lands. It’s quite robust. Obviously, it takes quite a long time.

Would that existing regime — I’m not pretending that I’m an expert in the environmental assessment process, because I’m not — continue on treaty settlement lands, just as it exists outside of treaty settlement lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll try to say it again. I think I got it before, but I’ll try this time.

On the treaty area, the environmental assessment process would continue as it currently does. We would just be, through this, making sure that K’ómoks understands and is treated in this way — as being on the deep end of the consultation spectrum. That doesn’t affect other nations in terms of how they might be impacted, but that’s specific to the treaty here, being clear that, on this treaty area, they will be treated on the deep end of that spectrum of consultation.

[5:20 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I appreciate the minister speaking to that because it does clarify the piece around the consultation within the treaty area itself, treating the K’ómoks on the spectrum of having deeper consultation within that.

How, potentially, would that affect…? If we’re, again, looking at the spectrum of consultation within the treaty area, with disputed territory is there any framework set up to deal with neighbours, in the consultation process, for some of those subsurface resource rights?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think we kind of answered this question a couple of days ago in a roundabout way, in that the treaty area that other nations may have and do have interest in and do have rights, section 35 rights, in those areas…. They have the right, based on their history and heritage, to be consulted as appropriate, based on their history in that area.

If they have strong rights because of strong heritage and connection to that area, through the environmental assessment process there is a deeper end of that spectrum of consultation required, in the same way that K’ómoks has a deeper consultation level required.

Now, to be clear, if a neighbouring nation entered into treaty or a treaty-like arrangement, they could have a similar arrangement in the sense of what K’ómoks has here, where it’s clear that they are consulted on the deep end.

I know the environmental assessment process in that act is separate from this legislation, so very detailed questions on environmental assessment probably…. I can try my best, but that’s not what we’re here for.

Scott McInnis: I’m just wondering about third parties for a second and purchase agreements. Perhaps this is something that would be solely up to the K’ómoks later. Just around any sort of renewal rights or anything to subsurface resources that would be purchased by third parties.

Is there anything set out in the treaty which would guarantee any renewal process? Is that something that would come later in negotiation with the K’ómoks, as far as specific regulations drafted by the K’ómoks or other laws from the K’ómoks that would relate to that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Moving from the broader treaty area back to the treaty land, if K’ómoks own those rights, they would have the right to make a contract with a third party, as would be expected, as any landowner who held the subsurface rights would be able to do. Whether that had a renewal clause, how that worked, that would be up to them.

Scott McInnis: I just have one more question before I pass it off to my friend from Nechako Lakes.

Just to clarify, the subsurface resources are wholly owned in the treaty lands by the K’ómoks, so there is no obligation whatsoever for the K’ómoks for any type of revenue-sharing agreement with the province, any royalty agreement with the province. That revenue and those fee structures, whatever that looks like, are solely for the K’ómoks Nation?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member is mostly correct. I would differ in that on the treaty land….

I mentioned the issue with the E&N land grant and some of the questions around ownership for some of those subsurface rights. Where it’s clear that ownership is there, that would be the case. Then there’s the adjudicated process that I mentioned, which would have to take place before declaring clarity on some of those subsurface rights because of the E&N land grant and what has played out with that.

Scott McInnis: I wanted to jump in for one more before my friend takes a line of questioning.

Just to be clear, and I think I know what the answer is, that revenue-sharing obligation or structure of any sort of fee allocation would not apply in the broader treaty area. That would be not under the sole ownership of the K’ómoks Nation.

Again, in the broader treaty area, there still would be the opportunity for the province to collect mineral tax revenue. There could be revenue-sharing agreements, based on what the project is and who the proponent is that’s doing the work on the land base. But it’s only the treaty settlement lands, which have subsurface resource rights fully owned by the K’ómoks Nation, for which there is no obligation to share or any sort of revenue-sharing structure. Is that right?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I could say, short answer, yes. The lands that are the treaty lands of K’ómoks, the subsurface rights…. If they were to do mining in that area, there’s no obligation on them for revenue sharing within those very specific treaty lands.

John Rustad: I’m curious a little bit. I think we talked about this a little bit during the estimates process earlier this spring, but when we talk about subsurface rights, what’s the precedent that has been set in British Columbia allowing Indigenous People, whether it’s through treaty or otherwise, to be able to have subsurface rights assigned to them?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, similar to when the member opposite sat over here, subsurface rights have always gone along with modern treaties in those packages, so it’s the same with the other modern treaties. That has been government practice.

John Rustad: In terms of subsurface rights, just to be clear, the subsurface rights only apply to the treaty land, not to the treaty territory.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: That’s correct.

John Rustad: It’s interesting when I think about the subsurface rights and the fees and payments. Obviously, under regular Crown land, when there are subsurface rights or subsurface activity of a mine, the province collects a royalty. Often there’s revenue sharing with the First Nation whose traditional territory is in there. I assume that would be in place for within the territory of the treaty.

I know my colleague was asking about this. I didn’t quite hear, or I didn’t quite pay enough attention, so I just want to ask it again, in terms of how that would be split in the revenues generated.

[5:30 p.m.]

Are there revenues that would be assigned to the Crown, to the province, or, assuming there’s some subsurface activity that would be happening, would all the revenues go to the nation, as opposed to being split the way it would be under, say, territory out in Crown land?

For example, if I’ve got a coal mine, if I put in a coal mine, the revenues…. As a province, we charge a royalty associated with the coal being extracted, and often we’ll sign an agreement with the First Nation with a share, a portion of those revenues to the affected nations of that coal mine.

I’m just wondering how it works if it is an activity that is happening underneath title land in terms of…. Is there any expectation of a share with the province, or is 100 percent of that under the nation’s ownership?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think I’ve answered this three or four times now. It very much is that if it is the treaty land itself, should there be a mining project that the nation agrees to see proceed in those treaty lands, those royalties, revenues, rents, etc., go to the nation.

John Rustad: One of the reasons for a revenue share between the province and the nation in areas that aren’t on treaty lands, on areas that are out on Crown land or that sort of thing, is because there’s an impact to the treaty nation for the rights. But a mining activity would have an impact on the province in terms of the things that need to be looked after and issues that need to be done.

I’m just surprised that there isn’t an opportunity for a revenue share to go to the province for any subsurface activity. That’s probably the same in all the treaties. I don’t know if it is or not. It’s one of the things I just want to highlight that should have been a consideration that I guess we should consider for future treaties or change to treaties just in terms of how that’s addressed.

Under “Subsurface Resources,” it says, “Nothing in this agreement confers authority on K’ómoks to make any laws in relationship to,” and it has a list here, including subsurface tenures, closure, reclamation, all these types of things. Obviously, it has to follow provincial laws associated with that.

One of the things that’s not talked about — at least, I haven’t noticed it yet, and I may have missed this in other chapters of the treaty — is, for example, carbon emissions, carbon tax, those types of things associated with mining activity.

Obviously, when there’s a mine or where there’s some sort of extraction of a subsurface resource, often there’s CO2 associated with it, or if, quite frankly, there’s any industrial activity, there’s CO2 associated with it, and we have an industrial carbon tax that’s put in place. We have emission targets that have been set in place, working towards net zero and all these sorts of things.

How does that apply to the treaty, and can the K’ómoks Nation override or write its own rules associated with the emission of CO2?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll respond quickly and then respond again to the carbon one. I just want to make sure…. I’ll have to keep this in my head.

[5:35 p.m.]

To correct the record, K’ómoks does…. In the “Subsurface Resources” chapter: “Paragraph 2 does not limit B.C. from collecting and receiving fees or other payments for administering the exploration, development, extraction or production of subsurface resources from K’ómoks lands under provincial law.” That’s different than a royalty, but if there was a provincial cost for doing that administration, that could be charged. That’s one side to that.

Then in the “Lands” chapter, under “Law-making authority”: “Notwithstanding paragraph 67, federal law or provincial law in respect of subsurface resources prevails to the extent of a conflict with a K’ómoks law under paragraph 65.” Again, speaking to their…. It can’t just be any sort of mine. The provincial standards, federal standards would prevail.

K’ómoks tax-making authority. When it comes to something like a carbon tax, they have the right to do a direct tax on their members but no one else in that relation.

John Rustad: Yeah, I understand they have the right in terms of the taxation. What I was actually wondering about is: do they have to follow emission targets, environmental emission targets and things that are set up, or can they create their own stand-alone climate strategy, if you want to call it that?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Same answer that federal or provincial law would prevail, would apply. If there are emission caps, emission targets, climate plans or climate actions which require X amount of carbon or lower, those laws would apply on K’ómoks lands as well.

John Rustad: I don’t have any other questions on subsurface. That’s good for now.

I was looking here at “Access.” We’ve covered off a bunch of those questions already in terms of it, and I appreciate the fact that the minister is allowing us to wander around through the treaty somewhat.

Interjection.

John Rustad: That’s fine. I just appreciate that you’re humouring us with it.

When I looked at it, “Access”…. Often many people on Crown land, when you have a fire that goes through or something like that, might go out picking mushrooms or other types of things — berries, those types of things — on lands. I’m just wondering whether people have that same right of access or whether that’s something that would have to be regulated or permitted by the K’ómoks People, both within their traditional territory as well as on K’ómoks lands.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: K’ómoks public land — public access would continue. K’ómoks private land, as we discussed, could be default private unless K’ómoks wanted to make sure that people could continue to access that K’ómoks private land.

[5:40 p.m.]

To be specific, under the “Access” chapter, paragraph 21 does speak about allowing reasonable public access to K’ómoks public lands, but it does specifically say “harvesting or extracting resources owned by K’ómoks, unless authorized by K’ómoks or in accordance with the agreement” is not included. You can’t just go on to K’ómoks public land, Seal Islets or one of those parks, and just start taking stuff, which is the same as a provincial park in that sense.

You can’t cause mischief or nuisance. You can’t cause damage to K’ómoks public lands or K’ómoks tribal parks or resources on those lands. You can’t interfere with other uses authorized by K’ómoks or with the ability of K’ómoks to authorize uses or dispositions of K’ómoks public lands or K’ómoks tribal parks, in accordance with this agreement. Public access does not include those things.

John Rustad: Yes, I read through that. It’s one of the reasons why I looked at it.

When I hear — maybe it’s just from coming from the North — “resources,” I think timber or rock, mines, maybe water, those types of things. I don’t often think of food as a resource, and maybe I should.

When it says here “harvesting or extraction of resources,” does that include food substances like berries, other herbs or things like mushrooms — those types of things that would grow wild, obviously not cultivated, and be available in those areas?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Generally speaking, those that own the land own the resources. A mushroom growing on your private land…. Even if it’s stated as public land in this sense, it’s still owned by K’ómoks. People would have the right to use those lands and go and enjoy them, but they couldn’t go cut down their Christmas tree, for example.

John Rustad: I guess where I’m stumbling here a little bit with the minister’s answer on this is that I understand K’ómoks treaty lands. I understand K’ómoks land, which we can call private land or title or whatever we want to call it in terms of it. But K’ómoks land is the terminology that we’ve decided to call it through this process, which is probably the right terminology that I’ve learned from the minister.

I don’t understand what K’ómoks public lands are. Is that treaty land, which would be the same as Crown land in many respects in terms of going out and carrying on these activities, or is that talking about treaty land as opposed to treaty territory?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Sorry, I was providing a distinction within the treaty land section. There’s treaty land. Within the treaty land, there is public treaty land and there is private treaty land. Outside of that, there’s the broader treaty area, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the public land within the treaty land.

That public land…. You can use it, but you can’t go harvesting mushrooms. Sorry. Maybe K’ómoks would change their mind if you asked very kindly. I don’t know. I would say, though, that it’s very clear that they own that resource.

When it’s beyond that, so that broader treaty area though, the current rules and protocols still stand.

John Rustad: That’s good to clarify because I had forgotten that some of the treaty lands, which is the private land component, will be made public lands, available even though it is treaty land, equivalent to private land. Yeah, okay. That clarifies that in terms of stuff.

The next series of questions I have, and I just want to check with my colleague here, is going to go off onto the harvesting rights and fisheries.

I’ll pass it over to my colleague.

Scott McInnis: We briefly touched on this. I don’t even know what day it was. I want a little bit more clarification.

[5:45 p.m.]

K’ómoks does retain the authority to restrict access. It could be for safety or cultural reasons and what have you. I’m just wondering about how that looks in the case of an emergency.

If there is an access restriction but there is an emergency which requires outside support — it could be a wildfire, what have you — how will access…? If it’s physically restricted, how will we ensure that provincial services are able to access treaty land, if needed, when there is restricted access, physically, that you can’t actually get there?

Just wondering, in the case of an emergency, which I think is fair to think about with flooding and fires and these other things, how we would overcome potential closures in order to deal with those emergencies.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Chapter title “Access,” paragraph 7, speaks to the issue and speaks specifically that access can be carried out to respond to emergencies and natural disasters. There’s more text here, but the member can see it.

Scott McInnis: I think we’ll move into some harvesting rights here, if we may. I’ve just got to get my ducks in a row here real quick.

Just curious. Maybe I’ll jump to the back first, when we’re looking at fisheries. I believe it’s page 160. We have a nicely laid out table with annual allocations, which is displayed in, I believe, pounds. I had that here a moment ago, which would make sense if it was in kilograms. Maybe the minister could just correct me if it is pounds or kilograms. It’s not a big deal necessarily.

I’m interested in the process for the allocation of some of these annual species. There’s, obviously, for specific species — chinook salmon being one that’s quite a bit less as far as poundage, as opposed to something like herring, which is much more readily available….

Just curious about the process to how the K’ómoks and the province came to these determinations around maximum annual allocations for the fishing harvesting.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: These areas, specifically, are under federal jurisdiction, so there are no B.C.-managed fish allocated under the treaty.

In terms of how those allocations were done, that was a negotiation between K’ómoks and the federal government.

Scott McInnis: That makes sense because, when I’m looking at the species, those are all saltwater fish. That would make total sense to me, which actually would lead me away from my second question, just about the flexibility around some of those numbers, if there were studies done about the sustainability of some of those fishing numbers.

Could the minister perhaps just talk for a moment, give us a little insight into some of the scope of the fishing rights? How are those rights exclusive, shared or priority-based relative to other users? I’m thinking of neighbouring First Nations.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s a non-exclusive right in that others get access. Other nations will have the same access or same rights, I should say, to fish in those areas. It’s managed by the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, so they have final authority on all fisheries for federally managed fish, which does account for the vast majority of fishing pursued by treaty nations. Salmon for sure. I know crab is in there, as well, and a couple others.

Of course, K’ómoks will participate in the management of the domestic fishery through the preparation of annual plans that would be submitted to the minister and will inform the K’ómoks harvest documents, membership on a joint fisheries committee, designating and documenting persons authorized to harvest and through negotiation of enforcement agreements, but it’s very much federal and K’ómoks in terms of that relation.

John Rustad: I recognize that this is more of a federal issue than it is a provincial issue, so the minister might not be able to answer these types of questions, but I appreciate, once again, the minister making best efforts.

Just some language. Where, for example, it says, “The K’ómoks fishing rights is held by K’ómoks and cannot be alienated,” I’m just curious how that…. What do you mean by the definition of alienated? What would constitute being alienated?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The K’ómoks fishing right is a communal right, held collectively by K’ómoks, so that right cannot be sold, transferred or given away. That would be alienated.

John Rustad: That’s what I kind of thought it was. They can exercise those rights and can sell the products that are harvested, but the right itself cannot be transferred, which is good to know.

It also says: “The agreement does not alter federal law or provincial law in respect of property in fish and aquatic plants.” I’m just kind of wondering what that means. It doesn’t quite read right to me, so I’m just curious what was meant there.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: To clarify something the member said…. He said that K’ómoks will have the right to sell their fish. There’s a very limited ability to do that. There’s a bunch of provisions in here around that.

I think his other question around aquatic plants…. We are trying to be as clear as we can under the fisheries chapter that it doesn’t alter federal law or provincial law in respect of property in fish or aquatic plants. As the member knows, sometimes things that move can be somebody’s property when it does one thing and somebody else’s property when it does something else in terms of the federal or provincial laws, where they apply, and that’s what that speaks to.

John Rustad: I thank the minister. Yeah, I recognize there’s only a portion that would be allowed. Most of the harvesting, obviously, is for internal use by the nation, but it’s still an important component.

I want to ask a little bit about 19, under “Fisheries,” which is that nothing in this agreement precludes K’ómoks members from harvesting, fishing, etc. If I read this right, they have the ability within the treaty to access, but beyond that, they would be able to fish in accordance with provincial or federal laws. In other words, they could do additional fishing if they had licences and permits to do so. Their treaty doesn’t limit them from participating outside of what would be considered the treaty rights.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes. They would still have the ability to purchase a licence to go to the salmon derby somewhere or the fishing derby somewhere else just as British Columbia citizens. They, of course, are B.C. citizens and have that right.

John Rustad: When I look at the list under schedule 1, prawns and crabs are included. What’s not included in here are things like clams; mussels; geoduck; other oysters; other types of shellfish that typically have made up, for the K’ómoks Nation, part of their diet, part of their traditional ways and also economically in terms of what they’ve been going after.

I didn’t see that listed under schedule 1, and I’m just wondering if that’s being excluded from the treaty, or is there some component I’m missing in terms of their rights and ability to carry on those activities?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: While there is not an explicit “you can take this amount of shellfish” listed — there’s not that designation in here — they do retain the right to continue shellfish aquaculture. They have a number of aquaculture operations, as the member mentioned. They have retained the right to continue to do that sort of harvesting, and it is important to that culture for sure.

John Rustad: I’m just curious because that is something that I’ve talked over the years with…. The K’ómoks Nation is very proud of the work they’re doing and particularly in the harvesting of those shellfish opportunities.

I was a little bit surprised when I didn’t see it mentioned in here. I was like: “Well, wait a second.” That’s basically just under the federal, provincial laws that currently exist and the activities that they’re carrying on with. That’s interesting to see in terms of it, but that’s just an interesting thing to see. It doesn’t particularly impact the treaty.

I just want to clarify, as well, because, obviously, there are areas that are defined as K’ómoks fishing areas within their treaty boundaries. I just want to confirm so that people know that the public still has the ability to go in and access and to fish within those fishing areas, as well as other nations, of course, under their section 35 rights.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Fish is inclusive of shellfish, just to put that on the record, and yes, people would still be able to do their fishing as long as they had a licence.

John Rustad: Of course, unless you’re Indigenous.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Unless you have that treaty right.

John Rustad: Or Indigenous right, section 35 right.

I appreciate the fact that we’re being pretty casual in terms of our discussions back and forth, so I appreciate your lenience, hon. Chair, but a quick question to the minister.

[6:00 p.m.]

Associated with this is commercial fishing as well. I didn’t see anything really referenced in here, so I’m assuming there are no restrictions, but I just want to make sure it’s on record in terms of the ability of commercial fishing within the K’ómoks treaty areas.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: That process is managed by the federal Department of Fisheries in terms of priority access, what you do based on the number of fish you have — those kinds of things. That would be a process managed at that level.

Scott McInnis: I’m hungry, hon. Chair. I could go for a crab cake after all that discussion of seafood.

In all seriousness, moving on to “Wildlife, Migratory Birds and Plants.” A lot of similar language related to fisheries about harvesting and the ability to barter and trade meat among not only K’ómoks members but also Indigenous people in general, which I know is a really important part of culture for Indigenous People, that ability to barter and trade in food.

One thing I didn’t notice in here, and perhaps the minister could please correct me if I’m wrong…. I just didn’t see anything, at least that I had highlighted. Perhaps this is a process that’s undertaken under the drafting of specific K’ómoks laws, which is why it’s not in here, at least that I saw — any sort of harvest levels of any specific migratory birds or wildlife.

Obviously, for non-Indigenous people, bag limits are strictly adhered to. I’m just curious if there is a provision that I’ve missed or, again, if that’s something that’s coming later which the K’ómoks would draft through K’ómoks law, as far as harvest levels and bag limits and things like that on various species.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: This is under the “Wildlife, Migratory Birds and Plants” chapter. “The K’ómoks right to harvest is limited by duly authorized measures necessary for conservation, public health or public safety.” The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship will still have an obligation to…. If there was an issue with a certain harvestable species, they could still put limits and intervene as necessary for conservation, public health or public safety.

There are specific allocations when it comes to elk. I don’t know…. I can go into those, or the member…. Oh, he has got them. Okay.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that. I did see the component, and I didn’t mention that in my preamble, about the Roosevelt elk specifically.

Yeah, that’s nice to hear that there still is some jurisdictional authority. It’s not so much the authority. I think it’s that the ministry has the resources available to monitor species numbers.

[6:05 p.m.]

The minister said something interesting which I actually didn’t think of, but it’s the top of mind now, around health and safety for the public and for K’ómoks members around what could be potential issues around things like chronic wasting disease, which would be helpful for the ministry to continue to monitor and potentially restrict access if something like that comes up.

I just wanted to pass it back over to my friend. I think he had one more question around fisheries.

John Rustad: I very much appreciate my colleague just passing it back over to me.

It’s actually under “Wildlife, Migratory Birds and Plants.” In particular, one of the issues that has come up and been mentioned by many First Nations to me is predators.

In particular, sea lions and seals can consume a tremendous amount of salmon and have a significant impact, especially in places like the mouth of the Fraser River, where they hang out. All the salmon are coming down, and they consume many, many tonnes of wild salmon that go through the area.

There has always been this bit of friction, the desire to be able to manage predators like sea lions and seals in terms of things. I guess what I’m asking is: do they have the right or ability to be able to go in and manage a predator like that, or are there some other restrictions, both provincial and federal, that would prevent them from undertaking those kinds of operations?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Well, it would depend on the critter. It would depend on the animal that we’re talking about, and also, federal and provincial laws would still apply. There is nothing that we can see in the treaty that speaks to a specific right to do predator control in that sense.

However, I know there’s a joint fisheries committee that could be looking at those issues, for example, in conversation with the federal or provincial minister, whether it be a land-based or ocean-based issue. Of course, that predator control…. I understand the interest, but there are no new processes within this that would change how that’s being treated.

John Rustad: I appreciate the answer from that. It’s one of those things that is always out there and being talked about, but everybody is kind of afraid to talk about it too much publicly, because, obviously, there could be some pushback in terms of it. But it’s not an insignificant issue in terms of wild salmon and wild salmon stocks. That’s why I was wondering whether something like that would be in the treaty. If it’s not, that’s fine. That might be one of those things that’s negotiated ten years from now. Who knows?

I found it curious, in terms of law-making, that the K’ómoks may make laws in relation to K’ómoks rights to harvest in respect of designating K’ómoks members who may exercise the K’ómoks rights of harvest.

The reason why I’m wondering about that is because, obviously, under section 35 rights, Indigenous People have the right to harvest. Does this mean that K’ómoks itself as a nation may restrict its own section 35 rights upon its own members?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Harvesting, the right to harvest, is a collective right held by K’ómoks. K’ómoks law and the treaty do allow for them to create laws around how that right is exercised. It’s not uncommon for nations to do that.

Because it’s held collectively, it doesn’t mean that any individual could just go and harvest. They could create requirements around training, cultural protocols. They could create requirements around licensing. “Do you know what you’re doing out there?” Those kinds of things are certainly thought about in why this is in the treaty in the way it is.

John Rustad: I do find that curious though. It’s something that, because it is a right under section 35…. It makes sense, obviously. I think that’s sort of the way it should be, but I do find it curious in terms of how that would be applied and how they’ve decided to structure that to support their own people.

For the harvesting agreement for migratory birds…. There are ducks, there are geese, and there are other migratory birds that go through. It says the K’ómoks will negotiate and attempt to reach an agreement on a designated harvester agreement for migratory birds.

Is that something that would be within the provincial or federal or both in terms of how that’s structured? Have those discussions started, or is that something that’s to be done after the treaty implementation date?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It would be a negotiation with the federal government. It hasn’t started yet. It would take place after the treaty effective date.

John Rustad: When I look at the trade and barter component, it’s interesting that they can trade and barter wildlife, carcasses, migratory birds, plants and other goods made, within the people and also with other Aboriginal People. Historically, after contact, they had that right, and they did that with non-Indigenous people.

I’m just wondering why there doesn’t seem to be a provision there in terms of their ability to trade and barter or whether trade and barter doesn’t include certain outright sale, which would be something different, with non-Indigenous people.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I got a lot of good advice that I’m trying to sort through in my brain. There are a few things.

K’ómoks and K’ómoks members may, in accordance with federal law and provincial law, sell wildlife carcasses and plants harvested under the K’ómoks right to harvest. They have that right in accordance with federal law and provincial law.

On trade and barter, my understanding — I’m sure there are legal scholars who could explain it in a much better way — is that the right to trade and barter existed pre-contact between other nations. At contact, that’s when it shifted, in the sense of sale to non–First Nations. That’s why the right of sale is there, but the right of trade and barter was with other nations at the point of contact.

That’s, I think, the legal understanding. I’m sure there are probably more than a few cases in case law that the member could peruse at his leisure.

John Rustad: Trade and barter. It’s just because it was specifically in here as trade and barter. Obviously, that doesn’t fall within our normal sale, recorded as sale, taxation of sale — all that kind of stuff. That is why I looked at it and went: “Hmm, this is kind of interesting.”

Is there anything in here, in the treaty — whether it’s from the harvesting of fish, of wildlife or migratory birds or the components that come from that, down to other types of things that may be a product or a by-product — that gives the nation the right to be able to sell that in an export market, beyond what the laws of Canada may state?

In other words, do they have that right to export, or does it have to go through whatever sort of Canadian laws or structure that might be in place?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There’s a difference between transport and export, and this paragraph speaks to the export. If the member wants to know about the transport, he can also look in the “Wildlife, Migratory Birds and Plants” chapter. This is chapter 56. Chapter 53 speaks to the transport.

Any export of wildlife carcasses, migratory birds or plants harvested under the K’ómoks right to harvest will be in accordance with federal law and provincial law, so it must fit within the jurisdiction, procedures and policies.

The Chair: We’re on clause 3. Recognizing the member for Nechako Lakes.

John Rustad: We might be on clause 3 all night, but I appreciate that, hon. Chair.

I appreciate that answer. I was just trying to understand because, prior to contact, there was trade outside of Canadian boundaries. That’s why I was wondering whether or not, as part of the treaty, there was an agreement to follow within Canadian laws or whether it had given them the ability to be able to move outside of Canadian laws.

One more question. Because the K’ómoks Nation has the right to be able to create laws associated with harvesting, around this, I’m just wondering whether they have the right to be able to restrict, limit or actually prevent the harvesting of any kind of wildlife within the area outside of the provincial law.

For example, the province may say that X number of a species may be taken. They may say: “No, we want to take conservation measures and prevent any harvesting.” Is that allowed?

The next question, following up on that, is non-Indigenous people’s right to be able to go within the treaty territory or, for that matter, treaty land, which, of course, is a little different in terms of their ability to be able to harvest migratory birds or other wildlife.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: K’ómoks’ legal-making authority on this question is in respect to their own members. I think it speaks to the methods, timing and location of the exercise, the K’ómoks right to harvest. They could certainly make decisions, as we discussed earlier, in relation to restricting access for their members to do the harvest. They could say, “You just can’t harvest these ones,” but that doesn’t impact others in that broader treaty area.

Of course, we already talked about the public land within treaty land and the implications on those ones, which are different.

John Rustad: One last question, and then I’d like to ask for a recess.

The last question is just in terms of…. Obviously, there can be some discussions around harvest levels of various species that often happen between the province, between First Nations, between the Wildlife Federation and the guide-outfitters — these types of things. Is there a specific table that is set up for the treaty territory that would have those partners included in terms of how wildlife should be managed?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member is likely referring to paragraph 58 in the “Wildlife, Migratory Birds and Plants” section, which speaks to meeting “at least once each calendar year to share harvest level information and to discuss and, where appropriate, make recommendations to the minister regarding wildlife management and enforcement issues within the K’ómoks harvest area.” It goes on to express a couple of the other areas that could be discussed in such a meeting.

Beyond that, of course, the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, I know, works quite extensively in the area to look at harvest levels, allocations, impacts and how the nations in that area and other harvesters and others interested in hunting and harvesting in that area could be impacted — looking at all of those kinds of inputs to come up with the best decisions for ongoing support.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Nechako Lakes.

John Rustad: I’m jumping the gun. I apologize, hon. Chair, but I would like to ask for a recess.

The Chair: Okay. Minister, you’re okay with that?

We will take a brief recess and return at 6:35 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:24 p.m. to 6:36 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The Chair: Good evening, committee members. We’re calling the committee back to order on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act, and we are on clause 3.

Recognizing the member for Nechako Lakes.

John Rustad: I appreciate that, Hon. Chair. Thank you for the brief break. I think we all got a chance to have a little bit to nibble on, which was always good because at this time of night, especially working through dinner, it can create some challenges.

The Chair: You don’t have to work through dinner.

John Rustad: That’s true. Well, actually, if you’d allow me to eat in here, we’d be all good.

On to clause 3. I’m just curious in terms of when we’re developing the management framework for co-management agreement negotiations and, in particular, thinking about forestry. There are many other components, but I just want to ask the question around forestry directly.

My concern is that some of the agreements that have been done historically between First Nations and the province have not included the requirement to manage forestry operations sustainably. There have been times when there has been overharvesting, dramatic overharvesting, and there have been times when a First Nation has made a decision not to do any harvesting. Obviously, there’s a lot of volume of timber and potential forestry volume within the treaty territory.

The question I have for the minister is: as part of the agreement is the solid commitment there between the K’ómoks Nation and the province to be able to carry on forest operations at a sustainable level and not overharvest or not prevent harvesting so that the forest operations in the area can count on a reliable supply, managed appropriately, from the treaty territory?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think when we were talking about the co-management agreement discussion a couple of days ago now, it was clear that we don’t have any co-management agreements with K’ómoks specifically through this treaty for forestry at this time. That’s something that could be arranged in the future, perhaps, but it’s not currently live.

Now, to be clear, K’ómoks does have a forestry tenure that it manages in partnership with Wei Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum and Ławit’sis, and a woodlot as well, so they are very much involved in forestry.

The treaty area lands — not the treaty lands, but the treaty area; treaty territory, as the member calls it, but I think we call it treaty area — are still managed by Ministry of Forests.

John Rustad: For lands that may be purchased, pre-approved additions to the treaty lands, obviously that’s a significant area — 18-point-some-odd square kilometres. There are a lot of forest resources within those lands and on those lands.

As part of the treaty, is there an agreement already in place that if those were purchased, they would be managed as forest managed lands, or is that up to the nation to decide what they want to do with it?

Obviously, if you’re taking that land out, 18-point-some-odd square kilometres out of the total 34 square kilometres, that’s more than 50 percent of the area. That would significantly impact the amount of volume that is being made available for forestry from within the treaty area, as the minister calls it.

[Stephanie Higginson in the chair.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Should K’ómoks decide to purchase those pre-approved areas and add to the treaty lands, they would then retain the right to make decisions about what to do with those forest resources.

They are, I’m told, quite small in terms of total area for allowable cut, total amount that you could pull through them. They are, though, of course, currently woodlots, so there is timber value, no question. I know K’ómoks currently is operating a woodlot as well, and we’re talking about three additional woodlots.

It’s similar to the discussion around resources, that they would have that right to make decisions about those resources that they own.

John Rustad: I guess one other question that’s come to mind, just in terms of the forestry and forestry side of operations, is, obviously, log exports, in terms of log exports not being restricted from private land or not as restricted in terms of private land, versus off of Crown land.

I’m assuming, under the treaty lands that they currently have, which don’t have a whole lot of forestry on them…. The potential additions to K’ómoks land could potentially have some opportunity for export of trees, if that’s what they so desired.

I’m just wondering if there are any provisions around that or whether that just falls to the federal and provincial laws.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Chapter title “Forest Resources,” paragraph 8: “K’ómoks or a person authorized by K’ómoks may export logs harvested from K’ómoks lands in accordance with federal law and policy.”

[6:45 p.m.]

John Rustad: That’s what I thought, so I just wanted to make sure that was on the record in terms of it.

In terms of environmental assessment…. I’ve always been curious about this because I believe under the Nisg̱a’a treaty that they have the right to draw down on their ability to actually undertake their own environmental assessment, to override both provincial and federal environmental assessments.

I’m wondering if there are any provisions within this treaty for K’ómoks Nation to be able to do the same.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: On treaty land, if it’s a reviewable project under the Environmental Assessment Act, then it must stay as a reviewable project under that act. If it is not a reviewable project, K’ómoks would have the right to create their own environmental assessment process to assess the things you consider in such a process.

John Rustad: In terms of environmental assessments and approval of projects, in accordance with the Tŝilhqot’in case, the province and the country have the ability to infringe on Indigenous rights, which could include Indigenous title or treaty land, if it’s a project or if it’s something that’s in the interest of the broader public.

I’m just wondering whether that still applies. Obviously, I see from here that the intent is to try to have free, prior and informed consent in terms of projects going forward, and I know all opportunity would be considered and taken to try to achieve that. But if there was a project that was in significant interest, does the treaty prevent the province or Canada from moving forward with an infringement, which would trigger some sort of accommodation or other type of process?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Respecting that, of course, land selection is a process where we try and consider all these different interests and issues, there’s a limiting factor at the nation level, as well, as they negotiate and try and figure out what to choose.

That being said, the treaty land itself…. We would have to seek consent of K’ómoks and get that consent if such a project was to occur on the treaty land itself.

For the broader treaty area, there’s a different set of expectations and requirements in terms of how the government must respond — I think the member referred to it — in terms of consulting, in terms of accommodations on any adverse impacts and those sorts of tests which the courts have shown us and we’ve also laid out in the treaty.

John Rustad: Just looking at the water allocation and the amount of water available. I’m curious whether or not the K’ómoks have the right to export that water or use that water for whatever purpose they want, perhaps industrial or otherwise.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I thought we’d talked about this before, and I was correct. Yes, we did confirm for the members that, pursuant to federal and provincial law, which is what they would need to follow, no, they would not have the right outside of federal or provincial law for a mass sale of water.

John Rustad: Yes, we did talk about that.

I wasn’t actually talking about circumventing federal export laws or provincial laws. I’m just wondering. They have got, obviously, water allocation, and I’m wondering what they’re capable of utilizing that water for, within the laws and rules within Canada.

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under the “Water” chapter, page 205-206, paragraph 8, it speaks about, on the effective date, B.C. establishing water reservations under the Water Sustainability Act in favour of K’ómoks, and then it goes into the cubic decametres — all there. The uses can include domestic, agriculture and industrial uses but exclude purposes set out in paragraph 34, which I’m sure we could go to, if the member would like to.

John Rustad: Just a quick question that has come up on page 207, 17: “The parties acknowledge that K’ómoks and B.C. Hydro have entered into an agreement” — on, in brackets, insert date — “related to the use of water on the K’ómoks reservoir.”

Is that left intentionally in there, or is that just something that hasn’t been filled in yet?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: There’s a perfect example of what the “Minor changes” provision could set out. That negotiation is still underway, but once it has concluded, the date that was decided on would be put into that placeholder.

John Rustad: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. I thought that was the case, in terms of that was either not completed or wasn’t completed at the time of printing of this. It’s always good just to note, so it’s good to know that, especially because it is a minor issue.

Last sort of question I’ve got in terms of water and water management. Obviously, there are agreements with B.C. Hydro. There are opportunities for power generation and these types of things. Does K’ómoks have the ability for entering into storage? For example, maybe making dams or other types of structures to store water for future use or for other types of things.

One of the reasons I’m asking that is, obviously, this is a bit contentious in many areas, particularly from an agriculture perspective. A lot of farms in drier areas try to hold back water. Of course, who is responsible and liable for the dam that’s being built or the berm that is being built to hold back this water?

I’m just wondering how that works if K’ómoks makes that decision to proceed down that path.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Under the treaty, any use of water by K’ómoks — including storage, diversion, extraction or use of water — must be in accordance with provincial and federal law.

Scott McInnis: I’m assuming the answer to this is yes, but just flipping through, I didn’t see it. Just in relation to…. For the health and safety of K’ómoks members, I would assume that provincial health authorities will be tasked with maintaining water quality standards for the members?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes.

Scott McInnis: That’s great to hear. Obviously, that’s a very serious issue when we’re looking at the cleanliness of water for individuals.

Just wondering. With the water allocation, which was back on page 205, are there any priority uses defined between drinking water, say, versus industrial?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think back many years ago when I first learned the acronym FITFIR, first-in-time, first-in-right, which is an acronym that’s been used to refer to how water policy has been done in this province for a long time. It was done in a way that excluded First Nations people and First Nations governments for a long time.

That’s why the priority date for K’ómoks groundwater reservations has been set as of January 1892. For water licences issued against K’ómoks water reservations, that’s the priority date. It’s provided the recognition of K’ómoks’s prior use, their occupation of their territory and resources and is based on that date of the province first regulating water rights.

A requirement of the K’ómoks treaty is the negotiation of a water scarcity management agreement, which would determine how water in the area would be managed in times of scarcity. Other water users in the area…. I know agriculture, for example, is a big user of water. K’ómoks has an interest, of course, in ensuring that that can continue. They would be engaging other users of that water to ensure that at a time of water scarcity, appropriate steps are taken to ensure that there’s water for those that need it at that time.

The primary objective of the water scarcity management agreement is to mitigate the need for implementing FITFIR by instead focusing on more cooperative approaches that manage water use in times of scarcity, including voluntary reductions by users.

John Rustad: In the archaeological section in “Culture and Heritage,” one of the questions that has come up to me often is the need to do archaeological assessments. For archeological assessments, obviously there is significant value in where there were old village sites and other types of archaeological sites that could be interesting. But there’s often a need to do archaeological assessments in the broader area — that is, relatively low-impact areas or low-potential areas of finds.

A lot of that had to do with proving the existence. Back in the ’90s when the archaeological heritage act was created, there were provisions that were put in there in terms of doing this so that you could find information that would help to prove First Nations existed on the landscape from a legal perspective. Obviously, we’re in a situation where we’ve proven this. It’s a treaty.

The question that remains is: is there still a need to do that same level of archaeological assessment when you’re carrying out activities, such as forestry or other activities, in areas that are very low or minimal or any sort of potential for any other sort of higher-value archaeological findings?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member is asking about the broader treaty area and whether or not archaeological laws or the Heritage Conservation Act would still apply. Yes, it would. That doesn’t change the provisions of the Heritage Conservation Act in terms of high impact, low impact. I know it doesn’t treat every area exactly the same based on how it’s been treated.

An area, for example, that had already been heavily impacted through development obviously has a different archaeological profile than an area along a riverbank that used to host a village and that had never been touched all that time. They are different within that act, but that act still applies to the areas that are outside of the treaty lands themselves.

Of course, K’ómoks would still retain the right to make rules around their own treaty land in terms of archaeology and how you do those things within their treaty land itself.

John Rustad: Two questions.

First, when it comes to private land — I’m not talking about treaty land but private land — there is still a requirement for archaeological assessment depending on whether it’s in certain zones or certain areas, which can be quite expensive. Would that apply to treaty land or K’ómoks land? I’m just wondering if…. I’ll ask that question.

The second question is just a broader question, which is: where you’ve got treaties settled, why are we still requiring the broader archeological assessment to be done?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I’ll speak first to the K’ómoks law-making authority on treaty land itself. They have the law to make laws applicable on K’ómoks land in relation to (c) the establishment of conservation, protection and management of heritage sites, including public access to those sites; and (d) the cremation or interment of archaeological human remains found on K’ómoks lands or returned to K’ómoks.

Any laws made under paragraph 4(c), which is the one I just mentioned, will establish standards and processes for the conservation and protection of heritage sites and (b) ensure that the minister is provided with information relating to the location of heritage sites and any material recovered from heritage sites.

Information provided by K’ómoks to B.C. under paragraph 5(b) will not be subject to public disclosure without K’ómoks’ prior written consent.

Where K’ómoks makes a law under paragraph 4(c), B.C.’s standards and permitting processes for heritage inspections, heritage investigations and the alteration of heritage sites will not apply on K’ómoks lands themselves. K’ómoks law under paragraph 4 prevails to the extent of conflict with federal law or provincial law. That’s K’ómoks lands themselves.

In terms of the broader treaty area, the member has referred, and we’ve all discussed that there are other nations in sections of that treaty area that have heritage, that have history that are overlapping.

[7:10 p.m.]

Just because we have a treaty with one nation doesn’t mean that then we don’t have to care about or take action to protect the archaeological history of the broader region. One, because other nations are connected to that heritage too. Two, I think it speaks fundamentally to: do we want to understand our history? Do we want to understand the archaeology of this province? Should nations have that right?

I see it, anyways, as a proud British Columbian, as part of our common heritage in that sense that we all live here. We should understand how people have lived here for thousands of years, and archaeology gives us that opportunity.

I was talking to a homeowner in Greece, actually, and they were talking about the challenge of developing in their community because there’s such a long history there, as well, and it’s expensive. They said that there they see it as a common heritage that we are preserving. In their case, they are preserving the history of that nation, so they take great pride in it.

I hope we get to the place where we can take that similar pride, as opposed to just being worried about it as a cost, and look at how we tell the story of this land. In many parts of this province, it’s not a story well told because that history going back thousands of years is not as well known as it could be. That’s a debate for Heritage Conservation Act and how it works and how it doesn’t work, and so on. That’s beyond this meeting.

John Rustad: I appreciate that. The minister might be picking up on a little bit of my own frustration in that there was a neighbour of mine, ten houses down from mine, who happened to bring in some soil from another area. It was a rocky area that he lived in and wanted to be able to grow a little bit of grass, have a little place where maybe he could sit and that kind of stuff.

Well, of course, somebody found an arrowhead in that soil that had been moved onto their lot, so now suddenly they can’t do anything on that lot because it falls under the archaeological heritage act, when the soil, the things that were there, were not natural to there. They were moved to there. Now it’s a huge expense for this individual, and quite frankly, they can’t do anything on their lot now because of this.

I have a little bit of frustration because there isn’t flexibility in terms of common sense, which I know is not so common. In any case, that’s the reason for asking that particular question.

In terms of the fiscal relationship and the money transferred, I’ve got one quick question, which is…. Obviously, these numbers are effective of a date, 2023, at the point of negotiation. Are they indexed to inflation for the date of completion of the treaty, the effective date?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I won’t get into every little piece and at what date it transferred or what inflationary was determined at that point, but there is an inflationary calculation built into the agreement.

The calculation utilized for adjustments, in both Canada and British Columbia, is called the final domestic demand implicit price index, or FDDIPI. This is an inflationary measure similar to the consumer price index but focused on government-based spending instead of consumer-based. There is a forum based on when that treaty effective date is versus when the agreement was made to ensure that they stay in present-day dollars for when that happens. So don’t forget the FDDIPI.

John Rustad: I would love to be asking the minister the difference between the CPI and that, but I won’t go into that.

The Chair: No, because we’re on clause 3 of Bill 20.

John Rustad: Actually, this is in clause 3 of Bill 20, so it is something I could ask the minister about, but I won’t.

[7:15 p.m.]

I’m just curious why there’s this special number based on government. Anyway, that’s something for me to pursue another day.

In terms of resource revenue sharing, I think we’ve covered off a lot of that in terms of subsurface, a little bit in terms of forestry. I’m just wondering. It’s common practice for British Columbia to enter into resource revenue sharing with all First Nations, treaty or non-treaty, in terms of activities, whether it’s forestry or otherwise. Does this agreement change that relationship or that nature in terms of the resource-sharing side?

I know, obviously, it would go to the higher end of where those ranges would be, but I’m just curious whether it changes fundamentally that relationship the province has with nations in terms of resource sharing.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: On the effective date, there is an agreement that the province and K’ómoks will enter a new resource-revenue-sharing agreement on forestry resource revenue sharing. That’s new in that sense that there will be a clear agreement.

That’s got further details shared in the resource-revenue-sharing chapter. Paragraph 1 speaks to the sharing of resource revenue between B.C. and K’ómoks — that it will be within the highest range of British Columbia’s sharing of that resource revenue, subject to the applicable resource-revenue-sharing agreement.

Scott McInnis: Just a couple of high-level questions around taxation. Obviously, with the treaty, one of the very important components is the nation may make laws in relation to taxation of members. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide any insight into the limitations or scope of any taxation authority for the nation onto its members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If a K’ómoks member is on K’ómoks treaty land, they would be subject. If the K’ómoks Nation decided to charge, to approve a direct tax, they could do that, but it could only be on a K’ómoks Nation member, in terms of that direct taxation. It couldn’t be to a K’ómoks Nation member if they were off territory, but it would be for K’ómoks Nation members on treaty land.

[7:20 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: This will be a very quick answer, I’m sure, from the minister. Those direct-taxation authorities wouldn’t apply to K’ómoks members in the treaty area, only on the treaty lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: That’s correct.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that.

Just wondering. When K’ómoks may draft laws around taxation, are there any limitations, again, onto some of the specific areas that can or cannot be taxed from a provincial regulatory lens as far as…? Could K’ómoks tax members on their income, on property, water, etc.? Does the province have a set of guidelines for K’ómoks when they’re drafting their laws as to things that may be out of bounds to being taxed for them?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Very clearly, the K’ómoks tax authority is direct to members. How they choose to tax…. Is it an income tax? Is it a sales tax? Is it a different form of tax? They could choose to do that for their members. But to be clear, that is not talking about the property tax in terms of how it might relate to people who are non-members living on K’ómoks lands.

Just to be clear, I don’t want to make it seem like that is something that couldn’t happen. We have set that up and certainly could take questions on that one too. I just want to make sure that I’m not confusing issues.

Scott McInnis: The minister kind of stepped into where I was going next. If I understood it correctly, and please ask the minister to correct me if I’m wrong, if a non-K’ómoks member were living on K’ómoks settlement land…. Potentially, it would be allowed, a taxation measure on property tax, for a non-member living on K’ómoks land — specifically for property tax.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Generally, any residents who live on K’ómoks lands and who do not qualify for the tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act will continue to pay any applicable taxes on and off K’ómoks lands with respect to property taxes specifically.

On the effective date of the treaty, the province will fully withdraw from provincial property taxation on K’ómoks lands. We will then enter into real property tax arrangements that establish K’ómoks as the sole property tax authority for K’ómoks lands and enable K’ómoks to impose property taxes on persons who are not K’ómoks members but who hold property interest within K’ómoks lands. K’ómoks will determine whether and how property taxation will apply on K’ómoks lands, including whether residents will be required to pay property taxes at all.

As I mentioned earlier, consultation with non-members is part of that. Obviously, there’s an impact, if you’re going to have to pay a tax, that you be consulted and they listen to your concerns or your ideas, inasmuch as a city council might as well when they’re looking at setting tax rates at a municipal-council level. It’s sort of similar in that sense.

Yes, there’s an opportunity for non-members to make representations in respect of tax rates, exemptions, the local services provided. The Modern Treaty Nation, of course, can determine its process for how to manage that engagement.

[7:25 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I thank the minister for that answer.

Just generally speaking, on an authority such as income tax or some sort of sales or goods tax, would the K’ómoks have the ability to tax residents who are non-members and who are living on treaty land?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In the chapter on taxation, paragraph 4, it discusses this. “From time to time, at the request of K’ómoks, Canada and B.C., together or separately, may negotiate and attempt to reach agreement with K’ómoks respecting the extent to which the direct taxation law-making authority of K’ómoks under paragraph 1(a) may be extended to apply to persons other than K’ómoks members, within K’ómoks lands.”

They don’t have that authority right now. They couldn’t put a sales tax on something that applied just generally to everybody on the K’ómoks land, inclusive of non-members. They couldn’t do that. They could do a sales tax if they had a way to make it exclusive to K’ómoks members.

This speaks to that. If there were as a request, there could be an attempt to negotiate and reach agreement around those issues.

Scott McInnis: Just a scenario I was running in my head earlier around taxation. Structurally speaking, obviously the Comox Valley experiences a lot of tourism and visitors to the area, people coming in and out. There could be an opportunity for economic development from the K’ómoks Nation on K’ómoks treaty land, as development occurs, everything from gasoline.… We talked about alcohol sale, a barbershop, what have you.

Would the K’ómoks have the ability to tax non-members on goods and services such as these on treaty settlement lands?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I think the member might be referencing, for example, tourism — the hotel room tax or something like that. Again, same answer. If there was interest and they wanted to negotiate that, they could approach B.C., they could approach Canada. There would have to be an agreement to either vacate the tax room or find some way of working through what that agreement and arrangement would look like.

It wouldn’t be required, of course, but there certainly could be an attempt to seek agreement to develop that arrangement.

Scott McInnis: Just generally speaking, as this is a living agreement, is there opportunity to revisit the entire tax structure when the periodic review of the treaty comes up within that ten-year span?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In the periodic review, as the member notes, issues can be brought forward for discussion. The good-faith principles apply, as we discussed earlier.

It doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen. In fact, I think tax provisions, in particular, are challenging ones and take a lot of work to work through and ones that I know everybody very aggressively defends their space in.

Scott McInnis: It’s just interesting in that, obviously, taxation would be important, moving forward, for the K’ómoks Nation, as a revenue-generating stream for the nation. Just curious about opening up the treaty, what some of those provisions may look like into the future, both for taxing members and for those that are non-members.

I’m going to sit down.

John Rustad: He has a whole team around him, but we get to tag-team, so we go back and forth.

As I go through and I look at the fiscal relationship procedures and other matters, definitions, etc., we don’t have any additional questions at this time on this part of this. But as we move off this back into the rest of the act, I just want to thank all the staff that have gone through in answering questions and thank the minister as well.

Obviously, ploughing through a treaty can be long and gruelling, but it’s important that we get things on record and that we have a good solid understanding. I just want to thank the minister and his staff for the process that we’ve gone through here on this.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to get on the record. Earlier I talked about a cleanup at Forbidden Plateau that was one of those potential contaminated sites we discussed earlier. I mentioned that K’ómoks members had been involved in that cleanup. I neglected to mention that it wasn’t just K’ómoks members. In fact, it was a big community effort of many folks in the Comox Valley stepping up to clean up that site.

A side note. That’s Forbidden Plateau, and the camping up in that area is where I first went camping with my dad for overnight, so it’s a place I hold with some fondness in my heart.

John Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that.

Just because we’re into side notes, one quick side note on this whole thing. Up into the valley in this area where the K’ómoks treaty is applied was actually, when my dad first came to British Columbia, the first place he went and harvested and was involved in forestry back in the late ’40s. So I’ve got a little bit of connection to this whole area myself.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

John Rustad: I actually don’t have any questions on clause 4, but I would like…. I know the Green Party is here, and I know….

[7:35 p.m.]

I just didn’t want to make sure that we passed section 7 because I know he had a number of questions.

No other questions on clause 4.

Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On clause 7.

John Rustad: I know that the member from the Green Party has this, so instead of asking for a recess to give him time to prep to be in here, I thought I’d just have a quick look at this and ask the minister.

In terms of the ownership of lands, I think we’re pretty good on this. On the effective date, K’ómoks owns the following lands in fee simple, in terms of all of those lands.

Now, I can’t remember if we answered this question or not. I think we did, but I’m going to have to again. I’m just wondering, once again, about the surveying and all that work that needs to be done in terms of the effective date.

Obviously, the effective date is two years from now. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done. In the case of if that work cannot be done, would that actually delay the implementation of the effective date, or is that work something that would carry on after the effective date?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: While it is not required that that happen before the effective date, I know K’ómoks has a strong interest in seeing that it happens before the effective date because, of course, then that creates more possibilities for how that land could be used post–effective date. You would have it registered, and you would have it clear so mortgages and all those other things that you might want to do with land would be possible.

We don’t see any problems in being able to do that before the treaty effective date, as we do have a number of years before that treaty effective date. I totally understand the interest, but we are not overly concerned that that will become a problem.

Jeremy Valeriote: On clause 7, the minister talked on Thursday about the shifts from cede, release and surrender models, then modification and now the recognition and predictability model.

The minister also stated that there are “no exclusive rights in that broader treaty area for K’ómoks.” Further, the minister shared the only land areas identified in the K’ómoks treaty that K’ómoks will be able to prevent other nations from exercising their rights on are those identified very clearly as K’ómoks lands, which K’ómoks will own in fee simple. Of course, any Crown lands in the K’ómoks traditional territory or the broader treaty area could be considered for inclusion in a Wei Wai Kai treaty, for example.

[7:40 p.m.]

With apologies for any repetition from last week, the first question is: would these treaty rights change or impact the ability of any other nation to live, hunt or exercise their rights on or within the broader treaty area?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: No, as I confirmed earlier, the K’ómoks rights are non-exclusive.

Jeremy Valeriote: How are these treaty rights different from section 35 rights?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As we discussed, treaty rights are section 35 rights. They are just expressed through the treaty. In the treaty, the parties have agreed on the attributes, the geographic extent and the limitation on those rights.

Jeremy Valeriote: In our discussion on clause 2, we discussed the presence of protocol agreements within and outside of the K’ómoks treaty. The minister also shared that the side agreements in relation to this treaty have at least partially been modelled after the side agreement in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty.

I just want to highlight that and apply it to this current clause 7, which relates to fee simple title, to say that in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the wildlife chapter in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty, it states: “The exercise of the ɬəʔamɛn right to harvest wildlife in area A of the wildlife and migratory birds harvest area set out in appendix P is subject to a protocol in effect between the ɬəʔamɛn Nation and the Xwémalhkwu Indian band.”

In the K’ómoks treaty, under the law-making authority section, there’s a subsection called “Protocols with other First Nations,” which states: “K’ómoks may enter into protocols with other Indigenous nations.”

The ɬəʔamɛn treaty’s language in the wildlife chapter, as quoted above, is strong and clear that ɬəʔamɛn harvesting is “subject to agreements with the Xwémalhkwu Indian band,” while in the K’ómoks treaty, it states that the K’ómoks “may enter into protocols,” rather than there being an established agreement between nations that is legally binding. This language in the K’ómoks treaty could be interpreted as putting the K’ómoks at an advantage in exercising rights on shared territories.

The question for the minister is: why are the protocol agreement requirements for the K’ómoks treaty different from the ɬəʔamɛn treaty?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Of course, all treaties are unique, and they are negotiated under very specific circumstances. The protocol agreements that the member references in the ɬəʔamɛn territory were in respect of quite a different circumstance than exists in the K’ómoks treaty. Those protocols relate to harvesting outside of the ɬəʔamɛn area, where the treaty would not otherwise recognize those harvesting rights.

It also recognizes the historical interrelationships between ɬəʔamɛn, Xwémalhkwu and Klahoose — which, again, are different than in the K’ómoks circumstance — which played a role in the negotiated outcome in the ɬəʔamɛn treaty. That one was a unique approach taken to address that unique situation.

That being said, I don’t want to leave the member thinking we’ve changed our views around protocol agreements. We discussed earlier our belief and our support for nation-to-nation work on protocol agreements, and I know we discussed a couple of them in our earlier meeting.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

[7:45 p.m.]

Jeremy Valeriote: Clause 8 sets out processes for when an issue arises in regard to either (1) the interpretation or validity of the K’ómoks treaty; or (2) the validity, applicability or operability of provincial treaty implementation, legislation or a K’ómoks law. Can the minister indicate what kinds of issues he sees as being attended to through this process and who would be involved?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: For the member’s information, this provision has been in all modern treaty implementation legislation. It’s to ensure that notice is provided to B.C. and Canada if certain fundamental matters about the treaty are the subject of a judicial or administrative proceeding. It sets out specific processes that must be followed in relation to the notification requirements.

These mirror the notice requirements set out in the Constitutional Question Act for notification of the B.C. Attorney General for matters covered by that act. The Attorney General of B.C., the Attorney General of Canada and K’ómoks may appear and participate in the proceedings as parties with the same rights as any other party. This right to participate ensures the treaty partners may participate in judicial or administrative proceedings that involve interpretation of the treaty itself.

An example of this kind of situation in which this provision could be engaged is a civil dispute between two private citizens in which there was a dispute about whether K’ómoks law applied or whether a K’ómoks law that did apply was validly enacted by K’ómoks.

Jeremy Valeriote: In addition to this judicial process, an option for updating the treaty was discussed last Thursday which would involve reopening the treaty through a ten-year all-party agreement. Specifically, the minister said: “If a provincial government never wanted to reopen a treaty, that would be their right — or the federal government or the nation. To get to any sort of future ten-year discussion would require agreement from all three parties.”

In reflecting on this, it seems like the treaty nation could potentially want to open up the treaty again, but if either the provincial or federal governments do not want to, then the process won’t go forward. Can the minister expand on this, please?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s similar — this approach, I think. There is a process where the parties can consider potential amendments to the treaty, absolutely. There is an obligation, and I guess I should have been clearer in my response previously, to engage in good faith in that conversation if one party does propose a change.

I think what I was trying to get at is that there’s not a requirement that just because a party proposes a change, you have to do it, but you do have to consider the matter in good faith, just as they have to propose it in good faith, which is pretty similar to the co-management agreements that we also discussed. You’re not obligated to reach agreement, but you have to consider the matter in good faith.

Jeremy Valeriote: Appreciate the clarification of good faith.

By saying it’s within the provincial government’s rights to never reopen the treaty again, is there any chance the province or federal government would have the power to block a nation wanting to update their own treaty?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: As I keep learning in this job, language is very important. I think the member spoke about “their treaty,” as in the K’ómoks’ treaty. It is their treaty, but it’s also our treaty. It’s also Canada’s treaty, of course. I think I’m learning to speak that way and to consider it that way because it is an agreement amongst us together.

In that sense, it’s all of our treaties. I think that’s important because it’s a cultural shift and it’s a way to approach these things that, I think, speaks respectfully about how it is our common interest here. I know the member means that as well.

That being said, we do have a requirement. We would, under this process, engage with nations under the periodic renewal amendments to the treaty, and that, of course, has to be done in good faith. There is an obligation for good faith, but an amendment can only occur with the agreement of the treaty nation, Canada and British Columbia.

However, there is a new concept in the treaty called orderly process. It provides a framework in which the parties may consider whether to incorporate Aboriginal rights that had not been defined prior to the effective date, resulting from new court decisions responding to Aboriginal rights claims of other First Nations.

Orderly process can only be engaged, though, under very narrow circumstances, which are that a superior court finds existence of a new, never-before-articulated-by-the-court section 35 Aboriginal right for another nation that was not recognized by the courts as of the effective date of the treaty. That right does not relate to any matters that the agreement is designed to resolve, so that precludes land claims and environmental assessment matters from this process, among other things.

K’ómoks establishes that it meets the test for the Aboriginal right in question. So just because it was found, K’ómoks would still have to establish that it met the test for that right to apply to them.

These provisions were included to address the scenario that a new Aboriginal right is articulated by the courts in the future that nobody has heard of or conceptualized today. It ensures that treaty nations are not left behind all other nations in the province if this very narrow circumstance occurs, which would be a major disincentive for nations to enter into treaties and would be contrary to the approach if the treaty does not extinguish rights simply because they were not known at the time the treaty was negotiated.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Jeremy Valeriote: Clause 9 sets out that the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission must amend the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve to exclude K’ómoks land. Just hoping the minister can clarify or confirm that by “K’ómoks land,” we’re talking about treaty land that is owned in fee simple by K’ómoks and not the wider treaty area.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: That is correct.

Also, just to make sure it’s on the record, K’ómoks has committed to establishing their own laws around protection of food-bearing land and has a real interest in making sure they can improve food security for their members, ensure that native foodstuffs, native plants that they relied on since time immemorial, can in some cases re-enter into that food chain in a bigger way than is currently taking place.

John Rustad: On section 9, also, it says that the lands will be modified on the effective date. I actually just want to ask about the pre-authorized additions to reserve, if they are brought in, how they would be handled under the Agricultural Land Commission.

[7:55 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: In paragraph 136, under the “Lands” chapter, the Agricultural Land Commission Act does not apply to K’ómoks lands.

In 137, on the effective date, K’ómoks will make laws that (a) designate K’ómoks agricultural lands. Designated K’ómoks agricultural lands are (i) K’ómoks land set out and shown for illustrative purposes in appendix 1 and (ii) future additions to K’ómoks lands that are designated as agricultural land reserve under the Agricultural Land Commission Act immediately before their addition to K’ómoks lands.

I read that to be that in future….

I will sit down and just clarify one thing. I don’t want to guesstimate my powers and overestimate them as well.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The pre-approved lands will continue as ALR lands until at which point if K’ómoks purchased those lands and they became K’ómoks treaty lands. That’s when they would lose their ALR designations and become under K’ómoks treaty lands law when it comes to agricultural protection.

Clauses 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

Jeremy Valeriote: Clause 15 cancels timber harvest rights, with exceptions, as they’re located within the Forest Act to harvest K’ómoks land. Again, just to clarify, we’re talking about K’ómoks treaty lands that the nation owns in fee simple and not treaty area. Is that correct?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The question is…. Yes, for lands that will become treaty lands at effective date.

Additionally, that clause deals with the three woodlots that have been identified as pre-approved additions. As I explained, these woodlots would continue for 25 years on from the effective date. At the end of 25 years, the two licences would expire, W0085 and W1677.

[8:00 p.m.]

In relation to the other licence, W0026, a portion of the woodlot that has been identified as a pre-approved addition will be deleted, and the remainder will continue under the licence of the lands in the woodlot that are not identified as pre-approved addition.

It’s a little bit looking at maps and thinking through each one on how the rules will apply differently, based on those conditions that I mentioned.

The Chair: May I just remind committee members that when the minister or the member is speaking, I’d prefer that committee members were not speaking. While they’re thinking, that’s great.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

John Rustad: The deactivation of roads. I know there are a number of possibilities there in terms of the Forestry roads. Obviously, the activation of roads can be very contentious for people that like to use the outback, if you want to call it that, if they want to get out for recreation, for hunting, for all kinds of other purposes.

I’m just wondering not if these are following the procedures but whether or not there’s any need for broader engagement with the community before these get deactivated.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: For the treaty lands for K’ómoks, should there be a desire to deactivate a Forestry road that is on the K’ómoks treaty lands, we, through the treaty, have brought over provisions from the Forest Act which are about supporting the minister; supporting government; and, in this case, supporting K’ómoks to do the consultations with affected parties, if there are affected parties, so that they can do those kinds of discussions and make sure that any impacts are understood before decisions are made.

However, that is not the case in the sense that it’s different when it comes to statutory rights-of-way. There are some of the roads that are statutory rights-of-way for forestry companies in the area. That’s appendix F of the treaty, which describes which statutory rights-of-way and with whom, for the interests of continued operations of forestry companies in that area.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister confirm that the foreshore agreement referenced in clause 18 has not yet been fully created or finalized?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, I can confirm that it is not finalized. We are expecting and working on a similar model to the ɬəʔamɛn and the Maa-nulth foreshore agreements. That’s the objective.

In an earlier discussion, there had been the question: “Could people still walk under the high-tide line?” Yes, they would be able to.

[8:05 p.m.]

However, the foreshore agreements really speak, some might say, to municipal sorts of authorities — that you can’t leave your dog waste on the foreshore, you can’t have bonfires whenever you want and you can’t go there and light off fireworks whenever you like, those kinds of authorities — in terms of regulating the use of that area.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’m just hoping to get clarification or confirmation from the minister on the following information about this clause. We understand subsection (7) is establishing that provincial law prevails in conflict with K’ómoks law but only in relation to the agreement set out in the foreshore agreement.

In regard to the foreshore agreement, provincial law is the highest law, then K’ómoks, although if there’s no conflict, then they exist simultaneously and equally and regional district laws no longer apply. I’m making statements here, and I’m going to ask the minister to confirm. So it’s a transfer of governance, not ultimate legal authority.

Can the minister confirm that all those points are correct? I’m happy to repeat as needed.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Yes, section 18 does limit the exercise of powers and performance of duties of the Comox Valley regional district in the agreement area and clarifies that if K’ómoks has not enacted a law when the agreement comes into effect, if any CVRD bylaws exist, they temporarily are deemed to have been enacted by K’ómoks under the agreement.

I know I heard some members in their second reading speeches suggesting this was somehow a nefarious approach and that we were not respecting local governments. Well, local governments have endorsed the treaty quite strongly, and in fact, this is about that respect.

It’s correct that provincial law and federal law, if applicable, will prevail to the extent of a conflict with a law made by K’ómoks under the foreshore agreement. The foreshore agreement is a delegated law-making agreement. Unlike the treaty, which recognizes law-making rights, the foreshore agreement is a delegation of law-making authority from the province, similar to the authority that municipalities have.

There is one small nuance. I did speak about the CVRD rules not applying in respect to regional district laws. This is where the nuance is. CVRD powers and duties relating to the general administration of the regional district as a whole — including things like elections, financial matters, corporate powers that permit entering into agreements and powers and duties in respect of the Hospital District Act services — will continue to apply. All others will not apply to avoid duplication of jurisdiction.

It’s very much consistent with the structure used in ɬəʔamɛn and Maa-nulth. I spoke earlier about the date and the time of when it applies versus CVRD rules and the expectation that K’ómoks will create bylaws in accordance, rules in accordance, unless, of course, they chose not to and continue to allow a CVRD bylaw to apply in its place.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

Jeremy Valeriote: This is a significant clause, so we have a few questions. I have a few questions on it. We know that estuaries have large ecological value. They’re wildlife habitats and have a high degree of biodiversity, and they connect to watersheds. They’re often culturally significant, tied to harvesting sites, cultural landscapes, knowledge systems and practices and identity. They also support fisheries, tourism, marine transport and more.

First question. We understand this clause is dealing with the K’ómoks Estuary consent agreement, which is different from the foreshore agreement. I understand the estuary agreement as a consent-based co-management agreement rather than an agreement that establishes delegated authority. Is that correct, please?

[8:10 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member is correct.

Jeremy Valeriote: Can the minister clarify what lands are included in this agreement? Will the lands included in the agreement be treaty land parcels, or are they part of the wider treaty territory?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: They are not treaty lands — not land. The entire area covered by the estuary agreement is submerged lands, which generally have not been included in treaty lands packages. The estuary agreement area is adjacent to the treaty lands, and it is part of the broader treaty area. The map of the area covered by the estuary agreement can be found in appendix J.

Jeremy Valeriote: Without this agreement, as it currently stands, if someone applies to lease land, get permission to occupy land or build infrastructure — for example, a dock under the Land Act — they currently would be applying to the government, which would have unilateral power to approve or deny. With this estuary agreement, the government would then need to consult with K’ómoks Nation.

As I understand it, and I’ll ask if I’m correct, the province retains decision-making power but must consult in accordance with the consent agreement, and this requirement for consent is legally binding. Is that correct?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I did go through part of the estuary agreement earlier, but I will do it in some more detail now, as it is a unique agreement to this treaty as a side agreement to the treaty. There are some nuances, so I’ll walk through the process for the member.

An agreement would be triggered or the desire to seek an agreement would be triggered by an application for a lease, licence of occupation, easement or right of way under sections 11(1)(a) or 32 of the Land Act, within that estuary. The application would be collaboratively reviewed by a team of B.C. and K’ómoks representatives, who would attempt to reach consensus on a recommendation to provide to the decision-makers’ parties. If the team can’t reach consensus, the parties can seek assistance from senior officials to try to reach a consensus recommendation.

Once the team has done its work, K’ómoks will provide B.C. with its written decision on whether it consents to the application, which must be made in accordance with agreed-upon principles set out in the estuary agreement.

Earlier I discussed a timeline. If the member is interested, we discussed a timeline, because it was also important to have these be timely decisions.

If K’ómoks consents to the application or does not issue a decision within a set time, the B.C. decision-maker can then either approve or reject the application. If K’ómoks does not consent to an application, the B.C. decision-maker must refuse the application and will provide written reasons to the applicant for its decision, including information provided by K’ómoks regarding the basis for its decision to not consent.

[8:15 p.m.]

As I mentioned, clear timelines for each step in the process. It’s clear in the process that the process set out in the agreement fulfils our consultation obligations to K’ómoks with respect to any obligation that proceeds in accordance with the consent-based process.

To be clear, it’s not a veto in the sense that it can just be an arbitrary yes or no. There actually is administrative fairness. There actually is a process of explaining how a decision was come to, and the process is judicially reviewable.

Jeremy Valeriote: If this clause passes, does it mean that neighbouring and overlapping First Nations would also be subject to this estuary agreement and require K’ómoks consent, as obtained by the provincial government, to occupy or build infrastructure on these lands?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: If there is an application under the Land Act to which this estuary agreement applies, the province would require K’ómoks consent. However, a First Nation exercising their section 35 rights, so harvesting — that agreement would not apply.

In terms of building, leasing or requiring an easement, those processes would require the process as I set out. Harvesting rights are treated differently.

Jeremy Valeriote: This clause also sets special rules for judicial review of consent decisions involving K’ómoks and this estuary agreement. This includes removing section 15(2) of the Judicial Review Act from this agreement. This means, and I’m open to being corrected if I’m wrong, that only people who are directly affected can bring forward a judicial review and that people who have sufficient interests are no longer included as those able to bring forward a judicial review.

Can the minister clarify what parties are able to bring a judicial review in regard to the K’ómoks Estuary consent agreement?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Clause 19(7) does not prevent third parties from bringing forward a judicial review in regard to the estuary agreement.

Section 15(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act is about how entities that are made up of multiple individuals can be served notice of a judicial review application. This provision has been disapplied in subclause 19(7)(b) because subclause 19(7)(c) tells us how service can be made and allows any third party to use those notice provisions as though they were a party to the agreement. As the agreement is only between K’ómoks and the B.C. government, these provisions clarify that third parties can utilize and rely on the agreement’s service provisions.

Service may also still be effectively made in accordance with the rules of court, if applicable, in addition to the processes set out in the estuary agreement. These provisions are not intended to shove aside the rules of court for service.

Jeremy Valeriote: Thanks for the patience. This is my last question.

I just want to confirm that impacted neighbouring First Nations would be able to access a judicial review process in regards to decisions about the K’ómoks Estuary. I believe that’s what I just heard. Is that correct?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just like any other person, another nation could access a judicial review process in regards to decisions about the K’ómoks Estuary if they have standing. They have to have that right through the court process to be there, but yes, they have that right if they have that standing. The implementation legislation ensures that the Judicial Review Procedure Act can apply to this consent-based agreement.

Clause 19 approved.

On clause 20.

John Rustad: A quick question on 20, just in terms of personal information, public information. It says: “A public body may collect personal information by a method authorized under the K’ómoks treaty.” Can they restrict the type of information, or is that completely within the purview of the provincial freedom of information?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: A general description of how this provision is meant to work is that it does authorize the province to collect personal information on K’ómoks members in accordance with the treaty. That’s treaty chapter 23, “Eligibility and Enrolment.”

It provides that, on request, K’ómoks will provide B.C. with a copy of its enrolment register. The enrolment register contains members’ personal information as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That act provides that a public body must not collect personal information unless authorized under an enactment, so it would provide B.C. with the necessary authorization to receive the enrolment register containing K’ómoks members’ personal information.

I should note that the Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and ɬəʔamɛn acts have a similar provision in them.

John Rustad: That concludes the questions I will have on this act, at least that I have on this act. I don’t know if anybody else in the room has any questions. I just want to make a quick closing statement on this question. My apologies, but since I have some time to do that, I will do that.

Once again, I want to thank staff and members.

As I made clear in this discussion through here, I’m very uncomfortable with the UNDRIP language that’s in there, particularly if they’re using it as an authoritative source as opposed to what it was intended to be, which is an interpretative source. Certainly, something that, if we have an opportunity in the future, I would like to see us try to negotiate and change, simply because I think it creates some legal potential problems and issues associated with it. The model, obviously, is different in terms of taxation and some of the other components with it.

Having said that, I am somebody who supports treaties and believes that we do need to find a way to reach reconciliation, to provide that certainty and protection, particularly around private property, which this does in that area.

I just wanted to say those words on record. I will be, ultimately, supporting this treaty, despite my differences and issues that I have with this, because I do honestly believe that nations have their best interests and want to try to move forward, and I think there is a way to be able to fix some of these issues that I, personally, have.

With that, once again, thank you to the staff and to the minister.

[8:25 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I want to thank the members for their questions. I was ready to keep going and take more tomorrow as well. Anyways, I appreciate the focus, the generosity, as this has been my first bill that I’m working through here.

I want to thank my team as well.

I think treaties are such an opportunity for this province and an opportunity for nations and for Canada. I think they are the great project, the major project, in my mind, for this province. I hope that working together, working collaboratively, lowering the temperature on what can sometimes be fraught with conflict and focusing on….

We’re all here. We all want to live better lives. We all want to help each other and our neighbours live better lives.

We have an obligation and a duty as legislators to grapple with the history of this province, to grapple with the challenge that the lack of treaty and previous governments’ refusal to enter treaties over many years have left us with. It’s not an easy issue.

I thank the Treaty Commission.

I want to thank the K’ómoks Nation specifically.

To be clear, the work is not done. I think that’s something that my team is very clear about — that we are committed to working with the neighbouring nations who have concerns, who have objectives and objections, and that we don’t believe the work is done on reaching those protocol agreements. We know that K’ómoks Nation has been clear too. They don’t believe the work is done.

We know Wei Wai Kum, for example, is also clear that they want us to work with them and with K’ómoks and with Canada to find a better path to address issues that they see in the treaty, that they’re interested in us working through a traditional Indigenous law lens at a nation-to-nation sort of approach over the months ahead. I think that’s important work. We value that work.

Of course, should the treaty pass this House, that’s not the end. There is more work to be done at the federal level and then a treaty effective date, determining that. Both are part of that journey to reach a protocol agreement, reach better understanding at the nation-to-nation level as well, as has been the case in all other modern treaties that have come through this House over the last 30 years.

It’s a process. We do our best to get it right, but I also do my best to be humble, to know that there’s always more work to do, and we don’t always get everything right. I appreciate when members reach out and offer good suggestions on ways to improve things and other opportunities to make this the work that succeeds for future prosperity for all British Columbians, that brings us together.

Thank you to my team. I’ll let the hon. Chair continue her work.

Clauses 20 to 38 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:29 p.m.

Contents