Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 160

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Earth Day

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson

Introductions by Members

Statements

Accomplishments of Musician Raymond Salgado

George Anderson

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Repeal Act

Trevor Halford

Members’ Statements

Earth Day and Everett Crowley Park Celebration

George Chow

Dao Tran and Community Contributions

Bruce Banman

Religious Diversity

Steve Morissette

Agricultural Technologies in Chilliwack and Link to Netherlands

Heather Maahs

Environmental Activists in Vancouver-Kensington Area

Mable Elmore

Rio Tinto Aluminum Operations in Kitimat

Claire Rattée

Oral Questions

Government Handling of DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Trevor Halford

Hon. Niki Sharma

Scott McInnis

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Technology

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Rick Glumac

Justice System Handling of Victim Impact Statement in Case of Police Officer Death

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Government Position on Pipeline Proposal and Engagement Process

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Adrian Dix

Mineral Claims Processing and Consultation Framework

Gavin Dew

Hon. Jagrup Brar

Mineral Claims Processing Decisions and Role of First Nations

Korky Neufeld

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Government Handling of DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Peter Milobar

Hon. Niki Sharma

Reports from Committees

Lobbyists Transparency Act Review Committee , statutory review, April 2026

Steve Morissette

Kiel Giddens

Petitions

Jody Toor

Ian Paton

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 15 — Committal of Bill M237 to Insurance (Vehicle) Act Provisions Review Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Á’a:líya Warbus

Sheldon Clare

Peter Milobar

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Scott McInnis

Steve Morissette

John Rustad

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions

Hon. Adrian Dix

Larry Neufeld

David Williams

Wednesday, April 22, 2026

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. Sheila Malcolmson.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Today is Administrative Professionals Day. The Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals

is powered by our amazing teams of administrative staff who support the work that

we do. Today it was a pleasure to invite our ministry’s DMO administrative staff to

the Legislature for lunch in the dining room and to watch question period here in

the chamber.

[1:35 p.m.]

Please join me in welcoming Magdalena Golacka, Leigh-Anne Gajowski, Ashley Giasson,

Tamara Crosby, Staci Krausse, Melanie Mitchell, Rue Pope, Chris Munkacsi, Julie Hutchins,

Jane Mayall and Maryann Sloan.

I’ll ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Rob Botterell : I’m pleased to welcome two guests from the Vancouver Island South Film and Media

Commission, a non-profit economic development office that attracts global film projects

to the south Island. In the gallery today are Annie Wong-Harrison, the president of

the board of directors and a resident of North Saanich; and Tara-Lee Novak, the film

commissioner for southern Vancouver Island.

A few months ago, Annie and Tara-Lee took me on a set tour of a production being filmed

in my riding of Saanich North and the Islands, and I got to see firsthand how the

film sector generates an annual regional spend of approximately $60 million.

In other really exciting news, the south Island has been recognized as an emerging

location at the Global Production Awards, along with Texas, Spain and Slovakia. The

winner will be announced in Cannes, France, during the prestigious Cannes Film Festival.

Tara-Lee and Annie will represent south Vancouver Island at that event.

Please join me in wishing them the best of luck.

Kiel Giddens : I know that they’ve been in the House already this week and have been introduced,

but the intergovernmental affairs committee from the city of Prince George is here

again today.

I want to sincerely thank every member of this House who has met with them this week.

They’re doing important advocacy for the North. I hope that some folks have come away

with some more city of Prince George, Mr. PG socks. Really, I thank them for their

time here this week.

I also want to thank Coun. Cori Ramsay. Last night UBCM held a reception. We’ve been

meeting with UBCM representatives. I know that Councillor Ramsay is not in the room,

but she’s making the city of Prince George, also, very proud as the president of UBCM

this year.

Will the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : I know that for all of us in this House, Creative Industries Week is one of our very

favourite weeks of the year. I’d like to take a moment to introduce and welcome members

who are here from the Council of Film Unions, the Union of British Columbia Performers

and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. It was a pleasure to

join them last night at a wonderful reception at the Provincial Museum.

I just want to take a moment to note that these unions and their members represent

thousands of skilled workers who, literally, power B.C.’s film and entertainment industry.

They tell our stories both from behind the camera and in front of the camera. With

more than 20,000 members across these groups, their contribution to our province’s

economy is enormous.

In the gallery, I am pleased to welcome members of IATSE 891, including the president,

Amanda Bronswyk; business representative, Crystal Braunwarth; and sergeant-at-arms,

Michael Billings.

From UBCP, I’m pleased to welcome Keith Martin Gordey, president of UBCP and ACTRA

national vice-president; along with Aliza Vellani, Henry Williams, Arielle Reid, Lesley

Brady and Phil Klapwyk.

Finally, from the B.C. Council of Film Unions, we’re honoured to be joined by Nicole

Luther, the executive director.

Thank you so much for being here today.

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

Claire Rattée : I’m really grateful and really blessed to have a lot of amazing women in my life,

but today I have two of the most important in the gallery — my mom, Marjory, and my

best friend, Chelsea. My mom asked a very simple thing of me. She asked me to say

something smart today, so I hope that I do while she’s watching.

I would just hope that the House would please make them feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I’ve got a couple of introductions, both on either end of the House.

First, a couple of constituents from Langford. We’ve got Melissa Ellis, who many will

know in the building as one of our fantastic political staffers, an Energizer Bunny

keeping us all excited in the hallways.

Her son Grayson is in the House, I think for the first time, in question period. Now,

Grayson is a 15-year-old Royal Bay student who loves baseball, and I think he loves

politics too.

Will the House please join me in making Melissa and Grayson feel very welcome.

Then, way on the other side of the House, I’ve got my constituency advisers in the

House. We’ve got Logan Nemet, Sawyer Pugh and Mack Stanbridge. They keep me organized.

They are beloved by the people of Langford-Highlands, because they fix problems every

single day.

Would the House please join me in making my incredible constituency office team welcome

here as well.

Lynne Block : I do want to add on to the Creative Industries Week some brilliant people who really

enhance British Columbia to the world.

Specifically, I want to really highlight Screen B.C. I had a tour about a month ago

of all these different places in B.C. that were filming some very well-known series,

including Tracker , which is one of my favourites.

I just want to make sure that they feel very, very welcome today.

Dana Lajeunesse : Today I want to introduce a school group to the House. Above the Speaker are Dan

Walkem, Casey Clinton, Maureen Froud and Laura Stevenson. These are members of my

graduating class from 1981. Over lunch today, I made them promise that if I could

get them a nice, warm House welcome, they wouldn’t share too many secrets with anyone

here.

Amelia Boultbee : I am very excited to welcome two of my friends and constituents here to the House

today, Paul Crawford and Julie Fowler, who are both big proponents of the arts.

Paul Crawford was the director of the Penticton Art Gallery for over 20 years, and

Julie also runs Ignite the Arts and is the executive director of the B.C. Music Festival.

They are both here today to also celebrate Creative Industries Week, and I want to

thank them both for everything they do for the arts in our community.

Would the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Sunita Dhir : Today in the gallery I have a very special guest — a proud husband, a very proud

dad and an even prouder longshoreman and union worker — my darling husband, Navdeep.

I want to take a moment to thank him for his support. It’s not easy being married

to this job, and I could not do it without you.

May the House please make him feel welcome.

Rosalyn Bird : This person does not need an introduction for those of us that work in this House,

but for those in the gallery, I would like to introduce you to the Clerk of the Legislature,

Kate Ryan-Lloyd, who just completed her fourth Boston Marathon in person, with a time

of 3 hours, 54 minutes, 52 seconds.

I would just like to thank her for her incredible dedication and commitment, not only

to how this House runs and the support she gives the staff here but for showing that

to the community and the province. She does that for everything that she puts her

mind to.

Hon. Anne Kang : It is Creative Industries Week in the Legislature this week, and I would like to

welcome a group of guests to the House who represent the strength and leadership of

B.C.’s creative and screen sector. Joining us are Leslie Wootton, executive director

of Screen B.C., and Liz Shorten, chief operating officer of the Canadian Media Producers

Association.

[1:45 p.m.]

Screen B.C. serves as a strong voice for the motion picture industry, bringing together

partners across the sector to support growth, workforce development and collaboration.

The Canadian Media Producers Association represents independent producers across the

country, advocating for a strong production environment and helping to bring Canadian

stories to audiences at home and around the world.

I’m also pleased to welcome Michelle van Beusekom, president and CEO of the Knowledge

Network. Knowledge Network plays a unique and important role as B.C.’s public educator-broadcaster,

supporting and commissioning high-quality, commercial-free programming, investing

in B.C. creators and sharing stories that reflect the diversity, history and culture

of our province. Through its work, it helps ensure that local voices and perspectives

are accessible to audiences across British Columbia.

We also welcome producers Tyler Hagan and Trish Dolman, whose work continues to showcase

the creativity and talent of B.C.

Together, these leaders and creators are helping to build a strong, innovative and

globally recognized screen sector in our province.

Please help me welcome all these folks to the B.C. Legislature.

Harman Bhangu : Today we have Monica Anchan’s grade 5 class from St. Catherine’s Elementary in Brookswood.

There are 30 students and ten adults here.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I want to also welcome the Vancouver Island South Film and Media Commission and speak

to the impact they have across our region — over $60 million annually of spending,

4,300 jobs, 167 productions. Their role, championing not just the south Island but

all of British Columbia’s film industry, has been what brought that Cannes nomination,

and their trip over to Cannes is part of our trade profile as a province.

I want to really thank them for the work they do. Also, they shared with me that the

digital tax credit that our government introduced has been key in the international

competitiveness needed for them for the Cannes nomination and the work they do.

Thank you.

Make them feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew : I rise today to acknowledge the birthday of former Kelowna-Mission MLA Steve Thomson,

one of my predecessors and someone I have long admired for his humble leadership and

steady service.

Steve brought to public life the same teamwork and discipline that earned him the

nickname the Blue Ox in his rugby career, including time with Canada’s national team.

He also served with distinction as minister of agriculture, energy and forests and

continues to give back, including through his work helping lead Kelowna’s Memorial

Cup effort.

Happy birthday, Steve.

The Speaker : Member for Peace River North.

Jordan Kealy : I thought you were going to save the best for last.

I would like to introduce my friend and fierce advocate for Tumbler Ridge, Darryl

Krakowka. He’s in the House today. He has been here for a couple of days, as well

as members from the Peace River regional district. They’ve been here for a couple

of days.

I also want to thank the Minister of Transportation for fitting in an impromptu meeting

for a landslide that just happened in my community and that isolated some families.

It’s not an easy situation, so I just wanted to give a shout-out to everybody. I wish

you luck in the rest of your meetings.

Steve Morissette : I rise today to welcome three guests to the House who play a critical role in supporting

safety across British Columbia’s film and television industry.

Joining us today are Tamara Tulloch, industry health and safety specialist for Vancouver

Island; Daniel Farley, director of industrial health and safety; and Trina Pollard,

CEO of Actsafe Safety Association.

Through their work, they help ensure that thousands of workers in the motion picture

and performing arts industries can do their jobs safely each and every day. Their

leadership, expertise and commitment to health and safety are essential to the continued

success of this important sector.

Please join me in warmly welcoming them to the Legislative Assembly.

[1:50 p.m.]

Korky Neufeld : I’d like to introduce Paulina Chow-White. She’s not in the chamber. She’s somewhere

in the precinct, probably having meetings all afternoon.

She’s the CEO of the Terry Fox Humanitarian Award Program. We had an inspiring discussion

with our caucus about passing on Terry Fox’s legacy to the youth across Canada through

their awards program.

Let’s make them feel welcome.

Statements

Earth Day

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson : As my colleague said, we’re sending lots of love and light and prayers to our colleague

Amshen, the MLA for Vancouver-Strathcona.

Also, today is Earth Day. As Minister of Environment, I take this very seriously.

I hope that we will all reflect on what we are doing to uphold the strong environmental

protection that we have here in British Columbia and that we all take the time to

figure out what more we can be doing to help save our earth.

Introductions by Members

Sheldon Clare : I would just like to remind the members of the House, and I thank you for the reminder

that I received today from one of the members on the other side, that it’s Administrative

Professionals Day. Thank your managers, your CAs, your LAs — all of those people who

make all of us look so great.

Sunita Dhir : I rise today to welcome a group of distinguished guests to the House who are leaders

across British Columbia’s screen, creative and digital media sectors.

Joining us today are Amy Lang, president of North Shore Studios; Dr. Ted Gervan, managing

director of academic and business operations at the Centre for Digital Media; and

Mary Lim, director of programs and innovation.

We are also pleased to welcome Dominique Roy, manager at Screen B.C.; Gladys Tong,

founder of G Creative Productions and a Screen B.C. board member; and Sonia Bhatia,

director of diversity, inclusion, recruitment and engagement at Sony Pictures Imageworks.

These individuals are helping to grow and strengthen one of British Columbia’s most

dynamic industries — supporting innovation, talent development and inclusive opportunities

across film, television and digital media.

Please join me in warmly welcoming them to the Legislative Assembly.

Paul Choi : I rise today to welcome several guests to the House who are helping drive B.C.’s

success as a global centre for film and television production. Joining us are Spencer

Kent, VP of finance at Industrial Light and Magic; Kendrie Upton, executive director

of the Directors Guild of Canada, B.C.; along with Amy Barager and Heather Hawthorn

Doyle, board members of the Directors Guild of Canada, B.C. District Council. We’re

also pleased to welcome Raila Gutman, who is senior director of B.C. and national

member development with CMPA-BC.

Their work supports a thriving industry that creates jobs, develops talents and brings

B.C.’s creative expertise to audiences around the world.

Please join me warmly in welcoming them to the Legislative Assembly.

Statements

Accomplishments of

Musician Raymond Salgado

George Anderson : I rise today to recognize an extraordinary constituent, Raymond Salgado, whose voice

is carrying the spirit of our province onto the world stage.

Raymond was born and raised in Lantzville. He started singing at the age of 11. Since

that time, his incredible talent and amazing voice have taken him pretty far: singing

for the Canucks at Rogers Arena; becoming a finalist in season 2, Canada’s Got Talent ; and more recently to Cannes, France, where he participated in an epic flash mob

that has been viewed over 80 million times on TikTok alone.

If you haven’t seen it, I’ve shared it on my TikTok. Raymond sang a sweeping rendition

of Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida,” alongside a choir, violins and flash mob creator Julien

Cohen at the grand piano.

Raymond is amassing a global fan base and is set to release an EP of original songs

in summer 2026, proving again that world-class talent grows right here in British

Columbia.

I hope that the entire House will join me in congratulating Raymond Salgado.

[1:55 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar : My apologies. I’ve just been made aware that a good friend and colleague of mine,

and that of members of this side of the House, Jen Ford, who’s the board chair of

the Squamish-Lillooet regional district as well as a councillor with the municipality

of Whistler and former UBCM president, is somewhere in the House. I believe she was

just entering security.

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

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples Repeal Act

Trevor Halford presented a bill intituled Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Repeal Act.

Trevor Halford : I move a bill intituled Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Repeal Act,

of which notice has been given in my name on the order of paper, be introduced and

read a first time now.

I rise to introduce a bill to repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act, because when this bill was passed in 2019, British Columbians were given a series

of promises. We were told it would not cast doubt on private property. It has. We

were told it would not create a veto over development. It has. We were told it would

never be used to strike down laws passed by this House. It most definitely has, including

the Mineral Tenure Act, throwing an entire sector into chaos and putting thousands

of jobs at risk.

We haven’t entered into reconciliation. We’ve entered into co-governance now, and

the Premier knows that. It’s not my word. It’s his. The Premier has said that this

presents significant legal risk. He said: “It must be fixed as quickly as possible.”

He called the amendments that he was going to put forward “urgent.” He called them

“non-negotiable.” He told this province that 20 court cases have already been amended

to cite the Gitxaała decision and that every one of those cases puts other B.C. laws

at risk. Those are his words, not mine.

They have been telling British Columbians that they have frustrations, that he would

act decisively. He has changed his position again and again — amend it, suspend it,

delay it. More uncertainty.

The solution is simple. We need to protect the legal liability that this Premier and

this Attorney General have clearly outlined, and I believe that this bill will do

that.

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

Division has been called.

Madam Clerk will connect with members participating remotely. Please make sure your

audio and your mics are on.

[2:00 p.m. - 2:10 p.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Loewen

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Halford

Rattée

Wat

Kooner

Banman

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Rustad

Wilson

McInnis

Paton

Day

Bhangu

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Dhaliwal

McCall

Maahs

Block

Stamer

Gasper

Mok

Davis

Chan

Boultbee

Sturko

Brodie

Armstrong

Kealy

Williams

Chapman

Bird

Doerkson

Luck

Tepper

NAYS — 47

Lore

Blatherwick

Dhir

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Greene

Wickens

Kang

Begg

Arora

Higginson

Sandhu

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Chandra Herbert

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Shah

G. Anderson

Chow

Morissette

Valeriote

Botterell

Members’ Statements

Earth Day and Celebration AT

Everett Crowley Park

George Chow : Today marks the 56th anniversary of Earth Day, which is especially significant because

the Artemis moon mission just returned to Earth 12 days ago and reminded us once again

that the Earth is not flat and that there is only one Earth.

Having one Earth is becoming quite a challenge. If everyone in the world lived like

Vancouver, we’d need three Earths. Since we only have one Earth, and until we get

to Mars, we need to love Earth and cherish it.

So let’s celebrate Earth Day in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview at Everett Crowley

Park this coming Saturday, April 25. Vancouver’s longest-standing annual Earth Day

celebration, Earthfest, is organized by the Everett Crowley Park Committee within

the Champlain Heights Community Association in my constituency. It is a local group

of volunteer environmental stewards who have tended to Everett Crowley Park since

I’d like to give recognition to this group of passionate residents who advocate for

and implement the Champlain Heights community vision for Everett Crowley Park as an

urban wilderness. They work closely with the three host First Nations, the Vancouver

park board, local residents and NGOs to ensure that their work is inclusive and collaborative

and that it leads to a cohesive community with a lasting connection to the park and

the land.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of the committee, Everett Crowley Park has come a long

way from being a former city garbage dump to a beloved space for many in the Vancouver-Fraserview

community. There’s lush greenery, a duck pond, many varieties of wildlife and even

off-leash dog trails. There is something to enjoy for everyone.

I invite all of you to join me at the annual Earthfest taking place in Everett Crowley

Park this Saturday, April 25, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Dao Tran and Community Contributions

Bruce Banman : I rise today to recognize an individual whose story reflects the very best of what

it means to call British Columbia home, Dao Tran.

Dao Tran came to Canada as a Vietnam refugee in the mid-’80s. Before arriving in Abbotsford,

he spent years in a refugee camp in Hong Kong, uncertain of what the future would

hold. Like so many who come to this country seeking safety and opportunity, he arrived

with little more than hope, dreams and determination. What he built from that beginning

is nothing short of remarkable.

[2:15 p.m.]

For more than 40 years, Dao has been a steady and familiar presence in the Abbotsford

cycling community. Through his work at Abby Bike Shop, he has not only run a successful

small business, but he created a place where relationships are fostered, where families

are served and where community truly comes first.

What stands out most is not just what he has built but how he has given back. In addition

to the countless donations over the years, this year Dao made a significant contribution

to the Abbotsford Regional Hospital by funding an ECG heart-monitoring machine, helping

ensure patients have access to timely and accurate cardiac care. He has also volunteered

his time through the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation and supported hospital initiatives

directly, giving back in both visible and in quiet ways.

Dao is a fiercely proud Canadian. He has never forgotten the community that welcomed

him, and in return, he has spent a lifetime strengthening it.

Dao Tran’s story is one of resilience, gratitude and service. It is a reminder that

the strength of our communities is built not only through hard work but through kindness

and a commitment to giving back.

On behalf of this House, I will ask all members to join me in recognizing Dao Tran

for his extraordinary contributions to Abbotsford, British Columbia, and Canada.

Thank you, Dao Tran.

Religious Diversity

Steve Morissette : I rise today to celebrate the rich and beautiful diversity of religions in British

Columbia. March and April are especially meaningful months across many faiths. I have

been making an effort to learn more about these faiths and their celebrations to better

understand the cultures and traditions that shape the lives of so many British Columbians.

April is Sikh Heritage Month, and during this time, Sikh communities celebrate Vaisakhi,

one of the most significant dates in the Sikh calendar.

A short time ago, Christians across the province gathered to celebrate Easter, a time

of reflection and renewal.

In the Jewish faith, Passover is observed, a commemoration of the Exodus and a powerful

story of resilience and freedom.

In Hindu communities, Holi has recently been celebrated, a vibrant festival of colour,

joy and the triumph of good over evil.

And for Muslims, Eid is marked with joyful, multi-day celebrations of prayer, charity

and feasting following Ramadan.

Many First Nations hold a spiritual responsibility to the land and sea and believe

that we humans are part of a circle of life where all animals, plants and elements

possess a spirit and share equal value.

I know there are many more beliefs. British Columbia is home to a remarkable diversity

of faiths and beliefs that add colour, depth and strength to the cultural mosaic we

all share. We are a province that supports, respects and celebrates this diversity.

Whatever you celebrate, whatever you believe, you’re not wrong. It is right for you.

That freedom, that respect is something we must always protect.

The Speaker : Members, before we continue for the next statement, the Chair has observed and has

been also advised by other members that some members are wearing unauthorized pins

today. So please make sure you take off those pins if you are wearing that today.

Agricultural Technologies in

Chilliwack and Link to Netherlands

Heather Maahs : What do the Netherlands and Chilliwack have in common? Of course, beautiful fields

of tulips but also nurseries, greenhouses, farms and canals or sloughs. Chilliwack

boasts approximately 40 greenhouses.

[2:20 p.m.]

Did you know that the Netherlands is the world’s second-largest agriculture exporter,

despite the limited land available to them? Their advanced farming technologies and

knowledge utilize the least amount of space, incorporating such innovations as vertical

cultivation to yield these fantastic results. Using automation and beneficial insects,

they have revolutionized the way we grow food.

This past weekend I attended the opening of a brand-new nursery in Chilliwack called

The Flowerhouse. Pete DeVrij took the land in the ALR that was unusable for crop production

and built a huge greenhouse, thus making the best use of land and yielding a spectacular

array of beautiful flowers.

Chilliwack boasts many greenhouses and nurseries, almost exclusively run by the hard-working

Dutch community, bringing with them their knowledge, technology and expertise in growing.

Many are now proudly using self-serving refrigerators that come directly from the

Netherlands and that the community can utilize to purchase eggs, flowers, dairy, hazelnuts

— you name it.

Of course, we value all diverse contributions from all folks from all countries, but

on this day, I want to recognize the contribution of the good, hard-working people

who live in Chilliwack, whose Dutch heritage helped make Chilliwack the beautiful

and productive agricultural hub it is today, and say thank you to them.

Environmental Activists in

Vancouver-Kensington Area

Mable Elmore : Today on Earth Day, in a world buffeted by climate change and biodiversity loss,

the activism by environmental advocates has never been more important. Activists play

a vital role in driving change to protect our planet and promote sustainable alternatives.

Vancouver-Kensington is home to three change-makers who are committed to green initiatives

and environmental justice. They are Donelda Rose, Jeanie Morton and Ben Ernst.

On a side note, Ben Ernst is the co-founder of Earnest Ice Cream, a chainlet of artisan

ice cream that is widely known for its unique flavours and its commitment to sustainable

operations, charitable work and sourcing local and fair trade ingredients. Ben and

a friend started Earnest Ice Cream on Fraser Street, not far from my Vancouver-Kensington

community office, and now have two other branches in Vancouver and one in North Vancouver.

I encourage you to try their scoops and pints.

Also, Ben and Donelda live in Vancouver’s first co-housing project, an intentional

community where sustainability and caring for the environment are among its shared

passions.

Ben, Donelda and Jeanie visited me recently to talk about how British Columbia can

meaningfully live up to its commitments to climate action. They brought with them

a report by the B.C. climate emergency campaign, a group of nearly 650 diverse agricultural,

arts, business, community, environment, faith, health, housing, Indigenous, labour,

government, outdoor recreation, research, senior tourism and youth organizations across

the province.

As the report notes: “We need to build for the future, not the past. Investing in

climate action reduces energy and transportation costs, creates jobs, builds healthier

communities and improves energy security.”

We need more everyday heroes for the environment — like Donelda Rose, Jeanie Morton

and Ben Ernst. We also need to encourage and empower the youth to take up advocacy

for the environment.

I close with a quote from Xiye Bastida, a 21-year-old Indigenous climate justice activist

from Mexico: “We are on earth to take care of life. We are on earth to take care of

each other.”

Rio Tinto Aluminum

Operations in Kitimat

Claire Rattée : I want to take some time today to recognize an incredibly important milestone for

my community.

Last Wednesday was the unveiling of Rio Tinto’s new alumina conveyor at B.C. Works,

replacing infrastructure that was originally built more than 70 years ago when the

Kitimat smelter first came into operation. That original conveyor helped build the

community that so many of us are proud to call home. Now, with a $138 million investment,

Rio Tinto is ensuring that legacy continues for decades to come.

I had the opportunity to tour this project with a number of my colleagues in its final

stages last September. What stood out to me was not only the scale of the work but

the confidence that it reflects in Kitimat’s future.

Rio Tinto has been foundational to what makes Kitimat what it is today. That impact

extends far beyond the smelter itself. It is seen in good-paying, family-sustaining

jobs across the region. It is seen in their significant contributions to organizations

like the Terrace and area hospice society or the Kitimat Hospital Foundation. It is

seen in a long-standing commitment to community that has never wavered.

Generations of families have lived in the Kitimat and Terrace region and worked entire

careers at the Rio Tinto smelter and the Kemano dam. This legacy is what has built

the foundation of Kitimat and continues to do so to this day.

[2:25 p.m.]

What makes this investment even more meaningful is the context in which it is being

made. In the face of global pressures, like rising aluminum tariffs, and environmental

challenges, such as drought, Rio Tinto has continued to invest, adapt and move forward.

That kind of resilience and long-term commitment matters, especially in northern and

rural communities like mine.

This project is about more than infrastructure. It is about continuity, confidence

and ensuring that the next generation can continue to build their lives in Skeena,

just as so many have before them.

Today I want to recognize Rio Tinto, the workers who made this project possible and

the community that continues to support it. Skeena was built on projects like these,

and thanks to investments like this one, its future remains strong.

Oral Questions

Government Handling of

DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Trevor Halford : More than 20 claims against the province have already been amended in light of the

Gitxaała decision.

British Columbians, homeowners, small business owners, municipalities and industries

are left in the dark regarding these cases and this government’s supposed plan. Now

the Premier himself has stated that there are over 20 cases right now before the courts

that could have significant ramifications based on the legislation that this Premier

passed in this House.

To the Attorney General, can she table or will she table today a complete list of

the 20 court cases the Premier referenced?

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s precisely why we are moving with First Nations and other stakeholders to solve

this problem through addressing it at the tables that we’re bringing together right

now, because of the identified risks that the Premier has articulated and so have

I have legal teams that are actively assessing and making sure that we respond to

all claims, and we will be seeking appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify

the law.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Trevor Halford : I think I asked a very simple question. That could’ve been a very simple answer.

It was the Premier himself that said that they had to act in a very urgent way. It

was him himself who said that there are 20 cases right now before the courts that

required immediate attention in terms of legislation, in their words, to amend DRIPA.

Twenty court cases.

The first question is: can the Attorney General produce a list of those court cases

today?

The second question is: when the Premier says that the idea to postpone the amendments

to DRIPA, in his words, were based on the direction of the Attorney General to delay

and put British Columbians at further legal risk, can the Attorney confirm that was

her advice to the Premier — that we delay this legislation this spring and, in fact,

maybe we’ll see something in six months? Was that at her direction, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : This side of the House is really focused on bringing people together to solve very

challenging problems. We take a very different approach to the people across the aisle,

who would spread misinformation, create division…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …create ridiculous conversations that are not based in reality about this topic.

We are facing a challenge that we are going to bring people together to solve and

create a durable solution for this province and for all people of this province. We’ll

continue to do that work.

The Speaker : Member, second supplementary.

Trevor Halford : Okay, let me try this again. I’ve asked two very clear questions of the Attorney

General, and I get that they may be a bit awkward, but they need to be answered for

the public record.

Question 1. The Premier has said there are 20 court cases right now, and that was

his reason for the urgency in putting forward amendments to DRIPA. What are those

20 court cases?

The other question that was clearly asked is…. The Premier said to the media 48 hours

ago that it was the Attorney General that tapped him on the shoulder and said: “There’s

another way. In fact, let’s not do the amendments. Let’s put it off.” Even though,

in the Premier’s words: “There is extreme legal liability.” “Let’s put that off and

try and see what we can do in six months.”

Was that the direction the Attorney General gave to the Premier, yes or no?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’ve said it many times. We are focused on bringing people together to find a durable

solution to this challenge…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …and we are working together as a team, on this side, to confront what is a challenging

issue. As the Premier talked about, it’s one of the most difficult issues I think

we have had.

We want to make sure that the solution that we present to this House is the most durable

solution to fix the challenge that we’re facing, and we’re going to work together

as a team to do that.

Scott McInnis : Legal experts on Aboriginal law are speaking out against this government’s utter

mishandling of Indigenous relations in British Columbia. Geoffrey Moyse, a government

lawyer for over 30 years, said this government is displaying a level of “ineptitude

and incompetence” he has never seen before. Tom Isaac, who literally wrote the book

called Aboriginal Law , said the NDP “seems to be co-governing with undemocratically elected governments.”

My question is a very, very simple one. Does the Attorney General agree with these

statements made by leading Aboriginal law experts?

Hon. Niki Sharma : You ask a lawyer, they’ll give you their opinion, and every opinion is very different.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m going to make sure that we stay focused on the task of solving the problem. But

since I’m up again on this topic, I want to talk about the accomplishments because

of DRIPA.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Sections 6 and 7 agreements that have unlocked…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, shhh. Members, you have asked the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker : It’s her prerogative how she answers. Please, let’s listen to her.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …billions of dollars of investment in this province — billions — making sure that

we can address child and family services so First Nations can take over jurisdiction

over their children, rectifying a wrong of historic proportions in this province.

I’m proud of that work, and every single person in this House should be very proud

of that work. The commitment that we have to DRIPA lifts all boats in this province,

and the work that we have done so far shows that. We’ll continue to do that.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Scott McInnis : Well, I’d like to thank the Attorney General for that. I’d like to talk about the

challenges with DRIPA, but we have less than 23 minutes left in question period.

It seems like the AG and the Premier are at odds with how to proceed here. The Premier

proposed a suspension, while the AG’s plan about some sort of cabinet–First Nations

Leadership Council decision-making framework has clearly won the day.

So my question is a very simple one. Who’s in charge over there?

Hon. Niki Sharma : The only thing odd is the questions coming from that side today.

We are working together, again, to solve a very challenging issue…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …and we are bringing people to the table to do that. We will come up with a durable

solution to this challenge. That is for sure.

If you want to talk about odd, sending a fundraising email after a very serious decision

came out so that there could be political gain on something that is a very serious

issue in this province, sending out misinformation about an agreement with the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm to stir up this idea that Indigenous people are going to take everybody’s private

property….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : That’s the approach and the choice that they’re making over there that is going to

solve nothing. We’ll continue to do the work to get to a durable solution.

Regulation of Artificial

Intelligence Technology

Jeremy Valeriote : As several members have noted, it’s Creative Industries Week, and artists’ livelihoods

are at risk, along with the livelihoods of workers in many other sectors.

public has no concept of their plan for artificial intelligence. As long as the government

remains focused on the economics and energy requirements of the AI boom and patiently

waits for the federal government to regulate the sector, we put at risk that which

makes us human: artistic expression and creativity.

[2:35 p.m.]

B.C.’s creative industries need to know what the plan is.

To the minister of AI…. He has been in this role for nearly a year. When will he share

his service plan so that British Columbians know their government’s plan to address

AI in B.C.?

Hon. Rick Glumac : As the member probably knows, we have a Look West economic plan. Part of that plan….

There’s going to be an action plan related to AI and new technologies.

We are working very closely right now with the federal government. We’ve had several

meetings with the federal government, and they’ve done broad consultation around a

federal AI strategy. When we’re talking about regulation affecting AI, the regulation

has to happen at a federal level in most cases.

We’ve done that advocacy. I’ve reached out myself to several ministers around this,

and when the federal government releases their AI strategy, which I understand is

coming soon, we’ll be talking very closely with them and updating our action plan

on AI and new technologies as well.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : If we’re relying so heavily on the federal government, it makes me wonder why we

even have a provincial minister of AI.

Week after week we hear serious concerns globally about the concentration of power

in a small number of AI companies and their executives. The UN is exploring coordinated

approaches to AI governance, and the minister of state has a chance to include British

Columbians in this process too. But I’m not hearing a clear service plan, and when

questioned about his AI investments, the minister offered no contrition, though British

Columbians are being asked to adapt to a rapidly evolving technology without a meaningful

role in shaping how it’s governed.

Given the scale of what’s at stake, from data privacy to public safety to democratic

integrity, will the minister commit to striking a people’s assembly so British Columbians

can have a direct voice in shaping how AI is governed in this province?

Hon. Rick Glumac : As I said, we’ve been talking very closely with the federal government. If the member

thinks that every province can develop their own set of regulations to govern this

rapidly changing sector…. I think that’s an irresponsible way to go.

We need to have a uniform set of regulations, and that’s some of the advocacy that

we’ve been doing to the federal government. In fact, in the wake of the horrible tragedy

in Tumbler Ridge, we have reached out to the federal government to ask for uniform

reporting standards for AI companies regarding their chatbots, and that’s advocacy

that we’re continuing to make.

You will see, through our AI action plan, what the province will be doing in regards

to AI locally, and that’ll be coming out soon.

Justice System Handling of

Victim Impact Statement in

Case of Police Officer Death

Steve Kooner : Thirty days before the ruling on the case of the killing of Const. Shaelyn Yang,

the National Police Federation wrote to the Attorney General to warn her office there

would be no victim impact statement by her family if the accused was found unfit to

stand trial. They even provided a solution. Despite that advance notice, this Attorney

General failed this family.

Why did the Attorney General not respond to these concerns raised by the National

Police Federation and the family of Constable Yang?

Hon. Niki Sharma : Out of clear respect for families involved and court matters, I won’t talk about

a specific case in this House.

I can assure people that it has been a top priority to make sure that our justice

system is functioning in a timely way that respects victims. We’re doing a range of

reforms with respect to that, also including making sure that the Criminal Code of

this country responds in correct ways, when it comes to crime, and keeps people safe.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Steve Kooner : There was a press release by the National Police Federation, so this is in the public

domain.

This government talks a big game about efficiency in our freedom-of-information request

system, yet the Attorney General didn’t even have the decency to respond to this family

and the National Police Federation in a timely manner.

[2:40 p.m.]

This is unacceptable. The Attorney General had a clear and concrete solution proposed

to her. The Yang family had already prepared their statement in good faith, yet the

apathy from this Attorney General meant their voice was excluded.

Will the Attorney General, at least, acknowledge this family and commit to immediately

addressing this gap to ensure another family is not silenced?

Hon. Niki Sharma : I’m always really appreciative of people that come to me with their concerns about

the justice system, and they let me know what the gaps are and what the needs are

to fix it. Although I won’t comment about particular cases or issues in this House,

of course, I will sit down and connect with people who have issues or ideas.

It’s my job to make sure that the justice system is working in an efficient way and

responding to people and their needs, and I’ll continue to do my best to do that.

Government Position on Pipeline

Proposal and Engagement Process

Kiel Giddens : The government of Alberta has been meeting with First Nations and local governments

in our province about natural resource development and opportunities for B.C.’s and

Canada’s prosperity.

Is the B.C. government at the table, yes or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Again, because we’re discussing the same issue over and over again, I’ll say it very

clearly. There is, with respect to Alberta’s pipeline proposal, no proponent, no proposal,

no route. Alberta missed deadlines, so far, in their MOU with the federal government.

When there’s an actual proposal and an actual route and an actual idea and actual

customers for a line, which surely no one will pay for, then, of course, we’ll engage.

We continue, as well, to engage with the government of Alberta, to engage with the

Minister Neudorf and, of course, with Minister Hodgson — and we’ll continue to do

so.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens : The Minister of Energy already lost one election on a pipeline. I think he’s ready

to lose another one.

That was a long-winded answer to a simple question. The answer is that B.C. is not

at the table. In 69 days, Alberta is submitting a project and proposal to the federal

major projects office for “a world-class, Indigenous co-owned pipeline to the west

coast of British Columbia.” Alberta is engaging communities in our province to champion

this project and find a respectful path forward to partner with First Nations.

Will this government stop its opposition campaign, work with the Premier of Alberta,

work with the Prime Minister and get a nation-building project to B.C.’s coast, yes

or no?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Well, the member from the North who opposes NCTL; who opposes the low-carbon fuel

standard, which would cost jobs in Prince George; who opposes energy projects across

the North; who opposes clean electricity, which hugely benefits the North…. Gladly

fight an election on any of those questions when the time comes.

The province of Alberta, in this free country, is allowed to come to British Columbia

and talk to people, just as I regularly go to the province of Alberta to talk to people

there. They don’t need my permission, and they haven’t asked for us to be at the table.

They’re coming. It’s a free country. They can come.

I don’t know what the member is talking about. He talks about a proposal that doesn’t

exist yet.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Adrian Dix : He’s talking about a proposal and an MOU between the federal government and Alberta,

where the principal items, due on April 1, were not delivered.

We’ll continue to deal with the situation in all jurisdictions, but we support projects

in British Columbia. The opposition, for reasons passing understanding, is more supportive

of Alberta projects than British Columbia projects. Maybe they should fight the next

election in Alberta.

Mineral Claims Processing

and Consultation Framework

Gavin Dew : This government says B.C. will be a “critical minerals powerhouse,” but the record

says otherwise.

[2:45 p.m.]

Government’s own mineral claims consultation framework promised decisions in 90 to

120 days, yet 85 percent are not completed on time. This government is paralyzing

the very sector it claims to support.

When will the Mines Minister actually deliver approvals on time?

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Thanks to the member for the question.

The mineral claims consultation framework was developed in response to a Supreme Court

ruling. The Supreme Court gave us time, and we consulted with the industry and also

with the First Nations. We put together the system, and we have implemented that system.

We know that that system needs improvements, because it’s a new system. In this budget,

we have $3 million additional money to hire more staff members to fix that.

Let me tell the member that, from last December to this January, we have approved

six major mining projects. Every second month a new mining project was approved. Each

project will bring in over $5 billion investment to support thousands of jobs for

the people of British Columbia during construction and thousands of jobs during the

mines’ longtime life.

We will continue working on that, to improve the system and to make it better, moving

forward.

The Speaker : Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

Gavin Dew : Incremental system improvements are not going to be enough. Right now people thinking

of risking their capital are unsure who really makes the decisions in B.C. To quote

the president of the Association for Mineral Exploration: “Who’s actually in charge?

Who’s the final decision-maker? Who signs off on a project?”

Who is really in charge of mining in this province?

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Thanks to the member for the question. I think the member is asking a question to

the Minister of Mining, and the Minister of Mining is in charge of this file.

As I said earlier, the one thing which I have heard from the industry, including under

the previous administration, is certainty and stability in the permitting process.

The difference is, during the last 16 years when they were there, they failed to take

any action. We are taking action, as we speak, to improve and to provide that certainty

and stability in the permitting process.

We have reduced the major mines application process time by 35 percent. We have announced

a fixed permitting timeline for mineral exploration — the only province in the country

to announce that.

We will continue to make improvements. But let me tell the member once again that

we have approved six major mining projects between last December to this January.

That will bring over $5 billion revenue to support thousands of jobs during construction

and thousands of jobs over a long time during the mining life cycle.

Mineral Claims Processing Decisions

and Role of First Nations

Korky Neufeld : Here’s a quote: “All of our worst fears at the time, that we were told would never

happen, have all happened. Basically, there’s a de facto veto in place with the current

implementation of DRIPA.” These are the words of the president of the Association

for Mineral Exploration.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation: do First Nations have

veto over mineral claims decisions in this province, yes or no?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Well, I think every one of us would want a say for something that happens in our

own backyards, and that’s, indeed, what First Nations people want too. So I don’t

think it’s unusual that they want to be involved in mining projects in their territories.

[2:50 p.m.]

Indeed, the process is important. A veto suggests that there is no consultation, there

is nothing and it’s just an arbitrary decision. In fact, what First Nations people

want as leaders in the mining industry….

They’re leaders in the mining industry, Member. I think the members need to understand

this. This is not the time to spread doubt on the fact that First Nations people want

mining success in their province.

In fact, just earlier today, if we followed the members in their thinking, we would

have torn up a plus-billion-dollar project with the Tāłtān in mining, which they have

supported, they’re leading on and they’re investing in.

If we followed his line, that project would be torn up, in smithereens on the ground,

with thousands of people losing their jobs, because he does not have the respect for

First Nations leadership in mining. We do support First Nations leadership in mining.

They want to see it succeed, and so do we.

Korky Neufeld : That was the longest “yes” answer I’ve ever heard.

AME’s news release said: “Any process on DRIPA needs to be consistent and transparent.

After all, we are all in this together. The only way to succeed is if everyone is

at the table.” This government has tried to do reconciliation in the dark for years,

and the result has been a total failure.

When will this government learn from its own mistakes, stop doing reconciliation behind

closed doors and be open and transparent with the public and industry when it comes

to reconciliation?

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Again, I think it’s important that we be respectful to other governments that we

work with in this province, and that includes First Nations governments. They’re legitimate

governments that have a legitimate right to make decisions that impact their people.

The member may not agree with that, but I believe it’s true. If a member thinks that

we can….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : If the members think that we can proceed with ignoring the legal realities of this

province, with ignoring title rights of Indigenous Peoples, ignoring the

section 35

rights of Indigenous Peoples, they should say so, because their actions demonstrate

that that’s what they believe.

I know they go around here, and they try and have it both ways. But their example

today of trying to tear up agreements, which would lead to economic chaos in this

province, tells the whole story. Look at mine project after mine project…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Shhh.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : …forestry, clean energy, housing, culture.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : You know the other thing that they tore up this morning by trying to bring forward

legislation that would tear up the rights of Indigenous People? Child welfare in Indigenous

communities. They would tear up that agreement, as well, to take the children of First

Nations communities and bring them back into the wards of the state.

We respect First Nations governments. We think that we should listen to them, work

with them — just as we do with all governments in this province, businesses, unions,

non-profits, the people of B.C. — respect them, work with them.

Government Handling of

DRIPA Concerns and Legal Issues

Peter Milobar : Well, I guess we found one of the ten in the caucus that didn’t support the Premier

last week.

The Attorney General has recommended that, essentially, DRIPA be reworked over the

next six months. But there are a lot of things hanging in the balance — the Heritage

Conservation Act reworking, the Water Sustainability Act, rangeland tenures, Mineral

Tenure Act, the old-growth deferral.

Is the Attorney General suggesting that all of those potential changes are on hold

until DRIPA conversations with Indigenous communities, or are those going to proceed

as if nothing has changed all of a sudden?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We are addressing a very particular challenge to do with the Gitxaała decision through

the discussions with First Nations leadership. The work of government continues in

the many things that we are working on to bring prosperity to this province, to bring

more equality to this province, to make sure that we’re supporting British Columbians

across the province through very challenging times.

That work will continue, and we’ll continue to do it in a way that is very transparent

and includes everybody.

Peter Milobar : DRIPA impacts every law on the books in British Columbia. The Premier is just not

your run-of-the-mill Premier; he is a lawyer who also happened to be the Attorney

General during the time that DRIPA was brought in and also the

Interpretation Act

changes came in.

He would very well know the legal ramifications of making statements like that there

are 20 cases being amended right now, creating extreme legal liability to British

Columbians. The Premier would have known exactly what he was saying and what that

exposure was. He has now told us — on the advice of the Attorney General, who should

also know whether that legal exposure is actual, real or political theatre — to actually

not worry about it. We don’t need to pause anything. We don’t need to change anything

on the legal books.

[2:55 p.m.]

We can just let things continue on for the next six months while conversations happen.

There’s no legal exposure, and everything else can continue on and get changed, as

this government is thinking, under the provisions of DRIPA.

A very simple question that this Attorney General has dodged several times today.

Did she provide the advice to the Premier to stand down and that there was no longer

legal risk for those 20 cases over the next six months, or did the Premier not tell

the public what was actually happening when he said that we needed to pause DRIPA

for three years because of extreme legal exposure? A Premier who was a former Attorney

General, who ought to have known exactly what he was saying when he said that….

Hon. Niki Sharma : Again, we are dealing with a very challenging issue. We’ve been clear about what

we see as the legal risks with the decision with Gitxaała that we’re searching to

appeal on — and a clarity in the law.

We have an opportunity to solve that issue with First Nations leadership, to solve

it in a durable way where we can move forward without that liability and continue

the good work under DRIPA.

This is a conversation that we’re having with many people transparently. We are working

as a team to solve this issue, and we’ll continue to work as a team to do that.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Lobbyists Transparency Act

Review Committee

Steve Morissette : I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists

Transparency Act.

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

Motion approved.

Steve Morissette : I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Steve Morissette : I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief

comments.

As this House will know, the Lobbyists Transparency Act regulates lobbying activities

in the province. The act requires a special committee to review the act once every

five years. This was the first review of the act since it was amended in 2018.

Our committee’s work included receiving input from key stakeholders and the public.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the

organizations and individuals that took the time to participate.

I would also like to acknowledge staff from the Ministry of Attorney General and the

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, who provided briefings and additional information

to the committee to assist its work.

In the course of its deliberations, the committee received considerable input regarding

the workload required for organizations, especially charities and non-profits, to

register and report lobbying activities. We also heard about the act’s important role

in promoting transparency and supporting public trust in democratic institutions.

The committee’s recommendations reflect this input and seek to balance the act’s registration

and reporting requirements with its transparency objectives. Our committee makes 24

recommendations to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the act, address concerns

about high administrative demands and increase transparency related to the use of

communications.

We also highlight the importance of improving public understanding of the act’s requirements

delivered by the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all committee members for their dedication

and meaningful discussions during this review. In particular, I would like to thank

the Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, for his support throughout

our work as well as the previous Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Valemount,

for her thoughtful contributions to this committee.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my appreciation to staff in the

Parliamentary Committees Office who supported our work, including Darryl Hol, Natalie

Beaton, Hanna Kim, Alexa Neufeld and Emily Andrews.

Thank you as well to the staff in Hansard Services for their support.

[3:00 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens : I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all committee members — particularly

the Chair, the member for Kootenay-Monashee; and the previous Deputy Chair, the member

for Prince George–Valemount — for their dedication and the work they’ve undertaken

on this review.

I would also like to recognize everyone who contributed their perspectives and provided

thoughtful input on how the Lobbyists Transparency Act can be improved. In particular,

the committee appreciated the registrar of lobbyists, Michael Harvey, and his team

for their input as well as their important role in ensuring the reporting and monitoring

of lobbying activities.

During our review, the committee discussed the misconceptions that may exist around

lobbying as well as the legitimate and important role of lobbying in democratic societies.

Lobbying does allow individuals and organizations to share their expertise and perspectives

with public office holders and to engage in the policy-making process. The act’s requirements

and the lobbyists registry are essential tools in ensuring that lobbying takes place

in a transparent way, which is critical to maintaining the public’s trust.

As committee members, we also reflected on the input we received about a lack of clarity

regarding the act’s requirements and the concerns some have about inadvertent non-compliance.

We heard about the chilling effect this could lead to, where individuals and organizations

could actually be discouraged from engaging with public office holders. To address

these concerns, the committee identified opportunities to simplify reporting requirements

while maintaining transparency in order to better support democratic participation.

Finally, I, too, would like to extend my sincere thanks to the staff of the Parliamentary

Committees Office and Hansard Services for the support they provided throughout our

work.

The Speaker : Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Jody Toor : I rise to present a petition regarding Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection

of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

This petition is signed by over 10,000 B.C. taxpayers demanding that the government

end its assault on open information and scrap Bill 9.

Ian Paton : I also present a petition of 158 signatures from residents of Delta South.

The petition from the residents of Delta South and Tsawwassen respectfully requests

that this House call on the Ministries of Forests and Agriculture and Food to cancel

the 2026 plans to aerial spray in Tsawwassen, Beach Grove and Squamish for spongy

moth and to reform the program permanently to prohibit all aerial spraying over B.C.

communities.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Deferral of Divisions

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 16 (4), any division called in Sections A, B or

C during the morning sitting on Thursday, April 23, 2026, be deferred until the start

of Orders of the Day for the afternoon sitting on Thursday, April 23, 2026.]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I move Motion 15, which is on the order paper.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy and

Climate Solutions.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise today to oppose Motion 15 and the motion that the Government House Leader

is moving to have a private member’s bill….

The Speaker : Member, the motion has not even moved yet.

Á’a :líya Warbus : Did you not move it yet?

Interjection.

Á’a :líya Warbus : Oh, he called it.

The Speaker : Thank you.

[3:05 p.m.]

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 15 — Committal of Bill M237

to Insurance (Vehicle) Act

Provisions Review Committee

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 15, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper.

[That, should the motion for second reading of Bill (No. M 237) intituled Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026 , pass, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A (1), Bill (No. M 237) be committed to the

Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act .

And that, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A (2), the Special Committee to Review

Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act report Bill (No. M 237) back to the House by the deadline fixed for the Special Committee

to present its final report to the House.]

I’ve been watching the second reading debate on Bill M237, and it has struck me that

this bill is seeking to amend parts 10 and 11 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

Section

182 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act requires the Legislative Assembly to appoint a

special committee to review parts 10 and 11 of the act, something this House did at

the beginning of this session on February 19.

This House knows that we’ve established a multiparty committee to examine how enhanced

care is functioning — listening to public and stakeholder feedback; and considering

potential improvements, including ideas such as those outlined in this bill.

As the Government House Leader, part of my role is to advise the House on efficient

ways for us to spend our time and ensure that we are stacking our work accordingly.

Given that there is a committee with expertise reviewing the sections of the legislation

that this bill looks to amend, it makes sense to send this bill for complete study

and entertain amendments as they consider other changes to the act.

I want to be clear. This motion does not kill the bill nor does it prevent the committee

from doing the work and reporting back to the House. It’s simply recognizing that

having two committees doing the same work at the same time could lead this House to

adopt recommendations that are counter to each other.

This bill has merit in its discussion. In passing this motion, it allows for a fulsome

discussion and an examination of this bill by a special committee that is already

tasked with looking at aspects of this work.

Á’a :líya Warbus : The motion that the Government House Leader is moving today is bringing forth that,

notwithstanding Standing Order 84A(2), the Special Committee to Review Provisions

of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act report this private member’s bill back to the House

by a deadline fixed for the special committee to present its final report to the House.

We don’t have clear language right now about that fixed deadline.

In discussions about allowing this to set a precedent moving forward for private members

in any caucus to bring forward…. This is their one opportunity to bring forward an

item of business. That is very important. That is very prominent.

So this idea that it can’t be handled through the regular course of action and the

duplicity…. It’s dealing with something very, very specific. It is making a straightforward,

minor change that, in the opinion of our caucus, does not need to belabour the special

committee in the work that they’re doing that, actually, is more robust, is more fulsome.

To the Government House Leader’s point around a committee coming with a different

opinion than another committee, then that would be something that this House should

consider.

[3:10 p.m.]

Again, just going back to the precedents of this House, the way that these standing

orders are set out, they’re set out that way for a very specific reason. There’s a

reason why we follow these standing orders. There’s a reason why precedent is set

by any decisions made based off of changing those standing orders and moving away

from a process. I worry, personally, about the protection for any future private members

that want to bring forward business.

I am one of those private members, and although I’m further down on the list, I know

that if I come forward with a very specific idea and a very specific bill or a legislative

change, I would like to know that the government will not be able to move that bill

over to a different committee, where it is not following the same procedure as everybody

else’s bill and being measured the same way that everybody else’s bills have been

measured. And that is through this committee.

This committee has done some really sophisticated work in the time that I’ve been

sitting as an MLA. We’ve seen many private members’ bills move through that committee

because there is a fixed deadline. There is a fixed deadline that everybody agrees

upon, that it is a certain amount of days, and that ensures the protections are afforded

to each member that their work is going to move through that committee. There’s not

going to be a stall. There’s not going to be a hold.

Things could get complicated with that committee and the things that they are talking

about, specifically to those two clauses that have nothing to do with this very narrow,

specific change that is within this private member’s bill that he has brought to this

House.

Again, I go back to if we set that precedent and then further to that, down the road….

“Well, we did that one time, so what’s the issue this time? What makes this different?”

Then I think it opens a doorway where private members may not feel, again, protected

by a process that was decided upon in this House.

There was a committee that was put together that designed this process very specifically

— that that committee would be the committee that would sit and handle private members’

bills. Again, they’ve done really sophisticated and excellent work in bringing these

bills to really high levels of scrutiny and ensuring that they get the discussion

they need.

It’s the opinion of our caucus and of other private members on this side of the House

that this just wouldn’t be appropriate, so we cannot support the motion. When it was

talked about to begin with, it was really clear that that wouldn’t be supported.

I’m standing up today in opposition to that, making sure that we make the point that

if there is some perceived duplicity, then that is not a purposeful move by our member,

who did not know what the work of this committee was going to be.

Today I just want to make sure that we get it on the record that the democracy of

this House and the protection of these private members and the bills that they’re

going to bring forward…. This is their one opportunity, just one, that they get, and

it is protected by process that was already designed by this House.

So since we already declined this, and now the motion is being brought forward, we

have to stand up and defend that democracy and defend the standing orders and the

processes of this House to make sure that anybody in the future is not going to be

shut out, shut aside, maybe not heard on how they would prefer for their bills to

be scrutinized and by the ways that are laid out for a very specific reason.

With that, I just want to make it very clear. We, absolutely, do not support this

motion to move this private member’s bill to a different committee and believe that

it needs to follow the proper channels that were laid out for private members’ bills

so that they can have the exact same chance as every other private member’s bill.

If we delineate from that, then I’m not sure why we have orders that we follow in

the House at all. They’re really important. Everybody agrees to them.

This motion is a motion that we don’t agree with.

[3:15 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare : I’m the designated speaker on this particular motion, at the request of the House

Leader.

I would ask that we take a short recess for a bathroom break at this time. Could we

take a short recess?

Okay, well, I’ll start talking then.

This is about the fundamental principles of democracy. This is about the fundamental

role of due process. Despite the arguments made by some in the government that this

bill represents a violation of process, I completely and vehemently disagree with

that particular assertion. What this bill, in fact, represents is due process for

people, doing the right thing for people at the right time with due speed and exigence

for an urgent matter.

This bill was originally drafted last fall, and it died on the order paper and has

been resubmitted. There was no such committee struck at that time. If the government

had a problem with that bill, they may have come forward to some sort of issue in

that regard.

But to go and try to hide their disdain for amputees by hiding this in a committee

where it would be buried and have no force or effect and no requirement to be brought

forward as legislation is simply reprehensible. It is inappropriate. It is unconscionable.

It is not the right way to represent the people of British Columbia.

Standing Order 84A(1) needs to be applied. Standing Order 84A(2) needs to be applied.

We should not be pushing aside the standing orders to shove a private member’s bill

off to a committee when, in fact, the due process is clearly laid out in our procedures

and in all of our references.

When I look at the lovely synopsis that all members have been provided with regarding

private members’ time, Monday morning statements on motions and bills — which every

member has a copy of, printed in March 2026 by the Legislative Assembly of the province

of British Columbia, on statements, motions and bills, which details through its table

of contents the specifics of how this process is supposed to occur — I see nothing

compelling about the government’s desire to shove this bill, this compelling bill,

which will help people, off to another committee to be examined and possibly to die

forever, never to see the light of day again.

The committee’s recommendations would not be binding on the government. The committee’s

recommendations would have very little to do with anything about helping people at

this point. That committee will hear a whole variety of other things. Why not concentrate

on those? This is a parallel process. It is not a divergent process.

When we look at the table of contents in the synopsis regarding this bill, we see,

on page 1, private members’ time. Well, let’s examine exactly what that says. It says:

“Private Members’ Time, Monday Mornings.”

“Private members’ time on Monday mornings affords private members the opportunity

to discuss matters of importance in their constituencies or the province at large

that they may not necessarily have the opportunity to raise during other proceedings.

“It takes place in the chamber from 10 a.m. to 12 noon each Monday morning and is

comprised of private members’ statements; private members’ motions; and private members’

bills, also referred to as public bills in the hands of private members.”

There is a list of precedence associated with getting on this particular list. So

just like anyone else, I was drawn on the list of precedence. I was down a bit on

the list, and I managed to negotiate a spot with another member to switch so that

this compelling bill could be brought forward in an exigent manner, so that it could

be heard and bring help to people in a direct and quick way to solve compelling issues.

[3:20 p.m.]

How does that draw list of precedence work? Well, at the earliest opportunity in a

new parliament, the Clerk of the House will conduct a draw to establish the assigned

placement of private members to propose business for the duration of that parliament.

Such a draw was conducted. That list is then appended to

schedule D of the orders

of the day. And when we look at the orders of the day, we see that list. It is all

there, with all of the members duly listed.

It is also available on the Legislative Assembly website, under the “Parliamentary

business” menu on the “Session overview” page. The member at the top of the list will

have the first opportunity to move a private member’s motion or second reading of

a private member’s bill.

After the member moves their item of business, their name is removed from the list,

and the next member becomes eligible. My name is now removed from that list. I would

revert to the end, and the next person goes forward.

I don’t get to come up with another bill. I don’t just have one sitting in my back

pocket that I can whip out and say: “Okay, here’s another bill that’s going to help

people.” Oh, no. No, I don’t have that handy right now. I’m sure I could think of

one, because there are an awful lot of things that need to be done in this province

to help people. That’s certainly the case.

Recognizing the need to be urgent about this particular matter, the member from Shuswap

graciously agreed to switch places with me. He didn’t even think twice about it. He

said: “That’s an important bill that you need to get through. I support that bill,

and I’m happy to switch places with you.” We duly went through all the process to

do that, and I thank the Office of the Clerk a great deal for their support in making

sure that happened in a smooth and reliable way.

Now, this is all within the due process, as described in the synopsis. So after the

initial draw in a new parliament, any member may exchange their placement with another

member, or should they choose, they could withdraw their place, up until the opening

day of a new parliament. That’s a perfectly reasonable, process-laden way to operate.

After the opening day, a member may only exchange their placement or withdraw their

place until they reach the third place on the list of precedence. Exchanges or withdrawals

are not permitted when a member is listed first, second or third on the list of precedence.

Exchanges and withdrawals must be communicated by providing written notice to the

Office of the Clerk.

That is exactly what happened. That due process was followed. Hearing from the Government

House Leader that this somehow represents a better process, quite frankly, is a farce.

This is not a better process, to take a private member’s bill, to shove it into a

committee and let the committee play with it as they would. No, sir. It is not due

process.

On sitting days, the other way that you can shift this is by providing the notice

to the table during sitting hours using the “Notice of list of precedence change”

template. If exchanging places, both affected members must sign that notice. That

is on sitting days. This is the kind of thing that goes on when you want to switch.

It’s not a simple matter to go and trade places and negotiate or discuss, but in this

case, it was easily done in a respectful, sensible way, because it was the right thing

to do.

Now, on non-sitting days this is done by electronic means. You email the details of

that change to the Office of the Clerk. If exchanging places, the other affected member,

of course, has to be copied and also reply signifying their consent to the change.

After all of that, the list of precedence on

schedule D of the order paper is updated

and the date of the change is noted. This is due process. Due process.

[3:25 p.m.]

Writing such a bill also has a process. You could do some and take a first kick at

it yourself and write a draft and then take it to the Clerk for support. The Law Clerks

look at it very carefully. They provide advice. They make suggestions. They do a few

tweaks, sort out where your commas are supposed to go, maybe make some insightful

and intelligent wording choices, give you some good advice as to the drafting of that

bill and then come up with a version for making a motion.

That support provided by the Office of the Clerk to members as they near the top of

the list doesn’t mean that members don’t have any other responsibilities. They are

responsible to ensure that they have prepared an item of business for private members’

time. Members who are near the top of the list of precedence should also be prepared

to move their item of business, as debate may move quickly, depending on the time

taken to make sure that the preceding member’s motion or bill gets before the House.

Now, there are timelines associated with all of this. Advancing private members’ business

is not trite. It is not something taken lightly. It is not something that can just

be willy-nilly chucked out of the House with a move from the Government House Leader

to a new committee without violating our standing orders. This is why the Government

House Leader wants to do that. He wants to do something that does not follow due process,

while at the same time claiming that this bill somehow violates due process. It’s

duplicitous.

In order to advance private members’ business and timelines, it is, certainly, the

case that in order to provide certainty about which items of business will proceed

and to ensure which members need to prepare for debate, timelines for preparing and

identifying an intended item of business must be met. In this case, these timelines

were met. Everything to make a very simple and elegant change to a flawed piece of

legislation was followed to the T.

When we’re looking at a piece of legislation that is intended to change the definition

of a catastrophic injury — from two or more to one or more limbs being severed, lost,

gone — one would think that this is the type of thing that all parties in this House

would support without hesitation and without reservation.

It is shocking to me. It is shocking to me that members on the other side of the House,

in the government side, would be going around and attempting to subvert this bill

by pushing it off to committee, all in the guise of saying: “Well, you know, we’re

very sympathetic to the plight of people who’ve lost a limb. However, it’s about process.”

It’s about process. Well, that sounds like something that a person would hear from

an adjuster and when they would, actually, really, want to have a lawyer to argue

on their behalf.

I find the suggestion that this bill be shoved out and shoved away into a file folder

in a committee, which will hear a whole bunch of other problems with

an act that certainly

has a lot of flaws, just simply unacceptable.

Now, this is not all of the process that had to happen with regards to this private

member’s bill and, dare I say, any other private member’s bill. When you reach third

place on the list of precedence, the item of business that you wish to advance must

go onto the order paper.

That means that by the time a member is in fourth place on the list of precedence,

you must either have a motion of notice or a bill listed for second reading on

schedule

D of the order paper. This ensures that the motion is eligible to be called or that

the bill is before the House when that person advances into third place on that list

of precedence, which I referred to earlier.

[3:30 p.m.]

It’s important to note that although bills must have been previously introduced and

read a first time, they may still appear as not printed on the order paper. Now, there

are example timelines that are made for reference in the synopsis.

I very much appreciate the work of the Clerk’s office in taking that excellent guide

to parliamentary procedure, which was recently revised, and making these synopses

for members, such as myself, as guides to follow while putting everything in one place

to make it easy to understand and make sure that we follow due process. Due process

is what this is about.

It is, certainly, the case that members are responsible for managing the two-day notice

requirement in time for motions and bills to reach the order paper. That is exactly

what has happened in this particular case. I took all the steps required to make sure

that the two-day notice requirement was met. I made sure that all the i’s were dotted

and all the t’s were crossed.

I even took the additional step in making sure there was plenty of time. This bill

has been in preparation for a good long time, since I first met with the person inspiring

the need for this, Ms. Chantal Sutton, who was here on Monday to discuss all of this.

When you see someone who has firsthand experienced the problem that this bill is designed

to fix and she tells you of the heartbreaking accounts of the difficulties in getting

a fair settlement from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and the difficulties

in being treated with any sense of feeling for what she has gone through, it’s heartbreaking.

It’s heartbreaking.

Is it manipulative? No. Is it somehow misleading or lobbying? No. This is a person

who had a problem that came forward and, recognizing that this problem applies to

others as well, stepped up and said: “I’m more than willing to support my MLA for

Prince George–North Cariboo in bringing forward a bill about my particular problem.”

We didn’t call this Chantal’s bill, but it well could be referred to in popular speak

as that. It’s certainly her bill, as much as it is mine or this opposition’s.

Now, when we are considering whether or not we’re going to have a bill like this taken

and handed off to a committee, I think it’s very important for all of us to understand

the significance of doing such a thing. When we do that, what we are doing is delaying

that time period in which an individual can claim for benefits in respect of a catastrophic

injury, even further than would be the case if we were to let this bill go through

due process completely parallel with the process of the committee.

This bill has never been an attempt to subvert the work of any committee. This bill

is parallel to that. If the committee chooses to examine this bill while it’s going

through the House, or the points on it, that’s fabulous. They do not need to pull

the bill in order to do that. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

How many people are there out there that would benefit from this bill were it to be

passed? The answer is unclear. The answer is unclear because that information is not

published by the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. To get a freedom-of-information

request out to do that, apparently, will take a bit of time.

[3:35 p.m.]

Currently, losing a limb, such as a leg or an arm, is not considered a catastrophic

injury, and for that reason, benefits are not provided.

We all recognize this is devastating. We recognize this changes a person’s life and

that we should be supporting those suffering from catastrophic injuries in every way

we can. Supporting this bill is one step forward in this House, dealing with a clear

oversight in the legislation and making it better for British Columbians and their

families who are having to deal with this catastrophe that has affected their lives

— one of many problems with the legislation that I hope that committee will look at.

But we’re already looking at this problem, and let’s fix it in this House right now,

where it needs to get dealt with. That’s all I have to say.

Peter Milobar : I feel the House Leader and my colleague from Prince George–North Cariboo covered

off most things quite well.

But I did want to highlight the reason this is such a concern to the opposition. It’s

very clear to us that with four private members’ bills now being passed, of consequence,

brought forward by the opposition, the government is stinging a little, I think, between

their use of Monday morning time, trying to bring in wedge motions or private members’

bills that they then have to walk back and pull back and remove from their member.

That is not on the shoulders of the opposition, that the government side cannot seem

to get their act together on how they are dealing with issues at Monday morning private

members’ time. But certainly, the member for Prince George–North Cariboo should not

be penalized.

More importantly, the people of British Columbia that suffer catastrophic loss in

an ICBC claim should not be penalized because the government has a bruised ego about

the fact that their private members do not come forward with substantive changes to

public policy — be it this, be it the firefighter cancer presumptions, the dashcams,

the postpartum-prenatal care bills. I know I’m missing another one. There were four.

Yesterday, the other around veterans, the other bill….

That’s the substantive work this side has been doing, and a motion like this is just

the government’s attempt, frankly, to try to push back a bit on their embarrassment

of the lack of serious issues that they’ve been bringing forward, choosing to spend

their time on wedge politics on Monday mornings instead of substantive work like we

are talking about.

So we fully reject the premise of this motion completely.

Deputy Speaker : Members, the question before this House is the motion on notice that has just been

presented.

Division has been called.

[3:40 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : Members, the motion is that, should the motion for second reading of Bill M237, intituled

Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2026, pass, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A(1),

Bill M237 be committed to the Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Insurance

(Vehicle) Act and that, notwithstanding Standing Order 84A(2), the Special Committee

to Review Provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act report Bill M237 back to the House

by the deadline fixed for the special committee to present its final report to the

House.

[3:50 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

Lore

Blatherwick

Dhir

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Greene

Wickens

Kang

Begg

Arora

Higginson

Sandhu

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Chandra Herbert

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Shah

G. Anderson

Chow

Morissette

Valeriote

Botterell

Boultbee

Sturko

NAYS — 42

Loewen

Kindy

Milobar

Warbus

Halford

Rattée

Wat

Kooner

Banman

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

K. Neufeld

Rustad

Wilson

McInnis

Paton

Day

Bhangu

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Dhaliwal

McCall

Maahs

Block

Stamer

Gasper

Mok

Davis

Chan

Brodie

Armstrong

Kealy

Williams

Chapman

Bird

Doerkson

Luck

Tepper

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 20.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. We’ll call this House back to order, where we are going to begin

debate on Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Á’a :líya Warbus : It was our understanding that we were going to Bill 9. Now that we’ve shifted to

Bill 20, we request a short, 15-minute recess just to get our speakers in order.

Deputy Speaker : Okay. Thank you very much. We will have a 15-minute recess here.

The House recessed from 3:54 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. We will call this chamber back to order, where we are going to

contemplate Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

Recognizing the Minister of Indigenous Relations.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s good to see you.

[4:10 p.m.]

It’s great to be here in the people’s House discussing a treaty. I say that because

it’s not something that happens in this House very often, historically anyways.

I often will say that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best

time is today. Indeed, I think the best time to make a treaty should have been 150

years ago, but the next best time is today. We haven’t got there in the past, but

we should be.

Treaties, agreements and other arrangements to live together in this place we now

know as British Columbia, a place where peoples have lived for thousands upon thousands

of years…. It’s important we recognize that fact. It’s important that we recognize

that we have an obligation to live in a good way together, and that means making agreements,

making arrangements — with K’ómoks in this case — making a treaty to find that better

path together, to hold each other up, to lift each other up, to support each other,

because treaties are about coming together.

It may be called the K’ómoks treaty, but it really is about the K’ómoks-B.C.-Canada

treaty together, recognizing the people of K’ómoks, the K’ómoks Nation, recognizing

their place and the importance that we have with that relationship together.

I move that Bill 20 be now read a second time.

As members know, the government of B.C., Canada and the K’ómoks Nation have been working

together for a long time, three decades, to arrive here at this point in time — over

30 years spent working together to forge a better path of reconciliation; to move

away from division, from ignoring, from ignorance; to move away from confrontation

and try to find a better way to live together in harmony.

Similar to other modern treaties in the province, the K’ómoks treaty was negotiated

under the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

Before I go much further, I want to acknowledge the lək̓ʷəŋən Peoples, whose territories this House that we are debating this legislation, their

territories…. I want to thank them for welcoming the K’ómoks and us into this place

and hold up their work in working with Chiefs and councils there. I take that very

seriously.

I also want to acknowledge Chief Nicole Rempel; the whole council of K’ómoks Nation;

the federal government; and, of course, everybody in the Comox Valley, as well, who

also participated and supported getting us here today. I just met with the mayor of

Cumberland, who was talking about how important this work was.

As I mentioned, parties in this treaty have actively pursued this work for a long

time. They’ve told us to get on with it. Alternatively, we’ve slowed, we’ve started,

we’ve moved, and we’ve slowed, we’ve started, we’ve moved. But finally, the different

pieces have come together at once to bring forward this treaty legislation.

There was initialling in July 2024. Of course, that was to indicate strong support

for the elements of the treaty. That then went to the process of going to the K’ómoks

Nation to ask them: “Well, what do you think? What do you think about this treaty?

What are your thoughts on coming together in this way of reconciliation?” And 81 percent

of eligible K’ómoks voters voted in favour of ratifying the K’ómoks treaty, with voter

turnout at 91 percent.

I would say none of us in this House could claim the same amount of voter support.

None of us could claim the same turnout in local elections that returned us to this

House. So clearly, this shows strong support, exceptional support from the K’ómoks

People. It tells us that they’re ready, and I hope that this House is ready too.

Once ratified, of course, through that process, it comes here and brings us to this

stage of the debate, this stage of the discussion. Should it pass through this House

— and I make no assumptions, though I certainly hope that members will indeed decide

that treaty is an important objective and that these treaties are ones that we should

support — it will then continue through a community process. There’s ongoing work

with neighbouring nations, a signing process, going to the federal government, and

then, eventually, after that, should it pass the federal level and royal assent, we

will then, of course, get to the effective date.

Treaties provide certainty — certainty for the K’ómoks People about their place in

this province, their place in this nation; certainty for people in the region around

the K’ómoks Nation in terms of how we are to work together and what the path is for

respecting the age-old, time-immemorial rights of the K’ómoks Nation, their culture,

their history and their rights to take care of the land and the estuary that has sustained

them since time immemorial.

[4:15 p.m.]

Treaties are one of the highest forms of reconciliation, one of the highest forms

of certainty. They’re also one of the greatest ways that….

Some have told me that treaties should be treated as major projects in the sense of

what we’re hearing around the federal government and major industry and so on; that

treaties, in fact, and reconciliation with First Nations governments should also be

seen as an incredible opportunity to lift all of us up, to lift this nation up, to

lift this province up, to raise the status, to raise the standard of living, to raise

the respect, to raise the cultural togetherness, to bring us closer together.

Treaties do that when done well, and certainly, the K’ómoks Nation is no different.

They’ve done everything possible to bring that community together and will continue

to do that work to reach agreement with neighbouring nations. I know some protocol

agreements have already been reached to deal with issues of overlap, to deal with

issues of togetherness and common use of common areas.

Members in this House have chosen to focus a lot these days on First Nations people,

making suggestions that they’re coming for people’s homes, etc. It’s completely false,

completely wrong. Indeed, treaties are one way that nations have told me they want

to express to their communities that we are all here together.

No one is going anywhere. “We’re not coming for your home, since what was done to

us we would not want done to anyone else.” I’ve heard Chiefs, Elders, councillors,

nation members all say variations on that same theme. Let’s stop the fearmongering.

Stop the fear of the other. We’re all here together. Justice. Justice is what we want,

but that’s just us, all of us together finding that path.

Uncertainty over the ownership of land, uncertainty over rights and title, uncertainty

over obligations and responsibilities has held First Nations communities back for

generations. The Indian Act — the yoke of the Indian Act, as many Elders have told

me, many Chiefs and councils — has made it so that when they want to move to support

their communities, they are held back. They are not able to do what they should be

able to do and what any other government is already able to do.

Because of the patronizing paternalism of the Indian Act, we’re still in a place where

too many nations struggle to even just be able to do the basics — because of the weight

of the imposition of law; the imposition of administrative forces that may not reflect

the needs of that nation, may not reflect the needs of the people, the needs of the

modern day. It’s an antiquated act which is still causing harm.

Treaties are one way to help take that yoke, take that chain off.

It will provide opportunities for economic growth, for the nation to lead as they

have been in businesses, in environmental stewardship, in housing, in health care.

The list goes on and on. This is about leadership and supporting the leaders of the

K’ómoks People to be able to achieve their dreams together with the leaders in the

Comox Valley, in the North and elsewhere.

I think it’s really important that we recognize that we should be doing more of this.

This should be a common occurrence in this House, not a historic occasion but something

that we all understand is our obligation — to do the work, to lean into it. Not to

push away, not to fearmonger but to do the hard work of learning.

I want to thank a few people who I visited with earlier today, the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Certainly, their reconciliation committee has been doing work to dispel mistruths

and rumours and ensure that everyone sees the benefit of getting these relationships

right. In the end, we all prosper when we work better together.

These treaties include new recognition and predictability provisions, recognizing

that First Nations entered treaties on the basis that they do have Aboriginal rights

and title. Some members have asked: “Why don’t we extinguish rights? Why isn’t the

province going to courts to try and say that Aboriginal rights were all extinguished

under Trutch or under one of the many colonial governors?” That’s not how it works.

You don’t get to extinguish someone’s human rights like a cigarette.

I think we need to put that to bed and put that in the past because extinguishment

of human rights is not a solution to certainty. It’s not a solution to prosperity.

[4:20 p.m.]

Acknowledging the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, of First Nations here in B.C.

is a better path to trust. It is the path to truth, to responsibility, to opportunity.

It is the path to prosperity, I believe, and togetherness — acknowledging the truth,

acknowledging the responsibilities, acknowledging that Aboriginal rights and title

continue.

The courts have said it. If you don’t believe me, you can certainly read more than

a few court decisions over the years that have told us, have told this House, that

we’ve got to get our own house in order. And that’s, indeed, what we’re trying to

do through this agreement with the K’ómoks Nation.

The treaty provisions provide certainty about what rights K’ómoks People have through

binding agreement, how they will be exercised by K’ómoks, along with agreement on

the province’s and Canada’s responsibility to the exercise of those rights.

Under this approach, K’ómoks agrees to exercise and assert

section 35 rights as set

out in the treaty. The treaty articulates which

section 35 rights may be exercised,

what makes up those rights and where they can be exercised geographically.

That means, for those that have continued to suggest this treaty means that we’ll

continue to have endless land claims and fights and conflict and that these things

will not be resolved with the K’ómoks People…. That means that title and rights claims

cannot be filed because we’ve found a way to respect each other’s places, respect

each other’s geography, nations, culture, history.

We will continue, of course, to work in relation to

section 35 rights, but really,

the treaty is the legal document that we must respond to. It provides the stability

and predictability for the people in that region — indeed, for all of British Columbia.

The relationship of the treaty to the rights of neighbouring First Nations is one

that we also take very seriously. First Nations, as we know, commonly have common

rights areas — shared areas, shared territories where, through agreement, through

relationship, through protocol, there’s a sharing of resources, a sharing of obligation,

a sharing of responsibility. We believe that we need to continue that work and support

that work with neighbouring nations.

We also need to do our work to make sure that we are accommodating those interests

where there might be impacts. Nations, in many cases, are in the best place to resolve

these issues, as contemplated under the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

We also, of course, work very closely through our work with the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation to support those efforts at protocol and coming together

on those issues of shared areas, of boundaries, of overlaps. There have been many

different names for that challenge, but it is real, and we acknowledge it.

The treaty itself makes space for arrangements between neighbouring nations through

protocol agreements. I know, certainly, some are underway. Some have been signed already.

We do have constitutional obligations to the neighbouring nations, of course, and

these are key to consider during the negotiations. The treaties are designed to prevent

an outcome where we would impact negatively on other nations’ rights.

For example, treaty harvesting rights are non-exclusive. They do not take priority

over asserted or established harvesting rights of other nations. They do not prevent

other nations from also exercising their harvesting rights in those areas. As well,

throughout the K’ómoks negotiations, changes have been made within the agreement to

already address concerns from neighbouring nations.

For the K’ómoks treaty, given that certain neighbouring First Nations have identified

remaining adverse impacts, accommodation offers have been made, with offers of either

nations have rights, and we want to make sure that we respect them and that we find

a better path to bring nations together.

We continue to commit to working with nations to resolve overlap concerns and working

on finding solutions that will work for all involved.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The K’ómoks Treaty Act is necessary to make the benefits from treaties come real.

It’s similar to previous treaty implementation legislation. It establishes the legal

status of the treaty and other agreements contemplated by the treaty. It sets out

that the K’ómoks treaty is binding and that it can be relied on by all parties.

Now, that’s a little different than contracts you would think of, where they can only

be relied on by those who sign them. But actually, what this means is this treaty

can be relied on by local business, local governments, other interest holders in the

region. They can rely on the content of the treaty for things like land management,

access and use of treaty lands, fishing, hunting.

The act established K’ómoks ownership of their treaty lands and fee simple. It sets

out that their treaty lands are not within the boundaries of any municipality or regional

district. However, they can choose to join the regional districts in accordance with

provincial law if there’s interest, but it is not required. It provides that treaty

lands are part of the Comox-Strathcona regional hospital district and for nation membership

in that hospital district as of the treaty effective date.

[4:25 p.m.]

The legislation, for people to know, is a bit of a shift. It does remove K’ómoks lands

from the provincial agricultural land reserve. However, it’s important to know that

under this treaty, K’ómoks have committed to designate the lands that are currently

within the agricultural land reserve as K’ómoks agricultural lands, with the same

sort of process and same sort of standards that the province has under the ALR.

The laws will, of course, prioritize the preservation of high-capability agricultural

lands for agriculture and other food production as well as define farm and non-farm

uses comparable to provincial law.

In speaking with K’ómoks Nation members, I know I’ve certainly heard excitement and

interest in bringing back more traditional foodstuffs through the agricultural production

as well, because there’s a huge interest in the region and they’re just great to eat.

In terms of other uses of land on treaty land, it enables adjustments to forest tenures

as of the treaty effective date. Forest tenure holders have been consulted extensively

as part of this negotiation process to ensure that we take their interests into account.

Provisions in the treaty ensure a transition period for the licensees and will allow

further discussions to continue with those licensees.

It also enables the province to enter into treaty side agreements, like tax agreements,

a foreshore agreement, the K’ómoks estuary consent agreement. In addition, of course,

the act will propose consequential and related amendments to a few statutes to enable

specific treaty commitments and alignment between those statutes and the treaties.

As members will know, of course, K’ómoks and Canada were consulted on drafts of this

legislation and are strongly in support. Members met with many members of the K’ómoks

Nation last week and could see their strong support for the treaty. I believe K’ómoks

met with the opposition caucus to discuss the treaty, what was in it, how it worked.

I heard that was a very good meeting, and I appreciate the members putting in their

time to engage on these questions.

Certainly, as I’ve indicated, whether it was in the estimates process or otherwise,

we’re always happy to take questions, because we want to do this work that brings

everybody together, as we hope this treaty will.

Of course, we’re not done yet. Discussions continue working through the system with

neighbouring nations, as I mentioned earlier. Engagement with local governments, interest

holders and the public continues. It has been extensive.

I think members on the opposite side have told me they really like the consultation

process that takes place during the treaty process through the B.C. Treaty Commission.

I’ve heard members talk about how open it was and how they hoped that other processes

could mirror or model from some of that work.

I certainly value that feedback, and I think we’re looking at how to operationalize

that through the other work we do, because the K’ómoks treaty process has been extensive.

Some would say it has taken too long. I hear that, but sometimes to do the right thing

takes a long time to do it right. That being said, I’m hoping to do many more treaties

in the future with nations, as we see the benefit and as they see the benefit.

To finish up there, I want to make sure that members have time to ask their questions,

make their debates and share their feedback and responses. The K’ómoks Nation has

been nothing but generous in their time to address any concerns or issues that members

may or may not have, and I certainly think of them. Our ministry is doing our best

to be responsive to the needs of members in this House as you have questions.

It has been over ten years since a treaty has come through this chamber. I believe

it was the ɬəʔamɛn treaty back in, I think it was, 2014 or thereabouts, so almost 12 years now. Let’s

not make it another 12 until the next one. Let’s do this good work together. Let’s

ask the tough questions, and let’s pass this treaty, because I think it’s well past

time for us to take this step with the K’ómoks Nation and with many other nations.

I really thank the members for their interest in the treaty, for the work that they’ve

put in working with K’ómoks Nation, and I really hold my hands up to all members who

want to engage in this work.

I’m sure there will be some tough questions. I know the critic will be keen to ask

many, and I will do my best to provide the best answers that I can to share the important

work, the honourable work that many members of the K’ómoks Nation, of the Comox Valley,

of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations, of many other ministries, of the local governments,

of the federal government have put in to get us to this stage.

It’s an exciting time. This will make a huge difference for the K’ómoks Nation, but

indeed, it will lift up everybody in the Comox Valley as we find a better path of

reconciliation with the K’ómoks Nation.

[4:30 p.m.]

Scott McInnis : I’d just like to indicate that I will be the designated speaker to Bill 20.

This is really an interesting time for me, as the critic for Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation. Three years ago, I never would’ve thought I would be standing

here in the people’s House talking about a modern treaty. This is quite an interesting

opportunity for me and for our caucus, I think, and I’m looking forward to making

some remarks here today.

I want to thank the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation for his comments

and the work of the ministry to do this work with a treaty.

We have a complicated landscape today in British Columbia. The minister alluded to

that, that when there was settlement in British Columbia there was not the completion

of signing historic treaties, an exercise which we saw throughout Canada at the time

of settlement, over a period of time.

We do have a piece of Treaty 8, one of the historic treaties in the northeast and

the Peace region, which overlaps into British Columbia, and a small handful of what

are called the Douglas treaties on Vancouver Island. Essentially, that was it for

well over 100 years. Some of the challenges that we’re seeing today, specifically

with the land question, come down to the fact that we didn’t complete those treaties

over 150, 175 years ago.

The lack of doing that back then puts us in this position that we’re in today, when

we see claims of Aboriginal title that are happening across British Columbia. That

is a constitutionally protected right under

section 35 for nations to pursue that,

as far as ownership over the land base. But again, that wouldn’t be possible if we

had done that work a long time ago to settle these treaties.

We do have a number of modern treaties that have been settled since the early 1990s,

starting with the Nisg̱a’a treaty. I had the opportunity to visit Nisg̱a’a treaty territory this summer. They were gracious enough to give some caucus members

and myself a tour, to speak about their governance protocol, some of the economic

opportunities that they were pursuing, which wouldn’t have been done in the same framework

had they not had a modern treaty.

Generally speaking, the modern treaties that we’ve seen come forward have been successful

in many ways. They’re not perfect. Nothing is. But generally speaking, I think if

you asked the nations themselves that had settled modern treaties, they would say

that it was successful for them.

Other models that we see around the province are, of course, the Tsawwassen treaty,

the Maa-nulth treaties, ɬəʔamɛn and a handful of others. So there is a model in the modern treaty process, which

is vastly different than we saw with historic treaties, that is generally successful.

As the minister noted, it’s a lot of hard work.

I know with the K’ómoks treaty and Bill 20, to which we’re speaking today, this has

been three decades in the making. It’s important for the public to understand that.

That is a lot of blood, sweat and tears over many generations, to get that work finished,

to where we sit today where we have a piece of legislation and a corresponding treaty

document, which we are debating today and will be debating throughout the coming weeks.

[4:35 p.m.]

Just on a note, there is another treaty which has been brought forward to the Legislature,

the Kitselas modern treaty. The Kitselas are Tsimshian People located in British Columbia’s

northwest, and we will be debating that treaty legislation and the corresponding treaty

document as we proceed.

I just want to take a minute and thank the Treaty Commission. They took a lot of time

to answer our questions in opposition, to provide detailed briefings to our caucus.

As the minister noted, we did have a delegation led by Chief Rempel from the K’ómoks

First Nation, which came and spoke directly to us in opposition, and we found that

very informative. It’s important for us to understand the treaty process and how that

works.

As the minister also noted, it has been over ten years since we’ve had a modern treaty

come forward to the people’s House.

With that, I would just like to say…. Obviously, the work that the minister had pointed

out, with Chief Rempel in their community, to talk about treaty with their members

at the K’ómoks First Nation, to highlight the positives that treaty can be for their

community, specifically the permanent removal from the Indian Act, which is a very

significant milestone, I think, for any nation that enters into the modern treaty

process…. I know it was a highlight that was brought to our attention.

I just want to thank Chief Rempel and the council and all the folks with the K’ómoks

First Nation for speaking with us. I know it has been a ton of hard work by the K’ómoks

leadership throughout, as I said, several generations to get where we are today.

Obviously, treaty negotiations, like any negotiation, are very complex, demanding.

They require sustained leadership, community engagement and persistence — especially

in a process over several decades — to continue the momentum of getting toward a final

treaty agreement.

I know there are 204 First Nations in British Columbia, several of which are at various

stages of the treaty process. It is a very long and complex negotiation, and it does

take a lot of sacrifice and hard work by both the participating First Nation — in

this case with Bill 20, the K’ómoks, obviously — and for government. The idea with

a treaty, generally speaking, is that the agreement is to define specific rights and

governance and things within the treaty in exchange for land and other benefits to

the nation.

I really look forward today to addressing the treaty and Bill 20. Unfortunately, I

do have to say I’m a little bit disappointed in the government for bringing forward

this legislation, which wasn’t on the proposed orders of business as they were supposed

to be. We should be here debating Bill 9. I had a m