The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Personal Statements

The Speaker: Member for Skeena.

Apology for Conduct in the House

Claire Rattée : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start by apologizing for disregarding your authority

in the House during question period today.

I would also like to raise a point of order.

The Speaker : Proceed.

Point of Order

Claire Rattée : Thank you. My point of order is in regard to comments that were made by the Premier

this morning during question period. It’s a long-standing custom of parliamentary

procedure and practice in British Columbia that “members should be mindful to not

unfairly attack an individual’s reputation, particularly an individual who is not

in a position to reply with a defence or rebuttal, specifically in the context of

parliamentary proceedings.”

Today in this chamber, the Premier of British Columbia stood in this place and told

this House that members on this side of the House oppose LNG Canada. That is patently

false. I represent the riding of Skeena. LNG Canada is built in my riding. I spent four years on city council, where I devoted

most of my time to ensuring that phase 1 reached final investment decision of that

process.

I’m also surrounded by colleagues — the official Leader of the Opposition, as well

as the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie — that worked on that project quite extensively and have always supported that project.

People in my riding have known where I stood for years, so when the Premier of this

province rose in the chamber today and tried to rewrite history and make spurious

claims, he was not engaged in vigorous debate. He was telling this House something

that does not reflect the record.

[1:35 p.m.]

The record on LNG on this side of the House is above reproach. We have always supported

natural gas, LNG and oil development in British Columbia. The members opposite cannot

make this same claim. Certainly, the Premier cannot.

So this is not a small thing. The rules of this chamber are clear. They have been

clear for a very long time. A member may not deliberately mislead the House. That

is not a partisan rule. That is not something that our side decided on, the NDP or a Green rule. It is the rule that makes every other rule in this place possible.

Everything we do in this chamber — every vote, every bill, every debate, every committee

— depends on one assumption: that when a member stands in their place, what they say

is true. When that assumption breaks, this institution breaks with it.

The fact of the matter is that the Premier knowingly misled this House and British Columbians on the record that this side of the House holds on LNG Canada. If the Premier wants

to know where members of this side of the House were when that announcement was being

made, the Leader of the Opposition and I were touring LNG Canada. It is, I believe, the third or fourth tour in the

last year that I have been on personally.

The Speaker : Thank you, Member.

Claire Rattée : Thank you.

The Speaker : The Chair will take that under advisement.

I also want to caution all members about the comments made by the Member for Skeena earlier. The Chair accepts her apology, but every member, be careful not to be argumentative

with the Chair and disrespectful. That’s a no-no, because that will not be tolerated. That does not go with our traditions of respect here in the chamber.

Thank you so much. As I said, we will take that under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and the Legislative Assembly.

For the Birch Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth.

And just advisement: in terms of the Douglas Fir Room, there are about ten minutes left, so we will be

back to call the next items after that.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

I called Transportation and the officers of the Legislative Assembly. Just for information

of members, that is for Votes 1 through 10, on the legislative officers.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:39 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General

( continued )

The Chair : Members, we will begin our estimates process today of the Minister of Public Safety.

Hon. Nina Krieger : The member opposite asked a question when we broke for lunch. We are just finalizing

the answer, and we’ll be back to him in short order.

[1:40 p.m.]

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 (continued) .

Hon. Nina Krieger : Before the break, we were talking about helicopter resources. I can confirm that

each district of RCMP E division has access to helicopter resources, and there are

three in the Lower Mainland district specifically.

Bryan Tepper : Thank you for the answer. I appreciate that.

The three helicopters. Are they full-time helicopters in the Lower Mainland, or is

that one extra that was talked about during the extortion expansion of resources?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you to the member opposite for the question. These three helicopter resources

in the Lower Mainland district are full-time resources. How and when they are deployed

is guided by operational requirements.

Bryan Tepper : Thank you for the answer.

Switching gears a little bit here. We had a situation in the Interior this year where

there was a lot of news coverage around ostriches. We had RCMP members deployed to

cover what was going on there. Can we confirm that the deployment occurred with provincial

resources? How many officers were deployed to police these ostriches?

Janet Routledge : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair : Carry on.

Introductions by Members

Janet Routledge : It’s my pleasure to introduce some students and their parents and teachers from Holy

Cross Elementary School in the Brentwood area of Burnaby North.

I’d like to tell them that what they’re going to be witnessing right now is the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General answering questions from the opposition about how her ministry will expend her budget

in order to keep us all safe.

[1:45 p.m.]

The Chair : Indeed, welcome to everyone in our chamber today. Thanks for joining us.

Debate Continued

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you for the question. The focus of this line of questioning is Universal Ostrich

Farms in Edgewood, where there was a mandatory court order by the Canadian Food Inspection

Agency that was upheld by federal courts. The B.C. RCMP provided support to the Canada

Food Inspection Agency to maintain public safety and enforce lawful, court-authorized

actions at that time.

I’m not able to speak to the specific number of members, but what I can provide is

the number of deployments, as members may have been deployed multiple times. The RCMP

deployments took place between May 21 and November 15 of 2025, and it involved a total

of 496 deployments. Just to be clear, that’s deployments, not members.

Bryan Tepper : I would like to ask who ended up paying for that deployment. Was it provincial funding,

municipal funding?

Hon. Nina Krieger : This operation was led by the critical response unit of the provincial RCMP, so it

was resourced provincially.

[1:50 p.m.]

Bryan Tepper : Yes, thank you for the answer. Looking at it as assisting a federal agency and a federal

operation, I don’t know if the province is in a place to spend money without recouping

that from the federal government, but something to think about in the future is seeing

if we can’t recoup some of that money.

So what I’m asking, I guess, here, at this point, is that while we were under a massive

crisis in families in Surrey, people being extorted, businesses being shot up, houses

being firebombed, children afraid to go to school, people moving out of their own

homes or living in their basements, we sent provincial RCMP officers from May till

November to watch over ostriches that were being euthanized — 496 deployments. I’m

pretty sure the families in Surrey would have liked to have a few of those deployments

if they could have.

Can we explain to the people of Surrey why the ostriches took a higher priority than

the people of Surrey?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you to the member. There’s quite a lot to unpack in that question, and I’ll

just begin with some of the phrasing that the member opposite used: that the police

were deployed to watch over ostriches. I want to be clear that this deployment was

to maintain public order. The decisions around the deployment are led by the critical

response unit and are based on an assessment of threat, of risk.

That stems from the court order and quite a sensitive and volatile situation around

the farm — where the maintenance of public order was a concern — and led to the operational

decisions made by the RCMP. It is not the ministry’s role, not the province’s role,

to interfere with operational decisions of police.

Then a second part of that question is around the prioritization of enforcement related

to extortion. I think early in the debate I’ve had an opportunity to emphasize that

combatting extortion has been and remains the province’s foremost public safety priority.

I would be happy to get into the numerous actions that we have stood up and that have

been sustained and responsive to combat the extortion that is causing harm not only

in communities in Surrey — which is, of course, an epicentre — but in other communities

south of the Fraser.

Bryan Tepper : Thank you very much for the answer. I’m going to hop back to helicopters for just

a second. I was at the state-of-the-city address in Surrey the other day, and I was

very pleased to hear that they were talking about deploying drones. I’ve long been

an advocate for switching from helicopters to drones in the city, as they are far

less expensive in every way, shape and form and to keep in the air.

I’m wondering if that’s something that the minister has been looking at — moving towards

a system of better service delivery at a lower cost, with something like moving from

helicopters to drones.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you for the question. I appreciate it.

Certainly, the police are always looking for innovative tools to deploy in their operational

investigative work, and that is certainly something the province supports.

To be clear, we do not direct the use of police in terms of what technologies they

might adopt, but it’s certainly something that, as a province, we have sought to support

and invest in. There are examples of that that include the Health IM digital resource

to assist police in their interactions with people in mental health crises and also an initiative such as track and trace that we supported that involves innovative use of AI and other tools in identifying and tracing substances in the toxic drug supply.

Those are just some examples of the province’s encouragement and support for the use

of innovative technologies, but I do want to note that when it comes to the deployment

of specific technologies — drones versus helicopters — those would be decisions that

police would be making to support their operations and their investigations.

Bryan Tepper : Thank you for the answer, and I’ll move on to some corrections questions. What I would

say is that in the past little while, we’ve seen the federal government come out and

say there are now more employees than inmates in the federal prison system. So my

question would be: what is the ratio of corrections staff to inmates in B.C.’s provincial

correction facilities?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : The average inmate count in B.C. Corrections is 1,830 per day. The total full-time-equivalents

in the custody division is 1,802. Those are 24-7 staffing. So we don’t have the exact

ratio that, I think, the member is looking for at this moment, but that gives you

a sense of the number of inmates and the number of full-time-equivalent staff.

Bryan Tepper : Well, that sounds like it’s almost a 1-to-1 ratio for each prisoner, for each FTE,

full-time-equivalent employee, which sounds like an awful lot as well. For instance,

I think the ratio for guards to inmates is supposed to be 1 to 60.

But, I mean, if you…. Well, I don’t know if we need to confirm that or not. But what

have we done with that ratio? Do we know what the ratio has been over the past five

years? Has that increased?

Hon. Nina Krieger : I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee is adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:08 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:08 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson : The Committee of Supply,

Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick: The Committee of Supply,

Section A, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Transit and further reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Legislative Assembly and Officers of the Legislature and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 9, Freedom of Information

and Privacy Act.

[2:10 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:12 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General

(continued)

Hon. Nina Krieger : Just to clarify, the ratio is not, I would say, one to one. Just over 1,800 full-time-equivalent

staff represents not only correctional officers but also staff in administration and

programming — to underscore that point.

In terms of the question relating to the five-year trend, the five years may not be

entirely representative because that includes the COVID years where there was a reduction

in inmate population, but the numbers of inmates and staff over the last three years

have been relatively stable and consistent.

Bryan Tepper : Perhaps we could just table and look at those numbers later on, maybe if we stretch

back ten years, so that we can have a good look at what the ratio has been. It does

seem quite high now, when the federal government came out and announced that it was

because it was an anomaly.

If we’re looking at, for a full day, having three guards watching over, the ratio

should be 1 to 15. That is a lot of administrative staff, a lot of programming staff.

If those have increased over the past several years as the inmate population has gone

down, that would be very interesting to know. If we could table that for later, I

would be very interested to find out.

The question on that would actually be as well: what do we…? Actually, I’ll ask that

right now rather than table it. Do we know what would be driving any increase in staffing

relative to inmate population?

The Chair : Minister, if you don’t mind reading the vote. We neglected that.

Hon. Nina Krieger : My apologies. I was so looking forward to replying that I neglected to move the vote.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 (continued) .

Hon. Nina Krieger : We’ll deliberate on that question and be right back to the member.

[2:15 p.m.]

Just to clarify, the B.C. Corrections operates separately, of course, from federal Corrections. I’m not

quite sure what metric the member might be referring to, so I’m happy to get more

information about that. But in the previous answers, I did reference the consistent

level of staffing that we’ve seen across administration, programming and corrections

staff in recent years — not an increase, per se, but a stable number.

Bryan Tepper : I actually missed the reading in as well. I think everybody did. That’s okay.

I will correct myself, because this is going from memory from a few years back. So

1 to 60 is the correct ratio, which would be 1 to 20 for each shift. I divided twice

by two. I don’t know if anybody needs to know about my math.

Following that up, I actually have a question that had come up recently. I hope I

didn’t make trouble for people of the staff coming in and out. I did want to ask about….

It’s another FIFA deployment question.

I’ve found that there are detachments around the province — for instance, Williams

Lake — that are struggling to find overtime members to work, and they’re reaching

out across the province to find people to work at a massive event. It’s the second-biggest rodeo in Canada. So it definitely needs the overtime members. Back when I worked

there, I believe me and a partner arrested 57 people in a shift. It is a place that

is police-intensive, a time that needs to be covered for safety for everybody.

Is there a plan to cover detachments that are having that issue while they’re also

putting members into Vancouver for FIFA?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : I think we had a chance to talk a bit about this before. I’m happy to go into more

detail.

The assessment around numbers of policing is led, of course, by the RCMP. They know,

based on their extensive experience and expertise, the numbers that are needed for

major events, and also the number of officers that are needed within communities.

Ensuring there is that appropriate balance is integral to the planning process that

is well underway.

We do have a commitment, from the highest level of the RCMP and the highest level

with the Canadian government, to ensure that the requisite resources for safety and

security during the FIFA World Cup are in place, not only to respond to the games

and that immediate environment but also to be responsive to the public safety requirements

within communities and to respond to other emergencies that could arise in the province

as necessary.

Bryan Tepper : I don’t know if have comfort in that response at all. If their members are required

to move from their detachments, and other detachments have major events, is anybody

reaching out? Have any of the detachment commanders reached out, with concerns about

this, to the ministry?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you, again, to the member opposite for the question.

Public safety really is our North Star and remains the cornerstone of planning for

safe games during the FIFA World Cup, and also safety for the entire province. That

planning, as we talked about in previous discussions, is being done across multiple

levels of policing and government.

More directly in response to the member’s question, just to underscore that the RCMP

is drawing personnel for FIFA World Cup security operations under established provincial

policing service agreement frameworks, so those agreements are in place and guide

all allocation of resources.

The RCMP have advised and reassured the province that current allocations that are

being made to ensure safety at the FIFA games are reasonable and that no jurisdiction

is being asked to operate below workable conditions. And I think the member asked

very directly if the ministry had heard from any detachments with concerns related

to this, and the answer is no.

Bryan Tepper : Well, I probably will be following up with the fantastic MLA that represents Williams

Lake at some point to find out how they are doing on their policing resources.

I am going to switch over to one coroner question from me, and I don’t know if the

next questions will be along that line as well, but if we need to do a switch, I will

be asking a quick coroner’s question.

When we asked you for some information…. I was going to ask some different questions,

but this kind of stuck out at me. We went back and looked at the information you provided

from the previous two years — from 2018 and ’19 as well — and we sort of had a baseline

of 38,700-ish deaths per year.

And we had COVID in 2020. It jumped up a little bit to 41,400, which isn’t a great

increase. But then we hit 2021 till now and we end up with a 15 percent increase in

deaths, which I would probably describe as expected deaths. I would wait to hear an

answer from the minister on what they expected deaths would be, going from 38,000 up to almost 46,000 people in 2022.

Do we know why we have a 15 percent increase, generally, in deaths in B.C.?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I think the question around the

increase in the number of deaths broadly relates more to Vital Statistics under the

Ministry of Citizens’ Services rather than, specifically, the B.C. Coroners Service which looks at the number of

reported deaths, not the number of overall deaths. So that’s another set of numbers.

And I just had an opportunity to consult with the province’s chief coroner and can

confirm that those number of reported deaths have shown a slight increase that is

aligned with demographic changes broadly.

Bryan Tepper : Thank you for the answer. I would follow up on that actually. It would seem to fall

under the coroner’s purview to figure out why we’ve had a 15 percent increase in deaths

in this province. Looking at the numbers, really, we’ve had, I would suggest, probably

pretty close to a 15 percent increase in deaths that meet the criteria for an investigation.

So I would just follow up one more time and say: is there any curiosity in the Coroners

Service as to why we’re having really a massive increase in deaths in this province?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Again, to clarify, the B.C. Coroners Service is looking into the number of reported

deaths specifically, and a certain number of those are investigated. But most of the

increase, any increase that is seen, is as a result of natural causes and not reportable

under

section 2 of the Coroners Act.

Bryan Tepper : Okay, well, I will wrap up the coroners question then. I will say people aren’t just

moving out of this province in record numbers. And this is a joke that isn’t funny.

It looks like people are dying to get away from this NDP government.

To reiterate the JIBC questions we had earlier on, the VPD gets 88 percent of their

requested graduates while Surrey is getting 61 percent. We don’t know why really.

Is it an unfair allocation, or do we just not trust Surrey to train their own officers?

We’ve talked about the deportations. We know that the RCMP members get paid federal

dollars to enforce federal laws, but we’re not doing anything to chase after people

that are on active deportation warrants. We don’t even know the numbers in B.C. That’s

fairly disturbing to me that we aren’t looking at the people that we know are involved

and are probably all of the perpetrators that are either on overstays or with active

deportation orders for our extortion crisis.

Why we don’t have resources available for that but we have 490 deployments, shifts

covering to keep the peace — I understand that actually — with an ostrich farm that

lasted for…. I don’t remember. Is it six months, eight months? But we can’t provide

that kind of coverage for people that are afraid to leave their homes or people that

have left the community, left the country to protect themselves during this extortion

crisis.

I’ll go back to the Surrey police service. We’ve now had to strip the gang enforcement

unit away from their jobs to deploy them to take over one of the districts that was

actually not scheduled to be taken over. It was moved up to be fully taken over in

advance. These members doing a fantastic job, however, have now left, and the number

of murders over the past two weeks has spiked.

I will say the minister has also spoken about how extortions are down. The only metric

in which they’re down is from January where we hit a peak, an all-time peak. They

are still up thousands of percentages over previous years. They continue to come in,

in what really are record numbers.

We have a police force that now doesn’t have the resources that the city had moved

forward with. They had a new election. They wanted to reject the new police force.

The minister and Solicitor General at the time had to change the law in order to push

through and force this experiment on the city of Surrey.

[2:40 p.m.]

It’s left us holding the bag on what we’re going to do around every aspect of policing,

whether it be gang activity or the extortion crisis. Our policing price has gone up,

though I’ve never really got any satisfactory answers on that in this. But that being

a city responsibility now, we have to deal with it. As I said, I’m not sure I’m really

wanting to know the numbers with my tax bill.

I guess my final question is: am I correct on the metric of the extortion numbers?

Are we just comparing it to January? Or are there numbers that go beyond that, and

are we down? It sure looks like we have record numbers. If the minister could answer

that, and I appreciate your time.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Without question, Surrey is the B.C. community that we have seen most impacted by

extortion threats and related acts of violence plaguing other communities in B.C.

south of the Fraser but also other communities in other provinces across Canada. That

is why it has been so important that our response has been coordinated between different

levels of government and, of course, different jurisdictions of police. That cooperation

has been integral to our response, to our actions that have been, as I’ve had a chance

to highlight, really prioritized by the province and sustained.

The metric that the member opposite asked about. This was a metric that was reported

first not by the province but by the Surrey police service. The number of extortion

files has dropped considerably since the beginning of the year and has remained below

20 per month. Shootings are trending downwards, with ten in January, followed by one

in February, three in March and two in April.

This is a trend that not only the SPS has pointed to but the provincial RCMP, the

Abbotsford police department, Delta police department and really all of the police

that are working so hard and working collaboratively to combat extortion in communities.

I had a chance to open a webinar, a virtual update and round table that the province

hosted — I believe it was last week — featuring the Community Advisory Group on Extortion, a group that we stood up to really improve communication between police and community

and ensure that the questions and concerns of community were reaching the highest

level of law enforcement.

[2:50 p.m.]

There was the deputy commissioner of E Division there, Dwayne McDonald, and the chiefs

of Surrey, Delta and Abbotsford police departments, who all spoke to the numbers now

moving in the right direction in terms of a decrease in extortion-related violence.

That really reflects that collaborative work done.

I would just like to point out that what the member alluded to, in some of his introductory

comments to the questions, about what was, I think, referred to as a dismantling of the gang unit in Surrey. Operational changes are made from time to time, in terms of the deployment of officers

by police, and the SPS made that change before the district 4 transition commenced.

It’s also to affirm that SPS is not alone in its fight against extortion, in its fight

against gang violence more broadly. This is why the province invests over $100 million

a year in the work of the coordinated gang enforcement work and investigative work that is carried out by Combined Forces Special Enforcement

Unit. And they remain active. The uniform gang enforcement team remains active in Surrey.

I just appreciate the member’s concern for members of his community, his advocacy

for the community, and affirm that combating extortion and gang violence is absolutely

prioritized for the province. We will continue to ensure that police have the resources

they need to bring this violence to an end and to keep our communities safe.

Macklin McCall : Thank you, Minister.

Now, I’d just like to switch gears. I have a few other questions in other areas I’d

just like to go into, but perhaps the minister might be able to assist me just in

my first line of questioning here.

My first thing I have is the sheriff service. Now, I don’t know. I think the minister

has the policing team. Is it a new team for sheriffs, or can I go into those with

you yet?

Hon. Nina Krieger : The sheriff service is under the Ministry of Attorney General, not Public Safety.

Macklin McCall : Well, that makes it easier.

We’ll go into my next…. This will be, really, policing expenditure, ministry operations.

Now, the ministry’s operations vote reflects the overall direction of policing expenditures

in British Columbia. Year over year, increases raise important questions about cost drivers, allocation priorities and whether spending is aligned with public safety outcomes.

My question to the minister. Under the ministry’s operation vote in Budget 2026, what

explains the year-over-year increase in total policing expenditures, and which subprograms

are driving that growth?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : As we’re digging into the information, I just really want to clarify the question.

The member opposite is asking about an increase to a certain line item in PSSG’s budget.

If you can just restate the exact question, that would be appreciated.

Macklin McCall : My question is referring to the year-over-year increase in the total policing expenditures

and if there are programs under the total policing, subprograms underneath, that are

contributing to that growth. The overall policing budget…. If there are programs underneath

that contribute to that growth in the budget.

Hon. Nina Krieger : Maybe the member can point to the specific budget documents that you’re referring

to that show an increase, but I can confirm that the net operating expenses to support

core policing and security operations for the ministry have been stable.

Macklin McCall : Thank you, Minister. I’ll just move to another question.

What contingency funding is included to address unforeseen policing cost pressures

in Budget 2026?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Policing operations are under contract arrangements and not supported through contingencies.

Macklin McCall : Can the minister explain: how does the ministry justify increasing policing expenditures

while municipalities report growing financial strain?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Could the member please repeat the question?

Macklin McCall : I’ve got a bit of overlap in some of these, so I’ll move to a next question here.

I think it’ll be a little easier, for clarity’s sake.

This is more related to RCMP contract governance issues, basically. RCMP contract

policing represents one of the largest and most complex components of the policing

budget and certainly, around cost structures, they’re long term. Under the ministry’s

operation vote in Budget 2026, what portion of RCMP contract costs are fixed versus

variable?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Costs are based on a cost-share formula under the contract agreement. Any input variables

are prescribed in the contract as well.

I think it’s important to note here that RCMP E division and the ministry are constantly

monitoring any public safety trends and requirements within communities so that we

can be responsive to those. That is part of the ongoing superintendence work that

the ministry does in partnership with the RCMP to ensure adequate and effective policing.

Macklin McCall : Under the ministry’s operation vote in Budget 2026, what provisions have been made

for potential increases resulting from ongoing RCMP contract negotiations?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Canada has not formally initiated negotiations or shared a mandate to negotiate with

provinces and territories who wish to continue in the contract policing program. They

have indicated a willingness to enter into those negotiations, but we are still waiting

for the federal government to formally initiate those negotiations.

There’s nothing in this particular budget related to those contract negotiations,

but B.C. has been very active with our provincial and territorial counterparts in

urging the federal government to confirm that mandate so that we can commence negotiations

as soon as possible.

Macklin McCall : Now, can the minister explain how the cost overruns in RCMP contract policing are

managed, and who bears the financial risk?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Provincial police are provided with a delegation and are required to work within that delegation. As I underscored in

the previous answer, the province meets quarterly with the provincial RCMP and also

works very closely, on an ongoing basis, to track any emerging trends, needs, changes

in vacancies, and works in partnership.

The province superintends that relationship to ensure adequate and effective policing.

But just to underscore, provincial police must operate within the agreed-upon delegation.

Macklin McCall : Thank you, Minister, for the response. I don’t know if I fully understand some of

what was said, so just bear with me if I try to ask a question just for clarity’s

sake.

“Delegation.” When the minister refers to that, I don’t know if I fully understand

what that means. My question was about cost overruns in contract policing and then

who manages it. My mind goes to delegation being like a group of people, that there’s

a meeting and they discuss this type of thing. If that’s the case, I’m wondering if

I could get more clarity on the answer itself, just in how the delegation would reflect

on contract-policing-managed overruns and who bears the risk.

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you for that clarifying question. The delegation that I’m referring to is really a fixed amount. The RCMP are expected to work within specific amounts as per our

agreements.

Macklin McCall : Thank you for that. I clearly had it incorrect, and I’m glad you clarified it, Minister.

Thank you.

My next question: how does the ministry address uncertainty for municipalities related

to RCMP contract renewals?

Hon. Nina Krieger : For RCMP police municipalities, there is a local government contract management table.

This includes municipalities of various sizes. It’s co-chaired by senior ministry

staff and also by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The UBCM also has representation

on a federal table, as well, that involves the ministry and all of the provinces and

territories with contracts with the RCMP. So that’s an important representation that

municipalities have on a provincial table and also that federal table.

As minister, I meet with mayors and delegations on a regular basis, certainly as part

of UBCM engagements but also throughout the year as well. As any issues arise, I have the opportunity to engage with municipal leaders on matters

that relate to their contract arrangements.

Macklin McCall : Thank you for that, Minister.

[3:20 p.m.]

I just want to clarify something related to RCMP contracts with municipalities. Is

what the minister just explained referring to RCMP contracts where the province is

involved, such as the 70-30 split with small municipalities under 15,000 people or

where the province is solely providing RCMP policing to the municipality, or does

that same explanation that the minister provided also fall in line with a larger municipality

like Burnaby or Kelowna or Kamloops RCMP detachments where it’s like a 90-10 split

and the province is not involved at all, it’s just the municipality and the federal

government?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Really, all of the above.

Macklin McCall : Thank you for that, Minister.

I’ll go into another

section of policing regarding staffing and police strength. Staffing

shortages continue to affect policing effectiveness, cost structures and service delivery.

My question for the minister: how many funded policing positions remain vacant across

British Columbia?

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : As of January 1, 2026, there are a total of 196.5 vacant positions within the provincial

police service.

Macklin McCall : My next question. Just reading it over, making sure it’s not the same question — just

different wording here. Can the minister explain what percentage of authorized RCMP

positions are currently unfilled?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : So 91.2 percent of the authorized strength positions are currently filled.

Macklin McCall : I just want to go back to the last question about how many funded policing positions

remain vacant across British Columbia. The answer was just shy of 200 — 196.5 vacant

provincial RCMP positions.

My question, just to follow up with that: can the minister explain why we currently

have just shy of 200 vacant provincial policing positions that are funded by taxpayers,

and there’s nobody in those positions? If the minister can just explain how that works.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : We do not pay for direct costs related to vacancies, so we are only paying for positions

that are filled, not those that are unfilled.

Macklin McCall : If we are only paying for the positions that are filled, but there are just shy of

200 funded positions remaining vacant, I assume that those vacancies still exist,

but the funds are then returned back to the province, or the funds are not provided

to the RCMP for that vacant position until it’s filled. Is that correct?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : I think the answer here relates to some of our previous discussion around that prescribed

delegation, the fixed amounts. Policing priorities are managed within the delegation,

within the fixed amount.

The vacancy that I referred to, as of January 1, 2026, reflects a moment in time.

Vacancies do fluctuate, of course, over time. Through our ongoing superintendence,

we prioritize and ensure that resources are used strategically, that we’re monitoring

the use of resources.

So funds aren’t returned per se, but they are then managed within the delegation,

according to priorities and as part of that ongoing superintendence work that the

province carries out.

Macklin McCall : What is the total cost of overtime associated with staffing shortages?

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

Overtime is something that is managed by the RCMP. Determinations around overtime

are made at the district level, at the detachment level. The province’s role is really

one of superintendence, so ensuring that authorized positions are filled.

We hear of challenges, of course, related to recruitment and retention, and that has

really driven the province’s work to bolster training opportunities to meet the needs

of communities across the province.

Macklin McCall : I have a couple of different avenues I could go with questions with that. A couple

of things here, but I’ll try to maybe put them together so it flows a little easier.

[3:40 p.m.]

Let’s go back, before I go on to my next question. The minister has explained the

delegates. I’ve found out that that’s not talking about people; we’re talking about

a budget that the RCMP have to operate within.

Now, I just want to be certain with something, in how that would work and with some

of the past answers that the minister has provided. So what I’m hearing and what I’m

understanding is that the delegates that the minister is referring to…. I’m under

the assumption that that’s the total operating cost that the RCMP has to stay within

for all provincial policing in British Columbia. That’s the number — let me know if

I’m incorrect in this, but that’s what I believe the minister is referring to — that

the RCMP must stay within.

If that is the case, my question for that would be…. Look at an unforeseen circumstance,

like wildfires that take off in a detachment area. That detachment would be kind of

overrun in terms of cost and needing resources brought in and all the things that

would go down in terms of responding to that emergency, and that would come out of

the operating funds for that detachment in that community.

But if the minister is referring to the delegates, as she refers to, that are the

total operating budget for the RCMP that they must stay within, how does that break

up the total number into detachment by detachment, in terms of what they’re getting

of that? And, at the detachment level, their requirement to stay within, not going into overruns

and these types of things?

I think that the answers, perhaps, that the minister was providing were general, broad, for the entire provincial RCMP. I want to just go back to local detachment level

because, obviously, a major city policed by the Mounties in the Lower Mainland is

not going to be the same budget as a five-man provincial detachment in north B.C.

I’m just hoping maybe if the minister can explain that process, if she is referring

to the total RCMP’s operating budget for the provincial police, and then how that

would break down into detachment by detachment across British Columbia. If there’d

just be some clarity on that, appreciate it. Thank you.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thanks to the member opposite for the question. Really, in response to the first part

of the question, the answer is yes. The delegation, really, is the amount that the

RCMP has to work with for provincial policing.

In the event of any extraordinary circumstances and if additional resources are required,

then that would be something that the province would be responsible for. But on the

local level, for communities over 5,000 with their agreements for RCMP policing, it’s

a similar relationship. Anything beyond the delegation would be managed and negotiated

between the municipality and the RCMP.

Ultimately, though, the RCMP will use the delegation first and foremost before pulling

any additional resources in, in consultation with the province or the municipality.

I would emphasize, and this is a point I’ve tried to underscore throughout, that this

relationship is one that is really at the heart of the ministry’s work around superintendents.

So there is forecasting done. There is active monitoring done. This work is done on

an ongoing basis to really work to ensure that there are appropriate resources to

cover policing costs that reflect the emerging needs of communities.

Macklin McCall : Thank you, Minister.

Now, I have quite a few more questions on policing, but I’m running out of time, so

I’ll transition over to Coroners Service death investigations.

Should I just read my question or wait until your team is…?

Interjection.

Macklin McCall : Yeah, okay. Chair, through you to the minister, regarding this budget vote: how does the 2026 allocation ensure investigation timelines are not further delayed

with respect to Coroners Service?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : The budget this year compared to last year is stable for the B.C. Coroners Service.

We did see uplifts in the budget, in the 2024 and 2025 budgets, that did allow for

an increase in the number of coroners from 32 back in 2021 to 52 currently. That enables

the coroner to carry out the important work of investigating reported deaths. This

is work that takes place in consultation with a number of stakeholders, including

police, RCMP, families and other partners as well.

Macklin McCall : My question for the minister…. Prior-year reporting has identified delays in completion

of death investigations in certain regions. Regarding this budget vote, what specific

capacity increases are funded in 2026 to address this backlog?

Hon. Nina Krieger : I am wondering if I can request a brief recess and then respond to the question after

this break.

The Chair : Sure. We’ll take a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I’ll call the Committee of Supply back to order. We’ll continue estimates for

the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thank you to the member opposite for the question around backlogs to the Coroners

Service.

As I noted, the budget for this year is stable, but as a result of previous-year budget

investments, we’ve been able to increase capacity of the Coroners Service and make

some significant improvement in terms of the investigations.

We had 9,121 open

section 16 investigations at March 31 of 2026. This is a significant

improvement from open cases we had at the end of the previous fiscal year, which were

11,752.

This is, I think, progress in the right direction. We do have performance measures

in the ministry that indicate a median time for concluding investigations. Right now

that baseline is nine months, and we are moving forward to decrease that, in the years

ahead, to eight months.

Macklin McCall : I’ll try to be quick to get in, perhaps, two more questions here.

Rural and remote death investigation response times have historically exceeded urban

timelines. Regarding this budget’s vote, how does the 2026 budget address geographic

service inequities?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Coroners’ investigations that take place in rural and remote communities rely on community

coroners. We have been aware of issues related to the compensation of community coroners,

which we have been working on to address and recognize that this is a priority for

the province.

Macklin McCall : Drug toxicity deaths continue to represent a significant portion of current coroner

workload.

My question: regarding this budget vote, what dedicated funding exists in 2026 to

address this investigative burden?

Hon. Nina Krieger : Certainly, the impacts of the toxic drug crisis are felt in communities and by people

across the province. In terms of the number of toxic drug–related deaths, the number

in the last year is 1,850, which is trending down from a higher level of just over

2,200.

[4:15 p.m.]

The Coroners Service has been really redoubling its efforts to provide toxicology

services in a timely manner in order to identify and investigate toxic drug–related

deaths and really reflecting the data, providing the data to relevant health authorities

to do their appropriate work with this data.

Just to point out that there is a decrease to those numbers, but this remains a very

serious public health crisis for the province and is certainly prioritized in terms

of the toxicology services that are provided.

Macklin McCall : My next question to the minister. Overdose-related deaths continue to place sustained

pressure on investigative services. Why is there no dedicated surge capacity funding

in 2026?

Hon. Nina Krieger : As I noted, previous budgets included investments that increased capacity of the Coroners

Service. Certainly, monitoring, tracking and reporting on the achievements and the

progress of the work in relation to service commitments is something that the ministry

undertakes on an ongoing basis. We continue to monitor any patterns and changes.

As I noted, there isn’t, at the moment, an increase in the number of toxic drug–related

deaths, but that is certainly something that we are monitoring with an eye to being

able to respond to this really priority area for the province, given that the toxic

drug crisis continues to have a devastating impact on communities, on families across

the province.

Macklin McCall : Complex multi-factor death investigations have increased in frequency. My question

to the minister: how does 2026 funding reflect this increased complexity?

[4:20 p.m.]

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

Motion approved.

The Chair : Committee of Supply is adjourned.

The committee rose at 4:21 p.m.

The House resumed at 4:21 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore : Committee of Supply,

Section B, reports progress of the estimates of the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat : Committee of Supply,

Section C, reports resolution and completion of estimates of

the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 4:22 p.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General

(continued)

The Chair : I call the Committee of Supply to order.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 (continued) .

Elenore Sturko : I would like to ask questions about police services. If you need to take a five-minute

recess to get the other people back….

The Chair : Minister, do you want to reply?

Hon. Nina Krieger : If I could just maybe provide a brief answer to the member opposite’s question around

the B.C. Coroners Service…. Really, we’ve noted that the budget this year is stable,

and the Coroners Service uses its funds to identify and triage the investigations

of deaths that relate to complex needs and situations. That is part of the ongoing

work of the ministry to deploy its resources strategically and effectively. That is

done as a matter of course by the Coroners Service.

[4:25 p.m.]

Elenore Sturko : I think that the staff is back. We’re ready to go.

In 2025, Surrey had 133 extortions and 49 extortion-related shootings, for 88 unique

victims in the City of Surrey.

Does the minister know how many extortions…? How is it that they are filed? Are those

133 unique calls? Or is that the same victim they’re counting 133 extortions for?

So 133 extortions — is every new call considered a new extortion, and why are they

not having this calculated as one extortion with multiple contacts?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : The numbers that the member is referring to, I believe, are the numbers of the Surrey

police service, in a recent media release, highlighting that extortion violence has

declined over recent months. The Surrey police stats showed that there were 133 reported

extortions with 88 victims, and 37 of these victims are repeat victims. They have

not provided more granular figures than that in their reporting.

We know that extortions are crimes that straddle multiple jurisdictions. So that really

underscores the importance of the province’s work, through the B.C. extortion task

force, to work not only with SPS but with other police of jurisdiction to aim for,

really, consistency in terms of the numbers that are being reported.

Elenore Sturko : I thank the minister for the response.

So 88 victims in 2025 in Surrey, 37 of those victims targeted more than once — presumably by the same group, maybe

by another group that didn’t know they were already under threat. But this year, 2026:

98 extortions as of May 11, 16 extortion-related shootings, two arsons. Are the 98

extortions 98 times that some type of threat was made — 98 victims?

One of the concerns that I have is that there is a high level of fear in the community,

I would say, especially within the South Asian community. We’ve already had a ricochet

that shot someone, a ricochet in their face. We had someone who was shot in their

bed. So of course the level of fear is high.

But if we’re really talking about 88 extortions with, in 37 cases in 2025, multiple

contacts…. Granted, I could be wrong. Like I said, of those 88 victims, 37 with multiple,

it could be different groups acting independently, which would be also a different

scenario. But saying that we have 133 extortions, if we really only have 88 open investigations

with multiple contacts, is that actually increasing the public’s amount of fear? It

makes it actually seem like there is a larger victim group than there possibly is.

That’s not to downplay the victimization. It’s not to downplay the risk that is associated

with these ongoing extortion threats and, of course, the associated shootings in this

year, also including some arsons.

But for 2026, are there 98 victim groups for Surrey? Or are these 98 WhatsApp threats?

Are they 98 different contacts? Are there 98 people receiving mailout letters? I think

that there is some degree of inaccuracy in terms of what the public understands the

threat to be and the numbers that have been reported to the public.

Can the minister please provide some clarity on that?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : My thanks to the member for the question, which really gets to the heart of a concern

that I take exceptionally seriously as Minister of Public Safety — not only the actual

safety of people but that perception of safety as well.

We know that one threat, one shooting that affects a family or a business is one too

many. Certainly, with the reporting on the overall figures that have come out of the

Surrey police service, for instance, that understandably does cause real concerns

and fear among community.

One approach that the province has really refined as we’ve been meeting the challenge

related to the extortion crisis and its impact on communities has been to improve

the communications between police and community. We know that police are working exceptionally

hard, very diligently, on the investigations that are, in many cases, multi-jurisdictional.

That work is represented in the work of the B.C. extortion task force to identify

perpetrators and hold them to account. The communications about the work to a community

that is fearful is something that we really, as a province, wanted to prioritize.

That was behind our decision to stand up a Community Advisory Group on Extortion, chaired by Paul Dadwal, a former member of the RCMP who has worked extensively on combatting gang violence.

It includes a number of members of the law enforcement community but also the business

community.

The real mandate of that committee has been to interact with the community — wherever

they are, within various groups, organizations, on a one-on-one basis — to provide

fact-based updates about investigations related to extortion and also to bring the

community’s questions and concerns directly back to police.

[4:40 p.m.]

We had a chance to present a virtual webinar, an update on the community advisory

group’s work, last week, I believe. That featured a deputy commander of the RCMP, chiefs of the Surrey, Delta and Abbotsford police, and I think it was

a really important opportunity for members of the public to hear directly from those law enforcement leaders. All of them spoke about the importance of the coordinated approach that they have

and we have been taking, and also that that sustained work is leading to results I

think we all want to see in community, in that the extortion acts of violence are now on a downward trend in recent months.

And just today there were two separate news releases that went out, one from the Abbotsford

police department and the other from the Surrey police service, related to separate

investigations into a 22-year-old man who’s been charged with a number of Criminal

Code offences that took place in Surrey and Abbotsford at the end of last year.

And this really, again, underscores that the work continues, that it must transcend jurisdictions,

that we have to be collaborative and to not let our foot off the gas in terms of providing the supports to police that they

need, and also to encourage really proactive and accurate communication between police

and members of the public.

Elenore Sturko : Thanks to the minister for the response.

We know that there is a provincial extortion task force, but also multiple police

jurisdictions have stood up their own extortion task forces. Can the minister please

explain what the criteria is for an extortion file to be taken up by the provincial

task force and how many files are currently sitting with the task force?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thanks to the member for the question. There is ongoing coordination between the extortion

task force and police of jurisdiction. Everyone is meeting on a weekly basis to review all files. At this point, there

is really critical triaging work that takes place to determine what the task force takes on.

Those would include incidents that are believed to be linked to other incidents and,

also, incidents that are multi-jurisdictional in nature.

The exact case number of files with the extortion task force fluctuates. It’s, I believe,

in the low 30s right now. But I think, really, what’s important is that there is ongoing communication between the task force and

all police of jurisdiction — very close coordination, ongoing triaging, and really with an eye to the task force taking on those cases that are linked, potentially,

and multi-jurisdictional.

Elenore Sturko : Thank you very much for the response.

I guess here’s one of the concerns that I have, beyond the fact that I only have five

minutes left. My concern is that…. We’re undergoing the police transition. It’s already

a huge strain on SPS. It was a strain on the Surrey RCMP, now SPOSU who is still helping police in the city.

As concerns started rising, the number of extortions escalating, the number of shootings,

the public outcry growing, the answer was setting up the task force. That was one

of the answers. One of the other answers was that we would have a surge capacity of services from the RCMP to come and assist us.

I’m going to lump some of this together, but first of all, what surge forces were ever announced that didn’t already serve the city of Surrey? PDS already served

Surrey. CFSEU already served Surrey. We already had IHIT. We already had multiple

others of these units and capacity that already was part of Surrey.

In fact, one of the things that is very bothersome to residents of Surrey is the fact

that we’ve had our gang enforcement team disbanded. I know the chief has said he would bring it back in June, but we’ve had,

I think, nine homicides related to gang activity, including the death of a 16-year-old

and an 18-year-old just a week ago.

I’ll remind this House that one of the reasons that the transition was advocated for was because we had

two teenagers shot and killed in South Surrey related to drug activity, gang activity.

We had 1,000 people show up on the plaza of our city hall.

One of the things that we were told as Surrey residents was: “If you would get your

own municipal force, this would go away.” We would have a much better outcome because

we’d have our own local boots on the ground, our own Surrey people working to fight

gangs.

Now, for the past few months, we haven’t even had our own gang enforcement team. And

I know that we’ll be told, “Well, don’t worry. CFSEU is there,” but we had CFSEU before

the transition. We had two gang enforcement teams, and it does make a difference.

When it comes to the extortions, one of the things that our chief has said was that

he had to pull members from the gang team to not only go to the new D4 transition

area into my riding of Cloverdale but he also has to put them on the extortion task force because they have so many

extortions that the provincial team is not taking.

I have also been reliably informed that they’re down to about two members in domestic

violence. That’s a provincial priority. We have femicides. We have women getting murdered at horrific rates in British Columbia.

The fact that in British Columbia’s second-biggest, soon-to-be-largest city we would have a domestic violence unit with two people in it…. That is pretty wild, especially when in November I was at

the town hall and I heard the promises by the government and by the provincial RCMP

that we would have a surge capacity to help us with our extortions and that we would

have a surge capacity to take on extortions so that our local SPS would be able to

successfully do the police transition.

But I don’t think it’s successful when the police force is being stretched so thin

that, in a city with a historically horrendous gang problem, we would be disbanding for

any amount of time the gang enforcement team.

[4:50 p.m.]

So can the minister please provide some clarity as to why it is that we are saddled

with so many of these extortions, to the extent we’ve had to strip away other vital

services, when there is a provincial task force that’s been assigned?

Hon. Nina Krieger : My thanks to the member opposite for the question. I really appreciate her advocacy

for her community and the perspective she’s offered in terms of the profound loss

of the two young people and the resonance that this has, given the long-standing gang

conflict that has impacted Surrey. Truly, my thoughts are with the victims and their

families.

I had a chance last week to be briefed by commanders of the integrated homicide investigation

team and also the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit who assured me that they

are doing everything possible to find those responsible and to bring them to justice.

Now, the decision to temporarily reassign members of the SPS gang unit back in January

was an operational one, and these are decisions made by SPS. These operational decisions

are made by police for a number of reasons.

[4:55 p.m.]

I understand that Chief Lipinski has decided that, with the success of combined efforts

between the B.C. extortion task force and the SPS in reducing the extortion-related

violence in Surrey, he does intend to redeploy the gang unit members back to their

regular duties. And as I noted, decisions like these are made as part of policing

operations to respond to emerging issues, and the RCMP continues, throughout the Surrey

transition, to provide temporary and really critical transitional support to the SPS

as it moves through the transition.

And the provincial gang unit, CFSEU, has been really actively engaged in Surrey. I

know the member opposite noted that CFSEU was always present. But what we’ve really

worked on is much closer coordination and, really, much more engagement, for instance,

of CFSEU in the work of the task force — in terms of the numbers of CFSEU representatives

that are participating in the task force, also in terms of the number of Canada Border Service Agency representatives on the task force.

Those numbers have grown and contributed very significantly to the work of the task

force.

That work is both visible to community but also takes the form of investigative supports,

surveillance work — work that is maybe not boots on the ground within community but

really critical to the investigations and the successes that we’re seeing.

We’ve also had an opportunity, of course, to advocate on a continued basis for federal

resources, as well, to combat extortion in our communities. And that is a commitment

that we maintain, despite the downward trend, ensuring that we’re working with all

levels of government, with all levels of police to meet the challenge of this moment

and ensure that police have the tools that they need to combat extortion while also

addressing other public safety priorities in their communities.

Elenore Sturko : This one, last one…. Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

One of the things that I heard the minister say, and I also heard her talk about this

in another answer with one of my colleagues, and it’s about the operational decisions

that are made by the other detachment commanders or the operational decisions that

are made, in this case, in Surrey by our police chief, Chief Lipinski.

When it came to the Cloverdale transition, Chief Lipinski had said that he did not

feel that there were enough officers to undertake that transition on April 1. And

we now know that, as a result of not having the number of individuals that the chief

felt was necessary to undertake that, our gang enforcement team got stripped back.

We know that other units also have been stripped back, including domestic violence.

So the minister can stand up in one instance and say: “These are all operational decisions.

If the chief wants to get rid of the gang enforcement team, well, that’s up to him.”

But the ministry actually told the chief that he had to go ahead with the transition

to D4 even though he said he wasn’t ready and that they didn’t have enough people.

But it was the ministry that took that operational decision away, took it into the

ministry’s hands, said that they did a review and now we are going to be having the

next phase of the transition into D2. And from what I understand, there are already

concerns that there aren’t enough new members or experienced officers.

And I should note that if we keep on recruiting the way that we are in Surrey right

now, we’ll have 76 percent of our SPS that will be under two years of service by the end of 2027. Three quarters

of all the police in Surrey will have under two years of service. I don’t know if

people know this but policing is a job of mentorship, and you need experience in order

to get the best out of your force, and when three quarters of them only have two years

of service, it’s a concern.

[5:00 p.m.]

So when the chief is telling us that his operational decision is that he doesn’t want

to accelerate or to go at this pace…. April 1 was a push. We had to strip away valuable

units. Now D2 is coming up. He’s worried.

So why is it that when it comes to an operational decision that the minister doesn’t

want to take blame for — like stripping away our gang enforcement team, while two

teens get shot dead in Surrey — that was the chief’s operational decision? But when

it comes to him deciding what’s safe for the transition to go ahead, that’s not his

decision. That gets to be made by the director of police services.

Can the minister please explain what criteria the minister used to make that decision

that there were enough members to go ahead, knowing now that we’ve had our gang enforcement

team stripped down? Other units have been stripped away, other things that citizens

of Surrey were promised, because we’re paying more. Whether it’s coming in our municipal

taxes, which will go up, or whether it’s the $250 million out of provincial coffers

that have gone to supplement the city of Surrey for its police service, we are paying

more.

The government, in not allowing our chief to make his own operational decision about

the pace of this transition, is giving us less for more. So can the minister explain

the criteria that she used to determine that it was okay to go ahead with the transition

to D4, what it will be for D2, and whether or not she thinks it’s acceptable? How

does she justify stripping away those valuable resources and then just saying: “Don’t

worry, that was just an operational decision by the chief”?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger : Thanks to the member for the question. I know the member opposite knows, and we all

know, that this transition between the RCMP to the SPS represents the largest and

most complex police transition in our country’s history. The province’s role is really

one of superintendence and for providing oversight as the transition continues.

For each geographic or functional responsibility that the Surrey Police Service takes

over, the director of police services with the ministry has to be satisfied that the

SPS has met the requirements for doing so. So this superintendence is very active,

is ongoing.

In the case of the district of Cloverdale takeover, the director was engaged by both

the SPS and the RCMP to provide a decision and direction on the timing and scale of

SPS takeover of the district. The director received and reviewed information from

the RCMP regarding its views on the transition progression and engaged with the RCMP

commanding officer on this issue.

The director also engaged extensively with SPS senior executive and received detailed

planning materials and options related to the district 4 takeover. It was on this

basis of carefully reviewing and considering all the material, all of the information

exchanged, that the director made the determination that the SPS could take over responsibility

for district 4 on the 1st of April of this year with, crucially, ongoing support from

the RCMP.

I think it’s important to note here, as I’ve endeavoured to throughout the estimates

discussion, that our approach to supporting police and the critical work that they

do in communities has been guided by the need to be responsive to the needs of community,

very coordinated in our efforts, responsive to emerging trends and also very sustained

in our efforts as well.

When it comes to dealing with…. Whether it’s extortion or broader organized crime and gang violence, the province continues

to work with all levels of government, all levels of law enforcement in ensuring that

police are adequately resourced to maintain public safety in communities throughout

B.C.

The Chair : Hearing no further questions, I’ll ask if the minister has closing remarks.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hearing no further questions, I will now call vote 42.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $1,085,591,000 — approved.

Hon. Nina Krieger : I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 5:10 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:11 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Mable Elmore : Committee of Supply,

Section B, reports resolution and completion of the estimates

of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I call continued second reading on Bill 20.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

(continued)

Ward Stamer : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what

I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance

concerns facing this Legislature today.

At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial

boundaries tied to this treaty process. Second, the growing legal and political consequences

arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA.

Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. This is

where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province.

UNDRIP was never originally designed to function as an authoritative governing framework for provincial constitutional law in British Columbia. It was

not written as a detailed, operational blueprint for resource management in B.C. It

was not drafted as a binding administrative manual for provincial permitting systems.

It was not designed as a constitutional replacement for the democratic institution

of Canadian provinces. It was certainly not written to resolve the extraordinary,

complex realities of overlapping territorial claims between First Nations in British

Columbia.

UNDRIP emerged as a broad, aspirational, international declaration intended to establish

human rights principles and standards regarding Indigenous Peoples globally. Globally.

That distinction matters, because international declarations are often intentionally

broad and aspirational in language. They are meant to establish moral principles and

objectives, not precise operational legal mechanisms. There is a significant difference

between aspirational declarations and an authoritative domestic governance framework.

Unfortunately, this government increasingly treats UNDRIP not as a guiding principle

but as an evolving authoritative reference point for provincial decision-making. That

shift carries enormous implications, and British Columbians deserve honesty about

those implications.

[5:15 p.m.]

One of the greatest dangers in governance occurs when broad, aspirational language

is converted into domestic law without clear operational boundaries. What sounds straightforward

politically often becomes deeply complicated legally. Words like “consent,” “shared

decision-making” and “co-governance” may sound collaborative in speeches and press

conferences, but once embedded into legal frameworks, those concepts carry significant

constitutional and jurisdictional consequences. Government has not provided sufficient

clarity regarding where those consequences ultimately lead.

The B.C. Conservatives believe in meaningful consultation and respectful relationships

with our Indigenous communities. But we also believe democratic authority in British

Columbia must remain clear, accountable and rooted in elected institutions answerable

to our public. That principle matters enormously, because democratic accountability

is one of the foundational pillars of responsible government in Canada.

Citizens elect representatives, representatives debate laws publicly, and governments

answer to the voters. Authority ultimately flows through these democratic institutions,

and the accountability to all citizens is equally applied. But many British Columbians

increasingly fear that DRIPA is slowly eroding the clarity of that authority, not

through a single dramatic constitutional amendment; not through open constitutional

negotiations; not incrementally, through policy evolution, legal

interpretation and

expanding government or governance expectations.

This is precisely why many citizens feel uneasy in this province today, because they

sense fundamental changes occurring, but they are not receiving clear explanations

regarding the final destination of any of those changes. When government avoids defining

boundaries clearly, uncertainty inevitably grows.

One of the most concerning aspects of DRIPA is that government often refuses to clearly

define the limits of provincial authority moving forward. Will the province always

retain final decision-making authority and under what circumstances? Can the provincial

decisions proceed without consensus? If free, prior and informed consent is not achieved,

what happens then? Can projects move forward? Can they be delayed indefinitely? Can

different nations reach different conclusions regarding the same territory? What happens

when overlapping claims exist?

This government repeatedly avoids giving precise answers to these specific questions.

That is deeply concerning, because laws function through specifics, not slogans. The

B.C. Conservatives believe that elected governments cannot surrender clarity of authority

without weakening public accountability itself. If responsibility becomes undefined,

accountability becomes undefined. When accountability becomes undefined, public trust

is weakened.

Citizens no longer know who ultimately governs in this province. B.C. already faces

serious challenges regarding public confidence in our institutions. People are frustrated

by the bureaucracy. They’re frustrated by permitting delays. They’re frustrated by

the regulatory uncertainty, with changes happening almost daily. They’re frustrated

by the government that increasingly seems unable to make timely decisions on major

projects and economic opportunities.

DRIPA risks worsening that uncertainty further if operational governance structures

remain undefined. One of the core concerns many British Columbians….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a minute.

Recognizing the Minister of Indigenous Relations.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I just wonder if the Speaker might draw the member’s attention to the bill, which

is the K’ómoks Treaty Act. We’re not currently in discussion around DRIPA, which he spent a bunch of time discussing.

That’s not currently in the legislation or what we’re debating.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Minister.

To the bill, Member.

Ward Stamer : Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I believe, on page 4, it says that

whereas the K’ómoks Treaty advances the objectives of the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous Peoples…. I think I said very clearly at the beginning of this, and I’ll

continue to say that as we go through this process, possibly for the enlightenment

of the minister concerned, that this is exactly what we’re talking about.

Now, government members may reject this concern publicly, but actions matter more

than rhetoric. Increasingly, we see governments hesitant to act decisively in areas

traditionally understood as provincial jurisdiction, because they fear legal uncertainty

surrounding consent frameworks and shared governance obligations.

That has consequences, real consequences. These are consequences for resource development,

consequences for infrastructure, consequences for energy projects, consequences for

forest operations and, of course, consequences for rural and urban employment and,

again, confidence in real investment across British Columbia.

Provincial governments exist to govern, and governing requires the ability to make

clear decisions under constitutionally defined authority. That does not mean ignoring

consultation of Indigenous rights. Far from it. But it does mean governments must

maintain clarity regarding who ultimately holds lawful authority to act and under

what conditions.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Increasingly, many British Columbians feel that clarity is disappearing.

Another issue rarely discussed openly enough is how DRIPA and UNDRIP may fundamentally

alter the relationship between provincial governments and the courts, because whenever

legislation contains broad, undefined principles, courts inevitably become central

interpreters of political intent. That means judges increasingly define operational

governance boundaries rather than elected legislators themselves.

Once courts begin establishing precedent, governments may find provincial authority

constrained in ways never fully debated publicly beforehand. That should concern every

legislator in this House regardless of the political affiliation, because constitutional

evolution through litigation rather than democratic clarity weakens public understanding

and accountability.

B.C. Conservatives believe major governance transformation should occur transparently

and democratically, not incrementally through non-disclosure agreements. Unfortunately,

many British Columbians feel DRIPA and UNDRIP have introduced precisely that uncertainty.

Let us remember that UNDRIP itself was intentionally broad because it was meant to

apply globally across vastly different legal systems and political realities, yet

it’s on page 3 or 4 of the treaty. Obviously, this government thinks it’s important

enough to put that into this treaty, into a legally binding document, when that’s

not what UNDRIP was designed to do in the first place.

Countries around the world have entirely different constitutional frameworks, entirely

different land ownership systems and entirely different relationships with Indigenous

populations. That means UNDRIP was drafted as a high-level statement of principles,

not a price or constitutional code. Yet, increasingly, this government treats it as

though it was an authoritative legal instruction manual, obviously, because that’s

why they included it for the first time in a treaty, in this one, Bill 20.

[5:25 p.m.]

That creates enormous problems, because aspirational declarations leave tremendous

room for

interpretation —

interpretation by governments,

interpretation by activists,

interpretation by bureaucracies,

interpretation by courts. And once

interpretation

becomes expansive, authority boundaries become unclear.

British Columbia cannot function effectively under perpetual uncertainty regarding

governance authority. Business cannot invest confidently under this uncertainty. Communities

cannot plan confidently under uncertainty. Workers cannot build stable futures under

uncertainty. And Indigenous communities themselves cannot achieve long-term economic

success under uncertainty either. Everyone suffers when government frameworks become unclear.

This debate is not about whether Indigenous communities deserve respect, because of

course they do. It’s not about whether reconciliation matters, because of course it

does. The issue is whether this government is creating durable, clear and accountable

governance systems or whether it’s creating overlapping structures that ultimately

weaken certainty for everyone involved.

Nowhere is this more visible than the overlapping territorial disputes connected to

Bill 20 itself. The government claims that this treaty creates certainty. But how

can certainty exist when overlapping claims remain unsolved? How can certainty exist

when neighbouring nations continue raising concerns regarding territorial boundaries?

How can certainties exist when governance expectations themselves remain unclear under

DRIPA and UNDRIP.

Unresolved overlaps combined with expanded shared governance expectations create the

exact opposite of certainty, because they create layers of uncertainty. These layers

of uncertainty lead directly to litigation, project paralysis and prolonged conflict.

The B.C. Conservatives believe reconciliation should reduce conflict, not institutionalize

future disputes through unresolved agreements and concerns, yet this government appears

willing to move forward despite these unresolved concerns.

Now, one of the troubling aspects is quickly dismissed, and that’s through local governance

they are often accused of fearmongering. If neighbouring First Nations raise concern

about overlap, government members downplay those concerns.

Whether one agrees with that concern or not, dismissing it outright is unwise because

people deserve answers, and they deserve clarity. They deserve governments willing

to explain how overlapping governance structures will function in practice. Instead,

too often, they receive vague assurances rather than detailed explanations. That approach

only fuels uncertainty.

Again, with these treaties, and this one specifically, local governments also deserve

clarity. Municipal and regional districts need to understand how overlapping jurisdictions

will affect planning decisions, infrastructure approvals, service delivery, emergency

management and taxation structures. And many First Nation governments have demanded

a pause in this treaty process.

If opposition members ask for more transparency, we’re accused of standing against

reconciliation. That approach weakens our public trust because democracy requires

a debate, and healthy democracies welcome scrutiny. Legislation with constitutional

impacts deserves the highest level of public examination possible.

The consultation is supposed to be meaningful, and that word, “meaningful,” matters.

But it doesn’t mean informing people after the decisions have already been made.

[5:30 p.m.]

We’ve been told that this treaty has been 30 years in the making, multigenerational.

Members on this side of the House and most of the public got to see it a mere two

weeks ago, and yet this government would believe that it’s important that not even

within two weeks from today, we should be able to go through the entire process of

this treaty and the implications of this treaty and be able to pass it by May 28.

Now, I don’t know what the rush is, but it seems like this government is in an awful

hurry to be able to make these treaties go through, even though it has taken them

30 years to get through this process when we’ve already had other treaties ratified

in this province. For some unknown reason, they’re in a big hurry to ram this one

down in two weeks and then have questions from the minister asking: “What does this have in relevance to DRIPA and UNDRIP?” Well, the relevance is…. Why did they put it in this legal document in the first place?

As we talked about, meaningful consultation isn’t after the fact. It doesn’t necessarily

revolve around non-disclosure agreements. It certainly doesn’t instil a confidence

in our public and the process. And as I mentioned earlier, there are many First Nation

organizations and governments that would like us to pause this process. I’ll be able

to talk about that a little bit later.

Meaningful consultation does not mean pushing forward despite unresolved objections

from those affected parties, yet many people involved in this process feel that’s

exactly what’s happened. They feel their concerns were acknowledged publicly but not

meaningfully addressed substantially. That creates frustration and distrust.

This government often speaks about partnership and inclusion, but inclusion means

hearing all voices, not just supportive ones. The reality is this. Neighbouring First

Nations with overlapping territorial interests are not outside observers. They are

directly affected stakeholders. Their concerns regarding territorial boundaries deserve

serious attention, not political management and not public relations language. It

deserves real attention.

If those disputes continue after this treaty passes, the consequences won’t disappear.

Instead, these disputes may intensify through litigation, regulatory conflicts and

competing consultation claims. That is exactly the kind of uncertainty British Columbia

should be trying to avoid.

These treaties should be bringing clarity. That should be the goal — clarity for Indigenous

communities, clarity for local governments, clarity for industry, clarity for our

residents and clarity for future generations.

But many British Columbians look at this agreement, and they see unresolved questions

rather than that clarity. They see unanswered concerns regarding overlapping boundaries.

They see concerns regarding future jurisdictional conflicts. They see a government

more focused on symbolism than practical implementation.

We must remember that treaties affect far more than the present moment. They shape

the future legal framework of this province. Every treaty establishes precedents and

expectations. Every governance arrangement becomes part of a broader, evolving landscape.

That’s why we must be cautious. Once agreements are ratified, reversing or correcting

mistakes becomes extraordinarily difficult. And if overlapping claims remain unresolved

now, they may become even harder to resolve later.

Another issue that cannot be ignored is the lack of broad public understanding surrounding

this treaty. Many residents in these affected regions still have basic questions regarding

governance implications, consultation requirements, land management, taxation implications

and jurisdictional authority. That tells us something important. It tells us that

the government has not done an adequate job explaining the agreement clearly to the

public.

[5:35 p.m.]

That is why delaying this legislation until the fall session remains so important.

Because additional time allows for additional scrutiny. It allows for additional legal

analysis; additional consultation with all affected members of the public, including our First Nation communities; additional opportunity to clarify governance, authorities and overlapping

concerns before these irreversible decisions are made.

Another important issue is economic competitiveness. B.C. is already struggling to

attract and retain investment compared to competing jurisdictions. Major resource

projects face years of delay. Permitting timelines are continually expanding. Forestry communities face ongoing instability. Mining investment is flowing

to other areas. And many business leaders openly cite regulatory unpredictability as a major concern.

Now, these treaties are supposed to be able to alleviate some of those concerns, but

that’s not what we’re seeing in the real time. What message are we sending when government

themselves appear uncertain regarding authoritative structures? What message are we

sending when approval systems become increasingly layered and undefined? What message

are we sending when unresolved territorial overlaps remain embedded within these treaty

frameworks?

Confidence matters in this province. Capital moves towards predictability. We’ve heard

that time and time again. Jobs move towards that predictability. Investment moves

towards that predictability. And now B.C. is perceived as a jurisdiction where governance authority is uncertain and approvals are endlessly vulnerable to overlapping disputes. Economic consequences will ultimately follow.

That’s what we’re seeing today. These treaties are supposed to be able to attain certainty,

yet with all the overlapping boundaries and the number of First Nation communities

that want us to pause this, we’re suggesting that that’s exactly what we should be

doing.

Now, some of the government members are saying that these claims are exaggerated.

Yet B.C. is already witnessing the consequences of this uncertainty in these uncertain

times. We’ve lost tens of thousands of jobs in the last couple of months directly

because of that uncertainty. Communities dependent on natural resources are struggling,

projects are delayed or abandoned, and again, investors are choosing other jurisdictions.

And workers are paying the price.

B.C. Conservatives believe reconciliation and prosperity should work together, and

Indigenous communities deserve those opportunities to strong economies and responsible

development. But prosperity requires governance systems that are stable, transparent

and predictable. Without that, opportunity weakens for everyone.

When we started talking about our democracy, we talked about the reason why we’re here in the Legislature: to be able to pass laws that can be interpreted the way they were originally designed

and not just interpreted by the courts. The uncertainty, as I mentioned earlier, with

implementing UNDRIP into a treaty where it was never designed to do that and then have an authoritarian

framework around something as broad as a declaration….

I think the public deserves to know how we are going to be able to overcome these

overlapping claims. The government says not to worry about it, that we’ll just be able to sign a new treaty and we’ll be

able to move forward.

[5:40 p.m.]

But I would suggest that the First Nations that are asking for a pause in this have

legitimate concerns on these overlapping boundaries. And they, as well as the people

of B.C., deserve clear explanations, not vague political reassurances.

People must be allowed to ask these questions. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we’re

offered the opportunity to speak. As legislators, we must be allowed to scrutinize

bills. Again, this is a treaty that, we’ve been told, has taken 30 years in the making,

yet in less than six weeks, it’s going to run through this entire process.

Governments must be willing to provide exact and precise answers. Delaying Bill 20

until the fall session will provide an opportunity for exactly the kind of scrutiny

that is needed — more time for legal experts, more time for constitutional scholars,

more time for public engagement, more time for neighbouring nations to continue discussions

surrounding these overlaps and more time for government itself to clarify how DRIPA

and UNDRIP interact with provincial authority operationally.

There’s nothing radical about asking for clarity before constitutional-level governance

changes become entrenched. That is responsible leadership. That is responsible democracy.

Frankly, future generations will judge whether we exercised sufficient caution at

this time.

Conservatives believe B.C. can pursue reconciliation while preserving democratic accountability

and constitutional clarity. These goals are not mutually exclusive. But achieving

them will require the government to define boundaries clearly rather than relying

on evolving ambiguity.

Unfortunately, too much of these discussions remain undefined. That’s why caution

matters. That’s why delaying Bill 20 until the fall session remains prudent and responsible.

Reconciliation is built on clarity, accountability, transparency and a broad confidence

in a far stronger chance of enduring success for generations. That’s important to

all of us.

Jeremy Valeriote : It’s a privilege to speak today to Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

I will be brief, and I will be echoing my colleague, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, and many others in expressing the importance of treaties and the treaty-making process.

As a province that has established and continues to establish itself in the absence

of negotiated processes with First Nations, treaties represent an avenue to right

that wrong.

I wish to convey my congratulations to the K’ómoks Nation on their arrival to this stage of the process, an incredibly delicate endeavour

that has spanned 30 years and undoubtedly many, many meetings, collaborations, agreements,

disagreements and resolutions. We do not take it lightly that this treaty legislation

is in front of the House, and we honour the legacy of labour that has brought it here.

We’ve also heard many perspectives in this House on this specific piece of legislation.

It’s clear that the environment and moment in time in which this bill has been introduced

has been, and is, complex.

As we all know, and it has been named multiple times during this process, there are

significant concerns in regard to this treaty act. These include concerns of overlap,

of economic development considerations and of non-derogation. These concerns and those

voicing them — and we would like to thank the Chiefs and leaders of the Wei Wai Kum

again for sharing their time and insight with us — have reminded us of the incredible

care, time and work that is required when passing treaty legislation through this

House.

It is also critical for many of us to remember that Indigenous Peoples in British

Columbia have developed and practised intercommunity negotiation and protocols for

far longer than the rest of us have even been here. Many of these practices were intentionally

disrupted, banned and even outlawed through colonial interference and legal orders.

It is important to remember this because we are placed in a very specific situation

in responding to this legislation as Members of the Legislative Assembly. As elected

officials, we’re not here to determine the quality or validity of the claims for or

against this treaty, nor are we here to control what treaty is or isn’t supposed to

be. We’re here to do our

part in ensuring that the self-determination of all First

Nations in B.C. is, at the very least, not impeded by the laws created and passed

in this House.

[5:45 p.m.]

Keeping this responsibility in mind, the comments in the House on this act have been

announcements and assertions, not dialogue. The second reading vote we have directly

in front of us is not whether this treaty passes through the Legislature but whether

we are willing to have a further conversation about it.

We want to be sure that the concerns are brought forward for the record and that this

legislation will, without a doubt, not impede the self-determination of any nation

impacted by its ratification. I believe we owe it to the decades of work, negotiation,

relationship-building and community effort that has gone into this treaty process

to take our time at this stage.

It is in the spirit of the democratic process that the Third Party supports this act

to move into the committee stage. We’ll be looking to the government to answer, in

detail, the hard questions that have been raised. It’s an opportunity to continue

the conversation, move this bill to committee and ensure the concerns raised by nations

regarding overlap in territory are fully responded to by government on the public

record.

There are clearly misunderstandings, fears and competing

interpretations circulating

publicly right now. Government has an opportunity at committee to provide clear, factual

responses and help build confidence in this treaty and in the treaty process more

broadly, at this important moment in our province, by approaching it constructively

and bringing in the appropriate experts to support them in providing those informed

responses to what has been raised.

Larry Neufeld : I’m here today to speak about Bill 20, and I think I can make comments that most,

if not all — certainly, I would think most, the vast majority — in this House would

agree with. I would say that without question, reconciliation matters, treaties matter,

and that without question, the recognition of Indigenous rights is not optional. That’s

section 35 of the constitution. Many would suggest, and I’m not saying that I would

disagree with it, that it’s the foundation of the future of the province and perhaps

even the country.

From a very pragmatic perspective, though, I would also suggest that supporting reconciliation

does not in any way suspend scrutiny, nor should it. In fact, I would say that it

demands the opposite. It requires that we examine both carefully and honestly whether

the mechanisms we are putting forward will actually achieve what those mechanisms

promise and what the future needs. That’s the responsibility that is before us today.

Certainly, we’re not trying to decide whether reconciliation is important. Again,

that has been established. What is important for us to determine, when we’re discussing

Bill 20, is whether the bill moves us closer to reconciliation or if it drives a wedge,

creates conflict and moves us away from that goal.

I would say that good intentions are not enough, certainly not in terms of legislation

of this magnitude. We’re not dealing with a short-term policy. As my colleague prior

stated, this work has been underway for 30 years, so it’s certainly not short-term

policy. We are dealing with agreements that will shape governance not only in the

province but that may even affect beyond those borders. We’re dealing with agreements

that will shape land use, affect economic opportunity and potentially affect legal

relationships for generations.

The question is not: do we support reconciliation? I’ve already stated that. The question

is: are we building that admirable goal on a foundation that will hold?

I believe that it’s important for Bill 20 to be understood as part of a wider transformation

tied to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. I know that that

raised some concerns from across the way, but bear with me, and I will attempt to

explain as to why I believe that’s important. The framework has, to date, introduced

shifts in how decisions are interpreted in this province. I don’t know that’s…. I’ll

maybe leave it right there.

[5:50 p.m.]

What have we observed? We have observed uncertainty. We have observed evolving

interpretations.

We have observed a lack of consistency in how principles are applied across sectors.

One might even suggest the government has even acknowledged this. I wouldn’t even

say “suggested.” It has been said in this House.

Now, rather than resolving those uncertainties within statute, Bill 20 proposes to

elevate similar concepts into constitutionally protected agreements. I think that

that’s something that’s exceedingly important for us to establish and discuss as part

of the debate process. It’s a significant escalation. This is moving toward constitutionally

protected agreements, and that is something that is at a magnitude that I don’t know

that everyone that has spoken to this has illustrated to the most effective manner

possible.

I would suggest that we need to pause and reflect on the difference between ordinary

legislation and treaties, represented by Bill 20 in this case. They are not compatible. Correction. I will correct myself and withdraw that word. They are not comparable.

If a statute produces unintended consequences, the Legislature can revisit it. Everyone

that’s in this place of honour is very aware of the mechanisms, or most of the mechanisms,

that are available to do that. We can amend it. We can fix it. However, when a treaty

is ratified, it becomes part of the constitutional architecture of Canada. This means

that it is far more difficult to change, its

interpretation is largely shaped through

courts, and its effects extend far beyond the control of any single government.

So we must ask: are we embedding clarity, or are we embedding uncertainty at the highest

level of law?

Bill 20 introduces a model that relies heavily on

interpretation over time, thereby

illustrating the risk of open-ended design. Some would describe this as flexibility. Others

would describe it as adaptability. There is another way to describe it: indeterminacy.

When key elements are not clearly defined at the outset, they do not disappear. They

simply shift into other arenas. They shift into courts, tribunals, arbitration processes

and prolonged negotiations. This is certainly not theoretical. That is exactly what

happens when agreements lack precision. Many here would agree that that is exactly

what we’ve seen for so many years.

The question could be asked: what are treaties supposed to do? I would suggest if

you ask ten different people, you might get ten almost slightly, if not even significantly,

different answers.

Historically, modern treaties in Canada have been designed to accomplish something

very specific. They are meant to settle questions, not extend them. They are meant

to define rights, they are meant to establish jurisdiction, and they are meant to

create certainty moving forward.

We have seen several examples of this approach. I would go further to say that these

examples are not entirely without challenge, but they do provide a level of predictability.

They allow governments to function. They allow communities to plan and economies to

operate. Some would suggest that Bill 20 moves in a different direction, from certainty to continuous

interpretation.

[5:55 p.m.]

It could be interpreted that instead of resolving key questions at the outset, the model

represented by Bill 20 anticipates ongoing

interpretation and potential ongoing change.

Instead of clearly delineating boundaries, it leaves space for those boundaries to

evolve. Instead of minimizing disputes, the risk represented by Bill 20 is relocating

those disputes. When disputes are relocated into systems that are slower, more complex

and less transparent, it would not be much of a surprise as to what we could expect

as an outcome.

Another critical issue is the process. I would suggest that reconciliation is not

only about agreements between governments; it is also about relationships between

nations. We are hearing legitimate concerns as we’re listening to different speakers.

We’re hearing about overlapping claims. We’re hearing about competing interests. We’re

hearing about insufficient engagement with neighbouring communities. Clearly, to me,

those concerns cannot and should not be brushed aside, because unresolved overlap

does not resolve itself following ratification. It only intensifies.

When agreements proceed without alignment, the consequences are certainly predictable

— legal challenges, fractured relationships and delays in implementation. Many would

suggest that that is not reconciliation; that, in fact, it is conflict deferred.

We also have a responsibility to consider the economic implications of this legislation,

Bill 20. In regions like northeast British Columbia, where I live, economic activity

is closely tied to natural resource development, infrastructure investment and long-term

regulatory certainty. Some of the statements that I’ve certainly made in this House

— and I intend to make many more — are that I don’t think many people fully appreciate

the economic engine to the province of British Columbia represented by northeast British

Columbia.

If we are not utilizing something like Bill 20 to ensure that certainty is provided,

then the concern lies as to whether that economic engine — and, ultimately, the province

— is successful financially.

Projects in these sectors are capital-intensive. That’s where I spent the majority

of my career, if not all of it. It’s clear from my experience and from everything

that I’ve been told through that experience that to be fully successful, these capital-intensive

projects require some very clear timelines, they require defined authorities, and

they require stable rules. The question is: does Bill 20 provide those three items?

Should those elements become unclear, investment decisions are potentially subject

to change. That change, should it ever occur, is certainly not because investors are

opposed to reconciliation but because uncertainty, without question, carries a cost.

As we’ve established in this place of honour, capital is mobile. Does Bill 20 provide

the certainty that is required by the investment market?

We have seen situations where opportunities in energy and resource development have

moved elsewhere, even when British Columbia has had a competitive advantage. I’ve

seen that on a daily basis where I live. It is challenging.

[6:00 p.m.]

The certainty, which…. Again, I’m questioning whether Bill 20 provides that certainty

to the billions of dollars of investment that we require in the northeast. I’m concerned

from that perspective as to whether or not the certainty is there for the billions

of dollars to be invested.

I recognize that that’s not where this bill is focused on geographically; however, it does set a precedent. I would go further to say that

we should not design frameworks that recreate conditions whereby we are challenging

the certainty that is required by investment.

I would clearly say that reconciliation cannot succeed in a vacuum. It requires public

understanding. Does Bill 20 provide that public understanding? People in the public

need to know what is being agreed to, how decisions will be made and how accountability

will be maintained.

Should that understanding be absent, support may become fragile. Does Bill 20 check

those two boxes and provide what is needed? In the absence of broad support, clearly,

progress becomes difficult to sustain. Transparency is not a procedural detail. It

is a requirement for long-term success.

One of the most important questions in this debate is, which is questionable as to

whether Bill 20 identifies it clearly…. The question would be: where does decision-making

authority ultimately reside?

In that case, again, attracting significant capital to this province that’s needed

to push forward on these incredibly important projects…. Does Bill 20 advance that

fundamental need?

If authority becomes increasingly distributed across courts, arbitration bodies and

evolving interpretive frameworks, then the role of this Legislature may change. Does

that provide certainty? Does the bill before us provide that certainty?

With a potential change comes a question of accountability. This House is accountable

to the people of British Columbia. Every one of us here at some point in the future,

should we choose to continue down this path, will be facing our electorate once more,

and we will be held accountable for the decisions that are made here.

I would suggest that many, if not the vast majority of the populace, would say that

that principle must remain intact, that principle of accountability. I would go further

to suggest that any shift in governance must be clearly understood and very clearly

justified.

In no way am I calling for an abandonment of progress. I’m making a call to strengthen

it. We can move forward, but we must do so carefully. One would suggest that the meaning

of moving forward carefully would be ensuring overlapping claims are addressed before

agreements are finalized, reinforcing clarity in treaty language and maintaining transparency

throughout the process. It means learning from agreements that have worked and avoiding

unnecessary departures from previously successful models. It also means prioritizing

durability over speed.

The decisions we make here will not be judged next year. They will not be judged during

the next election cycle. They will be judged decades from now.

[6:05 p.m.]

These decisions will be judged on whether they created clarity or confusion, stability

or uncertainty, trust or division. The question before us this afternoon is: does

Bill 20 represent those three points?

Reconciliation does deserve to succeed. Success is not guaranteed. It must be built.

And it must be built on a foundation that is clear, stable and understood by all parties

involved.

We remain committed to working constructively, to improving the framework and to ensuring

that reconciliation in British Columbia is not only advanced but sustained. This work

is too important to rush. Let us take the time to do it properly.

And with that, thank you very much.

Misty Van Popta : All right. I want to recognize that the minister is here today to listen. I’ve noticed,

actually, he’s been here a lot of these.

Deputy Speaker : Member, we don’t refer to the location of any of our members, please.

Misty Van Popta : Oh. Sorry, yes. Anyways, going back to who I’m referring to, I do want to recognize

presence here a lot, listening to these speeches and these debates. I think it’s valuable

to hear firsthand from as many different people, different perspectives from across

all party lines, with our members from the Greens, independents. This is a very important

topic, and so I do want to appreciate that he’s here. I’ve given lots of speeches

on different bills, and the ministers have not been in the chamber.

Deputy Speaker : Member, once again, we don’t refer to the location of our members, so if you could

please move on, that would be great.

Misty Van Popta : Oh. Sorry. Okay. Anyways, I understand what you’re trying to say now. I thought you meant names,

but yes.

This is actually a first for me, as you can tell, because it hasn’t been going well

so far. This is an unscripted speech for me. I generally am somebody who likes to

write things down and really put pen to paper on what I’m thinking about and how I

want it to come across.

And in this case, this particular topic is a tough one for me. It’s been something

And that has to do with First Nations issues, and it’s because I do actually care

quite a bit. It is something that is very, very complex. It contains a lot of history,

a lot of narrative with nuances. So I always want to be thoughtful in how I speak

to this particular topic, which is why I haven’t generally spoken to this topic.

It’s not that I don’t care. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion. But it’s because

I always want to make sure that the words that I say come across with a level of respect

and concern at the same time.

So bear with me as I mumble through a few procedural missteps. But it’s with that

that I do really want to dive into Bill 20, the treaty for the K’ómoks Nation, which is an important topic to be discussing today.

If I dive into what reconciliation is from my perspective, from the people that I

represent and their perspective…. It’s a long conversation.

Ultimately, as elected officials, what we’re here for today and every day is to make

sure that we’re governing for all in this province and that we’re also looking through

the lens of perspective, history. But ultimately, we have to look at everything that

we do in this chamber to the benefit of all British Columbia.

[6:10 p.m.]

And this particular legislation and this particular bill is directly in regards to

one portion of British Columbia, one distinct group, which is valued to be considered

and to have these conversations.

When it comes to reconciliation and how I’ve been thoughtfully sitting on that topic,

I look at perhaps some statistical kind of information in that out of the 5.7 million

British Columbians…. And British Columbians are everybody — First Nations, Métis, new immigrants, European descent, all sorts. We are a giant mixing pot of different

stories of how we became British Columbians. And when it comes to reconciliation,

we’re talking about 4 percent, 4 very important percent, of our population.

When it comes to reconciliation, there have to be conversations about what does that

tangibly look like? What does reconciliation mean? How do we arrive there? Is it ever

complete? These are just important questions to throw out there.

It doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily speaking from a place that this is hard fact.

What I’m standing here to say, I believe, is reconciliation. They’re questions that

I hear on the street. They’re questions in people’s frustrations. The narrative that

is out there right now is: when is reconciliation? What is that process? Is there…?

I’m very project oriented. That’s my background. So I always look at things as a beginning,

a middle and an end.

This is an important discussion to have, but it’s also a very important one. Reconciliation

is extremely important for this province. We can’t deny our past, but as we’re seeing

right now, without guidelines, without boundaries on what reconciliation is, it’s

gotten us into a bit of a quagmire with the legal system — different

interpretations

of what that means, whether it’s DRIPA, whether it’s mineral rights, all sorts of

different avenues or different pieces of the functioning of our province.

When we don’t have clear understanding of what reconciliation is, it can really create

a lot of uncertainty, and I think that that is a valid conversation.

When it comes to Bill 20, we’re talking about certainty, in theory, with a treaty

of what reconciliation looks like for K'ómoks. What is fair? When is reconciliation achieved in general? And I really have been

kind of taking back that personal piece for me, trying to dive through what reconciliation

is.

If we go into treaties and the history of treaties, treaties are extremely important.

They’re done worldwide, all over this world. Treaties, in one form or another, for

centuries and centuries have come into play. There are actually still — I did a little

bit of research — some ancient treaties in parts of this world that are still in existence.

I believe it’s in Portugal.

But there are only a handful of countries that are still creating modern treaties

— Canada being one, Australia, New Zealand, United States. And we’re running into,

perhaps, a different experience of treaty creations than a century ago or a couple

hundred years ago.

If we look through what treaties are meant to achieve, some have been peace treaties.

Others are meant for alliances — creating alliances, creating a partnership. Some

are for sovereignty. And when we look through the history of Canada, B.C. being a

little bit late to the table creating treaties, we’re looking at it from a different

perspective of treaty creation than, say, perhaps has happened in the past in other

parts of the world.

[6:15 p.m.]

I want to take this conversation back a little bit, especially when it comes to treaties

and reconciliation. I have a bit of a personal experience that has kind of shaped

why I have a deep respect for the conversation. That has everything to do with…. In

1985, the most influential teacher I ever had was my grade 4 teacher.

This is in the ‘80s, this conversation. I know. I’m dating myself. Back in the ‘80s,

it wasn’t a conversation. Reconciliation wasn’t a topic. Residential schools weren’t

a topic. But I had a teacher that every single day taught through the lens of the

First Nations perspective. This is just a public school in south Langley, a little

country school. She was quite a unique character, my teacher. I have been acutely

aware of the history — not a deep understanding, at the age of ten, of First Nations

within B.C. but at least a respect for the conversation.

Then even in the ‘90s, when I was in high school…. I don’t know why my experience

was different than a lot of people that I talked to, but this was two decades before

the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report came out. I had a profound

chapter

in my high school. I don’t even remember. I think it might have been socials or western

civilization class. We talked about residential schools even at that point, in the

‘90s, so I’ve always been acutely aware.

Then, when the report came out — I believe it was 2015, 2018, somewhere in there —

everybody was kind of flabbergasted. I was just like: “I don’t know why people didn’t

know this.” Anyways, that’s why, really, when I talk about this, I do it from a context

of always having a deep respect for the conversation.

In B.C. right now, we’re playing catch-up. This is work that has been going on for

a long time, and I understand that that process is there. When treaties are done right,

they offer surety and stability. Really, right now, in British Columbia, that is what

everybody is striving for and wanting.

We can’t deny it. How many days a week are we bringing it up in this chamber as a

topic of conversation? Economic surety. Court cases. Treaties are meant to be that

piece that adds goalposts around a topic of reconciliation and what it looks like

for the K'ómoks Nation.

I want to move on. Having that kind of background and that context…. The reason I

did that is because I want to talk about why I don’t think that we should be proceeding

at this point. It doesn’t come from a lack of respect for the process, but because

I respect it so much. We’ve got six days left in the spring session. We’re only bringing

forth the rest of second reading six days before the end, and we disband for the summer.

That’s not a lot of time to do this process justice. We’ve got other people that,

rightfully, have time on the clock to be able to speak to this. It’s definitely got

to go to committee — and talk about it in committee. It feels, at this point, that

it’s been left so long, and now we’re just trying to get it over the finish line at

the very end, which I don’t think it’s respectful of the process for something that’s

as important as this topic.

For the last eight years under the NDP…. These are only the first treaties — this

one, and I think it’s Bill 21 which is the other treaty that’s before us. In the eight

years, we’ve only got two that have now just hit the floor, when close to a dozen

were done under the previous government. We kind of get tagged as not wanting to believe

in reconciliation or otherwise, but that’s just not true when you look at the amount

of work that has been accomplished in the past.

If we’ve only got two to this point under this government, what has been taking so

long? I understand it’s negotiation. I understand that it’s a process. But it seems

in the past we’ve been able to get this process and get to these finalities a little

bit quicker.

Then you also look at the…. If we read the room — I’m not meaning this room, but,

hypothetically, other rooms — there’s a lot of friction in the air right now.

[6:20 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The