The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Rosalyn Bird.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix : It’s EV Drive and Ride Day, with the B.C. New Car Dealers Association, today on the

front lawn. I know many members took

part in seeing all the new cars and meeting the

new car dealers.

I want to extend a warm welcome to executives from the New Car Dealers Association

of B.C. — Blair Qualey, president and CEO; Jared Williams, chair; Ann Marie Clark,

vice-chair. The New Car Dealers represent more than 468 new car and truck dealers,

doing business in over 55 communities throughout B.C. Over 30,000 British Columbians

support their families by working in this sector, and they’re responsible for more

than $17 billion in retail sales.

They also, as many of you know, operate the largest auto trade show in western Canada,

the Vancouver International Auto Show. You had a chance to visit there this year.

Thanks to their partnership with the government, over 229,000 EVs are now on B.C.

roads today.

Let’s let them all feel welcome here in the House.

Bruce Banman : It is always a pleasure and an honour to introduce a former MLA to visit this House.

I would like for the House to welcome Peter Fassbender, a former minister and MLA,

and his wife Charlene. My understanding is that they’ve been married for 58 years

today. I do not know whether that puts Charlene in the running for the Order of British

Columbia, but it has got to put her for an honourable mention at least.

Would the House please give them a very warm welcome.

Susie Chant : I’m pleased to rise today to recognize a very distinguished group visiting the Legislative

Assembly today. Members of the British Columbia Consular Corps have joined us, and

later this afternoon they will take

part in briefings with ministers and senior officials.

The Consular Corps of British Columbia represents more than 80 countries and four

international organizations from around the world. Through their work, these dedicated

individuals strengthen relationships between B.C. and the international community

by supporting diplomacy, trade, investment, tourism, education and cultural exchange.

They also provide invaluable support and assistance to citizens from their respective

countries who are living, working or travelling here in British Columbia.

I would like to extend a special acknowledgement to the dean of the Consular Corps,

my friend Ricardo Arredondo, consul general of Argentina, and thank him for his leadership.

I also want to recognize all members of the Consular Corps for the important work

that they do in building connections and fostering cooperation.

I ask that all members of this House join me in extending our warmest welcome to our

distinguished guests today.

I have a second intro.…

The Speaker : Member for Langley-Abbotsford.

Harman Bhangu : I’m pleased to recognize Kristin Ali, Carolyn Anderberg and Joel Black, from Enterprise

Rent-A-Car, who are visiting the Legislature today. While they’re unable to join us

here in the gallery, I’ll have the pleasure of meeting with them later today to discuss

Enterprise’s work supporting transportation, tourism and communities across British

Columbia.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

The Speaker : Member for North Vancouver–Seymour will continue. She was not finished yet.

Susie Chant : I’m terribly sorry not to have said something, Mr. Speaker. I have an additional important

introduction to make.

Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Tewodros Girma Abebe, the Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia to Canada, who is

here on his first official visit to B.C. He is accompanied by staff from the embassy

and many members of the Ethiopian community here in Victoria.

He had the pleasure to meet with you earlier today, Mr. Speaker.

Would this House please make them feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Scott McInnis : In the gallery today we have a delegation from Junior Achievement B.C., a wonderful

educational program. They provide support to teachers and school districts throughout

the province, teaching entrepreneurship and business skills. I’ve used them personally;

it’s free.

I just want to speak to all the school districts out there for a second. Reach out

to Junior Achievement. They just provide excellent resources and supports for teachers.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome here today.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Today I have the pleasure of welcoming a delegation from the Barrick Mining Corp.,

who I will be meeting with later today. Barrick is a Canadian-based company that operates

mines across multiple continents.

Although they are headquartered in Toronto right now, I hope they are reflecting on

the weather here in B.C. today and the booming mining sector here in B.C. Vancouver

is a great place to put a head office, and perhaps Surrey will be even better.

Watching us in the gallery, I’m happy to introduce Christina Erling, Allison Brown

and Kerri Harmati.

I will ask the House members to please make them feel welcome.

Sheldon Clare : I, too, would like to welcome the Consular Corps.

I would also like to welcome those delegates from Ethiopia, who I had the honour of meeting at the doorway this morning outside when they were

coming in: the Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Tewodros Girma Abebe; the Diaspora Affairs Minister for Ethiopia, Tarifa Echijima-Hundi; and the

president of the Ethiopian-Canadian Human Rights Association of British Columbia,

Kibibi Abate.

Would you please make these folks feel most welcome.

Darlene Rotchford : Today in the Legislature, I’ll be having two schools visiting.

First, I would like to welcome Vic West Elementary School. There will be 26 grade 5 students.

As well, we’ll have the pleasure of also having Wishart Elementary joining us, which

will have 28 grade 5 students and their teachers.

I hope the House will make them feel welcome.

The Speaker : Members, the Chair will caution all members that when you are introducing, Members, don’t use your phone, please. Electronic devices are not allowed to do that.

Harman Bhangu : I’d also like to welcome Peter Fassbender to the House, former mayor, former MLA.

He doesn’t need any more introductions, but would the House please make him feel welcome

again.

Hon. Lana Popham : I’d like to introduce Julia Cameron, Walker Patton, Emma Andrews and Joe de la Plante

from the B.C. Craft Cannabis Association and the Cannabis Cultivators of British Columbia.

Fun fact: licensed cannabis contributed $1.75 billion to B.C.’s GDP in 2024. Their

national exports increased by 120 percent, and the sector directly supports 5,300

jobs. You know what? Cannabis producers, at the heart of it, are farmers.

Korky Neufeld : It’s a privilege for me to welcome to the Legislature my wife’s close relatives,

Rudy and Donna Raby. Rudy was a long-time, well-regarded educator for 33 years at

the École Dr. Charles Best Secondary School in Coquitlam, and he’s most profoundly grateful

he never had me in his class.

Would the House make Rudy and Donna feel welcome.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : It was a pleasure to come into the House today and look up and see that Liz Shorten

is here with us today. Liz Shorten is an incredible contributor to British Columbia

and to our domestic film production across Canada as the lead of the Canadian Media

Producers Association.

Would the House please join me in both thanking Liz for her incredible contribution

and welcoming her to the House.

Trevor Halford : It is always good to see former Elgin Park alumni, a fellow graduate, in the House,

fellow Orca. I knew her as Cecily Frost. I think we went to Crescent Park Elementary,

and then we went to Elgin Park Secondary. She had to suffer me for a number of years. It’s great to see Cecily Frost, now Cecily Lawrence, in the House today.

[1:45 p.m.]

I ask that you please make her welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Once again, today I would like to introduce two very special guests. They’re here

somewhere in the gallery. I don’t see them in front of me.

Ashok Bansal Mansa is a pioneer in preserving the forgotten history of Punjabi music,

language and heritage. As an author, Ashok brought recognition to many forgotten Punjabi

artists and writers whose songs became famous but whose names were lost with time.

He’s a tireless advocate for preserving this heritage and its stories.

With him, we also have in the gallery today Dr. Hakam Singh Bhullar, a prominent South Asian veterinarian who fought for equality

within the profession. As we all know, Dr. Bhullar wrote the book The Underdog , which was released last year, outlining his journey through hardship and the importance

of standing up for what is right.

I would ask the House members to please make them feel welcome.

Ian Paton : One of the oldest elementary schools in my riding, in Tsawwassen, is South Park Elementary. We have a total of over 70 students, grades 4 and 5, here today. They’re

up in the gallery. I don’t know why they want to look at the government side, but

anyways. They’re up in the gallery, and they’re under the guidance of teachers Krista

Alvano, Laura Axon and Brea Maurice.

Please welcome all the students from South Park Elementary.

George Anderson : I rise today to welcome Raymond Salgado and his mother, Anabelle Salgado, to the Legislature.

Born and raised in Lantzville, Raymond discovered his passion for music at 11 years

old and has spent years sharing his remarkable talent through competitions, festivals,

concerts and musical theatre productions, which has always allowed him to show his true, authentic self.

In 2018, he competed in the Canadian reality television series The Launch , earning a top 30 spot out of 10,000 applicants. In 2023, he stood out amongst 6,000

applicants to become a top eight finalist in season 2 of Canada’s Got Talent and delivered a powerful rendition of “Heaven” by Canadian icon Bryan Adams.

Raymond’s extraordinary voice and talent have earned praise from internationally renowned

artists such as Adele, Demi Lovato and Sam Smith.

Most recently, he sang a rendition of Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida” in Cannes, France,

and the rendition has received over 100 million views.

While we may not be able to compete with entertainment superstars like Raymond, I

ask the whole House to join me in welcoming Raymond Salgado to the Legislature today.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I wouldn’t usually reintroduce someone, but it’s very seldom that your life comes

full circle, and I think it’s important to highlight it when it does.

In about 2014, I put on my best dress — and I was incredibly nervous — to go to downtown

Vancouver to have a meeting for the very first time, the very first time I ever met

with an elected official, the then Minister of Education. I was nervous and incredibly

intimidated and had a half-hour meeting.

I’m not sure that he remembers that meeting, but it sticks with me in the work that

I do. He inspired me, out of that meeting, to get involved in politics. That’s why

I’m on this side of the House now.

I also want to lend my welcome to Peter Fassbender. Thank you for inspiring me and

thank you for your time in the Legislature.

Hon. Lisa Beare : Today in the gallery, we are joined by members of the Junior Achievement B.C. It’s a non-profit that has

operated for 70 years, delivering free programs in financial health, work readiness

and entrepreneurship to more than 80,000 B.C. students annually.

Behind this great work and with us today are President and CEO Wendi Campbell, Vice-President

Cecily Lawrenson, Glenn Dodge and Delreen Motiwalla.

I look forward to meeting with them later today and ask all members of this House

to please make them feel very welcome.

Gavin Dew : Some of the sweetest moments in this House are when people acknowledge the people

without whom they would not be here today. I will take that very literally. Today

is my mother’s 80th birthday.

[1:50 p.m.]

Happy birthday, Mom. I love you.

Members’ Statements

Canada Day Drumming

George Chow : I rise today to recognize and celebrate the tenth anniversary of Canada Day Drumming,

a nationwide initiative that brings Canadians together through rhythm, culture and

community spirit. Canada Day Drumming was conceived ten years ago by Mr. Richard Wong

in Vancouver to celebrate 150 years of Confederation and has grown into the country’s

largest Canada Day synchronized drumming event.

The 2026 Canada Day Drumming will be at Richmond’s Lansdowne mall and will be a great

milestone to reflect on an event that unites communities across Canada in celebration

of diversity, inclusion, national pride and shared identity.

The signature moment is a six-minute synchronized drumming performance representing

Canada’s six time zones, symbolizing unity from coast to coast to coast. The national

broadcast will once again take place at 11.30 a.m. Pacific time on July 1, bringing

participants together across the country in a shared national moment.

Participating cities this year include Charlottetown and Summerside in Prince Edward

Island; St. John’s and Grand Falls–Windsor in Newfoundland and Labrador; Halifax in

Nova Scotia; Toronto, Richmond Hill, Markham, Aurora and Ottawa in Ontario; Winnipeg,

Brandon and Winkler in Manitoba; Stoney Plain, Strathcona County and Elk Point in

Alberta; and Surrey, Nanaimo, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops and Richmond in British

Columbia, with additional communities continuing to join.

Canada Day drumming is more than a performance event. It promotes multiculturalism,

youth engagement and civic participation and brings people of all backgrounds together

to celebrate our country.

I would like to acknowledge Richard Wong, national chair of Canada Day Drumming, along

with the many volunteers, performers, culture groups, sponsors and community partners

whose dedication makes this event possible each year.

On Canada Day, I encourage everyone to take

part in this milestone tenth anniversary

celebration in Richmond and across the country.

Honour House and Honour Ranch

Facilities for First Responders

and Armed Forces Personnel

Tony Luck : Today I want to recognize both the importance of honouring those who serve and the

extraordinary organizations that support them when service takes its toll.

First, I want to commend my colleague from Prince George–Valemount for her work in getting the month of November recognized as a time to honour first

responders. That initiative sends a clear and important message that this House understands

and values the sacrifice made every day by those who serve.

In that same spirit, I want to speak about a place that brings that recognition to

life. A number of colleagues and I recently had the opportunity to visit Honour Ranch,

hence the pin. Just outside of Ashcroft, it is a place that leaves a lasting impression,

not only for what it is but for what it represents — a quiet, compassionate commitment

to those who have given so much in service to others.

The reality is this. Service often comes with a cost that is not always visible. First

responders run towards crisis, towards danger, towards moments that most of us would

never choose to face. They carry not only the physical demands of their work but also

the emotional and psychological weight that comes with it. Too often, that burden

does not end when their shift ends.

Honour House and Honour Ranch exist to meet that reality. Honour House provides a

place to rest, recover, and dignity for first responders and their families. Honour

Ranch builds on that mission, offering a long-term path to healing through connection,

nature and community. Together, they send a powerful message that those who serve

us should never have to heal alone.

At the heart of this work is a story that underscores why it matters so deeply. Captain

Trevor Greene, a Canadian soldier, was critically injured while serving in Afghanistan.

His journey of recovery, supported by the unwavering care of his wife, Debbie, became

a powerful symbol for resilience and helped inspire the creation of Honour House so

that others facing profound challenges would have a place to turn.

Honour House and Honour Ranch are more than facilities. They are a promise, a promise

that we will stand by those who have stood for us. They remind us that behind every

uniform is a person who deserves not only our respect but our care.

[1:55 p.m.]

B.C. Museums Week

Steve Morissette : I rise in the House today to recognize B.C. Museums Week, from May 17 to 23 — this

week.

B.C.’s arts, culture and creative sector is a vital part of our province. It employs

more than 122,000 people and contributes approximately $10.5 billion to our economy.

Workers and volunteers in this sector preserve and share our history through stories,

artifacts and historic sites, helping connect us to our past and to each other.

From the Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre, Kootenay museum, Rossland Museum, Trail museum, Doukhobor Discovery Centre in Castlegar, to the Burnaby Village Museum, Barkerville Historic

Town and so many more throughout British Columbia, museums reflect the diversity and

resilience of the people who call B.C. home. The British Columbia Museums Association

also plays an important role in supporting these organizations and promoting awareness

of our shared history.

That is why we continue to support cultural spaces such as the Chinese Canadian Museum,

the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, the Vancouver Art Gallery and the Royal B.C.

Museum, including the new Provincial Archives research and collections campus.

We are working closely with affected communities to advance new museum programs and

proposals, including the Canadians of South Asian Heritages vision for a provincial

museum, and a provincial Filipino cultural centre.

B.C. Museums Week is a time to celebrate the people and places that keep B.C.’s stories

alive.

Please join me in recognizing B.C. Museums Week this week.

Partap Forest Products

Lawrence Mok : Today I would like to recognize Partap Forest Products Ltd., a remarkable British

Columbia company that represents the strength, resilience and future of our forest

industry. Founded in Maple Ridge in 2004, Partap Forest Products has grown from a

small, family-run operation into a leading producer of western red cedar and Pacific

HemFir products.

Even as the company has expanded, it has remained committed to the values that matter

most to British Columbians: hard work, innovation, sustainability and community investment.

Partap is exactly the kind of company our province should be proud to support. The

company provides skilled jobs for local families, contributes to the economic vitality

of Maple Ridge and the region and strengthens the supply chain that supports construction,

manufacturing, transportation and exports across Canada and abroad.

Their two operations in Maple Ridge and Surrey demonstrate how modern forestry can

combine advanced technology with responsible resource management. What makes Partap

especially important is its commitment to maximizing value from every block while

minimizing waste. Their focus on sustainable forestry practices and renewable wood

products reflects the evolution of British Columbia’s forest sector into one that

is both environmentally responsible and economically competitive.

At a time when forestry communities across British Columbia are facing economic pressures

and uncertainty, companies like Partap Forest Products show us why continued provincial

support for the forestry industry is essential. By supporting companies like Partap,

we are supporting local jobs, sustainable growth, rural and urban economies and a

proud British tradition that continues to build our future.

Hydrogen Energy

George Anderson : What if one of British Columbia’s greatest economic opportunities is not only what

we extract but what we invent, test and export to the world? That is the promise of

hydrogen.

At UBC’s smart hydrogen energy district, Dr. Walter Mérida and researchers are showing what the future can look like: clean electricity, transportation

and urban planning working together in one living laboratory.

[2:00 p.m.]

At Ballard Power Systems, B.C. innovation is helping power zero-emission buses, trains,

marine vehicles and heavy-duty equipment — the very vehicles that move people, goods

and economies.

At Powertech Labs, that future is becoming practical. Powertech recently unveiled

a high-capacity smart hydrogen tube trailer capable of transporting up to 1,050 kilograms of gaseous hydrogen at 517

bar — a major step in making hydrogen logistics safer, more efficient and more scalable.

That matters because it’s not just about producing clean energy. It’s about moving

it, storing it and testing it in order to make hydrogen reliable enough for the real

world.

The climate challenge is not only an environmental challenge. It’s an industrial challenge,

an innovation challenge and an economic challenge. The question before us is not whether

or not the world will need cleaner fuels or cleaner transportation. It will. The question

is whether British Columbia will simply buy those solutions or build them.

In British Columbia, we have clean electricity. We have research institutions. We

have the companies. We have the engineers, tradespeople, scientists and innovators

to address the challenges of today.

Hydrogen will not solve every problem, but in the right sectors — heavy-duty transport,

backup power and hard-to-electrify applications — hydrogen can be part of a practical,

made-in-B.C. climate and economic strategy. This is how we reduce emissions while

creating opportunity and turn climate ambition into industrial strength. And this

is how British Columbia helps build the clean economy that the world is waiting for.

Egil Ingvallsen

Claire Rattée : Last week my community of Kitimat suffered an incredible loss with the passing of

Egil Ingvallsen. Egil was a person who embodied the spirit of Kitimat. Truly, he was probably the

kindest and most generous person that I ever met.

Every person who had the pleasure of getting to know him in Kitimat and throughout

my region knows what a blessing knowing him was. He was a man who was deeply devoted

to his family and to his faith. He taught me so much about the importance of letting

the people that you love know how much you love them while you can.

He had a remarkable gift for making you feel like you were the most important person

in the world. I can’t even begin to explain how much he meant to me and how much I

learned from him over the last few years.

He was a person who suffered a great deal of personal loss and tragedy in his life.

He battled cancer for several decades, but he never gave up. He always had a smile

on his face. When he lost his son recently to a drug overdose, it was a moment that

really brought the two of us together. He was always such a strong advocate for recovery,

for mental health supports, and he always did it with a smile on his face.

He was just the most remarkable man. Knowing him certainly made me a better person.

I think it made everyone that knew him a better person.

My deepest condolences to his family. I know how difficult this loss has been. It’s

been a huge loss for our entire community. I was just so fortunate to have known him.

He taught me that there was pretty much nothing that couldn’t be fixed by a hug from

a person that you really loved, even if that person was maybe a cat, or a really bad

day that couldn’t be fixed by a day out at the range shooting or going to church.

He taught me an awful lot of things, but the most important thing that he taught me

was to make sure that you tell the people that you love that you love them.

I’m going to miss him incredibly, but Valhalla gained another warrior.

Until we meet again, Egil.

Mable Elmore : I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Mable Elmore : Today joining us in the gallery, is Matthew Remedios, the principal lawyer and managing

director of Remedios Lawyers. He’s joined by his team, Lorentz Sy, Grace Hou, James

Kwok, Bhhaskar De.

He’s brought his client, GAC Motor company. GAC is the largest state-owned Chinese

EV company. They’re looking to expand their business in British Columbia and Canada

through EV cars and clean energy infrastructure.

Joining us from GAC Motor is Mr. Zhao Zay Chen, the chairman of GAC International

and the deputy general manager of GAC Group, as well as Zhen Hang Liu, Liu Li and

David Zhu.

I ask the Legislature to please give them a very warm welcome.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

Action on Proposed Changes to DRIPA

Trevor Halford : When it comes to flip-flopping, nobody has done that more, better, than this Premier, than this NDP government. Whether we’re talking about LNG Canada, a project that they oppose but happily showed up to cut the ribbon at; whether it

was TMX, which one of the ministers actually lost an election over but was happy to champion….

Well, the then Attorney General, now Premier, lost millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in court. You can see that they constantly change their position.

Now, the problem with all of this is that on a file as important as DRIPA, the Premier has changed his position not once, not twice, not three times, not four

times, not five times — six times in under four months.

My question is clear. We are a few days out from ending this legislative session. The Premier has said that he was tapped on the shoulder by Attorney General, who

is going to go in there and try and get a solution regarding DRIPA.

So my question to the Attorney General is a direct one. Can she guarantee this House that when we come back in the fall session, that legislation will be ready to be

voted on when it comes to the issues we are seeing with DRIPA, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’re hard at work right now coming up with a durable solution to the challenge in

DRIPA. I expect to hear from our appeal application soon from the Supreme Court of Canada. That will be one avenue to fixing the legal challenges that we face. We’re working

with our partners right now to come up with a solution. We are looking forward to

that happening shortly, and we’ll keep doing that work.

Our approach is about bringing people together to solve really challenging problems.

Very different than the approach of the other side that would just repeal, rip up,

go back to court for long, protracted battles related to not sitting down and solving

challenges. We’ll continue to do that work.

The Speaker : Member has supplemental.

Trevor Halford : Well, I’ll agree with the Attorney General on one thing. Our approach has been much

different because it’s been transparent through the beginning of this entire process.

We have not changed our position when it comes to DRIPA. They change their position

every 24 hours, it seems.

I just asked a very specific question and got no answer whatsoever, which is what

was to be expected. Listen, the Premier said in December and then he said it again

in January and then he said it again in February and he even said it in April that

he would have legislation ready for this House to deal with the chaos that we are

seeing from DRIPA.

What did he do? He panicked, like he always does, and he blinked, and he blamed somebody

else. Now he’s blamed the Attorney General to say she came up to him at the last second,

tapped him on the shoulder and said: “I’ve got a better way, and here’s the better

way. What we’re going to do is we are going to have legislation….”

To the Attorney General’s credit — and I’ll give her this — she just acknowledged

co-governance when she said: “We’re working with our partners.” What they should be doing is working

in this House on a solution. We’ve given ours.

This Premier has said, the Attorney General has said that legislation will be ready

in the fall. Now they are not confirming that.

I am asking another time. Can the Attorney General say that in the fall session, she

or anybody in that cabinet will have legislation ready to deal with the chaos that

we are seeing with DRIPA, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma : We’ve committed to finding a solution to the legal challenges that we acknowledged

that were in the Gitxaała decision and we’ll continue to do that work.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : Talk about flip-flopping. They voted unanimously, this House voted unanimously in

favour of DRIPA, and now they’re talking about repealing it.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma : What we do know is that the opposition is very focused on trying to figure out what

political gains can be made out of this challenge, with making fundraising emails

over and over again to bring fear…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Niki Sharma : …to the public about a solution. We’re going to stay focused….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members will come to order now. Attorney General has the floor.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : …on building that solution to the challenges we’re facing.

I want to make it clear that DRIPA has unlocked economic opportunity in this province

like we’ve never seen before.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Shhh. Member.

Hon. Niki Sharma : The strongest mining exploration expenditures on record in B.C. in 2025, over $750

million. Mineral exploration spending jumped 36 percent compared to 2024. That’s just

last year, and we’re just getting started.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members will wait for their turn, please.

Investigation and Prosecution

of Coastal GasLink Pipeline

Project Worksite Attack

Kiel Giddens : Well, what we’re hearing is just more uncertainty from this government. When investors

look at B.C., they want certainty. They want to know that projects can move forward,

and they want to know that they can move forward safely. Even that basic requirement

is questionable under this government.

In 2022, a worksite on the Coastal GasLink pipeline was attacked by a group of masked, axe-wielding assailants. Workers on site

were terrorized. Anarchists purposely spread fear to try to shut the project down.

It caused tens of millions of dollars in damage and major delays. Shockingly, not

a single arrest has ever been made.

To the Solicitor General, how can investors have the confidence to invest in British

Columbia if this government can’t uphold the law and keep people and assets safe?

Hon. Nina Krieger : I appreciate the question and want to make it very clear that police in British Columbia

enforce the law. This government is committed to providing police with the tools that

they need to engage with the challenges of our time.

That’s why we have made a historic investment in policing in our province — over $230

million, hiring 256 officers, with an emphasis on rural and remote communities. That’s

why we’ve increased training for police, and that’s why we are standing up dedicated

programs to provide police with the tools to go after repeat violent offenders and

property crime, which we know are causing such challenges in our communities.

We are committed to continuing this strong action, providing police with the tools

that they need to do their vital work to keep British Columbians safe.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Kiel Giddens : Police enforce the law, but this government clearly doesn’t. No arrests have been

made after four years, despite this brazen attack,

an act of domestic terrorism on

B.C.’s soil. If this isn’t cause for uncertainty for global investors, then I don’t

know what is.

The RCMP member who led the investigation at the time said: “We saw a number of people

come into the protest camps that had been involved in previous protests elsewhere

in the country, elsewhere in North America, that had a propensity to cause violence.”

This government has failed to show the world that B.C. is a safe place for major project

investment.

To the Attorney General, will she commit to reopening the criminal investigation into

the Coastal GasLink attack, yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, Members. Members.

Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m happy I inspire such energy from the opposition.

The member talks about certainty, and everyone on this side understands how important

it is to ensure that there’s certainty for investors. That’s why, just since November,

we’ve had Quintette coal mine, $500 million; Highland Valley Copper extension, $2.25 billion; Mount Milligan

mine extension, $400 million; Eskay Creek mine, $713 million...

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, shhh.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : ...Copper Mine expansion.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The Solicitor General has made it clear that we’re going to continue to enforce the

law. But I think it’s important.... Yesterday we had a member who was thrown out of

this place because of their position on Coastal GasLink.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s important not to paint all protesters with the same brush.

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

The Speaker : Members.

Minister, take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Are we ready?

Minister of Jobs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : This is going to be a hard thing for them to hear. This is going to be a hard thing

for them to hear.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Perhaps they were not aware, but their House Leader was one of the protesters protesting

the pipeline.

A Facebook post from the House Leader said, from February 2020: “My interest in all

this is not environmental. This is environmental. I do not believe we should poison

our land to gain money to provide Asia with natural gas. I do not care about any shortsighted opportunities we gain. We can help our nations and family by doing what we are doing, getting healthy,

educated, continuing to grow our food, reuse, recycle, cut down consumerism.”

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member, you are wasting your own time.

Please. He’s trying to answer. Let him finish the answer.

Interjections.

[The Speaker rose.]

The Speaker : Is the member for Kamloops Centre going to argue with me? If not, then take your seat. Let the minister finish. Thank

you.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I know this is tough news for many of them. It’s the first time they’re hearing it.

But I will say that if you live in a glass house, do not throw rocks.

Government Fee Policy

for Raw Log Exports

Rob Botterell : This government continues to talk about…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members will wait for their turn.

Rob Botterell : …the importance of growing value-added forestry jobs here in British Columbia and

rebuilding our forest economy around local manufacturing and processing. But while

mills continue to close and forestry workers lose jobs across the province, the government

has quietly moved in the opposite direction.

Recent reporting has noted the Ministry of Forests reduced the fee in lieu of manufacture

charged on many raw log exports — the very fee that was designed to discourage companies

from shipping unprocessed logs out of B.C. instead of processing them here at home

and creating jobs for British Columbians.

Why is this government making it easier and cheaper to export raw logs out of British

Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : I’m always pleased to be able to rise in the House and talk about the initiatives

that we have on this side of the House to strengthen and restore confidence in our

forest sector and also for the opportunity to talk about a new project that we launched

just last week in West Kelowna. In partnership with the organization Gorman Brothers,

we’re going to make more in B.C.

Our make more in B.C. project builds on the success that we’ve had since 2017, where

we have seen an 80 percent reduction in raw log exports since we formed government.

I might add that from 2003 to 2017 we saw a 140 percent increase in raw log exports.

The fee in lieu policy change the member refers to is something that has been brought

forward by industry, by local First Nations. We’re piloting it, and the intent is

to ensure that more logs are being processed in domestic facilities.

The member might be interested to note that his former employer, the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, is a strong supporter of this change as well.

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental.

Implementation of

Old-Growth Strategic Review and

Advisory Council Recommendations

Rob Botterell : An interesting response. I’ve still got a bit of cognitive dissonance. We do know

that our forest sector needs fundamental changes. But cutting as much as we can, especially

the last old growth, is what got us into this crisis. It’s short-term thinking.

The minister does not lack the direction on what to do on these issues. The old-growth

strategic review, the PFAC report, was exactly the roadmap the minister needs. But

when this government fails to implement these reviews or cherry-picks them, this minister

fails everyone.

Does the Minister of Forests know how long it will be until he fully implements the

old-growth strategic review and the ten PFAC recommendations, or is it his plan to

cherry-pick what he wants from these reports?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : An interesting question from the member opposite, who had an opportunity to work with

the government and completely abandoned all of the values that he brought to the table

on trying to help restore confidence in the forest sector.

I am committed to working with the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship,

with the Minister of Environment and Parks, all across government, to not only meet the commitments that we made in the old-growth action plan but also to take the

necessary steps to help restore confidence in this sector. We can build a working

forest that can last generations while also maintaining the incredible biodiversity,

ecosystem and wildlife that make British Columbia’s forests and British Columbia’s

landscape what it is today.

We’re fully committed to this work and doing this work alongside industry, alongside

First Nations and alongside community leaders. This is the work that we have been

asked to do by the Premier, and it’s the work that we’re committed to doing. It is

going to create jobs and prosperity in every corner of this province.

Government Ticket Policy

for FIFA World Cup

Korky Neufeld : The government has recently released their ticket policy for the 2026 FIFA World Cup:

two ministers max per game, who could be accompanied by one staff member — a maximum

of 28 tickets for seven games for ministers and staff.

The former Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport said in April of last year:

“I don’t have any tickets to give you, Members. You’ll have to buy them, like the

general public, when they become available.”

To the minister, how many tickets to the 2026 FIFA World Cup has government bought

for ministers and staff?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I think the member just answered his own question by outlining the number of tickets

in the policy that was outlined by the minister in regard to FIFA.

But it does give me an opportunity to remind members of this House of the policy that

was in place under the previous government, a number of whose members do continue

to sit in this House — the member for Nechako Lakes, the member for Delta South, the member for Richmond Centre. There were others — the Leader of the Opposition, who was a staffer at the time.

I’ll come to him in a moment.

I know that they get upset when I say they were part of the previous government. I

will admit that most of them were not, but I will say this: they did vote for the

previous governments.

So it is my pleasure to inform that when some of those members sat on this side of

the House and the Leader of the Opposition in fact worked in the office, the ticket-palooza

that took place during the 2010 Olympics involved the opposition giving its own MLAs

143 tickets to Olympic events.

That was 57 of them, almost half, that were used for hockey — 49 for men’s hockey,

but only eight for women’s hockey. That’s more free tickets than they had MLAs at

the time. They gave figure skating 20 tickets; short-track speed skating, ten tickets;

all 13 other sports, zero tickets. None of them took a ticket to the Paralympics.

They completely skipped the Paralympics.

We’ve outlined a policy that if MLAs want to go, they’ll be buying their own tickets,

unlike the ticket-palooza that took place when many of them sat on this side of the

House.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Korky Neufeld : I think that we’re talking about FIFA 2026, where tickets are $1,000 apiece or more.

We know the government bought a suite at B.C. Place for FIFA World Cup “to attract

business investment.” B.C. Place doesn’t disclose how much a suite would cost for

FIFA, but in Seattle, six suites were available for $46,000 U.S. each. In Toronto,

one was available for $198,000. We can only assume government purchased a box for

each of the seven matches in B.C. Place.

To the minister, how many millions did this government spend on tickets for FIFA?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Well, it’s pretty clear the member hasn’t learned how to pivot, when we were giving

him the answer a moment ago. The ticket policy has been outlined.

As the member will also know, PavCo does have a box. What is.…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members.

Members, the nice people do not interrupt.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : We’ve made it clear what the ticket policy is, and what we have made clear is that

there will be no ticket-palooza on this side of the House, unlike it was when they

sat on this side.

FIFA World Cup Attendance by

Premier and Cabinet Ministers

Teresa Wat : The Premier’s office has said that the Premier will be attending two FIFA 2026 matches

at B.C. Place. But we don’t know why.

Simple question to the Minister of Tourism, not to the House Leader, the Minister

of Transportation. Which NDP cabinet minister will be attending FIFA games and for

what purpose?

Interjections.

The Speaker : All right, Members. That’s enough. Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : You’re right, Member. It is a good smile.

I’ll just remind members of the House that this province is hosting an international

event. The Prime Minister will be here. The Governor General will be here. The Lieutenant

Governor will be here…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …and it is entirely appropriate that the Premier of the province of British Columbia

is in attendance at events where those leaders are present, including leaders from

around the world. That’s something that I think everybody on this side, everybody

in this chamber, should understand and recognize.

But I do have to say this, and I will ask the question of the member for Richmond Centre, who seemed so concerned that I would get up and answer.

When it came to 2010, which events did she go to? Did she go to figure skating, short-track

speed skating, or did she go to the women’s hockey final?

Just how many tickets did you get, Member?

The Speaker : Member has a supplemental.

Teresa Wat : Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of order at this question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Teresa Wat : I wasn’t in the government. I was elected in 2013. Get your records straight.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members. Members, even the Chair can’t hear the question. It’s so noisy.

Teresa Wat : I just want to get the record straight. I wasn’t in the government. I was elected

in 2013, together with the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, let her ask the question, please. Shhh. Let her ask the question.

Teresa Wat : An unknown amount for tickets for cabinet ministers and staff while British Columbians

don’t have access to health care, are accessing the food banks at a higher rate than

ever, while this government has a $13.3 billion deficit…. It just doesn’t make sense.

To top it all off, not even a tourism boost at B.C. hotels. Instead, a 20 percent

decline.

What measurable benefits will taxpayers receive from cabinet ministers and staff attending

FIFA matches?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Actually, I’m quite happy she answered the question. She didn’t get any tickets because

she wasn’t there in 2010, unlike you, hon. Member, who was part of the staff that

engaged…

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : …in ticket-palooza for former B.C. Liberals when more than 148 of them got tickets

to attend key events, including the majority going to the hockey game final.

In terms of FIFA, I will remind the member that she has been more than happy to participate

in the FIFA events that have been held. She was just at the soccer-kicking, taking

Really, the issue is this. We are having a world-class event hosted by this province

and this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Shhh, everybody.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Mike Farnworth : This is a unique opportunity to showcase our province not just to the rest of the

country, not just to North America, but around the globe. One would think that they

would want to celebrate that instead of engaging in how many members are going to

be attending games on free tickets, which will be very, very few, only under certain

restrictive circumstances, unlike what happened when so many of them in 2010 were

at the events.

Supportive Housing

Sites in Vancouver

and Relocation of Residents

Claire Rattée : I don’t know anybody right now that has a ticket to a FIFA match except for people

that are sitting on this side of the room. Not a single person that I know that can

afford to go.

It was recently….

Interjection.

Claire Rattée : Yes, you do. They’re within your cabinet.

The Speaker : Members. Shhh.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Member has the floor.

Claire Rattée : It was recently announced that the 110-unit Luugat SRO on Vancouver’s Granville strip

will finally be closed, conveniently just in time before FIFA begins this summer.

The Minister of Housing previously said: “I also saw up close the impacts of the Olympics

on some of our most vulnerable residents in the city, and I want to make sure that

we’re doing this well.” But now, nearly 300 people from the Luugat, St. Helen’s Hotel

and Granville Villa are being displaced just weeks before FIFA, with no clear plan

for where those residents will go. That’s not doing it well in my books.

To the minister, where are these residents supposed to go, and why did this government

wait until the month before FIFA to finally start dealing with this crisis?

Hon. Christine Boyle : Thanks to the member for the question. As we’ve spoken about here and I’ve certainly

spoken about publicly, the province has over many months now been working with the

housing provider and on a tenant-by-tenant basis with folks living at the Luugat to

support them in finding other housing that meets their needs. That work has been largely

successful. It was in partnership with and at the request of the city of Vancouver,

and we have been able to find good alternative housing for those tenants so that that

building, which was never intended to be supportive housing, can be closed down.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. Christine Boyle : In addition to that, since 2017, our government has helped deliver or get underway

over 9,900 supportive homes in communities across this province. There are over 1,100

spaces in operation in homelessness and encampment response temporary homes and shelters.

Those are in addition to nearly 4,100 permanent shelter spaces funded by the province,

with thousands of temporary shelter spaces added during winter months.

We continue to deliver good purpose-built homes that help people come inside, connect

with supports and health supports and get back on their feet. That is a priority because

we know it makes a difference in communities.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : See, the problem is that for years local businesses, residents, first responders and

community groups warned this government that these SROs were unsafe and unsustainable.

The minister knows well, members of this government know well, how deplorable the

conditions in these buildings have been for years. But instead of fixing the model,

instead of providing a durable solution, adding proper supports or transitioning people

into safer housing, this government ignored the problem until FIFA forced their hand.

Now with international media arriving and the province trying to clean up its image, nearly 300 vulnerable people

are being shuffled out of these buildings with no confidence that the underlying issues

are actually being addressed.

My question to the minister is quite simple. Why is B.C.’s biggest slumlord just moving

vulnerable people out of sight ahead of FIFA rather than addressing the issue of their

failed model? Where are these people going to go?

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’m happy to respond frankly to this question, even though I can’t understand the

member opposite’s position on it. We have been clear over months that we have been

working with tenants one-on-one to support their needs and find a good alternate spot

for them. Nobody from the Luugat has been shoved out onto the street. This is work

we do in partnership with the provider and with the city so that we have….

Interjections.

[2:35 p.m.]

The Speaker : Shhh. Members. Let the minister finish.

Hon. Christine Boyle : So that we have good long-term solutions for those tenants. That’s the work that we’ve

done at the Luugat.

The other thing I find just constantly confusing is that members opposite want to

criticize old housing, but they also are opposed to any new housing that we try to

build. It is not acceptable to oppose….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members, Members.

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle : They are opposed to the current housing. They are opposed to new….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, what’s wrong with you?

Member for Abbotsford West?

Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle : They are opposed to existing housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Please conclude.

Hon. Christine Boyle : I’ll try one more time.

Members opposite are opposed to existing housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Member, if I hear one more time that comment, I’m going to really ask you to leave

the House. Let the minister conclude now.

Hon. Christine Boyle : The members opposite are opposed to existing housing. They’re opposed to new housing.

They’re opposed to encampments. They have no solutions to offer.

On this side, we are working with communities. We’re working with local governments

to find answers, to support people. That’s the work that we’ll continue to do.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Ian Paton : I rise on a point of order. A misrepresentation by the Minister of Transportation,

suggesting that I was here as part of government in 2010, to do with some sort of

Olympic tickets. I didn’t get elected here until 2017.

Interjection.

The Speaker : Yes.

Minister.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I recognize you were elected in 2017, and unlike some of the others, probably didn’t

get tickets.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh. Members.

[The Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members. Members, would you let even the Chair do his job?

Minister, would you please withdraw the remark?

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I will withdraw.

[The Speaker resumed their seat.]

The Speaker : Just have some patience. Let me hear the question or point of order. Only then I can

respond. You are not even letting me do that. Okay.

Reports from Committees

Democratic and Electoral

Reform Committee

Jennifer Blatherwick : I am pleased to present the report of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral

Reform for the second session of the 43rd parliament, titled Review of the 2024 Provincial General Election , a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of the Clerk.

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

Motion approved.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Jennifer Blatherwick : I move that the report be adopted.

This report summarizes the committee’s review of the administration of the 43rd provincial

general election and makes recommendations for improvements for future elections.

To inform its work, the committee reviewed the three volumes of the Chief Electoral

Officer’s report on the election and gathered input through a public consultation.

On behalf of all committee members, I wish to thank the individuals and organizations

who took the time to share their experiences with the 2024 election and their ideas

for improving future elections. I would also like to recognize Elections B.C. for

their ongoing engagement with the committee throughout our work.

Following the consultation period, our committee considered all the input we received

to develop 48 recommendations which aim to strengthen election administration. Our

report identifies opportunities to strengthen Elections B.C.’s enforcement powers

and improve the process for voters, political campaigns, political parties and Elections

B.C. themselves.

while maintaining electoral integrity by enabling more efficient updating of a list

of voters, facilitating safe access to health facilities for voting and permitting

remote translators to assist individuals voting in person.

[2:40 p.m.]

We also highlight the importance of strengthening education and promoting public awareness

about election administration to combat misinformation and disinformation and support

a vibrant participatory democracy in our province.

In conducting this review, the committee agreed that the administration of the 2024

provincial general election was largely effective, and members expressed their confidence

in the work of Elections B.C. and the integrity of B.C.’s elections. While mistakes

occurred during the election, they were due to human error. This is challenging to

eliminate in a large and complex operation such as a provincial general election,

which stands up quickly and requires thousands of temporary employees.

I’d like to extend my sincere gratitude to all the committee members for their dedication

and meaningful discussion in this review. In particular, I would like to thank the

Deputy Chair, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, for his leadership throughout this work.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to express my very sincere appreciation

to the staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and in Hansard Services for their

support to our committee.

It is very difficult to gain the approval of an ex-teacher and a mother of five children

on the writing of the report, but I commend the parliamentary committees research

staff for doing just that.

Ward Stamer : I also would like to express my gratitude to all the members of the committee for

their contributions, and in particular recognize the Chair, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, for her leadership and stewardship in our committee.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge everyone who shared their perspectives on

the way to strengthen provisions of the Election Act and improve future elections.

The committee heard from many British Columbians about the vital importance of upholding

accountability and promoting transparency in our elections.

We recommend appointing a parliamentary committee after every provincial general election

to review its administration and make recommendations for future improvements. We

believe the undertaking of this work could help to uphold public confidence in B.C.’s

elections and counteract misinformation and disinformation.

Throughout our work, the committee also identified opportunities to streamline electoral

processes for candidates, campaigns and election officials while promoting accountability

and transparency. In this area, our recommendations include proactively addressing

gaps in the Election Act, increasing transparency and efficiency in nomination administration

and ensuring greater consistency in advertising.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to extend our gratitude to Elections B.C.

for their cooperation and engagement throughout the committee’s work and highlight

the important role the office plays in ensuring that elections are administered fairly,

accurately and transparently.

In closing, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the staff of the Parliamentary

Committees Office and our Hansard Services for the support that they have provided

throughout our work.

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

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 20, K’ómoks Treaty Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026.

Second Reading of Bills

K’ómoks Treaty Act

(continued)

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Members. We will call the chamber back to order, where we are continuing

our debate of Bill 20, the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Misty Van Popta : I want to just kind of give us a little synopsis of where I stopped yesterday, just

in regards to some topics that I’d covered, which were: what is reconciliation and,

at this point, why I feel like we should not be proceeding with Bill 20.

I’ll just circle back in terms of sharing that treaties have traditionally always

added surety and added concrete…. Sorry, I’ve just come out of a really rumpus QP

there, I’ve just got to get into the zone here.

Treaties in the…. The nature of treaties adds surety, especially in areas where there

has been conflict in the past. So I do believe in treaties, but in this particular

one, the change from how we’ve done modern treaties in the past, which have been successful,

is something to be concerned with in this treaty, with the language inclusion and

moving away from typical process and procedure. This is 30 years in the making.

Where I left off yesterday was talking about, at a time when things are so contentious

in this province…. Even today, our first two questions were related to DRIPA, which

I know is not necessarily in this bill, but in the context of UNDRIP, which is covered

in this bill.

The province is not in a place where we can be talking, right in this moment, about

adding another layer of complexity to First Nations issues within this province with

the security that British Columbians are wanting to feel.

So I ask, in this context of Bill 20, are we possibly doing the K’ómoks a disservice right now by bringing this bill to the table? Are we adding complexity

to something that should be, after 30 years, work that is recognized in this chamber?

Right now, DRIPA and UNDRIP are one of the number one topics right now around British

Columbians’ kitchen tables, on top of the economy, economic stability, which is wrapped

into parts of the language that is used within Bill 20.

So how can this process be fair to the work of the last 30 years? We’re talking at

a time when the general public doesn’t even really understand the difference between

UNDRIP and DRIPA. They just hear that there’s language that has made them feel insecure

in regards to private property rights.

Another layer, when we’re talking about UNDRIP, is that we’re tying in federal, another

layer of government, laws into this legislation. That’s just a piece that…. What if,

in the future, there are changes to UNDRIP, there are changes that are now entrenched

into B.C. legislation?

I think that when it comes to the purpose of treaties, which is to add definite boundaries

and guidelines to what is trying to be accomplished, I just feel like that language,

especially when it hasn’t been used in the past….

We’re going into uncharted territory with treaties wrapped in UNDRIP language. So

I just think that this is something that we need to be cognizant of. And it has been

brought up. I’m not the first person mentioning that. Treaties are supposed to make

things clearer, not muddier. We’re supposed to be answering questions that are decades,

centuries old — of jurisdiction, of reconciliation.

[2:50 p.m.]

And Bill 20, in and of itself, unfortunately, has been flawed at the end here with

adding in language that has not been traditionally incorporated into other modern

treaties.

Everybody is saying that now is not the time. Now is not the time, and it doesn’t

mean that the time won’t be in the future, but we just have so many questions. The

union of B.C. Chiefs is saying that now is not the time and asking for a pause. Even

this own government, I don’t even think that they necessarily understand their position.

We talked about it today — six different changing positions on DRIPA.

At a time when nothing is clear anymore, why are we bringing more legislation in to

confuse it? That’s what Bill 20 potentially does, especially because of including

UNDRIP into this legislation. If that piece and how it was wrapped into this legislation

was not there, it would be a very different conversation than what we’re having here

now.

Quite honestly, it puts other existing treaties into question. Other nations, rightfully

so, could ask about the inclusion of UNDRIP provisions within their treaties. Are

we potentially opening a Pandora’s box with this particular treaty and how it’s written

and how it’s worded? I think that that’s a valid concern. We don’t know at this stage,

with so many cases before the courts right now. We just don’t have clarity.

We’re seeing…. DRIPA was brought in, in 2019, and re-adjusted with the

Interpretation

Act in 2021. We’re just now, in 2026 and the end of 2025, starting to see the legal

ramifications of that language. We don’t know, in the context of this treaty, in Bill

20, if five or six years down the road there are going to be legal consequences and

legal ramifications.

To quote the Attorney General, in the term “durable solutions,” if we’re looking for

durable solutions right now, why are we bringing through more legislation?

Co-governance is a real issue, especially as it relates to UNDRIP. Even the BCAFN,

Terry Teegee, admits that we are in a co-governance model. We can’t disregard statements

like this. We don’t know, really…. The government’s understanding that the voice of

200,000 in a co-governance position with the 5.7 million British Columbians that are

now a part of Canada, whether through immigration or by birth…. We have to believe

that this House is where governance comes from. I do struggle with why we’re proceeding.

We also haven’t heard from the government in regards to these concerns. We haven’t

heard anybody stand up and kind of speak to our concerns. If we’re wrong in understanding

the implications of UNDRIP being wrapped in this treaty, why wouldn’t we have heard

anybody stand up here and speak to those concerns? We haven’t heard those answers,

so speaker after speaker is standing up in regards to those same concerns.

Quite frankly, we have 5½ days left — 5½ days that we can debate and potentially bring

this bill to committee. That’s not a lot of time for 30 years of work. That’s not

doing this bill justice if the intent is to add clarity. How, in that amount of time,

can we add clarity and surety to British Columbians?

I think a big piece here is the concerns of the Wei Wai Kum in the 80 percent overlap.

I know I’ve heard the narrative that overlapping jurisdictions is common. It’s a common

issue within treaties, within the creation and the negotiations of treaties. For sure,

this is no different. However, the concerns are extremely valid.

[2:55 p.m.]

I know on our side of the House here that we have done those conversations to understand

what the Wei Wai Kum’s concerns are. We’ve heard what their concerns are around economic prosperity, and

we can’t discount that.

We’ve got numerous nations throughout British Columbia who are at different stages

of treaty and treaty creation. Bill 20 is going to be kind of the main or the first

one of this process including UNDRIP into it. That is going to set the stage for the

other treaties that are coming forward, let alone, as I previously talked about, what

it will do to existing treaties.

Regardless of where other nations are in their process, there needs to be equitable

access to any title or treaty lands that doesn’t place another nation over another.

This treaty will place one nation over another who’s in a different stage of their

process. Without clear understanding of protocol, like a protocol agreement, putting

something in place that addresses the concerns of overlapping jurisdictions, overlapping

traditional territories.... This isn’t just about treaty lands; it’s about traditional

territories. To this point, there isn’t anything in place yet to address that, to

add security for British Columbians.

I’m going to kind of close up. Because of those concerns, I feel like we need to have

extra eyes on this. I feel like we need to take the time to hear the concerns.

Quite frankly, I think I’m going to actually move a motion on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if you want me to read it or if you want me to bring it

forward.

Deputy Speaker : Please do, Member. Read the motion.

Misty Van Popta : Okay. I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting therefor the following:

“Bill (No. 20) intituled K’ómoks Treaty Act not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs”.]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Member. We are going to call a brief recess to circulate the

motion, and we will be back in a few minutes.

The House recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will call the chamber back to order, where the member from Langley–Walnut Grove has introduced a motion moving that the motion for second reading of Bill 20, intituled

K’ómoks Treaty Act, 2026, be amended by deleting all words after “now” and substituting therefore the

following: “Bill 20, entitled K’ómoks Treaty Act, 2026, not be read a second time now but that the subject matter be referred to the

Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.”

It is a debatable motion, but we will be, of course, debating, as we go forward, this

motion, not the treaty itself. So please direct your comments right at this motion.

Thank you very much, Members.

On the amendment.

Misty Van Popta : I have presented this motion for obvious reasons. We’ve heard hours of debate on this

bill from members of opposition, the Greens and independents with concerns regarding tabling Bill 20 now and with the new and potentially troubling

language around UNDRIP and DRIPA.

In regards to this motion, to refer it to the select standing committee…. I do believe

that Bill 20 is done in the spirit of best intentions, but development of this treaty

went outside the typical process and language used in previous other successful modern

treaties, and it has been entrenched in risk. And I think that we have a standing

committee in this building, the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, but it hasn’t met since 2003, is my understanding, which is a shame. That’s not

just to this government — previous governments as well.

There’s no better time to resurrect that committee as a time such as this. This committee

is cross-partisan. We will have a full opportunity to delve into concerns raised by not only members

of this House but by the public at large, media alike and especially the Wei Wai Kum.

I think that there’s an opportunity within the format of that committee to have those

in-depth conversations. This is a committee that, I believe, is of public record. We can hear

the questions, we can hear the answers, and that committee can come up with recommendations.

That committee can analyze this treaty, maybe even compare it against past treaties and see how they are different

and how they’re alike. It is very important that we get this right.

I’ve heard…. There’s a bit of a trend that I’ve noticed this session in that it’s

kind of like we’ve got buzzwords and words of fluff. We hear about these words. It’s been everything from “tools in the toolbox” to “durable solutions” to, in the context of infrastructure, “re-pacing.” We’ve got these buzzwords.

At a time when the government is seeking durable solutions, we shouldn’t bring in more legislation into a siloed environment. We need to have more eyes on it to weigh the potential impacts of bringing

new language into a treaty that hasn’t been covered before. We have to get this right.

We’ve taken 30 years to get to this point. Bringing it to committee, talking it through

in a non-partisan environment so that everybody is comfortable with the contents and making sure that

everybody is treated fairly and, most importantly, that the K’ómoks are treated with respect and that we’re doing them a service in this treaty….

[3:05 p.m.]

This committee can get to the root of everybody’s concerns.

I previously mentioned that the general public doesn’t understand the difference between

UNDRIP and DRIPA, so it’s in the best interests of this treaty, and treaties moving

forward, that we get this right this time. When we’re charting new territory with

new language and new processes, we’ve got to make sure we get it right. Otherwise,

six years from now, we’re going to see the implications of it possibly not working

correct.

Previous treaties have had…. There haven’t been legal implications, is my understanding,

around previous treaties. I want to make sure that the K’ómoks have a really good treaty, moving forward. So we need to have more eyes on this.

I’ll just close up that this isn’t about me and members on this side not appreciating

this process and not wanting it to move forward, but we want to make sure that we

get it right. That is why I’ve moved this motion.

We want to add economic security, investment security into this province, back into

British Columbia, but we also need to make sure that we’re doing that for First Nations

as well, including First Nations that have conflicting jurisdiction and traditional

territories. So that is why I’ve tabled this motion.

I thank you for this time.

Scott McInnis : I appreciate my colleague from Langley–Walnut Grove bringing forward this motion, which I also stand and speak in support of.

This treaty process has been very interesting, I have to say. It’s been a process

which I’ve learned a lot about, to say the very least, when it comes to how this process

works. Long-standing — how do I say it properly? — differences of understanding around

overlap for territory and the entire process…. To learn about that history and different

perspectives has been very, very interesting.

I’ve appreciated the opportunity to learn. I’ve spoken to both the K'ómoks and neighbouring First Nations, including the Wei Wai Kum, several times to gain a

greater understanding as far as this process works — certainly before I can make an

informed decision on the treaty itself. And I know my colleagues feel the same way.

Interjection.

Scott McInnis : I know that.

Deputy Speaker : Thanks, Members. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has the floor.

Scott McInnis : The Minister of Education is welcome to get up and stand and speak after me. I know

how this process works. I spent 45 seconds introducing what I was going to say.

This motion, I think, is really good governance. I’m not an expert in this area, but

I’ve certainly listened as diligently as I could to all perspectives surrounding this

treaty, and there’s not a clear understanding of who’s right and who isn’t.

That’s why this motion is important — because it allows for an open, public, transparent

process to take place where individuals, groups, leaders can come in and address the

select standing committee, which, again, to my understanding, as my colleague mentioned,

hasn’t been sitting for over 20 years, which is a surprise considering that Indigenous

relations and Indigenous affairs in this province is a very complex set of issues.

This motion simply allows for a process to take place for which we can gain a greater

understanding and come to a place in a good way where we can figure out what some

of those challenges are.

[3:10 p.m.]

For me, it’s an excellent opportunity, and I would welcome the opportunity to sit

on this committee because, as I stated, I don’t know the long, long-standing history

as far as some of the overlap concerns go. I think that’s a tremendous opportunity

for all of us, all members on all sides of the House, to hear and to give an opportunity for those to provide more feedback onto this.

Again, I said it in my speech, and I reiterate: I want to support the K’ómoks Treaty Act. But as we sit today, I’m very conflicted on that, and that’s why I think this motion

is extremely important — to allow for the select standing committee to work through

what is obviously not a place where we sit today, where there is strong agreement.

I want to support the K’ómoks, but there are many questions which remain about this legislation and the corresponding

treaty document.

This motion would allow for the time and the space for individuals and leaders from

all sides of the table to provide their perspective, to give all of us in here who

make these important decisions a greater understanding.

This is a very serious piece of legislation. Again, it’s not like we’re renewing driver’s

licences here. It is extremely important that we get this right. And I have to say

that it’s not just the overlap challenges for which this motion will provide greater

opportunity and scope to explore some of the question marks around this treaty.

Again, we’ve had a number of modern treaties brought into this House from 2000 until

2016. Then we didn’t have any for ten years. Generally speaking, what we’ll call the

old model — Tsawwassen, Nisga’a, ɬəʔamɛn, Maa-nulth — was a model that, although not perfect, answered a lot of the questions

that we have around settling some of these issues.

But again, as I mentioned in my previous bill speech, this government has taken that

model and decided in many ways to politicize it and change a model that’s generally

working successfully and throw a whole bunch of question marks into it.

Not only that — and that’s why, again, this motion, this hoist motion, is important

to address these issues — but it gives us an opportunity to dive deeper into that

and to ask those hard questions and to have individuals come into the committee and

make submissions to ask those questions as well, everybody from local Indigenous leaders

to legal experts in the field.

Again, the reason for this motion is that this does feel a little bit rushed. Now,

I know from my discussion with nations that are concerned about Bill 20, it’s my understanding

that they feel the same way. Again, hearing from both sides of the story, there are

varying perspectives. Well, that needs to be put out into the open on the public record

to discuss. That’s exactly why this hoist motion is extremely important.

Because I’m humble enough to admit that I don’t have all the answers, but I’m in here

as the critic to have to vote on something. I don’t feel comfortable with that when

I have such strong disagreement among neighbours.

[3:15 p.m.]

But again, that’s only one of the issues that we need to address and why the purpose

of this motion is so important. There are lots of question marks in Bill 20, question

marks that should have been answered before such a consequential piece of legislation

is brought forward into this House.

If I stand to be corrected, and please, I would encourage government members to do

that, I don’t recall such deep divisions in perspectives from our previous treaties.

So something has gone amiss here, which is why this is so important. When we look

at media releases from neighbouring First Nations, who are painted into a corner —

that they feel like legal action or protests, blockades, are their only recourse for

this government, to get some attention — that’s a pretty significant issue.

And I know for a fact that’s the last thing this government wants on the 6 p.m. news

— trying to pass a treaty, which is supposed to be a positive piece of legislation,

and there are protests or court battles going on.

This hoist motion is absolutely necessary, not to can the treaty entirely but to figure

out why we’re hearing so much opposition to this, because the alternative is to debate

in second reading, to go to committee, ask the tough questions.

Ultimately, the government has the numbers to pass this treaty. And then what? We

see public infrastructure blockaded? We see the floodgates open into court, which

this government has admitted is the last thing they want? That’s our alternative to

this hoist motion?

Now, I feel for the K’ómoks because they’ve put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into

this. And I’ve enjoyed listening to their perspective on why this is so important

to move forward. But again, I’m hearing two sides to a story. And those sides are

very different from one another. That’s what we need to figure out here. That’s exactly

why this motion, to have the Aboriginal Affairs select standing committee meet and

discuss this….

When we’re talking about the Wei Wai Kum…. They’ve been very publicly open in saying

they support their neighbours in the treaty process. But there are a few questions

they feel are important to be heard before it’s passed through this House. That, to

me, is good governance.

I know it’s been decades for the K’ómoks, decades to get to where we’re sitting today. And I can understand that there’ll

be frustration over an added period of time to figure these things out. But I also

understand, and I think the K’ómoks can understand, although I’m not going to speak on their behalf, that figuring this

thing out is probably in everybody’s best interest at the end of the day. The select

standing committee, the purpose of this hoist motion, will just allow for those voices

to be brought forward.

There are also a lot of question marks beyond the overlap issue. I just find it baffling

— and there are a couple of issues we would address in this committee — why there

wouldn’t be a more robust process and agreements to be figured out before we get to

this place in the Legislature. I can’t understand that, that we have these major issues,

that I’m having meetings weekly or a couple of times a week to figure out things.

That work should have already been done. I was shocked that it wasn’t done.

I’ve got to be frank with you, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point of this hoist motion.

I knew the treaty would be a lot of work to get through, and the bill, but this has

been a surprise to me.

[3:20 p.m.]

I certainly did not think we would be having some of these discussions as the bill

is here in the Legislature. Again, I thought this work would have already been finished.

I would be curious to hear, in detail, from the government side their response to

this hoist motion. Are they for or against? I don’t know where they would sit, and

I’m sure they’re having those discussions right now. But I would highly caution them

on voting against it.

I know most government members haven’t met with some of the neighbouring First Nations.

I’ve met with them a number of times. And if we don’t do some good governance here

just to, again, figure out some of these details, this government, not the opposition,

is going to have a serious problem on their hands. I can’t stress that enough.

Again, I would relish the opportunity to hear more, as the critic for Indigenous Relations

and Reconciliation, during the sitting time of the committee so that I can have a

more wholesome understanding of some of these issues before having to cast a vote

on a treaty — a treaty which will be enshrined in the constitution forever.

Now, the overlap issues are one thing. But again, unless I missed it, I still haven’t

heard as to why it is essential…. With all the question marks around UNDRIP, why is

it referenced several times in this treaty as an authoritative source for the

interpretation

of this act?

That’s what we can figure out in the committee. What are the potential consequences

of that down the road? From legal experts…. Of course, every lawyer you talk to has

a different perspective, and that’s important. Some will say it’s not a big deal.

Others will say that there’s no way a treaty can pass with all the uncertainty around

UNDRIP, in this province especially, and to have it in a treaty.

There are a lot of questions to be answered around that, but the two are linked —

the overlap issue and UNDRIP. When nations have a right to their traditional territory

and the resources within that traditional territory, and we’re having a discussion

about whose traditional territory it is, that presents a serious problem. I know what’s

coming down the road, one year, five years, ten years. It’s court. And it’s become

pretty clear that the courts don’t know how to interpret UNDRIP. That’s the nature

of this hoist motion, so we can get those answers.

Now, I think it’s also important that the select standing committee, obviously, doesn’t

sit forever. It would be nice to proceed in a way that’s not expedited but is in a

fashion where we can get those answers as quickly as possible for the benefit of everybody

in British Columbia.

[3:25 p.m.]

What happens here today with Bill 20 will certainly set the table for what happens

in the future with other modern treaties. So we can’t have a half-baked cake here.

I’m in full, 100 percent support of this select standing committee sitting, working

through some of these issues, asking the tough questions, listening to submissions

in person and in writing, having the discussion with my colleagues from across all

the aisles here. That’s good governance. But we can’t, in good conscience, pass a

treaty with these unresolved questions, which, potentially, will lead to chaos.

I would also like to urge government, all of them, to sit down not only with the K’ómoks and hear their perspective but their neighbours, because it may change some perspectives

on that side of the House. I get it. I’m assuming that government won’t support this,

and they want to get the treaty done as quickly as possible because they need a win.

Reconciliation under this government right now is a dumpster fire. But doing it this

way, without the hoist motion and the select standing committee, is not going to lead

to the win they think it is, certainly from the discussions I’ve had and some of my

colleagues have had. We need to sit down in a bipartisan fashion and get the answers

we need before we can make an informed decision on a modern treaty, which is Bill

20 — the first of three, apparently, that are coming forward. That’s all we ask with

this motion — a little bit more time to get some answers.

Again, this government has had nine years to work with the K’ómoks and their neighbours to get these answers. We’ve had just a few weeks, and we haven’t

gotten them. I’m not sure they have them either, which is why we’ve seen the delegations

coming to Victoria and sitting in this House, certainly meeting with us. I don’t know

about meeting with government.

This motion is intended to follow a pathway of good governance before we pass a treaty.

And I know. I can understand this would be frustrating for the K’ómoks because they’ve gotten this far after decades of hard work. But we cannot, in good

faith, pass this treaty without asking those difficult questions in the select standing

committee.

Treaties are too important to not get them right. And as we sit here today, this government

hasn’t got it right, and it’s being rushed at the final hours here. Why? I’d love

to hear from the members opposite.

With this hoist motion, again, I want to encourage that, not only in support but following

that, we have this committee sit as soon as possible — out of respect for everybody,

all British Columbians involved — to get these answers that we need.

[3:30 p.m.]

Not to wait six months. As soon as possible, start bringing in those groups and those

individuals to speak in favour or to share their concerns.

As I finish up here, I just want to reiterate why this motion is so important, as

to how difficult I’ve found this process with the treaties to be in the sense that

I didn’t expect such controversy.

As I referenced, I don’t think there was such controversy with the old modern treaty

model. But this is not that model. The process appears to be much different, which

is exactly why this hoist motion is a necessity. For or against, I’m encouraging a

member or two in government to speak to this motion to help me understand where they’re

coming from, because I don’t know. I don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to

these treaties.

We had Bill 20 to debate on the order paper a couple of weeks ago, then they took

it away for three weeks. I don’t know what they’re thinking. This might be a time

where we can work together. I don’t know. This is too important. It’s too important

for the K’ómoks. It’s too important for their neighbours. It’s too important for the rest of British

Columbia. It’s too important for those that are in the treaty process.

This isn’t the last time we’re going to have these issues in treaty if we don’t figure

it out here first. It’s not like the K'ómoks is the only First Nation in British Columbia that has disagreements over overlap.

We’re fooling ourselves. That’s why I applaud my friend for Langley–Walnut Grove for bringing this motion forward. We have to do more listening.

I’ve appreciated, over the last six weeks, the listening I’ve been able to do around

this issue. I’m hoping government will offer the same courtesy, which is why I hope

they will also support this motion to have the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal

Affairs meet for the first time in over 20 years — over 20 years.

We now have nothing to talk about in this province when it comes to Aboriginal affairs?

I get it. It was a different government previous to this one. That falls on their

shoulders just as much as this government. Twenty years. Maybe we could have had some

of this figured out if the committee would’ve sat since 2003.

This is an essential hoist motion so that we can all work together for British Columbia

to get this treaty right, because as we sit here today, it’s not. There are too many

question marks in a new 2026 model of treaty brought forward by this government, which

has a lot of uncertainty to it because it is not the treaty model we saw from 2000

to 2016. It is not the same thing, and it’s extremely important the public understands

that. Why are we taking the risk to try something new with such a consequential document?

[3:35 p.m.]

This is very necessary. I’m in full support of this hoist motion brought forward by

my friend. I hope somebody from government will stand up and explain their position

on this hoist motion, because I think my colleagues would agree with me. We’re not

really sure what they’re thinking on this, and we should be because a treaty shouldn’t

be a partisan document. It affects all of British Columbia, because it is forever.

I thank you for the time today.

Elenore Sturko : I rise to speak in favour of the motion to not continue with second reading but to

refer Bill 20 to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I’ve put a lot

of thought into what I wanted to talk about, with regard to why I support this motion

and why I think it’s important that we do that in this House.

My remarks won’t be long this afternoon, but I do think that they make important points.

I hope that it resonates with people from my community. I hope that it resonates with

the parties who are seeking to see this treaty ratified but also to those who have

taken an issue with the ratification of the treaty.

Specifically, I’m talking about the Wei Wai Kum First Nation. I did meet with their Chief Roberts. I did receive correspondence from the First

Nation as well, because they are raising concerns that they have with a dispute over

territory that is being claimed as the territory under the treaty that we’re going

to legislate through Bill 20. It’s also the traditional territory of the Wei Wai Kum.

I’m going to just be really specific. At issue in this K’ómoks treaty, in the opinion of the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, is that it contains portions of land overlapping traditional territory.

The primary concern is that the Wei Wai Kum will be required to seek free, prior and informed consent on what they consider to

be their own territory.

It’s been expressed to me that this is already causing some disputes with a natural

resources project, a wind farm that is already in discussions and the planning phase.

Because of this dispute over territory, it’s actually causing a problem already. There’s

no framework in the treaty to resolve the dispute.

Furthermore, if we pass this implementation legislation and the treaty is ratified,

First Nations who are in conflict over the territory that is overlapping within the

treaty agreement have already said that they would take immediate court action. I’m

not sure whether or not any other direct action by the First Nation would be taken.

As my friend and colleague the critic for Indigenous Relations had said, there’s been

talk about blocking things like infrastructure, blocking railways, highways, important

trade corridors or ports. Nobody wants to see that.

I think that is why it’s of paramount importance that we support the motion to give

ourselves the opportunity, in this place, to have a better understanding of, first

of all, the process that went into trying to resolve the dispute between these First

Nations. I know that considerable effort was made on behalf of the Crown, on behalf

of First Nations, to resolve the dispute about this territory that’s overlapping but,

despite the fact that it has been decades of negotiating this treaty, this still hasn’t

been resolved.

The point of having a treaty is so that we can have some measure of certainty. I think

that my colleagues in this place have done a good job, on both sides of the floor,

in expressing that certainty is something that we need to have. But passing legislation

that allows for the ratification of a treaty that in itself will become wrapped in

uncertainty because of immediate court action is not creating the certainty that we

would expect from this process.

[3:40 p.m.]

I think one of the other aspects of uncertainty — it’s probably a broken record by

now in this place — is DRIPA. Of course there’s uncertainty. It’s acknowledged on

both sides of this chamber that there are serious legal liabilities in this province

related to DRIPA.

When DRIPA was passed in 2019…. I think there have been consequences since then that

were probably not necessarily foreseen, especially the way, after the 2021 implementation

of the

Interpretation Act,

section 8.1, that the courts would interpret DRIPA, taking

the negotiations out of the hands of government and putting those decisions into the

court.

This government has said time and again that negotiations are best done nation to

nation, government to government, so that means the Crown at the federal level. That

means the Crown at the provincial level working directly with First Nations, and First

Nations to First Nations.

But if we ratify the treaty before this issue is resolved with the overlap of this

territory, then we’re again going to be headed potentially into multi-million-dollar

legal action that will be drawn out for decades, that will have decades of uncertainty

attached to it, that, at the end of the day, will take that ability for negotiation

away and put it, again, back into the courts, which is something that this government

is actually trying to avoid.

Our Attorney General talks about a durable solution and not wanting to have to see

things decided in the courts, which is the unintended consequence of

section 8.1 of

the

Interpretation Act. Having the courts decide the Gitxaała decision, making DRIPA the law of the land here so that basically the government’s

hands are tied in terms of their ability to negotiate, and those things are dictated

by the courts.

I don’t think that that is where this government wants to go. They can correct me

if I’m wrong. I think that there is plenty of opportunity for members of the government

to dispute what I’m saying, but it has been said over and again that we need certainty.

There is definitely legal liability with DRIPA, which is actually also a significant

part of the K’ómoks treaty. I think that we do not really know yet what the consequence of having that

as part of this treaty also involves.

Deputy Speaker : Member, I just want to draw you back to the motion.

Elenore Sturko : Yes, Mr. Speaker. That’s why I think that it’s important for us to support this motion.

My arguments here that I’m making, my speech that I’m making today, Mr. Speaker, is

to give you the evidence as to why it’s important. Outlining what happened in a very

real scenario that’s playing out today, how things have ended up in the courts, is

actually what I see in our very near future.

If we ratify or pass this legislation that allows the ratification of the K’ómoks treaty, it will likely result in long, expensive litigation that doesn’t benefit

the First Nations. It doesn’t benefit our province. It is costly and actually takes

away some of the benefits of being able to do those negotiations.

Going with this motion into committee allows for a broader discussion. It allows for

us to have everything put out on the table to understand better what types of efforts,

what types of discussions — because I know that they were plentiful — between the

Crown at the federal and provincial level, between the Wei Wai Kum First Nation, between the K’ómoks First Nation and other nations and between the B.C. Treaty Commission.

I appreciate that the member for Langley-Willowbrook brought this motion forward. This is too important, and I hate disappointing anyone.

I really do. I was here when the K’ómoks First Nation was in the Hall of Honour celebrating the first reading of this legislation.

It is joyous to see work being done that will better communities, but we want to make

sure that it’s done properly.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think that if we don’t take an opportunity to understand this process and really

to determine whether the due diligence has been done to ensure that we don’t end up

in serious court challenges, that we don’t have direct action being taken by First

Nations after this legislation is passed…. I think we should be sending this to committee

for further discussion.

I don’t want to kill the treaty. I don’t want to, and neither do the First Nations

that I’ve spoken to who have some questions and issues with what’s happened. They

also want to see it go forward. There were some very specific things that I was communicated

with that they want to see.

They don’t want to have this ratified and see the K’ómoks First Nation being elevated on a legal footing before this is resolved. The reality of ratifying

the treaty will be that it will be constitutionally enshrined, and it really does

change the legal footing between those First Nations — one with its rights recognized

in treaty, one who’s on the outside.

Again, a government picking winners and losers, which is why it’s important for us

to have a better understanding, to take more time with this. It’s extremely complicated,

perhaps despite the fact that this is, in paper, only a few pages. But the importance

of it is so tremendously significant. I think that my colleagues here have successfully

demonstrated to you the way in which it could impact even other treaties that have

long been resolved.

There are just a couple of other things before I wrap up here that I would like to

include in my arguments in support of this opposition motion. One of them is a couple

of excerpts from a CBC News

article from May 5, and it is called, “As Treaty Negotiations in B.C. Raise Concerns,

Chief Treaty Commissioner Says the Process Needs to be Improved.”

It includes quotes here from two people who I respect very much. One is Adam Olsen,

who, you probably remember, was a member of this House. He is a member of the W̱JOȽEȽP First Nation, former Green Party MLA. He described the tensions that are being experienced

between these First Nations in relation to Bill 20 as a reckoning in the modern treaty

process in British Columbia.

He says: “I think First Nations generally support the self-determination of First

Nations to go through that process. However, it can’t come at the expense of neighbouring

First Nations.” He also went on to say that this is on the provincial and federal

government.

You see, we have other people in British Columbia, highly respected people, members

of First Nations, who also agree that we can’t be making decisions in favour of one

nation at the expense of another. I think that moving to committee, to perhaps even

invite someone like Adam Olsen in to have this discussion…. What do you mean by that,

sir? How is it that, in your mind, we can do this better?

But I think even more important is that we actually have some comments here from the

B.C. Treaty Commission’s new chief commissioner. The chief commissioner also believes

that this process needs to be improved upon. He said: “This has been an issue that

has been left to First Nations themselves to try to sort out, with assistance at times

from the commission and the province and Canada. But I think we need to be a bit more

imaginative, be a bit more innovative and see if there are additional ways we can

support the parties as they try to resolve these difficult and historical issues.”

As I conclude here in support of this motion, you can see that even the new chief

commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission admits that we need to be more imaginative.

We need to be more creative. We need to be more supportive when it comes to helping

resolve these issues.

I believe in treaties. I know that they are a way that we can have security and certainty

on property rights, private property rights. They can provide opportunities for economic

development and prosperity for First Nations and British Columbians. But we want to

start off in a good way, and we want to make sure that we’re not ratifying and putting

into constitutional enshrinement something that is going to lead us into significant

court challenges.

[3:50 p.m.]

So I support this motion. Let’s give ourselves this opportunity that’s being offered

to sit together, to learn more information, to see if there are ways of resolving

this dispute, to make this an even stronger and more successful treaty so that we

can, in the end, all celebrate together what should be a momentous occasion for First

Nations and British Columbians.

I would encourage all members of this House to support the opposition motion.

Jeremy Valeriote : I have been listening carefully, and I feel like this is a true debate. I’ve been

a little disappointed, coming from a municipal council background, that sometimes

what passes for debate in this House is sort of entrenched monologues, so I’m happy

to listen to this.

I want to thank my colleagues for the time and effort they’ve put into this dialogue.

Treaties are incredibly important, and it is critical we take our time to ensure we’re

honouring the time and relationship and labour that’s informed them.

I’m going to put together a slightly different view here, and I’m going to be a little

pedantic with my colleague. I don’t think this is a hoist motion. We had a lot of

discussion about whether a six-month delay was effectively killing the bill or not.

I’m open to further comment on this, but it seems to me that referring to a committee

that hasn’t met in decades either could easily or is intended to stop this in its

tracks.

In any case, I’ll explain why we are currently opposed to this dilatory motion.

The Third Party, the B.C. Greens, supports the self-determination of First Nations

in all the forms that may take, including treaty-making. We’re all here to do our

part in ensuring self-determination of all First Nations is supported by the legislation

passed in this chamber.

It’s been made crystal clear there are long-standing issues with the treaty process,

including the Crown’s interference in Indigenous relations, governance and legal orders.

We also know that negotiation tables have not yet been successful in avoiding the

need for First Nations to seek justice or redress through the judicial branch.

As we see through this conversation — and more to come, I’m sure — and throughout

this entire session, there are not sufficient venues for the cross-partisan consideration

of Indigenous affairs issues needed to find consensus. I would say, perhaps subjectively,

that political opportunism has further degraded this conversation.

The B.C. Greens have been calling for the re-establishment of the Standing Committee

on Aboriginal Affairs as a space where this House can come together, with support

from First Nations and legal experts, to move past partisanship and actually make

progress on these critical issues.

In April, the B.C. Greens invited the government to consider this proposal, which

included the following three things — and I will get to the motion in just one second,

if you bear with me: reviewing progress on the agreed approach, with regular updates

to the Legislature and the public — pretty key, in keeping the public informed; reviewing

funding for the B.C. Treaty Commission, the Declaration Act secretariat and other

treaty and reconciliation initiatives, which involves treating this work as a major

project; and reviewing and making recommendations on additional ways to advance reconciliation,

such as establishing an independent reconciliation commissioner, selected by the all-party

committee together with First Nations.

For all these reasons, we appreciate the effort being made to create space for these

more nuanced and non-partisan conversations. It’s an important goal, and I thank the

opposition for bringing it forward.

We also believe it’s important to recognize the larger context in which this House

sits and that the substance of this act is not, nor should it be, created and stewarded

solely through legislative processes.

To clarify this, the development of treaties is an incredibly complex process. It

spans generations, requires skill in Crown litigation, Indigenous legal orders, relationship-building,

historical and cultural knowledge, humility, critical thinking and grace.

This is not to say that the process is without flaws. It’s clear that it has many.

But it’s important to remember that the document in front of us is not the K’ómoks treaty but the K’ómoks Treaty Act. This is a critical distinction. It is fundamentally for First Nations

themselves — with the support of the Crown, when requested — to determine what are

and aren’t their own historical boundaries.

The process through which the government participates in treaty-making is made possible

through the B.C. Treaty Commission, an organization that draws on the skills I just

named. If British Columbia is involved, this is where litigation specifics of a treaty

are meant to be unpacked and negotiated, not in the Legislative Assembly.

[3:55 p.m.]

Speaking to the motion, the Aboriginal Affairs Committee should be a place for provincewide

consideration of reconciliation and how to all move forward together. It should not

be where the details of a treaty, which has been discussed and contributed to by generations

of people…. This should not be a place where these are dissected and determined.

With all that said, questions about the process remain. As the Third Party shared

in our statement yesterday, our role is to ensure that laws passed in this House,

at the very least, do not impede or disrupt the self-determination of any First Nation.

For that reason, the Third Party’s caucus is not inclined to support the motion proposed.

We recognize the intention and appreciate the attempt to give space for issues to

be resolved, but we don’t believe a pause of this form is appropriate or will be effective.

In acknowledging this, this caucus believes that for this specific piece of legislation,

the committee stage of the legislative process is the appropriate venue in which to

voice concerns about the impacts of the legislation — an important point; that’s impacts

of the legislation — that have been raised.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

John Rustad : I want to start, with regards to the motion, just addressing some of the things that

the hon. member from the Green Party has brought forward. I understand the reluctance

and his suspicion around this. The actions of opposition often use things like hoists

to delay projects, to try to talk things out, to eat up time, these types of things.

But in this particular case, when you’re looking at what the intent was here, there

are serious issues associated with overlap.

Now, when modern treaties were first brought in — and I remember debating some of

these treaties in the Legislature — the issue of overlap was there as well, but it

wasn’t as acute. Because of DRIPA, UNDRIP, the court cases that have come forward,

the issue of overlap is far more critical today than it was in the original treaties,

whether it was the Maa-nulth treaty or whether it is some of the treaties that failed

— ɬəʔamɛn.

Tsawwassen, of course, had been successful. I’m thinking particularly about the Lheidli T’enneh treaty, which did not get ratified because of overlap issues.

So what we are seeing today is a significant difference between those treaties that

were brought in and this treaty here and the other two treaties yet to come, being

the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum. Because of the significance of the environment that’s

changed in B.C. because of what’s happened with DRIPA, with the introduction of UNDRIP

as part of that, the expectations are much higher. The legal ramifications are much

more significant, and we are seeing that playing out.

For those reasons, I think it’s important that we send this to a committee, that we

have an opportunity to actually play these things out, to talk about this, to understand

how this goes in, to have the input and try to find a path forward. Because the world

has changed from 30 years ago, from 20 years ago, from ten years ago. The world has

changed.

It has changed intentionally by this government, for better or for worse. I would

say for worse. But it has intentionally changed, and so we need to take that into

context when we’re talking about treaty and the advancement of treaty.

I’ve been a proponent of treaty for many, many years, and I’ve come to the conclusion

that we need to be talking much more about how we conclude reconciliation entirely,

but that’s a different conversation.

There needs to be this avenue to be able to address this because of how things have

changed in British Columbia, and how else can you do that? Because in committee stage,

we can have this discussion back and forth, but it’s not the opportunity of time and

to be able to have the input and engagement between the nations, giving them the ability

to actually work this thing through with the help of government and opposition, through

committee, working these things through….

After all, as the member of the Green Party said, this is the whole purpose of why

they’re there. We want to be able to pass and bring things forward that make sense,

that can achieve results, that are going to improve the opportunities for First Nations

— self-determined, self-governance, these types of things.

If we’re going to do that, if we’re going to do that right, let’s find a way to avoid

the huge pitfalls that, quite frankly, have become major barriers, major stumbling blocks to how we

advance modern treaties today. It’s not just about the K’ómoks treaty, because we have the other treaties and other nations of the province who

are looking at it.

[4:00 p.m.]

The issue of overlaps is far more significant right across this province. So if we

can get it right here, if we can find a way to be able to address it and deal with

it today, through a process, we’re not only helping to solidify and strengthen the

opportunity for the K’ómoks People, but we’re also setting the stage for how we might be able to do things across

this province in addressing this.

So this is a very timely and important discussion to be able to bring forward in terms

of this motion, and I really thank the member for Langley–Walnut Grove for opening up this debate around moving it to a committee, creating that avenue

to deal with it.

Now, there are some things that the Green Party and I may agree on. There are some things that we may not agree on. One of the things,

of course, is UNDRIP and the implementation of UNDRIP. When I first looked at the treaty, and it says

it’s an authoritative source, I kind of looked at it and went: “Well, is this huge?

Is this significant? What does this mean?”

But I’ve come to the conclusion that with the problems of DRIPA…. And we don’t even

know exactly what they all are because government isn’t forthcoming with these issues.

They haven’t brought forward legislation and the changes that they believe are necessary to be able to resolve these things.

Cementing UNDRIP into a constitutional document creates a tremendous amount of unknown

factors. And so I went to all the sources I could find. I’ve talked to First Nations about it. I’ve talked to lawyers about it. I’ve talked to judges and former judges

about it. What does it mean, “an authoritative source”? It doesn’t say it’s the authoritative source; it says it’s an authoritative

source.

What it means is that it is authoritative. In other words, it is at the same equivalent law to all other law in this country, including

section 35 of our constitution. It is an authoritative source.

When you go back and look at the original debate of UNDRIP in the United Nations, that was never what the intention was. It was never the intention of that as it

was passed, and certainly not in the context of Canada, which has Aboriginal rights protected in the constitution.

So the importance of this motion to move this to committee is to be able to create

that venue, that opportunity, for discussion of overlap, but it’s also to allow for

more information to come forward on the unintended consequences of having UNDRIP directly

in this treaty.

Because, as I’m sure the member who spoke before me from the Green Party and other members have talked about, the whole…. What’s the purpose of doing treaty in the first place? The purpose of doing treaty

is to find a path forward, for nations to be successful, to prevent things from going

to court, to create that sort of stability or certainty that we’ve all talked about.

That’s the intent of doing treaty. It’s a way to address these long outstanding issues and be able to move forward in a good way as partners — not as divorced but

as partners, married, going forward, moving this forward to be successful. But how

do you do that when there’s this kind of uncertainty that is being created, and how

do you do that with these issues of overlaps with their neighbours?

You think about this. It has been 30 years working on to get this treaty to this point

— 30 years. Multiple generations have been working at this to get this thing passed.

And I know the K’ómoks People are excited about moving this forward. They want to see their opportunity to

advance. We’ve seen the success of other modern treaties that have come forward for

this.

I believe that the First Nations want this to be successful, and they don’t want this to generate conflict, or they don’t want this to generate

court cases. They don’t want to have the conflict of unintended consequences as well.

There’s a simple change that could have happened. Instead of making it an authoritative

process, they could have done it like UNDRIP was supposed to be. They could have just

said it is a guiding principle. How does…?

Deputy Speaker: Member, can I direct you back to the motion, please?

John Rustad : This is the motion that I’m talking about, Mr. Speaker. And I really appreciate this,

but the intention of this motion is so that we can have these discussions outside.

It’s not just debating as to whether we should put it to a committee. Why are we putting

it to committee? That is what is important about this motion, which is the information

I’m giving you, Mr. Speaker.

[4:05 p.m.]

So when you look at, like I say, the UNDRIP and changing from “an authoritative” to what it was supposed to be, the guiding principle of how we build our relationships

with First Nations, it’s a simple change. I can’t understand why anybody would oppose

that, unless there’s an intent which perhaps is not being said here. And I don’t believe

that, in the first case, with the First Nations at all. I do, perhaps, suspect the

government in terms of their intent on this.

But if we are going to advance this treaty in a good way, if we’re going to make sure

that we build and advance our relationships properly, questions need to be answered.

We need to understand what the problem is with DRIPA. What has it created? What were

the changes? Because DRIPA is just the implementation of UNDRIP, which is what’s in

this treaty. We need to understand those. More importantly, we need to have that full

engagement by a committee to actually be able to have public input so the public can

understand what’s going on with this, so that there isn’t this misinformation.

This government likes to run around saying that, oh, we’re just filibustering. We’re

spreading misinformation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want the public

to understand exactly what is happening here, not government spin, not the rest of

the type of garbage that goes on in terms of how these things are normally brought

forward but giving the opportunity for people to actually have input, to hear information

directly. You can do that through committee. You can summon witnesses. You can bring

information forward. You can produce reports. All of this stuff is critically important.

When I think about the K’ómoks treaty and I think about our treaties that have gone before them…. Why was there

a need for the difference here? What created this? We were able to do treaties before

without having to use UNDRIP. Why does this now have to be included today? And why

does it have to be included as an authoritative source? Why are we enshrining this

in a constitutionally protected document?

It’s a valid question, but it’s a question I’ll be able to ask in committee, which

is good. I’ll get an answer, and I’m sure it will be the usual non-answer that comes

from government on it. But more importantly, this is why it should go to this process,

which will be an all-party committee, because the public gets to ask that question

and get it answered.

In my time as minister, I’ve had lots of opportunity to be engaged in overlap issues,

which is at the foundation of why we are asking for this motion to have this go to

committee. I understand the Hereditary Chiefs, the Elders. They know where the boundaries

are. They can work these things through. It is possible to be done. I’ve seen it.

I’ve had those conversations.

Why do we not have that window today to deal with this? Why is it, after 30 years

of negotiations, nobody seems to think that this is something that could have been

resolved? Because it can be. I know it can be. I’ve talked to the nations about it. I’ve talked to

Elders about it. I’ve talked to Elders about how they work and how they expected and

how they did things.

I’ll give you an example. Up in my riding, I would sit down and talk to the Elders,

and they would say that when another nation came into their territory, they would

ask permission to come and to hunt or to gather. They would do an exchange. It would

be an honourable process that would go through. They’d come in and do this. And it

was a friendly component about it, but they knew where those lines were.

It’s only because of what we have done that those lines have been blurred and changed

for the benefit of various nations. So why haven’t we created that avenue for those

nations to have those discussions? What is preventing that from happening? Vancouver

Island has got — what? — 50, 60 First Nations, tons of overlaps all over the place. They’ve all had various engagements and process.

What has been done to try to facilitate that kind of a conversation?

I get that when they’re not in treaty or they’re not close to it, there may not be

the same sort of urgency, but we’re talking about a treaty that’s a constitution-level

document that will be enshrined, that’s almost impossible to change without agreement

of the three parties involved. Yet somehow we have not been able to find that path for dealing with overlap.

This is a way to create some space, not to vote to kill the treaty, because it doesn’t

do that, but to move this forward, allow the space and see if there can be that path

in a good way to be able to address it.

[4:10 p.m.]

The alternatives are what — blockades, court cases? I thought that was the whole purpose

of doing DRIPA. That was the whole purpose of doing treaty — to avoid those things.

Yet this seems to be what the results of this are going to be. How is that right?

How is that achieving reconciliation?

By moving forward this motion and allowing for this to go to a committee, it allows

for the opportunity to have those, to give that space, so it’s not conflict on the

ground. It’s not fighting in the courts. It’s coming to the table and just having

a conversation: “How do we solve this?”

Maybe it’s not the politicians on either side that can solve it. Maybe it is the Elders

that you bring in and let them just address it the way they did historically. There’ve

been many fights between nations. There’ve been wars. Slaves hav