2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 43, Number 2
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS | |
Page | |
Routine Business | |
Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 14137 |
Bill M236 — Election Amendment Act 2, 2017 | |
A. Weaver | |
Orders of the Day | |
Committee of the Whole House | 14137 |
Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 | |
Hon. S. Thomson | |
H. Bains | |
K. Conroy | |
D. Donaldson | |
Report and Third Reading of Bills | 14161 |
Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 | |
Committee of the Whole House | 14161 |
Bill 7 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017 (continued) | |
L. Popham | |
Hon. N. Letnick | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2017
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M236 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT 2, 2017
A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Election Amendment Act 2, 2017.
A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Election Amendment Act 2, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
A. Weaver: I am pleased to introduce the bill entitled Election Amendment Act 2. This bill is designed to set term limits on elected officials of the B.C. Legislature. If enacted, this bill would limit MLAs to 12 years, or three terms. In addition, an individual could not be nominated for re-election if they had already served eight years as Premier.
The introduction of term limits would ensure that those seeking elected office recognize that serving the people of British Columbia should be interpreted as a sense of civic duty, not a career path.
The general public have become cynical about politics and career politicians. Voter turnout is on the decline. By introducing term limits, certain elected officials will be freed up to think about the long term consequences of their decisions rather than just their re-election goals. It will ensure a continued rejuvenation of this Legislature.
I feel that we are still fighting the Cold War in this chamber. We’ve got politicians who’ve been here, on both sides of the House, since the 1990s. When the same players continue their never-ending dance of dysfunction, British Columbians all lose. The type of behaviour that we witnessed this morning in question period is a testament to that.
Madame Speaker: Member, just to the content of the bill.
A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M236, Election Amendment Act 2, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage on Bill 5.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2017
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 1:39 p.m.
On section 1.
Hon. S. Thomson: Just before we start, I thought I would, for the record, introduce the staff who are supporting here today: Marg Shamlock, who is the acting manager of legislation; and Kathleen Werstiuk, who is the manager of wildfire risk in the wildfire branch. Thank you for that indulgence, and I look forward to the passage of the sections.
H. Bains: I would like to, perhaps, in the beginning, welcome the staff — and the minister, of course, so that he doesn’t feel left out.
This talks about “repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following.” Perhaps the minister could explain what the new section 1 means and what’s behind all of this. Maybe the minister could give us a background so that we understand what is driving behind this section and why there was a need to come up with this change.
Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll maybe give a general explanation in terms of the reason for the legislation and bringing forward the additional time in the limitation period. Currently in the legislation, there is no limitation period that is applicable to sections 25, 27 or 28 within the act, and we’ve been advised that a basic limitation period under section 6 of the Limitation Act — a separate piece of legislation — may apply to cost recovery proceedings under section 25.
It’s also uncertain as to how those limitations would apply to orders under section 27 and section 28 in the act, which are driven by findings of a contravention under section 26 and which are currently subject to a three-year limitation period under section 33.
This is about aligning all of the limitation periods and provisions within the legislation to that three-year period.
[ Page 14138 ]
As we said in the introduction of the bill, it’s in order to provide that additional time and consistency across the legislation to manage all of the investigations and the application orders under the Wildfire Act with a consistent time period and to not be limited in that by the Limitation Act, which has a two-year time period.
From a legal perspective, there was uncertainty as to whether that applied or not. The general view was that it probably would apply and we would be better to get the three-year limitation period consistent across the act. So this section 1 adds that three-year limitation period to determine that a person caused or contributed to the spread of a fire that originated on private or leased Crown land.
H. Bains: My understanding was that currently a three-year limit existed but only applied to contravention orders. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct.
H. Bains: If that applies, a three-year limit already exists. So is the minister saying now that we are broadening the scope of what comes within the three years, in addition to contravention orders? And what would those be?
Hon. S. Thomson: With the legislation and the amendment, we are bringing in, confirming and adding the three-year limitation period to section 25. Sections 27 and 28 had, in interpretation, a three-year limitation period. So in order to have administrative fairness and clarity in this legislation, we’re specifying that to make sure that that’s clear and bringing in the new specified time frame of three years for section 25.
H. Bains: What was the need to include or broaden this particular section that already existed? What is the need, and what are we trying to achieve out of this?
Hon. S. Thomson: The need or the rationale for this was to, as we commented in the introduction, provide adequate time for the investigation and the determinations, and then also, for consistency and fairness, to align that time frame with the sections under 27 and 28, to make sure that….
One is around the determinations; the other is around the contravention. So the findings and the contraventions…. It’s to line the two time frames up so that it provides the efficiency for the person in an opportunity to be heard, in terms of those findings that may be made under either of the sections.
It was to provide the adequate time and then to line up all of the time frames within the legislation in the same time period, creating that efficiency as you go through the process, as you go through the opportunities to be heard for an individual who may be subject to both those determinations and the findings — and the cost recovery or the contravention provisions that would be under those sections. So it’s to put it all together and make sure it’s clear that they’re all aligned together and that the new section 25 is in the same three-year time frame.
H. Bains: As I said before, the three-year time applied anytime it was felt that there was a contravention of the act. But it’s saying the same thing now. It’s a different kind of area, it seems to me, that it covers. I’m just trying to understand this. For example, under section 26, again, it is determining that a person has contravened a provision of this act.
That section was there before, and the three-year period applied there as well. Then it goes on: “…under section 27 (1) or 28 (1) in respect of the contravention referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.” Again, it’s the same thing, referring back to it.
I’m just trying to understand. In the press release, I read that now you’re talking about cost recovery, levying penalties and remediation and that those are the areas that require extra time. Perhaps the minister could explain whether those particular areas where someone could contravene that act are the ones that the minister was considering when they made this change. Is that correct? Or what else is driving these changes?
Hon. S. Thomson: To attempt to clarify this, first of all, the contravention is under section 26. Then 27 and 28 are the consequence sections, which are penalties or remediation provisions that come out of those. Section 25 is not a contravention, in a sense. It is related to private land. It’s where the landowner may have caused the fire and there is recovery of costs, so it’s not necessarily a contravention.
What happens under law is that the three-year period applied to those other sections. We had always operated the other section on the basis of the three-year interpretation as well, but what the legislative counsel advised is that that may be, in law, contrary to the Limitation Act, which sets out a two-year time period for those events. Because it wasn’t explicitly set in the legislation, the advice was to set that time period specifically for three years for all of those sections.
Also, it was viewed as providing the clarity and also ensuring that we didn’t have to abandon any of those processes because of the interpretation of the two years. Because of the increasing complexity of fires, it was felt to line it all up, make it all consistent with the time period and get out from under the potential that the Limitation Act would be used to halt a process or halt an investigation because we didn’t have the time to make it consistent for all portions of the legislation.
[ Page 14139 ]
M. Farnworth: As the MLA for Port Coquitlam, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Farnworth: In the precincts and gallery today, we have a number of students and their teachers from Archbishop Carney Secondary School. It’s a fine school in my riding, and I would ask the House to make them most welcome and hope that they enjoy their visit here to the legislative buildings and the city of Victoria.
Debate Continued
H. Bains: That answer I appreciate, but I think it creates a bit more confusion now. The minister used as the example — and I hope I will refer to that correctly; correct me if I’m wrong — a private landowner who causes a fire. That may not be a contravention.
My question then is: are we changing the definition of “contravention” to make sure that we capture what a contravention is? The contravention part is already covered here, right? Three years for contravention orders. It is already there. So what is it that we are trying to capture that wasn’t captured before? Maybe that’s a little more simple way to put it.
Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe I can take this right back to a much simpler explanation, I hope. In this legislation, we’re not expanding the scope, not doing anything different than has currently been the case with respect to these sections.
What we are simply doing here under section 25 — because of the concerns that were raised around the possible application of the limitation period around two years — is to make it explicit in the legislation that all those components that we work with and investigate in the legislation are lined up and consistent. Under section 25, when we’re working through that portion of it that was already in place, there’s no change to the fact…. The rules haven’t changed around what might constitute when the investigators would pursue those investigation things. Nothing has changed there, other than the time frame.
It’s simply making sure that we are consistent in the time frame through adding the additional time to be able to do the work so that we don’t have to abandon any processes. It’s also to make it more efficient for the landowner or the person who may be the subject of that in terms of the opportunity to be heard. They would line up and be in the same time frames.
You had the potential where somebody, because they were under interpretation of a two-year time frame, had to have an opportunity to be heard on that process within that two-year time frame, while the processes were still going on, and then have another one under the three-year time frame.
It’s just to put it all together and make sure that we have that adequate time and have consistency — at the advice of legislative counsel — and not to leave that uncertainty and not to be in a position where we may have to abandon some process where there was a legitimate need to look to cost recovery.
H. Bains: Now we’re getting there, I think. That explains the issue here — a bit more clarity, in my view.
But then my question is…. Right now, currently, if there’s a contravention and orders are given under section 25, then there’s a time limit of two years and three years. Certain areas are covered within two years, and others are three years. Perhaps the minister could explain. My understanding was that still, under contravention orders, a three-year limit applied. What is the area that only a two-year limit applied to?
Hon. S. Thomson: To be specific here, section 25 relates to recovery of costs, fire control costs. That was the section that was caught up in the two-year limitation period.
[R. Lee in the chair.]
The contraventions, orders for remediation, consequences under the other sections had the three-year time frame. Section 25 was recovery of costs from private or Crown lands. These are the situations that say….
Again, it’s a more limited population of what you may have under section 25, because it’s not a contravention. But there is an ability to recover costs. You can have a situation where you haven’t necessarily contravened the legislation, but there is a responsibility for costs.
If you’re burning fence lines or you’re burning grass and then it gets away on you and you cause fire, that may not necessarily be a contravention. You may simply look to recover costs in that case. You want to go through the process, and you want to have the time to be able to do that.
Again, back to the basic premise of the change in the legislation, it’s actually quite simple. It is just to make sure that across all of those sections, we’re consistent in the time frame, consistent for the opportunity to be heard for individuals who were caught up in any of those sections…. Advice from the legislative counsel was that to lessen the risk of having to abandon a process where you’re looking to recover costs, we should move all of the limitation periods to the three years consistently across the legislation.
H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could say…. Have you had any instances where you tried? There was a case
[ Page 14140 ]
where an investigation started. The contravention orders were issued, the investigation started, and the time ran out. Then you had to abandon that investigation. Have there been many cases like that?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm for the member. Yes, there have been a couple of cases. I’m aware of two where the limits on the limitation period resulted in those processes having to be abandoned. It was about $120,000 to $150,000.
As I said, not a large population in that category, but it’s still important, when we have those processes, to be able to recover those costs and to line it all up and provide for a single opportunity to be heard for those individuals.
So a couple of examples, going back over the last few years. If we research further, there may be other examples. But for sure, I’m aware of a couple.
H. Bains: Again, let me understand this. If there is a complaint or, through whatever means, it’s brought to the minister’s attention that a contravention may have occurred or someone caused a fire, from the day — I mean, that’s the next part here — that issue is brought to the attention of the officer, three years will start. And then what happens in those three years is an investigation period. You will conclude your investigation.
All you have now is a minister issuing an order based on that investigation, and then the legal proceedings may proceed after that. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is correct. It’s from the time that it’s brought to the attention of the official. All of that takes place within the three-year time frame. So it’s the investigation and then the opportunity to be heard once the investigation is completed. Then there’s the determination — whatever it may be, whether it’s cost recovery or a contravention and consequences. Then there is the issuing of the order.
All of that takes place within that three-year time frame within the limitation. That’s, again, why it’s important to have all parts of the legislation run on the same time frame. But it all takes place within that three-year time frame.
H. Bains: The new provisions would cover areas that may not have been covered before, I guess. Is that also the intention? That would be my one question.
For example, the minister said before that any activity by anyone may not be considered to be contravention of the act — but it caused fire. A farmer is burning debris someplace, and it got out of control or the sparks were flying and caused wildfire. That would be the one of the examples. You could go after that farmer.
The other one would be CN or CP. The trains are going and cause a spark, and fire starts. If it’s determined that it was inadvertent, that no one knew and they were simply doing their business…. Because the train happened to go past that area and it caused a spark and the fire started, then you go after CN or CP for cost recovery, remediation, and you could levy penalties.
I mean, is that what we are trying to cover here that wasn’t covered before?
Hon. S. Thomson: Again, just to clarify for the member opposite. All of these provisions in the legislation we currently have now. We’re not expanding the scope of how we would pursue either a recovery of costs or a contravention or any of those processes. We’re simply lining up the time frames for it.
For example, the example that the member opposite used with a farmer. That would likely be pursued under section 25. It lines up the same time frame. It’s a cost recovery.
The example of CN. If it’s on their CN private land, if it’s on their land, that would be and has been pursued under section 25 as well. It could also have a contravention process somewhere, as well, that would be in the same time frame. The investigation, the process, determines which section is appropriate for pursuing it, if there is a pursuit of either costs or if it is determined that there is a contravention and you need to pursue that, and the consequences result from that contravention.
It’s simply having it all lined up under the same limitation timelines for pursuing whatever the most appropriate course of action is.
H. Bains: That’s good. Thank you. So the definition of contravention isn’t broadened. It’s the same as what we have today. All you’re doing, under section 1 of this Bill 5, is expanding the time limit from two years to three years for a certain area that that two-year limit applied to. That’s good.
I think my other question is…. If that’s the case, when you issue orders, when you initiate investigation, the written notice — everything remains the same, all of that. Because it does mention here: “3 years beginning on the date on which the facts that led to the determination that the person contravened the provision first came to the knowledge of an official.”
If that language is in here now, is it the same language that existed before, or is this new language?
Hon. S. Thomson: In section (1.1), this is the specification about when the clock starts, and that is no change from what it has been previously. It specifies the time frame — when the three-year process kicks in.
H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain, since we’re talking about this, what is covered and how broad the scope is in the existing. I mean, we’re only talking
[ Page 14141 ]
about expanding the time limit in certain parts, to pursue, as far as the investigation period and determination is concerned.
But just to clarify, I used an example. CN or CP trains going…. Their private land. Fire. Then it expanded into public lands. Or the other example I could use is if there’s industrial activity within the wooded area and that particular facility caught fire. It could be a small sawmill, and it expanded into the forest and caused wildfire, the ash flying from the fire or whatever the case may be.
Is the minister saying that those broader limitations exist today and that you could go after that sawmill or that industrial site owner — or the CN or CP — who basically were doing their own business, and through no fault of their own, fire started, and not only their own facility got burnt, but it caused fire in the public lands as well? Is that what the minister is saying? Is that how far-reaching the scope is currently — that you could go after the sawmill owner or the people responsible and that it may be determined that it’s because that particular fire caused a fire on public land and forest?
Hon. S. Thomson: The legislation, or the change here, as I said earlier, doesn’t broaden the scope or the application of the legislation at all, in terms of what currently is the process and the practice, other than the change in the time frame from two years to three years under that section.
Currently, in all cases, there is an investigation. There is an opportunity to be heard, as part of that process, to determine what the causes were and whether there was a contravention which would be pursued or whether there was simply a process of recovering costs.
Theoretically, as in the example the member used, that would be investigated. If it was an accident, then there is an opportunity to be heard. If there was some provision, or some reason in the investigation, and it was determined that what happened there was the cause or was as a result of the actions of the owner or anything like that — and it could be linked to that, and that caused it — then that would be part of those complex investigations and the time frame would be looked at.
The important process is that in all of these cases, there is an opportunity to be heard through the process before any determinations are made and any orders may be applied.
H. Bains: The last question would be on subsection (b). It says that in subsection 2, these are the changes: “striking out ‘subsection (1)’ and substituting ‘subsection (1) or (1.1).’” Can you explain what that means?
Hon. S. Thomson: This section is simply the process around…. It confirms when the clock starts, the timing around the document that would be provided so that when people go through the process of review or opportunity to be heard, it references back to that document, which is the one that starts the time frame, starts the clock. That is the document that is relied upon for that purpose.
Section 1 approved.
Hon. S. Thomson: I wondered, just for expediency with the staff here…. There is one transitional section, section 9, related to the Wildfire Act. I’m wondering if we could deal with that section now so that staff could be released. This section is just a transition section that brings into force the other sections. I’m not sure whether we can take things out of order, but I was just going to ask.
The Chair: With consent from both sides of the House, we will continue with section 9.
Leave granted.
On section 9.
H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain. The transition period of two years affects the three-year limit set on section 1 of this bill. How does that match?
Hon. S. Thomson: This section simply provides the transition provision that if there is a current investigation underway that is within the two-year time frame from the time that that clock started ticking on it, the three-year provision would apply to that particular case. If it was one that had already passed the two-year time frame under that, then that would still be applied in that case. So if it’s in process and within the two-year time frame, when this comes into force, the new time frame would apply to that particular case and provide that additional time.
H. Bains: I think it’s understandable, what the minister is saying. Just to clarify it, those proceedings that are still in the process — it will simply automatically extend that time limit to three years. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Thomson: Correct.
H. Bains: Proceedings that may have started and the whole process has been completed with the two-year time limit — you cannot go back and reopen and say: “We have another year to go, and we want some more time.” Those ones that are dealt with, this three-year period will not apply to them. Those that are in process today, going forward, although they fall within the two-year limit now, it automatically will extend to three years.
[ Page 14142 ]
Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct.
H. Bains: That’s the only issue that is being covered by section 9 here. Is there anything else that may have been applied here that we don’t see yet?
Hon. S. Thomson: No. To give the member opposite comfort, there is nothing else that is being applied here. It’s simply, as we stated and answered, correct to both questions that the member opposite asked.
Section 9 approved.
The Chair: The committee will go back to section 2.
The committee will take two minutes for a recess.
The committee recessed from 2:28 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
[R. Lee in the chair.]
On section 2.
K. Conroy: Can the minister explain how no longer requiring resident hunters to carry a resident hunter card or the new fish and wildlife ID number won’t impact conservation officers’ abilities to adequately confirm the legality of hunting?
Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll just take the opportunity quickly, before I address the question, to introduce the staff that are here supporting. Behind me are Tom Ethier, who is our assistant deputy minister in resource stewardship; Cole Winegarden, who is a senior adviser in the fish and wildlife branch; and Renae Snell, who is the acting senior legislative analyst for legislation in the ministry. I’ll thank them for their support this afternoon.
Just to address the question. As the member opposite may know, all hunters have been transitioned to a new fish and wildlife ID number. That process took place when we transitioned to the LEH on-line process. The conservation officer will have that fish and wildlife identification number in the mobile system and be able to access that to look at whether all the appropriate authorizations and permits and everything are in place. That system will also have off-line capability. It’ll be loaded in, so it won’t be reliant on having to have access to the Internet in order to be able to do that.
That former resident hunter number has been transitioned into the new fish and wildlife ID number, and conservation officers will have access to those numbers. They can ask the hunter for those numbers, and they’ll be able to provide them and access the database that ensures that they have all of the appropriate licences, authorizations and permits.
K. Conroy: If I understand this correctly, then, the minister is saying that if a conservation officer asks a hunter to produce their identification, they only have to have some kind of ID on them, and then the conservation officer can go into a system that can work anywhere in the province. They don’t have to have Internet accessibility and will be able to look up and correlate that person’s ID with their fish and wildlife ID number?
Hon. S. Thomson: I think we’ll probably be able to address this more specifically in a further section, section 5 of the bill. But just to confirm again that the provisions…. The fish and wildlife ID number, which all hunters have been transitioned to, would be in the database. It is available in both on-line and off-line access to the database. That’ll have all the information on authorizations, permits and licences for that particular hunter as we fully transition all of the applications to the new system.
K. Conroy: Has there been a consultation on this change?
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, Guide Outfitters, Wildlife Stewardship Council and other groups have all had participation in building and designing the process, and we continue to have that engagement as more and more authorizations are brought onto the system.
We have been out demonstrating the new system as we have ongoing engagement on its implementation. For example, I know that our staff and team were at the B.C. outdoor sportsmen’s show last weekend. I think it was attended by 30,000 people or so, where it was demonstrated — lots of positive feedback.
The user community has been directly involved in the building and design of the system, and it is something that they have been calling for.
K. Conroy: Can the minister explain how that consultation has worked? Can he define what he thinks a consultation means?
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Hon. S. Thomson: Again, to confirm the process around development of this…. It is something that all the organizations have been advocating for and calling for to move the system into a more modern, streamlined process. It involves all of those organizations, through our provincial hunting and advisory team, which includes all of the key organizations I mentioned earlier plus the Wildlife Stewardship Council, Wild Sheep Society, bowhunters, the fishing and angling process. All of them have been involved in the design of it.
Most recently, they have also had a run through all of the legislative components of this. In our view, the call for
[ Page 14143 ]
this and the design with the direct involvement of those organizations has been a level of development and consultation that ensures that what we have here meets the needs of those user organizations and groups.
K. Conroy: It’s my understanding that the consultation consisted of presenting what was already determined was going to be the process, with very little input as to what actually was developed after talking to a number of the different organizations. I think it’s unusual that we have a bill without endorsement or stakeholders supporting, when the press release comes out…. Although I think most organizations are somewhat neutral on the process in the bill, it’s my understanding that there was very little actual consultation back and forth, which is what I would think a bill like this would entail.
I’m going to now turn it over to my colleague.
D. Donaldson: Were the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, who have a recognition and reconciliation agreement, signed in 2012, that includes a land use plan with this province, consulted on any of the amendments being contemplated in section 2 and, for efficiency’s sake, in any of the future sections that we are contemplating here under the Wildlife Act?
Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that, under the process, all the treaty First Nations were provided the information and provided the opportunity for consultation on the process, as per the terms of the treaty.
All First Nations were provided with information on the initiative and all provided the opportunity to engage with our fish and wildlife branch on this. A number took up the opportunity to do that in the process.
I’m also advised that in terms of what is in the transformation project and the system here, there is not anything here that would infringe on rights and title. It met consultation obligations. But all First Nations were provided an opportunity to engage with fish and wildlife staff in this process.
D. Donaldson: Just to clarify, the minister says “all First Nations.” Is he referring to all First Nations who have signed treaties with the province? If so, can he please name the treaty First Nations that were consulted?
If he is saying “all First Nations in the province,” can he clarify that includes that every First Nation in the province was consulted before the amendments being contemplated here were drafted?
Hon. S. Thomson: Information was shared with all 203 First Nations.
K. Conroy: What was the rationale in extending the examination requirements for an unaccompanied adult to unaccompanied non-resident adults?
Hon. S. Thomson: Under this section, this amendment ensures that all hunters in B.C. are held to the same knowledge, same safety standards, while hunting alone or are otherwise accompanied by a qualified hunting guide. It ensures that all hunters are held to the same standards in this legislation.
K. Conroy: But it’s my understanding that unaccompanied adults who are non-resident are not allowed to be hunting. Am I clear on that?
Hon. S. Thomson: This amendment ensures that a non-resident adult is not allowed to hunt alone unless they have taken the CORE and demonstrated that they have done so or they are accompanied by a hunting guide.
K. Conroy: Then my understanding is that, say, a person from the United States or another province could go and take the CORE, and then they can come and hunt by themselves in B.C. Is that what this is allowing them to do?
Hon. S. Thomson: To clarify, a non-resident adult can come and hunt provided they’ve taken the CORE, and it is limited to small game. Those are the current provisions. A non-resident adult taking the CORE would not be able to hunt alone for anything other than small game.
K. Conroy: So a person from outside of British Columbia has as much right to hunt as a resident hunter, as long as they take the CORE. That’s what the minister is saying?
Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is no, not the same right. The provision is limited to small game — rabbits, squirrels, that kind of thing. They do not have the ability to hunt for moose, for deer, for any of the larger game unless they have a permit to accompany or they’re guided.
So it doesn’t provide the opportunity for a non-resident adult to have the same rights as a resident, provided they’ve taken the CORE program, except for small game.
K. Conroy: Can the minister tell me how many foreign hunters have come and taken the CORE course so that they can hunt for rabbits and squirrels?
Hon. S. Thomson: No, we don’t know that, because previously they didn’t have to have taken that CORE program. They could have been doing that without having to go through that process. We’re addressing that gap to provide the same standard so that they will have to take that step in order to do that. Previously…. We don’t know.
K. Conroy: Well, then it begs the question: if the ministry doesn’t know, why would they bring this in? I
[ Page 14144 ]
mean, I can understand ensuring that foreign hunters don’t have priority over British Columbia resident hunters. But why would this even be brought in so that they still have the ability to come in and hunt, even though the ministry is saying they’re only hunting squirrels and rabbits — small game?
Does that entitle…? The tiny deer that we have on the Queen Charlotte Islands — they’re pretty small. Does that equate to small game? Is it just squirrels and rabbits? Is this an issue? Do we have a lot of foreign hunters that want to come and write the CORE so that they can come and hunt small game in B.C.?
Hon. S. Thomson: No, this is to address the gap and ensure…. This is from a safety perspective, ensuring that anybody that is out there hunting those small game…. To be clear, it is only those. The small deer on Haida Gwaii would not constitute small game under the provisions. It’s to address that gap to make sure that anybody who is out there has taken that safety program when they’re here and when they’re out hunting those small game.
K. Conroy: It was my understanding that if a foreign hunter came into B.C., they had to be accompanied by either a guide-outfitter or another resident hunter. Am I now understanding that non-resident hunters can come to B.C. and they just have to take the CORE and they can go and hunt squirrels and rabbits? Does that allow them to trap beavers? Are they considered small game? How does that work? Was this such an issue that this legislation needed to be brought in for this?
Hon. S. Thomson: This provision ensures that a non-resident hunter who comes and is hunting those small game, as we’ve described, has taken that basic CORE program. It addresses a safety gap. They’ve had the ability to do this previously but without having taken the CORE program. We’re ensuring that they have to do that now so that they have that safety provision and process here.
All other hunters in British Columbia are held to that standard, and the ability to do this only applies to those small game. If they are anything else, then they either have to be accompanied by a guide-outfitter or under a permit to accompany.
K. Conroy: Well, again I’m going to ask, because the minister keeps referring to this gap. Has this been a huge pickup by foreign hunters coming to B.C. hunting small game? I don’t understand why the ministry would bring something in if it was…. Is this a big gap in the number of foreign hunters that come and need to take the course so they can hunt small game, as in squirrels and rabbits? I don’t understand. The minister isn’t explaining what the actual gap is.
Hon. S. Thomson: No, it is not a big gap, and it’s not a big area where we felt there was a big issue to address. While we had the opportunity, what we did want to make sure of is that people who have been doing that and have had the ability to do that have taken the CORE training program. That’s so that all people — it’s a public safety process — are out there…. And it’s so we do know what amount may have been there or may be there, by having that requirement in place now.
We don’t feel that it is a wide-open process or a big process. It is simply to bring that safety standard in place while we have the opportunity to do so.
K. Conroy: So where are the foreign non-resident hunters taking this CORE course from?
Hon. S. Thomson: I’ve answered the questions in relation to the CORE program, using that as…. That’s the standard we have here in British Columbia. In this process, it could be CORE, and they could take it here where it’s offered. Or it could be an equivalent program that is offered in their jurisdiction and that is approved by the director of fish and wildlife here.
They would still have to have apply for the hunting licence. They can’t come in and do this without applying for the hunting licence. When they do that, they will have to note that they have taken that program or an equivalent program in their application for the licence. This is ensuring that when they apply for that licence, that safety standard that is required for resident hunters in British Columbia and others is the same standard that’s applied to those.
Currently that’s not the case. But it’s not just coming in and doing it. They still have to apply for a hunting licence, even for the small game.
K. Conroy: So foreign, non-resident hunters are going to take the CORE program, which is offered mostly by volunteers — great people who provide it through wildlife clubs in the province. They’re going to have to come here and do that, or they have to show equivalency of one of the ones they’ve taken somewhere else that would be accepted here in B.C. Then they’ll apply for a licence if they’re going to hunt squirrel or rabbits. That’s what this is saying?
Hon. S. Thomson: Again, back to this section. In this case, if they wish to hunt and they come in to hunt, they’re going to have to apply for the licence as part of that. They will have to demonstrate that they were applying the same standards to that. They will have to demonstrate that they have taken the CORE or an equivalent program that is approved by the director of fish and wildlife. If they meet that, then they can hunt the small game unaccompanied. If they want to hunt other game, then
[ Page 14145 ]
they’re going to have to be accompanied, under the permit to accompany or by a guide-outfitter.
K. Conroy: I don’t know if the minister can provide it now, but can the minister provide a list of what small game actually entails?
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I’ll provide that.
K. Conroy: What precautions have been put in place to ensure that a non-resident hunter doesn’t come in, get the CORE or has equivalency, and apply for…? He’s out there hunting and sees an animal and hunts it, thinking: “It’s small game to me.” What precautions are in place? What does a conservation officer have to do? What has this legislation done to ensure that there are precautions in place so that those foreign hunters only stick to small game?
Hon. S. Thomson: The point that the member opposite has raised is one of the reasons why this requirement is being put in place. As you know, the CORE program provides not only safety training but that information and advice and education about what constitutes small game, what isn’t, and everything like that — to provide that level. The person will be registered in through the system, in the database and in the hunting.
I guess, theoretically, nothing prevents somebody from violating the rules. If the person who has that provision shot an animal that they didn’t have the ability to do or wasn’t licensed to do — hadn’t got the tags, wasn’t accompanied or anything like that — then that’s a violation of the regulations and the legislation.
What this amendment does is ensure that those that had this ability before, on small game…. We ensure, now, that they have the CORE program or equivalent to be able to ensure that we provide them both the safety and the education information for people, on the small game — anybody, anywhere. Anything above that that is not small game requires the permit to accompany — or be taken by a guide-outfitter.
It’s simply addressing a gap that…. When we went through this process, we think it strengthens and enhances the safety, awareness and understanding out there, and actually puts a greater emphasis on that in this process.
K. Conroy: Can the ministry provide the numbers, then, of how many foreign hunters have actually come to B.C. in the last couple of years to hunt small game?
Hon. S. Thomson: I don’t have that number. I was just being advised by staff that potentially that number could be provided.
The way it would be done is that we would have to look through the licensing system and take the non-residents who only applied for a hunting licence without any other application process. So they didn’t apply for a hunting licence and an LEH or a species tag or anything like that. They simply came here and simply had a hunting licence.
The assumption would be that that person took out a hunting licence only to hunt small game, because they can do that. To hunt anything else, you would have to have any of those other authorizations and licences to be able to do that.
With a bit of work, we could probably provide that information on making that basic assumption that anybody with an address in Philadelphia, for example, who only took out a single basic hunting licence did so for the purposes of small game. If that information is of interest, we could do a bit of work and probably provide that information.
K. Conroy: Yeah, I would be interested in that. I find it interesting to think that someone from Philadelphia would need to come to B.C. to shoot squirrels or rabbits. I’m sure they have enough squirrels and rabbits in Philadelphia, just as an example. I don’t know, maybe there’s other small game that we only have in B.C. that they don’t have in other parts of the world.
Because the ministry brought this legislation in this bill, I’m thinking it had to have been an issue. I’m just trying to come to grips with the fact that non-resident hunters would actually come to B.C. to shoot rabbits and squirrels and have to take the CORE program so they could go out on their own and do that. In fact, I don’t know too many people who hunt squirrels anymore, but I’m the first to be corrected on that one.
This is an interesting part of this bill. I think we need numbers to understand why this legislation is here.
Those foreign hunters, would they also then have the new fish and wildlife ID? Would they also get that, the same as a resident hunter?
Hon. S. Thomson: The answer to that is yes, they will. As the system is implemented and we transition the non-resident licences and authorizations, all of those, onto the system, they will have that fish and wildlife ID number as part of the management of the system.
Again, a lot of the questions that are being asked will…. The information that we’ll be able to provide around some of those questions asked will be enhanced by having this system — the transformation project — that is being designed. We would have that information much more readily available in the new system.
So it’s a little bit longer answer to the short answer, which is yes.
K. Conroy: It’ll clearly identify hunters, then, that…. A resident hunter would have a number, and a non-resident
[ Page 14146 ]
hunter would be clearly identified as a non-resident hunter in the system that can only hunt small game.
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.
K. Conroy: Is the minister concerned about any negative impacts on tourism that this legislation might bring in to people who were going to come in and hunt small game that now have to take a CORE, or prove that they’ve had the CORE course?
Hon. S. Thomson: No, we don’t. We don’t feel it will. I think that when the consideration was given on this, it was a question of education, awareness, public safety. That was foremost in our minds on doing this, and as we pointed out before, we don’t think it’s a big number. So we don’t see it as being an impact there.
The CORE program is readily available. If people are coming on a tourism package for that purpose or coming to visit British Columbia for that purpose, then we think that taking those steps won’t be a deterrent for people visiting, and it’s going to give us better data and management of the resource.
D. Donaldson: Earlier, when I asked the minister if, under this section 2, First Nations were consulted about the amendments being contemplated in section 2 and other sections under this bill regarding the Wildlife Act, he responded that 203 First Nations — I believe were his words — had been provided information. Could the minister please advise as to how they were provided information?
Hon. S. Thomson: The process was that the information and the opportunity to provide input and engage was provided by email or by fax to all of the First Nations. The list that was used was the contact and information list that was used for the Water Sustainability Act, where there was a broader obligation to consult. So we used that base. Following that, there were opportunities provided for provincewide conference calls, for direct engagement for all of those that wanted that opportunity.
D. Donaldson: What information was provided that the minister referred to when he talked about providing information to First Nations? This isn’t just in section 2, but for efficiency’s sake, in all the sections dealing with amendments to the Wildlife Act that we’re contemplating here.
Hon. S. Thomson: The information that was provided was a summary of the objectives, the requirements, the system, and with specific reference in that information to the sections that were felt to be most relevant to First Nations communities — specifically, the provisions in section 5 under the requirements for identification. That section was specifically referenced in the information that was provided.
D. Donaldson: Would the minister commit to providing a copy of that information to myself after this debate?
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, certainly.
D. Donaldson: When did this information get sent to the First Nations?
Hon. S. Thomson: The specific date: October 14, 2016.
D. Donaldson: In the correspondence referenced, was there a timeline for a required response from the First Nations?
Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that the initial information provided a 30-day provision for response. I’m also advised that as the responses came in, that time period for anybody that wanted further time and further information was extended beyond that time period.
D. Donaldson: How many First Nations responded?
Hon. S. Thomson: We had 17 responses, noting that some of those represented collective groups rather than individual First Nations. For example, the NStQ, the Northern Shuswap, represent a broader group. But 17 direct responses.
D. Donaldson: For the sake of time, I won’t ask the minister to list the 17 groups or individual First Nations who responded, but if he would commit to providing the names of those to me after this committee stage, that would be appreciated.
Could the minister advise how many groups availed themselves of the provincewide conference call in the First Nations that he referenced?
Hon. S. Thomson: Five.
D. Donaldson: Does this process that we’ve been discussing here for the last few minutes constitute consultation as far as the province is concerned?
Hon. S. Thomson: This was consultation at the low end of the spectrum. We were advised that this was not infringing on any rights and title, but we did want to take that extra step, in terms of provision of information, to provide that opportunity. So information-sharing and consultation at the low end of the spectrum or the requirement.
[ Page 14147 ]
D. Donaldson: Of the 17 responses received, could the minister advise as to the nature of the responses and the nature of the concerns?
[R. Lee in the chair.]
Hon. S. Thomson: I think, in general summary to the member opposite, most responses were, I would say, generally supportive of the objectives and the intent, recognizing that this was a process that provided tools and stronger management and compliance.
There was probably a general sense, it would be fair to say, that some of the respondents would have preferred a deeper engagement in the process. For some of them who had specific follow-up, that was done.
In the overall process, no major concerns identified, a general support for the initiative. And we continue to provide input and feedback to First Nations that contact our staff on this as the bill has been coming forward. But a general level of support.
D. Donaldson: When the concerns were regarding deeper consultation, what was the follow-up that the minister referenced?
Hon. S. Thomson: For those that responded and wanted further engagement and discussion, that occurred through direct one-on-one conversations between staff and the appropriate person within the First Nation community that was making the inquiry.
D. Donaldson: Was a record made of those conversations?
Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that there are minutes or records of the conference calls and some of the broader calls. In other cases, the responses were more one-on-one conversations, informal, and there may not necessarily have been a record in that particular case. So a little different for each of the responses, depending on the nature of the response.
D. Donaldson: If a member of the public wanted to access the minutes that the minister references, where are they kept?
Hon. S. Thomson: Those records are with the staff in the fish and wildlife branch of the ministry.
D. Donaldson: In any of the responses that the minister received from the 17 First Nations and groups, did any of them have concerns about aboriginal hunting rights or aboriginal rights?
Hon. S. Thomson: I think it would be fair to say that in the initial call and initial comments, some of those concerns were raised initially and primarily as they wanted to get a better understanding of what this was and what it wasn’t. I’m advised that, in those cases, as they engaged and understood what was being done here in terms of the transformation of the licensing system, those concerns were generally assuaged — in terms of those concerns.
I think the member opposite will know that that’s generally how some of the conversations started when information was first provided and comment was first given back. But with the sharing and the discussion, I’m advised that those concerns were generally addressed.
K. Conroy: Back to the CORE process, with the equivalency. How does the ministry establish an equivalency for non-resident foreign hunters coming to B.C. — that the program they’ve taken that the ministry would accept is actually equivalent to our CORE process?
Hon. S. Thomson: As I mentioned, the designation or the approval of another program other than CORE, so that it is CORE equivalency, is the responsibility of the director of the fish and wildlife branch.
What they do is look at the programs that are referenced and that are in other jurisdictions and assess those against the standards that are in our CORE program — which has been developed, as the member opposite knows, over many, many years in consultation with our fish and wildlife group, B.C. Wildlife Federation and others who deliver the program. But it would be assessed on the process of: does it meet the same level of safety instruction and those kinds of things?
The hunting community…. They know each other, and it’s pretty well known. They know what the programs are in the other jurisdictions. It’s not a specific set of criteria. It’s an assessment of it. Does it meet the same sorts of standards? Staff would review those, prepare recommendations for the director. The director would determine whether that particular program, as referenced there, met those standards and is one that would be designated as meeting that equivalency for purposes of this section of the legislation.
K. Conroy: So the minister is saying that if our friend from Pennsylvania comes in to hunt squirrels, the director will take the time to look and make sure that the program that’s offered in Pennsylvania is equivalent to the program offered here in B.C. Are we going to go to other countries? If there’s a country…? If hunters come over from any countries over in the African continent or down in South America or Central America or any of the States, are there going to be staff to make sure that the equivalency is actually checked?
What if these countries don’t have an equivalency program? Is the person going to have to come and take our CORE program? Is that what the minister is saying —
[ Page 14148 ]
that there is going to be a way to assess every program that’s offered anywhere in the world for any non-resident hunter that wants to come and hunt small game in B.C.?
Hon. S. Thomson: Typically, as I said, the programs across the jurisdictions are fairly well known. That list is there, on the approvals. In the event that somebody applied and referenced a program that wasn’t known or one that people weren’t aware of, then there would have to be some work done to determine if it was equivalent.
What you may do in some of those cases is simply advise the person that actually, rather than having to go through all that assessment, there’s a CORE program available here and it would be more efficient to take that program. It supports our B.C. delivery group for that.
Overall, generally, the programs are known. We don’t see having this requirement in here as a significant additional workload for staff in order to be able to determine the programs. Most of them are there and known.
K. Conroy: To that end, then, can the minister provide the number of non-resident or foreign hunters that have come to B.C. to hunt small game and what countries they’ve come from so that they would have already had the experience of checking out whether our CORE is equivalent to their CORE program? How many countries have different hunters come from?
Hon. S. Thomson: If I understand the question, I think the member opposite is asking: of those people, non-residents, who come and seek or apply for a hunting licence to hunt small game and can do that…? We’re now telling them they need to have CORE or CORE equivalent. Just to clarify, I think the question was: can we give a breakdown of jurisdictions and areas where those people are coming from?
Correct, okay. We’ll undertake that. I said we can do some work to try to provide the numbers around that. We can work to try to provide a breakdown, in some way, of jurisdictions where those people are coming from.
It would come from their address on their application, not necessarily from what…. They haven’t had to, at this point, indicate some CORE program that they’ve taken in some area or anything like that. It’s not part of the requirements. The only way we would know is to do a breakdown by address or postal code or zip code or something like that, where we could provide some breakdown on that for you. As part of that work, we’ll attempt to provide what we can in that area.
K. Conroy: The minister has said that this is a safety concern. That’s one of the reasons they’re making sure that non-resident foreign hunters have the safety criteria to go out and hunt small game. I would think that would be equivalent…. It also should be required if you’re hunting big game. I think there’s more of a safety issue when you’re hunting big game as opposed to hunting squirrels and bunnies.
Is this something that could potentially be required for hunters who are going to come and actually be guided by either guide-outfitters or resident hunters because they’re going to now be hunting big game? Is that a requirement that foreign hunters should all be expected to take?
Hon. S. Thomson: No. This requirement applies to people who are going to be hunting alone and for small game. In the other circumstances, the person will either be with a resident hunter who has the CORE program and is under a permit to accompany or with a guide-outfitter who has taken all of the training and programs in place. This section was meant to close that gap on those who come in and would be hunting alone.
Just as a further quick little bit of information, I can advise the member opposite that I don’t have the breakdown of where they came from at this point. But I can advise that the number of non-residents who came and bought only a hunting licence, meaning they’re only hunting for small species or small game, was 138 people.
K. Conroy: Thank you to the minister. So 138 people came to B.C. last year to hunt for squirrels or rabbits — bunnies — is what the minister is saying.
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.
K. Conroy: I’ll have to get the list of what the minister considers other small game. I don’t think B.C. is the only place in the world where you’d come to hunt squirrels and bunnies.
What kind of fee are these foreign hunters going to be charged for hunting small game in B.C.?
Hon. S. Thomson: The fee for a non-resident — there’s a non-resident which is a Canadian but not a British Columbia resident — is $53, with a $22 surcharge.
For a non-resident alien…. I guess that’s the definition. I’ve always struggled a little bit with that definition. Maybe one time we’ll bring some legislative changes through and call them something else other than aliens. But it’s $126, with a $54 surcharge.
K. Conroy: So somebody from Canada that’s coming to hunt squirrels would pay $75, and somebody from the United States that’s coming to hunt squirrels would pay $126. I think I’m hearing that right, no?
Hon. S. Thomson: It’s $180.
[ Page 14149 ]
K. Conroy: Just to clarify, I’ve kind of fixated on squirrels and bunnies, but would a coyote be considered small game?
Hon. S. Thomson: I believe so, yes. As I said, we would provide the full list, but I think the member would be correct in saying that coyotes would fall in that category.
K. Conroy: How much does a B.C. resident hunter have to pay to hunt squirrels?
Hon. S. Thomson: It’s $25 plus the $7 surcharge — $32.
K. Conroy: Just out of curiosity, how many B.C. residents take out hunting licences to hunt squirrels in this province?
Hon. S. Thomson: We sell approximately 100,000 hunting licences annually in British Columbia. We would have to do the same breakdown in terms of how many out of all of those took out a hunting licence only and not any other species or authorizations or licences.
Just as we did for these ones, for 138, we could provide that number, with some work, for the number of hunting licences that are sold — those that didn’t apply for any other form of permit, authorization, species or tag along with their licence.
My son is one of those, for example. My son took out a licence. He took his CORE and likes to shoot rabbits, for example. But he hasn’t taken the step of applying for a limited-entry hunt, a deer permit, an open-season permit or anything like that for anything bigger than what would be qualified as small game. He’s just beginning at this point. He’d be one of those that’s in that category.
We can do that work and find that number — of how many of those are in that category only.
K. Conroy: I think that would qualify as a sustenance hunt.
Is there a cap on the number of small game that foreign hunters can hunt? If someone is coming from Pennsylvania — we’ll go back to our friend in Pennsylvania — how many squirrels can they hunt under this legislation?
Hon. S. Thomson: I was just going to comment that this is feeling a little bit more like an estimates process than a legislative process, but that’s fine. In terms of providing the follow-up information was the reason I was referencing that.
Within some of the small game…. There are bag limits established for some of those by regulation. It depends on the population and the number of licences. All that work is done in terms of managing those populations, and that’s all prescribed by regulation.
We can provide that information. I don’t have all of that information here with me. But if there are any pressures and concerns with respect to populations of any of those small game, then bag limits can be set for those.
K. Conroy: I’m curious. The questions are revolving around why this legislation needed to be brought in. It seems like legislation that…. It’s an interesting legislation, I could say. Who knew that there would be such a take on hunting squirrels and bunnies in the province of B.C. by foreign hunters? Who would think that that’s a good thing to do — if that’s something that people are coming to do?
I’ll go to the regulations and look at the bag limits on the various animals to see what’s actually there. I’m curious to see what the bag limits are for a foreign hunter to come in and hunt squirrels.
I thank the minister for his answers on section 2.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
K. Conroy: In section 3, I’m wondering: is this change responding to any specific issue?
Hon. S. Thomson: In this section, subsection (5) is added to make it an offence for a person to make a false statement on an application made on behalf of another person. Often, guide-outfitters or angling guides would submit applications on behalf of their clients who reside outside of B.C. Electronic licensing will facilitate this practice for applying for the authorization, not necessarily just for guide-outfitters, angling guides and things, but for all users. Where people are applying on behalf of a client, the system does facilitate that.
The intention of this amendment is to hold those individuals accountable to provide truthful information, whether making application for their own licences, permits or limited-entry hunting authorizations or when acting on behalf of another person. Then section (6) is added to provide the due diligence defence for a person who is doing that. This is consistent with the general provisions of defensive due diligence.
It’s addressing a perceived potential problem where, because of easier facilitation, there may be the opportunity to have provided false information. This provides that accountability and makes it an offence if a person does.
K. Conroy: My question is…. The example the minister used is if a guide-outfitter is making application on behalf of a non-resident hunter. It’s my understanding that if a guide-outfitter is taking a non-resident hunter out hunting, they are with them all the time, so they would know if the statement was false.
[ Page 14150 ]
This doesn’t make sense: unless the person “did not know the statement was false” at the time. But if they’re with the person hunting all the time, the person would know whether they were accurately making the proper application or not.
Hon. S. Thomson: Important to note in this section around the statements…. This is in the application process, so it’s not while they’re out hunting and things. This is around applying for the original licence. So it’s if a person provides false information in terms of…. It’s providing the requirement around the due diligence that that person is who they say they are — that the information is correct in all the things that are needed in the application process.
If the person makes a false statement on the application or the person makes, on behalf of another person…. If that information is false, then it is an offence.
K. Conroy: Would there not be a proper precaution in place to ensure that? I mean, I’m trying to think of a situation that the minister is explaining. If a foreigner, non-resident hunter came to hunt and told the guide-outfitter that they were Joe Blow, and they’re not Joe Blow — they’re Pete Smith — and the guide-outfitter submitted their names under Joe Blow, would there not be precautions in place to ensure that you were getting proper ID?
It makes me think if every hunter that came in to hunt in B.C. had to do the CORE process, then they would go through a process of becoming legitimate. This goes back to: why wouldn’t non-resident hunters all have to do the CORE process, whether they’re with a guide-outfitter or not?
I’m asking: are there not guidelines in place to ensure that people don’t come here under assumed names to hunt? What else would they apply for that would justify this legislation?
Hon. S. Thomson: This section is designed, as I stated, to put the onus and accountability on the person making the application.
If the person is making the application on behalf of another person, this makes it an offence if there is a false statement provided. It does provide the due diligence provision as well.
If you look up, through the rest of the sections, the other offences…. If there is obliteration, alteration of licences, tags, seals, changes or alterations to their licence or permit or limited-entry hunting authorized under this act…. So this adds a provision around the application process and providing the information.
I guess I could use an example. If a guide-outfitter was making an application on behalf of somebody who may have had a previous wildlife infraction or something here, and if that person provided a different name in order to be able to provide that opportunity and then it was found out that that was false and the person was coming in — because if he’d provided the proper information, he would have been denied that licence application — it puts the onus back on the person acting as an agent for that, in that process. It puts the onus on that person to make sure the information is correct — and the steps that they need to take in order to do that.
It may mean that they have to make sure they’re not just taking information over a phone, that they get some confirmation of that or whatever. But we want to make sure that the information in the application process is correct and that we put the onus on the person acting on that person’s behalf to provide that, to make sure that there’s that accountability. If it is found to be without that due diligence provision, then it’s an offence.
K. Conroy: So what the minister is saying, then, if I’ve got this right…. Say a non-resident hunter comes in and hires a guide-outfitter. The guide-outfitter does the application. Unbeknownst to the guide-outfitter, this person has contravened the Wildlife Act — has hired a guide-outfitter in another part of the province and done something bad there or thought he had a licence to hunt small game and hunted big game and was caught — and didn’t tell the guide-outfitter. The guide-outfitter would not be responsible. It would be the person that was….
The foreign hunter would be the one that would be fined. Or would it actually be the guide-outfitter that would be fined?
Hon. S. Thomson: If a person knowingly provided false information to the guide-outfitter, the guide-outfitter who’s acting on his behalf provided that information, the licence was approved and the guide-outfitter had done due diligence, then the responsibility would be back on that person who knowingly provided the false information.
If the information was provided falsely and the guide-outfitter didn’t do his due diligence and was part of that application process, then the responsibility could fall back on the guide-outfitter. They would be responsible for the fact that an offence had been committed.
So it’s the person or the person acting as an agent or on behalf of another person who knowingly provides false information.
K. Conroy: If that does happen in B.C. and the hunter has gone back to wherever he came from, like Pennsylvania, is the ministry actually then going to go after that person to charge them? Is that a process the ministry has looked into?
Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that we would pursue those to the extent possible. Conservation services do work with other jurisdictions and agencies and organiz-
[ Page 14151 ]
ations in pursuing those. So where there is that, particularly if it’s serious consequences, then we would pursue them to the extent possible that we can.
I think that at a minimum, we would lay the charges, and then, if the person came back in any capacity, we would have that opportunity. But again, without getting into each individual detail, I think the direction would be that we would pursue those to the extent possible.
K. Conroy: Is there a fine that is associated with this? Is there jail time? What’s the penalty for contravening this law?
Hon. S. Thomson: In section 4 of the proposed legislation here, subsection (1)(a) in this section applies a penalty of up to $250,000 and/or up to two years imprisonment on first conviction. Subsequent convictions can carry a penalty between $5,000 and $500,000 and/or up to three years imprisonment.
K. Conroy: I’m not sure if this question would be answered in section 4. If it will…. What would you have to do to incur a fine of $250,000 or end up in jail?
Hon. S. Thomson: The provisions in this have provided for those, up to those significant limits. Again, when you go through the cases, it provides for the judge’s discretion to levy up to those. Lots of circumstances would get taken into consideration as to what that range of penalties would be. I suppose it would depend on past transgressions; nature of the transgression; if false information was knowingly provided, which resulted in a licence being provided. Some very, very egregious results are coming out of that, by being able to have that opportunity. It would provide that provision.
It’s hard to think of what those extreme circumstances would be, but it provides that ability for the judge in the process to have that range. I think it is standard practice to provide significant deterrence at those upper levels to cover off those potentially extreme situations.
K. Conroy: Has this been an issue in the province, that it would generate this type of legislation?
Hon. S. Thomson: No, we don’t have lots of or a significant number of examples or situations in this case. What we wanted to do here, while we had the opportunity in bringing the legislative amendments through, was to provide that provision in there to cover off those situations — if it happened. This is not put in here because there has been a significant number of problems or a real issue to address.
We just wanted to make sure that in the list of offences here, we had the provisions around the application process — linked to the fact, now, that by these changes that we’re making here, in terms of the streamlining and the process, application processes are being facilitated and actually made easier. We wanted to make sure that as they work with this easier system, we cover off those eventualities.
It’s not put in here to cover off a major issue that we have had or need to cover off. It’s good practice to make sure that we, when we have the opportunity, put those provisions in, particularly as we’re making the changes to the electronic system of licensing and authorizations.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
K. Conroy: Now we can maybe get a little more into the fines and penalties situation. But I’m just wondering…. The amendments that were made under section 4 — are these housekeeping changes, and how does this section affect actual fines and penalties?
Hon. S. Thomson: Section 84 in the Wildlife Act itself is the section that sets out all the penalties and things around all the aspects of the act. But section 4 here, in this bill, brings in the offence provisions that are set up under section 3, around the application process, and section 5, which brings in further provisions. So this is the section that facilitates or implements the fines for all of the provisions that are in this legislation.
K. Conroy: Is there funding associated with this legislation to ensure that there’s enough of them — conservation officers — to ensure that they can actually enforce the fines and penalties?
Hon. S. Thomson: In bringing in this new system, we worked very closely with the conservation officer service — in bringing this through. I think it’s fair to say that they are probably some of the strongest advocates for the system, which will provide them the data and the information, through the app on their smartphone, to process the identification requirements. In their view, this supports their work.
There is not specific funding associated. That’s separate from the legislation around resources that are provided for conservation services. But I think it’s very fair to say that conservation officers see this new system, this streamlined system and enhanced electronic system, as being very supportive of the work they do.
K. Conroy: Will this have the ability to bring in more revenue for the government?
Hon. S. Thomson: I guess in terms of licensing revenue, an enhanced system may see an increase in people
[ Page 14152 ]
participating in licensing revenue. I don’t think we would look at that as being a revenue source. That’s more generated by the work that wildlife organizations do in hunter recruitment and that kind of work.
It is an enhanced system, obviously, when you make it a streamlined system and you make it for client service and access with the requirements in this process. Beyond the hunting experience, it makes their entry into it easier.
From the fines and offences side of these additional provisions, we don’t look at those, count those and rely on those as additional revenue. If there is enhanced compliance in terms of those fines, that revenue comes in. But this, from a general perspective, is not seen as legislation that would significantly enhance revenue.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
K. Conroy: Section 5 is around the requirement to produce photo identification, on request, to an officer asking for authorization.
I’m wondering. The minister has said that this bill will reduce the number of authorizations hunters are required to carry, but they still will have to carry and produce photo identification in place of a licence. Is my understanding correct that they will not have to carry a hunting licence, but they will have to carry photo ID, and then the CO can cross-check with the computerized system to ensure that their wildlife ID number corresponds to their ID?
Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is correct. This section requires the proof of identity. The new requirement to produce photo identification will allow officers to confirm that the person is who they claim to be and improve enforcement success by charging the correct person with an offence. This section is the section that was most strongly requested by the conservation officer service in carrying out their responsibilities and duties.
K. Conroy: What process will the ministry have in place for people that actually don’t have photo ID?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that this is a requirement. A person who does not have photo identification won’t legally be able to hunt, just as a person who does not have a driver’s licence is not able to drive a car. And just as a person needs to verify age for purchase of liquor, photo identification is required. This is a requirement that strengthens the compliance side of it.
It’s important to point out, on the hunting side, that most people who carry a firearm have a possession and acquisition licence for their firearm. That is a piece of photo ID that they have. We don’t see this as a constraint to hunting. We see it as a provision that enhances the work of conservation officers in the field.
D. Donaldson: The minister has said that this section 5 in the amendments dealing with the provisions around producing a prescribed photo identification has to do with ensuring that the person being asked has proof of who they are. Could the minister further elaborate on the situation that this amendment is designed to remedy?
Could he further elaborate on the situation that this amendment is designed to remedy, as far as what the reasoning is and what some of the examples or the situations are? What has motivated the amendment around requiring people to have proof of who they are?
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is a section that was requested strongly by the conservation officer service — also, it should be pointed out, supported by the hunting community. In their view, it’s a privilege to hunt.
They want to make sure that people are legally hunting. This helps with officer safety, with enforcement. When the information is being provided, it can be cross-referenced with all of the information that’s in the on-line data, through the permits and authorization process, to make sure that that person has all of those — the ID number and the appropriate authorizations.
Again, it’s a process to strengthen the work in the field to make sure that the person is who they say they are, that the officer knows who they are dealing with, and to cross-reference against all of the data. So it’s a key piece that is supported both by conservation officer services and the hunting community.
D. Donaldson: Subsection (4), under section 97, describes a situation where a person might be exempt. How would an officer determine, under subsection (4), if a person is exempt?
Hon. S. Thomson: This section provides for the exemption of prescribed classes of persons from producing photo identification. That would be, for example, individuals under 16 years of age and those kinds of things.
With respect to the requirements around First Nations who are residing in B.C. who are exempt from having to hold a hunting, trapping or angling licence, they will still be required to produce the photo identification, for many of the same reasons that were outlined earlier. The conservation officers would still use the current processes that they have to determine whether that person was exempt from the requirement for the hunting, trapping and angling licences. But the provision here would add a requirement that all would need to produce the photo identification for assisting with the identification process.
[ Page 14153 ]
It does not change the situation where those individuals are exempt from having to have the licences. The conservation officers would go through the same process that they currently do to determine that status or that eligibility.
D. Donaldson: In regards to First Nations, what proof would be required in the field by an officer to determine if a person is exempt?
Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, in this case, the situation would stay the same as it currently is — that is, a status card. It could be a letter from the band office, from the First Nation. It could be a treaty First Nation identification. It could be…. In many cases, it is now the conservation officers, and many who live in these communities know the communities and accept that assertion and accept that ability to do that just in direct discussion. So nothing in that respect would change in the field.
It’s also important to point out that in terms of the photo ID side of it…. All of the same types and provisions around what constitutes the photo ID would be the same for First Nations as for others — so no differences there. The determination around whether they qualify for or are exempt from hunting, trapping or angling — a licence would be the same as it currently is now, no change.
D. Donaldson: Under this proposed amendment to section 97, subsection (4) refers to a person who is not…. Unless the person is exempt under section 11(9) or 12(b) of the current Wildlife Act…. And section 11(9) describes that hunting licence provisions “do not apply to an Indian residing in British Columbia.” The definition in this section of the Wildlife Act…. An “Indian” is defined as an Indian by the Indian Act of Canada. And the Indian Act of Canada defines an Indian as someone who is on the Indian registry and, therefore, referred to as a status Indian.
The section that I’m referring to, subsection (6), says that a person who contravenes subsection (4) commits an offence. Does this provision now say that a person saying they’re exempt who cannot provide a status card is committing an offence?
Hon. S. Thomson: This section adds a new requirement. The requirement is that those individuals residing in B.C. who are exempt from holding a hunting, trapping or angling licence provide photo identification and state their name and address when hunting, trapping or angling if requested to do so. This provides those provisions that even if they are exempt from the requirement to holding hunting, trapping or angling licences, they are still required to provide the photo identification. If they didn’t provide that photo identification in the same way that everybody else does, that would be an offence under the legislation.
D. Donaldson: Well, the minister must be aware of the recent Daniels decision, in 2016, that confirms that “Indians,” under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act includes all aboriginal peoples, including non-status Indians. How would the situation of a non-status Indian be dealt with under this legislation?
Hon. S. Thomson: This section refers specifically to the requirements around producing photo identification. If the person currently qualifies for the exemption from holding the hunting, trapping or angling licence, then that provision will be handled the same way now in the field as it currently takes place.
This section specifically deals with the requirement to provide photo identification. In the field, the officer will deal with the situation around status and non-status as they do currently.
D. Donaldson: How do they currently deal with that?
Hon. S. Thomson: The officers administer it in the field based on the current status provisions of the Indian Act. They do it in a way that…. As we talked about, in terms of how that is verified. Also, officers have the ability to provide some discretion as they’re administering that but, as a general statement, operate it under the basis of the current status provisions of the Indian Act.
If there are changes to that that come forward over time as a result of direction and court application, then, obviously, as that evolves, how we manage that in the field will also need to evolve. This section specifically references the requirement for photo identification to be provided in the same way for all persons who are hunting.
D. Donaldson: The minister describes that there is discretion currently. But the amendments we are considering under section 5 are quite clear that a person is only exempt if they have status. If they can’t prove status with photo ID, then they are committing an offence. What photo identification would prove the person is an Indian, as described in the act, and is therefore exempt?
Hon. S. Thomson: If we haven’t made it clear, I’ll try to make it clearer here. This section relates to the provisions to provide photo identification — the same for all — to assist with officer safety and linkages to all of the data. Photo ID is not used to determine status. That is a separate process that the officer in the field will use.
As I said earlier, the way they do that is by various means — status card, letter from band, First Nations
[ Page 14154 ]
treaty ID or others. I know it is exercised in the field with a degree of discretion.
This particular section, the offences related to this and all of the provisions of this section are related to the requirement for photo identification which, in all of our consultations with the First Nations — to the degree in which that was taken — they support and do not have issue with.
D. Donaldson: Well, the proposed amendment is quite clear. It says: “…a person exempt under section 11(9) or 12(b)….” That refers to what the term used in those sections is: an Indian in B.C. The definition, in that part of the definitions part of the bill, of an Indian is an Indian under the Indian Act. And under the Indian Act, that means a person on the Indian registry and, therefore, a person with status.
So if the person cannot prove that they have status, then this act says they are committing an offence. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to point out that sections 11(9) and 12(b) are pre-existing. If you don’t meet those requirements, it’s a pre-existing offence to hunt without a hunting, trapping or angling licence.
All we are saying in this section is that a person who, from a pre-existing process, was not status or was status…. Either way, it doesn’t reduce their requirement to produce photo identification. If they don’t provide it, then it is an offence under this provision for not producing the photo licence.
The issue of status versus non-status is completely separate from that process and administered in the field.
D. Donaldson: So to prove they’re exempt, a First Nations could provide a photo ID and some other form of proof that they’re status Indian. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Thomson: The answer to that, if I understand correctly, is yes. It is a separate process.
Again, to reiterate, this section that we’re dealing with here currently is around the provisions to provide photo identification and sets out the offences for that and who it applies to — status, non-status — around those requirements. The provision for determining status provisions around the sections hasn’t changed, with respect to this legislation. It would be managed in the field the same way that it is currently.
D. Donaldson: Yes. We are addressing subsection (4) here. It references other sections of the act that I understand haven’t changed, but the amendments here have changed. It wasn’t in the Wildlife Act before. The minister is bringing it to this assembly, so we’re talking about it now.
I want to get clarification that the minister must know there are many First Nations people in this province who are First Nations but don’t have status for various reasons.
For instance, in the area I represent, if a First Nations person went away and enlisted in the Canadian military in World War II, you had to give up your status. On returning, you didn’t get that status back. Then the offspring of that person didn’t have status from that point on.
There are many people in B.C. who are First Nations and who don’t have status. I want the minister to clarify that under this amendment, under this new regulation, if a person cannot prove that they have status, then they aren’t in contravention of the Wildlife Act under these provisions that we’re discussing.
Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll confirm again and address this section of the legislation. This is dealing with the requirement for photo identification that applies equally to status or non-status. It applies to all persons and sets out the requirements that all need to provide that.
With respect to the reference to sections where a person is not exempt under those sections, those references, as I said, that’s the current provisions of the legislation pre-existing. If a person cannot provide proof of status, then technically, under the legislation, they require a licence in order to hunt. If they didn’t, they would be in violation of that portion of it but not in violation of this section, if they provided photo identification.
It’s important to point out that we know this is evolving. That’s why I’ve made the reference that in the field, it will be managed in the same way it currently is, with maximum discretion in those cases. We know that court direction is evolving in these areas. So our conservation officers use that discretion and don’t apply it unjustly.
This legislation here doesn’t change at all how we are currently managing the relationships and managing things in the field. This section is the requirement around the production of photo identification — which, again, as I said, was supported and did not provide any significant concerns in our engagement or our information and work with those First Nations who responded to the opportunity.
D. Donaldson: I can pretty well guarantee that after this discussion, the minister will be hearing some concerns from First Nations around the province about the implications of these amendments.
The minister said, and I appreciate his clarity, that if a person cannot prove their status, which they’re using to say that they are exempt from obtaining a licence, then they are committing an offence. Yet on the other hand, he says that they’ll provide maximum discretion to the officers in the field to determine that. I’m sure the minister must understand how much of a confusion this creates in the field, and potentially some very tense situations.
[ Page 14155 ]
Maximum discretion, on one hand, and the fact…. The act is very clear that under this government, you’re an Indian under this act only if you can prove status. That, the minister must know, is opening up a whole can of worms that aboriginal hunting right is not limited to status but is an aboriginal right. Limiting the right to status is wrong.
This legislation, by discussing what we are discussing in subsection (4), opens up that whole discussion. It would have been an opportunity to address this wrong around how an Indian is defined by this government.
I’m talking to section 5, and I bring the example of the Gitanyow Huwilp recognition and reconciliation agreement, where, in the definition, the signing authority in a legal agreement with this government are the eight Gitanyow wilp, collectively represented by the eight Gitanyow hereditary chiefs.
We have an agreement with the government on a land use plan that has to do with moose, for instance, that are related to this hunting issue, where the government recognizes that the Gitanyow hereditary chiefs are the authority. Yet here we have an act that says that the only authority about who is deciding who an Indian is, is if you have status. I think that this is going to be of major concern to First Nations around the province. That the minister has said that the only way that you can prove that you’re an Indian to get an exemption for not holding a hunting licence is to prove that you have status under the Indian Act is no way to address reconciliation in this province.
I thank the minister for his answers, and I’ll be sending out his responses to First Nations around this province.
K. Conroy: Along the same lines, did the minister get legal advice before they put this section into the legislation?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, legal advice was received around the requirements in this section to produce photo identification.
The advice was that there was no impact there, with respect to this section, on aboriginal rights and title.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
K. Conroy: This section deals with the on-line system. Everybody agrees that we need to move into the 21st century, but there are some people who still are not computer-literate or own iPhones or even own computers, for that matter. So I’m just wondering what kinds of systems have been set up to ensure that people that don’t have access to those kinds of services can still ensure they get hunting licences.
Hon. S. Thomson: The implementation of this electronic submission process for records is an enhanced service, status quo plus. It is not a complete replacement for the other provisions, so the vendor network, the Service B.C. FrontCounter support, will continue to be in place for those who need that support and service.
K. Conroy: So while people will be able to access the on-line system, hunters can still carry paper? They can still carry their paper licence? They can still carry their ID number, their hunting licence? They can still carry all that on paper? It won’t eventually go to on-line only?
Hon. S. Thomson: The short answer to that is maximum flexibility. If a person is not comfortable with the enhanced electronic system, they will still be able to carry the licence, produce the paper authorization. We’ve laid out in section 97, under section 5 of this legislation, that a person may demonstrate “by (a) producing the authorization, or (b) unless the regulations require that the original authorization be produced, (i) producing a legible copy of the authorization, or (ii) if authorized by the regulations, stating a number assigned to the person by the director as an identification number for the person.”
So maximum flexibility. We hope that, as the system is enhanced and implemented over time, more and more will move to that. But we recognize that we need to provide for those that aren’t comfortable with this the ability to continue to use those processes.
K. Conroy: I think there are a lot of people like my husband, who only has a flip phone. He’s not going to be carrying his ID on his flip phone.
Interjection.
K. Conroy: Or a shoe phone, yeah. Well, he’s got down to a flip phone, but still, he wouldn’t be carrying ID on there. So that’ll make people happy.
One of the other things that…. I’ve been talking to different rural outlets who provide hunting licences to people. They are concerned about this process because some of them have had to buy new computers to deal with this process.
They’ve had to go and take freedom-of-information courses to make sure that they’re doing it properly because they’re now suddenly dealing with freedom of information — something they weren’t doing before when they were writing out hunting licences.
They were also saying that it’s a cost issue. It’s going to take a little longer to help people do the process on line. I know a lot of the places are actual stores. They’re gas stations or feed stores, where they have customers coming in that are coming in to buy things that they come to that
[ Page 14156 ]
store for. The hunter might not necessarily be coming in to buy anything except their hunting licence.
It’s my understanding that there’s not a huge amount of profit for the facility that’s going to do this. So I’m wondering: is there any kind of thought to help out the small, rural facilities, the outlets that have been selling hunting licences for years? That’s where people in rural B.C. go to get their hunting licence. They go to the local Mohawk; they go to the local feed store.
Is this going to impede these outlets? Is there going to be any kind of help for them to do all of the different things that they need to do now to do this on line?
Hon. S. Thomson: Some reasonable, good questions from the member opposite on this. A few things to point out here. First of all, when we went to the electronic LEH system, there was a very limited drop in the vendors.
In terms of providing support for the vendors, we have worked with the privacy commission and had the fee for that training waived. We continue to provide support for them.
We also believe that now, with this service and the ability around the electronic licensing for fishing licences, this will provide additional service that they can provide. It will be easier, because all of the information, once it’s in, will be maintained and available in the system. We think there’s actually an opportunity here for service and providing that enhanced service. But we recognize that this is a change process. We’ll need to continue to work with them and continue to provide the training and support through the process.
K. Conroy: The outlets will still be allowed, then, to do paper copies to anybody who so requests?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify for the members opposite, no. The vendor process will be assisting those in making the applications through the electronic licensing system. That’s where all licence applications will go through that process. They will be able to provide, as part of it…. If you want to print from that electronic application process, you’ll be able to print that and provide a printed copy of the licence if the person is more comfortable in carrying that than they are with having it on an electronic system. But all applications will come through the electronic process.
K. Conroy: Have there been any precautions made? The minister mentioned the limited-entry when they went on line and the computer system crashed. Are there any precautions that are going to make sure that the system doesn’t crash when this is uploaded and starts to be utilized? If every hunter in the province is doing all of their…. We have 100,000 hunters in the province, and if they’re all going to be getting their licence….
There’s been a bit of a history on IT systems that don’t work particularly well. I’m just wondering what kind of precautions the ministry has put in place to ensure that the system doesn’t crash, that we don’t have rural outlets really frustrated because they’re trying to get hunting licences printed off for people that need their licence and the system is crashing for them and then they cannot just hand-write out a paper licence. They have to do it on line.
Hon. S. Thomson: Again, a very reasonable question from the member opposite.
We’re confident that the system will be able to manage this implementation. She correctly references a bit of a challenge with the system last year. We’ve learned from that on the LEH side of things. We’re confident that we won’t….
The one difference on the hunting licence side of it is that we won’t have the same peak pressure that we did under the LEH. Everybody was making those applications, all wanting to get in at the same time.
We won’t have quite the same pressure. We’re confident, with what we learned and some of the changes around the notification process, that the system will be able to handle it. It’s something we’ll watch very carefully as we implement the new system — once we get the legislation through and the regulations in place.
K. Conroy: During this transition period, could there not be a process in place where outlets would have the ability to do the paper, just in case, so that there’s backup?
When you think about…. You don’t want to have people standing there waiting and not being able to get licences. Just in case, just in the transition period, for the first year that this is being implemented, would it not make sense to have the ability to have that backup in place for the hunters of the province?
Hon. S. Thomson: We recognize the implementation…. We’re going to provide a transition period — for a period of time where you’re transitioning — for a six-week period of time, before it moves fully to the electronic system, starting on March 31 and through to May 15. We believe that will allow for the appropriate transition.
As I said, without the same pressures of the peaks that we had in the previous experience, we’re confident that the system will manage the process. But we do recognize the need for a period of transition, which we will provide for that six-week period once the system starts — on March 31 through to before it goes fully implemented on May 15, under the current timing.
K. Conroy: Is there flexibility around that process, then — if it’s not working, that it’s not an end date? Like, there’s not an absolute end date that says: “Okay, that’s it. No more.” There’s going to be some flexibility to ensure this is going to work properly.
[ Page 14157 ]
Hon. S. Thomson: I think that’s a very fair comment. In the transition period, if significant issues or problems manifest themselves or become apparent, then we’ll be flexible in terms of making sure that the transition process works, if necessary.
K. Conroy: What kind of process or security system is the ministry going to have to ensure we don’t get on-line fake licences? You know, that people can devise something that they can…. You hear that happening all the time with tickets to major concerts.
How can you be assured that people aren’t going to be able to print off some kind of a licence that they can utilize and go out and hunt, and it’s not a proper licence?
What kind of security system and what kind of backup has the ministry got to ensure that if someone can print a duplicate off on line, that you couldn’t do…? If you go into an outlet and you get somebody to write out your licence for you, you can’t do that.
Hon. S. Thomson: The security provisions. This all links back to the fish and wildlife ID system that is going to be required. If a person is carrying a paper licence, that fish and wildlife identification number will be on that paper licence, linking back to the system which then links back to all the information that the conservation officers have in the data system. The requirements around photo identification that we’ve brought in here link back to that.
We believe we have all the security systems in place. In fact, with the enhanced system, we’ll have stronger enforcement of the overall provisions of the legislation, which was one of the objectives of bringing in the new system.
K. Conroy: Has there been any consideration for any support to the rural outlets in compensating them for the number of licences that they’re going to be printing off? They’re working with people that come in that might not be able to access computers themselves and are going to come to a rural outlet to do it. Is there any kind of support or help for those rural outlets so that it makes it worthwhile?
Hon. S. Thomson: The rural outlets will still receive the commission fee for the transaction, whether it’s a paper or an electronic process, when they go through that.
[R. Lee in the chair.]
The process with the electronic application will be more efficient. With a lot of the information already there through the fish and wildlife, it should take them less time. They’re going to get the same fee for the service that they currently get. Presumably, if it’s more efficient, it’ll take them less time.
If the rural agency wants to provide some additional service with that, in terms of printing or anything, that would be their own process, if they wanted to. But there’s no change to the fee that they will be receiving for the application process, whether it’s paper-based or electronic.
K. Conroy: It’s my understanding that when someone went in and got a paper-based licence, that licence came from the ministry, from the department, whereas now the local outlets will be having to buy a computer system and buy their own paper. They’ll be printing that off. Are they going to turn around and add a surcharge to what they’re charging, to the person that’s getting their licence?
It does cost the rural outlets. We’re talking about small businesses in the province. It’s going to cost them more in the long run to provide licences in this manner. Am I misunderstanding something?
Hon. S. Thomson: It’s important to point out to the member opposite that in the greatest majority of all these outlets, this transition has already occurred. We’ve had the angling licence electronically already and the LEH process electronically, so they have already made the investments to provide those services. If they haven’t, they will require the computer connectivity in order to be able to do it. But in the greatest majority of all of those cases, that’s already taken place.
As we pointed out earlier, with the implementation of the other systems on the vendor side of it — very, very minimal reduction in the number of vendors that are providing the services in the province.
K. Conroy: The other part of my question was, then, that there’s no compensation provided to the vendors, even though the process will be increasing their costs, as opposed to the old way of doing it?
Hon. S. Thomson: No, that is not planned. As we’ve said, most of them have already provided the transition in terms of the electronic licensing system for angling licences and LEH. So there are no plans to provide a specific contribution or compensation for that service, if they need to do that.
K. Conroy: Does the minister have actual numbers of outlets that have decided not to provide licences anymore?
Hon. S. Thomson: Before the implementation of the electronic limited-entry hunting application process in 2016, there were 261 vendors of hunting products. In July of 2016, that number actually went up to 288. It has since dropped to 255, which is the current number of vendors that sell hunting products. Business interest to become vendors of hunting products has remained constant — so 261 at the beginning of the implementation
[ Page 14158 ]
of the electronic limited-entry hunting process. The current number is at 255.
K. Conroy: Does the minister know…? When the minister says “sells hunting products,” does that number…? Can you identify the number of outlets that, actually, all they sell in addition to what they do regularly are hunting licences? They don’t sell ammunition, guns — nothing else; they just sell hunting licences.
Hon. S. Thomson: As I pointed out, the numbers have stayed very, very close to the same numbers before the implementation of the limited-entry hunting application process. It’s my understanding that, in these cases, these are…. It’s a service. The businesses provide hunting products, fishing gear and all of those kinds of things which bring people to their stores. That’s why the numbers have remained constant.
If the member opposite does need or is interested, I’m sure we can provide a list of the vendors that provide that service in the province.
K. Conroy: Is there actually a cost saving to the government for this change?
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, there will be. In terms of the process around the modernization for client service, enforcement and management…. This also provides for greater efficiencies within government in terms of management of the system. That saves resources that can be utilized for other purposes and higher-priority items within the fish and wildlife branch and the management budget.
So, yes, there is an efficiency through the implementation of this system. It’s one of the reasons that we do it — to ensure that resources go to the highest-priority needs.
K. Conroy: Can the minister give an estimate of what he feels the ministry will save with this process?
Hon. S. Thomson: We’re moving into implementation. It’s an estimate, in terms of what we’ll be saving. I’m advised that the very initial estimate on savings will be around $60,000 a year.
K. Conroy: It’s my understanding that’s going to be invested back into wildlife habitat or conservation or something. It’s not going to be going into, say, ministerial costs but actually into the…. It’s not a lot of money, but it is some money that could go back into wildlife conservation.
Hon. S. Thomson: It’s resources or money that’s in the base of the budget of the fish and wildlife branch. As the branch works through the priorities and all of their work in all of the areas, it will be available and utilized for those other priorities.
I can’t say specifically, exactly, what it would be used for because there’s a broad range of work that the fish and wildlife branch does. But it does provide resources within the base that can be utilized for other purposes.
K. Conroy: The rural outlets have to provide freedom-of-information training to their staff. Is there a way for the ministry to ensure that all staff within the outlet that are helping people get their hunting licences, giving them out, actually have the freedom-of-information training?
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, as I mentioned before, in the process, we’ve provided training and support to the agencies and to the outlets. That includes the awareness and understanding of the FOI requirements and obligations. It’s part of the training and supported services that we’ve provided in the implementation of the system.
K. Conroy: That means as long as one person that works within the outlet has the freedom-of-information training, that will suffice?
Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite has caught me a little bit here in terms of knowing exactly what the provisions of the requirements are. Suffice it to say that we, in providing that support, would meet whatever those requirements are.
K. Conroy: Was there actual consultation with the outlets that are providing the licences before this change was made?
Hon. S. Thomson: It’s my understanding that the agencies and outlets and things are aware of the changes that are coming and have been advised, in terms of providing this work training, through the implementation.
It depends on what the member opposite means by consultation. Were they consulted in the direct design of the system and those sorts of things and all of the rationale and the needs for why the changes were made, which we’ve dealt with at length through the other provisions? No, not in those terms.
Certainly, the move to the system in terms of the continued development of the hunter licensing transformation project, building on the electronic licensing for angling, the LEH electronic…. This step, in this continued evolution of this system, is certainly not a surprise to them.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
[ Page 14159 ]
K. Conroy: This gets into the surcharges and fees that are being charged for people that submit their records electronically. Will there be different surcharges or fees for those who submit records electronically in their own home versus those who go and submit in person and then have the documents printed off for them?
Hon. S. Thomson: The additional fee here that’s referenced is for identification cards. The B.C. Wildlife Federation asked us, as part of our consideration in the legislation, and subsequently would be in regulations, about the possible option for a physical identification card.
As hunters who reside in B.C. and who are used to carrying the resident hunter number card, they’ve asked to us make sure that we have that option or potential there. No decision has been made as to whether that would be undertaken. What we’ve done here is provide a provision that if that option was moved forward in some way in the future, we would have the provision to be able to do that and the provision to provide a fee for that card.
With respect to the other fees, those don’t change.
K. Conroy: This has nothing to do, then…. If a person gets their licence electronically, or if they still go to one of the outlets and apply for a licence there, and the person prints it off for them, they still get the printed copy. This has nothing to do with that.
Hon. S. Thomson: No. Just to confirm, no.
K. Conroy: If this happens, then, will this actually bring in revenue to the government?
Hon. S. Thomson: No. The request is from the Wildlife Federation to do this and to provide the provision. If that was the case, if it was moved forward, the understanding is that it would be on a cost recovery basis.
K. Conroy: It would be a cost recovery basis for the government, because the government will be doing this.
Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct. If we proceeded with that option, based on their request for it — it’s something they’ve asked us to maintain the possibility of doing — government would provide it. It would be at cost recovery. The fee would be set to be able to recover government’s cost for doing it, because it’s something that would come at their request as an option. We wouldn’t look at that as being a revenue basis for the government.
In terms of linking it to our fish and wildlife ID, the identification card, it would need to be issued by government because it links back to that system. It couldn’t be issued by the Wildlife Federation themselves, firstly, because it links to our systems, and secondly, they don’t represent all the hunters in the province. So it would be an optional government card — only an option at this point.
As I said, they’ve asked us to keep those provisions in place in the event that that’s something, as this evolves, they would like us to provide. We agreed that we might want to provide it.
K. Conroy: Why wouldn’t the ministry have decided to just do this as a part of this legislation? Why did they decide to wait to see how things go? I’m not sure what the holdup would be. Why wouldn’t this legislation make it so that that happens? Why wouldn’t this just be something that is done?
Hon. S. Thomson: Just again to clarify, this provision here — around bringing in the ability for a regulation around an identification card and the ability to set a fee for that — is, at this point, simply a request from the B.C. Wildlife Federation to be able to have that as an option, potentially.
The policy work — as to whether or not you proceed with it, what form it would take and all of those kinds of things — still needs to be done if we wanted to proceed with it. What they asked for was to have the ability in there so that if, as this moved forward and evolved, we wanted to do it, we wouldn’t have to come back in and redo legislation in order to be able to provide it.
At this point, it is just an option and just a consideration, at their request. We agreed that we would provide the provision in there to be able to do it — if and when that decision was made that you might want to proceed with that.
K. Conroy: Are we talking about a card that would have their licence, their wildlife number on it and their picture so that they’d have a picture ID, similar to a B.C. health card? Is that what we’re talking about here?
Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe the easiest thing to say here is kind of “All of the above,” or whatever. It’s conceptual at this time, as to what that would include, what it might look like and what information would be there. Obviously, they would want to link it with the fish and wildlife ID number, and they’d probably want to have other information on it. They might want to have the ability to customize it in some way, in terms of the type of hunting they do, or anything like that. I’m not sure.
At this point, it’s not advanced to the point where there is a clear direction as to what it would look like, what it would be or what purpose it would serve. It was simply to maintain the option to be able to do it, to have it in the legislation so that you would have the ability to have a regulation and a fee that would implement it, if and when it was decided to do it. And it’s a big if and when.
[ Page 14160 ]
K. Conroy: The minister says it’s a big if, but I’m just wondering. Is the ministry going to carry on looking into this?
This is something, obviously, that hunters would like to see, potentially. So is the ministry going to carry on looking at it, or are they just going to wait and see? We’re going to see how this process goes, and if this is something that looks like it could work or could be wanted by hunters, is it going to still be on the drawing board? Or is this: the legislation is there, and if we need it, someday we’ll go back to it, but we’re just going to let this one lie?
Hon. S. Thomson: It’s there because we’ve listened to their request and because we’ve agreed to continue to have the discussions with them. Obviously, our initial priority will be to implement the regulations and the system smoothly and to work through the transition, but it’s something that we have agreed to continue to engage with them on as we move forward.
K. Conroy: I think a lot of hunters like having that card. They pull it out of their wallets. I know that my father-in-law had his card there for years and years, and he used to bring it out with pride. I can see why people would still like to have that card. I understand why hunters would like that — to have that in their wallet.
I’ll stand down.
Hon. S. Thomson: Just to comment to the member, I think that’s why the request is there. It’s that genesis. I remember when I worked in the agricultural industry, the farmers were always very proud of their farmer ID card that had their information on it and that sort of thing. So I think it’s got sort of a similar genesis.
As I said, we’ve agreed that we will continue to engage with them on it at the appropriate time and have left the provisions in the legislation to be able to do that by regulation, if and when.
K. Conroy: Just out of curiosity, when you’re thinking this process through, would non-resident hunters who get their CORE, who come here to hunt, be able to access one of those cards too? Has that been thought through? Is that something that you would think…? I’m sure a resident card would be very much something of pride for a resident hunter to have in their pocket, and I just wonder if that’s something that a non-resident hunter that gets their equivalency or their CORE would also be able to access.
Hon. S. Thomson: To be frank, I haven’t had that level of engagement or discussion with them. This is something that has come through the process, in discussions with staff. So that’s probably a level of detail that I wouldn’t be able to answer at all at this point. At this point, as I said, it’s a concept and an idea — that they want to make sure we can continue to do it. If it is provided for the non-resident hunter, maybe we can make sure there’s a picture of a squirrel on it.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
K. Conroy: It could be the squirrel card or the bunny card — the minister’s choice there.
Interjection.
K. Conroy: Yeah, the big squirrel country.
I would like the minister to explain what this section actually means. It’s my understanding that it exempts from examination residents who have been issued a resident hunter number card. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Thomson: What this actually means is that a person who held a resident hunter card is rolled over into the system, and there isn’t a requirement to retake the CORE program in order to do that. When the resident hunter card process first came into place, there were a number of people who didn’t take CORE way back then — very experienced hunters who have that. So what we’re doing in this transition provision is to say that if you had the resident hunter card and a number before this comes into force and that grandfathering was in place for you, then it’s maintained.
K. Conroy: This means that they get the new fish and wildlife ID without…? Their hunter number just rolls over into the new fish and wildlife ID? Staff are nodding. And they don’t have to do anything? It just happens?
Hon. S. Thomson: The short answer to that is yes. They’re rolled into the system. Their previous resident hunter card number becomes their new number in the system, with some additional numbers in front of that number — a three-digit process in front of it. But essentially, it means that if you had that before, you’re rolled into the new system without having to take the CORE requirement if you were previously grandfathered and rolled in. It just provides for the smooth transition into the new system, into the new fish and wildlife ID number.
K. Conroy: I think there are many hunters in the province — and most of them probably are grandfathers — who would be very happy with that. I thank the member for that.
Section 8 approved.
[ Page 14161 ]
The Chair: The committee has passed section 9.
On section 10.
K. Conroy: Can the minister just explain what the changes are?
Hon. S. Thomson: This is a consequential amendment, because we had a Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016, last year. We need to take those provisions out of that act and repeal them from there, because they are all included in this legislation, here in this bill. It doesn’t change anything. It’s just a consequential amendment as a requirement of proceeding with this legislation.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
K. Conroy: I’ll ask the minister the same question. Is this the same rationale for section 11?
Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, it is.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
K. Conroy: Again, can the minister explain the final issues around section 12?
Hon. S. Thomson: This is the commencement section. What it does is it sets up a provision so that all of this would come into commencement through regulation by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, other than sections 10 and 11, which are the consequential amendments removing those other sections from the other legislation, which don’t require to be brought in by regulation.
K. Conroy: I just want to thank the minister for his work walking through this bill with us. I’m sure many hunters in the province are appreciative of the time we took to make sure that we all understand what this legislation means. I just want to thank the minister and his staff for working through with us on this one.
Section 12 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. S. Thomson: I don’t have the wording.
Interjection.
Hon. S. Thomson: That’s exactly what I was going to say.
Thank you, Opposition House Leader.
I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:10 p.m.
The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2017
Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 7, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 7 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2017
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7; R. Lee in the chair.
The committee met at 6:13 p.m.
On the amendment to section 1 (continued).
L. Popham: We’re still on section 1. We left off last time…. I asked the minister who had been consulted for this bill. The minister read off a list of names of people that had been consulted for this bill and a previous bill by another member, which was really helpful to me, because I was able to contact this list of people over the last 24 hours and ask them for feedback as well.
Interestingly, I have been receiving emails today from breeders who are registered with the Canadian Kennel Club, which was one of the endorsers for this bill. They are bringing up, I think, quite relevant concerns about this bill. I wanted to address them before we proceeded through the bill, because I’m wondering if the minister may have received the same feedback that I received.
If this legislation is enacted, there is a requirement for registration which is registered with the province, I believe. Then the SPCA would be able to enforce that registration and have oversight over that registration.
The breeders that I’m hearing from — many of them reside on southern Vancouver Island; some in Saanich — are thinking that this is two types of registration for the same thing. They feel that the guidelines that they are registered under with the Canadian Kennel Club should be sufficient in order to allow them to continue breeding without having to register in another way.
I’d like the minister to address that, and then I’ll carry on with some other concerns I heard about.
The Chair: On the amendment to section 1, the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you very much, hon. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate you being here. Once again, I appreciate being here with the members opposite.
I’d like to reintroduce Arlene Anderson, the manager of the legislation unit; Lorie Hrycuik, the executive director of corporate governance, policy and legislation; and the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Agriculture, Derek Sturko, who is here to support me in this committee phase.
I’d also like to acknowledge the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour, who was instrumental in ensuring that we look at the needs of our animals in British Columbia. Thank you very much to you.
Particularly, on the question as to whether or not members of the Canadian Kennel Club could be exempted from this registration — roughly; I think I’m paraphrasing — the challenge, then, is that they would not come under the act, come under the regulations, and any compliance and enforcement that comes out of the regulations would not apply to them. That would include monitoring or penalties. So the intention is to cover members of the Canadian Kennel Club, as well, under the act and the regulations.
L. Popham: To me, that means that breeders who are registered with the Canadian Kennel Club would pay fees and go through the registration process and the paperwork with the Canadian Kennel Club. Then I’m guessing that they would also have to do the same to register in British Columbia as breeders, with a registration number. So they’re having to register twice.
I’m wondering how this works with the government’s quest to reduce red tape. It seems like there are two processes that are exactly the same. Why would we not be able to draw the information from the kennel club?
Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I guess the best analogy would be others who are affiliated with professional organizations in the province but also come under the regulations of provincial law. In this particular case, the Canadian Kennel Club, while a worthwhile organization, is a voluntary registration. With the government and these laws and proposed regulations as they come through, they will be compulsory.
L. Popham: I understand that.
In the definitions section, should we not define what a commercial breeder is? I think the breeders that are registered with the Canadian Kennel Club…. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of those breeders are self-defined as hobby breeders. They don’t have that many litters a year.
In fact, I talked to one gentleman on the phone today, and he said that they’re definitely not in it to make money. In fact, in one litter that he produced in his home, it cost him $5,000 to produce one puppy. Of course, he didn’t get any money out of it. It was either break-even or he lost money, but it was a quality puppy. He considers himself a hobby breeder but a very serious breeder that follows the guidelines and the standards of breeding that the kennel club puts forward.
If we’re looking at this particular group of breeders, compared to the group of breeders who we’re trying to stop in the province — backyard breeders that produce puppies through puppy mills — how would we identify them?
I understand that this registration through the province would be mandatory, but I guess I’m wondering: how do we enforce it? Where do we find these breeders that are producing puppies by puppy mill? It would be very easy to find these breeders who are doing it through registration through the kennel club, because they’re listed in a registry. How do we find the breeders that we’re trying to stop, and how are we going to define these breeders in the definitions?
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.
Hon. N. Letnick: Noting the hour, I’ll try, as quickly as possible, to answer two questions, actually, and then go on.
The intent is to regulate people who regularly, deliberately and repeatedly breed or sell dogs and cats for some form of compensation, regardless of whether they produce pedigreed, purebred or mixed-breed dogs and cats. This will be defined in the regulations.
We won’t be targeting individuals who are selling or adopting out their pets because they can no longer care for them, or those looking for a home for an unexpected or accidental litter of puppies or kittens.
Future consultations with stakeholders are necessary to fairly establish the frequency of breeding necessary to be considered commercial breeding for cats and dogs.
At present, the rough estimate of the number of commercial dog and cat breeders is about 1,850 in the province of B.C.
[ Page 14163 ]
The second question is: how are we going to find the people that are trying to do this illegally? Well, the fact is that everybody will have to register. There will be, of course, education done for the buying public to look for that registration number. If they don’t have the registration number, they can report the breeder to the authorities. I’m sure, given the market the way it is…. Those people who are registered, when they find out someone else is in the regular business of breeding without being registered, I’m sure there will be an opportunity for them to also express their opinion to the authorities as well, to call them out.
We can talk more about this tomorrow. Obviously, it’s an important subject, but we’re out of time.
Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that we report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.
The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.
The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada