Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 12; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 2:23 p.m.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. de Jong: The change here, the deletion of the reference to subparagraph (c), to subparagraph (b) — does that qualify…? Was that an error at the time of drafting? Or has it subsequently been determined that the proper or preferred reference is to paragraph (b)? I hope the Attorney understands the nuance to my question. Was it a typographical error or a substantive error?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the advice I’m receiving from staff is that this was a typographical error, that it simply should have referred to paragraph (b), and it was a typo. It should not have referred to paragraph (c).

[2:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: So it’s between (b) and (c) in the Child Care BC Act. The existing subsection (c) refers to…. It’s under the definition of “child care grant.” It means “a payment made for any of the following purposes…(c) to improve the quality of child care” and “(b) to facilitate the operation of other child care facilities and services specified by regulation.”

What is the practical effect of the change? Did the discovery of the error arise out of stumbling upon an impediment in terms of child care grants?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware, nor the legislative drafter that’s assisting me…. By the way, it’s Cara Leitch, revision coordinator, office of legislative counsel, in the legal services branch. We’re not aware of any specific consequences of this typo on any particular grant or program.

The significance of the correction is that without the correction, subsection 12(2)(a) of the Child Care B.C. Act is essentially rendered meaningless because the whole sentence refers to subsection (b) in the definition, but then it references, instead, subsection (c). What the error does is that it essentially makes the subsection meaningless and neuters the ability to create a regulation, which is why that section was there.

I’ll advise the member, though, that if this error had been discovered by someone that was trying to do something and they weren’t able to do something in relation to the grants, I wouldn’t necessarily have known about it; nor would the staff member who’s assisting me. I will check in with my colleague the minister responsible for child care, but as far as we know, there was no specific incident that led to the discovery of this error. It was just identified through a routine review by legislative counsel.

Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

M. de Jong: I think several of my questions relate to this. In the Freedom of Information Act, as it presently reads, section 3(3) and the subsections…. The words within the parentheses seem to be summaries of what sections refer to. Is this a change in approach to drafting simply not to editorialize, if that’s a correct term, within a section? Is this just a changed style of drafting to make the reference to the section itself and delete any parenthetic attempt at labelling?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll refer the member to subsections 11(1) and (2) of the Interpretation Act, which is instructive in responding to his question — and, in a very, very nerdy way, interesting. I found it interesting, anyway.

Section 11 of the Interpretation Act — I thank the member for the question — describes exactly what a reference after the end of a section added editorially can look like. If it doesn’t look like that then leg. counsel can’t edit it without bringing the bill back to the House.

In order to be able to add it editorially, and to provide someone who’s using the statute with a bit of a map to the meanings of each of the sections so they don’t have to flip back and forth, the Interpretation Act says that “if a reference to a provision of the enactment or any other enactment is followed by italicized text in square brackets that is or purports to be descriptive of the subject matter of the provision.…” It goes on to say that the subsection applies.

The only way that leg. counsel can change things that are this kind of editorial guidepost for users is if they’re italicized and in square brackets. The member will note that the amended sections are not italicized, and they are not in square brackets. They are in round brackets, which is why this is in front of the House today to strike it out. Then leg. counsel can add in editorial notes that are the proper formatting under the Interpretation Act.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s helpful. Last question on this. The unitalicized words here, though, are not being replaced. Does the Attorney anticipate that would happen subsequently, or will it just be left with the section references?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised by leg. counsel that the intention is to go back through, after these are struck from the statute itself, and add in proper editorial notes that reflect similar information but are in the proper formatting for the Interpretation Act.

Clauses 8 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

M. de Jong: This is probably the only section in the bill that I wondered about in terms of actually qualifying under the criteria for the type of change contemplated in this bill.

It adds (ii): “authorized to practise the designated health profession of midwifery.” It’s a section, I take it, about the appointment to a board. The section being dealt with, 46(4.1)(c), grants to the College of Nurses and Midwives some participatory rights in terms of selection to the body, which is one thing. But then (ii) further refines who that may be. It struck me that if the argument is: “Well, that was an oversight….” It does somewhat change the intent.

[2:35 p.m.]

Look, this is not the end of the world. I don’t pretend this is the most contentious thing in the world. It clearly is not. But insofar as these bills are designed to address sort of errors of typographical, I’m not sure substantive omissions would qualify. In the bill, this is the only one that struck me as perhaps getting very close to that line.

Hon. D. Eby: I think I understand the member’s point. He’ll let me know.

In the old section, the member will see that the description of the professional college was the College of Midwives of British Columbia. In the new section, the member will see that the description of the regulatory body is the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives. There were two professional colleges that were amalgamated.

Under the old policy, midwives were guaranteed a spot under section (c), because they were the only members of the College of Midwives. There were no nurses. So when the colleges were amalgamated by regulation, this section needed to be updated to reflect the proper name of the college, which is the College of Nurses and Midwives. But by doing that, it created the possibility there wasn’t clarity that there was a space designated for the health profession of midwifery, because now you have a college that isn’t exclusively midwives.

That is how this is not a substantive change but a necessary change following the amalgamation of the two colleges.

M. de Jong: That’s a helpful answer. I follow the Attorney’s logic and recognize the skill and diligence of the legislative counsel branch.

I will simply say this. I think we have to be careful, because the tool that has been created here to correct errors and typographical errors…. I’m not sure it was meant to extend to oversights. It strikes me that this is an oversight — a valid one, as the Attorney General has pointed out.

For future reference, I just think we have to be mindful of that fact in the use we make of the tool. But the Attorney’s answer, in this case, is helpful in explaining why the addition exists.

Clauses 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

M. de Jong: Is that a new trend? Is this indicative of a new trend, again, in drafting — the replacement of the word “issued” with “given”? It appears a couple of times in this bill, and I’m not going to ask each time it appears.

Is there something specific about the sections, or is it just general now, amongst those who are experts in the canons of construction, to use the word “given” instead of “issued”?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the statutory drafting protocol that’s being applied here is the rule in favour of consistency and that the subsections were a concern to drafters because in some sections, it said “give,” and in others it said “issue.” There are preferences to have a consistent verb in those positions, so “give” was selected. But I can also advise the member that the staff member that is assisting me today advised me that she’s not aware of a broader trend or preference for “issued” or “given.” It would depend on the context.

Clauses 20 to 27 inclusive approved.

On clause 28.

M. de Jong: Similar type of question and not something we need to spend a lot of time on. The replacement of “148 to 150” with the actual numbers. Is there, again, some rule of drafting that we should be alive to now that, in certain circumstances, the numbers are listed, as opposed to the range?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the standards of style adopted by the office of legislative counsel include expanding ranges of section numbers whenever it is reasonably practicable. I guess the answer is that it depends, but for this three-number range, it was felt appropriate to expand it.

Clauses 28 to 32 inclusive approved.

On clause 33.

M. de Jong: I’m assuming that the answer to what would have been my question about section 33 is similar to what we heard a few moments ago with respect to section 15, but the Attorney can confirm that.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, without this clarification, with the amalgamation of the two colleges, “nurse” could be defined as a midwife, and that would not be correct. This is to correct that.

Clauses 33 to 39 inclusive approved.

On clause 40.

M. de Jong: On clause 40, I was more interested in the…. I was going to call it a sectional note, but I don’t know what you call it when it’s a clausal note. In any event, it refers to “implements an amendment that was inoperative under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2006.” What does that mean, inoperative?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There was a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act in 2006 which attempted but failed to correctly amend the Integrated Pest Management Act. Section 25 of that 2006 misc bill said that the text to be struck out was “or take any other action as authorized in the warrant.” Unfortunately, the actual wording of the Integrated Pest Management Act was “…or take other action as authorized in the warrant.”

The member will note that the word “any” is missing. So while the effect of the misc bill was good in terms of rendering that particular part of the section inoperative, it was not effective in removing the text. So that’s what we’re doing here today.

Clauses 40 to 43 inclusive approved.

On clause 44.

M. de Jong: The three items in section 44 that my question relates to, in the table there, are item 4 referring to section 38, item 6 referring to section 40 and item 7 referring to section 41. I’m not going to ask the general question about what is the significance of the dates that have been selected for coming into force. In a couple of cases, I can pretty much figure that out.

But the question that is probably worth asking in a proceeding like this is: is there any significance with respect to…? I believe I understand. I can anticipate the answer, but I’m going to ask the question anyway. Is there any significance with respect to any ongoing litigation, pending litigation, administrative matter, administrative consideration or review that the changes we are approving here might have an impact upon?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise that to the best of the knowledge of the staff member assisting me, and to the best of my knowledge, this bill came up through the errors identified by the editors within the office of legislative counsel, legal services branch, and not as a result of any pending or ongoing litigation or administrative matter.

I mean, obviously, these are all administrative matters of potential significance in future litigation or in government action, which is why we correct these errors to ensure clarity. But I can advise the member that to the best of my knowledge and the best of the staff member’s knowledge, there is not anything active on that front.

Clause 44 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage of Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — FIREARM VIOLENCE
PREVENTION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

On clause 1.

M. Morris: Just one question on this one. It’s the definitions section of this bill, on boats. So a pretty broad definition here. I’m just wondering if the minister can tell me whether it includes kayaks, canoes, fishing tubes that are commonly used by people in remote areas as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is: yes, it does.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Morris: I’ll have a number of questions throughout this first part.

Section 3 is: “A person must not use, transport, carry or store a firearm in a manner that (a) poses a risk to the life or safety of an individual, or (b) poses a risk of damage….” Is there a duplication of this contained in the Criminal Code of Canada?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, there is. It is within section 86 of the Criminal Code.

For example, if an intoxicated person discharges a firearm over the head of another individual, then a Criminal Code charge is likely appropriate. But if an inexperienced firearm owner passes a loaded firearm to another person by gently throwing it, then a violation ticket under this act may be appropriate. That’s where the overlap is. But also, there’s a reason, because there may be situations where the provincial regulation is actually the appropriate way to go.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. Morris: On subclause 4(3), it says: “For certainty, for the purposes of subsection (1), a firearm is loaded even if the firearm is temporarily incapable of being discharged.” I’m curious as to exactly what this particular section covers. Does that mean if the safety is on, or that means if the bullets are in the pocket? I’m not sure how broad this section goes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a technical amendment that was requested by the conservation service. And to your response about the safety, the answer, obviously, would be yes. But the issue that they’re particularly concerned about is removing the bolt and then trying to say that it’s not loaded.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

M. Morris: This one says: “A person must not discharge a firearm in, on or from a vehicle or boat.” Now when I read this…. Of course, I’m sure the minister has probably had many calls on this, and a lot of our colleagues have, across the province here, coming from legitimate hunters.

I’m wondering. Section 27 of the Wildlife Act provides the authority for somebody to shoot from a boat as long as the engine is inoperable. Is this section in conflict with that particular section?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it is not going to be in conflict. The Wildlife Act is currently being amended, and there will be a consequential amendment in that to establish the regulations around being able to fire from a boat while hunting.

M. Morris: Just to be clear, because this was a real bone of contention for a lot of people across the province here. Is it the intent of the minister to ensure that regulations are established to allow hunting from a boat?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question, hon. Member, is: absolutely, categorically, yes.

A. Olsen: I just have a series of questions here with respect to Indigenous hunting rights. In the late 1990s, Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen were “arrested and charged with several offences under the British Columbia Wildlife Act, including: hunting wildlife with a firearm during prohibited hours, hunting by the use or aid of a light or illuminating device, and hunting without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property….” That’s section 29. That’s what they were charged under.

As a matter of fact, the Morris case was one where they were hunting from a motor vehicle. Crown argued that this was inherently unsafe. But nothing they did was unsafe, and this was actually fought by the province all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was found that they were not hunting unsafely, the very issue here in section 5.

I just want to ask this question. Has the minister consulted with the appropriate Douglas treaty and Treaty 8 First Nations on the impact of section 5 on the treaty-protected rights, as successfully defended in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your question, we are very much aware of those treaty rights and obligations. There will be, continuing in the development of these regulations, further consultation with First Nations around this, and if there need to be, there is the ability to do exemptions under this. We will ensure that if an exemption is required to ensure that those rights are protected, that one will be put in place.

A. Olsen: As my line of questioning unfolds, I think what I would like to be very clear on is that there’s a strong differentiation between what is written in the legislation and then what is regulated. I think that what’s written in the legislation is actually very dangerous when it comes to those treaty rights.

An excerpt from the R. v. Morris Supreme Court of Canada decision.

“The Tsartlip’s right to hunt at night with the aid of illuminating devices is protected by the North Saanich treaty. The historical context indicates that the parties intended the treaty to include the full panoply of hunting practices in which the Tsartlip people had engaged before they agreed to relinquish control over their lands. One of those practices was night hunting and, as the trial judge acknowledged, night hunting by the Tsartlip includes, and always has included, night hunting with the aid of illuminating devices” — including from a vehicle.

That last part was what I have added.

Even on a literal construction, the language of the treaty supports the view that the right to hunt “as formerly” means the right to hunt according to the methods used by the Tsartlip at the time of and before the treaty. The right of the Tsartlip to hunt at night with illuminating devices has, of necessity, evolved from its pre-treaty tools to its concurrent implements — the use of guns, spotlights and motor vehicles — and reflects the current state of the evolution of the Tsartlip’s historic hunting practices.

Did the minister consult with Indigenous nations, including the Tsartlip First Nation; the W̱SÁNEĆ nations, the four nations; the Douglas treaty nations; or the Treaty 8 nations?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your question to the specific groups you named, no. The consultation was done with the general First Nations leadership groups within the province. What I can also tell you is that this particular section is not a new section. It is replacing section 9 of the old Firearms Act. So it is not new. It is just replacing what is already in existence.

As I said, we fully understand the treaty obligations that the province is required to honour. If it is required for there to be an exemption, we most certainly will be doing that. This piece of legislation is intended to put in place the regulatory framework, and we’ve made that commitment that we will do just that.

A. Olsen: In light of the declaration…. And I thank the minister for acknowledging that the government understands its obligations under the treaty. However, the actions of the government have, over the last decade or so and arguably the last couple of decades, three decades maybe, since Morris and Olsen were first picked up in the 1990s, arrested on wildlife charges…. The actions of this government have not demonstrated that they’re prepared to do anything about the information that they literally have sat on a 2006 Supreme Court case for almost 15 years.

In light of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the minister’s admission that he understands the clear impact of this potential on Indigenous Nations, in addition to the fact that there was a commitment under the DRIPA that all new acts and even acts that were currently existing…. So the fact that — to the minister’s initial response — this is replacing a law that already was in existence, either way, there was a commitment from this government to engage Indigenous Nations that are impacted by these laws.

If the government does know that the Tsartlip in particular but the W̱SÁNEĆ in total and then, as well, the Douglas treaty, as a group of treaty nations, including the Treaty 8, who also have got similar language in their treaty…. What did the minister use to determine that consultation at the legislative development stage was not needed?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to your question, at the consultation stage, the groups and organizations that were contacted in terms of being consulted with, were the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Métis Nation, Modern Treaty Nations and the Nisg̱a’a Nation. Comments were received from Indigenous treaty nations. The Nisg̱a’a Nations were fully considered during the development of this bill.

The other point that I would make: as I said, consultation continues to be ongoing in terms of the development of the regulations. This bill will not be implemented until those consultations are completed.

A. Olsen: Thank you. I should have started, but I will kind of now start by saying that I agree with the premise of this bill and the name of this bill, the Firearm Violence Prevention Act.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the arguments that I’m making here today, or the questions that I’m asking the government today, are in the framework that I support the government’s intentions to diminish the amount of firearm violence in our province. Now, part of the challenge is, under the charges that W̱SÁNEĆ people in particular, but Douglas treaty Indigenous people in general, have been charged with, they’ve been, at their heart, safety-related matters. The conservation office have arrested hunters, including Morris and Olsen — and Sampson now, in 2016 — based on safety.

They’ve actually unsuccessfully argued to the Supreme Court that there was an inherent unsafe aspect of the Tsartlip hunt or the Saanich hunt. I’m going to quote the decision of the Supreme Court here:

“However, it is acknowledged that it could not have been within the common intention of the parties that the Tsartlip would be granted a right to hunt dangerously, since no treaty confers on its beneficiaries a right to put human lives in danger. This is confirmed by the language of the treaty itself, which restricts hunting to ‘unoccupied lands,’ away from any town or settlement.

“Since British Columbia is a very large province, it cannot plausibly be said that a night hunt with illumination is unsafe everywhere and in all circumstances, even within the treaty area at issue in this case. Accordingly, while section 29 of the Wildlife Act, which prohibits hunting or trapping, ‘without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons,’ is a limit that does not impair the treaty rights of Aboriginal hunters and trappers…which apply without exception to the whole province, are overbroad and infringe on the treaty right to hunt. Something less than an absolute prohibition on night hunting can address the concern for safety.”

I want to point out that in the… I think that the language of this decision is that it was found that the Tsartlip had a right to create laws over their hunting and that there has never been an inherent lack of safety around the traditional hunting practices of the Saanich. There is a troubling matter here that needs to be exposed, because the reality of it is that for a very long time, this provincial government has been trying to derogate those treaty hunting rights. It could very easily be seen…. And in fact, I’m very concerned about the impact of the specific language of this clause in the legislation.

The minister continues to point out that this will be done through regulation. But what’s in the legislation is really important, because the regulations can change. We’ve seen regulation change. Any government, any time, that has its mind to it, can change the regulation. We’re in here debating this legislation. It is a slower process and requires this back-and-forth between the minister and members of the opposition to ask questions.

[3:15 p.m.]

This is an appropriate place for the consultation to have been done in advance of, not after, this legislation being passed. There have been 40 years of jurisprudence clearly stating the province does not have jurisdiction in this area around the federally protected rights to hunt. Yet we see in section 5 that they are limiting…. The provincial government is attempting to overstep, when it comes to Indigenous hunting rights, into an area that, in fact, they’ve been arguing, in that 40 years of jurisprudence, that they want the authority to overstep. They’re actually making that overstep in this law.

What’s really, really challenging…. And I’ve got a long quote here from the decision that talks about the fact that in section 88 of the Indian Act, it cannot be used to incorporate into federal law provincial laws that conflict with the terms of any treaty. The provinces may regulate treaty rights under certain circumstances.

What we have here is a situation where section 5 is overstepping into an area. As a lawyer who’s argued this has pointed out to me, this really feels like an attempt to slip through the back door, where going through the front door has failed.

Did the minister or ministry staff review case law and acknowledge the limitations of provincial law in the context of federal jurisdiction, when it comes to the treaty-protected rights of the Tsartlip and others in the development of this bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the questions from my colleague across the way. I just want to assure him. First off, the province is not seeking to do something through the back door.

[3:20 p.m.]

The province is fully cognizant of its obligations, both in terms of how legislation is developed and ensuring complying with UNDRIP and treaty obligations. I can tell you that the issues that he’s raised were considered in the development of this legislation. That’s why that consultation and the groups that I listed did, in fact, take place.

The concerns that the member has were not concerns that were raised back to us. But what I am telling the member is this: we have done consultation. I have made the commitment that those consultations are going to continue, because we want to make sure that what we put in place is done correctly, is done properly and recognizes that rights around hunting exist. They have been established in the courts. We are not going to impinge on that or try to impinge on that by doing something through the back door. As I said, until this is complete, that will not be implemented.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to paint the picture of the potential impact of this. Carl Olsen is my father, so I know this case really well. He reminds me of it often, and so he should. This charge that he successfully fought took ten years of his life. It’s been 15 years, almost, since the decision was passed down, yet nothing of consequence has happened.

If Morris and Olsen Jr. — if I and my cousin — are out hunting and we get picked up and this law is passed, there is a decision point that could be made where we don’t then get charged under the Wildlife Act necessarily. We get charged under this act. So what is solely a hunting case, which is argued to the Supreme Court of Canada about hunting, now becomes what looks more like a Criminal Code charge under the Firearm Violence Prevention Act, section 5, if it passes — or clause 5, as we’re debating it now.

There is now this new, more robust law that then…. I should remind that the point has always been to undermine and erode those hunting rights. The province said as much, often as much, in the Morris-Olsen case. When the judge asked the Crown what their intention was with the fishing rights…. My dad remembers this clearly, and he articulates to me clearly that the province said they wanted to get rid of those too. So maybe they do. Maybe the conservation officer does have to charge us under a hunting violation.

However, the question is why are Tsartlip members and Saanich members continually…? If the minister’s word is that the Crown fully understands its obligations under the treaty, why is Sampson still sitting in front of the courts today? Yet another Saanich member being picked up on yet another hunting case, questions about their character and their integrity yet again being put before the people so that then the Crown can yet again try to fight and undermine and erode the hunting rights of the W̱SÁNEĆ people.

Now, I can take the minister at his word. We’ve spent 3½ years working alongside each other on this. It doesn’t extend much past me, because there has been very little demonstration by the province of a willingness to act. In fact, I have in front of me here a letter that was sent as recently as February 24, 2021, to Minister Rankin, Minister Conroy and Minister Eby from Chief Don Tom of Tsartlip, highlighting a long case history starting in 1859.

[3:25 p.m.]

It was talking about 1852, seven years before the first Wildlife Act; Governor Douglas, the representative of this crown that we wear on our buttons; talking about a 1914 case from Edward Jim; talking about a 1916 case from Gus Morris; talking a 1965 case from White and Bob, that landmark case that changed the entire world here in Canada; talking about section 88 of the Indian Act; talking about 1989 and the Saanichton Bay Marina case that the provincial government lost in the British Columbia Court of Appeal; talking about Dr. Barbara Lane in the Bartleman decision, where the court established that the Saanich People’s hunting areas are far greater than just W̱SÁNEĆ, within just Saanich; talking about section 35; then finally getting to the Morris-Olsen case, talking about the acquittal of the court; and then talking about the Sampson case.

There is a long history of cases with the Tsartlip.

I think the minister has to forgive the W̱SÁNEĆ, the Tsartlip, for…. When the minister says we’re going to continue this consultation after the legislation is passed, after all the members of this place have demonstrated their support for this bill, the Saanich, the Tsartlip, are just going to have to trust this government to reflect the rights — that the provincial government isn’t trying to overstep its rights here, where it has been clearly defined that the Tsartlip have a right to hunt from a vehicle. In fact, our traditional hunt was from the bow of a boat, using pitch lanterns. That was….

In this letter, the question is asked: why is the province continuing to pursue…? If the province does know, as the minister said, why is the province continuing to pursue the prosecution of Jonathan Sampson? Is the province willing to end the prosecution and explore the other options contemplated by the province’s legislative commitment — the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — in reaching a co-jurisdiction agreement, building mechanisms for sharing information, designing protocols to avoid and resolve conflicts as they arise and clarifying jurisdictional space the province will vacate over treaty rights?

These court cases have all along identified the fact that there is co-jurisdiction in this area. Yet the province, in this bill, is operating and acting like it has the only jurisdiction. The letter from Minister Eby, on behalf of the government, in response was: “It’s before the courts.” Of course it’s before the courts, because this government and this province continue to arrest treaty-protected Indigenous People for undertaking their treaty right.

So you have to…. I think the minister has to recognize how flat the response is, how flat it falls with people who have been fighting for generations to protect their treaty rights to say: “Oh, the consultation will continue.” Yet this government, the minister, the ministry did not actually directly consult — I did confirm this morning — the Indigenous nation whose members continually get picked up, arrested, whose names continually get dragged out there, who continually lose a decade of their life fighting the Crown, who’s trying to overstep its bounds.

[3:30 p.m.]

To the minister, can he see the potential threat to a W̱SÁNEĆ person who now is facing not only wildlife charges but also charges under section 5 of the Firearm Violence Prevention Act?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s questioning in this. I want to make it clear, as I said a few moments ago. This section is replacing an existing section in the existing legislation. So the issue that the member raises, that he says is the problem, could, in fact…. Those charges could have been previously laid under this section that he is talking about in those cases. But the fact is that they weren’t.

This piece of legislation is not hunting legislation. It is dealing with gangs and firearms and firearm safety. That is its purpose and intent. As the member…. Treaty rights that have also been decided by the court and court cases, and have been upheld in court cases, will trump this legislation. As I said, there’s no intent to do something through the back door.

In terms of consultation…. One of the reasons why I’ve said that that consultation will continue is to make sure that we are not infringing on those rights. But the other advantage, too — what will also happen — is that through court cases…. I understand that we want to get away from the court case process. But the fact is that there are court cases that evolve rights over time as well — that the regulatory framework has the ability to be flexible and to adapt extremely quickly to changes that may be necessary. But what I made clear is that the consultation will continue.

The member has indicated, from his perspective…. The nation that he has been talking about…. That consultation is crucial, and that will continue. That is going to shape if, for example, exemptions are necessary or if there are issues in the framework that need to be in place. Then that will, in fact, happen.

The Chair: The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you.

I have just been sent section 9, as the minister noted, of the Firearms Act and acknowledge that it was there before. However, we are drafting a new piece of legislation, and this is now going to be put into yet another piece of legislation.

This is the opportunity that we have to have done this work in advance of. Post consultation or consultation in mid-stream — once the members of this place, and presumably the majority there, have voted in favour of this bill, this will be the framework that that conversation happens in.

[3:35 p.m.]

What I’m attempting to inform, in this decision and in this process today, is that we have an opportunity, before we codify this in legislation, to have had that consultation, and it didn’t happen. That was the commitment. The commitment wasn’t to do it after the fact, not to do it later.

I think that what’s important is that the perspective of the Chief, in the letter that was written and responded to, actually, by the government just today, was a recognition and acknowledgment that the behaviour of this institution, the behaviour of this provincial government, has been to establish — or reinvigorate, as the language says — the provincial jurisdiction over hunting rights of the W̱SÁNEĆ people, of the Tsartlip, claiming justification jurisdiction to interfere with our, with their, including mine, treaty and hunting rights.

Wildlife officers have been out arresting Tsartlip people, W̱SÁNEĆ people, and the court cases that the minister talks about as a remedy are not a remedy at all. They’re soul-destroying. They require an incredible amount of resources from a people that don’t have an incredible amount of resources to fight an institution that has all the resources in the world that it wants. That’s not fair.

That’s why this part of the process needs to be a good one. That’s why we made the commitment in the DRIPA to do this work in advance of, so that we could then not have to be in court expending resources that would be better expended on health care and on education and on social development and on economic development and all those things.

Instead, where are our resources going? Our resources are going to defend our people who have been wrongly arrested for violations of an act that’s not applicable to them. Now we’re in the process of adding another one or, to change the language, renewing another one. We’ve not done a good job of understanding that this is actually going to….

As the member for Prince George–Mackenzie pointed out, the hunting community in general has shown concerns about this. However, for the Indigenous hunting community, who have a treaty-protected right, this is going to disproportionately impact them. I am somewhat dismayed. If the minister’s comments that they fully understand the impact that this has on the Tsartlip and they’re fully aware of the court cases and the jurisprudence around this from the Tsartlip…. To have the Chief tell me this morning that, no, they’ve not been consulted directly on this….

Tsartlip continues to show up in the Supreme Court of Canada documents. To just assume that this is not going to impact them because it was a clause or a section in a piece of legislation that currently existed — I find it really troubling. Then, when the First Nation reaches out to say, “Hey, we need to talk about those hunting rights,” the response from the Attorney General is: “It’s before the courts, so we can’t talk about it.”

What the Tsartlip and what the Saanich have been trying to accomplish with this provincial government is to have a discussion about co-jurisdiction. With that, I think the only remedy for this that could strike the level of confidence that’s necessary is for the minister to amend this section to be very clear in the legislation that this does not derogate or abrogate any treaty right.

Is the minister prepared to do that in the legislation?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago, treaty rights trump this legislation. It is in the existing legislation. It’s not new. It’s going into this new act. We are dealing through regulation with any issues that may arise that need to be addressed. So at this point, I would say that is the approach that we’ve taken, and it is the approach that we’ve taken through the consultation process that we did.

I understand the member’s concern and about his specific nation. But as I said earlier, and I’ll just reiterate, when this legislation was developed, we did go through Indigenous leadership organizations. As I said, they were the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Métis Nation B.C. — all of whom share those same concerns around issues, around rights when it comes to hunting — as well as the treaty First Nations, the Nisg̱a’a Nation. They all have that same interest around their hunting rights.

We’ve made it clear that we will continue the work that was already done, that their work will also continue, in ensuring that the obligations we have a responsibility to uphold are in fact upheld and that the primary purpose of this bill has been regulatory. That’s the approach that we’ve been taking. But I am mindful of the member’s comments. I’m mindful of his concerns, and I will follow up with him on them.

A. Olsen: I’m very troubled that the minister continues to use the defence of treaty rights in court as a remedy when we have a remedy in front of us that is much cleaner, that requires far less of an individual’s soul to be destroyed in the process and that requires far less resources from an Indigenous nation to be expended to defend those rights.

It’s troubling to me that after reading out the number of times that our relatives have been arrested and hauled before the courts to defend those treaty rights, only for the next generation to have their names added to that. White and Bob, Morris, Sampson, Olsen and Morris, Bartleman — every generation has its defender of the treaty rights.

The minister is essentially saying that the next generation after me, after us, will also have to have their defender of the treaty rights, when the minister could put into this act, either at this clause here, clause 5, a note that this does not derogate the treaty rights of hunting — and I have an amendment — or an amendment at section 10 to say that nothing here abrogates or derogates the rights of Indigenous people.

We could do that work here today. We could make this clean and clear. We could ensure that as far as this act goes…. We still have a lot of work to do in the renewal of the Wildlife Act, but we could ensure that this act doesn’t abrogate or derogate the hunting rights and ensure that we are able to achieve what the minister wants to achieve. And I agree….

[3:45 p.m.]

If this is about gun violence and gang violence in British Columbia, I just am not understanding what the hesitation is or what the holdback is in putting in a clause, in taking a pause here on this particular clause and putting in place the language in the legislation, at the time at which we’re debating it, so it’s enshrined in legislation — that protection.

This government, previous governments, the whole government institution has a long way to go to gain the trust and to earn the trust of Indigenous people. We just started in 2019, and this would be a dramatic step.

I can tell you that there’s a lot of concern that’s being sent to me about yet another act that we may have to defend ourselves against in the future. It’s now being what’s debated.

I ask the minister again. Will he pause at this moment, with this clause, and do the work that was needed to be done in advance — not after the fact — with the people who have been most adversely impacted by this, which his government acknowledges they’re aware of, which they’ve received a letter on and which we currently have a member before the courts on? This generation’s Morris-Olsen. This generation’s White-Bob. This generation’s Bartleman. This generation’s Morris. This generation’s Jim.

Why do we have to keep doing this? Why can we not do this work appropriately, as was committed in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act? What is the hesitation on behalf of the minister to do this work up front and now, recognizing that this actually has a potential devastating impact on Indigenous people? Yet we could achieve what the minister wants to achieve, in addition to clarifying this very important point on behalf of Indigenous people, who continually are getting dragged in front of the courts to expend a huge amount of resources to defend themselves, even after winning in the Supreme Court of Canada?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess what I can tell the member is what I’ve been saying. Look, this legislation has been developed in the context of the existing legislation, as it relates to this section. This section is not new. It’s not being used to do anything backdoor. It’s not going to come into force at the earliest until spring of 2022 — which allows, as I have said, the time for additional consultation to take place around any issues that may arise. That’s the process that gives us, I think, the greatest flexibility to address issues that need to be dealt with.

The reality is that in the development of this, as I’ve already stated, we have gone out and met — I’ve listed them for the member now — all the different groups and leadership groups, nations, about this legislation. I think the path that we have taken and are dealing with is the right approach.

We will continue, as I’ve said, to ensure that it’s implemented in a way — not in a way — that respects the rights and treaty obligations that exist, that will exist and that will continue to exist. As I’ve said repeatedly, they trump this legislation. This legislation does not take away from them, nor does this legislation seek in any way to take away from those rights and treaty rights that exist and will continue to exist.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response. Recognizing that this bill could be enacted now but wouldn’t be regulated until 2022, I’m not sure…. Well, this is eerily reminiscent of previous conversations that we’ve had around this, around the fact that I, as a legislator — and, I think, all 87 of my colleagues in this place — need it to be put on notice here that voting in favour of this now is moving forward a process that the previous parliament agreed we wouldn’t do anymore. We agreed that we wouldn’t do consultation after the fact or consultation….

[3:55 p.m.]

It has to be acknowledged that the discussion about the regulations is substantially different than the discussion about the legislation. Had that been a robust conversation with our Chief, with our legal advisers in the room, of the W̱SÁNEĆ, of the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council, of the W̱JOȽEȽP, the Tsartlip Chief, then they could have, at that time, acknowledged the fact that there is an increased recognizing that this is not designed for hunting, that there is an act. But it could be used.

I think that that is the most important aspect of this: that because it hasn’t, it doesn’t mean it won’t. That’s the threat to Indigenous people, who have a treaty-protected hunting right. The other threat to putting our head down and proceeding and passing this vote is that there’s no way to unwind that once it’s in place. We then accept that the legislation, as it was voted on, is the legislation that we are regulating. Whereas if we paused and had that conversation in a more thoughtful way, or if the government had a thoughtful way….

I’m raising the fact that our Chief has told me that he has not been consulted. I’m acknowledging the fact that the minister has said that he understands and that the government understands and recognizes. I am adding further emphasis to the fact that the process….

When the minister says that this legislation doesn’t trump treaty rights, he’s not acknowledging the incredible effort it takes to defend those treaty rights. That’s something that I have witnessed. That’s something that I know all too well. That’s something that our families in W̱SÁNEĆ know and understand: the amount of resources that it takes to defend our rights.

While the minister can stand here today in this House and say, “Don’t worry. It doesn’t trump it,” that doesn’t mean that one of our people can’t be picked up on a charge. Then their life spirals into an incredibly difficult decade of defending a right that the minister stood here today and told us all that we acknowledge exists but that requires a court process to defend and to win. And, might I add, when you do win — like White and Bob, like Morris-Olsen, like Saanichton Bay Marina, like all the court cases that the government has on the record because my Chief wrote them about it in February — it doesn’t matter, because the government picks up the next guy, picks up the next hunter, to start that process. The legal Groundhog Day starts all over again.

All of my colleagues here who are poised to vote in favour of this without the legislation should be on notice that it is in contravention to the commitment that we made to the DRIPA, to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, where we said there’s going to be a new process for new legislation, and a new process for old legislation that’s being reviewed, in this place.

It is on the record that the minister acknowledges that he understands the full context of just how involved Tsartlip, as an Indigenous Nation, and the W̱SÁNEĆ, as a collection of villages within the W̱SÁNEĆ Nation, are involved in this. Yet they’re not the names on the consultation. There was no consultation. Even though Tsartlip continues to show up in the jurisprudence, they weren’t part of that consultation. That must make everybody in this place feel really nervous about proceeding with this bill. Again, to point out, this is not about hunting, per se. That work is still to come. The impact of this, the firearms….

I have amendments in front of me. I’m prepared to amend this bill. However, I feel really uncomfortable doing it, because in the process of the last four days, that’s not the appropriate amount of time to sit down and have a conversation. It shouldn’t be on me to have that consultation with the Indigenous Nation that has so often showed up in the jurisprudence. So much of their money has been invested in defending their members.

[4:00 p.m.]

I don’t even know, I can’t even tell you, if this language is the language that’s appropriate. It’s the language that we were able to put together on the short notice of a few days here in this place. Even it does disservice to the bigger conversation that needs to be had here. Do you amend clause 5, or do you amend clause 10? I have amendments for both of those.

I think the prudent thing to do here is to pause. We’re here for a long time this spring and this summer. Pause. The minister can reach out to Chief Don Tom, who’s the Chief of Tsartlip but also has a leadership role in our province. Sit down with the lawyers. Have the conversation.

He may find out that this was a good process because they learned something. Might find out that nothing needs to be changed at all because the chief says that. But I can tell you right now that the text messages that I have and the conversations that I have are of a great deal of concern. That is not the appropriate kind of atmosphere to be pressing ahead and say, “Don’t worry. We’ll do it in regulation,” because as we’ve seen, regulations can change with the stroke of a pen. Legislation takes an appropriate amount of time.

I’m really, really hesitant to put any amendments on the table in case I don’t get this legal language exactly right. Is it section 35 of the constitution? Is it the treaty-protected rights of the W̱SÁNEĆ? Is it treaty rights writ large across the province? I don’t know how, in this language that I have in front of me, to properly identify the protection that needs to be in place.

I just know that there’s a great deal of concern being raised to me that there is an increased vulnerability, and the people who will be disproportionately impacted by that are the people that have been defending themselves in the court when this province arrests them and drags them all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, generation after generation after generation. That should be enough to just press pause for a few minutes, to take a deep breath.

I ask all of my colleagues from all sides of the House: please, do not support moving this along until that important and good work is done.

I ask the minister one final time: will he pause this?

This is the best possible outcome, even if nothing comes of it. It is a few moments in time in this legislative precinct. It is a blip on the radar of this place, but it means a lot to the building of trust with Indigenous Nations in this province to say: “You know what? Your issues are as big as the issues that we have in this place as we’re making legislation.”

The important work of this place isn’t too great for an Indigenous Nation who has expended an incredible amount of resources to defend themselves, because it will cause no comfort to them to hear the minister say: “Oh, don’t worry, because this law doesn’t trump the treaty. The treaty still stands.”

Well, in order for the W̱SÁNEĆ people to defend themselves with the treaty, they’ve got to spend a decade in court. They’ve got to go to Ottawa.

Will we take a pause, take a breath? Will the minister commit to having that conversation, or do I have to put these less-than-perfect amendments on the table to continue this conversation and to try to slow this process down a little bit so that that conversation can be appropriately had with the appropriate chief?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s comments and his concerns, but I want to make a couple of things clear. As I’ve already said, first off, this isn’t new. I stress that because the concerns that he has raised have not been done through this section, and they are not going to be done through this section. But I do appreciate the member’s concerns.

I’ve also outlined the consultation that has taken place and that during that consultation, those concerns were not raised. I’ve also outlined to him that it is the spring of 2022 when this legislation will be implemented and that on this section and on other sections, a regulatory process is, we think, the best way forward on this particular bill, because it is not a hunting bill. It is a firearms and a safety bill. It is not designed in any way, shape or form to take away from….

As I’ve said, treaty rights trump this. But having said that, and understanding the genuine concern that the member has, I am prepared, at this point, to stand this section down and to continue on with other sections of the bill. I am prepared at this point to do that, because I do understand what the member is saying and where he’s coming from. As I said, I want to assure him that there is nothing nefarious in this section. There’s nothing…. It’s not designed to…. But at this point, I will stand this section down, and then we can proceed to other sections.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for that commitment and that show of good faith. I will just end this part of this debate on this section with the acknowledgment of where I started in my series of questions and in the information that I provided today.

Most of those recent arrests have been on safety-related charges, section 29 of the Wildlife Act. So part of the challenge is around gun safety. There has been a long history of jurisprudence around the inherent unsafe practices of the W̱SÁNEĆ hunt. The Supreme Court of Canada found that there is nothing inherently unsafe. In fact, there have been no incidents to date, thank goodness, about the W̱SÁNEĆ hunt.

Just as the minister pointed out that this this bill is about safety, this was one of the primary motivating forces behind me standing for so long on this section of the bill today. It’s because our people are being picked up on safety-related issues. I’m wary of that.

Thank you for that. I appreciate the minister taking the time, and I certainly hope that in the time the section is stood down, the ministry reaches out to the chiefs of the W̱SÁNEĆ nations and to the Douglas treaty nations, for that matter — all 14 on Vancouver Island — and make sure that this bill reflects that proper consultation process.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thank you.

[4:10 p.m.]

The Chair: The offer has been made to have this section stood down. We can take further questions on this section, or we can deal with them later if members prefer. I’m willing to take questions now, but of course, the minister has offered that it be stood down until a later date.

P. Milobar: Just one or two questions. I appreciate that the section sounds like it’s going to be stood down, and I know another colleague has a few questions on this area as well.

Really, the concerns are that this is something we have seen unfold in this chamber, post the passing of UNDRIP. Now, this will be the third time. Last session, we had Bill 17, and we had Bill 22, both of which — the complete bills — had to be withdrawn by government, because it was found that they didn’t consult properly. By their own admission, they didn’t consult properly. They withdrew the bills. In fact, that lack of consultation was then later used by the Premier as an excuse for the bills being pulled. It was actually that they couldn’t get support with the Green Party and that we needed to have an election over that.

Now today we’re hearing that there was some consultation. By the minister’s answers, it doesn’t sound like it was adequate consultation, because the minister has even acknowledged that there needs to be more consultation once this bill is passed. “Just trust me. We’ll take care of it.”

The problem is — and the member previous is right — that that is not what Indigenous leaders were expecting with UNDRIP. They weren’t expecting that government would continue on with passing bills and say: “We’ll talk to you about it later. But once everything’s kind of in law, we’ll play with a little bit of regulation on the edges, and we’ll see where we can proceed with that.” It’s not acceptable for a mining company to do that if they’re trying to get a permit. It certainly should not be acceptable for the government to try doing that when it comes to legislation, especially this fresh after the passing of UNDRIP.

The question I have to the minister around not just this section but the overall bill…. If there’s an acknowledgment that further consultation needs to be done so that it’s done in a proper way with this bill and sections of this bill — and sections within a bill all start to interconnect — why, if the government has already chosen to withdraw Bill 22 and Bill 17 previously, would this bill not just be withdrawn completely and put on hold until proper consultation has been done and attempted?

No one on our side is opposed to public safety, to cracking down on gangs, to making sure that police and enforcement have the tools they need and the legal system has the tools they need to keep the law-abiding citizens of our province safe and crack down on gangs. We’re not saying that at all. However, that doesn’t mean that legislation just gets to get rushed through without proper checks and balances and consultations done that this government actually put in place for new legislation.

So to the minister: if the minister is prepared to stand down section 5 for the time being, why will the minister not just stand down the entire bill and make sure proper consultations take place over the next few months? Provide that certainty to this chamber and to the public. Make sure that we can advance — in a proper, meaningful way — legislation under UNDRIP that still accomplishes the public safety goals that I think everyone shares in terms of restricting access to illegal firearms to gangs and providing police the tools to properly crack down on the illegal gun owners.

That’s ultimately, I think, what everyone wants to see happen. But we can’t turn a blind eye to the legislation that we all passed unanimously in this House around UNDRIP. Will the minister stand down the complete bill to make sure that the proper consultations are addressed and brought back forward so that we can ensure the safety of our citizens?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I listened with interest to the comments from my colleague across the way. I’m just going to say this. I agree to stand the section down, because the member raised some particular concerns that I believe we can address. We have a difference of opinion at this point on those concerns, in terms of the approach. But in terms of standing down what is otherwise, I think, a very strong bill that all members of this House should support…. We have no intention of standing down a bill.

There is no intention of standing down a bill right now that will make it illegal to have hidden compartments in vehicles. We are not going to stand down a bill that bans or that makes it illegal to walk into a hospital or a place or worship with a shotgun. The member may think that we need to consult on that. We do not need to consult on that anymore.

We do not need to consult, in terms of when you walk into a shooting range, should you have to register and sign your name on a form and show some identification? There’s no need for consultation anymore on that. There is no need to deny the police the ability to deal with those who carry fake firearms that are made to look real and too often result in a tragic circumstance that could be avoided.

They had 16 years to do something like that. After 16 years…. I will give my current critic credit, which I did during the second reading debate, that he commissioned a report that landed on my desk. I said, “These make good recommendations” — and worked with some of the best minds in policing to put them into legislation. We do not need to wait any further to deal with that.

What I have said and I think is the appropriate thing to do is that there are some questions around this section that my colleague across the way feels very strongly about. I said I’m prepared to look at that. I may come back and say: “I looked at them, and we’re not going to change direction.” But I understand where he’s coming from. I understand what he was talking about, and I said I am prepared to look at that. But I am not prepared to — what in my view is, in essence, a stunt — stand down an entire piece of legislation. That is unnecessary.

This House is dealing in committee stage with legislation on a clause-by-clause basis, as it always does. Sometimes on those clauses…. Many times there is agreement, and other times there are disagreements. There may be amendments made. From time to time the minister has the prerogative to say: “You know what? There’s an issue here that’s been raised, and I’d like to look a little closer, and so I’m standing down a section.” That is the appropriate thing to do. But it does not mean to say that the rest of the bill does not continue. We continue on the other clauses and all the parts in that bill that will make that bill whole.

So no, we are not standing down the bill. But we are, as I said, prepared at this time to look at that section 5 and some of those issues the member raised.

Clause 5 stood down.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

So clause 5 has been postponed. We will come back to that before we get to the end of the bill reading.

We are now on clause 6, Members, so I’ll draw your attention to clause 6, as clause 5 has been postponed, or stood down, as the terminology has it.

On clause 6.

[4:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: On clause 6 and also as a follow-up. I apologize to the minister. I seem to have struck a bit of a nerve there. I’m not quite sure why. But the reality is the request that was made was not to stand down for an indefinite period of time. We’re in this House till the end of June. The House will be prorogued at the end of March, and the bill could be reintroduced in the middle of April.

The reality is, what has changed since my colleague first started working on this when he was in government is that UNDRIP has passed in the interim.

I would note the minister was not prepared to bring forward our private member’s bill that was trying to deal with secret compartments in cars either, as a first step. There were lots of things the minister has not been prepared to do.

The request is quite simple. It is to take that step back now that concerns have been raised around the level and adequacy of consultation under the backdrop of UNDRIP that this government brought in and introduced and this chamber unanimously supported. We’ve already seen two bills have to be pulled because of that.

The minister knows that any new legislation is always going to stand some form of scrutiny after the fact, with legal challenges and questions and concerns. The minister has acknowledged that he has further consultation to do on parts of this bill after this bill has passed, after the fact, which goes totally contrary to the spirit and the intent, more importantly, of the legislation around UNDRIP that we passed.

Again, we are not saying that we are opposed to cracking down on gangs and gun violence and bringing in better tools, whatsoever. We are not saying to delay this indefinitely. It is not a stunt. I don’t think First Nations leaders that expect to be properly consulted on legislation under the terms of UNDRIP would consider that a stunt. I think they would consider that that means the government is actually doing and following through on the commitments they made to Indigenous leadership across this province.

The minister could very well be accurate that they will do a quick scan with Indigenous leadership and they will read through, now that some areas have been highlighted, and say: “We don’t have huge issues with this now that we understand what impact it would or would not have on our nations.”

But to stubbornly refuse to even take that step and bring this back to this assembly for us to all work to advance public safety for law-abiding citizens and crack down on gangs and hidden compartments and all of the sundry items that the minister brought forward does not seem to make a lot of sense when you consider we’ve been waiting for years for this, as the minister points out. Waiting for an extra month or two to make sure we get it right and to make sure the spirit and intent of UNDRIP has been fully committed to is not a bad thing.

Again, I guess we could go section by section. Is the minister prepared, if not to remove the whole bill, then to remove section 6?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

E. Ross: This is no stunt. This is actually your government’s doing. This is why I warned this Legislature not to play politics with Aboriginal rights and title. It’s not just treaty rights we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the constitution, section 35. I warned your government a number of times not to do this, not to make a political statement with UNDRIP, because there was already a pathway laid down in Canada, through section 35 and the pursuant case law.

To mess around with it when we had so much progress in Canada, so much progress since 1982, and then to throw in a vague bill talking about how every single piece of legislation is going to be in line with UNDRIP….

[4:25 p.m.]

You caused this. Your government caused this. You talk about the consultation that might happen at the regulatory stage. As First Nations, this is our problem, because a peace officer, a police officer, a conservation officer is not going to have the time to interpret the law or the case law. They haven’t read Mikisew Cree or Gladstone or the Haida court case. They haven’t done that.

When we get stopped for a firearms violation, our only recourse is to go to court and get the court to actually review some of that case law that was decided 20 years ago, or maybe create new case law. It actually creates financial pressures on all of us. I’m talking about all British Columbians.

I made mention of this in my previous comments to this bill, hoping that the government did their consultation as per rights and title that have been dictated by the courts in Canada and B.C. Not only that, but by clauses in your own bill.

You already cited off the consultation you’ve done with the leadership council, the AFN, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the summit, but those parties are not governing bodies of Aboriginal rights and title. They don’t represent rights and title. They don’t have rights and title. The rights and title you talk of are actually held on behalf of communities. So it only stands to reason that whoever represents that community actually represents the rights and title of the community. The organizations you talked to — I have no idea who they represent. They’re political bodies.

In terms of the language that you use in your UNDRIP bill, you said: “‘Indigenous peoples’ has the same meaning as aboriginal peoples in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.” You also said that “Indigenous governing body” in UNDRIP — your bill, your act….

The Chair: If I might remind the member to speak through the Chair as opposed to directly to the minister. Thank you.

E. Ross: Good point, Chair. I’ll try to remember that.

Then through the Chair to the minister, the definition that the government put forward in their own UNDRIP bill: “‘Indigenous governing body’ means an entity that is authorized to act on behalf of Indigenous peoples that hold rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

Last time I checked, the leadership council, the summit, the AFN — they do not hold rights and title. Your consultation is not only flawed…. I don’t know if it’s going through the back door — the minister’s own words. I don’t know if it’s that, but it’s definitely not consultation. It doesn’t stand up to the principles of case law or your own UNDRIP bill.

If you do stand down, and you are willing to look at clause 5 — what you told my colleague from Saanich North — then am I to presume that the government will actually abide by its own UNDRIP bill, their own act, and the rights and title case law that has been laid out in the courts in Canada and B.C., and consult with the real leaders that have rights and title on behalf of their members? We’re talking about 203 bands in B.C. If you want to live up to the principles of the UNDRIP bill that the government put up as well as talked about how the foundational piece will be section 35….

Is that what the government is proposing to do in terms of standing down? Do a real consultation.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s comments. I know that they were directed at section 5, which has been stood down. We are actually on section 6, which is around establishing an offence for driving a vehicle transporting illegally possessed and illegally stored firearms, prohibited ammunition and prohibited devices.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I will say that I stood the section down in response to the member for Saanich North and the Islands’ questions. He raised some points that I said that I’m prepared to take a look at. I have committed to doing that, and that’s why that section is stood down.

In terms of this particular section and the consultation around this bill and this section, we have done the appropriate consultation, not just generally but also as it relates to UNDRIP. As I said a moment ago, this section is dealing with driving a vehicle, transporting illegally possessed and illegally stored firearms.

E. Ross: A point of order that I was overlooked in the comments to section 5 to begin with. The Chair rectified that by recognizing that and allowing me to speak to the subject matter.

The subject matter at hand from my colleague from Saanich North was: was proper consultation carried out? According to the UNDRIP bill put together by the government, as well as case law, as well as consultation with the wrong parties altogether, says to me that it was not carried out correctly. It was actually given to political bodies to actually represent the rights and title of 203 specific bands in B.C. that each have specific rights and individualities in terms of what we’re talking about here.

Now, this government said that they would consult on the legislation and make sure that all laws were aligned with UNDRIP. But they keep changing the goalposts. Just recently the question was asked on a finance bill. The last answer given by this government said: “Well, we don’t have to consult because it doesn’t affect rights and title.” Well, that’s not what I remember when we were debating the UNDRIP bill. I don’t remember that. In fact, some of the language there says that all laws in B.C. will be aligned with UNDRIP.

I’ll say it again. This is what I warned about when you start to play politics with rights and title when we have a clear road map with case law that defines the roles and the responsibilities of each party, whether it be the First Nations side or the Crown or the private sector. There were rules. Yes, you had to interpret them a bit, but now you’ve got the interpretation of UNDRIP. This government is actually stepping aside of those promises they made in their own UNDRIP bill, and they’re going with consultation with the leadership council, meaning the AFN, the summit.

What I’m asking…. I’m all for safety. First Nations are all for safety. I mean, we want to do that. But we don’t want the confusion to face our people on the ground. We don’t want the confusion to face law enforcement people on the ground, when they’re trying to interpret this, when they meet up with a First Nations person who might be carrying a firearm for the purposes of exercising their rights and title.

I’m asking you: if the stand down is going to be to do proper consultation, will the proper consultation involve the leaders that represent Aboriginal rights and title on behalf of the true holders? That’s the communities of B.C. — the Aboriginal communities of B.C. That’s my question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have already answered the question. We believe that we have done the appropriate consultation required under UNDRIP, but I am also mindful of an issue that the member for Saanich North and the Islands raised. I agreed to stand down that section to look at some concerns that he raised, and I have made that commitment. So that’s why this section has stood down.

As I said, with the rest of the legislation, again, we have followed the appropriate consultation. I appreciate the member’s concerns, but I believe I’ve answered the question.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. Morris: Section 6, and it’ll pertain to section 7, as well, appears to have a lot of similarities to section 94 of the Criminal Code, unauthorized possession in a motor vehicle. I’m just wondering if the minister could comment on the similarities and the purpose of including 6 and 7?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. It does overlap with the Criminal Code offence. It does that because while the Criminal Code…. There’s the criminal charge, the fact that we have the ability to level administrative penalty at the provincial level. We are then able to say: “This is an illegal firearm, and as part of the administrative penalty, we are seizing the vehicle or impounding the vehicle that that illegal firearm was found in.”

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. Morris: So clause 8. Prohibition against causing public disturbances with low-velocity firearms or imitation firearms. Again, a concern to many people throughout the ridings in the province here. Particularly, I know we’ll be talking about regs further on in this particular bill, but section 2: “A person must not use, carry or store a low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm in a manner that causes or is likely to cause a disturbance in a public place.”

We have, on a regular occurrence throughout British Columbia, individuals that use pellet guns or BB guns for target practice in their backyard or in some location throughout the province here. I’m just wondering if the minister has put much thought as to how this may impact this kind of activity throughout the province.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, we did take those issues into consideration during the development of the legislation. The member is quite right. There are differences between rural British Columbia and urban British Columbia and the concerns around…. For example, from police, it’s particularly in urban areas where you have, often, very small backyards and realistic BB guns, for example. That’s a problem. Local communities in many Lower Mainland municipalities already have bylaws in place governing the discharge of those kinds of activities and those kinds of weapons. But we understand that in rural British Columbia, it’s entirely appropriate. So the regulations that will be developed will, in fact, recognize that.

M. Morris: Just to follow up on this particular section as well. Is the legislation designed to…? I guess in certain regions of the province, the mere fact that somebody is carrying a firearm…. It could be a low-velocity firearm, a BB gun, a pellet gun, something like that. Would just carrying that firearm constitute causing a disturbance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is: yes, it could. If you’re carrying a low-velocity firearm that’s looking like a high-velocity weapon — a lot of times, we see that they are designed that way — that could definitely be an offence.

M. Morris: I can certainly understand with weapons that may resemble an authentic firearm…. I go back to A Christmas Story, and I go back to other pictures there of a youth with a BB gun out in the yard or walking down the street to his friend’s place that might live three or four streets down the road.

Would that individual be committing an offence by carrying what is obviously a BB gun or a pellet gun?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’ll be dealing with that specific issue in a few sections down the road, but I will say this. The reality is that someone should be carrying it properly in a container or a storage container — for want of a better word — as opposed to something in the open. Because the reality is that too often what we see….

There’s a case that came to my attention today. The police in Delta stopped an individual. Turned out they had what appeared to be a firearm in their belt. It looked just like, you know, I’m not sure what. For the sake of this discussion, I’ll say a Glock. It turned out to be a pellet gun, but the police did not know that.

[4:45 p.m.]

I think common sense is…. In rural B.C., if you’re…. That’s what the regulations are going to be doing in their development: taking all of those things into account. But the commonsense thing — certainly, from the public’s perspective — is: “Look, if you’re able to have it, take it to wherever you’re going properly contained in an appropriate container.”

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

M. Morris: I look forward to the discussions pertaining to the regs on a number of these sections. It’s a sorry state of affairs that society has gone this way. It’s certainly changed from a number of years ago.

With respect to 9, the definition of ammunition — the same meaning as the Criminal Code. I looked at that. It includes caseless cartridges. With respect to low-velocity firearms, caseless cartridge…. Would that include a paintball itself?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

I’d like a bit of a recess.

The Chair: We’ll recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:46 p.m. to 4:58 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

M. Morris: With respect to clause 9, I’m just curious as to why the minister decided to use the “ammunition” definition from section 84(1) of the Criminal Code rather than the definition that is in this particular bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This section is tied to the prohibitions that exist under the federal Criminal Code. That’s why we’re using the definition in the federal Criminal Code.

M. Morris: I’m just wondering if the minister could also elaborate on what caseless ammunition is?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There’s a long technical, but basically, in a nutshell, it is an ammunition that does not have a casing. The primer sits under the piece of lead.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

M. Morris: Clause 10 is quite a straightforward section, talking about the regulations. It appears that a lot of work has already been done, or there are a lot of projected regulations coming into place here. Just wondering…. I’ll wait till we get to the regulation section on that, so I’m good with 10.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

M. Morris: Just wondering what the impetus was for division 2 prohibition requirements.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s to ensure that if a minor…. Well, one is to prevent the sale to minors. But more importantly, to ensure that if a minor does have access, it’s because the adult is the one that has purchased it for the minor to be able to use in a weapon that they have received from the adult, so that there is, in essence, a check that the adult is aware of what is taking place.

M. Morris: In essence, this division 2, then, pretty much restricts anybody under the age of 18 from purchasing a pellet gun or a BB gun on their own volition or on their own, I guess, or any pellets for it or any BBs for that particular weapon.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On clause 14.

M. Morris: Just a clarification, I guess, more than anything, on my part. So 14(1) states that a minor “must not transport, carry or store a loaded low-velocity firearm.” Section (2) says that the minor “who is transporting, carrying or storing a low-velocity firearm or an imitation firearm must transport, carry or store the low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm inside an opaque container that is locked.”

So subsection (1) says “must not transport,” but subsection (2) says that if they’re transporting, they’ve got to carry it in this transparent box. I’m just a little bit confused there.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Subsection (1) is about it being loaded. So if it’s unloaded, it can be being transported. But it cannot be being transported if it is loaded.

[5:05 p.m.]

M. Morris: “For certainty, for the purposes of subsection (1), a low-velocity firearm is loaded even if the low-velocity firearm is temporarily incapable of being discharged.” I wonder if the minister can explain what that references.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s to make it clear that the weapon must be not loaded. An example would be saying, “Okay, yeah. I’ve got the pellet in there,” or, “I have the paintball in there, but I’ll quickly pop out the CO₂ cartridge.”

It’s like, no, no, no, no. Unloaded means unloaded.

M. Morris: Thank you for that, then. Just for clarification, if a minor is carrying a pellet gun that you have to crack it at the breach in order to put air into the chamber, but he doesn’t yet have a pellet in that, would that be considered loaded?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

M. Morris: This is a fairly contentious one for a lot of people out there. It says: “15(1) In this section, ‘prohibited area’ means an area where the discharge of a firearm or imitation firearm is prohibited under a law in force in British Columbia. (2) A minor must not discharge a low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm in a prohibited area. (3) A minor must not possess a low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm in a prohibited area unless the low-velocity firearm or imitation firearm is being transported, carried and stored in compliance with section 4….”

When we look at the number of pellet guns and BB guns that are out there, and a number of young minors with their dads or uncles or whoever might be out there with them, practising to set up a target on the backyard fence or on a tree in the backyard, it’s still a prohibited area for firing a firearm by virtue of either the Firearm Act or municipal legislation or whatever the case may be. Will this prevent youth from participating in these kind of activities in the future?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that would be yes. I mean, obviously, in an area where the discharge of firearms is prohibited, then you should not be discharging firearms. That being said, if it means going to an area, if there is no prohibition, then, yes, you would be able to. You could still, obviously, go to a range, for example. If it’s a paintball, you go to a paintball range. All of that is still fine. But not if there’s a prohibition against the discharge of firearms.

[5:10 p.m.]

M. Morris: Concerning. When you look at these young folks that might have the old Red Ryder BB gun style or the small .177 pellet air guns that do a lot of target practising….. I know that my boys, growing up…. I did the same thing growing up. You just plunk away at a target in the backyard. The velocity is low velocity. This is going to curtail activities like that within the city limits, within town limits, where firearms are prohibited to be discharged?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I totally understand where the member is coming from and what the member is saying. The answer would be yes. I’ll make this observation. This comes down to what we talked about, and to be developed in terms of the regulations, between rural and urban British Columbia.

In rural British Columbia, there are lots of places where young people can go out and do just what you’ve been talking about. I fully expect that will continue. Obviously, as we’re doing regulations, we are mindful of that.

Where the real issue is and what this is dealing with is the urban areas. We are seeing, particularly…. We’ve seen it here in the Lower Mainland. The reality is that more often than not these days the air rifle isn’t the old Red Ryder that you used, that I had. It’s something that looks exactly like a replica firearm. It’s designed to look like it could do a lot more than it actually does. This was the situation that the Delta police found them in, and that’s what this is about.

As I said, when we announced the legislation and in my remarks, we fully expect that in rural British Columbia, you’re still going to be able to do what you’re able to do in a way that in the Lower Mainland…. You know what? You’re going to have to go to a range, or you’re going to have to go to an authorized location.

M. Morris: I guess I also throw that out…. We look at the Lower Mainland, situated on 0.53 percent of the land mass, of course, with the large population that it’s got in comparison to the rest of the province. I certainly understand what urban means every time I drive through it. But would urban mean Kelowna? Would urban mean Prince George? Would it mean Kamloops? Would it mean our larger centres of populations over 5,000 or 10,000 people? It is a fairly common activity in a lot of these areas.

Would the minister consider — we’ll be talking about regulations down the road here in some of these other sections — prohibiting weapons that look like real firearms? I do understand, having been a police officer and having dealt with replicas, it gets your adrenaline going the same as any other real weapon would.

I hope there’s consideration made for these kinds of activities that are so prevalent — even probably in urban areas as well. It is an activity that’s enjoyed by many young folks across the province here.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the things that we obviously will be taking into account as the regulations are developed is that, for example, local government has significant ability in this area in terms of what they will allow and what they will not allow already. That’s why I think it’s fair to say that we’re aware of the issues that you’re raising.

The paramount issue, of course, is safety and the reality around the fact that more and more, the emphasis is on realism as opposed to, as I said a moment ago, what you and I know from when we were young.

I expect that as those regulations are developed, we’ll obviously continue to work with local government. But also, in large parts of this province there will be…. Even when you are talking about Kamloops or Kelowna, it’s easy to get to areas where you will be able to continue to enjoy target practice in a way that, in many other areas, particularly down here on the Lower Mainland, it’s not quite so simple.

Clause 15 approved.

On clause 16.

M. Morris: This one provides exemptions for selling, renting or supplying low-velocity firearms, imitation firearms or ammunition to minors. Does the minister contemplate, within this section, that this allows minors to use paintball ranges and organizations that rent them out to minors as long as they’re accompanied by an adult or by a parent or a guardian? Or how does the minister see this playing out?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Section 13 speaks to this as well. In a proper commercial facility that is supervised on site by the business, they will be able to rent to minors.

M. Morris: Just to be clear, will a guardian need to accompany them, one? Two, will that guardian need to have a firearm possession licence in order to accompany them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to both of those questions is no.

Clauses 16 and 17 approved.

On clause 18.

M. Morris: Pretty comprehensive legislation as I have gone through this. Under 18, it says: “A person must not possess a firearm or imitation firearm in or on any of the following: (a) child care property within the meaning of section 20” — which we’ll get to.

I look across the province, and in many communities that I’ve lived in over the years, oftentimes we’ll see a residence that has been converted or will offer child care services during certain hours. But somebody in the household might be a hunter, might do recreational shooting, or whatever the case might be, and have legal possession of firearms. They’ve taken all of the prerequisite courses.

Does this make that illegal for them? Are they going to have to sell their firearms if their wife or partner wants to open up a child care within their facilities there?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the development of the regulations, in the scenario that you’ve outlined, yes, you will still be able to have your firearm. But there will be a requirement that it be properly stored out of sight of any children if you had an in-house daycare. There will be a requirement developed in the regulations to have a proper storage facility for any weapon that you may have. It would be required that it’s in there, locked away, while you are operating your child care facility.

M. Morris: Proper storage is a requirement under the federal Firearms Act as well, so I’m hoping they would have everything properly stored and tucked away and out of sight anyways in a circumstance like this. I’m glad to hear that there’s consideration for regulation down the road for stuff like this as well.

Clause 18 approved.

On clause 19.

M. Morris: Again, I can probably anticipate the answer, but this has been a question posed to me by constituents right around the province on this. We often have local cadet corps. We have Canadian militia units operating out of schools and some of these public spaces. We have corps and firearm-training groups and courses taking place in some of these locations as well. Will the regulations provide the exemption for these types of activities to continue on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes to all the examples you just listed.

Clauses 19 to 25 inclusive approved.

On clause 26.

M. Morris: We’re into shooting ranges, part 4, looking at some of the definitions: operator, shooting club, shooting range, range shooter. Do all ranges in B.C. have designated operators in place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The chief firearms officer has to approve every range, so there should be an operator linked to each one.

Clause 26 approved.

On clause 27.

M. Morris: Section (2): “If a shooting range user is a member of a shooting club, the shooting range records must contain the following information: (a) the name of the shooting range user; (b) the name of the shooting club; (c) the membership number…(d) the dates on which the shooting range is used…(e) prescribed information.” I’m wondering if the minister could relate what prescribed information might include.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don’t have anything intended yet. It’s a safety net. So if in the course of developing regulation, something occurs, then we would be able to catch it.

M. Morris: In subsection (3)(c), there’s a lot of information that’s required of the ranges to gather here. If the shooting range user is not authorized to possess firearms under a federal licence, they have to provide the date of birth of the shooter. Does this indicate that they must comply with section 91 of the Criminal Code, where the user must be under the supervision of an authorized licence holder?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to that question is yes. They would need to be accompanying someone who had a firearms licence, or they could be supervised by the range officer at the range itself.

M. Morris: Many of the ranges that I’ve been familiar with in the central Interior and more remote locations in the province will have a range in place, and it’s available to a club member or somebody to go and use it. So if somebody is using one of these more remote locations, there’s no operator on site. It’s up to the members of the range to sign in and sign out. Is it the responsibility of the range to ensure compliance with users that use these more remote locations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be no. The offence would be on the user for not complying with the rules and regulations.

Clause 27 approved.

On clause 28.

M. Morris: Premises where and period for which shooting records must be kept: “Shooting range records must be kept (a) on the premises of the shooting range, or (b) on other premises that the minister may specify.” Would these remote locations…? Who would the minister specify that would have to retain the records for the particular range?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the example the member is using, we’re talking about a rural and remote location. The range operator, from time to time, obviously, would have to go and check — if it’s a lock box that’s used, for example — a drop box to get what information has been deposited, and then enter it at an appropriate…. Perhaps back at their home or their office, wherever.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. Morris: “Shooting range records must be kept in the form and manner, if any, that the minister specifies.” Would this be any different than the record requirements under the federal firearms regulations?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: They’re still under development, but obviously, we would want to keep it as broad as possible, recognizing that there may be issues that we would need to be aware of and would need to address for the situations that the member is talking about, particularly in rural and remote areas of the province.

M. Morris: With respect to that, I know it’s caused some concern for the some of the recreational shooters out across the province. I know there was a lot of consultation done early on in this process here. Were all the ranges across the province consulted as to their individual specific needs in the development of this legislation, or was there just one organization? How was that approached?

Hon. M. Farnworth: All 147 ranges across the province did receive correspondence, and we also consulted with, for example, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, which obviously represents a lot of hunters, and they gave us some very useful information and feedback in terms of how to deal with this particular issue.

M. Morris: Just as a follow-up to that, then. I know there is a lot of work that goes into developing the regulations, moving forward from here. I’m sure, as a result of the folks across the province watching this with bated breath, they may have some more input for the minister. So the ministry is still open to thoughts and suggestions with respect to developing the regulations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes.

Clause 28 approved.

On clause 29.

M. Morris: “Prohibition against providing false or misleading information in shooting range records.” I note — and again, we’ll get to that further down through this bill, it’s classified as a high-penalty offence with a maximum fine of $5,000 and one year in jail, so it’s considered fairly serious in the scheme of things. “The following must not include or provide false or misleading information in relation to shooting range records: (a) an operator of a shooting range; (b) a person who is on duty at a shooting range; (c) a shooting range user.”

I guess I’m looking at this section and wondering if there is going to be…. What kind of enforcement will be developed to address these things? Will there be audits conducted? How will the ministry approach this particular section?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be largely complaint-driven. So if there was a concern, for example, on the range operator in terms of what they’re noticing, they could make a complaint to the police who could get a warrant. I’m just anticipating a potential question. If the police become aware of a gang member, for example, that is going to a particular range, they could get a warrant to be able to access records and to see if that will tie into, help and assist their investigation.

Clause 29 approved.

On clause 30.

[5:35 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just some clarification on this as well. It appears to place a level of responsibility upon the operator or person on duty at a range to get the person using the range to produce identification — so two pieces of the prescribed identification, and if he’s a minor, one piece of prescribed identification. When we look at the fact that we do have gang members using some of these facilities in the province here, how far does the minister expect a range operator or on-duty member to enforce these kinds of things? You know, when we look at the intimidation factor, it might be quite high. What is the expectation of the ministry when it comes to these kinds of activities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a deterrent piece, and we do not expect operators to put themselves into harm’s way. Obviously, I mean, there are later sections that deal with offences in terms of using a shooting range without proper identification. But obviously, the operator would be able to make a complaint to the police, and that certainly would alert the police if there is someone that they need to be concerned about. But under no circumstances is an operator expected, in any way, shape or form, to put themselves into any sort of harm’s way.

Clause 30 approved.

On clause 31.

M. Morris: Again, to the minister, it’s much the same as a couple of the previous sections we’ve just discussed. A concern I’ve heard from constituents around the province with respect to this is the added burden on existing ranges to ensure that they start collecting all this data. The duty to require a federal licence from shooting range users — is there a requirement to ensure that ranges have a designated operator or a designated person on duty to collect this information, particularly with the bigger ranges?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This only applies to those who have an on-duty officer.

M. Morris: In the event that we have individuals who don’t belong to the range but are using the range to shoot and a club member attends to do some shooting him or herself, is there an obligation on them to assume the role of operator or duty supervisor or whatever?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

Clauses 31 and 32 approved.

On clause 33.

[5:40 p.m.]

M. Morris: Power of a person on duty to prohibit entry of shooting range user. The question I have is: would the person on duty or the operator be required to record the non-conforming information? So anybody that is not conforming with the regulations, the requirement to provide information. Is there a requirement for the on-duty person to record that information somewhere?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be no. I think, at that point, with an individual like that, the operator is probably going to be calling the police saying that there’s a problem.

Clause 33 approved.

On clause 34.

M. Morris: We’re into part 5, the motor vehicle impoundment, which starts at clause 34. I’ll have questions as we move through this, but I’m just curious whether these provisions mirror, to the extent possible, the provisions of part 9 of the Motor Vehicle Act for vehicle impoundment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes.

Clause 34 approved.

On clause 35.

M. Morris: I can probably predict the answer here, but under subsection (2): “A motor vehicle impounded under subsection (1) must remain impounded for the prescribed period.” Is there any idea what that prescribed period might look like yet?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The period that we are considering and consulting on is 30 days.

Clause 35 approved.

On clause 36.

M. Morris: The order of a justice to impound a motor vehicle. It says that a peace officer has the power to impound a motor vehicle. The order of the justice…. So on application by a peace officer….

What form does this application take? Would it be similar to what the police officer would do to the superintendent of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicle Act, or is this a brand-new application process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be a brand-new process, and it’s under development.

Clauses 36 and 37 approved.

On clause 38.

M. Morris: “A peace officer who causes a motor vehicle to be impounded must arrange for the occupants of the motor vehicle to be transported to the nearest safe area” where they can obtain an alternate form of transportation. What would that entail? I’m thinking of rural areas. I’m thinking of a number of different scenarios that we could have, because this is provincial legislation, even though I know most of the work would be in an urban region here.

Would cell coverage cover that particular section off, or do they have to take them to where public transportation might be available?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. This section is not new. It replicates section 251(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act. It does require the vehicle from being left in an unsafe location. The police officer would do what they do now, which is to make arrangements to have the occupants transported to a safe location, for example, by calling them a taxi, as an example.

Clauses 38 to 60 inclusive approved.

On clause 61.

M. Morris: So 61(4): “A justice may order that a seized weapon or a thing that is or may be forfeited under subsection (2) or (3) be returned to a person if the justice is satisfied that (a) the person is the lawful owner of the seized weapon or thing, (b) the person was not a party to the offence or contravention to which the determination relates, and (c) the person had no reasonable grounds to believe that the seized weapon or thing would or might be used in the commission of the offence….”

Is there a test that might go with this particular section, with respect to arm’s-length relationships at all with this? I’ve seen that stretched many times.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is not new for justices. They’d be familiar with this. This aligns with section 491 of the Criminal Code.

Clauses 61 to 68 inclusive approved.

On clause 69.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have an amendment. It is a minor amendment. It corrects a subsection that is misnumbered. I’ve shared it with my colleague across the way.

[SECTION 69, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Offences involving corporations

69 (1) If a corporation or limited liability company commits an offence under this Act, an officer, director or agent of the corporation or limited liability company who authorizes, allows or participates in the offence also commits an offence, whether or not the corporation or limited liability company is prosecuted or convicted.

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that the offence was committed by an officer, director or agent of a corporation or limited liability company, whether or not the officer, director or agent is prosecuted or convicted.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)subsection (2), a corporation or limited liability company has the burden of proving that an officer, director or agent of the corporation or limited liability company was not acting on behalf of the corporation or limited liability company at the time the officer, director or agent committed an offence under this Act.]

The Chair: We’ll just take a moment to make sure the amendment is circulated to everybody that needs to see it, including the Third Party and any members online if they are interested.

Thank you, Members. We’re going to take just a slight recess. I’ll give it five minutes, if necessary. We may come back a little earlier, as long as it takes to get this amendment distributed to you all so you can consider it. We’re on a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:49 p.m. to 5:57 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. Bernier: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Bernier: Thank you to the House Leader for the opportunity to interrupt the riveting debate that’s been going on. In fact, it’s so riveting that my five-year-old grandson, who my wife and I help raise…. He’s been so used to having Papa at home during these COVID times, and he’s been wondering where Papa is, so he’s been watching these debates go on all afternoon.

He’s been very interested, watching the friendly discussion back and forth on something that he’s passionate about, of course, because he and I are proud owners of the little pellet guns that we go in the backyard and shoot with. So he’s interested in this conversation. But I just want to do a quick shout-out to my grandson Crozzley Bernier, who’s sitting on the couch watching the debates today.

I miss you, kid.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member, and best wishes to Crozzley.

Debate Continued

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said earlier, what this does is it corrects a subsection cross-reference in section 3. Section 69 specifies how offences apply to corporations and their officers, directors and agents, section (1). It was misnumbered, so this corrects that.

Amendment approved.

On clause 69 as amended.

M. Morris: Just a question I’ve had posed to me again from folks around the province. Would a clerk or employee of a company that sells airsoft weapons, sells paintballs, sells pellet guns and whatnot…? If the clerk or employee sold contrary to this, would the clerk be liable to penalties under this particular section? And would they if they had been instructed by their bosses as well?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, not under this section.

Clause 69 as amended approved.

Clauses 70 to 102 inclusive approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 5, the Insurance Corporation Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 6:04 p.m.

The Chair: I’ll ask that this House be recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 6:04 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. I’d like to call this House back into session.

I would like to recognize the mover of the legislation, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. No statement required? All right. I will just move straight to the bill.

On clause 1.

M. Lee: I just wanted to…. First of all, with the bill itself and the entire nature of the bill, I know there has been much discussion, including most recently on Bill 4, in terms of the DRIPA, Bill 41, as it was passed in this House unanimously in the fall of 2019. I know that my colleague, the member for Abbotsford West, and myself had the opportunity to review, with the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, that bill. Certainly, I looked at the obligations required.

I know there has been much discussion in this House about the obligations of government under that now act, known as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Section 3, of course, sets out that “in consultation and cooperation with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration.” The declaration, of course, includes 46 articles at the back. We did spend a considerable amount of time — five days of committee stage — walking through each of the articles.

The obligation, of course, on government is that it take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration. There is an action plan required that the government has not yet…. It has provided an update, but it hasn’t tabled it in this House — not that we’ve seen. I’m sure we’ll see that at some point, even though it was said to be in months. Now it’s coming on to almost two years.

But I wanted to say, in terms of Bill 5 itself, that there is an article that I ask that the minister comment on in response. Article 40 sets out that “Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties….” It goes on beyond that. Can I ask what level of consultation has been done in connection with this Bill 5?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. During the development of the legislation — in fact, during the development of all the legislation around ICBC, as the question relates to this particular piece of legislation — we’ve been mindful of the requirements of the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the development of this legislation. The assessment was done, as it relates to how it aligns with UNDRIP, with DRIPA, and the establishment of a new fairness officer, as Bill 5 proposes, does not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in the UN declaration.

M. Lee: If I hear the minister correctly in his statement, it’s the government’s view that this Bill 5, in what’s set out in terms of dealing with levels of disputes, is consistent with the declaration.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

M. Lee: And on what basis does the government have that view?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The work done by the ministry and ICBC.

M. Lee: As I heard the minister state, it’s work done by the government and by ICBC. Going back to the operative version in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the lead-in says, of course, that it’s in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples. So what level of cooperation and consultation was conducted with Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: On the basis of the work done within the ministry and by ICBC, it was determined that the establishment of a fairness officer does not impact Indigenous rights as defined in UNDRIP.

M. Lee: Well, I think it’s fair to say that in the five days of discussion that my colleague the member for Abbotsford West and myself had with the former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, it was very clear through a repeated line of inquiry that it wasn’t for government to define the implementation of this act, that it was to be done jointly. That’s the reason why you have the words “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples in British Columbia.”

[6:20 p.m.]

In fact, when we asked the minister to inform ourselves in this assembly at the committee stage on that bill, Bill 41, how the articles of UNDRIP would be applied, the familiar and common response from the minister on behalf of government was that it was not up to government just to solely define that. That is something that we will need to do in consultation and in cooperation with Indigenous peoples.

We also, of course, wanted to understand what these articles would mean coming from the United Nations — how they would actually be applicable to the province of British Columbia and what it meant when we talk about the laws of British Columbia being consistent with the declaration. That was a very high expectation and standard that we were all setting with Indigenous peoples and First Nations in our province, so we had to have a very good and clear understanding of that. What I’m hearing today, over 18 months later, is that the government effectively has changed its view.

So I’ll ask again, to the minister. There was no consultation or requirement for cooperation with Indigenous peoples in the formulation of Bill 5. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know the member keeps referring to Bill 41. This is Bill 5. This is the establishment of a fairness officer. The assessment was done within the ministry and within ICBC. In terms of Indigenous people and DRIPA, it was not requiring that engagement.

M. Lee: We spent a lot of time on this provision, which is, again, section 3 of a very important piece of legislation that was passed in this House. Again, that one provision, section 3 of the act, says that “government must take all measures necessary.” All measures necessary is not just: “Well, you know, we’re just going to….”

I mean, I have tremendous respect, of course, for the members of our public service, the professionalism they bring, but it’s not just up to them, not according to this Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. They don’t just get to decide on their own. And certainly, ICBC doesn’t either. That’s not what the requirement is in this provision.

This is the reason why we spent five days going through this act, countless hours talking about that one single fundamental provision in this act. We had a tremendous historic ceremony on the floor of the Legislative Assembly with First Nations leaders across our province. We had an understanding. That’s reflected in this act. It says, very clearly, “in consultation and cooperation.” I don’t know how else this government is redefining that section, if that’s what I’m hearing. This is the reason why government said we need to have an action plan.

The former Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation said it would take months for that action plan to be formulated. It’s now been over 18 months. In the meantime, bills that are presented in this House, we would expect to comply with this declaration. We’ve seen that debate on numerous bills, including through the last bill, Bill 4. So I am very surprised to hear that the government has this view.

[6:25 p.m.]

I’ll ask again: does the government not see the requirement that it needs to consult and ensure cooperation with Indigenous peoples in respect of ensuring that the Bill 5 that they’re presenting to this House is consistent with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have already answered the question.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Lee: I will say there are three clauses to this bill, right? Is that correct, hon. Chair?

The Chair: I will look through that. That is correct, yes.

M. Lee: I did see your proceeding the other day when you said that “clauses” are now the new terminology.

The Chair: “Clauses” are the new terminology.

M. Lee: Yes, I understand that now. I was just triggering on “section.”

The Chair: Sorry.

M. Lee: No worries. I think in sections, not clauses, but that’s all right.

So here we are on clause 2 of Bill 5. Perhaps I could ask the minister if he could outline what’s referred to as the “corporation process” as defined in the proposed section 54?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In answer to the member’s question — this section that he is talking about, 54 — the definitions provide clarity with respect to who is able to submit a complaint and what the complaint must be in relation to.

The definition of a “corporation process” identifies those matters under section 7 of the Insurance Corporation Act that a fairness complaint can be in relation to. So it could be in relation to the administration of insurance plans. It could be to the repairing of insured property. It could be into the provision of medical and hospital services to an insured person. It could be the carrying out of powers and duties related to the Motor Vehicle Act. It could be the receiving, holding, managing and collecting of fines, penalties and sales taxes, for example.

M. Lee: I’d just like to ask and turn to the appointment process for the fairness officer. What is expected in terms of the terms and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment, including remuneration? What will the board be turning its mind to in terms of, again, those terms and conditions of the appointment and remuneration itself?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of remuneration, that would be under development in consultation with ICBC. Certainly, in terms of working conditions, obviously, I mean, it’d recognize the independence of the fairness officer. But also I think that there would be a considerable expectation of active engagement right from the get-go in terms of stakeholders involved with ICBC, for example. But in terms of the remuneration, that is to be worked out with ICBC.

M. Lee: Thank you to the minister for that response. Just to pursue that response a little more, recognizing of course that this is a new formulation of the fairness officer’s responsibilities under a new regime…. Through our second reading speeches, my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself and the member for Kelowna-Mission talked about our considerations and concerns about how this was being positioned.

In terms of the terms and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment, if I can just get some additional clarity on what’s expected here from government. This is all subject to the board setting those terms and conditions, subject to the approval of the minister.

Again, what types of terms and conditions…? I just want to hear this directly from government through the minister. What types of terms and conditions are we referring to — the nature of these terms and conditions, the extent of them, the scope?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago, the terms and conditions are being set in consultation with ICBC — certainly, on remuneration. “Terms and conditions” is very broad. If there’s something specific that the member has in mind, if he asks, I’d be happy to try and answer. But it would cover literally everything you would expect in an employment contract that someone has who works in an organization such as ICBC with the level of responsibility that they would have.

It would cover things such as: what is expected? What happens if they are away sick? Would there be someone who stands in? What level….? Issues around confidentiality. All your…. Literally every standard employment issue you could imagine.

If there’s a specific that the member has, I’d be happy to hear it, but it would be in much the same way as a deputy minister. There are a series of expectations that go along with that position.

[6:35 p.m.]

This is a senior position that has a lot of independence whose job is to ensure fairness, whose job is to ensure that people who have a complaint are dealt with properly, expeditiously, fairly, as the title says. All of those issues and many more come into the terms and conditions around employment.

M. Lee: I appreciate that in the absence of knowing the scope and the scale of the terms and conditions, the minister is suggesting that they’re, perhaps, the common types of terms and conditions that you might expect in an employment relationship. I would suggest that other parts of the minister’s response indicate that when you talk about a senior-level manager reporting to a Crown corporation of a significant size to this province, the terms and conditions certainly will be more detailed in nature. When they’re set out, including remuneration, there would be performance expectations.

Perhaps I can come back to the minister about how this fairness officer will be provided oversight by the board. Presumably, again, it will be set out in the terms and conditions in terms of performance review, setting measurable targets in terms of the functioning of the fairness office. Presumably that will include, of course, hiring the necessary staff to establish and assist the fairness officer in carrying out his or her duties in accordance with subsection 55(4).

But can I get additional clarity from the minister about what the level of oversight is that the board will have through the terms and conditions that we’ve set out on the fairness officer’s appointment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. In section 59, the fairness officer is required to report to the corporation. That includes a series of responsibilities that they have to report on: complaints, complaints heard by the fairness officer, and any other prescribed information. That report must be made public. In fact, that report will obviously be tabled in this House.

[6:40 p.m.]

The oversight, if that is the word that you want to use, is done by both government and, in essence, the public by the release of that report, the information contained in that report and how the officer has dealt with the different issues that have arisen.

As we’ve seen in reports that have come here, if someone is not doing their job properly, it most certainly will be reflected in that scrutiny by both the public and also, in particular, by government.

M. Lee: Well, it still appears to be a straight setting out of the appointment obligation by the board.

The reporting mechanism, certainly, is in a separate section of this bill, as the minister describes, which provides to ICBC the number of fairness complaints received, the number of fairness complaints heard by the fairness officer, and other prescribed information that will be determined by way of regulation. Then, of course, ICBC itself has an obligation to report to the minister the responses to the fairness officer’s recommendations.

That reporting mechanism certainly is something that — as the minister describes, I acknowledge — provides some level of indication, certainly to the minister…. I’m just looking for the requirement. Perhaps I could just…. We’re on the same section or clause — 2. So we’re going to just roam around a bit here in the various sections here.

But just to follow the minister’s point that he’s making. Can I just ask to confirm…? I think what I’m seeing is that the way that report is being made public is going to be only through a public website. Is that correct? Will there be any other reporting mechanism, including to this Legislative Assembly?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah. The requirement is that it must be publicly posted on the website. I would, as I said, fully expect, as minister, that I would also table that report in this Legislature.

M. Lee: Well, that’s something…. Noting the time that we have left here, on this day, to continue through the discussion of this bill, perhaps that’s something that the minister might consider. Maybe it has been considered in the past, in terms of the drafting of this bill. I’m certainly familiar with other requirements under other legislation, in terms of the tabling of reports of this nature.

It does get to the nature of the fairness officer role itself, as to whether it’s an internal function. I did note the Attorney General’s points of clarification in second reading. On a quick read through that, it seemed, from his point of view, that is an internal function. I think that that’s what we certainly would like to discuss more and understand exactly what the government’s thinking is around that.

[6:45 p.m.]

But certainly if it is something of a nature where we’re trying to ensure fairness of the functioning of ICBC under the new no-fault scheme, it would be important that British Columbians do understand what improvements or adjustments or responses that ICBC has to the various complaints, as defined in this bill, that are being investigated by the fairness officer.

To the extent that this reporting mechanism is important to address the lack of trust that British Columbians have in ICBC, I would suggest that there be some consideration, as the minister acknowledged, to the tabling of that report to this Legislative Assembly, not merely having it posted and found on a website maintained by the corporation. I presume those words, of course, mean the ICBC website as opposed to just any website. But assuming, for the purpose of this discussion, that it is the ICBC website, that website has a lot of different drop-down menus and documents and other reports, as it states.

I think it would be entirely appropriate that that level of reporting be provided to this Legislative Assembly. Would the minister consider amending this bill, as it’s presented, to provide for that level of reporting, as he just acknowledged could be the case in practice?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand where the member is coming. But let’s also be really clear, because the member does talk about trust in ICBC. We could get into a real political debate — the fact that trust in ICBC was severely undermined by the actions of his party when they sat on this side of the House. The efforts of us, since becoming government, have been to restore that trust by ensuring that ICBC is able to do what it is set out to do, which is to remain a public insurance company.

I note, from the comments of the member and the way that those comments are phrased…. It’s like this. It is a public report. It will be a public report. It will be on an ICBC website, a government website. It will be a public report. The idea that somehow it is going to be hidden in a drop-down, or that it’s going to be hidden, you know, “Click here, and go to this page, and scroll down, and click here, and go to that page, and click here, and go to that page, and click here, and go…. Oh, there were four pages accidentally removed” — like a report from ICBC that went to the previous government when they were in office, and it went to cabinet, and pages disappeared….

No. It will be accessible to the public. It will be accessible to the opposition. It will be accessible to members on this House. It will be accessible to the people who follow ICBC, both those who are critical and those who are supportive.

If there is a suggestion that somehow it’s going to be hidden or that somehow government is wanting to hide the report of the fairness commissioner, that is simply not the case. It is simply not the case. But I give, as I said, commitment to the member that it is going to be a public report. The legislation indicates it will be a public report.

Anyway, I know that we will have more questions on this that we will not finish this evening. Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:50 p.m.