Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 18, Supply Act (No. 1).

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:52 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Preamble approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[3:55 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2022

Bill 18, Supply Act (No. 1), 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 19, Employment Standards Amendment Act.

I ask for a five-minute recess.

Mr. Speaker: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed at 3:56 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.

The Chair: We’re dealing with Bill 19, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2022.

Does the minister wish to make some opening statements?

Hon. H. Bains: I’d just like to introduce the staff that is with me. Trevor Hughes is my deputy minister, here on my left, and Michael Tanner and Jake Ayers, who are from the policy division, are here to assist us in this debate.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

G. Kyllo: It certainly is my pleasure to ask a few questions with respect to this particular bill. I want to thank the minister for providing his staff an opportunity to brief me earlier on this particular bill. As we know, this bill proposes a number of amendments to clarify some of the shortcomings of the original Bill 13 that was tabled last year, in May.

With respect to section 2, I’m just wondering if the minister could provide a bit of additional clarification on the purpose and reasoning of why this change from the calendar year is having to be proposed.

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member. Since the implementation of five paid days, effective January 1 of this year, a couple of issues and concerns were brought to our attention, and we are trying to address those through the changes to the Employment Standards Act here.

Section 2 is one of them. Section 1 is passed, but section 2 deals with the area where we heard concern from the employers. The employers’ concern was that it is administratively challenging if you track the employment year qualification and number of days that employees are entitled to.

That means that if you have, say, 15 or 20 employees, each one of them has a different employment year. It is difficult for them to track each individually, because if there are 20, then there are 20 different employment years. They are saying that this is administratively cumbersome, difficult and challenging.

Then they recommend that we would allow them to go back to the calendar year, where now all those 20 employees, in that example that I used, will have one calendar year of qualification and those 20 employees will be entitled to five paid sick days in that calendar year.

The first year, Member, of the implementation is usually challenging, because your starting date…. Then your employees are starting somewhere in the middle of the year, and then it continues on. I think that after the first year, it will smooth out. And by providing the employer the option of the calendar year, I think it’s helped them in simplifying the administrative part of five paid sick days.

[4:10 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the explanation.

It’s my understanding — I believe the minister made some reference to this in his opening comments yesterday during second reading — that the number of employees that potentially, depending on their hire date, could be eligible for as many as twice as many paid sick leave days in fiscal 2022. It was certainly first brought to my attention by CFIB.

When the minister references that there were a number of employees expressing concern, did the minister actually track how many different businesses or organizations had actually expressed concern and were recommending for this specific change?

Hon. H. Bains: Member, there were a number of businesses that contacted us. I would mention one letter that came to me. It is signed by a number of business organizations, each one of them representing thousands of businesses. I think there were about 12 business organizations putting this letter together. I could read them, if the member would like, who signed this letter.

It’s the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the president of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, also Restaurants Canada, CFIB, go2HR, Retail Council of Canada, tourism industry, ICBA. Then we have British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association, CME, British Columbia Hotel Association, Alliance of Beverage Licensees.

This is, I think, the essence of the letter, captured in one paragraph. It says:

“Businesses and employees rely on payroll and human resources information systems to track, store and provide accurate information on use of paid sick days and payment for those days. Nearly all of these systems are based on a workplace having a common employment year, which is most often the calendar year or business fiscal year. The current wording of the ‘employment year’ definition on the employment standards website, from the policy interpretation of illness or injury leave, at part 6, section 49.1, is causing confusion for employers and workers alike.”

Since we introduced these amendments to the employment standards to reflect the request that was made by the businesses, I would like to advise the member that one member who signed that letter, Fiona Famulak, the president and CEO of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said: “Thank you for your note, for hearing businesses’ concerns and taking appropriate next steps. We will share the details with our network today.”

[4:15 p.m.]

They requested it. We listened. We are making those changes here through the legislation. I think, at least from this email, it is being applauded, or at least accepted, that this is the right step.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister.

Is the minister able to share with us…? In addition to the letter that he referenced that was signed by a number of different business organizations, if he could just share the volume of emails or concerns that were actually brought to his attention after the tabling of this legislation.

Hon. H. Bains: I don’t have all the emails, phone calls or other letters that, individually, someone gave you or wrote to our ministry.

To me, when you’re looking at a number of organizations — these are business organizations; they’re not individual employers — that represent thousands of businesses, that, to me, is sufficient. In addition, there are many other emails, or you hear their concerns.

We listened to the concern that they raised. It was a legitimate concern that they raised. That’s why the government moved. It is being recognized that this is the right step to take, by the organizations that wrote us letters.

G. Kyllo: Just, I guess, a follow-up question to that to the minister.

Is it common practice for the ministry to actually track the number of concerns that might be raised with the tabling of a piece of legislation? If so, is that a number that the minister might be able to provide to this House either now or at a later date?

Hon. H. Bains: Yeah. We do get emails or letters from businesses, from other stakeholders who are impacted by any piece of legislation that comes before this House and is passed. The government makes a decision based on what we hear. Then the next steps are decided — whether to change anything or not to change.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister’s response. However, what I’m trying to get a bit of a sense for…. I would assume that with different pieces of legislation…. Some may be receiving many accolades and letters from different industry and trade organizations that might be supportive of legislation. In other instances, there may be concerns being raised.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’m trying to get a bit of a sense of if it indeed is something that the ministry tracks. I just wonder if the minister might be able to share with this House a bit of a sense of the amount of concerns raised with respect to this piece of legislation and how this might relate to other pieces of legislation that might have been brought forward by the Minister of Labour.

It’s certainly not a trick question. I’m just trying to get a bit of a sense of the amount of interest — either positive or concerns that might have been raised when the original Bill 13 was tabled May 13 of last year. If the minister might be able to provide a bit more information, that would be very helpful.

Hon. H. Bains: One thing…. We did not hear very much about these concerns when the legislation was introduced and passed in May last year. When it came into effect January 1, this is when we started to hear concerns coming from different people, different sides and different stakeholders.

We believe that a couple of those areas that were brought to our attention made sense for us to move, and that’s why we’re moving.

G. Kyllo: Chair, I’m getting a sense that the minister is not interested in sharing with us the volume of concerns that may have been expressed or raised with his office with respect to this particular legislation.

One other question. The letter that the minister referenced that was signed by a number of different industry and trade organizations — could the minister share with this House if there are any other concerns that were raised by these industry and trade organizations, and if so, what those concerns were? And why is the minister choosing to not address those further concerns that may have been addressed in that letter?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: In the same letter, there was another issue raised. I will read it to the member. It says that “there are additional problems faced by business struggling to understand how to implement paid sick leave for part-time and short-term employees.” So they’re asking how to implement paid sick leave for part time and short term.

It went on to say: “Amend the illness or injury leave section of the employment standards paid sick leave guidance to add a new section which focuses on part time and short term. This will be useful.”

My position on this is that this is something that the employment standards branch can take care of as far as the interpretation of the bill is concerned.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that.

Were there any other concerns that were addressed or raised in that letter that you have referenced?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said, they identify…. My read of the letter was to those issues. One we are fixing. The other one, I believe, is interpretation, and the employment standards branch is the right body to deal with that.

G. Kyllo: Is the minister indicating that the only two issues that were raised of concern in that letter, the letter that the minister has referenced and has read from today, are the two issues that he shared with us? Or were there other concerns that were raised in that letter to bring them to the minister’s attention?

Hon. H. Bains: The way I read the letter, those are the two issues that they have raised, just as they raised potential solutions. We are fixing one — moving from the employment year to the calendar year. The other one is an interpretation part.

Unless the member has specifically anything else that he reads out of that letter, this is the way I read it.

[4:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Well, unfortunately, I don’t have the letter in front of me. The minister is the one who is reading from the letter.

I take it from the minister’s interpretation that the only two issues that were raised in that letter are the two that he shared with this House. I’ll just give the minister one more opportunity to either confirm or provide additional information to this House.

Hon. H. Bains: For the benefit of the member, I will read the letter, and perhaps he could pick up something that I may have missed.

“January 25

“Hon. Harry Bains, Minister of Labour”

And there’s the address.

“Re: Paid sick leave.

“Dear Mr. Bains:

“While it was not to be anticipated when paid sick leave was introduced by government, the implementation of the new requirement for business to provide five paid sick leave days effective January 1, 2022, came at a difficult time for businesses, during the height of the new omicron wave of COVID. This was particularly challenging for businesses such as pubs and restaurants, which were not closed and, thus, many ineligible for government assistance. Those businesses dropped perceptibly.

“The omicron wave has universally challenged organizations across the province and in all sectors. While data is emerging and not yet fully clear, there are many examples of businesses experiencing functional closures and seeing a significant portion of their employees at home sick. Simply put, operationally and administratively, it has been a very challenging start to the year.

“Businesses and employees rely on payroll and human resource information systems to track, store and provide accurate information on use of paid sick days and payment for those days. Nearly all of these systems are based on a workplace all having a common employment year, which is most often the calendar year or business fiscal year.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

“The current wording of the ‘employment year’ definition on the employment standards website, from the policy interpretation of ‘Illness or Injury Leave – Act Part 6, Section 49.1,’ is causing confusion for employers and workers alike. ‘Employment year’ refers to the specific employee’s employment year based on their start date. Most businesses remain unaware of this interpretation of the policy. In fact, in a recent CFIB survey, 86 percent of the members were unaware of the employment year versus calendar year application of the policy.

“There are additional problems faced by businesses struggling to understand how to implement paid sick leave for part-time and short-term employees. In an effort to be constructive, we advocate the following possible solutions.

“One, through order-in-council, amend section 1 (3) of the employment standards regulation. It currently reads: ‘For the purpose of section 52 of the act, employment year means a year beginning on a common date that is used by the employer to calculate family responsibility leave for all employees under section 52 of the act so long as this does not result in a reduction of any employees’ rights under that section.’

“We suggest it be amended, with one option being to add and amend this language: ‘For the purpose of sections 49.1 and 52 of the act, employment year means a year beginning on a common date that is used by the employers to calculate family responsibility leave for all employees under sections 49.1 and 52 of the act so long as this does not result in a reduction of any employees’ right under that section.’

“This would give organizations clarity that they are able to continue the practice of choosing a common date for employment year and eliminate confusion, costs and uncertainty caused by the existing wording on the employment standards website.

“Two, amend the illness and injury leave section of the employment standards paid sick leave guidance to add a new section which focuses on part-time and short-term workers. This will be useful for both employers and workers alike. Other potential solutions could be to pro-rate the paid sick leave requirement from the employees’ employment start date or reimburse businesses for the additional sick days paid over the annual intended five days paid sick leave that businesses understood they were required to pay.

“The undersigned associations look forward to hearing back from you on this urgent matter, and we are prepared to discuss it further as soon as a meeting can be scheduled.”

[4:35 p.m.]

That’s the way that I read it, Member, and those are the two areas that they raised concerns about. We are fixing one. The other one is with the employment standards branch.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for taking the time to read that out. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the purview to have that letter in front of me, so I just wanted to make sure that the concerns that were brought forward by those very strong and large industry and service organizations were actually addressed. So I appreciate that.

The minister did reference that the employment standards branch will be relied upon for providing clarity of any concerns around the differences between the concerns raised around the part-time and short-term workers. I am just wondering if the minister can share with us if there’s been any additional resources provided to the employment standards branch in order to ready themselves for additional concerns or complaints that may be coming to the employment standards branch.

Further to that, if the minister is able to share with this House if they are tracking any of the concerns that come forward to the employment standards branch — if they are tracking those concerns that might be coming forward — with respect to the changes in legislation around paid sick leave. So a bit of a long-winded question, but I think just a bit of clarity — what additional resources the employment standards branch is being provided this year in order to try and ready themselves for additional workload that I think we all understand likely will come as account of increased concerns being raised by employees around the paid sick leave legislation.

Further to that would be to see if the actual concerns that are coming forward are being tracked. If there’s any matrix being put in place so that over the course of the coming years, the employment standards branch will be able to clearly identify those complaints or those concerns being brought forward to the employment standards branch with respect to the paid sick leave legislation.

Hon. H. Bains: The first part of the question we canvassed during our estimates debates at great length. The resources we added since we formed government and also the additional resources on a temporary basis that we brought in earlier this last fiscal year and, going forward, our commitment to continue to have those resources available to the employment standards branch. So that information is in Hansard. If the member needs that information sent to him again, we could do that. But it is a part of the debate that we had, and all of those answers are there.

The second part of the tracking of the complaints by the employment standards branch…. Yes, they do track based on issues, I’m advised. Once these sick leave provisions are implemented, now that they are in place with the new changes, they will be monitoring how many complaints come to them for interpretation or complaints. Then we will know, I guess as the time progresses, and then we will know in due time.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that. Yes, we did have quite a healthy exchange with respect to the current backlog in employment standards branch and what I certainly perceive to be a real lack of resources in order to address the growing backlog and delay for many private sector employees that would be looking to the employment standards branch to have their concerns adjudicated. The minister had referenced during the estimates process with the employment standards branch that there may be additional resources yet to come.

[4:40 p.m.]

I take it from the minister’s lack of additional clarity and his answer that at this point in time, no additional resources, other than those that were shared during the estimates process, have come to fruition over the last month, I guess, now.

If the minister could just clarify if, since we canvassed the series of questions in estimates, additional resources have been made available to the employment standards branch.

Hon. H. Bains: Those numbers have not changed since we had the debate during estimates. But as I said at that time, I have not received my budget letter yet, and I’m waiting. As soon as I have a budget letter, then it’s possible that the number of areas would be confirmed after that.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister. I know that he also is concerned about private sector employees having timely response to concerns that are brought forward.

Is the minister able to provide any information on when he anticipates receiving his budget letter?

The Chair: It’s pointed out that this is a specific debate on Bill 19, the Employment Standards Amendment Act. I guess the minister declines to answer the question.

Is there another question, Member? Please proceed.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Chair. I certainly appreciate that. I guess that’s the minister’s prerogative. It was the minister who actually raised and gave reference to the budget, so I was just looking to see if he had any anticipation on when he might be hearing, but if he’s unwilling to provide that clarity to the House at this time, I have no further questions on section 2.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:45 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 19, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued second reading of Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

T. Shypitka: It gives me privilege and honour to speak to Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022.

I’ll give you my brief summary of what happened yesterday at the end of the day, before we adjourned. I talked about many things. I talked about the fact that I am honoured to talk about wildlife any time I can, any time I have an opportunity. It’s such an integral part of who we are in the Kootenays — and the province, I might add.

I talked about personal statements I’ve made in this House numerous times. I’ve highlighted a couple of things, and I think the minister has heard them. I think a lot of people have heard them in the House, hopefully.

I talked about four essential points that I think we need to address when we talk about holistic wildlife management in the province, the first being an independent, arm’s-length funding model. That can incorporate a lot of different things into it. It can incorporate corporate funding, philanthropy, perhaps taxation. I call it a hooks, bullets and boots tax.

I don’t usually like to say the “t” word, but I think it’s important when we talk about preserving our wildlife in the province. This may be a small, dedicated tax for land users. So whether it’s a rifle or a quad, a fishing rod, some tents, some boots, hiking boots, whatever, that money goes directly into this funding model. Also, fees and licences from hunters.

I’ve talked to numerous hunters in the province that would be willing to…. I don’t want to be inclusive on this generalization, but most of the hunters I’ve talked to said they would pay three times the fee as long as they knew it would go 100 percent back into the region where they’re hunting from and go right back into wildlife instead of general revenue.

The second part was regional input. I’ve said this many times. This comes from all our local stewards of the land, whether it’s our biologists, our hunters, our trappers, guide-outfitters — all of these folks — as well as First Nations, obviously, local First Nations.

[4:50 p.m.]

All this regional boots-on-the-ground information is super, super important for how we come about with a proper holistic plan, because British Columbia is so diverse and so unique. We have some of the most unique species in the world.

As a matter of fact, British Columbia has…. My region used to be called the Serengeti of North America. It has some of the largest amounts of big game anywhere. We have a lot of different landscapes throughout the province, so that regionalized input is super important to really drill down and identify the uniqueness and the diversity that British Columbia has.

Science- and data-driven. That’s the third point I make. This comes with proper data, science-based decisions, and of course, traditional First Nation knowledge is an integral part of that. I have said that time and time again. We looked at a lot of the traditional knowledges that we’re using today. Whether it’s prescribed burning or predator management, these are things that First Nations did regularly, and we really need to incorporate that traditional knowledge into our decision-making.

The fourth piece, the last piece, is the legislation that puts wildlife first. We put a value on timber. We put a value on coal. We put a value on oil and gas. But we really don’t put a true value, a numerical digit, towards our wildlife. We need to know what that value is. Socially and culturally, it’s high. But monetarily, we really don’t have anything that identifies that.

This all comes into Bill 14, because we talk about traditional knowledges. We talk about lots of things as far as hunting opportunities go for First Nations and their guests, with the sheltering agreements. I talk about the Together For Wildlife document that came out. I believe it was in 2018, December or November of 2018. I’ve agreed with this document. I think it says a lot of the right things. Unfortunately, I think some of the timelines and some of the accountability in this document are debatable, but overall, it’s a great document.

It’s got five main goals in here.

Goal 1 is: “All British Columbians have a voice in wildlife stewardship.” I think that’s important. I think all British Columbians need to be part of a wildlife plan.

Goal 2 is: “Data, information and knowledge drive better decisions.” I couldn’t agree more. I just made that statement not too long ago.

Goal 3: “Stewardship actions achieve tangible benefits for wildlife and their habitats.” Stewardship actions.

Goal 4: “Accountability and transparency build trust and confidence.” I don’t think that anybody would debate that.

Goal 5: “Collaborative wildlife stewardship advances reconciliation with Indigenous governments.” Bang on. Couldn’t agree more.

When we come to Bill 14, it is somewhat contrary with the way it’s drawn up. I think for all intents and purposes, some of the…. Like sheltering agreements. I couldn’t agree more. Absolutely. But it’s a little confusing in here, and I’ll get into that a little bit later.

Some of the questions that come up when we look at Bill 14, and we look at sheltering agreements…. Are stakeholders and groups part of the trust and confidence that is highlighted in Together For Wildlife? Who has jurisdiction? We talk about it in here. We’ve got sheltering agreements with host nations and guests, and we know that in British Columbia, with over 200 First Nations, we have a lot of overlap. A lot of territories are being contested within nations.

In my own riding, for example, we have the Ktunaxa, and we have the Shuswap. I couldn’t tell you where one ends and another one begins. I’ve asked members of both nations, and it’s a different story. That’s fine. They’re going to settle those issues.

[4:55 p.m.]

When it comes to this bill, it may cause some problems. It may cause some confusion on who would that host be, who the guest would be, who the host would eventually invite in and if that’s contrary to an overlap of jurisdiction on what the other nation says. Those are very real things.

Which hunting and wildlife practices will be respected, and will they coincide with the Wildlife Act itself? What happens when a nation can’t agree on who their governing body is? We see in the legislation here, “governing body.” Well, that might be a conflict, as well, internally within the nation.

Accountability and transparency build trust and confi­dence. That’s goal 4. I contest and I argue that this legislation is not open and transparent from this government, and we will have many questions in committee stage about that.

Data, information and knowledge drive better deci­sions. That’s goal 2. So let’s look at the science portion on this bill before us. As I’ve said before, Indigenous knowl­edge is critical to a holistic wildlife management plan. However, the public needs to understand this knowledge. Any effort by government to suppress this information will erode trust and confidence with the general public.

Some of our province’s best conservationists — be they resident hunters, guide-outfitters, biologists, those people I spoke about before — need to understand what goes into our decision-making, and we need to understand the outcomes from our practices.

It says it clearly, right in this document, all of these things I’ve said. The Together for Wildlife…. I think that the operative word…. You’d think, maybe, it might be “wildlife,” but I really think the operative word is “together” in together for wildlife.

It’s not separate for wildlife. We all need to come together: all land users, all rural communities, all academic institutions, conservation groups, hunters, trappers, tourism, stakeholders. If we don’t have the data and science at our fingertips that leads us to decisions, then it’ll never work.

I’ll go to the bill here. It’s amending section 70.2: “(1) Subject to subsection (2) and without limiting the matters that may be addressed in a sheltering agreement, a sheltering agreement may include provisions that do one or more of the following.”

Then that goes into sub (a): “in respect of hunting in the traditional territory of the host first nation, authorize a guest to (i) do anything that is prohibited under this Act, or (ii) omit to do anything that is required to be done under this Act,” meaning that these decisions can be done outside of the Wildlife Act itself.

Without the information, what good is the Wildlife Act? This is critical. So how does the traditional science or Indigenous knowledge mesh with what’s stated in the Wildlife Act? I think it’s important to make it so, and it will, because I have 100 percent confidence that it will. But we need to be transparent about what that is.

For example, there’s currently a grizzly bear moratorium in the province. Would this bill allow for the hunt of grizzly bears, and in turn, host nations from inside B.C., or outside of the province, for that matter — or even outside of the country, for that matter — for people to come and harvest grizzly bears? Now, that’s fine, but we need to know the data. We need to know what’s being harvested, what territories, what areas.

I’m afraid that this legislation won’t allow for that or could have the potential not to allow for that. My point here is that this information is important data to formulate science-based decision-making from government and assess a value.

As I said before: what is the value? There could be a monetary exchange for entertaining guests or to harvest. We don’t know what that monetary exchange is, or we can’t find a value of wildlife.

[5:00 p.m.]

In Kootenay East, the data is critical. I talked to a wildlife expert the other day, and I asked him what the population of elk was in the Elk Valley. He said 3,300 to 3,500. He said that was given to him a couple of years ago, but he says he has no clue as to what it is now.

Now, those populations could be up; those populations could be down. In two years, that population could change radically if we don’t understand what’s being harvested and what’s not being harvested.

Disease in our area is critical as well. Chronic wasting disease is a threat; CWD they call it, chronic wasting disease. It’s a threat to our cervid populations, those cervids being members of the deer family — be it elk, moose, caribou, whitetail, mule deer, those folks. It’s a fatal nervous disease. It’s been detected, for the first time west of the Rockies, in Libby, Montana, which is about 50 miles from where I live.

There’s a program in right now. It’s a mandatory sampling program requiring hunters to submit the heads of their deer that are harvested in specific wildlife management units, mostly in region 4 and, I think, even in the Peace region, I believe. Does the member from North Peace or South Peace…?

Interjection.

T. Shypitka: Yeah, it’s there as well.

You’re supposed to be handing in the heads of your deer that you harvest so that they can be analyzed to see if they indeed have CWD or not. Once this disease takes hold, it’s almost impossible to reverse. It’s like an invasive species. It goes rampant. It’s passed, whether through saliva or urine, those types of things. It could infect other species as well. We’re not quite sure on that.

One has to question if these same regulations will be mandatory for guests of First Nations to comply with. If so, then how will they be enforced? Where would these heads be handed in? Those kinds of things…. That’s just one of the many questions that this bill does not address. A true, holistic wildlife management program needs to be just that — holistic. It needs to be transparent. It needs to involve all levels of government and all stakeholders, stewards and land users.

I look to a group called the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition. I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. They will work to promote solutions guided by science and traditional ecological knowledge for improved management of species and habitat in B.C. These will include creating legislation that protects fish, wildlife and habitat.

This group — the Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition — represents a very diverse array of interests that all share common concerns about the decline of fish, wildlife and habitat, including environmental and conservation organizations, hunting and angling guides, wildlife viewing, ecotourism, naturalists, hunters, anglers and trappers. There are 188,000 members, over 54,000 supporters and over 750 businesses across B.C. that are part of this coalition. It’s super important.

I would dare say that ten years ago — maybe not even ten years ago; five years ago — you would never have got this collection of people in the same room. They are from all corners of British Columbia, but they share super different views — everybody from the Sierra Club to trappers to guide-outfitters, you name it. They’re very diverse.

Usually, they would be very argumentative with one another, but not so anymore. They are very united. The reason: as I’ve said a million times before, there’s nothing like a crisis that brings people together. That’s where we’re at right now.

We need that data. We need it to be shared. We need to be transparent. We need government to be accountable for decisions that are made, based on science and data. I think this bill challenges some of that, potentially. That’s why we’ll have lots of questions in committee stage.

With that, I just want to thank all the stewards of the land, all the hunters, all the trappers, all the guide-outfitters, the biologists, First Nations, everyone, because together for wildlife is what’s going to make a difference in the province of B.C.

[5:05 p.m.]

I see this bill as a step backwards. I think there needs to be more thought that goes behind it. We’ll see later, in committee stage, exactly how we’ll address some of those issues. With that, I’ll take my place and leave it to someone else.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the opportunity to stand up for a few minutes. I won’t be taking a lot of time here on Bill 14, but I think it’s important to just get up for a few moments on this bill because of the impacts it has, the concerns that I have. Some of the things I may say might echo what was said by my colleague before me.

I think it’s just important. First of all, when we’re talking about what’s taking place right now with Bill 14, the collaboration ideas with Indigenous peoples on the management of wildlife on our land base, obviously, is a good step. It’s positive; it’s important to do. But I do have real concerns not only with the way this bill is drafted but with some of the wording in this bill.

I’m going to bring up some local examples and some of the challenges that I’m facing. I know that the minister and other members of this House are hearing the same things. Maybe at the onset, too, I will say I have a lot of deep respect for the present minister in this role. It’s important to acknowledge, I believe, that she also supports hunting. She supports what’s taking place in the province of British Columbia and the fact that this is a process, a way of life and a part of British Columbia, in our history and presently as well.

For me, some of the concerns I have are not only the division that’s been created but the lack of clarity that comes from this bill. That is really creating, on the landscape and in some of our ridings, some grave concern. Let me say this. First of all, I didn’t know this bill was coming, but conversations started happening around this. In the last few weeks, I’ve received over 1,000 emails in my riding from people who have concerns, who have questions, who don’t have trust in the process. That is creating a lot of issues.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I’m sure the minister will have a chance. She doesn’t have to heckle me. She’ll have a chance to do any closing comments.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, one person has the floor. We’re here on Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure of what concerns the minister is heckling about.

We’re talking about the Wildlife Amendment Act, a bill that’s on the floor to amend how wildlife is harvested or the issues around wildlife in the province of British Columbia. I think that gives me latitude to talk about the wildlife issues I’m facing in my riding, based on the wording and the changes that the minister is proposing in this bill.

Back to my point. The lack of transparency and secrecy that we see with this government is evident again in this bill because it’s not addressing all of the issues or concerns that people are talking about.

I’ll tell you where that lack of trust comes from — and it’s very recently. It’s how this government treated the people in my region when it came to dealing with the caribou hunt, how they dealt with people in my region with the back-country usage, and the fact that they, secretively, did not deal with all of the information that they should have. We were not making decisions based on a science-based approach.

This government will come out and make a proclamation, they’ll put a bill on the floor, or they’ll make a partnership agreement, and then after the fact say: “Don’t worry. We’re going to now consult. We’re now going to listen, after we’ve already made our decisions. Don’t worry; we’ll be flexible.”

We saw the Snowmobile Federation in British Columbia, which spent 500 hours gathering information and data to present to this government, to present to this minister, to talk about how we all want to work together, collectively, to ensure the sustainability of our wildlife and our back country. This government and this minister ignored all of that input.

[5:10 p.m.]

Is there a lack of trust? Absolutely there is, right now. Is there concern because of that? Of course there is. Wildlife and hunting in a place like my region and, I know, in many other regions of the province is a way of life for generations and generations, for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. That needs to be understood and acknowledged.

As I said, I’ve received over 1,000 emails. I know the minister has seen them as well, and this government has seen them — some of the questions and concerns that people have on the direction that this government is going.

The bill, in typical NDP fashion, is actually pitting one group of people against another. That should not be tolerated. At that point, especially today, from everything that we heard here in this House, it’s important for all of us to say: “Look, we don’t condone racism. We don’t condone threats.” We’ve seen that in my riding already, to some of my Indigenous friends. That cannot be tolerated. We all agree with that.

We look at what government is putting forward here, and it is creating issues. It is creating a divide. I do not blame anyone in my riding. I look at government to say they are creating an issue, and they need to do better.

In the bill…. I know that we’ll have time in committee stage, some of the things to be addressed, but I really wonder how some of this is going to be dealt with. We talked about the sheltering agreements. We’ve talked about a few others.

A reminder to the minister and government is that my region, for 100 years, is treatied. I’ve got basically the last old-style treaty — not modern-day treaty but the last treaty — that Canada signed. I believe it was around 1897. During this portion in this bill, we’re not going to be debating the rights or the wrongs or the historical aspects of the treaty. But my concern is more around how this bill now fits into that.

When we talk about the sheltering agreements and how they apply to nations or individuals with traditional territories within British Columbia, how does that fit into a treatied area? How does that work where there are already agreements in place because of treaty negotiations? How does that fit in, in a region like mine, where you have treaty 8, which is not isolated to the boundaries drawn on a map for British Columbia? This goes into Alberta and even parts of northern Saskatchewan. It’s treaty 8.

How does this bill now manage those issues and concerns, when we’ve got several provinces…? In fact, I believe it even stretches up into part of Yukon or up into the territories. I’m hearing from First Nations and non–First Nations people in my riding, who are once again, with what government has put forward, confused by what this means.

I’ve had First Nations approach me and even ask: “Does this mean that I am now a guide-outfitter? Under the sheltering agreement, am I a guide-outfitter, because now I can actually agree or disagree for somebody to come into my territory?” Now, if there’s no amount of tracking that’s going to take place, because it’s not identified properly in this bill, how is that going to work?

You can see, just very quickly, with the lack of clarity and transparency that this bill has, the concerns that people are having up in my region. Look, everybody in my region, in their own way, is a conservationist. Every single person is wanting to ensure that we have the ungulates and that we have all of our wildlife for generations to come. That’s why every single person that’s contacted me and met with me said: “Where is the data? Where is the science?”

[5:15 p.m.]

If we’re going to be looking at wildlife management under the act and within this bill, if we’re going to be looking at some of the restrictions that may or may not come forward, where’s the data to back that up?

A concern that many are having is that in this bill, it almost appears that we are now allowing harvesting with­out recording, without that data being collected, without that data having to be formulated into any kind of a plan when we’re looking at the back country, the usage and the harvesting of animals within our region.

Again, it’s a way of life. The stories that we are hearing of people…. For generations, all they’ve done is hunted elk or hunted moose. Now the concern is…. When a bill comes forward like this, with no real clarity, what does that mean for their future, for the future of themselves, for the future of their family and for their kids and their grandkids?

Another concern that I have, again, being in a treatied area, is trying to understand, in this bill…. I look forward to the committee stage, where the minister can explain. When you have a sheltering agreement and we’re already in a treatied area…. Again, I just spoke about how large the treatied area that I live in is.

If somebody is working on a sheltering agreement in, let’s say, Mackenzie or Chetwynd and they agree to that, but because it’s in a treatied area and somebody in Fort Nelson, who’s actually about 600 kilometres away, says: “No, we don’t agree with that sheltering agreement….” How is that going to be worked out? It’s in the same treatied area. Look at the conflicts this is going to create.

I see the minister rolling her eyes. Well, if she has an explanation, I wish it had actually been in this bill.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, I wasn’t unparliamentary, but if you did not roll your eyes, then I apologize for misunderstanding the body language that you were portraying in the House to my comments.

Deputy Speaker: If we can focus on the content of the bill rather than if someone did something with their eyes or not. Let’s focus on the legislation, please. That’s what we’re here for, after all.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, as always.

It does become challenging. This is an emotional issue for some, especially in areas where people are going to be highly impacted and maybe where there’s a disagreement with people on this side of the House that are speaking, compared to the minister or others who are putting the bill forward and who might not agree with what we’re hearing and the approach that we’re trying to take to ensure that the voices of the people in our region are heard.

After all, that is my job, to come here and present that here in the House. What the minister does with that information, choose to ignore or accept, is her choice. That’s how this process works.

I mentioned the challenges that we’re having not only with this bill but just the whole approach that this government has to dealing with wildlife management. That’s been, again, apparent with how things have been playing out.

It appears that this bill, through the wording that I read…. Again, the minister will have an opportunity to correct me if I’m wrong, which she has every right to do, and I will stand corrected if that’s the case. It appears that this bill is now saying that some people are no longer going to have to follow the Wildlife Act.

If that is true, of course there are concerns out there from the tens of thousands of people who belong to places like the B.C. Wildlife Federation, resident hunters, people who have to report everything they do and are only allowed to hunt at certain times of the year.

Everybody understands the constitutional differences, the Supreme Court of Canada rulings on who can hunt when and how that all works. We don’t need to get into that right now. But I think it’s important for this government to acknowledge the impact that their decisions have on all British Columbians.

One thing that I think is really important in here is when we talk about Indigenous knowledge on the land, the historical knowledge that they have. That’s important. That information is important.

[5:20 p.m.]

What I ask, though, is: how is that going to be intertwined in the decision-making based on science that wildlife management has right now? The science-based wildlife management act — we have all of those things in place, so how are we going to intertwine that all together? All of these are important pieces that we need to be working at together to make sure that government makes good decisions, going forward.

Maybe I’ll just end by saying that I think it’s important to recognize that our wildlife is a Crown asset. Our wildlife should be considered to belong to all of us here in the province of British Columbia. We ensure under the act that we have appropriate, sustainable harvesting practices for that Crown resource that recognize everyone’s rights.

What I ask this government to do is to be more transparent and to try to be more open with information to avoid the divide that we are seeing that none of us want to tolerate in the province. We need to make sure that we are dealing with science, we’re dealing with history, and we’re putting it all together. When you look at a bill that does not seem to actually target all of the issues, and it’s created more confusion…. It’s only creating uncertainty. It’s creating concern.

Government needs to do better when they put a bill on the floor, so not only do we know what we can debate and what we can challenge and what we can support, but the people of British Columbia are not being torn like they are right now by what this government puts forward.

E. Ross: I take my place on behalf of Skeena to speak to Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act.

Specifically what we’re talking about are some amendments to allow for hunting in relation to Aboriginal interests, which is quite curious to me. I am a hunter. I am a fisherman, although my wife will tell you I haven’t hunted for the last 14 years. I just don’t have the time. Anyway, that’s a different story.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Hey, come on. I’m here all the time.

Anywho, I digress. In 2004, when I got my start on council, I realized the talk about self-determination for Aboriginals — a share and a say, shared decision-making — were all empty words because the programs and the processes that were all around us were all empty speeches and rhetoric. By that time, reconciliation was only a legal term in case law. It hadn’t become the political term that we see now today in many political spheres.

Today we actually witnessed the action plan for UNDRIP, and we saw the celebration of that plan get unveiled today. There was a lot of talk today about self-determination, jurisdiction, land ownership, decision-making. This has been a conversation that happened long before I came along in 2004, 2003.

These topics were part of a conversation that led to section 35 of the constitution, for example. It was part of the wording that led to the case law like Mikisew Cree or Gladstone or the Haida court case. These are all the same words: jurisdiction, land ownership, shared decision-making, self-determination.

It was actually also a large topic area for treaty negotiations. We’ve been in treaty negotiations in B.C. now for the better part of — what? — 40 years. I know it came from the land claims commission at a federal level and then got transferred to the B.C. Treaty Commission not long after. That’s where I saw all of this language come out. So this is not new.

[5:25 p.m.]

What is interesting about the conversation now is that we’ve taken a political stab at self-determination, jurisdiction, land ownership and shared decision-making, in terms of DRIPA and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The road map that was established — from 2004, specifically, to 2017 — was actually based on Aboriginal rights and title case law that was determined in the courts of Canada. Those principles actually laid the road map for the success of LNG Canada. They actually led to the certainty for a certificate for Kitimat LNG. They led to the opportunity for the Cedar LNG project in Kitimat.

The forest and range agreements that got signed between First Nations all across B.C. and the B.C. government were established under the principles of rights and title case law that were actually fought for by First Nations leaders for the last 40 years at least. All those principles no longer matter, even though they brought many of the successes that we’re actually seeing today in terms of LNG Canada being a success.

All those agreements that were signed with First Nations from Prince George to Kitimat, Gitxaała and Gitga’at for LNG Canada to be possible were under the principles of rights and title case law. Contrary to popular belief, these First Nations that signed on to these agreements did not give up their rights and title. You can’t give up rights and title in Canada, unless you do so formally in a legal setting.

All it really was, was an agreement to have those Aboriginal rights and title infringed so that the opportunity for LNG Canada could proceed. But there was an exchange of benefits for that. To give up hunting and fishing in these territories, First Nations agreed to revenues, jobs, training, contracts and a certain level of decision-making, not at the minister’s level but at the environmental assessment level.

I do agree with some of the statements here made by government in terms of the Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes. That’s actually covered in case law that preceded the UNDRIP bill that was determined in the courts of Canada. What else the courts determined, as well, was that the Aboriginal rights and title in regard to hunting, gathering and fishing was a priority — there’s no doubt — but it was a priority after three main considerations had been in place in front of the Crown, to begin with.

The Crown has a duty to address rights and title, without a doubt, but the Crown has to balance that with societal needs. That’s what the case law said. In terms of societal needs, of course, there’s a conversation about the national interest or the B.C. interest. There’s that conversation. I’m not too sure about that. But in three categories, it was very clear to the First Nations and the Crown, from 2004 onwards to 2017, that that priority had to be made in light of health issues, safety issues and conservation issues.

The Crown does have a duty. They have a duty to address hunting and fishing for food, social and ceremonial purposes, but only after they review health and safety and conservation provisions. I don’t see that in this amendment. I also don’t see, in this amendment, the idea of who gets consulted in terms of the negotiation of a sheltering agreement.

I’ll give you an example. You come to my territory, and you negotiate a sheltering agreement with my band, the Haisla First Nation — which then gives my band the right, if I understand correctly, to allow other First Nations from different jurisdictions, maybe even across the border, to come in. Under my Aboriginal right to hunt, they can now hunt in our territory.

[5:30 p.m.]

Well, this fails to acknowledge that in our territory…. The Haisla territory is actually claimed by at least five other First Nations. So if one of these bands agrees to sit down and negotiate a shelter agreement, how do you consult the bands around our band to say that this is actually an infringement of a territory that you claim? Gitga’at, Haisla, Kitasoo, to a certain extent Lax Kw’alaams, Gitxaała all claim the same territory. Even Waglisla.

You can confirm this in treaty negotiations. It’s called a statement of intent. You can look at the maps and see the territories that each First Nation claims. It’s an asserted claim, an asserted claim that either gets defined in the successful negotiation of a treaty…. Or you can take that claim and go to court and define it, like the Tŝilhqot’in did.

Either way, the consultation here has got to be meaningful. It has got to be comprehensive. If there is a shelter agreement with my band, that means you’ve got to set up at least five other separate tables to negotiate the principle that my band is going to allow other First Nations to come into territories that are claimed by at least six First Nations.

This is not to mention the fact that the case law — not UNDRIP, mind you — says the Crown has a duty to balance the Aboriginal right on the land, as well as resources, with societal needs. The Crown has got a duty to five million people in British Columbia. If you don’t balance that need, you’re going to get what you received in Blueberry River First Nations, where the chief councillor had to address threats about proposed moose-hunting restrictions in their territory, when really, the Blueberry River had nothing to do with it.

This is the same thing that we saw when the Crown was actually trying to address the caribou issue up in the Peace region. It was First Nations that took the brunt of this. If the Crown is going to go down this road, then the Crown has got to be front and centre and say: “Look, this is our decision.” You can’t allow these First Nations to get threatened like this. It’s not fair.

The leaders can take it. As an Aboriginal leader from 2004 to today, I’m used to threats. That comes with the job. As an MLA, I’m used to threats. But as a regular band member going to shop at Walmart…. They get confronted and harassed about some hunting restriction they didn’t even know about? That’s unfair.

In terms of being transparent and accountable, I’m hoping that the Crown goes out to announce all this and says: “This is our decision. This is what we brought the First Nations as a consideration.” You also disclose to them how they’re going to balance the non-Indigenous population in terms of what’s going to happen on the land base when you’re talking about hunting of moose, caribou, seals, bears, wolves.

There was a cull last year where at least — what? — 230 wolves were culled. I know that’s stepping out of it, but when we’re talking about a cull of wolves, for example…. We’re already talking about, in this amendment, an Aboriginal right for fish, for food, social and ceremonial purposes, after conservation.

Well, if you’re anything like my band…. We did cull grizzly bears, and it wasn’t for food. It wasn’t for social or ceremonial purposes. It was because a certain river had a population of grizzly bears…. Our First Nation understood it had too many grizzly bears at some point, and they’d have to go out and cull them. They’d have to kill them.

[5:35 p.m.]

If this is the traditional knowledge that the government is thinking about incorporating, that actually contradicts existing laws on grizzly bear hunts. In fact, my band…. Public works have had their firearms confiscated for shooting grizzly bears that began to live in our community. That’s a contradiction of the law.

When we’re talking about conservation…. Yes, First Nations believe in conservation, without a doubt. More importantly, they believe in the law. They believe in the law for everybody. In all my times as a First Nation leader and even as a chief councillor, nobody came into my office and asked that the law be changed. In fact, if anything, a lot of our band members asked for and lobbied for the law to be enforced in our communities. They wanted more RCMP presence, especially on weekends.

Without a law that applies to everybody, you’re not going to have the resource for future generations. If you don’t have a conservation plan that not only is consistent for everybody and for the resource itself, you’re not going to have a resource for future generations. Conservation, at the very least, is data. Whether you’re talking about traditional knowledge or not, you need data. You need numbers. How do you manage a resource if you don’t have numbers?

I’m thinking that traditional knowledge is going to speak more to the methods, more to the processes. I’m sure everybody could agree that without data, we can easily wipe out a moose population or a deer population much like what we’re seeing with the mountain caribou up in the Peace region.

Yes, traditional knowledge is important. In fact, I’ll be curious to see what kind of traditional knowledge comes out. All the knowledge I gained was from my father and my brothers, who taught me how to hunt in a respectful manner, but we never talked numbers.

When you’re talking about conservation…. Right now under the asserted Aboriginal right to hunt and harvest, there are no real rules. There are no real laws. Some of the laws that First Nations actually follow are self-imposed.

I don’t know if it’s traditional knowledge in my territory, but my father told me that, without a doubt, you never kill a female moose — never. You never kill a calf moose. You never kill a pregnant moose.

I can tell you the one time that me and my brothers made a mistake…. It wasn’t me. I didn’t pull the trigger. We made a mistake, and we killed a pregnant moose. We didn’t hear the end of it for a week. My father raised hell on us. I wouldn’t say that was a law, because nobody else said that to us. It was just our father saying you never do that kind of thing.

If that’s the kind of traditional knowledge you’re talking about, good. I hope that’s consistent throughout all First Nation communities across B.C.

We never talk data. We never talk populations unless we are talking about a predator population in a specific area. I even questioned that. I even questioned my father’s generation shooting wolves on sight because there were too many. How do you make that determination? We were just passing by on a boat for five minutes, tops. You saw a wolf, so you shot it because there were too many. That doesn’t make any sense.

I’m very curious about the traditional knowledge that will come out of this amendment. What you’re talking about here is not new. What you’re talking about is defining the right to harvest. That’s what you’re talking about. But in this case here, I feel there’s a step missing. You haven’t really defined yet any types of measures in terms of the host First Nations themselves going out to harvest a certain species. You haven’t determined that.

[5:40 p.m.]

You’re already skipping over to step 2 and saying, okay, other First Nations can come in from other jurisdictions or other countries. They can harvest under an existing Aboriginal rights and title that is held by a specific First Nation.

What about the first step? This is possible, because Canada had the same problem in terms of the Sparrow agreement that came out, in terms of fishing for salmon. When the Sparrow agreement came out, it was about regulations that limited the right to harvest salmon. So every First Nation after that, under DFO and Ottawa, actually signed Aboriginal fishing strategy agreements. My band has one.

What it was…. It was saying: “Okay, as a matter of management of a fisheries resource, will the First Nation agree to certain limitations in exchange for data and in exchange for management principles that fit into the framework of the fisheries management of Canada?” A lot of First Nations agreed to this.

To a lesser extent, there is such a thing as a sheltering agreement within these agreements. It’s more of a permitting regime from a First Nation to another First Nation. It’s not licensing, and it’s definitely not for commercial purposes.

These Aboriginal fishing strategy agreements…. It’s an accommodation where Canada asked a First Nation to consider management and conservation. In exchange, they agreed to cooperate, but Canada agreed to fund First Nations fisheries departments. That’s why many First Nation bands all across Canada have fishery departments, because they’re funded by Canada. It does speak to sustenance, but it doesn’t speak to the commercial side.

I know there’s a great conversation happening right now in terms of trade and barter. That conversation has been there forever, but in terms of this amendment, there is some mention of a guiding infraction. It’s hard to understand.

Are we actually saying that the Aboriginal right not only to harvest for food, social and ceremonial purposes and not only for another Aboriginal to come in from another jurisdiction to hunt for food, social and ceremonial purposes but, also, that we can actually allow another hunter from another jurisdiction to come in under commercial purposes and harvest what amounts to an Aboriginal right by a host First Nation?

I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but you’ve got to be clear on it, because there is an economic component that has to be considered by the Crown when you’re talking about infringing a right by a First Nation.

If we want to be transparent about it, then we have to be transparent about it to all British Columbians, to all the neighbouring First Nations — that, yes, there may be an economic component here when First Nations are coming in from outside our region to exercise a right that is held by a host First Nation.

I can tell you that I’m quite prejudiced on this, because I’ve always thought of Aboriginal rights and title being held on behalf of the community, and you couldn’t delegate that right to anybody. You couldn’t do it. The First Nation couldn’t give up that right, and they couldn’t give that right to anybody else. The Crown definitely cannot delegate their duty to consult and accommodate it. So I’m not opposed to this. I’m just trying to understand it.

The other thing too…. It was mentioned today at the celebration. I think I got a chuckle out of it, just like everybody else. The gentleman, I think, was Chief Jerry Jack. He talked a lot about the reconciliation and then the UNDRIP initiative that was here, and the colonization and the effects it had on Aboriginal people, and then admitted he worked for the RCMP for the better part of 50 years. Even he laughed about it. But in this context, it does speak to the law.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m kind of thinking that what I read in this amendment is a typo. I’m hoping it’s a typo, because really, what it’s inferring is that a guest First Nation that comes in doesn’t have to comply with the regulations of B.C. in regards to hunting. I’m hoping it’s just me that doesn’t understand it, but I picked it apart a number of times, and I don’t understand.

I know there’s a protection provision there as well, unless it’s approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But the wording’s already there. It goes back to the idea that, I think, everybody in B.C., including First Nations, wants a standard of law that is consistent for everybody, especially when we’re talking about safety.

I talked about three principles that have priority over Aboriginal rights and title — conservation, health and safety. I do not want to see a law contravened where an Aboriginal can come in from another jurisdiction and discharge a firearm next to a highway. That’s a law. That overrides Aboriginal rights and title.

Aboriginal rights and title are not absolute. You’re not allowed to discharge a firearm close to the community. In certain situations, you’re not allowed to discharge a firearm close to a right-of-way, for good reason — pipelines, for example. You’re not allowed. I think First Nations actually agree with that law, when we’re protecting society at large. Nobody wants to see anybody hunting next to a highway.

In terms of health…. You can tell I’ve done years, over a decade, of work on this specific chapter for treaty. I was treaty chairman for eight years, and we actually talked about health issues regarding fish and wildlife. I didn’t understand the consequences of not putting health as a priority over Aboriginal rights and title until it was explained to me that there is an opportunity for a virus to get transferred from wildlife to humans.

I see the context now, with what we’re going through right now. Where did COVID come from? From what I understand, what we got with COVID-19 has always been there, and it’s not going to end. So I see the connection. Back then I thought it was theory, because it was treaty negotiations, and a lot of what you do in treaty negotiations is theory.

A couple of my colleagues actually brought the idea of what this means in relation to treaties. I know there’s an issue with the older treaties that were signed with Canada 100 years ago. But we’ve got new treaties, modern day treaties — Nisg̱a’a, Maa-nulth. There’s a provision in the Nisg̱a’a treaty, for example, and this goes for all modern day treaties. If there is any progress in any other area regarding rights and title, the Nisg̱a’a and modern day treaties have the right to that same benefit.

It happened with forestry. When all those First Nations signed those forest agreements with B.C. back in 2006, those agreements were actually better than what was offered the Nisg̱a’a treaty. The Nisg̱a’a treaty had the right to benefit from that.

In this case here, Nisg̱a’a has to abide by the conservation management plans of B.C. It’s written into the treaty. So if this amendment is proposing that the First Nations that sign on to a sheltering agreement don’t have to abide by conservation agreements or management plans in B.C., Nisg̱a’a has the right to that benefit. Maa-nulth has the right to that benefit, as well, if they don’t have to disclose anything.

[5:50 p.m.]

Nisg̱a’a actually abides by the management plan, because they have a lottery for moose, for example. There’s only a certain amount of moose they can take every year, and it’s based on populations.

I don’t have to do that, because I’m not under a treaty. I don’t have to abide by any management plans. If there are any management plans, it’s purely voluntary, and it’s hard to get First Nations hunters to abide by any management plans. But quite frankly, I’ve never been shown numbers on moose or deer or seal. Well, I know what seal is like. We could use a lot of guest hunters for seals.

I’m looking forward to committee stage on this, but more importantly, I’m looking for clarification. I’m looking forward to the idea that we’ve got to consider the greater society. We’ve got to consider health, safety and conservation. We’ve got to consider the laws of B.C. Ultimately, we’ve got to consider the consultation and accommodation that will come that is owed to First Nations under the case law that has been established by the courts of B.C. and Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, she does, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for this opportunity. This has been an interesting debate, and I thank the members who have shared their comments.

I just want to respond, in general, to some of them. I am looking forward, as well, to committee stage, when we can get deeper into answering the questions. I’m certainly not going to answer a lot of the questions now, but I did want to just make some brief comments to clarify for the record.

One of the things I wanted to clarify for the record was the issue around scheduling a briefing for the official opposition. It was commented on that the official briefing — that they had to wait for it, and they didn’t get it for a week and a half after we had introduced the bill.

My staff actually scheduled a briefing for the official opposition and the Third Party on Thursday, March 10, at 12:30, the day right after the bill was introduced. The member for Saanich North and the Islands was able to attend. Unfortunately, we understand, the members opposite weren’t able to attend. They had a lunch that they had to go to, and they couldn’t attend the briefing, so my staff worked diligently trying to find another time.

Apparently, there were seven members of the opposition that wanted to come to the briefing, which I thought was great. I really appreciate the interest in this bill, and I thought that was really good. Finally, they got a briefing where all the staff and the members of the opposition could come together on March 17 at 2 p.m., which is actually one week after the original time.

I just wanted to say that because, also, the staff asked a number of times if the members opposite had questions that they would like to get to us so that we could have the answers ready for them prior to the briefing. My staff worked really hard to ensure that a briefing was done, and I do take exception when staff are called into question in the Legislature. I just wanted to clarify so that everybody knows that staff worked really diligently to ensure that members of the opposition on both sides had a thorough briefing on this bill.

There have also been a number of times, in response to…. A lot of the people that were making responses talked about the lack of transparency — how this was a secret process and too much secrecy. I want to make sure that people know this is nothing but a transparent process. This bill was brought in to ensure that we are starting to deal, in the Wildlife Act, with changes to the Wildlife Act that respect Indigenous knowledge.

There have been no changes to this act since 1966, and there is definitely nothing in this act that respects Indigenous knowledge, that respects Indigenous culture, that ensures that food, social or ceremonial rights are contained when it comes to the Wildlife Act. That’s what this act is about.

There was consultation undertaken, especially with the First Nations–B.C. Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Forum, which I’ll just call the forum from now on. It consists of participants from over 40 Indigenous nations and provincial staff. They identified the proposed amendments.

[5:55 p.m.]

I want to make sure that people recognize that this is the first step. This is only the first step in ensuring that we modernize the Wildlife Act and that we ensure that the Wildlife Act is actually in alignment with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. So we did have those discussions with the forum. They made sure that these amendments were in alignment with that.

You know, it’s important that statutory decision-makers know that they will be required, the term is, to turn their minds to Indigenous knowledge and will be provided guidance on how to consider it in their decisions through the policies and procedures manual, which is being co-developed with the First Nations–B.C. Wildlife Forum, so again ensuring that the Indigenous knowledge is there.

It’ll also improve consistency of application across wildlife management decisions and facilitate greater reconciliation between Indigenous knowledge and other forms of knowledge, particularly western science. A lot of the members opposite refer to the science. We have to bring the two together, because I’ve heard so much.

When I was critic of the wildlife, in my critic days, I travelled around and talked to many hunters across the province about the Wildlife Act, about what was happening with wildlife in this province. I only became involved in it because of a procedure around allocation, where resident hunters, Indigenous hunters, were not being properly consulted. Their issues were not being listened to by the previous government, so I made sure I got out and listened to what people had to say.

I had the real honour of meeting Chief Henderson, who at the time was the chair of the Wildlife Stewardship Council. He talked to me a lot about Indigenous knowl­edge and how important it was and how it needed to be in the Wildlife Act, and it wasn’t there. He also reminded me that in anything we did when it comes to legislation in this House, we had to keep in mind that we were doing it for seven generations, not just for our kids and grandkids but for the seven generations to come. That has stuck with me. I know how important that is.

We also brought together…. I know one of the members opposite talked about the Together for Wildlife strategy. I have to tell him that from that strategy, we have the minister’s advisory committee on wildlife, which is made up of Indigenous representation, representation from people that are involved in residential hunting, guide-outfitters, people that are involved in just ecosystems and conservation, all coming together to talk about wildlife conservation.

They also had input into these amendments — again, these first steps, very first steps that are needed to ensure that we are going to change the Wildlife Act. These are only the first steps.

I also wanted to say that there were a number of times where people…. One of the comments — I think it was from the critic — said that nations don’t have to obey the laws. I want to ensure that people understand that to hunt without a hunting licence under a sheltering agreement, a member of any nation would need to be hosted by a guest nation, and it doesn’t alter any current practice. It does not provide additional rights.

This is currently a practice. What the amendment is doing…. It’s needed to enable sheltering agreements to allow the host nation’s protocols or laws to prevail in certain circumstances. That’s what the amendment is bringing in.

An example of that is that a sheltering agreement could provide a guest First Nation from provisions governing open or closed seasons, from licensing requirements and other requirements under the act. These exceptions would not enable lawlessness. That’s what was being suggested — that it would enable lawlessness.

Instead, it would provide space for First Nations law to apply within traditional territories to guest Indigenous harvesters to harvest under the host nation’s food, social or ceremonial rights, something that has never been accepted before in our laws of the province. We need to ensure that we’re doing that.

To mitigate any concerns that this has the potential to override the Wildlife Act or that this could create agreements, they’d have to be subject to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So it’s an OIC that has to make sure this is being done appropriately.

Again, the sheltering agreements are already in process. They’re already being utilized, so we’re talking about ensuring that we’re doing it in a way that’s going to respect Indigenous nations. We’ll get more into that at committee stage, which I know is going to be interesting. I want to make sure that there is not going to be lawlessness, which is what was suggested. I want to make sure we’re on that.

[6:00 p.m.]

I also just want to say, for the record, that I have never met an Indigenous person, an Indigenous hunter or anyone from an Indigenous nation that is not committed to conservation, that is not committed to ensuring that there is wildlife for generations to come, that is not committed to ensuring that there is habitat for wildlife and that they’re sustaining that habitat for wildlife for generations to come. I wanted to say that, just because I think it’s so important.

I’ve talked to Indigenous nations about cultural burning, which we’ve now brought in. We’ve funded the cultural burning and made sure that we’re going to be doing much more cultural burning, in collaboration with Indigenous nations.

They’ve talked about how beneficial to wildlife cultural burning is. Not only is it of benefit to the nation when it comes to wildfires, but it’s beneficial to wildlife. I’ve talked to the B.C. Wildlife Federation about cultural burning and ensuring that we have that to enhance habitat for wildlife. I understand it.

I understand and I respect that members have a process to represent their constituencies. I understand the passion. I understand the passion about hunting. I think it was the member for Kootenay East who talked about the passion in the Kootenays. I recognize that. My own family is very passionate about it, and we’ve had great discussions about it.

I discovered, in my life, that I’m actually quite a good shot — I’m very, very proud of that — when hunting, just to clarify. It is a passion for people. I have never met a hunter who is not committed to conservation. I’ve never met a hunter who is going to go out and overhunt or do things that they shouldn’t be doing, because they care as much about the wildlife as the next person does.

Again, this is just the first step. We are bringing amendments to the Wildlife Act, and this is the first step to ensure that we are recognizing the food, social and ceremonial rights of Indigenous nations, to recognize that their sheltering in place is recognized by us, by everyone, and that we respect that. There are a number of things that are done with these amendments that are just the first step. We have much more work to do on this act.

We have talked about that through the Minister’s Wildlife Advisory Council. We’ve talked about it with the members of the forum. We’ve talked about it with Indigenous nations, with the First Nations Leadership Council and other nations, because we know that this is a first step.

I’m looking forward to the questions in committee stage. I think it will be interesting.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 14.

Division has been called.

[6:05 p.m. - 6:10 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022.

[6:15 p.m.]

Second reading of Bill 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 50
Alexis	Anderson	Bains
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chandra Herbert	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Donnelly
Dykeman	Eby	Elmore
Farnworth	Fleming	Furstenau
Glumac	Greene	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mercier	Olsen
Osborne	Paddon	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Sandhu	Sharma
Simons	Sims	A. Singh
R. Singh	Starchuk	Walker
Whiteside		Yao
NAYS — 24
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Davies	de Jong	Doerkson
Kyllo	Letnick	Merrifield
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Paton	Ross	Rustad
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturdy	Tegart	Wat

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 13, the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act. I will be somewhat brief, given the time of day, but also because the bill itself is very brief — just five clauses. But it is also a very focused bill, and that focus is important because this makes permanent passenger safety provisions currently in use and adds administrative fairness with an appeal process that is consistent with B.C.’s human rights code.

Specifically, the government is proposing two amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act to permanently retain transitional authorities made under section 51 of the Passenger Transportation Amendment Act.

[6:20 p.m.]

These authorities support safety requirements that were first introduced in 2019 to modernize the taxi and ride-hail industry. Without passage of this bill, these authorities will automatically be repealed on September 16, 2022.

The first amendment makes permanent the provincial authority to operate a record check review process — driving records and criminal records. Under this authority, individuals deemed ineligible to drive a taxi, limousine or ride-hail vehicle can appeal the decision through an established record check review process. This authority was established to prevent people from being deemed ineligible from driving a taxi, limo or ride-hail vehicle due to a matter that is unrelated to their employment as a driver.

Retaining this authority will ensure that the provincial record check requirements comply with section 13 of the human rights code. By making this authority permanent, individuals deemed ineligible to drive a taxi, limousine or ride-hail vehicle will continue to have the opportunity to appeal their ineligibility, thus aligning the record check process with the human rights code.

The second amendment retains the regulatory authority that requires drivers operating under a temporary operating permit to meet legislated record check requirements — equivalency, if you will. This will ensure that the same record check requirements are met by drivers, regardless of whether they operate under a licence or a temporary operating permit. Both of these amendments together support government’s commitment to improve passenger safety and to modernize the taxi and ride-hail industry in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

That is the bill in essence, Madam Speaker, but I would maybe, with your latitude at second reading, just take a brief moment to say, on the record, my appreciation, as the Minister of Transportation, for the taxi industry and the ground transportation sector and all of the men and women who work hard in that industry. They were, of course, deemed, among many occupations, essential for people during the pandemic and every wave of the pandemic that we have endured.

Many drivers working in the industry struggled financially under health and travel restrictions that have only recently been fully lifted. This industry was supported by our government. We were concerned about the steep decline in their business and also appreciative of the fact that they stepped up to get people to doctors’ appointments and for essential trips that they needed to make during the long period of this two-year pandemic.

I was very pleased to work with some of my colleagues, including the Minister of Jobs and Economic Recovery, to create small and medium-sized business grants that were eligible to the taxi sector and also to combine those with the tourism business–related economic recovery grants for COVID.

With the return of tourism, with the return of business travel and conferences and live entertainment events and all of those things that are part of what we hope will be a smooth runway of normalness in putting the pandemic behind us, I just want to, again, thank everybody in the ground transportation sector, the taxi industry, for serving British Columbians under very difficult circumstances.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to rise and just speak to Bill 13.

Of course, the minister has outlined quite clearly what this bill is about. It’s a relatively straightforward piece of legislation, with a couple of amendments that the minister refers to. I think that one of the things the minister highlighted is that there were transitional rules put in place when ride-hailing was first brought out and established in 2019 for the purpose of supporting taxi modernization and the long-awaited introduction of ride-hailing.

These two authorities include the record check review process, through which people can appeal decisions that deem them ineligible to drive a passenger-directed vehicle, as well as the requirement that the passenger-directed vehicle drivers operating under a temporary operating permit meet record check requirements. The amendments to the record check review process help to create an overall more equitable driver assessment process that benefits both drivers and their passengers.

Not only did the amendments enshrine in law and make permanent the measures that have already been in place and have been largely positive, but more importantly, they also align the province’s record check process with the human rights code.

[6:25 p.m.]

Additionally, the record check requirements for drivers using a temporary operating permit help to regulate those drivers with temporary permits and create an extra layer of protection and a safer travelling environment for passengers. I’m sure that everyone in the House can agree that a safer environment for those who choose to use taxi or ride-hailing services is a positive step forward. Passenger safety should be, of course, a central concern for legislators as we modify and modernize the commercial passenger transportation industry.

While we are largely supportive of those commonsense measures to improve and update the industry, we still haven’t forgotten how long it took this government to get ride-hailing up and running in B.C. In fact, we are one of the last jurisdictions of its size to see ride-hailing. Because of how complex the system is in our province, many large municipalities, like right here in Victoria or even in Kelowna, for an example, have still not been able to adopt it.

A greater concern with the technology that’s being used out there is that there are new entrants into the ride-hailing business which are not licensed. This particular set of rules is…. We would like them to make certain that their drivers meet the requirements that Bill 13 brings out.

There are a couple that are mentioned in a recent news article in Richmond, Raccoon Go and UDI-X, which are also charging 30 percent less than the current ride-hailing companies. So it does raise concerns about the fact that ride-hailing and the technology are here. The companies that I know that are out there….

Recently having used Uber in another jurisdiction, I have to say that it was a very sensible and pragmatic approach to knowing that my ride was arriving and how long it was going to take and what it was going to cost. I hope that we can see these further improvements, in this respect, in the near future.

With that, I look forward to exploring these changes in more detail at the committee stage on this bill as we look at what these changes will look like in practice.

Hon. B. Ma: It is my pleasure to rise today in support of Bill 13 and the work of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

The two proposed amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act, as has already been stated a couple of times in the House…. Since in the House we have a tradition of ensuring that we continue to state things into the record, I will keep my remarks short but also emphasize the importance of this bill.

The two proposed amendments to the Passenger Transportation Act further strengthen passenger safety and the fair treatment of workers. That is, of course, something that our government and, it sounds like, both sides of the House are firmly committed to.

The first amendment is to make permanent the record check review process through which people can appeal decisions. This will ensure that people are not unfairly prevented from driving passenger-directed vehicles like taxis, limos or app-based ride-hailing.

To ensure that the provincial record check requirements comply with the human rights code, the record check review process provides individuals deemed ineligible to drive these passenger-directed vehicles with the opportunity to appeal their ineligibility. The amendment will continue to prevent people from being deemed ineligible due to matters on their driving or criminal record check that are unrelated to their work as a passenger-directed vehicle driver.

In doing so, this process ensures that we’re aligned with section 13 of the human rights code. In addition to promoting fairness for workers, this amendment mitigates the risk of discrimination against a person in relation to their employment.

The second amendment will retain the authority to require all drivers to meet the same record check requirements. This means that it will apply whether they are operating under a licence or a temporary operating permit.

Temporary operating permits provide passenger transportation licensees with the ability and the authority to operate additional commercial passenger vehicles for a set period. These permits allow licensees to temporarily increase their fleet size during peak seasons, special events, as noted by the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, or other temporary increases in service demand.

The second amendment ensures consistency in the passenger vehicle sector. It also prevents workers that may pose a risk to passenger safety from operating a passenger-directed vehicle.

[6:30 p.m.]

These amendments will make permanent the safety requirements that we introduced back in 2019 to modernize the taxi and ride-hail sectors, which would otherwise automatically be repealed in September of this year. With these amendments, we’re protecting both drivers and passengers of commercial passenger vehicles. It is a part of our government’s approach to taking a fair and responsible approach to modernizing the industry and meeting the needs of British Columbians.

Of course, I’m happy to support Bill 13 and grateful to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for his work to continue moving forward and supporting this industry in a fair and responsible manner.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close debate?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would maybe briefly close debate and thank all the members, the legions of members, who participated in this exciting bill discussion here, at the end of our session day, for their contributions.

I would maybe respond to my friend and critic across the way, who made a couple of points about ride-hail and why it has not been extended in his community and, indeed, in my community. I would at least ask him to accept a couple of things in relation to that decision, which was deferred. It was made independently by the Passenger Transportation Board, not by government, based on an economic analysis of how deeply incomes had been threatened by COVID. So a COVID-related decision, which produced an economic-based decision, made by an independent board, not by government.

In fact, our government, of course, allowed and created a legal framework for the ride-hail industry. We had very good parliamentary discussions about that. The Minister of State for Infrastructure was part of that in the last parliament — to look at a made-in-B.C. way to introduce ride-hailing. It’s a technology that has obviously arrived in every country and on every continent in the world. But how do you do that without displacing good family-supporting jobs from an established taxi industry? I think we found that balance.

Indeed, no sooner did we introduce that at the tail end of 2019…. I think it was November or December of 2019. Of course, every member in this House remembers what happened on March 8. That’s when we entered lockdown, and that’s when the COVID pandemic really officially began. We’ve been there ever since, until very recently.

I expect that those decisions are not permanent, that the things that the member opposite would like to see in communities that do not have a ride-hail industry alongside of a taxi industry will…. We’ll see that in the future when it is deemed to be a good time.

Again, I think we have reasons to be optimistic. I talk to taxi drivers. I use cabs occasionally or quite frequently sometimes. They’re certainly looking forward to the cruise ship season, which officially starts April 6, next week, here in greater Victoria. They’re certainly looking forward to concerts at B.C. Place, the Vancouver Canucks having fans in the stands, business conferences, travel. They anticipate a very busy tourism season coming this summer, which is why this bill is additionally important.

Temporary operating permits are generally issued to drivers when there is a surge of business, like in a tourism season over the summer or at Christmastime. We are coming into that period, and we want to make sure….

If we don’t pass this bill, as I mentioned, it will expire, and our ability to have that regulatory power and that passenger safety protection will fade. We want to make sure that the new hiring of drivers that’s inevitably going to occur in regions around the province as we officially get into the busier season is able to happen and that we’re able to enjoy the protections that were originally brought into effect in 2019.

I expect we’ll, perhaps, be able to use that Latin phrase at the end of this debate. We’ll look forward, at committee stage, to additional points. I’ll have more to say at that time, and I’ll welcome questions from the critic.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will move second reading.

Motion approved.

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call second reading, Bill 12.

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 12 be read a second time now.

These amendments will establish a right of rescission, or a protection period, for homebuyers.

We all know that buying a home is one of the biggest financial decisions of a person’s life. In today’s heightened real estate market, it is important that buyers are better protected and have more opportunity to properly consider whether a property is right for them. Increasingly, we are hearing people’s stories about the pressure to make purchase offers without including any conditions that protect their interests, such as financing — making sure they have the financing lined up — or home inspection conditions.

Here’s one comment, emerging from the news, that we heard last week. “Oh my goodness. I know this is a good idea. This is so desperately needed. Buyers need some protections, finally. People around me have been actively searching, for the last year and a half, and some of the offers they have made are so risky. They lose sleep at night because they’ve had to make some extremely risky, stressful decisions to snag a home.”

Another quote. “I have friends. Of course, they wanted inspections. They made offers on over 19 places, and they were denied because they were the ones who had the ‘subject to inspection’ line in their offers. They lost out on so many places. They finally were like: ‘Now we know that we can only go for a place that is not too old of a build, fairly recent, and that we’re taking a significant chance.’”

This legislation that’s before this House, and the regulations that will follow before this summer, will give people buying homes more time to consider their offers, ensure they have financing in place and obtain a home inspection. Instead of feeling like they need to waive these conditions…. During that period, people will have the right to rescind their offer.

These amendments establish the framework for a homebuyer protection period for residential real estate. The parameters, such as the length of the protection period, and the potential consequences for exercising the right to rescind will be established by regulation after the ministry has received advice from the B.C. Financial Services Authority, which has been out there for a number of months doing their consultation with the entire sector.

For this reason, the amendments include regulation-making powers. This will ensure that the framework for the protection period can be flexible. It can adapt to changing conditions in the market and be responsive to what is happening in the market in different regions of the province.

We are a very large province. What’s happening up in the Peace River, what’s happening in the Interior, what’s happening here on the south Island…. They’re very different parts of the province. Making sure that we have the ability to be responsive, to be flexible and to adapt as we need to is part of what’s in this legislation.

We also know, from the consultation work that has been undertaken, that people want our future regulations to be responsive. Those are the questions that we are hearing. What happens when the market changes? What happens when it’s a different market? So I’ve asked the Financial Services Authority to consult on the parameters of the homebuyer protection period — that was several months ago — as well as other consumer protection issues. We did all of this last November.

Those consultations, I understand, have recently concluded. The BCFSA will be submitting their advice to government later this spring to help us build the regulations we need to protect people buying homes, while being able to adapt to diverse market conditions across the province.

This legislation also makes consequential amendments to the Real Estate Services Act to ensure that real estate licensees can be disciplined for contravening regulations made under these amendments to the Property Law Act and to address the circumstances in which money can be withdrawn from a brokerage trust account.

We know that these amendments will not address all of the concerns we are currently seeing in the real estate market. This is why I asked the B.C. Financial Services Authority to consult on a variety of consumer protection issues. However, this is an important step in ensuring that purchasers are protected when buying their homes.

[6:40 p.m.]

In drafting these amendments, we were mindful of government’s obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and these obligations were carefully considered. We’ve done an assessment of this legislation as it relates to aligning with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and have determined that these amendments do not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in the UN declaration.

However, as the amendments do relate to subjects that treaty nations may also make laws about, we did notify Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth, Tla’amin and Nisg̱a’a nations, as required by the terms of their final agreements and in accordance with government policy. Ministry staff will continue to work with First Nations groups during the drafting of the regulations to address any concerns that may arise regarding the creation of this homebuyer protection period.

P. Milobar: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act, 2022. Unfortunately, this bill lacks any real detail for true, meaningful debate around the intent of what is actually trying to be driven at with this bill.

I’ll go into a little bit of detail around that with Bill 12, because it’s important to note that in the early days of the concept of a bill like this coming forward, it was being portrayed by government that this would help with afforda­bility, that it would help with the cost pressures on homes.

As the real estate agents and others have started to look at the consequences of this type of a bill and it became apparent that costs will in fact increase with these types of measures, the minister has swiftly spun the narrative from making this bill about affordability to making this bill about consumer protection — but unknown consumer protections, because everything in this bill will be left to regulation, including whether or not there are regional differences on the rules.

If a bill is truly meant for consumer protection, why is there one set of rules, potentially, for one part of the province for consumer protection on somebody’s largest purchase of their life, for most people, and a totally different set of rules to follow in a different part of the province?

Do people in less populated areas deserve less protection than people in highly populated areas? Does the fact that there might only be two offers on somebody’s home versus 15 offers on someone’s home mean that the two-offer situation should not afford the same protection for those purchasers as the 15-offer bidding war that happens? We won’t know, because that’s all left for regulation.

The reason the opposition is very leery is the track record of this government. Frankly, the Minister of Citizens’ Services has blown away any credibility this government has, for rushing forward legislation that is entirely reliant on regulation after the fact, ahead of studies and recommendations coming forward. If we think back to the FOI bill, it’s the exact same situation as this bill.

Instead of letting a statutory committee do their work and review the FOI Act — as it is mandatory to actually have to do under the Freedom of Information Act — and bring recommendations forward to this chamber for revisions to the Freedom of Information Act, the Minister of Citizens’ Services chose to be evasive and evade and continue to provide non-answers for days on end, on things that we found out, after the fact, were decided 15 minutes after the bill became law.

What do we have in Bill 12? We have the BCFSA working on a report to government. We’re not sure if it’s actually completed and just not being provided by the minister, or if it still has a little bit of refinement to do before it comes forward to government and the minister — and, hopefully, the public at the same time. Instead of waiting for that report to come forward over the next short while, according to the minister, we have a bill full of possibilities of what may or may not happen once the report is delivered.

[6:45 p.m.]

Why the rush? Why not have directed BCFSA to have had that report ready in enough time to have this legislation in front of the chamber before we break for the summer — there are still six weeks left to go in this sitting — and actually have a bill that spells out exactly what the protections will or won’t be, what the rules actually will or won’t be?

As has come to pass with a government that has been awarded the most secretive government in Canada, here we go again. It’s like they actually wear it as a badge of honour — how they rammed through the FOI legislation that left everything up to regulation and avoided and ignored due process and proper flow of information and proper flow of recommendations. That’s exactly what they’re doing with Bill 12.

When you dig into this bill, even though it’s a pretty light piece of legislation in terms of the number of pages, there is really only one section to actually deal with. But when you dig into the possibilities…. In fact, even at our briefing with staff — the professional civil service, who were doing their best to answer our questions — on almost every question we asked, it was: “Well, that’ll be a good question for the minister. We can’t answer that.”

I think that was one of the first briefings I’ve ever had where those were the perpetual answers, and they were in good faith, those answers. They weren’t trying to pass the buck. They weren’t trying to dodge anything. They legitimately can’t answer any of those questions either, because no one knows. Only the minister would know. That’s not an appropriate way for this chamber to actually deal with legislation that can impact people’s ability to buy and sell real estate, their personal home, in British Columbia.

Basic questions around the number of days the cooling-off period would be cannot be answered. Will it be five days, as has been referenced early on by the minister? I believe it was a five-day reference, way back, a few months ago.

When was the last time we heard an assumption being made about things? Oh, right. It was fees for FOIs. Was it going to be $5? Was it going to be $25? Was it going to be $50? I believe the minister said it would be somewhere in the middle, in the $25 range. After weeks on end of refusing to answer questions on what the fee would actually be, lo and behold, it magically became $10, 15 minutes after the bill was passed.

Now we have a bill that’s purported to be for a cooling-off period that doesn’t even have the length of time the cooling-off period will be, because that’ll be left for regulation. That’ll be left for in the future. When a government has built so little trust with the public, when they continually hear that and see this process, it is simply not an appropriate way to bring forward legislation.

Will there be a penalty? We don’t know. That’s left for regulation. If you back out of a sale, will there be a penalty? The staff can’t answer that question. “Talk to the minister,” they say. We’ve just heard the minister say: “That’ll be left to regulation.” No one knows. Can you have multiple offers out there?

Can you have a cooling-off period at the same time by going through four or five different real estate agents and putting offers in on four or five houses — tying up four or five houses for however long the cooling-off period is — and walking away from all of them but one, leaving all those other homesellers sitting in limbo, not in good faith, unable to action them moving themselves to another house?

Most home purchasers are also homesellers. Most are actually already in the market. Most are actually trying to figure out how they can then move and put an offer in on something else. No certainty or clarification in this bill on the ripple effect of what this will create. None.

[6:50 p.m.]

The shocking part is they make it very clear that this is based on what is already out there for presales for condos. Well, there are regulations there. So why not adopt those regulations? Well, it’s likely because basing something on a presale for condos that’s predicated on a home inspection is a little bit different. To even reference that it’s the same or even similar is disingenuous.

For a presale for a condo, you’re looking at a billboard. You might go to a show suite. You certainly don’t need a home inspection right off the bat. You’re buying a concept. You’re putting down a deposit on a concept. Taking an extra few days to decide if you want to back out of that concept is not as impactful, other than to the builder, who needs a certain percentage of home presales to be able to proceed with their development.

That’s all understood. It doesn’t impact you trying to sell your house so you can go put an offer in and buy another house. You’re not doing that with a presale. They’re completely different things. To even try to tie the two together in this bill as the only avenue to try to look towards something in the future is shocking.

In the briefing, we had reference made to: “Well, the U.K. has a model like this.” Well, the U.K. model is a disaster. It can take upwards of four months to see properties change hands. Deals fall apart.

What we have, because we’re left with everyone having to guess what the minister may or may not do with this bill, is somewhere between zero days of a cooling-off period and 16 weeks. Pick a number — dealer’s choice. It simply defies logic how this government can routinely bring forward legislation that is not legislation and what people think legislation really means outside of these walls.

When the general public hears there’s a piece of legislation, they think there’s something to go to that will tell them exactly what is going to happen to the laws in this province. They don’t think they’re going to be able to read a page and a half that continually refers to everything in it being decided by regulation in the future, with no detail. In the real world, outside of these four walls, this is not considered legislation. This is considered a concept paper, with no detail.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Since we’re talking about real estate, imagine going with no detail to your lender to say you want to buy a property for something. “Here’s my concept, but I’ve got no details on it. I can’t tell you how many years I need to pay back the loan. I can’t tell you how much I may or may not need if I back out of the deal. I can’t tell you any of that. Just trust me.”

That’s what this bill is saying. The bill is saying: “Just trust us.” Well, the track record of this government when they say “just trust us” on legislation that’s been rushed, that has not followed proper process and that leaves everything to regulation is that it’s shockingly bad legislation and even worse regulation that starts to flow from it.

It underlines a growing arrogance that this government has — that they can do no wrong, that they think they know best and that they don’t have to actually provide proper answers to anyone.

I see the other committee is here to report out, so I will reserve my right and adjourn debate for the day, noting the hour, and look forward to continuing this tomorrow.

P. Milobar moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Rankin moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.