Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued committee stage on Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training. After that is complete, then it will be the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

The Chair: We are here with Bill 6. We were on clause 27, which is where we will begin, the clean building tax credit section of the bill.

Clauses 27 to 45 inclusive approved.

On clause 46.

[2:40 p.m.]

P. Milobar: This section appears to be all about adding in a whole whack of definitions — well, three, in particular, here — around used cars for future clauses, when we get to used cars being added to sales tax. There’s a definition for appraised value, a definition for average wholesale value and a definition for designated purchase price.

I’m just wondering, in terms of the average wholesale value, which actual valuation book or method will be used in terms of determining how people would get to that. What would be the official document? There are a few different platforms out there to get an average wholesale price off of.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to introduce staff who are here. They rotate in and out depending on which act we’re doing. I’ve got on my right Renée Mounteney. We’ve got David Karp on my left. Grant Nulle is right behind me, and he’s our car guy.

There are three books. There’s the Red Book, the Black Book and the Blue Book. Different provinces use one or a combination of those, and we’re engaging with other provinces to make the determination. That will be done through regulation. It will be one of those, as we continue to do our research to make a determination about what would work best here in British Columbia.

P. Milobar: In terms of commencement date, however, with the changes to the used car taxation regime, what would be, then, the timeline or the overlap of trying to determine when an actual Blue Book, Red Book or Black Book will be used, versus the implementation of commencement of the provisions?

Hon. S. Robinson: This will take effect October 1 of this year, and the determinations in the regulation will be established before that date.

[2:45 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Most of the tools that determine a wholesale value have regional components to them. The price of a pickup truck in Fort St. John is going to have a different value to it for the exact same truck than it will in the capital regional district, because of need and supply and demand and things of that nature with the vehicle.

Will this book that’s chosen be reflective of regional differentials within the province, or is it going to be strictly one valuation, full stop, regardless of where you are in the province?

Hon. S. Robinson: These industry publications that I had mentioned are long-standing. They’re well trusted. Dealers around the province use them because they are consistent. They are trusted, and they are long-standing. Most of the provinces use them as well.

It’s in everyone’s interest to get a consistent valuation, and that’s why we’re turning to these well-used, well-known resources to help establish consistent fair valuations.

P. Milobar: I do recognize that there’s a whole…. Maybe I’ll just give the minister an idea where my head space is going today with some of the questions.

I recognize that there are two or three areas that I’m going to try to concentrate time on — the furnaces, the used cars and a couple of things like that — but they kind of interlap in a whole lot of sections between definitions and other sections. So with a little bit of latitude, I’ll cover them off as best I can in blocks. Then, as we just witnessed, we’ll see a whole bunch of sections move through.

Just to put your mind on ease on that, so we don’t miss anything on the overlap pieces.

I guess, really, at its core, though, with the used car and the regionality of it, to get a better understanding by an online…. It’s understood right now, because used car dealers aren’t part of these changes. It’s just online private sales, is my understanding, with used cars.

I will then go into my ICBC office, and I’ll be required to try to prove, presumably, what the value of my car is. Those online rating wholesale prices give it a good, fair or poor valuation, and then you start getting into price ranges. But there’s that regionality to it too.

Will those wholesale prices be dependent, city-specific? In other words, I buy it online and I need to justify it in the jurisdiction that I’m now registering it at ICBC at that valuation, or is it that I’m justifying it based on a price point that may be in a different part of the province?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: These industry publications each have somewhat slightly different methodologies in their valuations, which is what staff are looking at in order to identify which would meet our needs the best, and the public can easily access these industry publications so that they can make their best valuation about their vehicle.

It is organized by province so they could see within the context of British Columbia, but if somebody doesn’t agree with the valuation, if they don’t believe that’s accurate, then they can go and get an appraisal in their local market and get an assessment that they think might better reflect the value of their vehicle.

Clauses 46 and 47 approved.

On clause 48.

P. Milobar: This section has a whole whack of more definitions, again on section 1 of the Provincial Sales Tax Act. The questions that I have are specifically around the new definitions and changes to definitions around fossil fuel combustion systems.

I’m just wondering. Recognizing this is going to be picked up in some other sections to get that broader concept, what consultation with industry — with groups that would be associated with fossil-fuel-burning devices, combustion systems — did the ministry do leading up to the insertion of the tax changes that would make a change in the tax rate to 12 percent?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member would be well aware that when there are tax changes, we don’t go out and do consultation per se. However, staff did reach out to other ministries, particularly around CleanBC, to research with them around tools that can help change behaviours and purchasing of equipment that would help mitigate climate change and help us achieve our GHG emissions targets. It was with their research, expertise and advice that these decisions were made.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister is aware that B.C. is home to more gas hearth products produced, and has more individuals employed in that sector in B.C., than in any other state or province in North America. In fact, there are over 60 member companies in that industry. They manufacture, sell and distribute hearth products across B.C. and to the outside markets. About 40 percent of gas hearth products sold in Canada are in B.C. There are 3,000 direct jobs and another 7,000 indirect jobs with this industry — which wasn’t consulted.

I ask that because when you read the “Provincial Sales Tax on Fossil Fuel Combustion Systems and Heat Pumps” — the bulletin, the notice that came out — and start looking at how component parts start to be taxed, this piece of the industry has a very real concern on those input costs. The bulletin seems to be written with the thought of a homeowner purchasing a furnace and someone coming to install a furnace, a thermostat and ductwork in your home, but there doesn’t seem to be much thought to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association members, which is the largest in North America for jobs and production, in B.C. here.

Was the minister aware of the significance of this industry to British Columbia when this came forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think back to my previous answer to the member and about what it is that we’re trying to achieve here. A single household switching from a standard natural gas furnace to a heat pump can save over 1.7 tonnes of GHG emissions per year. Supporting folks to make that transition is absolutely critical. We know that all around this province there are industry efforts being made to switch over, making sure that we do our best, as a jurisdiction, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s not an easy task.

I’m waving to the students who are leaving, and I’m sure that they would agree that making sure that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change — I’m getting thumbs up from everybody up there — is absolutely critically important. It’s for their future that we think it’s really important to make sure that they have a climate that is resilient — a climate that they can live and raise their children in and that the Chair’s grandbabies can grow old in. It’s for them that it’s important that we make this transition.

[3:00 p.m.]

Having said that, I know it’s not easy, making change and transitioning to technologies that protect our environment, protect human health. I don’t think I have to say it to folks living in Lytton or the folks in Princeton, the folks in Abbotsford about how critical it is that we make these changes. It is hard.

We are also know, from the data, that there are real opportunities, business opportunities, by making the transition. That doesn’t mean it’s without growing pains. It doesn’t mean that it’s not painful to make the switch. By not making the switch, we know…. How many more lives do we need to lose, how many more farms need to be impacted, how many more roads need to be washed away?

It’s for that reason that we’re trying to support British Columbians to make the change, to reduce their GHG emissions so that the next generation isn’t faced with the challenges that we’re faced with.

P. Milobar: I don’t think anyone, including the industry, is opposed to energy efficiencies. This is about added punitive extra costs that they feel are unwarranted at this time for certain pieces of this.

The minister referenced that they do cross-ministry work and development of this and connect. I’m going to read a little bit out of the letter that I received from the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association of Canada: “The imposition of the 5 percent additional PST on fireplaces occurred without consulting the B.C. hearth industry. From conception to implementation, this punitive and unfair tax was adopted without transparency or due diligence even though the hearth industry was in contact with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation on other issues.” Unfortunately, I guess those two ministries didn’t want to chat about this behind the scenes. “Not one phone call, email or heads-up of any type,” they say.

“Here’s why that’s important. The implementation of a fiscal disincentive while adopting a fiscal incentive for heat pumps shows a complete lack of understanding of the realities of heat pump technology and research on their efficiency, the weather conditions and the realities of ensuring B.C. residents have access to heat. Significant implementation issues exist beyond the initial notice, which has created additional costs and confusion for small business.

“Ambiguity in the legislation and the potential for different interpretations of the rules increase the risk that retailers could be held accountable to different interpretations over time. Any accountant or bookkeeper would have to be a fireplace/heating appliance expert to be able to properly apply these rules.

“Even then, sales would need to be further categorized based on the type of sale — cash, carry, install, repair, etc. Examples: fans. Fossil fuel PST is not charged on fan accessories. So now fireplaces” — remember, they manufacture fireplaces — “that ship with fans preinstalled are being taxed more than fireplaces that ship with the fan as an accessory.”

That’s backed up in the bulletin. It says it right there as an example.

“That means, in many cases, the electronic ignition fireplaces, which are required by legislation to reduce energy use, are being taxed at a higher rate despite legislation and building code and rebates and other directives trying to encourage consumers to choose electronic ignition units for their increased efficiency.

“Fire boxes. Fire boxes come with burners. It would be administratively impossible for those who do know the billing to know if the liner and the log set from brand X are required or not. They may be required on model A but not model B, and sometimes on model C.”

Why was the implementation date on a tax like this not delayed until after it was presented and proper consultation could be done so that the rules could actually make sense to the realities of how one of the largest manufacturing sectors of its kind in North America operates in B.C. but also how these units actually get delivered and get installed?

Another example I have is that a thermostat could be charged zero percent sales tax, 7 percent sales tax or 12 percent sales tax, and that is on the advice of the Ministry of Finance staff to a wholesaler. This seems to be quite a rushed mess in terms of trying to get to the root of what the minister is trying to get at.

[3:05 p.m.]

Is there a willingness to take a step back and get these rules to actually make sense to how the equipment is not only manufactured in British Columbia but actually installed in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: We brought this in on budget day, February 22.The implementation date of April 1, recognizing that we’re trying to balance giving the industry time to adapt and adapt their systems, but also not so much time as to have a run on the old model of taxation…. Again, I think the member agrees that helping move people off of gas combustion is a good thing and using tax as an incentive to help people make the right choice is something that governments often do.

What we have is…. We do have guidance for the industry. I want to remind the member and anyone watching that electric fireplaces are not subject to this additional tax. The member was talking about how various component parts might be taxed differently. But, really, if you’re purchasing a system that uses gas, it is subject to this additional tax, and the idea is to encourage people to move away from those sorts of systems.

Staff are available to help industry make the appropriate adjustments in order for them to be taxing appropriately, given that we are making these changes.

P. Milobar: Well, the budget was introduced February 22. The implementation date’s April 1, but, in fact, it makes very clear that everything has to be held on February 23, in terms of any run on taxation changes. In other words, you can still…. If you can show a valid contract, you can fulfil that without the added tax for something that happened before February 23, actually not April 1. That was already being addressed, and it could have actually been moved out further so that we could have a system that actually makes sense.

Here’s another group. This is the Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Institute of Canada’s letter. This is what they had to say:

“HRAI has been actively engaged with key B.C. ministries responsible for the CleanBC climate action plan since the plan’s inception in 2018. HRAI members understand fully the vital role our industry can play in de-carbonizing homes and buildings as we collectively strive to meet British Columbia’s climate change mitigation targets and those of the entire country.

[3:10 p.m.]

“Our industry has been supportive and we have provided constructive inputs on appropriate tactics for achieving these goals — tactics that ensure better results through industry buy-in. We believe government and industry collaboration is, and will continue to be, essential to meeting the formidable challenges facing the province as it strives to tackle climate change.

“It is very disappointing, therefore, that the provincewould introduce tax measures that affect our sector so directly and so significantly without providing any opportunity for consultation and input. The new measures raise many questions for industry members and will pose some real challenges to implement, especially in the extremely tight time frame provided.

“HVAC contractors in the province, almost all of whom sell both fossil-fuel-based systems and electric heat pump alternatives, will face significant challenges sorting through and enacting the required adjustments to their business systems. Indeed, the hasty introductions of these tax measures risk alienating the very sector that is in the position to act as a constructive partner for the government on its path to a low-carbon future.

“HRAI respectfully requests that the government of British Columbia consider delaying the implementation of these tax changes by six months to allow them to better prepare.”

Again, the industry is not denying that transitions are happening. The industry is not even saying that the tax measures are necessarily a bad thing. What they’re saying is that they weren’t consulted. They’ve been trying to be a partner on climate emission reduction strategies, and now they’ve been ignored, with a tax change that is unworkable right now and punitive to large portions of the province. So they’re pretty clear that they support the overall goal, and they understand the importance of homes on the carbon footprint of British Columbia overall.

Will the minister take them up on their offer of a six-month extension and provide that? And we could amend this today and have the implementation be six months from now.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member knows full well that government doesn’t consult on tax changes. It’s not something we’ve done. It’s certainly not something that was done when they were in government. It’s just not good practice, because it creates this risk of a run on certain products when you are trying to create the shift.

We are, and I want to assure the member, in an ongoing dialogue with the industry, the other ministries as well as my ministry. I have been assured that revenue division is working with the industry to facilitate the transition and that it is a priority for the revenue division to support the industry with these tax changes.

P. Milobar: Well, part of the problem the industry and people have with this change is not the concept of reducing the carbon footprint and not even the concept of further incentivizing heat pumps because there’s already a lot of different incentives out there for a heat pump, but it’s the technology of the heat pump itself in certain areas of the province.

When you have the vast majority of housing units and fossil-fuel-burning appliances located in a part of the province that actually can’t handle heat pumps for that purpose or an electric hot water tank for that purpose, you could still be making significant gains on emission standards, given that the older furnace in Prince George that’s being replaced is still going to be replaced with a much more energy efficient furnace than it currently has — not as obviously as a heat pump.

[3:15 p.m.]

But considering a heat pump in Prince George needs to have a fossil fuel backup heat source to it, as recommended…. Even when you go to a B.C. Hydro webpage, it very clearly says to check with your installer because not all heat pumps work the same in regional weather conditions. They advise that a fossil-fuel-burning backup might be needed.

Given that we could still make some gain on emissions as those furnaces get replaced with a newer technology gas furnace while still incentivizing and making sure that the Lower Mainland and the capital regional district…. It actually maximizes the heat pump technology in the short term — awaiting heat pump technology to improve and get better, as it undoubtedly will. Why are there not regional differences in this tax measure to enable people that live in areas that are simply technologically disadvantaged, because of the heat pump technology, from having severely economically punitive measures taken against them?

It’s not just the tax differential. That’s the small part of the equation. A cold-rated heat pump is around $20,000. It’s two, 2½ times more expensive than the same heat pump to fuel the same house in the Lower Mainland. That’s the punitive nature of this. Then they still would have to have that fossil-fuel-burning backup.

Why was there no regional aspect brought into this measure while we wait for heat pump technology to catch up to the climate of large geographic areas of our province?

Hon. S. Robinson: Heat pump technology continues to grow by leaps and bounds. We now know that people in colder climates in B.C. can benefit from the efficiency and the savings that are associated with the cleaner option. Even the Yukon has been promoting heat pumps. They have said in a quote from the government there that they’re a proven technology that works in Yukon’s cold climate down to minus 25 Celsius.

In Manitoba, as well, there’s a specialist there from Arctic Heat Pumps that talks about covering your heating needs down to minus 30. They recognize that there has been a technological change.

Having recognized that in colder climates, you need a slightly, I’ll say, more sophisticated system, because of the colder climates, we recognize that there are additional costs in those parts of the province that are perhaps colder. That’s why we’ve added $16 million in new top-up incentives specifically for people in colder climates, in northern communities, so that we can make heat pumps affordable for them as well.

We recognize that, and that’s why we have an added incentive to support those living in colder climates.

Clauses 48 to 51 inclusive approved.

On clause 52.

[3:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: This is where we are in terms of determining the price of the motor vehicles. I’m just wondering if the minister can provide more detail.

I go into ICBC. I say I paid $5,000 for the car. Can the minister walk me through the process of how exactly the average wholesale price will be brought into that transaction as the ICBC clerk is processing my paperwork so I can register the vehicle I’ve purchased?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is, of course, for a private sale. If you purchased the vehicle, you would go to ICBC. You would get a transfer form from them. You’d fill it out. You would include the purchase price on the form. The clerk at ICBC would review the form, take a look at the industry publication and compare the price. They would confirm the higher of the two values. I mean, they could be the same price, but if it’s the same price, it’s the same price. That would be the tax on which you would be subject to pay.

I’m going to anticipate the member’s next question, so perhaps I could answer it before he even asks it. If, in purchasing the vehicle, there was a determination that the book value was not adequate, didn’t represent…. Perhaps the vehicle had been in a significant accident and so didn’t really match, and they just chose to go to an acceptable appraiser to get a third-party valuation of the vehicle. That would be submitted with the transfer form. The clerk would take a look at it and make sure that it is from an appropriate appraiser, and that would be the value that you would pay the tax on.

P. Milobar: Well, appraisers aren’t free. You go to a mechanical shop or some other car valuator, and their time is worth something. They’re not going to do things for free. They have a duty that they swear to just like a provincial car inspector — that’s a mechanic licenced to inspect the roadworthiness of a car and sign off on it. They have a certain obligation to deal with things.

Mechanics have an obligation. If they see mechanical failures, they can’t allow it to leave back out on the road. These appraisers and that would have the same duty of care to provide. That doesn’t come free. It’s not easy to necessarily book.

[3:25 p.m.]

I say that because if you go to a car dealer or your car is in an auction house, those ratings of fair and good and mint — or whatever the terminology they want to use for their scaling system to determine the wholesale price of a car — are based on a visual inspection of the car. It turns into a big amalgamation of various…. The same car and model, years and trim lines and everything else, so trim line starts to become important. That’s never on a transfer paper. You don’t say whether it’s an SLE or an SLT or what. That makes a huge difference to a vehicle — a trim line, whether it has leather or not.

There’s a massive differential between what information is on a transfer paper for ICBC versus what would go into a Blue Book wholesale valuation. So we now either have to rely on someone from one of the ICBC offices to walk out and make that judgment call on a car that might not be there, because it doesn’t have to be there to get plates…. How did you get it there in the first place if it doesn’t have plates? It could be in a different town completely that you are insuring before you go pick it up, so you can drive it back to town.

There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of thought put into this on vehicles that, for the most part, are probably $20,000 and less that we’re talking about. More expensive vehicles tend to either wind up on dealerships or tend to be…. The paperwork is more reflective of the value. Why the urgency to do something along these lines when the minister’s own budget book says that it directly impacts low- and middle-income families? There does not seem to be an easy way for somebody to justify the price they paid for a vehicle strictly by the paperwork and a Blue Book.

I would just point out to the minister that my understanding right now is that when people attest to a transfer paper, they’ve attested to the price. There’s already the ability for a government to go back in and to audit if they don’t believe the purchase price. Why are we treating everyone like a criminal and creating a major bureaucratic nightmare based on so many other intangibles that go into the valuation of a car, especially a used car?

A new car is pretty easy to figure out. A used car has every variable under the sun, from how bald its tires are, what its brakes are like, how many scratches, does it have rust or doesn’t it have rust, mileage, you name it. Does the air conditioner actually work or not. None of that would show up on a transfer form.

Why is this becoming so cumbersome to try to essentially capture what some on the government side have said are tax cheats when there’s already an auditing process in place on these forms?

Hon. S. Robinson: The government has been studying this since 2014 and doing the analysis and has been finding fairly consistently, even with the declaration form, consistent purchase prices that are below the wholesale value. It’s been fairly consistent. So looking for ways to make sure that it’s a fair system right across the board…. I also don’t know if the member is aware that we’re the only province that has a sales tax that doesn’t use this system.

[3:30 p.m.]

If all the other provinces have figured out how to make a system fair so that everyone is paying fairly — everyone right across the country is doing it, except for Alberta, where they don’t have a sales tax — I’m sure that we can figure out, as well, how to make it as simple and as seamless as possible.

Clauses 52 to 57 inclusive approved.

On clause 58.

P. Milobar: The last answer from the minister, I guess, just reaffirms what I’ll be saying next. It’s been in the works since 2014, eight years, because it’s not as simple to try to enact something that won’t wind up being bureaucratic and problematic for the public. It strikes me as seeking a problem to a proposed solution instead of the other way around.

These are tough times out there. The timing’s incredibly poor. The minister’s own budget book says that it will disproportionately impact low- and middle-income homes. It says it very clearly on page 91. That makes sense, because vehicles from $20,000 and under would be the bulk of the vehicles that lower- and middle-income families would buy.

It also says it impacts rural areas disproportionately. That makes sense. When I go for a drive in my riding to get to the northern end of it, I don’t pass used-car dealerships anywhere, all along Highway 5. They don’t exist. Everything is done on the online marketplace, on Kijiji — or a sign in a truck window or a car window on the side of the highway, and you make a phone call. They’re not high-end vehicles. They’re just vehicles people are trying to use to traverse large distances in this province.

I do appreciate, though, what the minister said about trying to make things fair and easy and workable. To that end, I would like to propose an amendment to clause 58, section 34. I’ve provided copies to the table, and I’ll await the Chair’s instruction as to how she would like me to proceed.

[CLAUSE 58, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

58 Section 34 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) by striking out “subsections (3.1), (5) and (6)” and substituting “subsections (3.1), (5), (6), and (6.1) and (6.2)”,

(b) in subsection (3.1) by striking out “subsections (5) and (6)” and substituting “subsections (5), (6), and (6.1) and (6.2)”,

(c) in subsection (4) by striking out “Subsections (5) and (6)” and substituting “Subsections (5), (6), and (6.1) and (6.2)”,

(d) in subsection (5) by striking out “subsection (6)” and substituting“subsections (6), and (6.1) and (6.2)”,

(e) in subsection (6) by adding “, other than a passenger vehicle that is a zero-emission vehicle, or a used passenger vehicle as defined in subsection (6.2),” after “a passenger vehicle”, and

(f) by adding the following subsection:

(6.1) The rate of tax payable under sections 37, 49 (6) (a), 50 (2) (a), 51 (6), 52 and 81 to 86 on a passenger vehicle that is a zero-emission vehicle is as follows:

(a) 7% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle, if the original purchase price is less than $75 000;

(b) 8% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle, if the original purchase price is $75 000 or more but less than $76 000;

(c) 9% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle, if the original purchase price is $76 000 or more but less than $77 000;

(d) 10% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle, if the original purchase price is $77 000 or more but less than $125 000;

(e) 15% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle, if the original purchase price is $125 000 or more but less than $150 000;

(f) 20% of the purchase price of the zero-emission vehicle, if the original purchase price is $150 000 or more.

(g) by adding the following subsection:

(6.2) (a) In this subsection, “used passenger vehicle” means a passenger vehicle that has been

(i) previously purchased, and

(ii) driven at least 6,000 kilometers.

(b) The rate of tax payable under sections 37, 49 (6) (a), 50 (2) (a), 51 (6), 52 and 81 to 86 on a passenger vehicle that is a used passenger vehicle is 0% of the purchase price of the used passenger vehicle, if the purchase price of the used passenger vehicle is less than $20 000;]

The Chair: We’ll call a short recess to circulate the copies.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We’re dealing with a proposed amendment, at this time, on Bill 6.

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: This amendment is for clause 58 of Bill 6, section 34. I’ll just read it briefly: “…is amended (a) in subsection (3) by striking out ‘subsections (3.1), (5) and (6)’ and substituting ‘subsections (3.1), (5), (6)’” — striking “and” — “(6.1) and (6.2).” Essentially, what we’re doing throughout it is we’re striking out the word “and,” adding in a new section (6.2), except for in (c), where there is no addition of (6.2). “(e) in subsection (6) by adding ‘, other than a passenger vehicle that is a zero-emission vehicle, or a used passenger vehicle as defined in subsection (6.2).”

[3:40 p.m.]

We’re adding in a section (g) after (f) by adding the following subsection: “(6.2) (a) In this subsection, ‘used passenger vehicle’ means a passenger vehicle that has been (i) previously purchased, and (ii) driven at least 6,000 kilometers. (b) The rate of tax payable under sections 37, 49 (6) (a), 50 (2) (a), 51 (6), 52 and 81 to 86 on a passenger vehicle that is a used passenger vehicle is 0% of the purchase price of the used passenger vehicle, if the purchase price of the used passenger vehicle is less than $20 000.”

What this would do is align that this is now a used vehicle. It would be at the 6,000-kilometre threshold, just as an EV vehicle is being defined as a used EV vehicle. What it would do is set that any vehicle, essentially, under $20,000 in British Columbia, regardless of fuel source to power it, would not have to pay a tax if it was valued under $20,000. This would apply to car dealerships as well as private sales.

It would be a recognition that in these economic times people are struggling to get by. Used vehicles are in high demand as an affordable way to try to move around the province, to try to get on with their daily lives, to try to get to work, to try to get their kids to school and activities and events. It seems to be a much simpler way to be fair, as the minister was saying earlier. Treat everyone fairly. Treat everyone, regardless of geography, regardless of where they may be buying the vehicle — be it in a dealership or be it online through a private sale — with the benefit of being able to purchase that vehicle in an affordable fashion.

I will point out that the average used-vehicle car sale in British Columbia is just under $35,000 — the value of a used car in British Columbia, on average. So by capping this at $20,000, it’s really meant to try to actually help those low- and middle-income families that, as the minister’s budget document points out, would be otherwise harmed by the change to the used-car provisions that the minister was trying to enact within this budget.

Now, I know, given previous sections, 2 to 7 for one, where the ministerial pay raises came into play…. I think in a time like this, within the same document, it would send a very good signal to the public that although cabinet and the Premier were ensuring pay raises within Bill 6, they also actually had some provisions that would help low- and middle-income families in Bill 6 as well.

That’s what this amendment would do. It would enable any car under $20,000 to not trigger provincial sales tax. And let’s remember these are all vehicles that are used, which means they have already paid provincial sales tax at a much higher value at some point in their life.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve certainly taken a look at it. We’ve had several sets of eyes taking a look at this amendment, and it really is a significant policy change, which is not anything that has been analyzed to see what the implications are. No other province has something like this — so it’s very significant — in all of Canada.

There is some concern around this amendment and the potential loophole that it could create, given how it’s written, where someone could have a vehicle that is relatively new, driven at least 6,000 kilometres, but without using book value could just say: “Well, I’m just going to put on the form $20,000, and then you don’t have to pay the tax on it.” So there’s a potential risk of undervaluing a vehicle in the way that they’re reading this particular amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call on Kamloops–North Thompson to close debate.

P. Milobar: Well, we didn’t have anything in this…. In fact, the provision around book value was in previous sections. This doesn’t change the definition of “book value.” So that provision would stay in place. In fact, this is the same….

If it’s a loophole for a combustion engine vehicle at 6,000 kilometres to then be sold as used, I don’t see how that would not be the same, then, for an electric vehicle. The mileage we used was the exact same as the mileage being used for electric vehicles. We don’t take issue with that. That’s why these amendments do not change that.

What this amendment does is it changes the tax rate to zero percent for a used vehicle of any type of combustion or emission source if it’s under $20,000 and has 6,000 kilometres or more on it.

The fact that no other jurisdiction in Canada…. That’s not an excuse not to do something. In fact, I would implore the minister and this government to be leaders in the nation and actually take a bold step to provide affordability for those low- and middle-income people that her own budget book says an added tax on used vehicles will disproportionately hurt.

With that, I look forward to the question being called and the vote. I’m hoping that the government will see their way to support this.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member sort of clarifying the intent. Again, this is a significant policy change, and it’s not something that government is contemplating.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will call the question. Shall the amendment to clause 58 pass?

Division has been called.

[3:50 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 27
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Davies	de Jong	Doerkson
Furstenau	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Paton	Ross
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Wat
NAYS — 51
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chant
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mark	Mercier
Osborne	Paddon	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	Starchuk
Walker	Whiteside	Yao

Clauses 58 to 79 inclusive approved.

On clause 80.

P. Milobar: I thought I tested the patience of the minister yesterday. I might as well test your patience today.

[4:05 p.m.]

This appears to be predominantly around the online marketplace changes and definitions and whatnot. Can the minister just give us a broader overview? There seems to be a lot of confusion out there of when someone would have to charge, whether or not a marketplace seller is anyone or not? So if we could get a general clarification statement, that would be great.

Hon. S. Robinson: What this does is require online market facilitators — these are websites that facilitate transactions, like Etsy or Airbnb or eBay — to collect and remit PST. It actually relieves the seller from the burden of having to make that collection.

I want to make sure and read into the record — and I suspect the member might know this; I don’t know if the folks watching at home might not know this — we’re not talking about Craigslist here. We’re not talking about Facebook Marketplace. We’re talking about online platforms that actually collect revenues. Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace aren’t collecting anything. They’re just making the…. In Yiddish, they call it the shidduch, the match. But then the exchange happens between individuals. This is different when the actual website collects the funds.

[4:10 p.m.]

It does a number of things. It strengthens, certainly, consistency of PST collections, making sure that it’s fair. It relieves the burden from small businesses that are using these facilitators.

This isn’t new. This is an existing requirement. It’s just a way, as well, of levelling the playing field with brick-and-mortar businesses that are charging the PST and collecting the PST, and it certainly catches out-of-province sellers as well.

P. Milobar: Some of the larger platforms, it’s my understanding, like a Facebook Marketplace and others, are tinkering with modelling, piloting — whatever word you want to use — the ability to be that flow-through payment option for the seller and the purchaser. If a Facebook Marketplace developed that as part of their platform, then that would be subject to this tax?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. It’s really hard to judge because we don’t know what they’re going to do. The technology, certainly, continues to evolve and change, and how it gets used evolves and changes. We constantly are monitoring to make sure that we have a…. Tax fairness is a principle, I think, of all governments — making sure that everyone is paying their share. So it’s really hard to comment on the member’s example, because we just don’t know how that would evolve.

Once that changes, we’ll certainly take a look at it and do the analysis to see if it meets some of the requirements that we’re looking at in terms of keeping a level playing field between bricks-and-mortar stores, for example, and understanding, if Facebook is going to be changing, how they facilitate exchanges. We’d have to see exactly how they’re doing that and how resources are collected. It’s really hard to understand when we don’t really know exactly what’s being proposed.

Clauses 80 to 99 inclusive approved.

On clause 100.

P. Milobar: I recognize that we’ve already canvassed this a little bit already. This is around, it appears to me, the Blue Book, Black Book, Red Book — whatever book you want. It starts to sound like a Dr. Seuss in terms of used car sales. Again, there’s a regionality to the pricing that seems to happen, and we seem to be getting some mixed messages here.

Bill 12, I guess, has the potential for regionality in it by regulation. That’s under this minister’s purview. I had asked questions around heating appliances and trying to have some interim regionality to the tax measures so that people in one part of the province’s geography wouldn’t necessarily be subject to different taxes or a different, more punitive taxation regime based on technology availability, or not, for heating their homes. That’s a pretty basic thing to have to do.

Yet when it comes to used cars, it’s very well established — and I think I established that earlier with the minister and she acknowledged — that these pricing models, these blue books, use a regionality to them.

[4:15 p.m.]

Can the minister explain why a regionality for a heating system that’s critical to people having an ability to weather a winter season doesn’t seem appropriate, but a regionality on a used vehicle — when by her own budget book, the bulk of these used vehicles that will be captured are in rural areas — is fair and appropriate?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize that what we’re doing here is creating a floor, a minimum standard for how the PST is to be applied with a minimum consistency across the province. It might very well be that a truck that is purchased in the Lower Mainland might be 40 percent above book value, and the PST will be paid on that price. In the north or in rural British Columbia or another part of British Columbia, that same truck might be sold at the book value, at the wholesale value, and the PST would be paid on that.

It’s just really about creating a floor so that everyone is starting from the same place. There might still be regional differences in how it’s sold. In fact, there is an expectation that most used vehicles are sold at higher than the wholesale value. So again, those regional differences will play out as they might.

I also, just in the comparison that the member was making…. Recognizing that you need different equipment for different parts of the province when you’re heating your home — that makes sense. You might need a truck in rural British Columbia — fair enough. But that same truck might be part of somebody’s use in the Lower Mainland or south Island, and they would be valued based on what the market of that region is. But the wholesale price is just the base level.

Clauses 100 to 102 inclusive approved.

On clause 103.

[4:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: If I can put back on my muni-elected hat from years gone by, class 4 was always a problematic class to deal with in terms of mill rates and things of that nature, depending on how much heavy industry you actually have in your community or not, so I recognize this is about removing that, and it’s supposed to have some sort of an offset.

Can the minister explain, if the offset is intended to be the same, why the need to remove something that seems to have been working reasonably well from 2014 until this year and replace it with something different? Or is it indeed not a true one-for-one change-out of programs?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member asking for the rationale for this amendment. The benefit provided through the industrial property tax credit can be done more simply through setting a lower school tax rate for that class. The industrial property tax credit is a trade irritant that the member spoke to, and creates unnecessary complexity in the tax system. So in Budget 2022, we said that the tax rate for the 2023 tax year would be reduced to offset the loss of the tax credit.

I want to assure the member that this is not an increase. It’s just a simpler way to deliver this. School taxation revenue from the major industry class has been stable under our government, and the effective tax rate is considerably lower than typical municipal tax rates on the major industry class.

P. Milobar: I could always get into this, I guess, a little bit more in estimates, so I’ll just ask the one more question, then, on this. So just for certainty’s sake, can we get a better understanding of what the value of the tax credits were previously, and what the valuation on the mill rate reduction will be for this year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank Genevieve for joining us — one of my staff here to help us through this.

An owner of class 4 property is entitled to a credit equal to 60 percent of the school tax levied in the taxation year on the class 4 property. The member is looking for specific dollar amounts. I’m happy to get back to him in writing. We don’t have those numbers here with us today.

Clauses 103 to 105 inclusive approved.

On clause 106.

P. Milobar: This seems to have a commencement date, if I remember correctly, of November 27, 2018. I’m assuming that was a significant watershed date with the speculation and vacancy tax, but admittedly, I was not paying that close of attention, because I was the critic for the Environment Minister at the time. Can we just get an explanation why, basically, it’s backdated — it’s going back to a new commencement of November 27, 2018?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The amendment ensures that non-B.C. residents who may be eligible for a tax credit maintain the ability to apply for it even if they receive a notice of assessment or re-assessment or after the result of an appeal to the minister near the end of or after the normal three-year application period.

It extends the normal application deadline for the speculation and vacancy tax credit for eligible taxpayers, non-B.C. residents, in certain circumstances. It’s effective as of November 27, 2018, which is the effective date. The effective date makes the change retroactive to the coming into force of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act.

Clauses 106 to 108 inclusive approved.

On clause 109.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the amendment to clause 109 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[CLAUSE 109, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

109 Section 1 of the Tobacco Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 452, is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by repealing the definition of “tangible personal property”, and

(b) by repealing subsection (2) (b) and substituting the following:

(b) in sections 22 (2), 27 (3), 39 (4) (d) and 43 (2) (b).and 43 (2) (b), .]

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess to distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ve got a proposed amendment, I understand.

Minister of Finance.

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is required to correct a drafting error, and it replaces a period with a comma.

Amendment approved.

Clause 109 as amended approved.

Clauses 110 to 122 inclusive approved.

On clause 123.

[4:35 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Being one that’s always curious around consistency of wording myself, I appreciate the grammatical change in the previous amendment by the minister. But it leads me to some questions on a couple of upcoming sections here.

On this one, on clause 123, if I look at the wording, it says: “provides authority for regulations under the specified provisions to be made retroactive.” Then when you go into the actual change, it’s the regulation, the Motor Fuel Act: “on or before December 31…may be made retroactive to February 23, 2022 or a later date.” And if made retroactive, “is deemed to have come into force on the specified date.”

I’m curious, because these are pretty recent dates. Yet the language “retroactive” is used very clearly to demonstrate that it’s something to capture something in the past. Yet when we were debating clauses 2 through 7, which very much dealt with retroactivity — in fact, clauses 2 to 7 comes into effect as of April 1, 2021 — not only is the word “retroactive” not used anywhere in the descriptions, the minister refused to acknowledge it as a concept. So I’m just wondering why, in clause 123, descriptors such as “retroactive” would be deemed appropriate?

Hon. S. Robinson: The Motor Vehicle Act does not provide authority for regulations to be made retroactive. For this reason, specific authority is required. Budget 2022 includes amendments to the motor vehicle tax regulation that require retroactive effect. Specifically, while the motor fuel tax regulation currently allows for annual tax return filing, the annual period is limited to July 1 to June 30. The MFTR, as it’s called, will be amended to authorize tax return filing for an annual period specified by the director or the statutory decision-maker.

Clauses 123 to 128 inclusive approved.

On clause 129.

P. Milobar: So again, there’s that pesky retroactive word in the descriptions as well as in the actual amendment. Again, clauses 2 through 7 dealt with the pay raise for cabinet. No mention of retroactive at all, even though its commencement date is April 1, 2021.

Here we have a regulation in a much tighter time frame, again, being referred to as retroactive. I can only surmise, with the minister’s previous answer, that pay provisions allow for retroactive decisions to be made. I’m sure all of the unions that are negotiating right now on the public sector bargaining table will be interested to hear that in light of what the cabinet did with their pay raises yesterday.

Again, why is retroactive used so regularly on these types of provisions, yet not on ministerial pay raises that took effect as of a year ago?

Hon. S. Robinson: So the exemption for used zero-emission vehicles will be made in regulation, which is how most PST exemptions are made. The Provincial Sales Tax Act does not provide authority for regulations to be made retroactive. For this reason, specific authority is required.

[4:40 p.m.]

Budget 2022 includes amendments to two PST regulations that require retroactive effect in order to enact the used zero-emission vehicle exemption. As I explained yesterday, the holdback provision doesn’t finalize until July or August when the public accounts are reviewed. It’s for the reason that these are completely different things.

Clause 129 approved.

On clause 130.

P. Milobar: Just to correct something, the minister confirmed this, that the pay raise does not rely on public accounts anymore. It’ll probably get processed faster than people waiting for their $110 cheque from ICBC, because the provision for a balanced budget that required the holdback was removed yesterday as well. There’s no need to wait for public accounts because it doesn’t matter if the collective budget is out of deficit or not.

The minister confirmed yesterday that the payments will be out as soon as payroll can start processing them. She wasn’t sure what that timeline was, but it would be in the next short while. So the public accounts have nothing to do with the pay raise that was granted retroactively yesterday to cabinet. Like I say, in all likelihood that pay raise will be out long before people see their $110 rebate cheques from ICBC — long before. We’ve heard that it will be the end of May at best.

I want to make sure that we’re clear, because that was the minister’s answer yesterday. Again, we’re into “retroactive” on 130. I’m just wondering why the retroactive provisions fit 130 but didn’t fit yesterday in clauses 2 through 7, when it relates to a ministerial pay raise that takes effect as of April 1, 2021.

Hon. S. Robinson: I will read into the record about what we’re doing here on clause 130. Exempting heat pumps from PST along with increasing the PST on fossil fuel combustion systems by five percentage points will incentivize, of course, switching buildings from a fossil fuel heating system to a heat pump — which we all know and I think we can agree on — will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, which is something that is really important to all of us. Of course, the PST does not provide authority for regulations to be made retroactive. For this reason, specific authority is required.

I will say that I’m really starting to take significant offence that the member keeps talking about a pay raise when anyone can take a look at what executive council is paid on the website. It’s right there. No one will get a penny more than what is listed on that. I know that the member prefers to characterize it in a disrespectful way that, I think, is not accurate. But I would invite anyone who is listening, anyone who is watching, to take a look on the website. They will see on the website what the pay is for members of executive council, and no one will get anything beyond what is listed on that website.

Clause 130 approved.

On clause 131.

P. Milobar: I am trying to stick to the clauses, but the minister keeps wanting to defend the pay raise, so I’ll just correct one thing. We’re probably going to keep disagreeing on this, but the bottom line is if someone has to change a law to ensure that they get a cheque for more money in their bank account because they’ve changed the provisions of how they get paid — in the real world, that’s a pay raise. That’s how that’s looked at.

I noticed there were quite a few public sector organizations yesterday that took note as well. They are currently negotiating with this minister, so I can see where she’s probably a little sensitive to that. Regardless, the rules yesterday were changed. An extra $5,600 cheque will be coming to cabinet ministers in the next short while after they changed the rules, well ahead of the $110 cheque that residents will expect from ICBC. Again, that was to take effect as of April 1, 2021. As we stand here on April 6, 2022, the minister ahs refused to acknowledge that it was retroactive.

[4:45 p.m.]

Yet here we are again with another clause, with much shorter timelines to this, with the word “retroactive” all over. I think this is the last time that we see “retroactive” in this bill. I’m just wondering if the minister can once again explain to us: “A regulation made on or before December 31, 2022 under section 236 or 241 of the Provincial Sales Tax Act respecting tobacco may be made retroactive to July 1, 2022 or a later date, and if made retroactive is deemed to have come into force on the specified date.”

That is classified as retroactive language and a retroactive clause, yet something that takes force and effect after being passed on April 5, 2022, to commence on April 1, 2021, is not deemed retroactive. I think the public would like to understand the difference between what is considered retroactive by the minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: On clause 131, the reason for this amendment is that if there are any regulation amendments to be made consequential to the removal of the PST exemption for tobacco, it is desirable that these amendments be given effect on July 1, 2022.

The PSTA does not provide authority for regulations to be made retroactive, and because the timing for royal assent on the budget bill is not certain, it’s difficult to predict if an OIC package with consequential amendments, if any are to be made, will proceed to cabinet ahead of July 1, 2022. For this reason, clause 131 provides specific authority to make tobacco-related regulations under the PSTA retroactive to July 1, 2022.

Clauses 131 to 133 inclusive approved.

On clause 134.

P. Milobar: Well, there seemed to be a little ambiguity around sections 2 through 7 on the front end of this, around whether we were dealing with things that were retroactive or not. So I rise to propose an amendment. I believe copies have been made to the table. I can wait to speak to it after it’s been distributed, if the Chair would like.

[CLAUSE 134, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

134 The provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table:

Item	Column 1 Provisions of Act	Column 2 Commencement
1	Anything not elsewhere covered by this table	The date of Royal Assent
2	Sections 2 to 7	April 1, 20212022
3	Sections 12 to 17	October 1, 2022
4	Sections 18 and 19	February 23, 2022
5	Section 22	February 22, 2022
6	Section 27	February 23, 2022
7	Sections 28 and 29	October 1, 2022
8	Section 32	April 1, 2022
9	Sections 33 to 36	October 1, 2022
10	Sections 38 and 39	October 1, 2022
11	Sections 41 to 43	October 1, 2022
12	Section 44	April 1, 2022
13	Sections 45 and 46	October 1, 2022
14	Section 47	July 1, 2022
15	Section 48	April 1, 2022
16	Sections 49 and 50	February 23, 2022
17	Section 51	July 1, 2022
18	Sections 52 and 53	October 1, 2022
19	Sections 54 and 55	July 1, 2022
20	Section 56	February 23, 2022
21	Section 57	July 1, 2022
22	Section 58	February 23, 2022
23	Section 59	February 23, 2027
24	Section 60	April 1, 2022
25	Section 61	February 23, 2022
26	Section 62	February 23, 2027
27	Section 63	April 1, 2022
28	Section 64	February 23, 2022
29	Section 65	February 23, 2027
30	Section 66	April 1, 2022
31	Section 67	February 23, 2022
32	Section 68	February 23, 2027
33	Section 69	February 23, 2022
34	Section 70	February 23, 2027
35	Section 71	April 1, 2022
36	Sections 72 to 75	April 1, 2013
37	Section 76	February 23, 2022
38	Section 77	February 23, 2027
39	Section 78	February 23, 2022
40	Section 79	February 23, 2027
41	Sections 80 to 97	July 1, 2022
42	Sections 98 to 100	October 1, 2022
43	Sections 101 and 102	July 1, 2022
44	Section 104	November 1, 2021
45	Section 106	November 27, 2018
46	Sections 107 and 108	October 1, 2022
47	Section 109	July 1, 2022
48	Sections 110 to 112	October 1, 2022
49	Sections 113 and 114	July 1, 2022
50	Section 115	October 1, 2022
51	Sections 117 to 122	October 1, 2022
52	Section 124	October 1, 2022
53	Sections 125 to 127	April 1, 2022
54	Section 128	October 1, 2022
55	Section 130	April 1, 2022
56	Section 131	July 1, 2022
57	Sections 132 and 133	October 1, 2022

The Chair: Yes, we’ll take a short recess to ensure that all members who want to read the amendment get that chance. This House will be in a short recess.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. We are here with a proposed amendment to clause 134.

On the amendment.

P. Milobar: This is for clause 134, the commencement schedule. There are always two columns, so this is to deal with item 2, column 1, sections 2 to 7. The change is actually in column 2, the commencement date, which would change the commencement date from April 1, 2021, to April 1, 2022.

What this would do is it would give the government the ability to recognize the egregious nature of trying to do a retroactive pay hike for cabinet. It would give, especially, the backbench members — who have undoubtedly started to hear from constituents that people are not too impressed with the way they voted yesterday on their standing vote — time to ensure that retroactive pay hike that was not really discussed or talked about up until yesterday in any meaningful way whatsoever, in fact, not even acknowledged….

Really, it’s not changing any of the other pieces of the legislation that was changed yesterday to ensure that cabinet can receive their 10 percent of pay regardless of what is happening with the provincial finances, as they’ve changed the legislation to ensure that will happen for budget year 2022-2023.

Having a commencement date now match up to the budget book, where this was first mentioned, which was Budget 2022-2023 — it was not discussed for Budget 2021-2022 at all — would actually align things more with what public expectation would be with how people should be conducting — whether or not they want to change the provisions of how they have pay provided to them and the conditions under which salary will be disbursed or not.

It’s a fairly simple amendment. It literally is taking the date, 2021, and making it the more appropriate 2022. It does not touch any of those other issues that we expressed yesterday with the changing of the rules around deficit spending of governments and the waiving of the holdback by ministers. This strictly aligns the date to the budget book that it was referenced in — the budget book that people assumed that change was going to start happening in. It provides better transparency, for once, out of this government on how things are being conducted.

The Chair: The amendment fails, but division has been called.

[5:00 p.m. - 5:10 p.m.]

All right, Members, we’re here for a proposed amendment moved by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to clause 134.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 27
Banman	Bernier	Bond
Cadieux	Clovechok	Davies
de Jong	Doerkson	Halford
Kirkpatrick	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Olsen
Paton	Ross	Rustad
Shypitka	Stewart	Stone
Sturdy	Tegart	Wat
NAYS — 51
Alexis	Anderson	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chant	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Kahlon	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Mark	Mercier
Osborne	Paddon	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Rice
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	Starchuk
Walker	Whiteside	Yao

Clause 134 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to just take a moment to thank staff. I want to thank the member opposite for good questions about significant changes and just the exchange of ideas. I certainly welcome them.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2022

Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2022, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 5:17 p.m.

The Chair: Members, I am going to suggest that we take a short recess to allow staff and appropriate parties to arrive.

The committee recessed from 5:17 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: All right. Members, we are here on Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m happy to be here for committee stage on the Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022. I’d like to introduce my staff with me. With me are my deputy minister, Rick Manwaring; our assistant deputy minister — we are currently sharing him — David Muter; director of legislation, Yimmie Sonuga; and Jennifer Psyllakis, execu­tive director for wildlife.

I don’t need to say anything more. I’ll turn it over to the critic.

J. Rustad: This will be a little bit awkward. I apologize for not being able to be in the Legislature here today as we go through the starting process of Bill 14.

Bill 14, although it is not a lengthy bill…. There is a lot to this bill that needs to be discussed around this. Wildlife in British Columbia is, of course, as the minister said in her opening statements, something that is unique in that all people in British Columbia have a unique relationship with it. It’s not just First Nations. All people view wildlife so importantly in this province. I think it’s why we do need to take some time, going through committee stage on this bill, to understand the intent of what the minister is trying to do with this bill.

I was born and raised in British Columbia, as the minister was, and served in the Legislature for, I think, the same length of time that the minister has, and wildlife is something that has always come up as a topic, as an issue. But quite frankly, we have seen it in decline, particularly the ungulate species in decline, for many years now. The only thing that seems to be doing very well these days is predators, which, of course, are on the increase. There certainly seems to be a bit of a relationship there.

With Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act, we seem to be veering away from provincial management to wildlife and allowing for more individual management within areas. I find that particular component troubling for that reason, because provincial jurisdiction over wildlife, over the environment and wildlife, is something, I think, that is very clear.

Even through treaties and what have you that have been created in the province, it’s always been very clear [audio interrupted] that there are provisions to allow for the hunting, to allow for the harvesting. But the responsibility around it and the rules around it need to be laid out by the province.

[5:25 p.m.]

I’m wondering, as we go through this and look at this bill, and as we get into the section-by-section on this bill, how that sort of overlay fits within the context of Bill 14.

When I think about, of course, the issues associated with this, I do want to reflect a little bit on a bit of history that the minister and I have had in this Legislature, because I think it is relevant for going through Bill 14.

Going through two bills last fall that the government used closure to push through, I found the minister’s answers to be, quite frankly, somewhat evasive and elusive in terms of how the minister went about trying to answer questions. That, of course, created a bit of frustration as we went through the process, because I had to ask the same question three or four times just to get a simple answer. Even then, I had to deduce what the answer was from what the minister was trying to say.

I’m not sure if the minister was intentional in the way of answering the questions — to be that way — but certainly, that’s the way it has come across. That’s the way it’s come across in estimates as well, as opposed to straight-up answers: taking long periods of time to be able to answer questions and then to be able to put forward answers that, quite frankly, bordered on nonsense at times.

My hope is to be getting….

The Chair: Member, there’s no need to try and be offensive to other members. Let’s just try and keep focused on the legislation, please.

J. Rustad: Thank you for your guidance, hon. Chair.

It is important, though, because there are some very important values that we need to be talking about, associated with Bill 14 — very important values, and answers that need to be clear. There are a lot of people around this province that are very concerned about wildlife. We held a virtual town hall last week on wildlife where we had, I think it was, 200 or 300 people who attended and raised a lot of questions around wildlife.

They want to hear clear answers. They don’t want to have to decipher through answers that are partial or not clear. So that’s the reason, in terms of raising those issues, in terms of the process that we’ve gone through and that we’ve gone through in this Legislature in the past and that we want to be taking here at the moment for Bill 14.

As we get into, like I say, the meat of talking about Bill 14, it does make me wonder a little bit about what the minister’s intentions are in terms of this process, whether we’re going to be going through a deciphering process once again, or whether we’re actually going to be able to get to the meat of some answers so that people can understand what the intention of the government is on Bill 14.

As the minister knows, we voted in opposition to Bill 14 at second reading because there are a lot of issues with this bill in terms of the structure, in terms of how it’s written and the components that I think are in this as we once again go into the section-by-section piece of the bill.

But I do want to share with the minister that I do agree with her about the values of wildlife. As I’m fortunate enough to be able to come in by Zoom here, I’m sitting at home. I’m looking out at the yard, at the lake that I happen to be so fortunate to live on and all the wildlife that I get to enjoy around here. You have a connection. People have a connection with that wildlife, particularly people in rural B.C.

This is why I think so many people wanted to be part of that town hall — because they have that connection. They have the connection not just for viewing the beauty of wildlife and appreciating the wildlife that is such an important component of British Columbia but also because it’s a food source for many, many people. This is their grocery store — being able to go out and hunt, being able to help put food in the freezer, being able to not have to go to the store, being able to rely on food that is, in many people’s opinion, healthier than what you can find in a grocery store.

When we look at wildlife and wildlife management through this bill, and the components that are in here, it does make me raise those questions about how everyone fits in to their right to be able to hunt and to fish and to feed their family in this province.

[5:30 p.m.]

How do we make sure that rules for wildlife and wildlife management can be followed and can be followed in the way that helps to sustain the wildlife populations; that helps to make sure those wildlife populations are reported on, in terms of harvesting; that helps to bring everybody together for the better management and, most importantly, bring people together to understand the decisions that are made, how the funding is allocated, where the [audio interrupted.]

I know the minister has talked about this with Together for Wildlife — I believe that’s what it was called — a group put together to discuss in great detail many wildlife issues and discuss that in great detail over a number of years now, as this government is now coming up on its sixth year of being in power.

That leads me to my first question about wildlife and about wildlife management and, in particular, about this bill, which is: as this bill was being put together, exactly how did these proposed amendments in this bill come about?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There has actually been extensive engagement prior to this legislation coming forward, the amendments to the legislation. It started in 2018 with the First Nations-B.C. Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Forum, which I will just refer to as the forum through the rest of this discussion with the opposition. The discussion engagement was with the forum, and the forum put forward that these were the key amendments that they wanted to see in this bill. That was in 2018.

There was an intentions paper that came out of that discussion with the forum. From that intentions paper, which talked about the three main issues, which are amendments that are part of this bill, there was further consultation done.

That consultation was done with the public, with stakeholders, with the minister’s wildlife advisory committee, again with the forum, with the First Nations Leadership Council, with individual First Nations. It included stakeholders like the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Guide Outfitters of B.C., the provincial hunters and trapping advisory team, the B.C. Trappers Association, the United Bowhunters of B.C., the Wildlife Stewardship Council. There are a number of others.

The amendments to this bill were going to come to the House in 2020. There was an election and an interregnum, so the drafting had started. Then the drafting carried on in 2021, with more discussions with the minister’s wildlife advisory committee and again with the forum.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that. There is, obviously, the process it goes through. I understand clearly from my opportunity and my time in government that when issues are discussed, they’re usually on a very broad term as opposed to specific terms.

There are components in this bill that we will get into in some detail, in particular the components about clause 3, as we get into it, which is to do anything that is prohibited or to omit to doing anything that is required under the act. Those are provisions, I think, that I find it very difficult to believe would have been put in front of the organizations that the minister had engaged with. Those are very specific details and go completely outside of the Wildlife Act and good wildlife management.

All of those organizations — particularly the Wildlife Federation, the guide-outfitters, the trappers — value science-based management, value making sure that information is collected and value making sure that wildlife is managed to standards. Those particular clauses do not speak of that.

I’m curious whether or not this entire bill was put in front of the groups that the minister has just mentioned, or whether the concepts of the bill…? As we said in second reading, the concepts of this bill are fine. This is something First Nations have done forever.

[5:40 p.m.]

Certainly, when I’m talking to First Nations…. They have agreements that go in place where they allow other First Nations, other individuals from other First Nations, to come in. They have these agreements in place, where there’s reciprocal agreements or otherwise, between families and between clans that allow for the type of thing that’s described in this bill.

Clearly, I don’t think that would be an issue, and I don’t think, quite frankly, anybody else would have an issue with that, because that has been done historically. But it’s the details, quite frankly, that I find troubling, and I’m sure other organizations, certainly when I speak to them, found troubling. From my understanding, they didn’t see what was in the bill in terms of those kinds of details.

So when I think about the process that the minister went through associated with this — with going through and discussing wildlife and, in particular, discussing this act — I’m hoping that the minister could go into a little more detail, before we get into going clause by clause, in terms of the clauses that were built in this bill and whether or not it was the concepts in general or whether there was more detail that was provided to organizations.

I say that in particular because I also have spoken with a number of First Nations that conceptually, of course, agree with it. This is something that’s been done. But they would have some challenges and issues, I think, in terms of interpretation of how this was structured. I often wonder whether or not the details of this bill were actually put before many First Nations in terms of the structure of it.

Perhaps if I could indulge the minister to expand on the process that was undertaken — in particular, how the details of this bill were developed and discussed, both with First Nations as well as with hunters and other people that are very concerned about wildlife management in the province.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The details of the intentions paper, which has got all the information and all the consultation was derived from, was broadly available to everyone. It was publicly available for discussion. When the actual bill was drafted, a letter was sent out to all First Nations and also to treaty nations. If they wanted more discussions, they requested it, and the nations that did request that had discussions with staff on the specifics of the bill. The drafting is consistent with the intentions paper that was publicly shared with everyone that I had referred to in my previous comments.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that. The minister did not answer the question specifically that I was asking, which was really around this clause of being able to do anything that is prohibited under this act “or omit to do anything that is required under the act.” Those specific clauses — were those components of this bill?

Like I say, we’ll get into talking about that when we get to clause 3. But once again, I just find it troubling that those specific components would have been out to organizations such as the Wildlife Federation or the Guide Outfitters or the Trappers or Wild Sheep or any of the other groups concerned about wildlife and wildlife management that would have seen that.

I understand that there may not have been opposition to those particular clauses or even concern about those specific clauses within some of the First Nations. But when we’re talking about wildlife management in British Columbia, the key to wildlife management is being able to follow the rules to make sure that there is accurate reporting so that harvest levels can be set, so that animals can be managed appropriately, so that decisions by government can be made. Of course, then limits can be put on and put in place for the management of wildlife and the good management of wildlife.

It’s troubling to think that there are rules in the Wildlife Act that don’t need to be followed by people in British Columbia. I fully understand section 35 of the Constitution and the Indigenous right to hunt and to fish for sustenance and for cultural values. I fully understand that, and that is good.

The Chair: I don’t mean to interrupt you, Member. I’m just hoping you can help the Chair understand the connection to the current bill and clause 1 in your remarks. I’m not as aware of the file as either the minister or the critic, but if you could help the Chair, that would be helpful.

[5:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Sure, hon. Chair. This is a bill that is responsible for making changes to the Wildlife Act. Wildlife and wildlife management are critical components on that. The discussion here, from my understanding, is that I have some time to frame up questions in terms of this act and in terms of the components of wildlife and in terms of this.

As we are about to go into the sections, I’m trying to understand, from the minister, the extent to which the minister has engaged with people, with the public and even with First Nations around what is actually in this bill and the ramifications of those components.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Member. It was just the specific connection to clause 1, because the member was jumping around a bit. I just wanted to make sure that if questions were going to be asked about later sections or clauses in the bill, that they’d be appropriate at that time. Please, continue. Thank you, Member.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was referring to the components in clause 3 as an example of information that is critical — in terms of how this bill was framed up and engaged out in the public and brought forward to organizations — to try to judge the level of engagement that the minister has had going into this bill before we get into the discussions on the clause.

To that extent, I mean, obviously, there are 204, roughly, First Nations in British Columbia. The number, of course, is larger. We’ll get into that in a minute, in terms of clause 1, in terms of [audio interrupted].

But I’m curious, in terms of when the minister talked about the B.C. wildlife engagement group that handled that with First Nations, to what extent or what number of First Nations were involved in that and whether or not, as a part of that discussion that went out to broader First Nations, other than just an email notice that went out…. How was that sort of engaged?

I do know, my time in government, when we did engagement with First Nations, we would often invite many First Nations. We would have some that would attend and some that wouldn’t. We’d do our best to get out and engage. Then, of course, we used the proxies, in terms of our leadership council and the various organizations and suborganizations that are part of that.

Once again, to the minister, specifically on those things that I mentioned in the later component of the bill on whether or not those components were put in front of organizations outside of First Nations, in terms of the bill, for any discussion, and whether there was any feedback on those components as part of how this bill was drafted.

Then if the minister could also touch on the number of First Nations that were directly engaged and part of that process that the minister described in terms of this. I think she was going to refer to it as the forum.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I’ll remind the member that I’ve already read into the record the consultation with stakeholders. It was considerable. As well, this paper, the intentions paper, was co-developed with over 40 nations. Everything that we received from all 204 nations that were reached out to, and the treaty nations, as well, was taken into consideration in developing the amendments to the bill. The policy intent from the consultation that we received, the work that was done, was part of what was used to develop the amendments to the bill.

[6:00 p.m.]

Again, this bill was co-developed with First Nations. This bill was put on the order paper because the Wildlife Act has not been…. There have been no changes to the Wildlife Act since 1966. There was no recognition of Indigenous rights in the Wildlife Act.

It was time to bring the Wildlife Act into the 21st century. The few amendments were done in co-development with Indigenous nations and were done to ensure that we are recognizing Indigenous rights in the Wildlife Act.

J. Rustad: The minister continues her pattern, I see. Unfortunately, once again, she did not answer the question about those two sections in the act that were put to the broader group that the minister had talked about engaging with.

It’s unfortunate, because when we’re talking about wildlife management, there are a large number of people around the province that are very concerned about wildlife, the decline of wildlife and the restrictions that we have seen to hunting because of declining ungulate populations in many areas around the province. And that’s why….

The Chair: Minister.

Sorry, Member.

Hon. K. Conroy: I think this bill is about Indigenous rights in the Wildlife Act. I would appreciate it if we could ensure that we are referring to those in the clauses as we continue on a clause-by-clause basis.

The Chair: The Chair will take that under advisement. I don’t think it was quite a point of order, but of course, relevance to the act is important.

Member, please proceed.

J. Rustad: I agree entirely, hon. Chair. I apologize if the minister feels frustrated, but that’s the way people feel around the province with the way wildlife has been managed in this province.

In particular, what I can say in the context of framing up questions for Bill 14…. It’s important to understand how this bill was created, who was engaged, and, in particular, what components of the information that is in this bill [audio interrupted.]

There are very specific components that I brought forward here, asking about whether or not the groups that the minister had talked about were engaged with those components, whether they saw a copy of this bill and whether they agreed to the information that was in this bill as part of how this bill was developed and created. That’s why I’m going on about this at the beginning of the bill. It’s important to understand what went into the creation of these clauses once we get into the questions on a clause-by-clause basis.

But perhaps…. You know, the minister talked about Together for Wildlife and the importance that had and the broad components that went out there as part of engaging the broader constituents around the province for wildlife and wildlife management. I commend the minister. That’s an important component: getting everybody together, getting everybody as part of developing changes to wildlife policy, changes to the act, as we’re seeing here in Bill 14. It’s important to be able to have that.

Perhaps, as this bill was being developed…. I’m sure there were principles. I have read the Together for Wildlife paper. I’m sure there were principles that were key pieces that were put on the table, that were components that led to the development of Bill 14. For example: sustainable wildlife, habitat, these types of things, issues like reporting.

If the minister could set some context in terms of the development of this bill and perhaps read into the record, for those who have not had an opportunity to read Together for Wildlife or the intentions paper: what were the key components that led to these changes that we’re bringing forward in Bill 14?

I understand that Bill 14 is about Indigenous rights to hunt. They have been well defined in the court system as well as through First Nations history and their practices. I understand that well. I understand that, certainly in the context of section 35.

[6:05 p.m.]

But beyond the principles of Indigenous rights to hunt and those components that were going in here, what were those guiding principles that the minister put in front of those groups which led to the feedback, I’m sure, which was part of the development of Bill 14, and, in particular, those components around that wildlife management, as I’ve been asking about in previous questions?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the Wildlife Act has not been changed to address Indigenous interests since 1966. The static nature of the Wildlife Act conflicts with the recognition of the inherent rights of First Nations people as articulated under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982. The proposed amendments also support the province’s commitment to the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and early steps designed to complement the Declaration Act.

The proposed amendments add a provision regarding the obligation of decision-makers under the act to consider relevant Indigenous knowledge. They add provisions governing the confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge, and they add a provision authorizing the minister responsible for the act to enter into agreements with First Nations or groups of First Nations in B.C. regarding sheltering, a traditional practice whereby a host First Nation permits members of another First Nation to harvest wildlife within the host’s treaty area or traditional territories.

This is a first step in changing the Wildlife Act, and we felt, as a government and a ministry, that it was critically important. Obviously, the ministry has been working on this since 2018, to change the act to recognize Indigenous rights.

J. Rustad: Unfortunately, I guess this is going to be a rather lengthy process, as that was nowhere close to the question that I actually asked, although I do appreciate the minister’s direction in terms of that. I am in agreement that the Indigenous rights to hunt, as have been defined through the courts and through the creation of section 35, which is that Indigenous people have rights, including title, which was put in there…. When section 35 was created, it was defined as being an empty vessel of law, which the courts would fill and which the courts have been filling ever since 1982, in particular with regards to the rights to hunt and the impacts on that.

I’m actually happy that the Wildlife Act is being updated to be able to reflect that, because I think the courts have been fairly clear, to date, in terms of definitions for those rights, and so the act, of course, is now more reflective of where the courts have already defined those rights to be for First Nations.

[6:10 p.m.]

The point of the question I was asking is…. The minister talked about Together for Wildlife. It was the foundation that then created the intentions paper, which then has led to these changes in Bill 14.

Perhaps I can give the minister another opportunity to be able to provide and to read into the record the values that were in Together for Wildlife and that led to the intention paper that led to Bill 14, so that we can understand the framework that the minister is working on in terms of wildlife, wildlife management and how these modifications to Bill 14 fit within those objectives which have been laid out and well-canvassed and engaged with the people across the province of British Columbia.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m a bit surprised by the member’s request. I know the member is well aware of the visions and the principles of the Together for Wildlife and the work that was done on it, improving wildlife stewardship and habitat conservation in British Columbia.

The one that is really related to this bill, which is what we’re discussing here today, is on reconciliation, where we are committed to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples to support wildlife stewardship and access to healthy wild foods. That’s critically important. As we go clause by clause, we can get into the debate on the specific issues.

This is a very short bill. There is, for all intents and purposes, three principles that we have brought the amendments in. Amendments that were co-developed by the forum — by the Indigenous forum, the First Nations forum. I believe that we should get into the clause-by-clause discussions.

[6:15 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I think it’s the job of the Chair or perhaps the critic in terms of how we advance in the bill, but I do appreciate the minister’s comments with regards to this, and I agree in those principles.

The minister just mentioned a couple of the components in the Together for Wildlife that were really out there and which were key components, and it attracted many people to be engaged, which is good wildlife management, stewardship of the land. And there are components in this bill which I think are contrary to that, which is why I asked the minister for those principles that went into the development of this bill. But we will get into that more as we get into other sections of the bill.

Just for reference, the minister mentioned a number earlier, and I just want to be clear so I’ve got that in my mind. When the minister talked about the forum that was put together for the B.C. wildlife management discussions with First Nations, I think she mentioned 40 First Nations.

Can the minister just clarify: was that 40 First Nations that were involved all the way through? Was that different nations that came and went? Was that a subsection of those 40 that were ultimately part of developing the framework that ultimately developed this bill? And were they directly involved in the actual drafting of the bill, or did they just give advice afterwards?

Hon. K. Conroy: There were 40 nations that were involved in the co-development of the intentions paper which the amendments were developed from. After the bill was developed, any nation who asked to have input, had input.

J. Rustad: If I could just ask a quick question. How many nations asked to have input into the bill?

Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t have the exact number, but we can get it for the member.

J. Rustad: One reason for asking that question is that there are obviously, with 204 nations in the province, a lot of varying interests and a lot of varying concerns that come up between various nations. They’re not always on the same page. But I also think that in many cases, many First Nations do not respond simply because they’re overwhelmed with so many other issues that they’re facing within their nation, whether it’s local issues or whether it’s provincial issues or other development pressures that are on the land base.

With that…. We’ll get into this in the other section, but I’m just curious, in terms of the overall drafting of this bill, whether or not there have been any existing agreements, that created the foundation for this bill, between First Nations — whether there was anything in writing that had been done before, and whether the minister could provide any examples that were used that helped to be the foundation of the development of this bill.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: If the member is asking if there were any existing agreements that were the basis of the amendments in this act, the answer is no.

J. Rustad: At this time, I’d like to turn it over to the member for Vancouver-Langara, who has got a couple of initial questions before we get into clause 1.

M. Lee: I just wanted to turn, if I may, to the Together For Wildlife document. Let me just ask, first of all, when the minister refers to an intentions paper, does she mean this document, or is there a more specific intentions paper relating to the amendments under this act?

Hon. K. Conroy: There is a more specific intentions paper related specifically to this act.

M. Lee: Is it possible to get a copy of that paper?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, it’s publicly available.

M. Lee: Under 2.6 of the DRIPA action plan…. Can I ask the minister how these particular amendments fit within that particular action, under the DRIPA action plan?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We just need some clarification, because 2.6 is quite a broad section in DRIPA. We just need to have some clarification on what the member is actually referring to in relation to this bill.

M. Lee: Well, we can park that question for a moment, perhaps, and ask a more specific question. When I look at the Together For Wildlife paper that was circulated by your predecessor back in August of 2020, there’s an action there, action 12, which refers to: “In 2021, we will review the Wildlife Act and make recommendations to address priority issues such as reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.”

Perhaps I could ask: is this set of amendments the totality of what the government is coming forward with in respect of the review of the Wildlife Act as it goes to addressing priority issues such as reconciliation with Indigenous peoples?

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: These are the first amendments of the Wildlife Act that were asked for by our Indigenous partners. They asked for these key amendments. We will be looking at further amendments to the Wildlife Act, and we will be starting broad engagement on those further amendments to the Wildlife Act within this year.

M. Lee: Has there been an intentions paper released regarding the further amendments?

Hon. K. Conroy: No.

M. Lee: How will the process go, though, in terms of involving others in this province with respect to understanding those proposed amendments?

The Chair: If I might remind the member, we are here on Bill 14, not a future bill. It’s Bill 14 that we’re here to discuss.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m just trying to understand the context in which this proposed bill is coming forward and how the minister is meeting the requirements that are set out under the DRIPA action plan and action 12 of the Together for Wildlife strategy. I’m just trying to get the understanding.

I know, in the earlier discussion between the member for Nechako Lakes and the minister, there was quite a bit of discussion that this is for First Nations and Indigenous peoples.

I think that this is part of the challenge to understand the overall context of how this minister is coming forward to deal with what they had telegraphed they would be doing back in August of 2020. The minister has reviewed, at length, the history as to how we got to this bill at this time.

I would have thought that over the length of time that this government has been at this, trying to review the Wildlife Act, trying to meet action 12 of their paper…. They demonstrated to British Columbians, back in August 2020, that there would be meaningful progress and understanding of what the minister has referred to as three simple amendments.

Three simple amendments in the absence of understanding the overall context of what’s being presented is a challenge. Both for Indigenous peoples and First Nations, in terms of what is trying to be accomplished here, I think it’s important that we understand the overall context and how this proposed bill is fitting within the overall strategy of the review by this government of the Wildlife Act. I think, as members here on this side of the House have spoken to on second reading and the member for Nechako Lakes has talked about at this committee stage, there is real lack of clarity as to how this all fits together within the Wildlife Act.

That, Mr. Chair, is the reason why I’m asking what the rest of this process looks like in terms of the review by this ministry of the Wildlife Act and what we can expect on the scope and the scale of proposed changes. Again, action 12 does refer to the fact that there will be proposed changes that will contribute to wildlife stewardship and support strong, innovative and sustainable local communities, which is exactly what the member for Nechako Lakes just spoke to: the importance of supporting strong, innovative and sustainable local communities.

I think that balances what we’re trying to accomplish here in having a better understanding of the clarity behind this bill, which I think is lacking on a variety of fronts that we’ll explore here through the committee stage. I think it’s important to find the right level of balance with Indigenous peoples. We understand the objectives behind the bill, but that’s really the reason why I’m asking the question.

Hon. K. Conroy: We are here on committee stage on Bill 14. The proposed amendments in Bill 14 are to add a provision regarding the obligation of decision-makers, under the act, to consider “relevant Indigenous knowledge,” to add provisions governing the confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge, to add a provision authorizing the minister responsible for the act to enter into agreements with First Nations or groups of First Nations in B.C. regarding sheltering, a traditional practice whereby a host First Nation permits members of another First Nation to harvest wildlife within the host’s treaty harvest area or traditional territory.

[6:35 p.m.]

These amendments were co-proposed, co-developed by Indigenous partners. This is what they asked for. This is the very first step to the changes to the Wildlife Act.

We are here to debate and discuss the amendments to Bill 14. We are not here to discuss or debate future amendments. We have not done the consultation on that yet. That is coming.

It’s critical to say that these are the key amendments that Indigenous nations asked us to bring forth. They started this discussion back in 2018. These are the key amendments that were brought forward. There was a delay in bringing them forward because of the 2020 election and interregnum. Then staff got right back to work on it and developed the legislation so that it could be presented as such, and that is what we are debating here today — Bill 14 with these proposed amendments.

The member said I said three simple…. They’re three amendments which are very important to Indigenous nations in this province. They’re important to recognition as we move forward, and that’s what this bill is about.

M. Lee: Certainly, my understanding of what the minister said earlier to my colleague from Nechako Lakes was…. We can check the specific wording that was utilized.

Certainly, I recognize the importance of these amendments. I’m not suggesting that they’re not important. I thought I heard earlier…. It was suggested that they were simple amendments. That’s my concern. My concern is that in the absence of knowing the overall strategy and review by the government…. They’re proposing three isolated amendments, separately from the overall review of the Wildlife Act, which is something that the government has said they would be doing in 2021. Now, of course, we’re midway through 2022.

Let me just say that in terms of section 2.6, in terms of the DRIPA action plan…. It uses wording which indicates, again, by agreement with First Nations, I would expect — addressing the cumulative effects and respects Indigenous knowledge.

The minister just referred to that term, which is a term that we will get to in the context of this bill. That’s certainly picked up under section 100.2, Mr. Chair, in clause 3. I know that you would prefer that we talk about those sections at the time we are coming to them.

Just by way of my question that I was asking earlier…. When we’re talking about the framing of this bill coming forward and my reference to 2.6 in the DRIPA action plan, it does use that term, which is also capitalized, initial capped, “Indigenous knowledge.”

Again, what specific element of this particular bill…? I’m just trying to get that understanding. Bill 14, for the minister, is an effort to meet the action plan, section 2.6.

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I did ask the member exactly what clause, what he was referring to in 2.6 of the Declaration Act is pertinent to Bill 14. I can tell the member that when we get that answer…. We will probably get it in the clause-by-clause section, and when he refers to it in whichever clause that it refers to within the bill, then I’ll be happy to answer it.

M. Lee: Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, I’m not referring to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, DRIPA. I’m referring to the DRIPA action plan, action 2.6.

Hon. K. Conroy: Then sorry for that. I have the same question. What exactly, as part of that plan, is he referring to that relates to this bill?

M. Lee: Under action 2.6 of the DRIPA action plan, the words start with: “Co-develop strategic-level policies, programs and initiatives to advance collaborative stewardship of the environment, lands and resources that address cumulative effects and respects Indigenous knowledge.” Is the minister suggesting that that action does not apply to this Bill 14?

Hon. K. Conroy: The scope of this bill is not around cumulative effects.

M. Lee: Well, I know that this action plan is new, and I know that it was two-and-a-half years in the making. It was obviously just tabled on a historic day that we all commemorated last week — a week ago today, actually. But the wording talks about co-development, and again, the minister has stressed that this bill has been co-developed.

Policies to advance collaborative stewardship of land that respects Indigenous knowledge. I am parsing through the language of the first sentence of 2.6 as a specific action under the DRIPA action plan. Again to the minister: does Bill 14 address that particular action in the DRIPA action plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: I would let the member know that this is actually an estimates question and bears no relation to this bill.

M. Lee: Obviously, the member for Nechako Lakes did take some length of time to go over the challenges of dealing with bills of this nature. I haven’t had the same opportunities as he has had with the minister, but I understand what he means. I would have thought that after commemorating the action plan, this would be an easy question to answer. But presumably, there is some challenge here to address whether something that’s plainly on the face of the DRIPA action plan….

[6:45 p.m.]

This is important to understand. Again, the minister did refer to the act itself. I know that I don’t need to remind the minister that the government is obligated under DRIPA to use all means necessary to ensure that the laws of British Columbia are consistent with UNDRIP.

The action plan in section 2.6 is — at least in my view, and I’m just seeking confirmation of this — the way that this government will want to ensure that when we’re talking about the stewardship of the land with respect to Indigenous knowledge…. I would have thought that Bill 14 speaks to that.

I’m only seeking confirmation that that is the case so that we understand how the government is proceeding with 2.6 of the DRIPA action plan. That, in my view, is not an estimates question. That is a question that’s specific to the bill that’s on the floor of this assembly.

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just clarification for the member. The bill was actually tabled before the declaration action plan was tabled in the House. But I want to commend our staff, because they had the foresight to bring this bill forward. They had the foresight to recognize that what they were doing was important amendments that Indigenous peoples were asking for.

Again, to add a provision regarding the obligation of decision-makers under the act to consider relevant Indigenous knowledge had never been in the bill before. Decision-makers needed to understand and consider that relevant Indigenous knowledge, which had not been done before. Now they have to, once this bill passes. Added provisions governing the confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge — never been recognized in a bill before.

Added a provision authorizing the minister responsible to the act to enter into agreements with First Nations, or groups of First Nations, in B.C. regarding sheltering, a traditional practice whereby a host First Nation permits members of another First Nation to harvest wildlife within the host treaty harvest area or traditional territory. This will be brought into the act.

These are all situations that are already happening but are now going to be recognized. This is what Indigenous nations asked for. This is what the co-development of this was about. This was about the…. Our ministry staff were far ahead of themselves. They actually co-developed this action plan, starting back in 2018, starting back before DRIPA was even introduced in the House. They recognized that this was the way of things to come. I want to commend them for that work. It’s critically important, and it’s what Indigenous nations are asking for.

I hope that the members opposite understand that and want to get on with the clause-by-clause debate so that they can understand and ask their questions within the clause-by-clause debate and recognize that this has been done with Indigenous nations support, that this has been done by request — a co-development of Indigenous nations — and how critically important that is.

The Chair: We have time for a very short question if that’s possible, Member, before we have to note the hour.

M. Lee: We may have to reconvene, as you suggest, tomorrow, but just a couple of points of clarification, which I appreciate, from the minister.

The draft DRIPA plan, of course, was tabled by the government — the minister responsible — in June of 2021. So this particular action, to my knowledge, is the same specific action that would have been in the draft plan. The minister’s response, though, does raise some other questions that we can continue on tomorrow.

If I may, as we break for this day, again for the intentions paper, just to take another stab at this…. What was the title of the intentions paper? Is it Modernizing Forest Policy in British Columbia? If the minister could please tell us the title of the intentions paper that she’s referring to.

Hon. K. Conroy: No, it’s not the intentions paper he’s referring to. The intentions paper is our Modernizing Forest Policy in this province. It was tabled in June of 2021. We’ll get the exact name on the wildlife intentions paper.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:55 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Rankin moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.