Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call third reading of Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act.

In Section A, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I call third reading of Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2022

Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2022, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Property Law Amendment Act, 2022.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

The Chair: We’re dealing with Bill 12, Property Law Amendment Act, 2022.

I’ll call on the minister to introduce staff and any opening statements.

On clause 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do have staff here with me for this committee stage of debate as we go through line by line and section by section of this bill.

On my right is Renée Mounteney, one of my many capable ADMs. I have Joey Primeau here on my left, and behind me is Tiffany Norman, to help us as part of this discussion. They’ve been working really hard to put this together to make sure that we have another tool to help folks who are looking to purchase a home. I’m really grateful for their hard work on this matter.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to go clause by clause on the Property Law Amendment Act.

Just a question with respect to the consultation that was underway on this bill, announced last fall. Why did the government announce this legislation before completing that consultation?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

It’s really important, I believe, and we believe, that we move quickly on this matter. It’s urgent, given the level of activity in the market and the challenges that we were hearing from consumers around what they were forgoing in terms of making sound decisions based on all of the information.

The BCFSA is currently undertaking a broad consultation on a number of current consumer protection issues, including the parameters for the creation of this protection period. They’ve been given very focused parameters so that we can do this simultaneously and be efficient. I know that the member, certainly his colleague the Leader of the Third Party, had talked about efficiency and the importance of consulting as well, so we’re trying to do both at the same time. We are doing both at the same time, because we do think it’s important that we move quickly.

If we had done this in a more linear fashion, it would take us that much longer, and in the meantime, people — the outcome is the people — would continue to be challenged. We felt it was important to do both and to do it simultaneously.

A. Olsen: If it was based on urgency, why didn’t the government start the process last spring or the previous fall? I mean, the measure has been available to the government for the last three to four years at least, and the housing crisis that British Columbians are facing is not a new issue. So if urgency is the reason for putting the legislation out in front of the finishing of the review, why wasn’t the review started months, or maybe a couple of years, ago?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to share with the member that we have been acting as quickly as we can when these issues were raised to us by the mortgage broker community. So as these things were coming forward, we certainly were hearing more stories about blind bidding. They were sharing stories with us around consumer protection. So we moved quite quickly to identify how we can best move forward, and we put that out in November as we were doing these more generic conversations and acting as quickly as we could.

M. Bernier: Does the minister have the report yet from the BCFSA, from the consultation period?

Hon. S. Robinson: No, not yet.

M. Bernier: My question kind of goes, then…. Well, first of all, if there’s so much urgency — and the minister is making decisions unilaterally, it sounds like — why did we even have to go through a consultation period? Why did she even ask the BCFSA to give recommendations, if the minister already seems to have her mind set on what direction she’s going?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The consultation is really about the details of how this can be implemented to maximize success. It’s not about whether or not to do it.

It’s a good idea. It’s a good policy piece to do it. The consultation is about what the parameters are that would make this a successful policy piece at the end of the day so that the consumers can get the information they need while also respecting the needs of sellers. It really is about finding that balance. The member and I have had conversations about that historically, around finding balance. The consultation is about what the right balance is to achieve success here.

M. Bernier: It’s an interesting answer from the minister. It makes me want to understand what kinds of terms of reference were given to the Financial Services Authority to even look at. It sounds like the minister has directed them to say: “Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea or not, we’re doing it. Regardless of whether this will work or not, we’re doing it.”

My question, then, to the minister is: was the BCFSA given any autonomy at all, any freedom at all, to come back with recommendations of whether this is a good idea or not? Or were they directed through some form of terms of reference, through the work they have to do, to not even consider whether this will help the situation — in fact, they’re just going to come forward with implementation recommendations, rather than a process — whether it’s worthy at all?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said before, the BCFSA is currently consulting not just on this buyer protection period but also on a number of consumer protection issues. We tasked them to look at the blind bidding system, which has its other additional complexities, but we also asked them about mandatory inspections, about what that would look like and what would need to happen in order for that to be considered, and we asked them to look at any other consumer protection ideas or suggestions from the various stakeholders.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is one piece, and there may be more. We’re waiting to see what’s in that report that would tell us what other steps government might need to take in order to make sure that consumers had the tools that they needed, to make sure that they could get all the information necessary before they made the most important financial decisions of their life.

M. Bernier: With all due respect to the minister, it sounds like the urgency was more from the minister to come out with an announcement, not actually to try to address the issue. If it was addressing the issue, we would have waited for this report, if it’s that important, to make sure we’re doing it right to begin with.

I’ll get into some more details later on with specific questions under clause 1 here, but it’s so open-ended. It’s all left to regulation. The minister herself has said in some of her media scrums that the reason is because they don’t have the information. They’re waiting, and that’ll be coming at a later date — possibly this fall, possibly later — with recommendations around how the legislation will actually shape up through regulation.

It brings us back to the whole point. If it’s so urgent…. Yet it’s not urgent, because nothing is happening now other than a piece of legislation on the floor to debate that is legislation of maybes. What consultation did the minister actually do? We’ve heard from so many people over the last little bit, since this has been presented in the Legislature, who are, in their own right, experts in the field around housing, around affordability, around real estate who have come out and said this isn’t going to work.

In fact, they’ve come out with other pieces of recommendations. There have been white papers from the Real Estate Association. We know from the minister’s colleagues that they’ve all stood in this House and basically said that real estate agents are part of the problem. They’ve basically said that in the House. Maybe that’s why the minister is not listening to them.

I’m kind of curious, then. Before they presented this in the House, which, again, is one page of all “maybe at a later date,” what consultation and what groups did the minister meet with to help formulate this? Because there’s no detail.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question, but I have to say there’s a real contradiction in how he’s asking it. He’s saying hurry up and slow down at the same time. We’re dealing with urgency, which I think it requires. I think, as the member rightly acknowledges, it needs consultation as well.

It’s based on the fact that we were hearing from the mortgage broker community. We were engaging with BCFSA about what they were hearing. We were seeing in the media, and I know the members were seeing this as well, where people were being challenged by major purchases they were making, sometimes sight unseen, without any inspection, only to discover that because they weren’t putting any conditions on their offers because they felt that was the only way they could participate in negotiations….

Really, it’s creating more and more challenges for British Columbians. It’s with that in mind that we said, “Okay, where can we start?” recognizing that this is perhaps a beginning and that there might be more.

[3:00 p.m.]

We, in consultation with BCFSA, said, “Well, we can start here,” and continue to engage to see what more might need to happen and how this can be implemented in a way that it works, keeping in mind all the various component parts of these kinds of transactions.

It’s with that in mind that we’ve brought this piece forward. There is more to come, because we know that there might be more that makes sense for us to do in order to help consumers in this very difficult time.

P. Milobar: Well, in fairness to my colleague from Peace River South there, I think he was more trying to state to the minister that the minister is rushing in legislation that has absolutely no detail in it whatsoever and, at the same time, saying that there’s no detail because there’s a wait for a report. So that’s where the two don’t necessarily line up.

Based on past practice of this government — we saw it with the FOI legislation that just recently was rushed through the House with zero detail, everything left to regulation and, then, orders-in-council signed very quickly after royal assent — there starts to be a cynicism that builds, not just within opposition but within the general public.

Can, I guess, the minister confirm, then, that if the reason there’s no detail in this legislation is because we’re waiting for a report…? Is the minister saying, then, that 100 percent of that report will actually result in regulation? Or is the minister reserving her right to pick and choose whatever that report says, what she feels might be palatable to implement or not?

Hon. S. Robinson: The report will inform details of the regulation. Again, I think it’s important to acknowledge that the market itself is dynamic. It changes over time. Sometimes it’s hyperactive, and sometimes it has slower periods. So it is also important to think about…. In terms of regulation, it permits government to be responsive to any changes in the market as well. That’s also part of the consideration.

P. Milobar: There’s no detail in a bill — that is what the minister is saying — because we’re waiting for a report. But the minister reserves the right to politicize the future regulations for this topic. So why not detail in this report, then? Why is there not a first step of regulation in this bill, which could always be amended in the future, if it’s going to be political decision-making that is the ultimate decider of what the regulations will be?

It is not the report that everyone’s waiting for, based on that answer; it’s actually the minister and cabinet’s decision on what the regulations will be. The report is but one piece of input. There’s already been lots of other types of input.

As we saw with the FOI bill, just commentary in the media was enough for the Minister of Citizens’ Services to hang her hat on, saying she had consulted during the course of the bill moving through the House.

[3:05 p.m.]

There are only so many different ways you can put the regulation in place between cooling-off periods, length of time, those types of things. There are just so many ways. That’s it. Those have been discussed.

Why is there no detail in this bill, if what the minister’s answer was just that it’s still going to be political decision-making as to what the future rules will be like and not actually the recommendations in the report?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening very carefully to the line of questioning from the members. It sounds like they are wanting to, I guess, relitigate or go back to second reading debate of the merits of this bill. We finished that debate, and we are now in committee stage, which is to go line by line. I have staff here eager and ready to answer any questions that they might have on this bill.

M. Bernier: As the minister well knows, second reading is an opportunity where people can put their opinions on the floor. It’s not, per se, a debate about the issues.

It’s line by line at committee stage, which we are doing now. It’s also a time, in committee stage, to hear from the minister the intent of why this was brought forward, the intent of what the legislation will do, the reasoning why the minister has left out any detail. That’s what we do in committee stage. That’s the important part of the work that we’re doing right now and expect some kind of respectful response from the minister to that end.

The minister, about three weeks ago, said publicly…. That was shortly after this bill was tabled. The minister did say, where she was waiting for a report from the BCFSA, that that information was going to help shape the information and the details through regulation that they would do afterwards.

I asked the minister, when I first got in, if she’s seen that report yet. Three weeks ago she said she was going to get it any day. Does the minister have it now, and if not, when is she going to be receiving it?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. I think that it was before we broke for the two-week break. I have not seen the report yet. My understanding is that they finished their consultation at the end of February. They’re putting their reports together, and I am hopeful that I will see it shortly.

M. Bernier: Well, it just goes back to the whole point that I think we’re trying to make here. The minister tries to say how urgent this is. This is the largest investment somebody is going to be making in their life, possibly. We want to make sure we have the rules, regulations, in place to help to safeguard that investment.

A lot of decisions through regulation will be based, supposedly, on a report that the minister is waiting for that now for two, three, four, weeks is going to be expected any day. We still have a month left in this session.

[3:10 p.m.]

It begs the question: if it’s so important to ensure that we get it right, why was the minister so rushed to put a nothing bill on the floor with no information when it’s going to be based on, in her own words, a lot of the regulation based on the information through this consultation? Pragmatically, you would think that the logical course of action would’ve been to wait for that report, frame up proper legislation respecting the House, here — that we would have details — not only this House but for the public to know what they’re expecting to come forward from the government.

The minister herself has even said that now a lot of this regulation might not happen until this fall. The minister has said that on record. She can correct me if she wants to, but the minister has said in the past that it could be as late as this fall before they get to the regulations on this bill to actually change things. So that means that we could’ve even brought it forward this fall, in the session that government would hold, with the actual information.

Again, I just have to ask the minister, then, I guess, the easy question. Are the regulations in here going to be based on the report that comes from the BCFSA? If so, why didn’t she just wait?

Hon. S. Robinson: As we have said before, the report will inform details of the regulations. We’ve been very clear about that, specifically thinking about the number of days to be permitted for right of recission. Should there be a penalty? What kind of penalty? Those are very specific details that we’ve asked BCFSA to go out and consult on so that that helps to inform regulations.

Also, this is new legislation. It’s important to also recognize that there needs to be an adaptability, I guess I’ll call it, for these regulations, making sure that as things change and as the market changes, it has the ability to reflect the changing market — so again, regulation.

[3:15 p.m.]

The member knows full well that if you’re wanting to change legislation — getting it in the docket and getting all of the work done — you’re not as responsive. It’s very, very difficult for government to be responsive when it’s written in the line of legislation. So this means, I believe, that it’s better legislation to have the ability to do some of the specific details by regulation.

I also need to acknowledge, and I know that the member would appreciate this, that the housing market in Peace River will be different than the housing market here in the capital region. So once again, looking to make sure that we can tailor some of this is also going to be part of the thinking that we asked the BCFSA to look at.

I look forward to seeing that report and making sure that we can, again, deliver something for people who continue to be challenged and that consumers have the prevention that they need. There might need to be additional legislation. I’m not saying that this is the end. There might need to be additional legislation based on the report and helping British Columbians who are participating in the market.

A. Olsen: It seems like the more efficient approach would be to wait for the report to be tabled, gather together all of the actions that need to be taken, put them together in a piece of legislation and then offer them to British Columbians to be able to review the actions that are being taken. That would be a way for British Columbians to understand how their government is actually addressing the housing crisis.

Creating an enabling piece of legislation that has literally nothing in it other than to give the government powers — to extend to the government powers that it currently doesn’t have, with no substance whatsoever — is not actually showing British Columbians how this government is intending on fixing the housing crisis. In fact, what it’s doing is creating more confusion about what the impact of these changes could be.

In fact, it’s irresponsible for the members. I think the minister knows this, because I think that the minister probably, when the B.C. NDP was on this side of the House, had a similar perspective about the enabling powers that former governments were requesting.

Perhaps the minister can talk about how it is that…. I’ll put it this way. Even the Minister of Citizens’ Services had floated a number when we were, last fall, talking about the cost that information is going to be to British Columbians now. The Minister of Finance hasn’t even floated numbers for British Columbians to be able to knock around on the tennis or the pickleball court. We can’t even have that debate. We have no idea what the substance of this is going to be.

Perhaps the minister can talk a little bit about how it is that, from her former perspective on this side, we are to do our job to understand exactly how this is going to have an impact on the housing market and on British Columbians. The minister is quick to say that this is the largest single investment that British Columbians are going to make. So in other words, this is the single most important piece of legislation that’s in front of this House right now.

We, on the opposition benches, have no way to say to British Columbians that we can contextualize the impact that’s going to have on that investment, whether you have made it or whether you are fixing to make it. How does the minister suppose that we are to scrutinize a bill that has no information?

And just have the temerity to ask us…. On behalf of all British Columbians, by the way, our job in opposition is to test the elements of this legislation and make sure that it’s resilient enough to be able to survive those tests. That’s our job. How does the minister propose that we do that, having no details in this bill?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: You know, I listened carefully to the member’s question. I want to correct something for the record. We never said that this would address housing affordability. This is a consumer protection piece of legislation.

Consumers — and we’ve been hearing this, particularly from the mortgage brokers — were making more and more decisions to forgo any conditions on their purchase. There were stories that we were continuing to hear — I’m sure the member has heard from his constituents as well; I was hearing it in my constituency — where people were feeling pressured to put in offers without conditions and making purchases without having the time they needed to get inspections and such or financing. That was creating significant hardship. So this — I want to be really clear — is a consumer protection piece.

The other thing I think is really important — and again, I’m sure I can have a debate with the member just on this — is we don’t have to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as the member proposes.

Again, I think…. And the member across the way is laughing. Taking a phased approach allows us to support people sooner than doing nothing at all while we continue to study.

I’ve listened carefully to how the members opposite…. I appreciate this. I appreciate the frustration. I’m not saying I don’t appreciate it. I do. If government says, “We should study something,” they then get frustrated, because we’re not taking action. Now we take action, and they’re saying: “You should study something.”

What we’re doing is taking action, and we’re studying it simultaneously. We know that there’s more to do. That’s why we tasked the BCFSA to do more than just take a look at how many days should be considered as part of the rescission. There is a right of rescission that currently exists with REDMA, the piece of legislation. So there’s a basis, a starting point, on what kinds of penalties should exist should someone act on the right of rescission. That work is being done.

While they’re doing that, we tasked them to do more, to get more information, so that we can do more as we learn more from the report. This won’t be, necessarily. the last piece that we do, but it is certainly the first piece, with potentially more to come. I know that the member appreciates that making change can happen over a phased period, with a phased approach. That’s the lens that we’re acting on.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s interesting. In early days of this, it did sound very much like statements from government were that legislation and cooling-off periods were going to be coming to address affordability and housing prices. That tune has changed. Fair enough. The minister has started to use consumer protection as the reason around this.

I guess the question just goes to why the need, then…. The minister actually touched on this in an earlier answer about the difference between the real estate market in Peace River South versus other areas of the province. But she also referenced that things ebb and flow in real estate markets.

The other piece of it is that a lot of times, people are selling and buying out of two different regions in the province. So one would think that cohesive rules would actually be a good thing, since we’re supposed to be one province.

If this about consumer protection, can the minister explain why this legislation, then, contemplates and gives her the ability to have different levels of consumer protection depending on where you live in the province? Why should someone in the Metro area be provided potentially stronger consumer protection than someone in Peace River South? Why should one British Columbian have higher levels of government consumer protection than others on the largest purchase of most of their lives — all words and phrases that the minister has touched on to this point of this debate?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think that the member knows full well that it’s the market activity and the pace of market activity that dictate how consumers might need some additional support around protection.

For example, when the market isn’t that active — isn’t as active as we’ve seen — there actually is the space to put conditions in on offers and have them considered. That permits anyone who puts an offer in to get the inspections. I think about my kids and them wanting to be able to own a home. I want them to do their due diligence. I think as parents, we want our kids to be able to have the space to do the due diligence necessary to make sure it’s a purchase that works for them.

In some markets, there may not be that level of activity. So the market itself provides the opportunity to do the due diligence. Having said that, the legislation doesn’t require regions to be considered. It’s not a requirement in the legislation. But we’re anticipating that could be something that may need to be looked at.

Again, I expect we’ll see that in the report, whether or not that needs to be a consideration. But this is a large province, and there could be very different kinds of activities or different paces of activity in the housing market, depending on where you are in the province, and it might be something that may need to be considered. Again, it’s not in the legislation, but it’s an opportunity that we could have, through regulation, to address.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I just would like to remind members to focus your questions on clause 1 as we debate this bill.

M. Bernier: Chair, thank you for the guidance. All of our questions, if I can say, will probably be around clause 1, because it’s really the only clause of any substance in this bill. We’ll make sure, with that guidance, that our questions will be framed accordingly within that.

Clause 1 talks about — the entire bill is talking about — the regulation. The minister herself just said that she doesn’t know because she’s waiting for a report, which, I think, goes right to the point that we’re trying to make.

If it’s so important, and this government and the minister don’t know what they want to do because they’re waiting for a report, a report that the minister has acknowledged numerous times now that she could have any day….

I do find it quite astounding that, kind of like my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands alluded to, we’re debating a piece of legislation with no information. This makes it very hard when the minister wants to — I’m sure in good faith — stand here and have the whole House support this bill. It makes it very difficult when it’s hard to get any answers to some of the details.

I want to go back to…. I didn’t get a clear answer earlier from the minister, and it really comes back to the whole idea of the BCFSA and the report that the minister is saying will help frame some of the regulations at a later date. Was the direction given by the minister, then, to the BCFSA to consult on whether or not the right of rescission was even a good idea? I asked this maybe in different words earlier and didn’t get a straight answer.

Was the BCFSA allowed to look at that? And, if so, what if they come back and say it’s not a good idea, or were they barred from even having that recommendation back to the minister?

I just want to get a better understanding of what the BCFSA’s role, I guess, is in recommendations. As I alluded to and talked about earlier, as many others have…. A lot of professionals in the sector have said that maybe this isn’t the right approach.

[3:30 p.m.]

I’ll get to some quotes and some ideas from the minister later, but what if the BCFSA themselves say: “Hey, there is a better way to do this”?

Hon. S. Robinson: They were asked to look at the parameters of a right of rescission. I just want to remind the member that there is already legislation — REDMA, the Real Estate Development Marketing Act — that’s been around since the early 2000s. I was trying to get which year. It’s 2004, 2003 — somewhere in there. There is already a right of rescission. It already exists here in British Columbia.

They were also asked to look at other consumer protection ideas that have come up, like blind bidding, so we can get even more information out of them. Again, there might be some opportunity to do even more work on this, going forward.

M. Bernier: Again, it goes back to, I would argue, a rushed piece of legislation with no detail. I’m still waiting for information that’s going to come any day now.

The minister has brought up a couple of times the whole concept and the issue around blind bidding. Can she point to me in the legislation where it talks about blind bidding?

Hon. S. Robinson: It doesn’t talk about blind bidding. As I mentioned to the member, we asked BCFSA to get more information from the industry partners on what that would — could — look like and to do a bit more digging into that. It’s an idea that has been, I’ll say, floated around by different industry participants, and we know that there may be some opportunities to continue to deliver on consumer protection. So that’s why we tasked them with doing more research.

Again, I think taking a phased approach to consumer protection is the right approach. I mentioned again we already have legislation that has a right of rescission, and we’re building on that. If we need to do more as a government, we’re prepared to do that.

M. Bernier: In clause 1 here, under section 42, it talks about that the right of recission will be looked at, the seller, within a prescribed number of days.

[3:35 p.m.]

What’s the minister thinking? What is the prescribed number of days? This goes back to the point that we have a piece of legislation with very little detail that she wants us to support in this House. Can she give us an idea?

Again, the member for Saanich North and the Islands talked about how other ministers have floated out numbers. We found out afterwards how that all worked out. So if there is a written notice of recission on the seller within a prescribed number of days, what days is the minister thinking of?

Hon. S. Robinson: When I referred to REDMA earlier, I thought it was really important to understand some of the context in which we were looking at when we were bringing this legislation forward. REDMA has seven days of recission, so that’s, just again, to provide some context.

BCFSA has gone out, has been consulting with various component parts of different industry members, different parts — whether it’s mortgage brokers, real estate industry, other folks in the industry, the inspectors and others. They’ll come back with a recommendation. That is what I expect.

M. Bernier: I hate to flog the dead horse, as they say, but here’s another perfect example. Very simplistically, we could have waited those few days that the minister keeps talking about. Instead of the legislation reading a “seller within the prescribed number of days,” it could very well have said “seven days,” if that’s what they’re thinking of, if that’s what the direction is going. At least it gives the buyers and sellers in the province of British Columbia an understanding of where this government’s head is at, on any issue.

It’s very difficult, again, to be able to go out and show this to anybody who’s looking at purchasing a house and say, “Here’s the information that will help you in your decisions,” because everything in this legislation says: “Coulda, woulda, shoulda, maybe.” It doesn’t actually have detail.

In saying that, and the minister referenced them a little bit as well, there are, at last count, somewhere in the vicinity of about 25,000, I believe, real estate agents in the province of British Columbia. Because there were some concerns, they put together, I would argue, a very well-thought-out white paper — 50, 60 pages long, with their own pieces of recommendations and concerns with this legislation, which they’ve put out for this minister and this government to consider.

We’ve already heard from a few of the minister’s colleagues in this House that they were not looking at that white paper at all. They’re self-interested, as real estate agents, and they’re not worried about inflationary costs or costs going up on housing because they make more money. That’s what this government has said.

I’m just curious if the minister feels the same way as her colleagues who have stated those facts in this House and publicly. Or is she actually considering any of the recommendations that the real estate association has brought forward to try to help in this area?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: When we tasked the BCFSA to do this consultation, that meant all the various component parts of the industry. That meant the legal community, real estate academics, inspectors and appraisers, mortgage brokers, the financial institutions, consumer advocacy groups, as well as the real estate industry, the associations and boards.

I would imagine that all of those organizations brought forward their ideas, their recommendations, their suggestions, not only on this but on the other pieces that we asked for, so that we would have a robust, full picture and could, once we had that report, move forward on the recommendations.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer from the minister that they’re consulting all these groups. What is the minister going to do, then, if the recommendation comes back unfavourably, that this is the wrong approach?

Hon. S. Robinson: The BCFSA was asked to consult on the parameters of a protection period. I expect that that will be part of the recommendation in this report — as well as other opportunities for continuing to build out on any other consumer protection measures that we ought to consider.

M. Bernier: I’m really troubled by that answer.

What the minister…. It sounds like she is now confirming in this House that it doesn’t matter what anybody says. They’ve got their mind made up. It doesn’t matter if all of the supposed experts in the field look at this and come back and say: “This is the wrong approach. It’s not going to work. It’s not going to help consumer protection. It might make things worse. It might increase the prices of housing.”

The BCFSA, according to the minister, has been tasked to do all this consultation, the minister has just said, with all of these experts and association groups in the province on their opinions. If I understand the minister correctly — she has the right to stand up after me and tell me I didn’t hear correctly — what the minister just said is that they are not allowed to come back and say that this is the wrong approach.

What, basically, the minister is telling every single group in the province is: “It doesn’t matter what you think. This is what we’re doing, so now tell us how you would like it shaped. Don’t tell us it’s not going to work. Don’t tell us if it’s the right approach, because we’re not changing our mind.”

My question to the minister was: what if they come back and say that this is the wrong approach? I understand the minister just said: “Well, they can’t say that, because we’re not going to allow them.” Did I hear the minister correctly?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Not at all. I do want to say and read into the record again what we have been hearing from these very professionals that we are consulting with. Andy Yan, who’s an urban planner and director of the city program at Simon Fraser University, one of these academics, said on March 29: “I think it’s a good idea around protecting consumers on the biggest purchase for most of their lives.”

We’ve already heard from one. Helene Barton, the executive director of B.C.’s Home Inspectors Association, said: “After the last heated real estate boom, in 2016, I received countless calls from disappointed purchasers who had skipped the home inspection. Major and costly issues such as structure, mould, leaking roofs and unsafe electrical became apparent after taking possession of their new homes.”

She goes on to talk about a family that was absolutely devastated. She points out: “We hope this new legislation will ensure the same protections to home buyers in any market conditions.” We’ve already heard from them that they’re very supportive of this legislation.

Finally, I will share one more group: Paul Taylor, the president and CEO of Mortgage Professionals Canada. This is what he had to say: “Without a structured, short cooling-off period to withdraw from an offer that, on reflection, the seller is unable to realistically manage, and now with a legally binding agreement in place, often long and complicated legal processes are required to exit the transaction.”

He went on to say: “Mortgage Professionals Canada is supportive of a short cooling-off period to avoid exactly these difficulties. We certainly are supportive of the legislation and the opportunity to create some additional protections for would-be homebuyers.”

We already have heard, from significant parts of the industry, that they are supportive of this.

I really look forward to getting back to the legislation that we have here before us on a line-by-line — to get through that this afternoon.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s eagerness to rush through this. She wants to rush the legislation in here. But we have a job to do, not only as opposition on behalf of the people but, I think, for everybody — for the different associations and people that the minister just referenced.

I’d love to go line by line, in great detail. Maybe I will do that in a moment, because I’d love to hear some answers from the minister on some very specific details that are not in the legislation. With the last answer that the minister just gave….

I referenced, again, the 25,000 real estate agents who work every region, every riding in this province. The white paper and the recommendations that they’ve been giving, I’m told, not only to the minister, but to the BCFSA, are that this is completely the wrong approach. The cooling-off period may lead to frivolous offers. It may lead to multiple bids. It may lead to not solving any of the issues that the minister is talking about.

In fact, even though the minister said that this bill has nothing to do with affordability, this approach, a lot of people are saying — in the emails that I get from some of the same professionals that the minister has referenced — may actually increase the cost of a house, putting more pressure on the same people that the minister says we’re trying to help.

The minister says that it’s not about affordability, that it’s about consumer protection. I’d say that we need to be looking at both. Will the minister acknowledge, then: will this bill increase, decrease or do anything at all for the price of a home for people in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, we’ve canvassed this. I’m happy to repeat it, because the member…. This has been designed as a consumer protection piece of legislation.

[3:50 p.m.]

We have heard from numerous component parts, representatives of different parts of the industry, about the value that they see in having a consumer protection period of some size, to provide those who are making an offer the opportunity to get all the information they need to make a good decision.

I know that the members opposite would agree that getting a home inspection is a good thing to do. It’s a wise thing to do, and making sure that they have the time to do that is an important piece of making this kind of exchange work for people.

It is with that in mind that we are bringing forward this legislation, because it’s important that we do that. That’s what the intended purpose is of this piece of legislation.

M. Bernier: Again, I think it’s important to acknowledge, then….

First of all, I think all of us want to ensure that we have proper consumer protection. That’s just a given. But my question to the minister is: is she bringing forward a piece of legislation that has no detail, that’s all at a later date, that’s about consumer protection, that may, according to many of the professionals in this sector…? They’ve said that this piece of legislation could increase the price of housing in the province of British Columbia.

We’re already talking about the fact that house prices have gone up over $600,000 in the last few years on the average home. We’re now looking at almost $2 million for a home. Of course, we have to look at not only consumer protection but the affordability indexes as well.

I’m a little concerned by the minister’s answer, if she’s saying that they’re only worried about consumer protection, and if the prices of houses go up because of this bill, so be it. That’s not what we’re looking for.

My question was: is the minister willing to say that house prices are not going to go up? I know she can’t answer that. I know what her answer will be. The whole point is we have people who have warned us that this approach may be the wrong one. It’s also very concerning that the minister has said that they’re not going to consider some of those warnings that have been given already.

Maybe a simple — hopefully, simple — question to the minister, then. Since all of their eggs are in a basket of a report coming from the BCFSA, it appears, is the minister willing to stand up today and say that as soon as she and government get that report, they will table it in this House?

Since it’s the most important piece of legislation to help affordability and consumer protection, since it’s something that is for the largest investment, as the minister keeps saying, for people in British Columbia, they should have a good understanding of what kinds of ideas and recommendations were put forward. Will she table the report as soon as she gets it?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is my understanding that the BCFSA will be making this report public.

M. Bernier: Can the minister give me a timeline, then, once she receives that report, of when we expect to see the regulations announced publicly?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is an important piece of legislation. Of course, the regulations that go with it are critically important to our government, because we see the impact of a very active housing market on consumers, and we said that we would move as quickly as we can on this. So we’ll be moving very quickly on this.

I forget. There was a second part to the question. I apologize. I’m trying to track too many things. If the member wants to ask the other part of his question, I’m happy to receive it again.

M. Bernier: I know. I’ll just keep flying these at the minister.

The main crux of this…. I’m looking for a little bit more specifics, as well as, I think, the people who are talking about making the largest investment in their personal life, more than likely….

The minister says they’ll move quickly. What does that mean? The minister has been on record in the past saying it could be this fall before regulations come forward. I’m just trying to get a better understanding of what the public can expect.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member getting up on his feet again and reminding me of some parts of his question.

Again, I will say…. I know the member is not going to appreciate this. I hope he can appreciate this. Depending on what the recommendations are, it will depend on how quickly staff can work. But I have staff keyed up ready to receive the report, to analyze the report, to bring forward the regulations that are important to make this piece of legislation work.

Again, we know that consumers do need the space to get all the information. I can’t imagine anybody in this House not appreciating how important that is and wanting British Columbians to have the information they need to make these sorts of decisions. As soon as we get the report, we’ll certainly have staff keyed up and ready to go to deliver on the regulations.

M. Bernier: Appreciate that. I don’t mean to smirk when I’m asking this next question, though.

You know, it’s interesting to hear. I appreciate the minister saying that the BCFSA themselves will be releasing, publicly, the report, which we would hope and assume. I’m looking for the minister’s support on that — that that would go out right away, not after decisions are being made.

My comment and my question, I guess, to the minister, again with respect…. We’ve seen what’s happened in the past with some of her colleagues. Has the minister already received any briefing notes on this on a decision that government has decided to go to? Has she signed off on any possible decision notes? Do they already have some predetermined ideas of where they’re going on these regulations, or are they holding off completely until they have the report from the BCFSA?

Hon. S. Robinson: There have been no decision notes, no briefings. I do want to assure the member that I ask at least weekly: “When can I see the report?” Just last week I was told it was in draft form at this point, but I haven’t seen it. I look forward to getting it soon. I wish I had more specific details for the member. I had hoped to have received it before the end of this month, but at this point I haven’t received it.

M. Bernier: In clause 1 here, under section 43…. The minister will be happy if I’m referencing something very specific here. I’m a little worried, though, about the lack of answer I might get.

In section 43 that is being added here in the regulations for section 42, under clause 1, it’s a list of things where it says that the minister, through Lieutenant-Governor order-in-council…. We know how that works, but for those watching, that basically means cabinet decides at a later date regulations and will sign off on it behind closed doors. I don’t mean that sarcastically. That’s just the system of how order-in-council works.

As a former minister, I’m not saying it’s never happened in the past. The regulations can be changed in cabinet, and that’s how the system works sometimes. Typically, though, there is at least some information that’s shaped around that.

[4:00 p.m.]

When we look at the list of mays…. I say that because in section 43 being added, it’s all “may make regulations.” There is quite a list here that has been put forward — almost ten here, I think. But there are some that….

We talk about prescribed number of days, rescission. There is nothing really detailed in here, but I’m trying to get a better understanding of what government’s intentions are.

I’ll look at (c), for instance, respecting an amount to be paid by the purchaser or seller for the right of rescission. It, basically, is talking about a penalty. So if somebody makes an offer or multiple offers on homes, and then all of a sudden pulls out, for whatever reason, there may or may not be penalties. That’s the way I’m reading this.

I think most people in this House who have been blessed, fortunate enough, to purchase a home, know how the process works around putting on subjects and the removal of subjects in order to finally have the legal document, once subjects are all completely removed, to purchase the home.

In this case it sounds like there may or may not be penalties associated for somebody if they use the right of rescission or if they back out or if they put multiple bids. The minister, I think, has acknowledged in the past that that may or may not happen, where people could put in multiple bids.

What’s the government’s thought process then? What are they contemplating for a penalty? When would a penalty be actioned on, and what kind of dollar amount would a penalty look like?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome to the chair, Madam Chair.

One of the things that we did was…. We looked to other jurisdictions that have something like this in place — Australia, in particular. Australia has the requirement that if you exercise your right of rescission, you do forfeit some of your deposit, which, of course, the intent is to diminish frivolous offers, as the member has noted. BCFSA, of course, will be providing advice on what that ought to look like.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. Kind of along the same thoughts of a penalty.

Under (f), we also…. Still on clause 1, of course, Chair, and welcome. Under 43(f), it’s talking about the return of a deposit. We all know that when somebody purchases a home through the real estate agency, when they’re making the original offer, they’ll have a deposit that needs to be made that is accompanied with the contractual obligation, typically with subjects….

In the case that we’re talking about and the concern that the minister has highlighted…. Rightfully so. I will acknowledge there are times there are no subjects, which is one of the issues that we’re trying to maybe possibly address with this piece of legislation. But there’s always, typically, a deposit.

In here, it talks about the possibility of sometimes the deposit not being returned or a portion thereof not being returned. Can the minister give me an example of if somebody is purchasing a home and now, all of a sudden, their deposit may not be returned to them because of the contract? What would spark the decision for that not to be returned?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m learning about how Australia does it in different states, and how they do it. They provide a bit of a model.

This is one of the ways in which to ensure that the seller who, in receipt of the deposit, doesn’t have to go and find…. If the buyer chooses to use the right of rescission, they can then use part of the deposit as part of the penalty so that they don’t have to go and find them to get the fee that would be associated with using the right of rescission. So this is why it was built this way. It’s an example of how some parts of Australia use this model.

M. Bernier: I understand where the minister was going, but that doesn’t quite answer the question. In the system we have today, people have to put deposits forward. Typically, in almost every situation, though, that deposit is 100 percent returned to the person.

If for some reason they do a home inspection and they find out that the work required to fix up the home is beyond their financial means of what they expected when they put in the bid on the house…. I think the minister would acknowledge that’s part of this cooling-off period, allowing for a home inspection, so if somebody finds out that they’re going to back out of the deal based on the home inspection.

As the minister knows, a lot of times people would put a “subject to financing.” They assume they can qualify, but then, for whatever personal reasons, the banks or the mortgage brokers will say they no longer qualify. So they have to remove their bid on the house. That subject is not removed, and the contract becomes null and void.

My question was not so much the technicalities of why we have a deposit. It’s: what will trigger it? What will trigger somebody who says…? I’m just going to make numbers up here, an example. If somebody puts down a $40,000 deposit on a house, and then they may or may not….

Let’s say they back out for whatever reason. What triggers all or a portion of that deposit being forfeited? That could put even more pressure on somebody. If I was buying a house and I was told you’re now taking a gamble with a $40,000 deposit — you may not get it all back if you back out of the deal — isn’t that making it even harder for these people?

My question is more: what is the decision-making, the triggers, that would come back to a person to say: “Sorry, you’re losing your deposit based on the decision you’ve made”? What would those triggers be?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is about the right of rescission, not about the subjects. The member had rightly provided examples of getting financing in order, getting a home inspection.

The idea is that there will be a window of time in which the buyer can rescind their offer — can just rescind their offer as they see fit, depending on whatever their circumstance is. The expectation is that there will be some sort of fee for doing that in order to minimize the frivolous offers, as the member said earlier.

Again, the right of rescission is not about subjects; it’s about a period of time that one has in order to change their mind, essentially.

M. Bernier: I think the minister needs to acknowledge — and I believe she understands it — that they’re actually synced. They’re tied together. When you look at the legislation, the way it has been presented here….

Again, there are not details. The whole point of a cooling-off period that we’re putting here and a right of rescission, which is, to basically say, an opportunity to back out of the deal…. There are a multitude of different reasons why somebody may or may not back out of a deal. In this legislation, this government has chosen to put in the possibility of penalties, the possibility of keeping all or part of a deposit.

My question was: under what situation would that happen? The minister just stood up and said that the whole point of this is to give somebody an opportunity to back out. But she’s also said that there could be penalties for backing out.

[4:15 p.m.]

Now, that’s going to put more pressure, some would argue, on whether they’re going to put in a bid to begin with. This could exasperate or make the issue even worse, because if I’m a purchaser, I’m going to be very, very careful now on what offer I put forward, knowing that I may lose all or part of my deposit or that there may be a monetary penalty to me for doing that.

The problem that also happens is people…. The whole point is so people don’t rush in. I get it. But in our market that we have in some parts of the province right now, that also means that if people are taking a sober second thought — if I can use that term — before they put in the offer, they’ve probably missed out, because somebody else has put in the offer and maybe is not worried about the penalty. Maybe it’s an investor. Maybe it’s a developer.

That young family trying to start out, who knows that they’ve scraped and saved for a deposit on a house for the last 25 years, possibly…. We know how long it takes for some people. It sounds like they could be at risk of losing some or all of their life savings, which are being put forward for a deposit on a home.

I don’t think I’m exaggerating on this issue, based on the response I just got from the minister. Maybe she can clarify for me, because this is very important. Under what situation would somebody be penalized or lose their deposit? Not just that they could — what situation would cause that?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve had some interesting discussion about subjects and rights of rescission.

I want to be really clear. If someone walks away from a deal because they couldn’t meet the subject — so they build into the deal “all subject to financing,” and that’s an accepted offer — there is no fee for walking away, because it was subject to this particular subject. If, however, they’re walking away because they’re using the right of rescission, which is different…. The opportunity, for a fee, for doing that is different. For example, you write an offer.

The member is furrowing his brow, so I’m assuming that it’s not as clear as I’m hoping. I will try one more time.

If someone makes an offer on a home subject to financing, the offer is accepted, and then the financing falls through, that’s not exercising the right of rescission. The subject didn’t materialize. They get to walk away because the subjects were accepted as part of the offer. If there are no conditions — there are no subjects — and they exercise the right of rescission within the prescribed time frame, then there would be, possibly, as we’ve looked at here, some fee paid as a result of walking away. It’s not about…. The subjects were built into the offer.

If I could just share with the member, just to give a bit of context about what Australia has. I think it’s important to understand the scope. In Australia, penalties for exercising the right of rescission do vary by state. In Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, penalties are set at 0.25 percent of the purchase price, so that gives you a sense of what they’re using. In Victoria, penalties are set at 0.2 percent of the purchase price, and there are other territories that don’t have a rescission fee at all.

M. Bernier: I also appreciate the minister highlighting my facial expressions, which are usually very apparent when I’m thinking and talking.

I do want to understand this a little bit better. The whole point, what I understood, of the government bringing forward a cooling-off period — you want to call it right of rescission — was to try to cool down the fact that — what? — multiple bids, people going in without subjects, people are getting trapped in a home they should have had inspections on….

That, by the way, would mean that people are actually putting in subjects. You cannot necessarily purchase a home without subjects and then use that as a fallback. There is always going to be a subject of a home inspection or something like that. If there are not….

The minister is shaking her head. I’ll give her a moment in a second. I do understand that right now, what’s happening is that people are making offers without subjects. But with the minister’s answer, this doesn’t necessarily fix the problem, then. If the whole point is to try to encourage people to have subjects, to have a home inspection, to have the sober second thought…. I’m wondering if the minister knows where I’m going with this. That’s where I’m confused with the answer, because she’s saying that people can lose if there are no subjects.

That’s not going to solve the problem. There are a lot of developers, a lot of investors and speculators that may go out and say: “I’m just going to invest or put a bunch of bids on homes with no subjects.” That is cutting out people, families, who are legitimately trying to get into homes. Those people need those subjects sometimes.

I think the minister knows where I’m going now. I see her conferring with her staff.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll take another shot at this, because I think I understand where we’re not syncing. The right to put in subjects, of course, is still there. It has always been there, and that has been, certainly…. I’m not going to speak for the member, but I remember my purchases, and that was very important to me.

[4:25 p.m.]

That is still, certainly, possible. However, we have certainly seen, in this very active market, where people are feeling the pressure to not put subjects. So they put in offers that get accepted with no subjects. What this does is it says you have this period of time to go get the things needed that you need to get done, like your financing, like a home inspection.

They’re not subjects. They’ve already put in an offer with no subjects. Having some time to go take care of these things is part of this homebuyer protection period so that they can get those things done. They could see their offer through, or they could say either their financing didn’t come through or they’re not satisfied with the home inspection. It didn’t meet their needs, or they felt like it was going to require too much more of an investment. They didn’t have the financial capacity. So they have the right to walk away in the case where they have put in a no-subject offer.

M. Bernier: What the minister said in a couple of answers ago, though…. But if they do choose to walk away with a no-subject offer, they could be penalized or lose part of their deposit. I’m not going to go down that road again, but these are the concerns, obviously, that we need to flag.

Maybe the minister can explain this. We’re trying to — I, maybe on behalf of a lot of people in this situation…. How will this actually work on the ground?

What I mean by that is I’m selling a house. So I’m the seller, not the purchaser. We need to remember, in today’s market, most sellers are probably purchasers as well. They’re selling a home and moving into a smaller house, maybe upgrading to a larger house, moving to a different part of the province. Somewhat irrelevant for where I’m going on this, though.

The situation we have right now is there are multiple offers. I don’t see, under this cooling-off period, that the opportunity for multiple offers changes.

By that, I mean ten people look at a house, nine people make an offer. What’s stopping the seller from looking at…. Simplistically, I’ll say five offers come in. They look at the five offers. Four of them have subjects; one doesn’t. What’s stopping the seller from just now picking that one with no subjects, waiting the seven days, or whatever the prescribed days…? We don’t have it in the legislation yet. We just move forward, and the house is sold to that person with no subjects. Nothing has really changed. We’re just waiting seven days for the contract to be finalized.

Is that a fair way of looking at this? What are we actually going to solve with this, if we’re not forcing people to have subjects, which you can’t do? We can’t force a seller to which offer they’re going to pick. In essence, it could still be the same situation of somebody putting in a bid, no subjects. Wait the seven days. It’s all done.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member has, in many ways, hit the nail on the head. With 70 percent of offers, which is what we’re hearing now, that have no subjects and with the people being encouraged by realtors not to use subjects, there isn’t that opportunity to get that important work done.

What this does is it says that you have time to get your ducks in a row in order to make sure that this is the right decision for you. In essence, it creates space for the buyer to get all the information they need to make sure that it’s the right decision for them.

Right now what’s happening is the seller is picking the no-subject offer. Everyone now is putting in no-subject offers in order to compete. So in order to make sure that those who feel pressured to put in no-subject offers have the opportunity to compete, so that they could get all their ducks in a row — whether it’s the financing, whether it’s the home inspection — we’re creating a right of rescission so that they can get that important information in their hands as they finalize their deal.

[4:30 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Well, since we’re hitting the nail on the head, I think one of things I just heard from the minister, though, is that it’s not going to solve the problem, because if people can still put in an offer with no subjects, there is no obligation from the seller to let somebody in the house after they’ve put in the offer, if it’s not a subject.

By that I mean if somebody says, “Subject to inspection,” then the seller has agreed to allow, at some period before the closure date of the subjects, that person to have access with, usually, a professional home inspector to look at the house. If they put in an offer with no subjects, and I’m the seller, what ducks in a row are they going to get?

Because you’ve just given me an offer with no subjects, I don’t have to let you in the house for a home inspection. I don’t care if you’ve got financing or not, because you’ve made me an offer with no subjects. All I have to do is to wait the seven days, and it’s a contractual obligation.

I’m trying to figure out, through this process with no detail, how it’s actually going to solve the issue. By the minister’s own acknowledgment — 70-some-odd percent, the minister said — people are making offers without subjects. Does she see that going down? Or is it just going to be more people, and the same people, making offers with no subjects? I’m having a hard time understanding how this will solve the issue.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I think if someone puts in an offer with no subjects, and their financing falls through, they really are stuck. Having at least some space provides them with the opportunity to walk away with perhaps some penalty. We’ve certainly seen, and I’ve read into the record, what Australia does. BCFSA will make some recommendations to us about what that ought to look like.

Recognizing, again, the pressure that we have heard that 70 percent of offers being made now are without any subjects, and realtors are saying that in order to even have a chance, you need to put in an offer with no subjects…. That puts considerable pressure on people. This right of rescission is about relieving some of that pressure.

If you can’t get a home inspection, for example…. If the seller says, “No way am I allowing you to do that,” that takes some of the pressure off in terms of allowing this fictitious family that the member has described, that I think we can all conjure up in our heads…. It allows them to go away and have a conversation and think about what that means for them and to understand what risk they are taking without the home inspection.

Again, it’s about having a little bit of space. We have been hearing over and over again…. I can certainly read into the record some more stories from families who have felt considerable pressure. We’ve said this is one piece of consumer protection. We’ve tasked the BCFSA to look at other ways that we can have more consumer protections available when we have a very active housing market, recognizing the kind of pressure that folks are under.

I expect that I’ll be doing this conversation, perhaps, with the member over the next number of years or decades or something — I don’t know — as we continue to look at ways to make sure that consumers have the tools and the space that they need to make these important decisions.

M. Bernier: Nobody is arguing the fact that these are important decisions. The concerns we have are around whether this piece of legislation and what government has brought forward will actually solve any of those issues — which, I think, a lot of people are feeling it won’t, especially in light of some of the answers I’ve heard today from the minister.

I understand completely the idea of a cooling-off period. On whether it’s going to actually solve the issue of people putting in offers without subjects, having a penalty and the risk of losing all or part of their deposit, a lot of this — in light of some of the answers I’ve heard today too — definitely sounds like this was all driven politically, probably by the minister and government, not through recommendations.

It would be interesting to know and see the documentation of all of the people that came forward, whether it’s the minister’s staff or the public, and who said: “You need to do this, because this will solve the problem.” That would be interesting, definitely, to see. I want to ask…. I don’t want to go too deep down this one, but again, scenarios, I think, are important, especially with the lack of detail in the legislation.

Let’s use the seven-day number that the minister floated out as a maybe for the right of rescission. As a seller, my concern will now be that if there are multiple offers that come in…. I take one, and that person, in that seven-day window, backs out. What happens then? Do we then go to the next group of people that made offers, and do I now have to pick, as a seller, my next person? “Well, okay, this person backed out. Now I’m going to door No. 2.” Does that start another seven-day window?

We can see how this could play out here if it comes out with very little penalty or very little chance of losing a deposit. The minister is shaping this as consumer protection. It sounds like everybody has forgotten about the seller in here. I’m just concerned or curious about the protection for the seller, because the seller, again, in a lot of situations, will also be a purchaser somewhere else and relies on that closure of the purchase of their home, in order to have the continuation there.

Sorry if I’m being long-winded on this, but my concern would be that a seven-day window could start another seven-day window, which could start another seven-day window. The next thing you know, we’re damned near a month down the road, and my house hasn’t sold. People are using loopholes within a rescission period to back out because, maybe, they’ve put in multiple offers, and they’ve now taken that one instead of this one.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister, first of all, knows where I’m going with this. What will trigger the next step? Another seven-day, another seven-day — is that what could happen?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member used a seven day, but I want to, again, clarify for anyone who is listening that that hasn’t been determined. I’m waiting. I have not seen the report, so I am waiting to see what the recommendation is from the BCFSA on how many days should be considered. I’m confident that the BCFSA looked at the very issue that the member is raising, and one of the ideas is that a fee may deter these frivolous or these multiple offers, as the member has identified.

I also want to point out that when sellers have conditional offers, that’s exactly how it works, right? You put in a conditional offer. The conditions are either met or they’re not, and people get to walk away, and you have to look at the next offer. So that is how it works when we have, what I would say, not as active a market. There is the time and the space to put in what are sound subjects, typically, which are really mostly about financing and home inspection. That is how it works. This is sort of creating space for that.

With that answer, Madam Chair, I’m wondering if we might take a five-minute break….

Interjections.

The Chair: Oh, you’re good.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On clause 4.

M. Bernier: On clause 4, I’m just going to quickly ask a question. Typically, I don’t have questions in clause 4. It’s around commencement period. In this specific case, though, the clause 4 is talking about commencement through an OIC, through regulation. I just want to use this opportunity to highlight and ask a question of the minister before I wrap this up.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m trying to make a point. I think that we’ve acknowledged not only through our second readings but through the discussion here that the best approach would have been to have the information in this House. A lot of the questions that I asked today, or scenarios I was using, could have all been avoided if that information had been shared in a bill rather than information that just says: “We’re going to decide at a later date based on a report that we’re going to get really soon. I’m going to have some time….” I don’t have to relive my second reading speech.

I think the whole point, again, is…. In my opinion, this is completely the wrong approach of how legislation should be treated in this House.

To put forward a one-clause, basically, piece of legislation that says, “We may or may not do something at some later date, based on information that we know we’re going to have any day,” when the minister could have easily, I would argue, signalled to the public the importance of something being done, which would acknowledge the political pressure, I think, that the minister and government are getting….

They could have acknowledged that without necessarily bringing forward a piece of information that didn’t have detail and done that, especially since it’s going to be in regulation. They could have waited the few weeks. They could have brought this forward at the end of session, possibly even had unanimous support in the House, because the details would have been in there. We’re not opposing the concept of a cooling-off period. We’re not opposing the concept of consumer protection.

What we’re talking about as the challenge here is opposing the fact that government has put something forward in this House with no detail for us to be able to vote on it with good conscience. How do I support this and go back and look at myself in the mirror and say that I feel very comfortable knowing what the government is doing here to help consumer protection? I can’t do that. Anybody in opposition can’t do that.

My question to the minister on clause 4 is: will the minister commit…? Since clause 4 is saying that this act will come into force by regulation, which means not by the Lieutenant-Governor at any point in this House, in this sitting, that means that it’ll be brought into force by regulation at a later date — assumption will be after the minister has read the report.

My assumption is that that also means it’ll be brought into force once the parts of clause 1 that we talked about, which has no determining information to it…. Once the minister has filled in the blanks of a penalty and how all of this will work, that is when the minister, my assumption again — and she can correct me if I’m wrong — will bring this into force, when the details are in there.

To respect this House and to respect the process and this establishment, will the minister commit to bringing forward this legislation document with the itemized determination of how this will all work before it goes into force, into an act? The minister has that opportunity.

The way they’ve written this is that she could actually bring this forward this fall, present it and table it in the House. The legislation will already be passed, so it’s not bringing the legislation forward. It’s bringing the act forward to say: “This is what we were going to be voting on in cabinet. This is the OIC. This is what we’ll be doing.”

[4:50 p.m.]

Instead of us finding out, like we did by the Minister of Citizens’ Services, that decisions are made, and all of a sudden it’s just announced, will this minister do the right thing, table it and bring it forward to this House so that at least we know, rather than reading it in a press release, what the intentions are of this government before she approves it?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

The regulations, of course, will be made public before coming into force, because the administrative part of acting on these regulations and on this legislation is significant. There’s a lot of heavy lifting that needs to be done around educating all of the various component parts of this industry and making sure that everybody is onside of the legislation. There’s a lot of work that needs to be happen, so of course it will be made public before it actually comes into force.

I’m assuming that that was the member’s last question. I want to thank staff for their tremendous work. I want to thank the member for his great questions. I will confess that I’ve missed him. It’s great to have him on the other side asking me questions. It just feels like the olden days.

Clause 4 approved.

Title approved on division.

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

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 12, Property Law Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Personal Statements

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

Hon. J. Horgan: Earlier today, at the end of question period, my passion for health care got the better of me, and I made some intemperate comments that may well have offended members of this House or others. I apologize for that, and I withdraw those remarks unreservedly.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 4:55 p.m.

The Chair: I’m going to call a 7½-minute recess. We will return at 5:02 — and a half.

The committee recessed from 4:55 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

On clause 3 (continued).

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m introducing the staff that are with me here again today: Deputy Minister Rick Manwaring; our assistant deputy minister David Muter, who is now with a new ministry; director of legislation Yimmie Sonuga; and the executive director of wildlife, Jennifer Psyllakis.

We’re ready to answer questions.

[5:05 p.m.]

J. Rustad: We’ve spent a fair bit of time on this bill to date, and we spent a great deal of time, actually, on section 1 of the act around the definition of First Nations. The minister made a commitment, as part of that, to get a list of the First Nations which were not in, hosts that didn’t have communities in British Columbia but were connected to that.

I’m wondering. That was almost three weeks ago. Does the minister have that list for us here in this Legislature today?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s my understanding that we committed to the list of the 204 nations who reside within B.C. that we consulted with, and we are in the process of getting that list together.

J. Rustad: That was on April 7, in the afternoon, when the minister committed to getting the list of these nations that could participate in this bill, in this agreement. Here we are now, 20 days later, still on this bill, having an opportunity to discuss this. Obviously, the list of these nations potentially impacts on the discussions we’re going to have on clause 3.

Perhaps the minister could provide a date or a time when we might actually get this list so we could actually see just who is involved and who is not involved in this bill.

Hon. K. Conroy: We can have the list to the member sometime this week.

Interjection.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I said we can have that list to the member sometime this week.

J. Rustad: Hopefully, I guess, we’re still debating this bill some time this week. I appreciate that the minister is able to get that. Like I say, it’s unfortunate that we’ve had the break week and 19 days, and we weren’t able to get this to be prepared for going into the Legislature here today. C’est la vie. It is what it is.

When we were last discussing this bill, we were on clause 3, and we were discussing the guest….

[Interruption.]

J. Rustad: Sorry, I really wish we could close the doors in the Legislature. It’s sometimes hard to keep a train of thought.

We were last discussing the issue of the guest, and I just wanted to clarify from the minister, if I can, in terms of the guest in here means “a member of a first nation who, under a sheltering agreement, hunts in the traditional territory of the host nation.” Could that guest be from outside of the province or, potentially, outside of the country?

If the minister could just confirm that for me. I think we did touch on this before, and I just can’t remember. Just for clarity for going forward here.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, we did canvass this last time. It’s covered in section 1, under the definitions: “‘first nation’ means a first nation whose traditional territory includes land within the boundaries of British Columbia.”

J. Rustad: That’s good. So it doesn’t necessarily mean any First Nation.

This is one of the reasons why I’m looking for that list of the First Nations that are included, because I am curious about, particularly, treaty 8. For the people that have signed on to treaty 8, my understanding is that they have the ability to hunt and gather within the territory that covers treaty 8, which obviously extends to nations out across into Saskatchewan, which do not actually have, necessarily, territory within British Columbia, but they have treaty rights within British Columbia, which means they may have the right to hunt in British Columbia.

That’s why I’m wondering exactly how that works, in terms of treaty 8, and whether they’re included or not. So maybe if the minister could clarify that particular situation, that would be helpful.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The answer is no. Based on a 2020 B.C. Court of Appeal case about the western boundary of treaty 8, it’s no longer clear that treaty 8 rights can be exercised by Treaty 8 First Nations throughout the treaty 8 territory or whether those rights can be exercised only within the traditional territory of the particular signatory Treaty 8 First Nation.

[5:20 p.m.]

Consultation advice followed that case, and it reads as follows: “The declaration over the expanded boundary does not provide certainty regarding where treaty harvesting right can be exercised — in particular, whether those rights can be exercised throughout the tract described in treaty 8 or only within the traditional territory of the particular signatory Treaty 8 First Nation. This question will be determined by other court proceedings or, preferably, negotiated agreements.”

J. Rustad: I seem to recall that was a discussion around that particular case. It was a discussion around the expansion of the boundary or where that boundary dispute laid in the northern, northwest area of treaty 8. I’m not sure if that was referring to all of treaty 8, the other nations that were part of it, or not. I do know there are some challenges, some issues, even in British Columbia, between, for example, the McLeod Lake Indian Band or the Fort Nelson band or Doig or Blueberry.

All of these nations have their territories, but they also have hunted throughout the area and believed it to be a right. I think that the question mark around that, if I remember that case correctly, was really that there was a discussion about exactly where that western boundary existed. But the traditional area of treaty 8, and the nations that applied to it, I thought, was different.

I don’t mean…. This is a legal issue, which probably should be answered by the Attorney General, associated with this case, but it is important to know. We’re going to be getting into discussions around overlap, conflict, boundaries and who has the rights within various areas, etc. That’s why it’s important to understand what’s happening in treaty 8 with regards to those rights.

Maybe I could ask the minister for some clarity on that particular case, whether that’s referring to all of treaty 8 or whether that was referring just to the area of dispute around where that western boundary was associated and whether that meant that it adhered other nations to treaty 8 or not. I’m sorry for the complexity of the question, because I do understand that it is a very complex question associated with this bill. But it’s just important to know, in terms of the sheltering agreements, where there’s potentially going to be friction and how that’s going to be addressed.

Hon. K. Conroy: First Nations that enter into sheltering agreements between themselves have done so, historically, for a long time. These rights are enshrined in the constitution. The purpose of this bill is to allow host and guest First Nations to ask the province to support the sheltering agreements.

[5:25 p.m.]

The member is quite right. I’m not a lawyer. Definitely, our ministry is not involved in the deliberation of case law as such, but we will be sure to monitor case law as it arises to see how it affects any of our legislation. But I’m not about to discuss case law as it relates to this bill.

E. Ross: Listening to the discussion on section 3…. I’ll get back to the case law subject matter later. In terms of the First Nation, really thinking about the overlap issue….

The overlap has been an issue long before I came along. It started to become a formal issue probably back in 1982, when section 35 was enacted in the Constitution of Canada. We are really talking about host First Nations and guest First Nations in that same context, because we could be talking about a neighbouring First Nation. But you’ve still got to settle the overlap question.

Ultimately, there have been many processes over the years to try to resolve this. I agree that the case law is not going to answer this. If it could answer it, it would have answered it long ago.

Mainly, what was actually relied upon were the agreements that were hammered out between governments and First Nations in particular, talking mainly about, for example, the Aboriginal fishing strategy. That really talked about the resource, as opposed to the land. In this question here, though, we are talking about the land, specifically about the land. I don’t expect the minister to find the answer for overlap in case law, but the promise of DRIPA actually suggests that there is a solution here, somehow. I’m not quite sure of it.

In fact, I actually brought this up in terms of debate of the UNDRIP bill in the first place, back when we were still debating it. You don’t necessarily have to solve this question of overlap within the confines of Bill 14, but you will have to address the infringement of a sheltering agreement on a neighbouring First Nation.

There is no mention of anything — not in the DRIPA bill and not anything in this Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act — that speaks to how the infringement, or the potential infringement, will be resolved in the formation of a sheltering agreement with a specific First Nation.

Without having to try to answer the overlap question itself, could the minister describe what the process will be to consult and, where needed, accommodate a First Nation who has disputes over the ownership of a particular territory, in terms of negotiating a sheltering agreement?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: If the host nation’s territory overlaps with other First Nations…. We have established policies for addressing this type of matter. Our general approach will be that first we would expect that the host and guest First Nations would work this out with other nations that have overlapping traditional territory in the area. Sheltering agreements are a tradition and have been in place between nations for generations. We expect that most cases will be handled between the nations.

In cases where nations are not able to work this out, we would, at the nations’ request, offer to support the process with a strength-of-claim analysis. If there is no way to resolve the overlapping traditional territory, it’s unlikely that we would be able to enter into a sheltering agreement.

You’ll see in clause 5 that the intention is, in these provisions, that the provisions would come into effect September 1 of this year. This will allow time for the ministry to finalize policies and procedures to support the implementation of the bill. The provisions in the bill are intended to add clarity and transparency to allow the province to support those traditional practices and agreements between First Nations that have been in existence for years.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer.

I’ve been dealing with overlap since 2004. I do understand the idea that early engagement is preferable. Working out an agreement between your neighbouring First Nations is actually preferable as well.

In my territory, I’ve got six, seven or eight First Nations that have overlap issues. We were only able to resolve one — through an agreement that didn’t stand up. I do agree that what everybody wants is some kind of agreement between First Nations, but you’re still talking about an infringement that would actually be carried out through an agreement between the Crown and the First Nation. That’s what we’re talking about. Yes, you can have these proactive, engaging talks between First Nations, but at the end of the day, this infringement actually falls to the Crown to address.

It’s actually the duty of the Crown to address it, not necessarily a First Nation question. There are thousands of documented examples of First Nations having territorial disputes, through treaty negotiations that the B.C. government actually sits on. You can find it out through the statement-of-intent maps that have been sitting in the B.C. Archives for the last 40 or 50 years at least. You also have the evidence supplied through thousands of referrals that came from the B.C. government to the First Nations and that then were sent back with the strength of claim.

[5:35 p.m.]

I didn’t read — maybe I missed it, or maybe it’s another bill — of the process that the minister is talking about on how to resolve the overlap issue as a formal conversation between the Crown and a First Nation. I do understand that the conversation has to happen between First Nations. Is there a section that speaks to the process the minister is referring to, in how to resolve the infringement of a sheltering agreement on a neighbouring First Nation in terms of overlap?

Hon. K. Conroy: The member knows that if there’s no way to resolve it, as I said, then we’re not going to attempt to resolve overlapping issues as part of this process. There wouldn’t be a sheltering agreement. That would be the outcome of that.

As far as where the policy and procedures are for this, that’s part of what we’re going to be developing. It’s policy and procedure. We’re going to be developing that — and have that in place by September 1, 2022, this year.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer.

To be clear, I understood the rules of infringement of rights and title prior to UNDRIP being enacted in this Legislature. I understood the rules. It was based on case law. Whether you talk about Mikisew Cree, Haida or Delgamuukw, all those principles actually were a big part of the government’s decisions in terms of First Nations interests. To be honest, I have no idea what DRIPA does now.

[5:40 p.m.]

I did debate the minister on this when we were actually talking about this. It was my understanding that UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, would override or be the new law of the land in terms of First Nations interests, regardless of what the courts said.

This is the first time I’ve heard a reference to a court decision. When the minister was referring to a question from my colleague from Nechako Lakes regarding treaty 8, it’s the first time I’ve heard government actually talk about that in terms of a court decision.

I wonder, just for my own purposes…. In light of her answer to the overlap question in terms of developing a process, could the minister describe to me what will be the overarching law of the land when it comes to infringements of rights and title such as a sheltering agreement being negotiated with a First Nation? Will it be DRIPA? Will it be the case law that’s been established in the courts of B.C. and Canada over the last 40 years, or will it be some kind of hybrid type of solution to some of these infringements that the Crown is contemplating?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill is about managing wildlife effectively. It’s not about solving overlapping land issues. Again, if there are overlapping issues that aren’t resolved, we wouldn’t enter into a sheltering agreement. I understand that there are issues. The member is as well aware as anybody in the House on the issues, and I appreciate that. But this is about sheltering agreements, and it’s about managing wildlife, not about those land issues.

J. Rustad: I thank the member for Skeena for his comments and questions and the minister for the responses to it, but it certainly does need to be explored a little more.

Perhaps the first thing I should really get some clarity on, if I can, is government’s role in all of this. So maybe a little context as we go into this question. As has been said many times by the minister and by myself in regards to this bill, First Nations have historically had the opportunity to do sheltering. It wasn’t called that.

They had agreements between hereditary chiefs or others to allow people to come in to be able to harvest animals or do other activities within their traditional territory. That’s something that has gone on, long before we were around, and something that, quite frankly, probably still goes on today, although I suspect not reported, necessarily.

In this bill…. This bill is trying to take something that has happened traditionally and try to formalize it in some way within the Wildlife Act in terms of some definitions and some agreements and stuff that’s in place, which I find curious, because in this act itself, it says it doesn’t have to actually do anything that’s in this act or doesn’t necessarily have to follow any restrictions or comply with anything within the act. Regardless of that, we’ll get to that in a little while.

The issue I’ve got here, or the question I’ve got here, is really government’s role in setting up these agreements. So if a First Nation, a host nation, wants to have an agreement with a guest to come in and do a sheltered agreement, or a sheltered hunt as it’s called, a sheltered agreement in here…. Perhaps the minister could provide some information as to exactly what role government is going to play in these agreements that are really a nation-to-nation agreement. What is the role of government as part of these agreements?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The intention of the amendment is to, when requested by nations, align existing traditional sheltering protocols with provincial laws, thereby allowing for transparent enforcement of sheltering agreements. Also, our role as government is the coordination of harvest management — we continue to do that — as well as the role of enforcement. Government would continue to do that.

J. Rustad: That answer opens up a whole bunch of questions, but I’ll hold off on those at the moment because I want to get some clarity around this piece.

In the bill, it says: “The minister and the governing body of a first nation may enter into an agreement respecting hunting in the traditional territory of that first nation by members of other first nations.” Since this has gone on historically, and may still go on today, and this could be…. The government may enter into an agreement. It doesn’t say that the government must enter into an agreement. It doesn’t restrict First Nations from doing what they have traditionally done. This is just an option that, if they wanted to, they could enter into government.

Am I reading that right? Can the minister provide some clarity on that?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the member is reading this right. To remind the member, and members here, this is an agreement that nations have asked for. When the consultation was done on amending the wildlife bill, this is what nations asked for. So yes, the member has it right.

J. Rustad: I understand nations have asked for it, and it’s government’s role to make something that actually works, which is why I’m asking these questions about it.

The minister talked about the intent here. The answer that she gave to my colleague from Skeena was to managing wildlife effectively. So we may enter into these agreements. We may not enter into these agreements. There is no requirement for reporting, or maybe there’s reporting.

I don’t see how that’s going to lead into managing effectively. But like I say, we’ll get an opportunity to ask some more questions around that as well. But like I say, I’m still trying to figure out just what role government will have associated with this.

Maybe I’ll put it this way. If we have a host First Nation and a guest First Nation that want to enter into an agreement, a sheltering agreement, does that agreement then require the minister’s authorization or sign-off in order for that agreement to take effect?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Nations, as they have traditionally always done, can have an agreement between themselves without our involvement. It’s when nations ask us to be involved that we can get involved to support the agreements between the nations.

J. Rustad: If I understand the minister’s answer correctly, this bill is relatively quite irrelevant. If nations want to do it, they can. If they don’t want to do it, they can still carry on with what they’ve traditionally done, which I find very interesting. So this in no way restricts First Nations from carrying on with doing their own version of whatever agreement that they want to have. We’re calling it a sheltering agreement in this bill; they call it whatever other agreement that they want to have.

In other words, host nation A with neighbouring nation B could enter into whatever agreement they want to allow somebody to come on, and they would have that right to hunt under section 35 and case law. They would have that right to hunt.

It makes me wonder. That this was asked for, I get. I get that the First Nations agreed they wanted to put it in here. They like the way it’s written, and I understand why, because there are very few restrictions. There’s no reporting and there’s no enforcement that are actually teeth that are in this bill.

From what the minister just said, they could carry on with doing this without the minister signing off on doing this. Perhaps the minister can explain why we’re doing this bill.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I mean, the member is quite right. Nations have section 35 rights.

The agreements with the bill will have the benefit of strengthening our ability to broaden opportunities for collaborative management, which is really important. Without this bill, we don’t have that.

To clarify the legal standing of some wildlife practices, like the host has the right to hunt…. It actually will keep those situations out of court, which has been past practices. So we get away from that, which is a good thing. It contributes to the reconciliation with Indigenous nations by recognizing those traditional practices, which is, again, what Indigenous nations have asked for.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting. If I remember, the case laws around hunting…. There were a couple of cases. One helped define the rights of First Nations to hunt and to gather — well, a number of cases that have, over the years, which is what has built up the case law under section 35. And of course, one associated, particularly, with the First Nation that we have canvassed extensively, about the fellow from the United States who came up and hunted and had the rights to hunt.

I’m not quite sure if there’s room for any more court cases to go forward on this, because first, it’s been pretty clear in case law that First Nations have the right to hunt. I get what the minister is saying around trying to prevent additional cases from coming forward.

The issue here — I’ve heard very clearly from First Nations, and I’ve also heard very clearly even in the discussions around UNDRIP — is that we’re trying to get rid of colonialism, and here we are implying colonial rules to something that First Nations have done traditionally anyway. I don’t quite follow that logic, but that’s what the minister is trying to do with this.

The key issue I’ve got here with this agreement, and what government’s role is associated with this agreement, is the whole issue of enforcement, because the First Nations have the right to hunt under section 35, and they have the right to be able to do what they’ve traditionally done in terms of these agreements. How is any agreement enforceable? They have the rights under section 35. You can’t take away those rights with a bill. You can’t alter those rights with a bill. They have that right. That’s what the right is under section 35 of the constitution.

We’ve got an agreement here which lays out what two nations may agree to do or one nation with individuals from another nation may agree to do, but they don’t have to even follow this agreement, even if it’s done and written out, because they have that right under section 35 anyway.

[6:05 p.m.]

That is why I come back to this question about what’s the purpose of this bill. It’s been asked for. It’s great. We’re clarifying these things. But without having the ability to actually enforce, without having the ability to actually create a management structure that has to be followed, why are we here? What are we doing with this bill? That’s why I’m asking what the role of government is associated with these agreements.

I get that there are going to be these agreements between nations, and government is going to come and give its stamp of arrival and say: “Yes, okay. We’re doing this.” Or maybe there is some dispute with other ones. We’ll get into more of the overlap discussion. So maybe government says: “No, we’re not doing it.” The bottom line is they can do it anyway.

How do these sheltering agreements that we’re putting in actually…? How can this thing actually be enforced, for one? And why is acting like First Nations asked for this when they already have that right?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Under section 35, a First Nation’s established rights are to hunt on their traditional territory. The agreement extends those provisions to guests, and by entering into the agreement, the laws are clear.

This legislation will establish that a sheltering agreement may include provisions that authorize a guest on First Nations traditional territory to hunt in a manner that the guests would otherwise be prohibited from under the Wildlife Act, because section 35 gives them the established rights to hunt on their traditional territory and impose conditions or limits on a guest in relation to those authorized activities. So the agreement would allow that.

It establishes that provisions within sheltering agreements that vary the operation of the Wildlife Act need to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be effective through regulation and clarifies that, despite the Wildlife Act and regulations, a guest acting in accordance with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council-approved sheltering agreement provisions is authorized to do so.

If they have a sheltering agreement, they’re a host hunting on the traditional territory of a guest, they have a right to be there to do that.

J. Rustad: Before I pass it over to my colleague from Skeena on this, I just want to maybe get one bit of clarification from the minister about that.

Is the minister saying that an Indigenous person does not have the right to be a guest in another First Nation’s territory today to hunt? I think that’s what the minister just said — that this makes it possible for a First Nations person, an Indigenous person, to be able to go in as a guest in a host territory to hunt. Yet they have carried on with doing that for millennium — for thousands of years, 100 years, whatever the time period may be. We talked about the fact that the tradition is…. They still do this today.

Is the minister saying that it is actually illegal for an Indigenous person to be hunting in traditional territory — welcomed into traditional territory by a First Nation, hunting in a traditional territory — unless we had some sort of sheltering agreement?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the member is right. Under section 35, Indigenous nations have that right. But what we need to do…. Because the Wildlife Act hasn’t been changed since 1966, we need to ensure that this bill mirrors those rights. That’s what nations have asked us to do.

E. Ross: I think there is some confusion here in terms of what section 35 of the constitution actually implies or what it says. Section 35 only recognizes the rights. That’s all it does. It doesn’t define them. The definition is actually in the case law that’s been established over the last 40 years.

We were talking around the three main issues that have already been decided upon in the courts of B.C. and Canada — mainly, health, safety and conservation. That is the responsibility of government to oversee, regardless of rights and title, regardless of section 35. It’s for the benefit of everybody in B.C.

When the minister talks about some of the legalities or, in terms of some of the laws, some of those charges have been in direct relation to safety or conservation. It’s acceptable by many First Nations in B.C. and Canada. I’ll give you an example. If you go and harvest abalone right now, it doesn’t matter if you are Aboriginal or not. You can get your truck taken away. You can get your boat taken away. You get your licence taken away. That speaks to conservation.

There are limiting factors on rights and title. That’s already been decided. I think, from what I’ve heard from the minister, she touches once in a while on enforcement and management. When you’re talking about that, you’re really talking about those three principles: health, safety and conservation. We haven’t even gotten into the idea yet that in some cases, where we’re talking about health, meaning some type of virus that could be transmitted from animals to humans, the case law is important.

Section 35 is a great statement in terms of the recognition that Canada actually achieved back in 1982. It was a landmark clause in the constitution, but it led to 40 years of court cases because it was too general. It was too vague. That’s what I see in this bill, Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act. It’s vague, because it doesn’t mention anything about management or enforcement or safety. It doesn’t really speak to the duty of the Crown to actually ensure those principles are upheld.

When we’re talking about this, I understand what the minister is talking about in terms of taking an informal practice and formalizing it in an agreement between the government and First Nations. I understand that. But running parallel to that…. I’m getting the feeling that there are parallel objectives, which is that this will actually benefit everybody, non–First Nations and First Nations alike, if we can incorporate provisions that talk about safety, conservation and health.

Am I correct in assuming this?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you to the member for the question.

The intent is not to alter the fact that conservation is first and foremost when we’re doing this. There is actually no clause in the act because we’re not altering anything. We actually believe we will strengthen conservation with this act. We’ll strengthen conservation on wildlife management. Also, we’ll be doing that in collaboration with First Nations. We strongly believe that.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.