British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, March 7, 2017

20170307pm-Hansard-v43n2

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Sixth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, March 7, 2017 Afternoon Sitting Volume 43, Number 2

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Sixth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development .......................................................................................................Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Thomson Minister of State for Rural Economic Development ..................................................................................................................Hon. Donna Barnett Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism ...........................................................................................Hon. T eresa W at Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Suzanne Anton, QC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................................................. Hon. Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red T ape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .................................................................................................................................... Simon Gibson Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne, QC (BC Liberal) ...................... Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Hon. Donna (BC Liberal) ..................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ...........................Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ........................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon.

Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................

Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon. Peter (BC Liberal) ...................................

Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm. Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) ....................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (Ind.) .....................................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) ..............................................................Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Dr.

Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) .........................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) .....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed ...................................................... Dr. Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North ..............................................................................

Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ..............................................................Hon. Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .......................................................Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Thompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Thomson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ....................................................Hon. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers ..................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ...................................................................Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ..............................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton, QC Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................................

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 47; New Democratic 35; Independent 3

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 7, 2017 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introduction and First Reading of Bills .............................................................................................................................. 14137 Bill M236 — Election Amendment Act 2, 2017 A. Weaver Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 14137 Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 Hon. S. Thomson H. Bains K. Conroy D.

Donaldson Report and Third Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 14161 Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 14161 Bill 7 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017 (continued) L. Popham Hon. N. Letnick

TUESDAY , MARCH 7, 2017 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL M236 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT 2, 2017 A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Election Amend- ment Act 2, 2017. A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Election Amendment Act 2, 2017, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. A. Weaver: I am pleased to introduce the bill entitled Election Amendment Act 2. This bill is designed to set term limits on elected officials of the B.C. Legislature.

If enacted, this bill would limit MLAs to 12 years, or three terms. In addition, an individual could not be nominat - ed for re-election if they had already served eight years as Premier. The introduction of term limits would ensure that those seeking elected office recognize that serving the people of British Columbia should be interpreted as a sense of civic duty, not a career path. The general public have become cynical about pol - itics and career politicians. Voter turnout is on the decline.

By introducing term limits, certain elected officials will be freed up to think about the long term consequences of their decisions rather than just their re-election goals. It will ensure a continued rejuvena - tion of this Legislature. [1335] I feel that we are still fighting the Cold War in this chamber. We’ve got politicians who’ve been here, on both sides of the House, since the 1990s. When the same play- ers continue their never-ending dance of dysfunction, British Columbians all lose. The type of behaviour that we witnessed this morning in question period is a testa - ment to that.

Madame Speaker: Member, just to the content of the bill. A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the or - ders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill M236, Election Amendment Act 2, 2017, intro - duced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on or - ders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage on Bill 5. Committee of the Whole House BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2017 The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; R.

Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 1:39 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. S. Thomson: Just before we start, I thought I would, for the record, introduce the staff who are supporting here today: Marg Shamlock, who is the acting manager of legislation; and Kathleen W erstiuk, who is the manager of wildfire risk in the wildfire branch. Thank you for that in- dulgence, and I look forward to the passage of the sections. [1340] H. Bains: I would like to, perhaps, in the beginning, welcome the staff — and the minister, of course, so that he doesn’t feel left out. This talks about “repealing subsection (1) and substi - tuting the following. ” Perhaps the minister could explain what the new

section 1 means and what’s behind all of this. Maybe the minister could give us a background so that we understand what is driving behind this

section and why there was a need to come up with this change. Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll maybe give a general explana- tion in terms of the reason for the legislation and bring - ing forward the additional time in the limitation period. Currently in the legislation, there is no limitation period that is applicable to sections 25, 27 or 28 within the act, and we’ve been advised that a basic limitation period under

section 6 of the Limitation Act — a separate piece of legislation — may apply to cost recovery proceedings under

section 25. It’s also uncertain as to how those limitations would apply to orders under

section 27 and

section 28 in the act, which are driven by findings of a contravention under

section 26 and which are currently subject to a three-year limitation period under

section 33. This is about aligning all of the limitation periods and provisions within the legislation to that three-year period. 14137

British Columbia Debates14138 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 As we said in the introduction of the bill, it’s in order to provide that additional time and consistency across the legislation to manage all of the investigations and the application orders under the Wildfire Act with a con - sistent time period and to not be limited in that by the Limitation Act, which has a two-year time period. From a legal perspective, there was uncertainty as to whether that applied or not. The general view was that it probably would apply and we would be better to get the three-year limitation period consistent across the act. So this

section 1 adds that three-year limitation period to de- termine that a person caused or contributed to the spread of a fire that originated on private or leased Crown land. H. Bains: My understanding was that currently a three-year limit existed but only applied to contraven - tion orders. Is that correct? Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct. H. Bains: If that applies, a three-year limit already exists. So is the minister saying now that we are broad - ening the scope of what comes within the three years, in addition to contravention orders? And what would those be? [1345] Hon. S.

Thomson: With the legislation and the amendment, we are bringing in, confirming and adding the three-year limitation period to

section 25. Sections 27 and 28 had, in

interpretation, a three-year limitation period. So in order to have administrative fairness and clarity in this legislation, we’re specifying that to make sure that that’s clear and bringing in the new specified time frame of three years for

section 25. H. Bains: What was the need to include or broaden this particular

section that already existed? What is the need, and what are we trying to achieve out of this? Hon. S. Thomson: The need or the rationale for this was to, as we commented in the introduction, provide ad- equate time for the investigation and the determinations, and then also, for consistency and fairness, to align that time frame with the sections under 27 and 28, to make sure that…. One is around the determinations; the other is around the contravention. So the findings and the contraven - tions….

It’s to line the two time frames up so that it pro- vides the efficiency for the person in an opportunity to be heard, in terms of those findings that may be made under either of the sections. It was to provide the adequate time and then to line up all of the time frames within the legislation in the same time period, creating that efficiency as you go through the process, as you go through the opportunities to be heard for an individual who may be subject to both those determinations and the findings — and the cost recov - ery or the contravention provisions that would be under those sections.

So it’s to put it all together and make sure it’s clear that they’re all aligned together and that the new

section 25 is in the same three-year time frame. H. Bains: As I said before, the three-year time applied anytime it was felt that there was a contravention of the act. But it’s saying the same thing now. It’s a different kind of area, it seems to me, that it covers. I’m just trying to understand this. For example, under

section 26, again, it is determining that a person has contravened a provi - sion of this act. [1350] That

section was there before, and the three-year per- iod applied there as well. Then it goes on: “ …under sec - tion 27 (1) or 28 (1) in respect of the contravention referred to in paragraph (

a) of this subsection. ” Again, it’s the same thing, referring back to it. I’m just trying to understand. In the press release, I read that now you’re talking about cost recovery, levy - ing penalties and remediation and that those are the areas that require extra time. Perhaps the minister could explain whether those particular areas where someone could contravene that act are the ones that the minister was considering when they made this change. Is that cor- rect? Or what else is driving these changes? Hon. S. Thomson: To attempt to clarify this, first of all, the contravention is under

section 26. Then 27 and 28 are the consequence sections, which are penalties or remediation provisions that come out of those.

Section 25 is not a contravention, in a sense. It is related to pri - vate land. It’s where the landowner may have caused the fire and there is recovery of costs, so it’s not necessarily a contravention. What happens under law is that the three-year period applied to those other sections. We had always operated the other

section on the basis of the three-year interpret- ation as well, but what the legislative counsel advised is that that may be, in law, contrary to the Limitation Act, which sets out a two-year time period for those events. Because it wasn’t explicitly set in the legislation, the ad- vice was to set that time period specifically for three years for all of those sections. [1355] Also, it was viewed as providing the clarity and also ensuring that we didn’t have to abandon any of those processes because of the

interpretation of the two years. Because of the increasing complexity of fires, it was felt to line it all up, make it all consistent with the time period and get out from under the potential that the Limitation Act would be used to halt a process or halt an investiga - tion because we didn’t have the time to make it consist- ent for all portions of the legislation.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14139 M. Farnworth: As the MLA for Port Coquitlam, I ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members M. Farnworth: In the precincts and gallery today, we have a number of students and their teachers from Archbishop Carney Secondary School. It’s a fine school in my riding, and I would ask the House to make them most welcome and hope that they enjoy their visit here to the legislative buildings and the city of Victoria. Debate Continued H. Bains: That answer I appreciate, but I think it cre- ates a bit more confusion now.

The minister used as the example — and I hope I will refer to that correctly; cor - rect me if I’m wrong — a private landowner who causes a fire. That may not be a contravention. My question then is: are we changing the definition of “contravention” to make sure that we capture what a con- travention is? The contravention

part is already covered here, right? Three years for contravention orders. It is already there. So what is it that we are trying to capture that wasn’t captured before? Maybe that’s a little more simple way to put it. Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe I can take this right back to a much simpler explanation, I hope. In this legisla - tion, we’re not expanding the scope, not doing anything different than has currently been the case with respect to these sections. What we are simply doing here under

section 25 — be- cause of the concerns that were raised around the pos - sible application of the limitation period around two years — is to make it explicit in the legislation that all those components that we work with and investigate in the legislation are lined up and consistent. Under sec - tion 25, when we’re working through that portion of it that was already in place, there’s no change to the fact…. The rules haven’t changed around what might constitute when the investigators would pursue those investiga - tion things. Nothing has changed there, other than the time frame.

It’s simply making sure that we are consistent in the time frame through adding the additional time to be able to do the work so that we don’t have to abandon any pro- cesses. It’s also to make it more efficient for the landowner or the person who may be the subject of that in terms of the opportunity to be heard. They would line up and be in the same time frames. Y ou had the potential where somebody, because they were under

interpretation of a two-year time frame, had to have an opportunity to be heard on that process within that two-year time frame, while the processes were still going on, and then have another one under the three- year time frame. [1400] It’s just to put it all together and make sure that we have that adequate time and have consistency — at the advice of legislative counsel — and not to leave that uncertainty and not to be in a position where we may have to aban - don some process where there was a legitimate need to look to cost recovery. H. Bains: Now we’re getting there, I think.

That ex - plains the issue here — a bit more clarity, in my view. But then my question is…. Right now, currently, if there’s a contravention and orders are given under sec - tion 25, then there’s a time limit of two years and three years. Certain areas are covered within two years, and others are three years. Perhaps the minister could explain. My understanding was that still, under contravention or- ders, a three-year limit applied. What is the area that only a two-year limit applied to? Hon. S. Thomson: To be specific here,

section 25 relates to recovery of costs, fire control costs. That was the sec - tion that was caught up in the two-year limitation period. [R. Lee in the chair.] The contraventions, orders for remediation, conse - quences under the other sections had the three-year time frame.

Section 25 was recovery of costs from private or Crown lands. These are the situations that say…. Again, it’s a more limited population of what you may have under

section 25, because it’s not a contravention. But there is an ability to recover costs. Y ou can have a situation where you haven’t necessarily contravened the legislation, but there is a responsibility for costs. If you’re burning fence lines or you’re burning grass and then it gets away on you and you cause fire, that may not necessarily be a contravention. Y ou may sim - ply look to recover costs in that case. Y ou want to go through the process, and you want to have the time to be able to do that. Again, back to the basic premise of the change in the legislation, it’s actually quite simple.

It is just to make sure that across all of those sections, we’re consistent in the time frame, consistent for the opportunity to be heard for individuals who were caught up in any of those sections…. Advice from the legislative counsel was that to lessen the risk of having to abandon a process where you’re looking to recover costs, we should move all of the limitation periods to the three years consistently across the legislation. H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could say…. Have you had any instances where you tried? There was a case

British Columbia Debates14140 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 where an investigation started. The contravention orders were issued, the investigation started, and the time ran out. Then you had to abandon that investigation. Have there been many cases like that? [1405] Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm for the member. Y es, there have been a couple of cases. I’m aware of two where the limits on the limitation period resulted in those pro- cesses having to be abandoned. It was about $120,000 to $150,000.

As I said, not a large population in that category, but it’s still important, when we have those processes, to be able to recover those costs and to line it all up and provide for a single opportunity to be heard for those individuals. So a couple of examples, going back over the last few years. If we research further, there may be other examples. But for sure, I’m aware of a couple. H. Bains: Again, let me understand this.

If there is a complaint or, through whatever means, it’s brought to the minister’s attention that a contravention may have occurred or someone caused a fire, from the day — I mean, that’s the next part here — that issue is brought to the attention of the officer, three years will start. And then what happens in those three years is an investigation period. Y ou will conclude your investigation. All you have now is a minister issuing an order based on that investigation, and then the legal proceedings may proceed after that. Is that correct? Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is correct.

It’s from the time that it’s brought to the attention of the official. All of that takes place within the three-year time frame. So it’s the investigation and then the opportun - ity to be heard once the investigation is completed. Then there’s the determination — whatever it may be, whether it’s cost recovery or a contravention and consequences. Then there is the issuing of the order. All of that takes place within that three-year time frame within the limitation. That’s, again, why it’s important to have all parts of the legislation run on the same time frame.

But it all takes place within that three-year time frame. H. Bains: The new provisions would cover areas that may not have been covered before, I guess. Is that also the intention? That would be my one question. [1410] For example, the minister said before that any activity by anyone may not be considered to be contravention of the act — but it caused fire. A farmer is burning debris someplace, and it got out of control or the sparks were flying and caused wildfire. That would be the one of the examples. Y ou could go after that farmer. The other one would be CN or CP .

The trains are go- ing and cause a spark, and fire starts. If it’s determined that it was inadvertent, that no one knew and they were simply doing their business…. Because the train hap - pened to go past that area and it caused a spark and the fire started, then you go after CN or CP for cost recovery, remediation, and you could levy penalties. I mean, is that what we are trying to cover here that wasn’t covered before? Hon. S. Thomson: Again, just to clarify for the mem- ber opposite. All of these provisions in the legislation we currently have now.

We’re not expanding the scope of how we would pursue either a recovery of costs or a con- travention or any of those processes. We’re simply lining up the time frames for it. For example, the example that the member opposite used with a farmer. That would likely be pursued under

section 25. It lines up the same time frame. It’s a cost recovery. The example of CN. If it’s on their CN private land, if it’s on their land, that would be and has been pursued under

section 25 as well. It could also have a contraven - tion process somewhere, as well, that would be in the same time frame. The investigation, the process, deter - mines which

section is appropriate for pursuing it, if there is a pursuit of either costs or if it is determined that there is a contravention and you need to pursue that, and the consequences result from that contravention. It’s simply having it all lined up under the same limita- tion timelines for pursuing whatever the most appropri- ate course of action is. H. Bains: That’s good. Thank you. So the definition of contravention isn’t broadened. It’s the same as what we have today. All you’re doing, under

section 1 of this Bill 5, is expanding the time limit from two years to three years for a certain area that that two-year limit applied to. That’s good. I think my other question is…. If that’s the case, when you issue orders, when you initiate investigation, the written notice — everything remains the same, all of that.

Because it does mention here: “3 years beginning on the date on which the facts that led to the determination that the person contravened the provision first came to the knowledge of an official. ” If that language is in here now, is it the same language that existed before, or is this new language? [1415] Hon. S. Thomson: In section (1.1), this is the specifi - cation about when the clock starts, and that is no change from what it has been previously. It specifies the time frame — when the three-year process kicks in. H.

Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain, since we’re talking about this, what is covered and how broad the scope is in the existing. I mean, we’re only talking

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14141 about expanding the time limit in certain parts, to pur - sue, as far as the investigation period and determination is concerned. But just to clarify, I used an example. CN or CP trains going…. Their private land. Fire. Then it expanded into public lands. Or the other example I could use is if there’s industrial activity within the wooded area and that par - ticular facility caught fire. It could be a small sawmill, and it expanded into the forest and caused wildfire, the ash flying from the fire or whatever the case may be.

Is the minister saying that those broader limitations exist today and that you could go after that sawmill or that industrial site owner — or the CN or CP — who basically were doing their own business, and through no fault of their own, fire started, and not only their own facility got burnt, but it caused fire in the public lands as well? Is that what the minister is saying? Is that how far- reaching the scope is currently — that you could go after the sawmill owner or the people responsible and that it may be determined that it’s because that particular fire caused a fire on public land and forest? Hon. S.

Thomson: The legislation, or the change here, as I said earlier, doesn’t broaden the scope or the appli- cation of the legislation at all, in terms of what currently is the process and the practice, other than the change in the time frame from two years to three years under that section. [1420] Currently, in all cases, there is an investigation. There is an opportunity to be heard, as part of that process, to determine what the causes were and whether there was a contravention which would be pursued or whether there was simply a process of recovering costs.

Theoretically, as in the example the member used, that would be investigated. If it was an accident, then there is an opportunity to be heard. If there was some provision, or some reason in the investigation, and it was deter - mined that what happened there was the cause or was as a result of the actions of the owner or anything like that — and it could be linked to that, and that caused it — then that would be part of those complex investigations and the time frame would be looked at.

The important process is that in all of these cases, there is an opportunity to be heard through the process be - fore any determinations are made and any orders may be applied. H. Bains: The last question would be on subsection (b). It says that in subsection 2, these are the changes: “strik- ing out ‘subsection (1)’ and substituting ‘subsection (1) or (1.1). ’” Can you explain what that means? Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is simply the process around…. It confirms when the clock starts, the timing around the document that would be provided so that when people go through the process of review or op - portunity to be heard, it references back to that docu - ment, which is the one that starts the time frame, starts the clock. That is the document that is relied upon for that purpose.

Section 1 approved. Hon. S. Thomson: I wondered, just for expediency with the staff here…. There is one transitional section,

section 9, related to the Wildfire Act. I’m wondering if we could deal with that

section now so that staff could be released. This

section is just a transition

section that brings into force the other sections. I’m not sure whether we can take things out of order, but I was just going to ask. The Chair: With consent from both sides of the House, we will continue with

section 9. Leave granted. On

section 9. H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain. The transition period of two years affects the three-year limit set on

section 1 of this bill. How does that match? [1425] Hon. S. Thomson: This

section simply provides the transition provision that if there is a current investiga - tion underway that is within the two-year time frame from the time that that clock started ticking on it, the three-year provision would apply to that particular case. If it was one that had already passed the two-year time frame under that, then that would still be applied in that case. So if it’s in process and within the two-year time frame, when this comes into force, the new time frame would apply to that particular case and provide that addi- tional time. H.

Bains: I think it’s understandable, what the minis- ter is saying. Just to clarify it, those proceedings that are still in the process — it will simply automatically extend that time limit to three years. Is that correct? Hon. S. Thomson: Correct. H. Bains: Proceedings that may have started and the whole process has been completed with the two-year time limit — you cannot go back and reopen and say: “We have another year to go, and we want some more time. ” Those ones that are dealt with, this three-year period will not apply to them.

Those that are in process today, going forward, although they fall within the two- year limit now, it automatically will extend to three years.

British Columbia Debates14142 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 Hon. S. Thomson: That’s correct. H. Bains: That’s the only issue that is being covered by

section 9 here. Is there anything else that may have been applied here that we don’t see yet? Hon. S. Thomson: No. To give the member opposite comfort, there is nothing else that is being applied here. It’s simply, as we stated and answered, correct to both questions that the member opposite asked.

Section 9 approved. The Chair: The committee will go back to

section 2. The committee will take two minutes for a recess. The committee recessed from 2:28 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. [R. Lee in the chair.] On

section 2. K. Conroy: Can the minister explain how no long - er requiring resident hunters to carry a resident hunter card or the new fish and wildlife ID number won’t impact conservation officers’ abilities to adequately confirm the legality of hunting? Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll just take the opportunity quick- ly, before I address the question, to introduce the staff that are here supporting.

Behind me are Tom Ethier, who is our assistant deputy minister in resource stewardship; Cole Winegarden, who is a senior adviser in the fish and wildlife branch; and Renae Snell, who is the acting senior legislative analyst for legislation in the ministry. I’ll thank them for their support this afternoon. Just to address the question. As the member opposite may know, all hunters have been transitioned to a new fish and wildlife ID number. That process took place when we transitioned to the LEH on-line process.

The conservation officer will have that fish and wildlife identification number in the mobile system and be able to access that to look at whether all the appropriate authorizations and permits and everything are in place. That system will also have off-line capability. It’ll be loaded in, so it won’t be reliant on having to have access to the Internet in order to be able to do that. That former resident hunter number has been tran - sitioned into the new fish and wildlife ID number, and conservation officers will have access to those numbers.

They can ask the hunter for those numbers, and they’ll be able to provide them and access the database that ensures that they have all of the appropriate licences, authoriza - tions and permits. K. Conroy: If I understand this correctly, then, the minister is saying that if a conservation officer asks a hunter to produce their identification, they only have to have some kind of ID on them, and then the conserva - tion officer can go into a system that can work anywhere in the province.

They don’t have to have Internet access- ibility and will be able to look up and correlate that per - son’s ID with their fish and wildlife ID number? [1435] Hon. S. Thomson: I think we’ll probably be able to ad- dress this more specifically in a further section,

section 5 of the bill. But just to confirm again that the provisions…. The fish and wildlife ID number, which all hunters have been transitioned to, would be in the database. It is avail- able in both on-line and off-line access to the database. That’ll have all the information on authorizations, per - mits and licences for that particular hunter as we fully transition all of the applications to the new system. K. Conroy: Has there been a consultation on this change? Hon. S. Thomson: Y es. The B.C.

Wildlife Federation, Guide Outfitters, Wildlife Stewardship Council and other groups have all had participation in building and designing the process, and we continue to have that en - gagement as more and more authorizations are brought onto the system. We have been out demonstrating the new system as we have ongoing engagement on its implementation. For example, I know that our staff and team were at the B.C. outdoor sportsmen’s show last weekend. I think it was at- tended by 30,000 people or so, where it was demonstrated — lots of positive feedback.

The user community has been directly involved in the building and design of the system, and it is something that they have been calling for. K. Conroy: Can the minister explain how that consul- tation has worked? Can he define what he thinks a con - sultation means? [1440] [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. S. Thomson: Again, to confirm the process around development of this…. It is something that all the organizations have been advocating for and calling for to move the system into a more modern, streamlined pro - cess.

It involves all of those organizations, through our provincial hunting and advisory team, which includes all of the key organizations I mentioned earlier plus the Wildlife Stewardship Council, Wild Sheep Society, bow- hunters, the fishing and angling process. All of them have been involved in the design of it. Most recently, they have also had a run through all of the legislative components of this. In our view, the call for

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14143 this and the design with the direct involvement of those organizations has been a level of development and con - sultation that ensures that what we have here meets the needs of those user organizations and groups. K. Conroy: It’s my understanding that the consultation consisted of presenting what was already determined was going to be the process, with very little input as to what actually was developed after talking to a number of the different organizations.

I think it’s unusual that we have a bill without endorsement or stakeholders supporting, when the press release comes out…. Although I think most organizations are somewhat neutral on the process in the bill, it’s my understanding that there was very little actual consultation back and forth, which is what I would think a bill like this would entail. I’m going to now turn it over to my colleague. D.

Donaldson: Were the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, who have a recognition and reconciliation agreement, signed in 2012, that includes a land use plan with this province, consulted on any of the amendments being contemplated in

section 2 and, for efficiency’s sake, in any of the future sections that we are contemplating here under the Wildlife Act? [1445] Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that, under the process, all the treaty First Nations were provided the informa - tion and provided the opportunity for consultation on the process, as per the terms of the treaty. All First Nations were provided with information on the initiative and all provided the opportunity to engage with our fish and wildlife branch on this. A number took up the opportunity to do that in the process.

I’m also advised that in terms of what is in the transform- ation project and the system here, there is not anything here that would infringe on rights and title. It met consultation obligations. But all First Nations were provided an oppor- tunity to engage with fish and wildlife staff in this process. D. Donaldson: Just to clarify, the minister says “all First Nations. ” Is he referring to all First Nations who have signed treaties with the province? If so, can he please name the treaty First Nations that were consulted?

If he is saying “all First Nations in the province, ” can he clarify that includes that every First Nation in the prov - ince was consulted before the amendments being con - templated here were drafted? Hon. S. Thomson: Information was shared with all 203 First Nations. K. Conroy: What was the rationale in extending the examination requirements for an unaccompanied adult to unaccompanied non-resident adults? Hon. S.

Thomson: Under this section, this amend - ment ensures that all hunters in B.C. are held to the same knowledge, same safety standards, while hunting alone or are otherwise accompanied by a qualified hunting guide. It ensures that all hunters are held to the same standards in this legislation. K. Conroy: But it’s my understanding that unaccom- panied adults who are non-resident are not allowed to be hunting. Am I clear on that? [1450] Hon. S.

Thomson: This amendment ensures that a non-resident adult is not allowed to hunt alone unless they have taken the CORE and demonstrated that they have done so or they are accompanied by a hunting guide. K. Conroy: Then my understanding is that, say, a per- son from the United States or another province could go and take the CORE, and then they can come and hunt by themselves in B.C. Is that what this is allowing them to do? Hon. S. Thomson: To clarify, a non-resident adult can come and hunt provided they’ve taken the CORE, and it is limited to small game. Those are the current provi - sions.

A non-resident adult taking the CORE would not be able to hunt alone for anything other than small game. K. Conroy: So a person from outside of British Columbia has as much right to hunt as a resident hunter, as long as they take the CORE. That’s what the minister is saying? Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is no, not the same right. The provision is limited to small game — rabbits, squirrels, that kind of thing.

They do not have the ability to hunt for moose, for deer, for any of the larger game un- less they have a permit to accompany or they’re guided. [1455] So it doesn’t provide the opportunity for a non-resident adult to have the same rights as a resident, provided they’ve taken the CORE program, except for small game. K. Conroy: Can the minister tell me how many for - eign hunters have come and taken the CORE course so that they can hunt for rabbits and squirrels? Hon. S. Thomson: No, we don’t know that, because previously they didn’t have to have taken that CORE pro- gram.

They could have been doing that without having to go through that process. We’re addressing that gap to provide the same standard so that they will have to take that step in order to do that. Previously…. We don’t know. K. Conroy: Well, then it begs the question: if the ministry doesn’t know, why would they bring this in? I

British Columbia Debates14144 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 mean, I can understand ensuring that foreign hunters don’t have priority over British Columbia resident hunt- ers. But why would this even be brought in so that they still have the ability to come in and hunt, even though the ministry is saying they’re only hunting squirrels and rabbits — small game? Does that entitle…? The tiny deer that we have on the Queen Charlotte Islands — they’re pretty small. Does that equate to small game? Is it just squirrels and rabbits? Is this an issue?

Do we have a lot of foreign hunters that want to come and write the CORE so that they can come and hunt small game in B.C.? Hon. S. Thomson: No, this is to address the gap and ensure…. This is from a safety perspective, ensuring that anybody that is out there hunting those small game…. To be clear, it is only those. The small deer on Haida Gwaii would not constitute small game under the provisions. It’s to address that gap to make sure that anybody who is out there has taken that safety program when they’re here and when they’re out hunting those small game. K.

Conroy: It was my understanding that if a foreign hunter came into B.C., they had to be accompanied by either a guide-outfitter or another resident hunter. Am I now understanding that non-resident hunters can come to B.C. and they just have to take the CORE and they can go and hunt squirrels and rabbits? Does that allow them to trap beavers? Are they considered small game? How does that work? Was this such an issue that this legisla - tion needed to be brought in for this? [1500] Hon. S.

Thomson: This provision ensures that a non- resident hunter who comes and is hunting those small game, as we’ve described, has taken that basic CORE pro- gram. It addresses a safety gap. They’ve had the ability to do this previously but without having taken the CORE program. We’re ensuring that they have to do that now so that they have that safety provision and process here. All other hunters in British Columbia are held to that standard, and the ability to do this only applies to those small game.

If they are anything else, then they either have to be accompanied by a guide-outfitter or under a permit to accompany. K. Conroy: Well, again I’m going to ask, because the minister keeps referring to this gap. Has this been a huge pickup by foreign hunters coming to B.C. hunting small game? I don’t understand why the ministry would bring something in if it was…. Is this a big gap in the number of foreign hunters that come and need to take the course so they can hunt small game, as in squirrels and rabbits? I don’t understand. The minister isn’t explaining what the actual gap is. Hon. S.

Thomson: No, it is not a big gap, and it’s not a big area where we felt there was a big issue to address. While we had the opportunity, what we did want to make sure of is that people who have been doing that and have had the ability to do that have taken the CORE training program. That’s so that all people — it’s a public safety process — are out there…. And it’s so we do know what amount may have been there or may be there, by having that requirement in place now. We don’t feel that it is a wide-open process or a big process.

It is simply to bring that safety standard in place while we have the opportunity to do so. K. Conroy: So where are the foreign non-resident hunters taking this CORE course from? Hon. S. Thomson: I’ve answered the questions in re- lation to the CORE program, using that as…. That’s the standard we have here in British Columbia. In this pro - cess, it could be CORE, and they could take it here where it’s offered.

Or it could be an equivalent program that is offered in their jurisdiction and that is approved by the director of fish and wildlife here. [1505] They would still have to have apply for the hunting li- cence. They can’t come in and do this without applying for the hunting licence. When they do that, they will have to note that they have taken that program or an equiva - lent program in their application for the licence. This is ensuring that when they apply for that licence, that safety standard that is required for resident hunters in British Columbia and others is the same standard that’s applied to those.

Currently that’s not the case. But it’s not just coming in and doing it. They still have to apply for a hunting li - cence, even for the small game. K. Conroy: So foreign, non-resident hunters are going to take the CORE program, which is offered mostly by volunteers — great people who provide it through wild - life clubs in the province. They’re going to have to come here and do that, or they have to show equivalency of one of the ones they’ve taken somewhere else that would be accepted here in B.C. Then they’ll apply for a licence if they’re going to hunt squirrel or rabbits. That’s what this is saying? Hon. S.

Thomson: Again, back to this section. In this case, if they wish to hunt and they come in to hunt, they’re going to have to apply for the licence as part of that. They will have to demonstrate that they were apply- ing the same standards to that. They will have to dem - onstrate that they have taken the CORE or an equivalent program that is approved by the director of fish and wild- life. If they meet that, then they can hunt the small game unaccompanied. If they want to hunt other game, then

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14145 they’re going to have to be accompanied, under the per- mit to accompany or by a guide-outfitter. K. Conroy: I don’t know if the minister can provide it now, but can the minister provide a list of what small game actually entails? Hon. S. Thomson: Y es, I’ll provide that. K. Conroy: What precautions have been put in place to ensure that a non-resident hunter doesn’t come in, get the CORE or has equivalency, and apply for…? He’s out there hunting and sees an animal and hunts it, thinking: “It’s small game to me. ” What precautions are in place?

What does a conservation officer have to do? What has this legislation done to ensure that there are precautions in place so that those foreign hunters only stick to small game? [1510] Hon. S. Thomson: The point that the member oppos- ite has raised is one of the reasons why this requirement is being put in place. As you know, the CORE program provides not only safety training but that information and advice and education about what constitutes small game, what isn’t, and everything like that — to provide that level. The person will be registered in through the system, in the database and in the hunting.

I guess, theoretically, nothing prevents somebody from violating the rules. If the person who has that provision shot an animal that they didn’t have the ability to do or wasn’t licensed to do — hadn’t got the tags, wasn’t accom- panied or anything like that — then that’s a violation of the regulations and the legislation. What this amendment does is ensure that those that had this ability before, on small game…. We ensure, now, that they have the CORE program or equivalent to be able to ensure that we provide them both the safety and the education information for people, on the small game — anybody, anywhere.

Anything above that that is not small game requires the permit to accompany — or be taken by a guide-outfitter. It’s simply addressing a gap that…. When we went through this process, we think it strengthens and en - hances the safety, awareness and understanding out there, and actually puts a greater emphasis on that in this process. K. Conroy: Can the ministry provide the numbers, then, of how many foreign hunters have actually come to B.C. in the last couple of years to hunt small game? Hon. S. Thomson: I don’t have that number.

I was just being advised by staff that potentially that number could be provided. [1515] The way it would be done is that we would have to look through the licensing system and take the non-residents who only applied for a hunting licence without any other application process. So they didn’t apply for a hunting li- cence and an LEH or a species tag or anything like that. They simply came here and simply had a hunting licence. The assumption would be that that person took out a hunting licence only to hunt small game, because they can do that.

To hunt anything else, you would have to have any of those other authorizations and licences to be able to do that. With a bit of work, we could probably provide that information on making that basic assumption that any - body with an address in Philadelphia, for example, who only took out a single basic hunting licence did so for the purposes of small game. If that information is of in - terest, we could do a bit of work and probably provide that information. K. Conroy: Y eah, I would be interested in that.

I find it interesting to think that someone from Philadelphia would need to come to B.C. to shoot squirrels or rab - bits. I’m sure they have enough squirrels and rabbits in Philadelphia, just as an example. I don’t know, maybe there’s other small game that we only have in B.C. that they don’t have in other parts of the world. Because the ministry brought this legislation in this bill, I’m thinking it had to have been an issue.

I’m just trying to come to grips with the fact that non-resident hunters would actually come to B.C. to shoot rabbits and squirrels and have to take the CORE program so they could go out on their own and do that. In fact, I don’t know too many people who hunt squirrels anymore, but I’m the first to be corrected on that one. This is an interesting part of this bill. I think we need numbers to understand why this legislation is here. Those foreign hunters, would they also then have the new fish and wildlife ID? Would they also get that, the same as a resident hunter? Hon. S.

Thomson: The answer to that is yes, they will. As the system is implemented and we transition the non- resident licences and authorizations, all of those, onto the system, they will have that fish and wildlife ID number as part of the management of the system. Again, a lot of the questions that are being asked will…. The information that we’ll be able to provide around some of those questions asked will be enhanced by hav - ing this system — the transformation project — that is being designed. We would have that information much more readily available in the new system.

So it’s a little bit longer answer to the short answer, which is yes. K. Conroy: It’ll clearly identify hunters, then, that…. A resident hunter would have a number, and a non-resident

British Columbia Debates14146 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 hunter would be clearly identified as a non-resident hunt- er in the system that can only hunt small game. Hon. S. Thomson: Y es. K. Conroy: Is the minister concerned about any nega- tive impacts on tourism that this legislation might bring in to people who were going to come in and hunt small game that now have to take a CORE, or prove that they’ve had the CORE course? [1520] Hon. S. Thomson: No, we don’t. We don’t feel it will. I think that when the consideration was given on this, it was a question of education, awareness, public safety.

That was foremost in our minds on doing this, and as we pointed out before, we don’t think it’s a big number. So we don’t see it as being an impact there. The CORE program is readily available. If people are coming on a tourism package for that purpose or coming to visit British Columbia for that purpose, then we think that taking those steps won’t be a deterrent for people visiting, and it’s going to give us better data and manage- ment of the resource. D. Donaldson: Earlier, when I asked the minister if, under this

section 2, First Nations were consulted about the amendments being contemplated in

section 2 and other sections under this bill regarding the Wildlife Act, he responded that 203 First Nations — I believe were his words — had been provided information. Could the minister please advise as to how they were provided in - formation? Hon. S. Thomson: The process was that the informa- tion and the opportunity to provide input and engage was provided by email or by fax to all of the First Nations. The list that was used was the contact and information list that was used for the Water Sustainability Act, where there was a broader obligation to consult. So we used that base.

Following that, there were opportunities provided for provincewide conference calls, for direct engagement for all of those that wanted that opportunity. D. Donaldson: What information was provided that the minister referred to when he talked about providing information to First Nations? This isn’t just in

section 2, but for efficiency’s sake, in all the sections dealing with amendments to the Wildlife Act that we’re contemplat- ing here. [1525] Hon. S. Thomson: The information that was provided was a

summary of the objectives, the requirements, the system, and with specific reference in that information to the sections that were felt to be most relevant to First Nations communities — specifically, the provisions in

section 5 under the requirements for identification. That

section was specifically referenced in the information that was provided. D. Donaldson: Would the minister commit to provid- ing a copy of that information to myself after this debate? Hon. S. Thomson: Y es, certainly. D. Donaldson: When did this information get sent to the First Nations? Hon. S. Thomson: The specific date: October 14, 2016. D. Donaldson: In the correspondence referenced, was there a timeline for a required response from the First Nations? Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that the initial informa- tion provided a 30-day provision for response.

I’m also advised that as the responses came in, that time period for anybody that wanted further time and further infor - mation was extended beyond that time period. D. Donaldson: How many First Nations responded? Hon. S. Thomson: We had 17 responses, noting that some of those represented collective groups rather than individual First Nations. For example, the NStQ, the Northern Shuswap, represent a broader group. But 17 direct responses. D.

Donaldson: For the sake of time, I won’t ask the minister to list the 17 groups or individual First Nations who responded, but if he would commit to providing the names of those to me after this committee stage, that would be appreciated. Could the minister advise how many groups availed themselves of the provincewide conference call in the First Nations that he referenced? Hon. S. Thomson: Five. D. Donaldson: Does this process that we’ve been dis- cussing here for the last few minutes constitute consulta- tion as far as the province is concerned? [1530] Hon. S.

Thomson: This was consultation at the low end of the spectrum. We were advised that this was not infringing on any rights and title, but we did want to take that extra step, in terms of provision of information, to provide that opportunity. So information-sharing and consultation at the low end of the spectrum or the re - quirement.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14147 D. Donaldson: Of the 17 responses received, could the minister advise as to the nature of the responses and the nature of the concerns? [R. Lee in the chair.] Hon. S. Thomson: I think, in general

summary to the member opposite, most responses were, I would say, generally supportive of the objectives and the intent, rec- ognizing that this was a process that provided tools and stronger management and compliance. There was probably a general sense, it would be fair to say, that some of the respondents would have preferred a deeper engagement in the process. For some of them who had specific follow-up, that was done. In the overall process, no major concerns identified, a general support for the initiative.

And we continue to provide input and feedback to First Nations that contact our staff on this as the bill has been coming forward. But a general level of support. D. Donaldson: When the concerns were regarding deeper consultation, what was the follow-up that the minister referenced? Hon. S. Thomson: For those that responded and want- ed further engagement and discussion, that occurred through direct one-on-one conversations between staff and the appropriate person within the First Nation com- munity that was making the inquiry. D. Donaldson: Was a record made of those conver - sations? [1535] Hon. S.

Thomson: I’m advised that there are minutes or records of the conference calls and some of the broader calls. In other cases, the responses were more one-on-one conver- sations, informal, and there may not necessarily have been a record in that particular case. So a little different for each of the responses, depending on the nature of the response. D. Donaldson: If a member of the public wanted to access the minutes that the minister references, where are they kept? Hon. S. Thomson: Those records are with the staff in the fish and wildlife branch of the ministry. D.

Donaldson: In any of the responses that the minis- ter received from the 17 First Nations and groups, did any of them have concerns about aboriginal hunting rights or aboriginal rights? Hon. S. Thomson: I think it would be fair to say that in the initial call and initial comments, some of those con - cerns were raised initially and primarily as they wanted to get a better understanding of what this was and what it wasn’t.

I’m advised that, in those cases, as they engaged and understood what was being done here in terms of the transformation of the licensing system, those concerns were generally assuaged — in terms of those concerns. I think the member opposite will know that that’s generally how some of the conversations started when information was first provided and comment was first given back. But with the sharing and the discussion, I’m advised that those concerns were generally addressed. K. Conroy: Back to the CORE process, with the equivalency.

How does the ministry establish an equiva- lency for non-resident foreign hunters coming to B.C. — that the program they’ve taken that the ministry would accept is actually equivalent to our CORE process? Hon. S.

Thomson: As I mentioned, the designation or the approval of another program other than CORE, so that it is CORE equivalency, is the responsibility of the director of the fish and wildlife branch. [1540] What they do is look at the programs that are ref - erenced and that are in other jurisdictions and assess those against the standards that are in our CORE pro - gram — which has been developed, as the member op - posite knows, over many, many years in consultation with our fish and wildlife group, B.C. Wildlife Federation and others who deliver the program.

But it would be assessed on the process of: does it meet the same level of safety in- struction and those kinds of things? The hunting community…. They know each other, and it’s pretty well known. They know what the programs are in the other jurisdictions. It’s not a specific set of criter- ia. It’s an assessment of it. Does it meet the same sorts of standards? Staff would review those, prepare recommen- dations for the director.

The director would determine whether that particular program, as referenced there, met those standards and is one that would be designated as meeting that equivalency for purposes of this

section of the legislation. K. Conroy: So the minister is saying that if our friend from Pennsylvania comes in to hunt squirrels, the dir - ector will take the time to look and make sure that the program that’s offered in Pennsylvania is equivalent to the program offered here in B.C. Are we going to go to other countries? If there’s a country…? If hunters come over from any countries over in the African continent or down in South America or Central America or any of the States, are there going to be staff to make sure that the equivalency is actually checked?

What if these countries don’t have an equivalency pro- gram? Is the person going to have to come and take our CORE program? Is that what the minister is saying —

British Columbia Debates14148 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 that there is going to be a way to assess every program that’s offered anywhere in the world for any non-resident hunter that wants to come and hunt small game in B.C.? Hon. S. Thomson: Typically, as I said, the programs across the jurisdictions are fairly well known. That list is there, on the approvals. In the event that somebody applied and referenced a program that wasn’t known or one that people weren’t aware of, then there would have to be some work done to determine if it was equivalent.

What you may do in some of those cases is simply ad- vise the person that actually, rather than having to go through all that assessment, there’s a CORE program available here and it would be more efficient to take that program. It supports our B.C. delivery group for that. Overall, generally, the programs are known. We don’t see having this requirement in here as a significant addi- tional workload for staff in order to be able to determine the programs. Most of them are there and known. K.

Conroy: To that end, then, can the minister pro - vide the number of non-resident or foreign hunters that have come to B.C. to hunt small game and what coun - tries they’ve come from so that they would have already had the experience of checking out whether our CORE is equivalent to their CORE program? How many coun- tries have different hunters come from? [1545] Hon. S. Thomson: If I understand the question, I think the member opposite is asking: of those people, non-resi- dents, who come and seek or apply for a hunting licence to hunt small game and can do that…?

We’re now telling them they need to have CORE or CORE equivalent. Just to clarify, I think the question was: can we give a break - down of jurisdictions and areas where those people are coming from? Correct, okay. We’ll undertake that. I said we can do some work to try to provide the numbers around that. We can work to try to provide a breakdown, in some way, of jurisdictions where those people are coming from. It would come from their address on their applica - tion, not necessarily from what…. They haven’t had to, at this point, indicate some CORE program that they’ve taken in some area or anything like that.

It’s not part of the requirements. The only way we would know is to do a breakdown by address or postal code or zip code or something like that, where we could provide some break- down on that for you. As part of that work, we’ll attempt to provide what we can in that area. K. Conroy: The minister has said that this is a safety concern. That’s one of the reasons they’re making sure that non-resident foreign hunters have the safety criteria to go out and hunt small game. I would think that would be equivalent…. It also should be required if you’re hunt- ing big game.

I think there’s more of a safety issue when you’re hunting big game as opposed to hunting squirrels and bunnies. Is this something that could potentially be required for hunters who are going to come and actually be guided by either guide-outfitters or resident hunters because they’re going to now be hunting big game? Is that a requirement that foreign hunters should all be expected to take? [1550] Hon. S. Thomson: No. This requirement applies to people who are going to be hunting alone and for small game.

In the other circumstances, the person will either be with a resident hunter who has the CORE program and is under a permit to accompany or with a guide- outfitter who has taken all of the training and programs in place. This

section was meant to close that gap on those who come in and would be hunting alone. Just as a further quick little bit of information, I can advise the member opposite that I don’t have the breakdown of where they came from at this point. But I can advise that the number of non-residents who came and bought only a hunting licence, meaning they’re only hunting for small species or small game, was 138 people. K. Conroy: Thank you to the minister. So 138 people came to B.C. last year to hunt for squirrels or rabbits — bunnies — is what the minister is saying. Hon. S. Thomson: Y es. K.

Conroy: I’ll have to get the list of what the minis - ter considers other small game. I don’t think B.C. is the only place in the world where you’ d come to hunt squir- rels and bunnies. What kind of fee are these foreign hunters going to be charged for hunting small game in B.C.? Hon. S. Thomson: The fee for a non-resident — there’s a non-resident which is a Canadian but not a British Columbia resident — is $53, with a $22 surcharge. [1555] For a non-resident alien…. I guess that’s the defin - ition. I’ve always struggled a little bit with that definition.

Maybe one time we’ll bring some legislative changes through and call them something else other than aliens. But it’s $126, with a $54 surcharge. K. Conroy: So somebody from Canada that’s coming to hunt squirrels would pay $75, and somebody from the United States that’s coming to hunt squirrels would pay $126. I think I’m hearing that right, no? Hon. S. Thomson: It’s $180.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14149 K. Conroy: Just to clarify, I’ve kind of fixated on squir- rels and bunnies, but would a coyote be considered small game? Hon. S. Thomson: I believe so, yes. As I said, we would provide the full list, but I think the member would be correct in saying that coyotes would fall in that category. K. Conroy: How much does a B.C. resident hunter have to pay to hunt squirrels? Hon. S. Thomson: It’s $25 plus the $7 surcharge — $32. K. Conroy: Just out of curiosity, how many B.C. resi- dents take out hunting licences to hunt squirrels in this province? Hon. S.

Thomson: We sell approximately 100,000 hunting licences annually in British Columbia. We would have to do the same breakdown in terms of how many out of all of those took out a hunting licence only and not any other species or authorizations or licences. Just as we did for these ones, for 138, we could provide that number, with some work, for the number of hunting licences that are sold — those that didn’t apply for any other form of permit, authorization, species or tag along with their licence. My son is one of those, for example. My son took out a licence.

He took his CORE and likes to shoot rabbits, for example. But he hasn’t taken the step of applying for a limited-entry hunt, a deer permit, an open-season per- mit or anything like that for anything bigger than what would be qualified as small game. He’s just beginning at this point. He’ d be one of those that’s in that category. We can do that work and find that number — of how many of those are in that category only. K. Conroy: I think that would qualify as a susten - ance hunt. Is there a cap on the number of small game that foreign hunters can hunt?

If someone is coming from Pennsylvania — we’ll go back to our friend in Pennsylvania — how many squirrels can they hunt under this legislation? [1600] Hon. S. Thomson: I was just going to comment that this is feeling a little bit more like an estimates process than a legislative process, but that’s fine. In terms of pro- viding the follow-up information was the reason I was referencing that. Within some of the small game…. There are bag limits established for some of those by regulation. It depends on the population and the number of licences.

All that work is done in terms of managing those populations, and that’s all prescribed by regulation. We can provide that information. I don’t have all of that information here with me. But if there are any pressures and concerns with respect to populations of any of those small game, then bag limits can be set for those. K. Conroy: I’m curious. The questions are revolving around why this legislation needed to be brought in. It seems like legislation that…. It’s an interesting legisla - tion, I could say.

Who knew that there would be such a take on hunting squirrels and bunnies in the province of B.C. by foreign hunters? Who would think that that’s a good thing to do — if that’s something that people are coming to do? I’ll go to the regulations and look at the bag limits on the various animals to see what’s actually there. I’m curi- ous to see what the bag limits are for a foreign hunter to come in and hunt squirrels. I thank the minister for his answers on

section

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. K. Conroy: In

section 3, I’m wondering: is this change responding to any specific issue? Hon. S. Thomson: In this section, subsection (5) is added to make it an offence for a person to make a false statement on an application made on behalf of another person. Often, guide-outfitters or angling guides would submit applications on behalf of their clients who res - ide outside of B.C. Electronic licensing will facilitate this practice for applying for the authorization, not neces - sarily just for guide-outfitters, angling guides and things, but for all users.

Where people are applying on behalf of a client, the system does facilitate that. The intention of this amendment is to hold those in - dividuals accountable to provide truthful information, whether making application for their own licences, per - mits or limited-entry hunting authorizations or when acting on behalf of another person. Then section (6) is added to provide the due diligence defence for a person who is doing that.

This is consistent with the general pro- visions of defensive due diligence. [1605] It’s addressing a perceived potential problem where, because of easier facilitation, there may be the opportun- ity to have provided false information. This provides that accountability and makes it an offence if a person does. K. Conroy: My question is…. The example the min - ister used is if a guide-outfitter is making application on behalf of a non-resident hunter.

It’s my understanding that if a guide-outfitter is taking a non-resident hunt - er out hunting, they are with them all the time, so they would know if the statement was false.

British Columbia Debates14150 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 This doesn’t make sense: unless the person “did not know the statement was false” at the time. But if they’re with the person hunting all the time, the person would know whether they were accurately making the proper application or not. Hon. S. Thomson: Important to note in this

section around the statements…. This is in the application pro - cess, so it’s not while they’re out hunting and things. This is around applying for the original licence. So it’s if a per- son provides false information in terms of…. It’s providing the requirement around the due diligence that that person is who they say they are — that the information is correct in all the things that are needed in the application process. If the person makes a false statement on the applica - tion or the person makes, on behalf of another person…. If that information is false, then it is an offence. K.

Conroy: Would there not be a proper precaution in place to ensure that? I mean, I’m trying to think of a situation that the minister is explaining. If a foreigner, non-resident hunter came to hunt and told the guide- outfitter that they were Joe Blow, and they’re not Joe Blow — they’re Pete Smith — and the guide-outfitter submitted their names under Joe Blow, would there not be precautions in place to ensure that you were getting proper ID? It makes me think if every hunter that came in to hunt in B.C. had to do the CORE process, then they would go through a process of becoming legitimate.

This goes back to: why wouldn’t non-resident hunters all have to do the CORE process, whether they’re with a guide- outfitter or not? I’m asking: are there not guidelines in place to ensure that people don’t come here under assumed names to hunt? What else would they apply for that would justify this legislation? Hon. S. Thomson: This

section is designed, as I stated, to put the onus and accountability on the person mak - ing the application. [1610] If the person is making the application on behalf of another person, this makes it an offence if there is a false statement provided. It does provide the due diligence provision as well. If you look up, through the rest of the sections, the other offences…. If there is obliteration, alteration of li - cences, tags, seals, changes or alterations to their licence or permit or limited-entry hunting authorized under this act….

So this adds a provision around the application process and providing the information. I guess I could use an example. If a guide-outfitter was making an application on behalf of somebody who may have had a previous wildlife infraction or something here, and if that person provided a different name in or- der to be able to provide that opportunity and then it was found out that that was false and the person was coming in — because if he’ d provided the proper information, he would have been denied that licence application — it puts the onus back on the person acting as an agent for that, in that process.

It puts the onus on that person to make sure the information is correct — and the steps that they need to take in order to do that. It may mean that they have to make sure they’re not just taking information over a phone, that they get some confirmation of that or whatever. But we want to make sure that the information in the application process is correct and that we put the onus on the person acting on that person’s behalf to provide that, to make sure that there’s that accountability. If it is found to be without that due diligence provision, then it’s an offence. K.

Conroy: So what the minister is saying, then, if I’ve got this right…. Say a non-resident hunter comes in and hires a guide-outfitter. The guide-outfitter does the appli- cation. Unbeknownst to the guide-outfitter, this person has contravened the Wildlife Act — has hired a guide- outfitter in another part of the province and done some- thing bad there or thought he had a licence to hunt small game and hunted big game and was caught — and didn’t tell the guide-outfitter. The guide-outfitter would not be responsible. It would be the person that was…. The foreign hunter would be the one that would be fined.

Or would it actually be the guide-outfitter that would be fined? Hon. S. Thomson: If a person knowingly provid - ed false information to the guide-outfitter, the guide- outfitter who’s acting on his behalf provided that information, the licence was approved and the guide- outfitter had done due diligence, then the responsibility would be back on that person who knowingly provided the false information. If the information was provided falsely and the guide- outfitter didn’t do his due diligence and was part of that application process, then the responsibility could fall back on the guide-outfitter.

They would be responsible for the fact that an offence had been committed. So it’s the person or the person acting as an agent or on behalf of another person who knowingly provides false information. K. Conroy: If that does happen in B.C. and the hunter has gone back to wherever he came from, like Pennsylvania, is the ministry actually then going to go after that person to charge them? Is that a process the ministry has looked into? [1615] Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that we would pursue those to the extent possible. Conservation services do work with other jurisdictions and agencies and organiz-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14151 ations in pursuing those. So where there is that, particu- larly if it’s serious consequences, then we would pursue them to the extent possible that we can. I think that at a minimum, we would lay the charges, and then, if the person came back in any capacity, we would have that opportunity. But again, without getting into each individual detail, I think the direction would be that we would pursue those to the extent possible. K. Conroy: Is there a fine that is associated with this? Is there jail time? What’s the penalty for contravening this law? Hon. S. Thomson: In

section 4 of the proposed legis - lation here, subsection (1)(

a) in this

section applies a penalty of up to $250,000 and/or up to two years im - prisonment on first conviction. Subsequent convictions can carry a penalty between $5,000 and $500,000 and/or up to three years imprisonment. K. Conroy: I’m not sure if this question would be an- swered in

section 4. If it will…. What would you have to do to incur a fine of $250,000 or end up in jail? Hon. S. Thomson: The provisions in this have provid- ed for those, up to those significant limits. Again, when you go through the cases, it provides for the judge’s dis- cretion to levy up to those. Lots of circumstances would get taken into consideration as to what that range of pen- alties would be. I suppose it would depend on past trans- gressions; nature of the transgression; if false information was knowingly provided, which resulted in a licence be- ing provided.

Some very, very egregious results are com- ing out of that, by being able to have that opportunity. It would provide that provision. It’s hard to think of what those extreme circumstances would be, but it provides that ability for the judge in the process to have that range. I think it is standard practice to provide significant deterrence at those upper levels to cover off those potentially extreme situations. K. Conroy: Has this been an issue in the province, that it would generate this type of legislation? [1620] Hon. S.

Thomson: No, we don’t have lots of or a sig- nificant number of examples or situations in this case. What we wanted to do here, while we had the opportun- ity in bringing the legislative amendments through, was to provide that provision in there to cover off those situ- ations — if it happened. This is not put in here because there has been a significant number of problems or a real issue to address.

We just wanted to make sure that in the list of offences here, we had the provisions around the application pro- cess — linked to the fact, now, that by these changes that we’re making here, in terms of the streamlining and the process, application processes are being facilitated and actually made easier. We wanted to make sure that as they work with this easier system, we cover off those eventualities. It’s not put in here to cover off a major issue that we have had or need to cover off.

It’s good practice to make sure that we, when we have the opportunity, put those provisions in, particularly as we’re making the changes to the electronic system of licensing and authorizations.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. K. Conroy: Now we can maybe get a little more into the fines and penalties situation. But I’m just wonder - ing…. The amendments that were made under

section 4 — are these housekeeping changes, and how does this

section affect actual fines and penalties? Hon. S. Thomson:

Section 84 in the Wildlife Act it - self is the

section that sets out all the penalties and things around all the aspects of the act. But

section 4 here, in this bill, brings in the offence provisions that are set up under

section 3, around the application process, and sec- tion 5, which brings in further provisions. So this is the

section that facilitates or implements the fines for all of the provisions that are in this legislation. K. Conroy: Is there funding associated with this legis- lation to ensure that there’s enough of them — conserva- tion officers — to ensure that they can actually enforce the fines and penalties? Hon. S. Thomson: In bringing in this new system, we worked very closely with the conservation officer service — in bringing this through.

I think it’s fair to say that they are probably some of the strongest advocates for the sys- tem, which will provide them the data and the informa - tion, through the app on their smartphone, to process the identification requirements. In their view, this sup - ports their work. [1625] There is not specific funding associated. That’s separ- ate from the legislation around resources that are pro - vided for conservation services. But I think it’s very fair to say that conservation officers see this new system, this streamlined system and enhanced electronic system, as being very supportive of the work they do. K.

Conroy: Will this have the ability to bring in more revenue for the government? Hon. S. Thomson: I guess in terms of licensing rev - enue, an enhanced system may see an increase in people

British Columbia Debates14152 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 participating in licensing revenue. I don’t think we would look at that as being a revenue source. That’s more gener- ated by the work that wildlife organizations do in hunter recruitment and that kind of work. It is an enhanced system, obviously, when you make it a streamlined system and you make it for client service and access with the requirements in this process. Beyond the hunting experience, it makes their entry into it easier.

From the fines and offences side of these additional provisions, we don’t look at those, count those and rely on those as additional revenue. If there is enhanced com- pliance in terms of those fines, that revenue comes in. But this, from a general perspective, is not seen as legislation that would significantly enhance revenue.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. K. Conroy:

Section 5 is around the requirement to produce photo identification, on request, to an officer asking for authorization. I’m wondering. The minister has said that this bill will reduce the number of authorizations hunters are required to carry, but they still will have to carry and produce photo identification in place of a licence. Is my understanding correct that they will not have to carry a hunting licence, but they will have to carry photo ID, and then the CO can cross-check with the computerized sys- tem to ensure that their wildlife ID number corresponds to their ID? Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite is correct. This

section requires the proof of identity. The new re - quirement to produce photo identification will allow of- ficers to confirm that the person is who they claim to be and improve enforcement success by charging the correct person with an offence. This

section is the

section that was most strongly requested by the conservation officer service in carrying out their responsibilities and duties. K. Conroy: What process will the ministry have in place for people that actually don’t have photo ID? [1630] Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm that this is a re - quirement. A person who does not have photo identifi - cation won’t legally be able to hunt, just as a person who does not have a driver’s licence is not able to drive a car. And just as a person needs to verify age for purchase of liquor, photo identification is required.

This is a require- ment that strengthens the compliance side of it. It’s important to point out, on the hunting side, that most people who carry a firearm have a possession and acquisition licence for their firearm. That is a piece of photo ID that they have. We don’t see this as a constraint to hunting. We see it as a provision that enhances the work of conservation officers in the field. D. Donaldson: The minister has said that this

section 5 in the amendments dealing with the provisions around producing a prescribed photo identification has to do with ensuring that the person being asked has proof of who they are. Could the minister further elaborate on the situation that this amendment is designed to remedy? Could he further elaborate on the situation that this amendment is designed to remedy, as far as what the rea- soning is and what some of the examples or the situations are? What has motivated the amendment around requir- ing people to have proof of who they are? [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. S. Thomson: Again, this is a

section that was requested strongly by the conservation officer service — also, it should be pointed out, supported by the hunting community. In their view, it’s a privilege to hunt. [1635] They want to make sure that people are legally hunting. This helps with officer safety, with enforcement. When the information is being provided, it can be cross-refer - enced with all of the information that’s in the on-line data, through the permits and authorization process, to make sure that that person has all of those — the ID number and the appropriate authorizations.

Again, it’s a process to strengthen the work in the field to make sure that the person is who they say they are, that the officer knows who they are dealing with, and to cross- reference against all of the data. So it’s a key piece that is supported both by conservation officer services and the hunting community. D. Donaldson: Subsection (4), under

section 97, de - scribes a situation where a person might be exempt. How would an officer determine, under subsection (4), if a person is exempt? Hon. S. Thomson: This

section provides for the exemption of prescribed classes of persons from produ - cing photo identification. That would be, for example, in- dividuals under 16 years of age and those kinds of things. With respect to the requirements around First Nations who are residing in B.C. who are exempt from having to hold a hunting, trapping or angling licence, they will still be required to produce the photo identification, for many of the same reasons that were outlined earlier.

The conservation officers would still use the current process- es that they have to determine whether that person was exempt from the requirement for the hunting, trapping and angling licences. But the provision here would add a requirement that all would need to produce the photo identification for assisting with the identification process.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14153 It does not change the situation where those individ - uals are exempt from having to have the licences. The conservation officers would go through the same pro - cess that they currently do to determine that status or that eligibility. D. Donaldson: In regards to First Nations, what proof would be required in the field by an officer to determine if a person is exempt? [1640] Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, in this case, the situation would stay the same as it currently is — that is, a status card. It could be a letter from the band office, from the First Nation.

It could be a treaty First Nation identifica - tion. It could be…. In many cases, it is now the conserv - ation officers, and many who live in these communities know the communities and accept that assertion and accept that ability to do that just in direct discussion. So nothing in that respect would change in the field. It’s also important to point out that in terms of the photo ID side of it…. All of the same types and provi - sions around what constitutes the photo ID would be the same for First Nations as for others — so no differ - ences there.

The determination around whether they qualify for or are exempt from hunting, trapping or an - gling — a licence would be the same as it currently is now, no change. D. Donaldson: Under this proposed amendment to

section 97, subsection (4) refers to a person who is not…. Unless the person is exempt under

section 11(9) or 12(

b) of the current Wildlife Act…. And

section 11(9) describes that hunting licence provisions “do not apply to an Indian residing in British Columbia. ” The defin - ition in this

section of the Wildlife Act…. An “Indian” is defined as an Indian by the Indian Act of Canada. And the Indian Act of Canada defines an Indian as someone who is on the Indian registry and, therefore, referred to as a status Indian. The

section that I’m referring to, subsection (6), says that a person who contravenes subsection (4) commits an offence. Does this provision now say that a person saying they’re exempt who cannot provide a status card is committing an offence? [1645] Hon. S. Thomson: This

section adds a new require - ment. The requirement is that those individuals residing in B.C. who are exempt from holding a hunting, trap - ping or angling licence provide photo identification and state their name and address when hunting, trapping or angling if requested to do so. This provides those provi- sions that even if they are exempt from the requirement to holding hunting, trapping or angling licences, they are still required to provide the photo identification. If they didn’t provide that photo identification in the same way that everybody else does, that would be an offence under the legislation. D.

Donaldson: Well, the minister must be aware of the recent Daniels decision, in 2016, that confirms that “Indians, ” under

section 91(24) of the Constitution Act includes all aboriginal peoples, including non-status Indians. How would the situation of a non-status Indian be dealt with under this legislation? [1650] Hon. S. Thomson: This

section refers specifically to the requirements around producing photo identification. If the person currently qualifies for the exemption from holding the hunting, trapping or angling licence, then that provision will be handled the same way now in the field as it currently takes place. This

section specifically deals with the requirement to provide photo identification. In the field, the officer will deal with the situation around status and non-status as they do currently. D. Donaldson: How do they currently deal with that? Hon. S. Thomson: The officers administer it in the field based on the current status provisions of the Indian Act. They do it in a way that…. As we talked about, in terms of how that is verified.

Also, officers have the ability to provide some discretion as they’re administering that but, as a general statement, operate it under the basis of the current status provisions of the Indian Act. If there are changes to that that come forward over time as a result of direction and court application, then, obviously, as that evolves, how we manage that in the field will also need to evolve. This

section spe - cifically references the requirement for photo identi - fication to be provided in the same way for all persons who are hunting. D. Donaldson: The minister describes that there is discretion currently. But the amendments we are consid- ering under

section 5 are quite clear that a person is only exempt if they have status. If they can’t prove status with photo ID, then they are committing an offence. What photo identification would prove the person is an Indian, as described in the act, and is therefore exempt? Hon. S. Thomson: If we haven’t made it clear, I’ll try to make it clearer here. This

section relates to the provi- sions to provide photo identification — the same for all — to assist with officer safety and linkages to all of the data. Photo ID is not used to determine status. That is a separ- ate process that the officer in the field will use. As I said earlier, the way they do that is by various means — status card, letter from band, First Nations

British Columbia Debates14154 Tuesday, March 7, 2017 treaty ID or others. I know it is exercised in the field with a degree of discretion. [1655] This particular section, the offences related to this and all of the provisions of this

section are related to the re - quirement for photo identification which, in all of our consultations with the First Nations — to the degree in which that was taken — they support and do not have issue with. D. Donaldson: Well, the proposed amendment is quite clear. It says: “…a person exempt under

section 11(9) or 12(b)…. ” That refers to what the term used in those sections is: an Indian in B.C. The definition, in that part of the

definitions part of the bill, of an Indian is an Indian under the Indian Act. And under the Indian Act, that means a person on the Indian registry and, therefore, a person with status. So if the person cannot prove that they have status, then this act says they are committing an offence. Is that correct? Hon. S. Thomson: Just to point out that sections 11(9) and 12(

b) are pre-existing. If you don’t meet those re - quirements, it’s a pre-existing offence to hunt without a hunting, trapping or angling licence. All we are saying in this

section is that a person who, from a pre-existing process, was not status or was status…. Either way, it doesn’t reduce their requirement to produce photo identification. If they don’t provide it, then it is an offence under this provision for not producing the photo licence. The issue of status versus non-status is completely sep- arate from that process and administered in the field. D. Donaldson: So to prove they’re exempt, a First Nations could provide a photo ID and some other form of proof that they’re status Indian. Is that correct? Hon. S. Thomson: The answer to that, if I understand correctly, is yes. It is a separate process. Again, to reiterate, this

section that we’re dealing with here currently is around the provisions to provide photo identification and sets out the offences for that and who it applies to — status, non-status — around those require - ments. The provision for determining status provisions around the sections hasn’t changed, with respect to this legislation. It would be managed in the field the same way that it is currently. D. Donaldson: Y es. We are addressing subsection (4) here. It references other sections of the act that I under - stand haven’t changed, but the amendments here have changed. It wasn’t in the Wildlife Act before.

The minister is bringing it to this assembly, so we’re talking about it now. [1700] I want to get clarification that the minister must know there are many First Nations people in this province who are First Nations but don’t have status for various reasons. For instance, in the area I represent, if a First Nations person went away and enlisted in the Canadian military in World War II, you had to give up your status. On re - turning, you didn’t get that status back. Then the off - spring of that person didn’t have status from that point on.

There are many people in B.C. who are First Nations and who don’t have status. I want the minister to clarify that under this amendment, under this new regulation, if a person cannot prove that they have status, then they aren’t in contravention of the Wildlife Act under these provisions that we’re discussing. Hon. S. Thomson: I’ll confirm again and address this

section of the legislation. This is dealing with the re - quirement for photo identification that applies equally to status or non-status. It applies to all persons and sets out the requirements that all need to provide that. With respect to the reference to sections where a per - son is not exempt under those sections, those references, as I said, that’s the current provisions of the legislation pre-existing. If a person cannot provide proof of status, then technically, under the legislation, they require a li - cence in order to hunt.

If they didn’t, they would be in violation of that portion of it but not in violation of this section, if they provided photo identification. It’s important to point out that we know this is evolv- ing. That’s why I’ve made the reference that in the field, it will be managed in the same way it currently is, with maximum discretion in those cases. We know that court direction is evolving in these areas. So our conservation officers use that discretion and don’t apply it unjustly. [1705] This legislation here doesn’t change at all how we are currently managing the relationships and manag - ing things in the field.

This

section is the requirement around the production of photo identification — which, again, as I said, was supported and did not provide any significant concerns in our engagement or our informa- tion and work with those First Nations who responded to the opportunity. D. Donaldson: I can pretty well guarantee that after this discussion, the minister will be hearing some con - cerns from First Nations around the province about the implications of these amendments.

The minister said, and I appreciate his clarity, that if a person cannot prove their status, which they’re using to say that they are exempt from obtaining a licence, then they are committing an offence. Y et on the other hand, he says that they’ll provide maximum discretion to the of - ficers in the field to determine that. I’m sure the minister must understand how much of a confusion this creates in the field, and potentially some very tense situations.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 7, 2017 14155 Maximum discretion, on one hand, and the fact…. The act is very clear that under this government, you’re an Indian under this act only if you can prove status. That, the minister must know, is opening up a whole can of worms that aboriginal hunting right is not limited to status but is an aboriginal right. Limiting the right to status is wrong. This legislation, by discussing what we are discuss - ing in subsection (4), opens up that whole discussion. It would have been an opportunity to address this wrong around how an Indian is defined by this government. I’m talking to

section 5, and I bring the example of the Gitanyow Huwilp recognition and reconciliation agreement, where, in the definition, the signing author - ity in a legal agreement with this government are the eight Gitanyow wilp, collectively represented by the eight Gitanyow hereditary chiefs. We have an agreement with the government on a land use plan that has to do with moose, for instance, that are related to this hunting issue, where the government rec- ognizes that the Gitanyow hereditary chiefs are the au - thority. Y et here we have

an act that says that the only authority about who is deciding who an Indian is, is if you have status. I think that this is going to be of major concern to First Nations around the province. That the minister has said that the only way that you can prove that you’re an Indian to get an exemption for not hold - ing a hunting licence is to prove that you have status under the Indian Act is no way to address reconciliation in this province. I thank the minister for his answers, and I’ll be sending out his responses to First Nations around this province. K. Conroy: Along the same lines, did the minister get legal advice before they put this

section into the legisla - tion? Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, legal advice was received around the requirements in this

section to pro- duce photo identification. [1710] The advice was that there was no impact there, with re- spect to this section, on aboriginal rights and title.

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. K. Conroy: This

section deals with the on-line sys - tem. Everybody agrees that we need to move into the 21st century, but there are some people who still are not computer-literate or own iPhones or even own comput- ers, for that matter. So I’m just wondering what kinds of systems have been set up to ensure that people that don’t have access to those kinds of services can still ensure they get hunting licences. Hon. S. Thomson: The implementation of this elec - tronic submission process for records is an enhanced ser- vice, status quo plus.

It is not a complete replacement for the other provisions, so the vendor network, the Service B.C. FrontCounter support, will continue to be in place for those who need that support and service. K. Conroy: So while people will be able to access the on-line system, hunters can still carry paper? They can still carry their paper licence? They can still carry their ID number, their hunting licence? They can still carry all that on paper? It won’t eventually go to on-line only? Hon. S. Thomson: The short answer to that is max - imum flexibility.

If a person is not comfortable with the enhanced electronic system, they will still be able to carry the licence, produce the paper authorization. We’ve laid out in

section 97, under

section 5 of this legislation, that a person may demonstrate “by (

a) pro - ducing the authorization, or (

b) unless the regulations require that the original authorization be produced, (

i) producing a legible copy of the authorization, or (ii) if authorized by the regulations, stating a number assigned to the person by the director as an identification num - ber for the person. ” So maximum flexibility. We hope that, as the system is enhanced and implemented over time, more and more will move to that. But we recognize that we need to pro- vide for those that aren’t comfortable with this the ability to continue to use those processes. K. Conroy: I think there are a lot of people like my husband, who only has a flip phone. He’s not going to be carrying his ID on his flip phone. Interjection. K. Conroy: Or a shoe phone, yeah. Wel

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20170307pm-Hansard-v43n2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20170307pm Hansard v43n2
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cce0e9019c93bb40680c051d94a978c6692e1a5b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).