British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — Thursday, April 7, 2022 p.m. — Number 185 (HTML) (42nd Parliament, 3rd Session)

20220407pm-CommitteeA-Blues

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 7, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 185

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

B. Stewart

Hon. R. Fleming

Reporting of Bills

Bill 13 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services (continued)

B. Banman

Hon. L. Beare

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Shypitka

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 13, Passenger

Transportation Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued Committee of Supply,

estimates of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services and, if they complete, followed

by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

On clause 1 as amended (continued) .

B. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s nice to see you don the robes again and

be back as Chair in the House here. I’m sure that will help in terms of

the questioning I want to go to on Bill 13.

I just want to elaborate a little bit more…. Prior to us breaking

for lunch…. There were the five regional areas that the Passenger

Transportation Board has segregated where ride-hailing is in British

Columbia. He mentioned, I think it was called, Lucky to Go and KABU that

are approved in the southern Interior.

I wonder, for the record, if he could just give us the approved

ride-hailing services in each of the five regions of the province. If

they’re in the five regions, does that mean — like the southern

Interior, which I understand probably includes Kamloops all the way

south — that Uber, which is in Kamloops, can come to Vernon, or

Penticton or any of the other places?

The Chair: Member for Nanaimo-North Cowichan, you wish to say

something.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: It’s appropriate that the Whip is sitting over here. I know I’m not

supposed to refer to who’s in the chamber or not, but I’m a little bit late

for my duty. That usually accompanies a fine in our world, doesn’t

it?

As I’m being told to hurry up, I’d like the House to help me welcome

two guests from Alberta who I’ve only just met. Emma and Ben Vink from Red

Deer are joining us, and they are here to experience the British Columbia

parliament for the first time.

Please, Members, make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, let me answer him. I think he’s most interested in

region 4.

I can read to him the eight approved companies that operate in the

southern Interior region, which is, as I mentioned, region 4: Okanagan,

Kootenay-Boundary, Cariboo. The eight firms are as follows: InOrbis,

KABU, Lucky to Go, ReRyde, Ripe Rides, SAFE Ride Sharing, TappCar and

Uride.

I could go through every region, but it is available on the

website of both the passenger transportation branch and the Passenger

Transportation Board, if the member would like to look it up himself, or

we can read it into the record.

[1:10 p.m.]

B. Stewart: I guess the question to the minister…. These licences — I’m

assuming that’s how the PTB has approved these passenger-directed,

ride-hailing services, etc. If these companies are not operating, not

fulfilling their duty, is there an opportunity for others to replace the

companies that have initially come forward but haven’t actually

initiated services?

Hon. R. Fleming: The member asked questions that are really more properly directed

to the independent Passenger Transportation Board, who is the

decision-maker on issues around licensing. What I can say is that the

PTB regularly reviews the activity or the inactivity of current licence

holders.

I don’t in any way want to speak for the board, but I think we

could well imagine that there is some sensitivity to licence holders

that may have not been active in the market or operating right now

during the pandemic when business volumes were so precipitously

impacted.

I’m sure that in the course of their reviews, they get together

with licence holders and exchange views and are updated on business

plans and the planning for the use of those licences, but I can’t be for

certain. Again, the PTB is the statutory decision–maker in this

regard.

B. Stewart: Well, one of the things that I know I’ve experienced personally

has been…. There has been, coming to the Okanagan, maybe going to

Whistler, coming to Victoria…. The rental car agencies are struggling to

be able to find enough rental vehicles if you’re in the

marketplace.

I recently was away during our break and couldn’t rent a car where

I was located after looking ahead during spring break. It forced me to

have to use alternative methods. I was able to use, in this particular

case, a ride-hailing company. I found it to be extremely efficient. I

knew when it was coming. I knew the licence plate number, the driver’s

name, etc. It all arrived.

To me, it is an improvement in service. I think, more importantly,

that it is up to the minister, who directs the Passenger Transportation

Board, to make certain that there is reasonable access for people that

are visiting here or live here to be able to access these

services.

Now, this bill, Bill 13, is about public safety, making certain

that the drivers have both driving safety checks as well as criminal

record checks. But, I guess, from the standpoint…. We wouldn’t be

talking about this if we didn’t have ride-hailing.

I guess what I’m really driving at is…. There are licensed

companies, and there are unlicensed companies that are also operating

here that he’s aware of. I mentioned it in my remarks at the start. I

guess the thing about it is….

There’s no way of ignoring the fact that ride-hailing is here,

even though in a small way, in British Columbia. The bottom line is that

we’re here to talk about the passenger safety today, and I want to just

kind of know…. There’s a couple of companies that are identified in a

CVSE.

By working together with major agencies and institutions as well,

we have had awareness campaigns and also led to getting vehicles out of

service, out of operating, in this illegal industry.

YVR International Airport is with one of those that has helped

with the enforcement and education strategy that we have deployed. There

are some other issues that we are working on with legal services —

requesting voluntary assistance from Google and Apple to remove these

offshore illegal apps from being downloadable. We’ll continue to work on

that and hope to get full compliance and cooperation from big tech firms

like that, that have the platform that supports this illegal

industry.

B. Stewart: Just in terms of the rationale for looking at this. Clearly the

minister agrees that these illegal operators are…. Certainly the

vehicles haven’t, maybe, met the inspection standards. The drivers may

not have the necessary licensing. Certainly, they’re operating

illegally.

The fine, he says, is $1,150. But he used a term earlier that said

that growth in enforcement…. Am I to understand that growth in

enforcement is through an extension of asking municipalities, bylaw,

YVR, the ones that he just cited? Or are there specifically targeted

enforcement measures by PTB or the commercial vehicle safety inspection

branch?

Hon. R. Fleming: By coordinating between various agencies and levels of government

and enforcing with our shared jurisdiction over this illegal industry,

we’ve made it a priority. We’ve learned a lot of things about how it

operates, so the enforcement gets more sophisticated as it

goes.

I think, in answer to the member’s question, it’s through

coordination, through dedicating resources towards cracking down on

illegal ride-hailing, that we have seen a growth of

enforcement.

[1:35 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Thank you to the minister. To clarify, then, that means that there

is no further hiring of people to enforce this. This is through the

coordination, as the minister has described, and working with other

partners on this.

He mentioned about the surge, if you want to call it, in temporary

operating permits. That’s one of the things that we’re talking about

here. I’m wondering if he could describe the size and the nature of the

temporary operating permits — whether it’s around demand, whether it’s

certain times of the year — in terms of how many of these temporary

operating permits or operators are out there that we’re gathering under

Bill 13, in terms of the enhanced safety precautions and checks that are

being brought in today.

The Chair: While the minister is thinking of his answer, welcome to the

family up in the gallery. For those two young people, we’re debating

a little bill which, if it becomes law, will change how

transportation is conducted in our province. So on one side, you

have the critic for Transportation, asking very hard questions of

the minister, who is providing very good answers back to the

critic.

Thank you for coming and watching.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll give a little bit of data on temporary operating permits

issued. In the last pre-pandemic, sort of normal year we have, there

were 42 temporary operating permits issued that increased the fleet size

of taxi service. That dropped the following year, when we were in the

throes of the early stages of the pandemic, to five. It recovered

somewhat, although not much, in 2021, to 14 being issued.

Peak season and the need for temporary operating permits is,

again, made by the independent Passenger Transportation Board. They look

at data. They look at the application on its merits and the

estimated demand that they anticipate.

Factors like the cruise ship season coming back this month would

be one of the things that they would likely look at, the region and what

Christmas tourism looks like. They determine what peak season and

upticks in demand are going to look like and respond to the applicants

for a temporary operating permit on that basis.

B. Stewart: Just to follow up on that, clause 1 of Bill 13 talks about the

temporary operating permit operators or the holder of those operators

having to go through these. I’m just wondering. Based on the temporary

review, how many of these temporary operating permit holders have gone

through the record checks that are being brought into force

here?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The record checks that are referred to in this bill came into

effect and became practice in about September 2019. Every temporary

operating permit applied for since that date has had a criminal and

driver record check. In fact, every driver in the industry since that

date on a regular licence or a TOP has undergone those background

checks.

That’s really the essence of this bill. We want to continue that.

We’ve been doing it for close on three years now. It’s a good practice.

It’s one that the legislative committee recommended. It was in the bill

that we adopted in 2019 and is one that we want to have made permanent

should this bill be passed in this legislative sitting.

B. Stewart: Further on clause 1, of the record check reviews, reviewing people

that have been perhaps turned down, how many have been overturned?What

was the reason that they were overturned and were able to be given a

temporary operating permit?

Hon. R. Fleming: I have some data around these appeals, from 2019 to March 31,

2022. To last week, 144 record review check appeals have been conducted,

of which 51 were approved, 36 were denied, and 35 were withdrawn. There

are 22 that are currently in processing or where has been no decision

rendered as of this date.

The ones that are overturned and allow a person to become licensed

are ones where the offence — or whatever shows up on the record check

and is flagged — is an offence that’s totally unrelated to the passenger

safety objectives of the ministry and to the operation of a passenger

vehicle.

[1:45 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Again on clause 1, about the timeline. If I am an operator and I

submit, am turned down by the PTB through this record-check process and

have an appeal, how long does it normally take for that appeal to be

heard and reviewed?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member.

If somebody is deemed ineligible because they’ve committed an

offence and the record check triggers that, and it sees that this person

holds a commercial licence of this nature, they have 30 days, upon

notification, to apply to the passenger transportation branch. They can

do that by email, by mail or in person. It’s really in their hands, in

some cases, in that early stage, about how quickly they may wish to have

reconsideration. They could do it in one day if they wanted, but they

have up to 30 days.

I’m advised that typically, once the documentation and the

application is made, it takes approximately one to two months for a

decision to be rendered. It does depend on how much volume they’re

considering and maybe the complexity and circumstances of the material

they’re reviewing, but that’s normal business practice. Somewhere

between 30 to 75 or 90 days is, I think, typical.

Clause 1 as amended approved.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

B. Stewart: In terms of the information about the appeal process, I wondered.

Can the minister provide an example of what would be considered

“…uncertain whether the person has record that includes a prescribed

matter”?

Hon. R. Fleming: “Prescribed matter” is defined, outlined and referred to in the

act and in the regulations. Some examples: assault charges, maybe

accumulation of excessive speeding tickets that go against the

regulations to hold this kind of a licence. Those sorts of things are a

prescribed matter.

B. Stewart: Further on that particular matter, in the case of an individual,

the person has a record that includes a prescribed matter, and the

person believes that the matter is unrelated to the person’s work or

intended work as a driver.

[1:50 p.m.]

I guess to be clear, is it laid out that the people that are

applying for this would know exactly what are the prescribed matters?

They can find that out easily, and it’s easy to identify.

Hon. R. Fleming: When somebody is denied their licence, they are directed to the

passenger transportation branch. We have the information about

prescribed matters and are able to provide that. It’s also available

electronically on websites that the notification to the licensee who has

lost their licence is directed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

B. Stewart: In clause 5,

section 59.4, I just want to clarify what kind of

timelines are being considered.

Hon. R. Fleming: We’re looking to retain the existing timelines of 30 days. It’s

possible we would extend it if drivers were struggling to meet those

deadlines. These are gig economy workers. They have many occupations,

sometimes, in their lives, and if that was an unreasonable timeline that

was causing them stress and missing these deadlines, it gives us the

flexibility in the future to change those timelines.

That could happen. We have, because of the pandemic, a TNS ground

transportation industry that is a fraction of the size that we

anticipated it would be, because of the economic disruption, because of

the health restrictions and regulations that came into effect, the

number of people working from home. The member knows all the

impacts.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’re going to see, I think, in the future, as we continue to see

the economic recovery, as we continue to see things come back, like

business and conventions and tourism travel and all sorts of things,

including large events and things that are happening now. We’ll be

monitoring that going forward. It gives us the flexibility to see

whether those timelines are the right ones or whether they should be

adjusted.

B. Stewart: Just to the minister, in clause 5, the new

section in 59.4(b)(e),

it talks about the notification requirements. I just want to clarify

what the notification requirements are in this particular

clause.

Hon. R. Fleming: There are two components to notification. One is to the

taxi or TNS licensee, and to the driver, the licence holder who had

their licence denied. So the notification is of the status or the

outcome of the process, whether the decision has been overturned or

upheld.

B. Stewart: Just to be clear. The notification goes out. How is it

delivered?

Hon. R. Fleming: The correspondence is done electronically unless there’s a

preference expressed for a hard copy in the mail.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

B. Stewart: Just a quick question about, I guess, the fact that we know that

the temporary measures end on September 16. Why is it that this is

coming in by regulation, in terms of having the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, rather than just the date of September

17?

[2:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Great question. A challenging one. I think I’ve got this clear

now.

September 16 is a self-repealing date that’s referenced in the

current regulations. When this bill becomes law and we subsequently make

regulations by order-in-council, that will create the permanency that we

are seeking here with this amendment to the Passenger Transportation

Act. So we have many calendar days, weeks, of opportunity to do

that.

Royal assent will be the next step, and then we’ll follow from

there. That’s, really, the short answer. They’re not really related.

September 16 is the drop-dead date when this clause, this requirement,

would repeal itself.

Clause 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:03 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, reported

complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. L. Popham: I now call continued debate on Bill 14.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:05 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess while the appropriate parties

assemble themselves here.

The committee recessed from 2:05 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 1 (continued) .

J. Rustad: I know the member for Saanich North and the Islands had some

interest in having some questions, just before we start moving too far

into the clauses. I’m not sure — of course, this is the disadvantage of

doing remote — if the member is in the chamber or coming into the

chamber. Perhaps we can just canvass a couple of quick little things

before I go on to questions on clause 1 and give the member for Saanich

North and the Islands a chance to get back in.

I also know that the member for Vancouver-Langara was interested

in asking a few additional questions, but I don’t think he’s available

this afternoon to carry on.

Maybe I can start with this. We canvassed a number of things

yesterday associated with wildlife, with the changes on Bill 14 — a

number of opening questions to set the stage for the committee stage on

Bill 14. As the minister has said, the crux of this bill is to utilize

Indigenous knowledge to help with making changes or giving guidance

[audio interrupted] wildlife and I’m assuming to make changes to the

Wildlife Act as well, which is good. That’s very appropriate, and it’s

certainly coupled with [audio interrupted] information. It’s important

to be able to have that.

It also enables the sheltering agreements which provide an

opportunity for reflection of what has happened historically on the land

base for the First Nations and neighbouring First Nations. Of course, it

deals with some confidentiality. We’ll get into that.

When the minister put this together and codified what we’re

looking at here on Bill 14…. I’m curious about the intent. Is it just to

codify what has been happening traditionally, or does…? Sorry, let me

take a step back.

[2:15 p.m.]

Yesterday when we talked about these agreements, I asked the

minister if there were any of these types of sheltering agreements — of

course, they weren’t called that — between nations and if any of that

was in written form in the past. The minister said there hadn’t been. I

do know there have been some of these, and some nations have talked to

me about these historically, as well, particularly up in the area that I

represent, Nechako Lakes.

I’m wondering if the intent of Bill 14 is to simply codify what

has been happening traditionally and, quite frankly, what’s allowed

under case law that has happened historically, or whether it is actually

to expand opportunities. Does the minister see this bill and the

introduction of this bill as being a potential to expand opportunities

for First Nations to be able to consider things like a sheltering

agreement?

The Chair: If I might, Member, sheltering agreements are under clause 3.

If the member wanted to ask about sheltering agreements, it might be

more appropriate under the particular clause.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that direction.

The intent of my question and the intent of why I ask this

question is to understand the reason for bringing this bill in, as

opposed to the agreement itself, which is why I placed this question up

front, before we get into clause 3. I’m trying to understand what the

Clerk has tried to put in place in terms of this and what the minister

is considering, how the minister considers that this act will be used

and whether or not there is some other meaning behind it that may not be

transparent directly in what was written in the bill.

With your indulgence, I would ask the minister if she had an

opportunity to be able to answer that question.

The Chair: If I might, sheltering agreements are the entirety of clause

3, to my understanding, with a slight addition around authorization.

So again, I think it would be more appropriate to ask about

sheltering agreements, how they came about, where they’re from, that

kind of thing, under the specific clause that actually relates to

them. We are on clause 1.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair. Actually, we aren’t even quite on clause

As we ended yesterday, we were talking about the information that

was put forward that brought forward this bill, the engagement. We were

talking about engagement with various organizations, whether that was

the First Nations…. The minister’s term, if I may look at what she has

called…. That is the B.C. Wildlife engagement with First Nations

intentions paper. There are a whole number of things that went into the

creation of this bill, to put forward this bill, to bring it to the

floor.

One of the things that I’m looking at…. Maybe I won’t call it a

sheltering agreement, then, because then it will avoid talking about

section 3. I’ll maybe phrase it this way, then, if I may, hon. Chair, to

the minister.

Historically First Nations have had agreements that have allowed

people to come into their territory, other nations to come into their

territory, for harvesting purposes. Usually that’s a reciprocal type of

agreement between nations, as we discussed yesterday on this. Those

opportunities to be able to do that type of arrangement is something, of

course, that has gone on throughout time, and it’s something I believe

the courts have talked about.

My question to the minister is: is the intent of drafting Bill 14

to expand those opportunities?

Hon. K. Conroy: To reiterate who I’ve got here with me today, I’ve got my deputy

minister, Rick Manwaring, and my assistant deputy minister, David Muter.

Yimmie Sonuga is our director of legislation, and Jennifer Psyllakis is

our executive director responsible for wildlife.

[2:20 p.m.]

The intent of the bill, as I said yesterday, for the member, is to

add a provision regarding the obligation of decision-makers under the

act to consider relevant Indigenous knowledge, to add provisions

governing the confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge and to add a

provision authorizing the minister responsible for the act to enter into

agreements with First Nations or groups of First Nations in B.C.

regarding sheltering, a traditional practice whereby a host First Nation

permits members of another First Nation to harvest wildlife within the

host’s treaty harvest area or traditional territory.

I’d be happy to get into further detail on sheltering agreements

when we get to clause 3.

J. Rustad: Perhaps, then, I could ask the question this way of the minister.

Is there anything in the legal world, through precedence that has been

laid out in court cases, that would prevent First Nations from being

able to do what the intent of this bill is already? To that extent, if

there is, then that’s interesting. If there isn’t, then I’m asking the

purpose of actually bringing this bill in, if First Nations already have

the ability to be able to do this.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the question is directly related to clause 3. I’d be happy

to discuss those issues further when we get to clause 3.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for taking three minutes to tell me

that she wasn’t going to answer the question. It’s always

appreciated.

When we talk about

section 1, I just want to do a quick review of

a little bit of the frustration that you may hear in my voice. I

apologize to the Chair for that, as I have great respect for the

Legislature and for the Chair, the authority of the Chair, and for the

workings of government.

I find it curious. In the whole line of questionings that we’ve

had between yesterday and the first few here this afternoon, in asking

specifically about questions, the ministry either didn’t answer

or….

For example, in the question that my colleague the member for

Vancouver-Langara asked, which was directly around the implementation of

UNDRIP and the great fanfare that came forward in terms of that plan

which was brought in a couple weeks ago, there was an opportunity for

the minister to tout how this bill fit in as part of that. For whatever

reason, she refused to talk or answer about that.

[2:25 p.m.]

I find it curious that this bill being brought forward and desired

by First Nations wouldn’t be something that the minister would have

wanted to expand on, which is troublesome, because there are many

questions yet to be had associated with the clauses in this act. My hope

is that we’ll actually get to be able to understand the intent of what

the minister and the government is trying to do with this act without

having to go through the rigour of asking the question half a dozen

times to try to decipher what the meanings are.

Perhaps I’ll start with a question which is a little more

straightforward and easy for the minister to answer.

With regards to

section 1, the definition of

section 1 — I’m

reading this in for the record: “‘First Nation’ means a nation whose

traditional territory includes land within the boundaries of British

Columbia.” I understand that the 204 nations, give or take, that are in

British Columbia, that are hosted in British Columbia….

I’m wondering if the minister can provide the House with a list of

any other nations who are not part of that 204 list that may have an

interest in British Columbia.

Hon. K. Conroy: As clause 1 states, this refers to the 204 First Nations whose

traditional territory includes the lands that are in the traditional

boundaries of British Columbia.

J. Rustad: That’s curious, in terms of the answer. Perhaps we just need to

frame up here a little bit for the question.

Historically, when Europeans first came in here, when Canada was

going through the process of forming a country and British Columbia, of

course, was created, there was a process that the federal government

went through which created the nations that we have today. They would go

through, community by community, and create these nations from this. But

prior to that happening, that wasn’t necessarily the case. There were —

as the minister, I’m sure, is aware — I think, 32 different languages

and 64 dialects, roughly, in British Columbia.

Many of these groups, many of these bands that we call nations

today, of course, were part of a single group or identified with a

single group — for example, the Wet’suwet’en people, which has six

bands, but is considered the Wet’suwet’en people. Same with the Carrier

or the Tŝilhqot’in or these types of things. Of course, with the

creation of all of these individual bands across the province,

eventually that led to claims of territory.

[2:30 p.m.]

That territory, of course, extended out, and there’s a process

that I’ll get into in a little bit more detail in my next question

associated with that. Through that process, we now have these nations

created specifically around this, where, like I say, there are the 204

nations that are within British Columbia that we identify today through

this colonial process, which created these nations some 100-plus years

ago.

There are nations, of course, whose territory has gone into

British Columbia historically. In particular, I’d like to ask the

minister about the Syilx Nation. There was a specific court case that

happened a number of years ago where an individual…. Perhaps I should

just take a moment back, for people to understand.

This was a nation that was in British Columbia. But back, I

believe, in the 1950s — maybe it was early ’60s; I can’t remember — the

last living member of the nation in British Columbia passed away or

moved away. There were no other members of that nation within British

Columbia, so the federal government declared the nation extinct and no

longer a nation within British Columbia.

However, the people lived just south of the border and have

identified, of course, and have been very well connected, historically,

with the Okanagan Alliance. They still have a claim into British

Columbia, in terms of their territory that is part of their

influence. The Okanagan Alliance, of course, still considers them part

of the Okanagan Alliance and the Okanagan Alliance Nations.

The definition here is a “‘first nation’ means a first nation

whose traditional territory” — traditional territory — “includes land

within the boundaries of British Columbia.” I’d ask the minister if she

could provide some clarity about whether or not there has to be a group

of individuals that identify with the nation that live within British

Columbia and are identified in terms of a community, or whether or not a

band like the Syilx Nation now would still have a claim in British

Columbia and would fall under the definition of “first nation” under

clause 1?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Case law regarding Aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is constantly evolving. Courts

have imposed a site-specific requirement on Aboriginal harvesting

rights, meaning that these rights may only be exercised on the land

traditionally used for the activity. At this time, only First Nation

groups in British Columbia with established rights would have

section 35

rights to hunt, trap and fish.

J. Rustad: I seem to recall that court case actually broke ground on that

case, the case of the Syilx. That person who hunted in there was

actually hunting in their traditional territory, which overlapped, of

course, with other Okanagan Alliance nations as well as with the

Ktunaxa.

[2:40 p.m.]

They harvested an animal and were caught by the conservation

officer and charged. The case was dismissed, as the court…. My

understanding of that court ruling was that that individual had the

right to be able to hunt within his traditional territory even though

that individual was from the United States.

I’m curious. From what the minister has responded, the minister

seems to be saying that that individual does not have a right to hunt,

or perhaps I’m misinterpreting what the minister is saying. Maybe the

minister is saying that that nation doesn’t exist in British Columbia

and would not be considered a First Nation under

section 1. Perhaps the

minister could just provide some clarity on this.

Hon. K. Conroy: Under this bill, the

sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt that the member

refers to would be dealt with under clause 3, in the context of clause

3. We can address that when we get to clause 3.

J. Rustad: I think that the minister missed the point of the question. The

question is around the definition of a First Nation.

According to the definition of a First Nation, it says: “means a

first nation whose traditional territory includes land within the

boundaries of British Columbia.” There’s no requirement in that

definition, that I can read, that says that a First Nation is required

to have a community or a people living within British Columbia. It only

says that it needs to include “land within the boundaries of British

Columbia.”

Perhaps, does this need an amendment? How is the minister able to

say that a nation such as the

sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt would not qualify as

a First Nation in British Columbia even though they have traditional

territory that is included within the boundary of British

Columbia?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The definition is “‘first nation’ means a first nation whose

traditional territory includes land within the boundaries of British

Columbia.” What the member is referring to is a relationship between

nations. That is part of clause 3, which we can canvass and answer in

clause 3.

J. Rustad: Once again, the minister is not answering the question. In the

court case, it was very clearly stated that there was traditional

territory of the nation within the boundary of British Columbia. Just

because there were no longer people living within British Columbia….

They consider that to still be part of their traditional territory, and

it was talked about.

Perhaps I’ll put it this way. Is the minister saying that the

statement of fact that there was traditional territory of a nation

within British Columbia is not valid in terms of this act? Is the

minister saying that a traditional territory of a nation must be of a

nation that exists within British Columbia, where there is an occupied

community or people living within British Columbia?

I mean, this is an important point. There are some other factors,

some other issues that need to be thought about in terms of overlap and

the extension of claims. There are a number of situations like this. I’m

trying to understand, because right now, the way that I read this, a

First Nation with this means a First Nation — well, first of all, it

defines a First Nation meaning a First Nation, but that’s a different

point — whose traditional territory includes land within the boundaries

of British Columbia.

In this particular case, is the minister saying — for a nation

that no longer exists in Canada, was extinct in Canada, is in the United

States — that because they don’t have people living in British Columbia

or it’s no longer recognized by Canada, it’s no longer considered a

First Nation?

[2:50 p.m. - 2:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The definition of First Nation “means a first nation whose

traditional territory includes land within the boundaries of British

Columbia,” in clause 1.

The case law with respect to land base rights is constantly

evolving. We considered the example that the member is referring to in

the development of clause 3. I’m well aware of the example the member is

referring to because it actually took place in my

constituency.

J. Rustad: After waiting close to ten minutes to get an answer, that was a

non-answer once again. I apologize for pointing that out. I asked a

simple question, whether or not….

I guess some more context is required. The intent, by my

understanding, of UNDRIP…. The process that First Nations want to go

through is to decolonialize, to move away from the colonial systems that

have been imposed upon First Nations.

When you think about the boundaries and where nations lived in

their traditional territory…. We have these artificial lines, whether

it’s the line between two different countries or the line between two

different provinces or territories. We put these lines on the map, but

their territories don’t necessarily follow those lines. Maybe

they do in some cases, but in most cases, they don’t. These are straight

lines like, for example, latitudes and longitudes.

There is a nation — and the minister is well aware of this case —

that exists in the United States, that used to exist in Canada, that has

traditional territory within British Columbia. I am simply asking the

question if that nation is not considered a First Nation under this act,

even though they have traditional territory that extends into British

Columbia.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

[3:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

For the member, in direct answer to his question, no one is

avoiding his questions. I’m certainly not avoiding his questions. I am

just simply explaining to the member that the example the member is

referring to is better canvassed under clause 3 of this act.

R. Merrifield: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Merrifield: I rise today to make a special introduction. There’s a very special

guest here today, and she’s joined us from my hometown and riding of

Kelowna-Mission. Her name is Helene Letnick. She’s an extraordinary woman, a

mother and a grandmother of almost three, a wife and an artist. If anyone

wants to see her artistry, please come to my office. You are welcome to see

the beautiful painting that hangs behind my desk of the Okanagan.

I actually went to Helene and said: “I need something from the

Okanagan that reminds me of home for my office.” There’s no better artist,

because I have many of her paintings, actually, in my home as well. I have

known Helene for almost as long as I have known her husband, the Chair

today.

When I asked the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and our Chair today

how he would describe Helene, he responded by saying, simply: “She’s my

home, my best friend and my soulmate.”

Would the House please join me in welcoming Helene here

today.

The Chair: Okay, member for Nechako Lakes. Can you top that?

J. Rustad: No, I can’t. But I really appreciate, hon. Chair, the offer for me to

do that. I might be able to in terms of talking about my own special lady

who is my lifelong partner, but that would be a serious deviation from

discussing Bill 14 and

section 1.

Debate Continued

J. Rustad: I asked the minister a direct question. She didn’t answer once

again. Why she’s being elusive or evasive on this, I don’t know. The

simple question…. Maybe I’ll just put it in as few words as I possibly

can so I can give her as much time as she wants to formulate her

answer.

Is the nation in question — I call Syilx, the

sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt — considered a First

Nation under this act? If it is not, even though it has traditional

territory within British Columbia, why is it not considered a First

Nation under this act?

Interjection.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:06 p.m. to 3:23 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just wanted to confirm, make sure that I was stating this

accurately. I’ve received legal advice that on the question of whether

the sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt are a nation in B.C.

for the purpose of this bill, it hasn’t been determined by the

courts. The court case only determined that the individual had hunting

rights but not whether they had land rights as determined by this

bill.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that.

What gave the individual the rights for hunting was the fact that

it was their traditional territory. The ambiguity of the definition of

“First Nation” in this act leads to a question that will go to courts.

Is it the minister’s intention to leave this blank and allow the courts

to define what a First Nation is? Or would the minister prefer that this

Legislature define what the meaning of “First Nation” is?

Hon. K. Conroy: I believe the definition defines what a First Nation is when it

comes to this bill.

[3:25 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I anticipated that would be the minister’s response. Let me read

it once again into the record. It means “a first nation whose

traditional territory includes land within the boundaries of British

Columbia.”

I’m going to come back to this particular nation in terms of the

question, but I’m going to ask it through other, similar issues, because

the case that we are talking about is a case of a nation that used to

exist in British Columbia, that had a defined traditional territory

within British Columbia, but was considered extinct because the last

person either passed away or moved into the United States.

That does leave it with a question of an Indigenous group or

Indigenous body, which we in this province call First Nations, that down

in the States has a connection to British Columbia because of its

traditional territory — “traditional,” of course, meaning historic

territory, unless the minister is talking about current

territory.

Let me, then, ask a question around First Nations. There are many

neighbouring nations, whether they are in the Yukon, the Territories,

Alberta or Alaska, whose traditional territories, long before we came

around and created this province of British Columbia, had extended into

British Columbia. In fact, I’ve had meetings with a number of First

Nations from the Yukon who are asking to revive mining projects or to

receive benefit agreements because their traditional territories go down

and extend into British Columbia as part of that.

I’ll ask the minister the question. Are any of the nations that

reside within Canada, particularly in the Yukon, whose traditional

territories come down into British Columbia and are recognized in

British Columbia — as a matter of fact, they have a strength of claim

associated with those territories in British Columbia, which is used by

the Attorney General’s office for when we’re moving projects forward —

considered First Nations under this act?

Hon. K. Conroy: That would best be canvassed under clause 3.

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, that is actually quite, once again, a very evasive —

and quite frankly, I find, offending — response by this minister. I am

asking about the definition of a First Nation. Clause 3 is about a

sheltering act. I do not understand why the minister would not be able

to provide an answer associated with the definition of a First Nation,

which is in clause 1.

The question is that there are nations in the Yukon which have

territory. I will read this again: it means “a first nation whose

traditional territory includes land within the boundaries of British

Columbia.” These nations have traditional territory that extends into

British Columbia. Are they considered a First Nation under this act? If

they are not, why would they not be considered a First Nation, given the

definition as it’s written?

Hon. K. Conroy: It does not exclude First Nations whose boundaries may be only

partly within the borders of B.C.

J. Rustad: Okay, that’s an interesting way of saying it. I was looking for a

yes or no. So it doesn’t exclude First Nations whose territories go into

British Columbia. Then the minister said earlier that it only included

the 204 nations within British Columbia. Could the minister please

clarify which answer is correct?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The quick answer is that the answer is yes. It recognizes the 204

recognized nations that we have the duty to consult with, which also

includes some nations which are in the Yukon and Northwest Territories,

which is the definition we have put forth in the bill: “‘first nation’

means a first nation whose traditional territory includes land within

the boundaries of British Columbia.”

J. Rustad: I wonder if we should bother going back into Hansard . The

question I originally asked the minister associated with the definition

of a First Nation was: how many nations outside of British Columbia —

outside of the 204 nations that reside in British Columbia that have

communities, that live in British Columbia — are considered to be First

Nations under this act? I believe that was roughly the question I asked.

The minister responded by saying that it was just the 204 First Nations

within British Columbia that are considered First Nations.

Maybe I will re-ask my original question of the minister. Can the

minister provide a list of nations that are not part of the 204 that

reside within British Columbia that have traditional territories that go

within British Columbia that would be potentially considered a First

Nation under Bill 14?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, we’ll get the member a list.

J. Rustad: It’s unfortunate we’ve spent an hour to answer the first question

that I had, in terms of going around through all of this, but c’est

la vie. We have until June to finish this bill, so we will find

our way through it as we go.

I want to move on to another question around the definition of a

First Nation and recognizing that in British Columbia, and that is to

the historic treaty of treaty 8. There are a number of nations

associated with treaty 8, some residing outside of British Columbia.

They have rights for hunting within the territory of treaty 8, as

they’ve adhered to treaty 8.

Does the definition of First Nation include treaty 8 nations which

may not reside within British Columbia?

Hon. K. Conroy: The nations of treaty 8 who have traditional territory within B.C.

are part of the 204 nations.

J. Rustad: When Site C was under consideration for construction and the

disturbance of Site C in the treaty 8 territory, there were nations who

did not reside within British Columbia — in other words, they did not

have communities within British Columbia — that were consulted because

of the impact to their traditional territory and to their treaty 8

rights.

I’m just wondering, similar to the situation we have in the Yukon,

whether the minister would care to have another look at that to

determine whether or not there are any Treaty 8 Nations other than the

ones that have communities within British Columbia that may be

considered a First Nation under this act.

Hon. K. Conroy: I don’t understand how that’s relevant to this bill. Could the

member please explain so we can have an answer?

J. Rustad: Well, it’s clear under clause 1 of this act. It says: “‘first

nation’ means a first nation whose traditional territory includes land

within the boundaries of British Columbia.”

Clearly, when there was the impact of resource development in the

northeast of the province, there were First Nations that did not reside

within British Columbia that were consulted and accommodations offered

for impact on their territory and their rights.

I’m curious — just as it was with the nations in the Yukon,

potentially nations in the Northwest Territories — whether or not any of

those Treaty 8 Nations are considered to be First Nations within the act

that don’t have communities within British Columbia.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The consultation on Site C was for specifics of that project.

Today it’s about adding a provision regarding the obligation of

decision-makers under the act to consider relevant Indigenous knowledge;

to add provisions governing the confidentiality of Indigenous knowledge;

and add a provision authorizing the minister responsible for the act to

enter into agreements with First Nations or groups of First Nations in

B.C. regarding sheltering, a traditional practice whereby a host First

Nation permits members of another First Nation to harvest wildlife

within the host’s treaty harvest area or traditional

territory.

I don’t feel that what the member is asking is actually relative

to what we’re trying to put forward here in this bill.

J. Rustad: I see the pattern continues, so we’ll take an hour carrying on

with this until we get to the core of the answer.

The question, and the reason for this question, is really quite

simple. Under clause 1, it says, under “definition”: “‘first nation’

means a first nation whose traditional territory includes land within

the boundaries of British Columbia.”

[3:45 p.m.]

This is relevant simply because it is used as the foundation for

other sections in this act, in terms of what a nation is able to do,

present or be involved in as part of this act. It is very important to

get a very clear understanding of what the definition of a First Nation

is.

It’s been clear in the time that we have spent here that the

minister has not been able to provide a clear definition. In the first

case, she came out and said that nations outside of British Columbia

were not included — that it was just the 204 within. After an hour of

going back and forth in debate, she has conceded that there are nations

outside of British Columbia that are included.

My understanding of this and the need for asking these questions,

particularly around Treaty 8 nations, is because they have a claim, a

potential claim, of territory within British Columbia.

We will get to those questions in a bit. The importance here is

very clear. If there is going to be a nation that is going to create an

agreement that has traditional territory that is defined as a nation

within British Columbia, it’s important that all people in British

Columbia, First Nation and non–First Nation, understand the

ramifications of the definition of “First Nation,” which is why I’m

spending so much time on this particular clause.

For example, I’ve asked about the nation across the States that we

spent a great deal of time talking about, because I wanted to be able to

understand whether it was considered a First Nation within British

Columbia. If it was, then it would actually have the ability to have a

hosting agreement, to be a host First Nation. If it’s not, then it

wouldn’t have that ability.

My only way to know that is to know whether it is, by definition

of clause 1, a First Nation. We now understand there are nations within

the Yukon and potentially other jurisdictions in Canada that do have a

claim within British Columbia and are considered a nation under this

within British Columbia, which then would give them the right, according

to this act, to be able to participate in the clauses in the future, of

the clauses that we’re yet to debate, within this act.

It’s very important to get a clear understanding from the

minister, which is why I keep insisting: what nations are included, and

what aren’t? Earlier the minister said she would provide me a list of

those nations from up in the Yukon, but it does leave me to wonder

whether or not the minister had even considered this and at the fact

that she wouldn’t have a list like that available right away to be able

to provide to this House so that there would be clarity, so that people

— Indigenous, non-Indigenous — across this province would understand the

intention of what the minister is trying to do with Bill 14.

I’ll ask again. It doesn’t have to be in the context of Treaty 8,

and it certainly doesn’t have to be in the context of Site C. I only

used Site C as an example of why nations were included. But my

understanding of the historic Treaty 8 is that nations who have adhered

to Treaty 8 have rights within the boundaries of Treaty 8, which include

British Columbia. Those rights include hunting and gathering in terms of

their traditional way of life.

This is why I’m asking whether or not nations within Treaty 8 are

considered to be a First Nation under this act. If they aren’t

considered to be a First Nation under this act, the minister could

simply just say that. That would clarify it, and we’d be able to move

on. We wouldn’t have to go through this long rigmarole and process, but

the minister doesn’t seem to want to be clear in terms of these

questions.

The two questions I have are: does the minister have the list of

those nations up front? Has she actually talked to the nations within

British Columbia and those outside of British Columbia about this act —

that it would be considered First Nations in terms of those up in the

Yukon? And are any of the other Treaty 8 nations, outside of the six or

seven or whichever it is that are in British Columbia, considered to be

a First Nation under this act?

Hon. K. Conroy: I understand I have been fairly clear with the answer. The member

maybe has trouble understanding. The answer is yes. If a First Nation

has a treaty right or traditional territory in British Columbia, then we

would consider them a First Nation under the act —

an act that was

co-developed with First Nations from B.C.,

an act that First Nations

agreed to the

definitions of,

an act that the First Nations were very

involved in.

[3:50 p.m.]

Yes, if a First Nation has a treaty right or a traditional

territory recognized in B.C., then we would consider them a First Nation

under the act.

J. Rustad: That was the first time in almost two years that I’ve actually

heard a very straightforward and clear answer to a very complex

question. It took quite a while to get here, and it certainly does not

line up with what the minister said originally. If the minister is

wondering why I have trouble understanding her answers, maybe she should

go back and look at Hansard , because what she has been saying

all along is not what she just said. If she had started with that, we

would have saved ourselves a whole bunch of time and grief.

That’s an interesting answer, and I really do appreciate the

minister being very clear on that. Nations outside of British Columbia

are considered nations if they have a traditional territory claim. That

brings me back to the case of the nation across the American border,

whether it is over into Alaska — as there are nations within Alaska

which, according to the Environmental Assessment Act, have the ability

to participate in environmental assessments in British Columbia — or in

the particular case that we’ve spent a great deal of time talking about,

with the Syilx First Nation associated with the Okanagan

Alliance.

Perhaps, with the new definition that the minister has just

provided, she could provide me an update as to whether or not any nation

which resides outside of Canada and which has a claim of territory

within British Columbia would be considered a First Nation under this

act.

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to be clear, the answer is if a First Nation has a treaty

right or a traditional territory in B.C., then we would consider them in

this act.

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, I just need to ask…. We spent a great deal of time

talking about that particular nation. Does that include the

sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt people that are south

of the border, south of the Okanagan Alliance, into the United

States?

Hon. K. Conroy: I believe I’ve already answered that.

J. Rustad: If you want to take a ten-minute recess, I can pull up all the

Hansard s and go look.

The question has not been answered. As a matter of fact, the

minister went out, conferred with the Attorney General, came back and

talked about the change in case law but did not answer, yes or no, as to

whether or not that nation has been included. It’s a simple question. If

it has been answered before, it would only take you a couple of seconds

to answer.

Is that nation considered a First Nation under this

act?

The Chair: Just for clarity, Nechako Lakes, are you asking for a

recess?

J. Rustad: No, I’m not. Hansard would not have the information

available. My apologies, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Hon. K. Conroy: As I said, in the case of the

sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt, the court had no

findings with respect to the

sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt in the context of

land in B.C.

J. Rustad: You know, all I’m asking for is the minister just to say yes or

no. She seems to understand it very clearly. Can she just answer yes or

no, please?

Interjection.

The Chair: The minister is asking: “To what question?”

J. Rustad: I just asked her a question — whether or not that nation is

considered a First Nation under this act. It’s a simple yes-or-no

question.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As I said, case law regarding Aboriginal rights, recognized and

affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, is constantly evolving.

As I also said, the court had no findings with respect to the

sʔalt̕ik̓ʷt in the context of

land in British Columbia.

J. Rustad: Where we’re at — just to summarize this for you, Mr. Chair — is

that regarding a nation that exists across the border into the United

States, the minister is not saying yes or no. In other words, it will be

an empty-vessel law that will be ultimately be filled by the court, once

it’s challenged, because the minister is refusing to have a definition

one way or the other.

I suppose that whether the minister had a definition one way or

the other, it could still be open to challenge and defined by the

courts. But it is unfortunate that we’re not in a situation…. The courts

do not have guidance from this Legislature, in terms of what the intent

of the definition of a First Nation is, associated with a nation that

may have a claim from outside of British Columbia into British

Columbia.

That’s very unfortunate, but we have canvassed that and the

minister refuses to answer, so that is just fine. Well, it’s not fine,

but it is what it is.

Part of the process of defining a First Nation we have canvassed

through, but I think the key piece in here under the definition, under

clause 1 — a First Nation is “traditional territory.” Perhaps let’s

start off with a straightforward question — which, I understand, will

not have a straightforward answer: how is “traditional territory”

defined within a particular nation within British Columbia?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re just trying to get to the nub of what the member is asking.

I really would like him to define what he is referring to. There’s no

definition of “traditional territory,” I believe, in any legislation

because it’s constantly evolving in the law. If there’s something that

he has a better understanding of, maybe he could let us know.

J. Rustad: Well, I mean, this is, to use the language the minister used, the

nub of the issue: traditional territory. Under this, “‘first nation’

means a first nation whose traditional territory includes land within

the boundaries of British Columbia.” How is that land defined within the

traditional territory?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The term “traditional territory” is a commonly used term in case

law and in day-to-day usage.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for the vocabulary lesson on traditional

territory. I was asking specifically about how the land is defined

within a traditional territory.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: If the member could clarify. If the member is actually referring

to overlapping…. The member can roll his eyes, but I have staff here

that are trying to understand what the member is asking as well. I would

appreciate some consideration for the staff that are here.

If the member is actually referring to overlapping territories, we

get into that…. It can be canvassed in

section 3 of the act.

J. Rustad: I know the minister would like to rush through this bill and just

tuck it all away and not answer questions. I get that’s what the

minister wants to do. I suppose she doesn’t want to defend this act in

terms of why she’s brought it in and the meanings in here.

The reality is that we’re on clause 1, the definition of a First

Nation. A First Nation means a traditional territory includes land

within British Columbia.

There is a process that is undertaken by First Nations and the

province, which isn’t always in agreement — and the federal government

is involved — which defines land, the area of which would be considered

as part of the traditional territory of a First Nation. What I’m trying

to understand from this minister is what she has used and what she is

considering using with regards to land that would ultimately define

whether or not a First Nation is in British Columbia.

For example, we spent a great deal of time talking about First

Nations that are outside of British Columbia who have a traditional

territory that comes within British Columbia. A traditional territory —

which is set up somehow, in some way defined — of the land that is

within British Columbia. So I’m trying to understand, from the minister,

what the process is that is being used by this government — and,

certainly, in reference to Bill 14 — that would define the land within

British Columbia that comprises a traditional territory of any given

nation.

Hon. K. Conroy: B.C. has been engaged with First Nations for many years and has

developed an understanding of the traditional territories that they each

identify, areas that we consult with them and engage with them in other

agreement negotiations as well. This is a long-standing tradition in

this province.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s response with that.

I’ll quote a former Chief from the Burns Lake Band who was told

that their traditional territory was traditionally where they walked or

where they wandered about. There are other nations that have fought for

territory and have a much clearer definition of where their traditional

territory may be.

[4:10 p.m.]

There are some nations that, quite frankly, through the B.C.

treaty process, have expanded their boundaries for the purpose of trying

to claim additional territory, even though it was not their original

territory, so that they can see benefits and, potentially, better

settlements through agreements.

How a traditional territory is defined makes up a very significant

component of this bill. In particular…. I mean, we’re talking about a

First Nation, and we’re talking about the definition of a First Nation

within British Columbia.

Obviously, this could impact, potentially, nations outside of the

province that have a claim within British Columbia. It certainly

wouldn’t change the definition of a First Nation within British

Columbia, although it does lead into questions further on down in the

act in terms of the traditional territory, as the minister has pointed

out, which we will get to when the time comes.

I’m trying to understand whether or not the inclusion of the words

“traditional territory” is part of the definition of a First Nation, if

there is a strength of claim associated with it, if it is just what is

put forth by a nation, whether there’s any other information that’s

required to be part of it — so whether a nation can or cannot be

included within the boundaries of British Columbia and within the

definition of a First Nation.

Hon. K. Conroy: The nations identify to us the areas in which they occupy and for

the exercise of their rights. This is represented in a consultative area

database and reflected in a statement of intent in the treaty process.

The consultative area database contains information provided to us by

the First Nations — for example, traditional use studies, Elders’

representations and archaeology information.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer.

Just to be clear, the question around this is: is there a

verification process that the province would use to determine whether or

not there are traditional boundaries within British Columbia and that

they would be considered as part of a First Nation? Or is it something

that is put forward as a statement of claim through the treaty or other

processes and then just accepted by the province?

Hon. K. Conroy: The nations identify to us the areas in which they occupy and for

the exercise of their rights. As I said, this is represented in a

consultative area database and reflected in a statement of intent in the

treaty process.

The member might not wish to hear this, but he is really asking

questions that would better be canvassed directly under clause 3, which

I have said a number of times. I don’t know why the member has such

apprehension about moving forward on this bill when, obviously…. What

he’s asking is in direct reference to clause 3, under the agreements in

clause 3, which would much better be able to answer — rather than

cherry-picking under

section 1. This is definitely in clause

[4:15 p.m.]

In no way, shape, do I want to rush through a bill. I want to make

sure that everybody understands this bill. This bill was co-developed by

Indigenous nations. I very much appreciate the work that was done with

them. They agreed to the

definitions that we are discussing.

I feel that the member would be far better served to have his

questions answered in direct relation to clause 3. He might be able to

understand better what we’re trying to achieve here.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s comments.

As I have said before…. It’s worthy of repeating. I’m stressing

this issue about a definition of First Nation because…. It talks about

the land “whose traditional territory includes land within the

boundaries of British Columbia.” Having had the experience I have had, I

do know that there are claims put forward which may or may not be able

to be backed up through evidence, but they are accepted as claims. It’s

a process that has gone through the treaty process. Those processes go

through, and it’s used for many other purposes.

The point of asking the question is…. Once again, it comes to

nations that are outside of British Columbia. I’ll just use, for

example, whether it be the Métis that may claim…. Then, obviously,

within British Columbia, people…. They may claim a territory, for

example, around Kelly Lake. They’ve made a claim. They’ve said that’s

part of their territory. It’s disputed by other First Nations, but there

is a claim that is within that area by the Métis Nation.

There are other nations which have claims within British Columbia,

whether it’s along the boundaries with Alberta or otherwise, that

nations within British Columbia may dispute and say: “No, they don’t.”

But they have a claim. They’ve put a claim in, and that may or may not

be accepted by the province.

What I’m trying to understand, from the minister, is the process

by which the claim of land within the British Columbia boundaries is

determined or verified so that we can determine whether or not nations

are within British Columbia and considered as part of British Columbia

for the purposes of Bill 14.

Hon. K. Conroy: We accept the assessments of First Nations combined with research

and analysis on these claims.

[4:20 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I appreciate that clarification from the minister.

Then maybe a more direct question…. This one should be fairly

straightforward to answer. I just want to make sure it’s clear for me so

that I know, when I’m talking about this bill, I’ve got it clear in my

mind. Do the Métis people in British Columbia, through one of their

organizations, which have a claim of territory within, like I say, the

Kelly Lake area and potentially other areas…. I don’t know. Are they

considered a First Nation under this act?

Hon. K. Conroy: No, they’re not. Métis are not a First Nation. Based on existing

jurisprudence, B.C. does not recognize Métis having land-based rights in

British Columbia.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer.

If I may ask for a brief recess, three minutes or so, before we

proceed to any other questions.

The Chair: All right, we will take a brief recess. Thank you,

Members.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022. Currently on clause

J. Rustad: I have no further questions on clause 1.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

J. Rustad: Clause 2 says: “‘governing body’ in relation to a first nation,

means the governing entity of the first nation, however organized and

established by members of the first nation.” This question of governing

body has been canvassed extensively in a number of estimates or other

bills in the Legislature.

It’s an interesting question, because First Nations organize

differently, and components within First Nations organize differently.

So I think it’s important that we get a clear understanding from the

minister in terms of governing body, in terms of its definition within

this Bill 14. They’re the bodies we understand or know, which we’ve

talked about clearly, which is whether it’s elected or whether it’s a

hereditary system.

There are other governing bodies. There are sub-bodies within

nations, whether it be clans or whether it be, in the case of the

Nak’azdli Whut’en keyoh . I’m wondering, to start off with, if

the minister could provide some guidance to me and to the Legislature

with respect to some examples of governing bodies that the minister

would consider under this act.

Hon. K. Conroy: The definition of the governing body is at the discretion of the

First Nation, and that would be recognized and accepted as they

wish.

J. Rustad: I asked for some examples, but perhaps the minister is not

interested in providing some examples. I could potentially understand

that, as it may not be an extensive list, and she may leave something

out.

[4:30 p.m.]

A real challenge, I think, that there will be within this

definition of a governing body is where there may be a dispute within a

First Nation. Where there is a case — it’s been well documented in terms

of the Wet’suwet’en — between the elected and the hereditary system, and

even within the hereditary system, there has been dispute within the

nation. How will the government determine who has the authority as a

governing body associated with a desire to follow the instruments that

are created under Bill 14?

Hon. K. Conroy: The nations would determine their governance structure.

J. Rustad: So in a case where two groups of Indigenous people claiming to be

from the same nation came and made a claim that they are the official

governing body, would the government recognize one over another? Would

the government say to both of them: “You cannot enter into an agreement

until this is resolved”? How would the government manage a dispute which

undoubtedly will arise between who is the governing body as defined

under this act?

Hon. K. Conroy: In situations like that, we would engage the entities and put that

question to them.

J. Rustad: Where there is no resolution within a nation, as there currently

is in many circumstances, how would that impact on the nation’s ability

to have a governing body that would be able to enter into an agreement

under this act?

The Chair: Is it possible to repeat the question, Member? You kind of

faded out at the end there.

J. Rustad: I will do my best. I was referring to situations in British

Columbia where there is dispute between Indigenous people within a

nation as to who the official governing body is. Where that dispute

cannot be resolved within the nation — the nation does not come to

agreement — then does that mean for the minister that nation will be

ineligible to enter into any sort of arrangements that are defined under

Bill 14?

It’s an important piece to know, because…. The Wet’suwet’en is the

example I’ve used, but having had the experience and engagement with

First Nations across the province, there are many disputes within

nations. Some more vocal and recognized; some not.

There are many, many cases across the province where a hereditary

chief has made a claim of the nation itself, or the governing body…. I

shouldn’t say governing body, because that’s what we’re trying to define

here. The elected body and even other hereditary entities within the

nation do not recognize a claim, but a claim has been made.

I’m trying to understand — for the purposes of wildlife

management, for the purpose of entering into Bill 14 through the

agreements that are in place — how the government would be able to

recognize or authorize these agreements where there is a dispute amongst

the nation as to who has the authority to be able to enter into that

type of an agreement.

Hon. K. Conroy: Many communities have sorted this out, and where they haven’t, we

wouldn’t anticipate being able to proceed with an agreement under this

act.

J. Rustad: That helps, certainly, in terms of understanding.

[4:35 p.m.]

My concern is there are many nations that have worked it out

historically, have resolved this, but because of this government’s

approach on issues, particularly with the Wet’suwet’en but on some other

issues associated with it, there are becoming increasing number of

individuals, hereditary chiefs or otherwise, who are making a claim.

Whether they’re hereditary chiefs or not is not for me to determine, but

they’re making a claim that they are the ones who are the legitimate

governing entity of a nation.

As those increase, there is the potential…. For example, if an

individual decides that they do not like that a sheltering agreement may

be entered into under Bill 14 with the entity that is currently

considered the governing body, they make a claim and say, “No, you can’t

enter into that because I’m the official governing body of that area as

a hereditary chief or a clan” or whatever the case may be.

I’m just trying to get some clarity from the minister as to

whether or not this process can be stymied by individuals or groups that

make a claim to be a governing body or whether the province will make

any effort to adjudicate the value of a particular claim.

Hon. K. Conroy: I have a great deal of faith in the nations in British Columbia,

and there are many that have sorted this out.

This is about self-determination, and we look to nations to advise

us. Many governments, Indigenous and not, have differences of

agreements, and we look to the nations to advise us on this. Again, I

have a great deal of…. I feel that nations will be able to work this

out. I have a great deal of faith in nations in this

province.

J. Rustad: I’m happy to see that being the case, and I know that nations will

make the best efforts to work it out. But I guess, just for clarity

then, where a nation cannot work it out, for whatever reason, within a

nation as to what the governing body is, does that mean that the

province will not allow agreements or authorities under Bill 14 to

proceed?

Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t anticipate this. Again, I have great deal of faith in the

nations. This is about self-determination. We wouldn’t be able to enter

into an agreement if they weren’t able to come to an agreement

themselves, but again, I have faith that would not happen.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that answer from the minister. The minister is saying

if there isn’t agreement, then the components of Bill 14 would not be

able to be proceeded with for that nation until such time as they have

agreement. If I’m wrong about that…? If the minister could just confirm

that.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, that is what I said.

The Chair: On clause 2, Member.

J. Rustad: I’m on clause 2. Thank you.

Specifically, various nations take the management of land to be

quite different. The example I have talked about at length with the

Nak’azdli Whut’en, which has the keyoh system where each family

is responsible for an area within their territory, and obviously those

families have responsibility in terms of what would be happening within

their particular area of concern.

[4:40 p.m.]

In that case where, for example, the Nak’azdli Whut’en is

interested in entering into an agreement that may, of course…. Wildlife

wanders across boundaries. They don’t stick within boundaries. They may

go across many different areas.

I just want to make sure I’ve got some clarity that the nation

itself would have to determine — I’m asking the minister if this is

correct — within its own boundaries, whatever governance, whatever

authority would be required before they would then be able to enter into

agreement with the province, which would then be struck, be able to

proceed. Or would individuals that have authority within a nation be

able to enter into an agreement with the province, leaving the nation

aside?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just for clarification, this is an agreement with nations, not

with individuals. We’ll get into more clarity around the specific

questions the member is asking about in clause 3.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that. We’re perhaps into clause 2, the governing

body of a nation, which means “the governing entity of a first nation,

however organized and established by the members of the first

nation.”

There are cases — for example, more recently, of the Tl’azt’en

First Nation, which split apart from one of its original members. There

was a group of nations that had first come together and eventually then

split apart. It went through a process that took many years to actually

create its own entity and have its own authority.

Where we have the grouping of these nations, such as the Lake

Babine Nation or Tl’azt’en Nation and others across the province, there

may be desire by a component — which may be considered a First Nation

but may be considered part of a larger body, such as the Lake Babine

Nation — that is interested in entering into agreement. Under those

sorts of terms, does the internal entity within a group of First Nations

have the ability, as the governing body for their territory or for their

people, to enter into this agreement, or must it go through the broader

body?

I’m thinking in some cases, for example, you may have the

situation where a group of nations come together as part of a tribal

council that wants to speak on behalf — or currently does speak on

behalf, and may be called a nation. But there might be individual

nations that want to do things differently.

I’m just trying to understand from the minister how that governing

body would be structured in a case like that where there is a subset

that has an authority over land and its own governing structure but also

falls within a larger governing structure.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: If there are sub-governance structures that are recognized by the

nations, then we would recognize them too.

J. Rustad: I have no further questions on clause 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

J. Rustad: We’re getting into, now, the sheltering agreement. At the start of

clause 3, it says: “‘guest’ means a member of a first nation who, under

a sheltering agreement, hunts in the traditional territory of the host

first nation.”

There has been quite a lot of controversy over the years in terms

of who is a member of a First Nation and who is not. In some cases, it’s

because it’s a matriarchal society with a matriarchal lineage, and the

federal government has come in and some of the courts have come in with

some

definitions. So I’m wondering if the minister can provide some

clarity in terms of who is considered to be a member of a First

Nation.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Under clause 3 of the sheltering agreement, recognition of a

member of the First Nation is at the purview of the First

Nation.

J. Rustad: There actually is a great dispute around this, which is why I’m

asking. This is around somebody who can be a guest. For example, we have

about 250,000 to 270,000 people who identify as Indigenous people in

British Columbia. Only a portion of those are actually attached to a

First Nation directly.

Many, of course, have…. There is intermarriage. There are a number

of things that happen over time. There has been a lot of dispute, in

terms of nations and benefits and who receives benefits from a nation.

For example, a nation will help out some people for education and for

all kinds of things. So this is a pretty interesting, a pretty

significant, issue associated with this. That’s the reason for asking

the question.

I mean, it’s clear, I think, what the minister is trying to do

here. I’m just trying to make sure there isn’t a situation where this

piece of legislation opens up a nation to a particular challenge. For

example, Indigenous people have the right to hunt within their

traditional territory and have the right to harvest, even though they

may not be attached to a First Nation. I’m just wondering how that will

be resolved.

What’s the priority? If I hear the minister correctly, the

minister said the only way an individual could be considered a guest

means that the First Nation would have to have them recognized as a

member of that nation. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

J. Rustad: That’s interesting. Is there any means test that is required by

the province to verify whether an individual is truly a member of a

nation?

Hon. K. Conroy: Further to my other answer, this isn’t really…. I don’t understand

how this is relevant, when it’s up to the purview of the First

Nation.

J. Rustad: Well, this bill is put together with the best of intentions, but

there is the potential for abuse — not that I would make an accusation

that would happen, but it could happen. As we have seen, historically,

there are occasions where you have leaders that will take advantage of a

position.

For example, somebody may say…. I’m just using a fictitious name.

Maybe Bob decides that some friend of his who lives down in Wyoming is a

member of their nation and would be able to enter into an agreement, as

a member of their nation, with another nation to be able to go and

hunt.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’m trying to understand whether or not there is any verification

process or any authority by the government to look at this or whether

this is completely up to the First Nations and the province is

abdicating its authority for managing [audio interrupted] the province

of British Columbia?

Hon. K. Conroy: Sheltering agreements have been in existence for a long time. I

have faith in the nations, and again, it’s at the purview of the

nations.

J. Rustad: So the answer to the question is no. The province did not have any

oversight in terms of that. That authority is completely turned over to

the First Nation.

That’s fair enough. That’s what the government has decided to do.

But it’s just clear to have an understanding of that. Whoever a First

Nation determines is a member of their nation, or makes a claim of being

a member of their nation, is sufficient enough for that.

Maybe just one other quick little thing around this. Does the

individual who is considered to be a guest, meaning a member of a First

Nation…? Does that individual have to be recognized federally as

identified as Indigenous?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify, the member referred to the province abdicating

its broad responsibilities for wildlife management under this act. This

is not happening here. The scope of these amendments relates to

sheltering agreements, agreements that have been in existence for a long

time in this province.

In relation to the last question the member asked, where an

individual is recognized as a member of a First Nation for sheltering

purposes, it’s under the purview of the host First Nation, as it has

always been.

J. Rustad: Does the individual, under the definition of a “guest…”? Do they

have to be Canadian?

Hon. K. Conroy: They have to be a First Nation, recognized, and it’s at the

purview of the nation.

J. Rustad: The reason why I made that claim about this was…. We’ll get into

further discussion on where there isn’t the need for reporting or even

following anything that’s in the Wildlife Act, as defined there, which

leads me to that claim.

My concern here, though, in the first part of clause 3, under

“guest,” is that it is completely up to a First Nation as to who they

would decide to have as a guest, who they would like to define as a

member of their nation. They could define a foreigner. They could define

somebody who is not Indigenous. There is no definition of what a guest

may be. Of course, traditionally, that wasn’t the case.

We seem to be in a situation here where there is an opportunity….

Whether a First Nation decides to do this or not, through their

leadership, I guess is up to them. There seems to be an opportunity for

a First Nation to be able to look at basically anybody they’d like and

recognize them as a member and allow them to enter into an agreement

with another host nation and to be available for a hunt. You’ve got

rules in the Wildlife Act that prohibit that from happening, unless

you’re a guide-outfitter and you have an opportunity to do

that.

That’s the reason for asking these questions around who is

considered to be a guest. The province is saying…. The minister is

saying, unless she says otherwise, that there is no oversight. There are

no requirements. There is no reporting. There is no declaration that

needs to be made. There’s nothing. It just allows the First Nation to do

what a First Nation wants to do.

I understand the intentions of what government is saying. There

are laws that are in place in this province in terms of our ability to

bill access on hunting, and this is a loophole to get around those laws,

if a nation so desires to do so. I think, as a province, we are going a

very dangerous path — to set up a structure, in place, to legalize the

ability to not follow our laws in terms of wildlife

management.

The minister said, in her opening comments in second reading on

this bill, that wildlife is a special place. It’s part of the culture of

who we are as a province. This is why I’m going into such great detail

on this bill.

[5:05 p.m.]

It is. It’s incredibly important. It is of high value to everyone.

Whether you live in an apartment in downtown Vancouver or whether you

live at the end of a road, maybe not even on a road, out in the middle

of nowhere, you’re relying on your wildlife for your fridge, to feed

your family.

We all have this connection to wildlife in this province. It is a

very critical part of who we are and what we identify as British

Columbia, which is why the Wildlife Act and the importance of managing

wildlife are so critical.

It’s disturbing to think that the minister is bringing in this

bill with no checks, with no balances, with no oversight, with no need

for reporting and no way to be able to do any verification. That is not

good wildlife management. That’s not necessarily sustainable management.

I mean, yes, we’re relying on First Nations to go and be good citizens

of the province and follow the intent of what the minister is trying to

do.

I’m fully sure that many First Nations, if not most First Nations,

will do that, but there is now created the opportunity through this

without having any of these verifications in place.

Perhaps I’ll just put it directly to the minister with this. Is it

the minister’s intent to not have any verification process by the

government as to who can be a guest associated with clause 3?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There is no loophole here. I can’t stress that enough. There’s

absolutely no loophole. I mean, this bill was co-developed with

Indigenous nations, and this is a continuation of sheltering agreements.

A guest must be a member of a First Nation.

If the member is inferring that this legislation will allow

members to bring anybody in, that’s not what this is inferring. Guests

must be a member of a First Nation. It is the purview of the First

Nations to accept those guests, those First Nations guests, which are

defined…. We’ve just spent considerable time going over what a “First

Nation” means. It’s already…. That’s been defined. We’ve spent many

hours on that.

A guest must be a member of a First Nation. I just want to make

that very clear. This is something that was co-developed by nations.

Nations agree on it. This is what they do in their sheltering

agreements. This is not about bringing in foreign hunters. It’s not

about any of that. This is an agreement with host nations that bring in

a guest from another First Nation.

J. Rustad: Since there is no way to be able to verify whether a guest is

actually Indigenous or even a member of a First Nation except by the

claim of a First Nation, then I would dispute what the minister has just

said in terms of this. There is no oversight on that, and it relies

entirely on the goodwill of the First Nation which claims a member as a

guest.

I’ll just give you another example as part of this. I’ll just use

a fictitious name. Bob, who is a member of XYZ First Nation, enters into

a sheltering agreement with a host nation and invites Joe, his friend,

to come along and hunt. Nothing wrong with that. He’s invited him to

come along and hunt. But there is no way to know or verify that Bob

wasn’t actually just bringing Joe along because Joe is now going to be

allowed to go and hunt, take an animal out of British Columbia — or

within British Columbia, whatever the case may be.

There is no verification process. There is no way that the

province is giving any oversight into whom a guest may be and who gets

to, ultimately, harvest that animal and use it for whatever purposes

they decide to use it for.

This is why I’m concerned about this agreement. I’m concerned

about the way the whole bill is written, quite frankly, because it

leaves many loopholes, as we’ve already found, associated with the

definition of a First Nation to include nations outside of the province

— and potentially outside of the country, should the courts define

that.

Now without any way to be able to verify as a province who a guest

is, as a member of a First Nation, how does the minister expect there to

be able to be confidence in this bill in terms of meeting the objectives

of good, solid wildlife management reporting, conservation, etc.? Or

like I say in my questions that I asked previously, did the minister

just maybe not consider that there could be an abuse of this and

potentially set up in terms of having absolutely no oversight of who a

guest may be?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: First Nations can’t extend their constitutional

section 35 rights

to non-Indigenous peoples. If a non-Indigenous person was coming to hunt

on…. They would have to follow all of the regulations that they’d have

to follow anywhere. They’d have to follow the Wildlife Act. They’d have

to follow all of the regulations.

I’m not sure what the…. I mean, the member seems to be suggesting

something nefarious here. I believe that these sheltering agreements

have been in place for many years, and Indigenous nations have managed

to undertake them. Non-Indigenous people have to abide by the laws of

the land.

J. Rustad: Well, I won’t go where the minister led in terms of whether

Indigenous people should follow the laws of the land as well, but

certainly I agree that non-Indigenous people, and quite frankly, I think

that all people in British Columbia and Canada need to follow the laws

of the land.

That’s what we’re doing here. We’re creating a law. We’re creating

Bill 14, an amendment to the Wildlife Act, and we’re adding provisions

in here.

In terms of a guest, if the province does not have any way to

verify who a guest is, associated as a member of a First Nation under

here, what happens if a conservation officer happens to come across

somebody who’s harvested an animal and asks the individual about it, and

the individual says: “Well, I’m a guest.” How is it that the person

could be verified? “I’m a guest under host agreement.” What is the

process for verifying if that person is actually a guest within a host

nation and that an agreement has been set up?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just in reference to what the member said, all people must follow

the numerous laws that we have in this province.

Section 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982 explicitly recognizes and affirms the existing

Aboriginal and treaty rights, including hunting, fishing and trapping

activities of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. As a result, First

Nations have rights to hunt according to their nation’s Indigenous laws

and governance systems while within their traditional

territory.

Everyone is abiding by laws. I took exception to what the member

suggested — that this was like a lawlessness in this country. Also,

guests will be required to have some sort of permit that signifies that

they are actually guests hunting with permission on the traditional

territory.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and

progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, April

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CITIZENS’

SERVICES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); K. Greene in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $656,645,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue

consideration of the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’

Services.

I now recognize the member for Abbotsford South.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to see you

there.

Before the break, we were talking about some of the issues that

some of the suppliers have with regards to infrastructure. The minister

did mention that there was one ministry that the minister was working

with on this, but in addition to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, what

other specific ministries is the minister working with to help get

connectivity and broadband throughout the province?

Hon. L. Beare: Within government, the three main ministries that we connect with

are Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation as well as FLNRORD, soon to

be Forests, and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. But

it is, as I said in my previous answer, a whole cross-government

approach. We’ve made this very clear that it’s a priority, so it’s going

to take all of government pulling together to ensure that we’re

connected by 2027.

B. Banman: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Is the minister taking into consideration changing B.C.’s approval

process to line up with the federal government’s? And underneath that,

one of the issues that I heard, from more than one of the suppliers, is

that there are specific windows of opportunity for building and doing

this. It’s very difficult to do this in 40 below in the middle of

winter. It’s out-and-out dangerous, in fact. So there are

windows.

[1:10 p.m.]

Part of the frustration I heard from the suppliers is that there’s

a disconnect between federal and provincial approval processes and also

that building window as well. Is the minister coordinating those items

with the service providers?

Hon. L. Beare: To the member, our MOU with the federal government ensures that we

do have that increased data sharing so that we’re able to continue to

work with the federal government, coordinate projects and share the

information we have from the province on projects that are in their

tranche, waiting for their approval. We also, on the provincial

permitting side, have a steering committee, across ministries, to help

streamline these processes.

As I said, this is going to be a big effort for all of government,

which we’re all going to be needing to pull together for 2027. We’re all

going to have to do that work, and I’m looking forward to that. This was

a fantastic announcement we made just a couple of weeks ago, and we’re

all going to have to do that work together, moving forward.

B. Banman: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

I want to go back to one item that I sort of briefly touched on

earlier. It’s kind of related to this. Part of that would be to go back

in the history of British Columbia. When the original telecommunications

were put in, there were extraordinary powers given, because it was of

monumental importance to make sure that we had telephones throughout the

province, and also with regard to B.C. Hydro and the electrical poles

that go through.

The frustration that I’ve heard, again, from more than one service

provider, is that the length of time that it takes for either of these

two entities to talk to…. Let’s face it. They’re being asked to have the

competition put communications on their property, basically.

Is there any regulation put in, or any legislation that’ll be

done, to ensure, as we move forward…? As we’ve mentioned, this is of

grave importance for those who do not have connectivity. Has there been

any regulation and/or legislation proposed to force the two major

players, which have the poles, to speed up this process? I hear things

like, “They wait and they wait, wait till the midnight hour, and then

they say: ‘Oh, I’m sorry. We’re reserving that for future expansion of

our own.’”

[1:15 p.m.]

Have we considered putting stuff in to make sure that when other

players come, they’re not reduced in timelines through lack of

cooperation, shall we say, with the other two majors — well, for those

players or for anyone who actually owns the telephone pole structures or

underlying structures that exist?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for raising these issues in the House.

Obviously, we’re very well aware of them. We meet regularly with the

service providers, and this is something we’ve been working on alongside

of them. We’re also, as well as the service providers, meeting with the

Ministry of Energy, Mines to make sure that they’re not only well aware

but working on the situation as well, which has been what’s been

happening.

The member might not be yet aware, because this was good news this

year, that a joint table was struck with Hydro, Telus and the other

major telecom providers to work through these issues. So that’s a

fantastic response from both the ministry and from Hydro to take

proactive action. Telus is regulated by the CRTC for their space on the

poles while Hydro is regulated through our acts for their pieces. But as

I mentioned, we did strike that joint table, which is ensuring that

we’re all working together, which is great news.

B. Banman: I guess I’ve got one more question on that. Over which of the

entities…? There are two that you mentioned — the major players. What

legal authority can the province put on to ensure that those issues are

dealt with in a timely manner? What is the province’s responsibility,

and do we have the ability to do that? Do we actually have the ability

to pass authority over both entities that are the major players, or is

that now separated where it has to be that one is provincial and one is

federal?

Do we really have the ability to ensure, through legislation, that

there are not road blocks or impediments put in the way to get this

done? This is, as we mentioned, in the overall public good. What powers

do we specifically have that we can implement if, by chance, we find

out, with the best of the communications around the table, that things

aren’t getting any better?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: My first choice is to continue working at this joint table. I

think we should leave it at that here, because we want to give that

table the opportunity for success. This is great news. This table has

not been struck before. This is the first time, because everyone is so

excited about these announcements and ensuring that we can get the

entire province connected by 2027.

Telus is a private company regulated through the CRTC, so I don’t

have jurisdiction over that. But the ability to work in partnership

alongside these organizations and the telcos together to all pull

together in the same direction…. That’s the place where I want to be

right now.

B. Banman: I do appreciate the minister’s response or answer to that

question. For the most part, I agree. It’s always better when people

come willingly to a table and agree to do stuff. I guess what I want to

know is the insurance. Again, I’ll go back. The area we’re talking about

is the size of France, and we now are creating haves and

have-nots.

Does the minister have the authority through regulation to

actually, if need be, regulate the players into compliance so that they

have to abide by the will of the province?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: So in very short, yes, that ability exists. That ability would

exist through the Ministry of Energy and Mines, but as I’ve said, my

step here is to continue working at the joint table, and I think that’s

the appropriate step to take right now.

B. Banman: I appreciate the minister’s answer to that question. I am sure

that if need be…. Again, it’s always better if people come and are

willing participants understand the overall picture of a whole and the

overall good that it does to the province and to the country.

I would say that when it comes to the timeline that was done, as

we know. Five years — 2027 is going to be here faster than any of us

wish to admit. I am sure that if progress is not made, that question

will probably be asked again. We would be asking the minister to do

exactly that — to, through regulation, force compliance. So I do

appreciate that.

I’m going to move on. To the minister: can you please answer for

me if the number of FOI requests has gone down since the fee came into

effect? A simple yes or no would be great.

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: This change was implemented four or five months ago, so it’s very

early to tell what the actual trend is going to be, because we’re seeing

some months going down, some months going up, in fact, overall. So we’ll

have to wait for the end of the year to see that full trend. But, for

example, in December 2020, there were 379 requests. In December 2021,

there were 374, so that’s a decrease of five. But in January 2020, there

were 436. In January 2021, it went up to 484, so an increase of

We’re seeing a mixed bag, and we’re going to have to wait to see

the mixed bag. I know the member and I are going to have a really deep

discussion about this at next year’s estimates, once that full year has

gone by and we can actually see those trend numbers.

B. Banman: I do appreciate the minister’s answer. I believe that the

minister’s absolutely right that next year we’ll probably have a more

in-depth…. Once we have better data….

In the minister’s mandate letter, and I’m going to quote part of

it, it states: “Improve access to information rules to provide greater

public accountability.”

I guess the question that begs being answered is: how does adding

a fee to non-personal information improve access and provide greater

public accountability?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: That mandate commitment is met through a number of ways. The

question was asked about one very specific focus. But the completion of

that mandate direction is achieved through a number of ways. How we’ve

achieved that is by maintaining a high on-time compliance rate despite

high volumes of requests increasing more than 40 percent over a two-year

period, which reached an all-time high of over 13,000 requests in

2019-2020.

We modernized our FOI system to improve how the province receives

and manages FOI requests. We began a multi-year project to improve and

modernize freedom-of-information services. That’s focusing on

timeliness, reducing processing times, making access to information

services easier for citizens. Improvements, to date, are

estimated to save about 400 hours annually.

We’ve made sure that more government information is available to

the public by default without the need of a freedom-of-information

request. So we’ve enhanced access to information through proactive

releases by increasing it. Six more types of government records are now

available to people. That’s a 75 percent increase. There were eight

available before.

We’ve added six more to people to access this information without

a freedom-of-information request. Now that results — and I think this is

a great number for the member and everyone to know — in over 5,000

information releases per year that no longer require an FOI

request.

We made amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act in November ’21 that included a suite of measures to improve

government transparency and accountability, including ministerial power

to add subsidiary entities as new public bodies and implementing

mandatory privacy breach reporting to require notification of the

affected person and the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

We added a requirement for public body privacy management

programs, added a new offence for wilfully evading FOI, increased public

bodies’ ability to disclose Indigenous information with

Indigenous-governing entities and added a requirement for public bodies

to seek consent from Indigenous-governing entities to disclose

information that is culturally sensitive through FOI.

As you can see, there’s a culmination of work that results in that

commitment being met.

B. Banman: I do appreciate the answer from the minister.

As we know, there is now a committee with regards to FOI that’s

been formed. In my personal opinion, it’s kind of like putting the cart

in front of the horse, but it is where we are. That committee is now

going through…. It’s going to come up with recommendations to help

improve transparency, among other considerations that that committee

will do.

Does the minister plan on implementing the recommendations, even

if one of those recommendations ends up being to scrap the

fee?

Hon. L. Beare: I’m not going to prejudge any committee determinations. I’m

looking forward to seeing the report. Of course, we will give them

thoughtful consideration, as we would any committee report that we

receive here in government.

B. Banman: I guess part of me is a bit concerned with that answer. I guess

why I’m concerned is that the committee will come up with

recommendations. The committee, I’m sure, has thoughtful

deliberations.

[1:40 p.m.]

With regard to those, are there any recommendations that the

minister can think of? In particular, I want to stick with scrapping the

fee as a prime example. If that was to be a recommendation, would the

minister discount that particular one? Let’s just start with that one.

Would she consider ignoring the recommendation of the committee on that

particular issue?

Hon. L. Beare: The member is asking hypothetical questions. That is absolutely

the member’s right, of course, but it’s hard to comment on a

hypothetical.

I am looking forward to seeing the committee’s report. I know they

will put thoughtful deliberation in it. As always, when receiving

committee reports, we will take that committee report and give it

careful consideration.

B. Banman: I do thank the minister for the answer. I’m pretty sure I could

keep asking it in numerous different ways, but I’m not going to actually

get an answer to that particular question. I can respect

that.

What I will ask is: in the minister’s opinion, has adding a fee

increased the response rate for FOI requests? Has it made it

faster?

Hon. L. Beare: It is a similar answer to earlier. The member and I are having

this thoughtful conversation here.

It is early days in this process. The change was just four months

ago there, so it is still too early to establish that trend. I know this

is going to be a very big conversation next year, when we’ve been able

to establish that trend and have really dug deep into what the results

of that are.

That’s just one aspect of it. As we also talked about before with

the member, our modernization work is just beginning. There are a number

of other pieces to ensuring that we have timely responses going out.

That modernization work that we’re doing is going to be critical to that

as well. We need to focus on that, as well, in this conversation, and I

know it’s going to be a great debate.

Really, the member and I both know that the fastest way to get

information is through proactive releases and not even having to ask for

it. So we’ve already increased six categories and types of proactive

releases. That’s something I’m looking to continue increasing. That’s

how I believe the system should work — being able to find these

categories of information, which we can just proactively release to the

public so that it doesn’t even have to be asked for.

[1:45 p.m.]

B. Banman: To the minister: that’s something that you and I wholeheartedly

agree on, actually. If we were to go ask the standard public what an FOI

is, they’d probably look at us with a blank stare. It’s very few

individuals that understand what an FOI, I think, really is. What is an

FOI request, and how would one go about doing it?

That does beg the question, though: is the ministry tracking what

was once asked as an FOI versus what’s now being proactively disclosed?

Are they tracking…? Is there an intent to track — and if there isn’t,

I’d highly suggest there is — the types of FOIs that were requested in

the past that now…? “Hey, you know what? You don’t even have to ask for

this because it’s proactively disclosed.” Are we monitoring

that?

Hon. L. Beare: I think I’m understanding the member’s question, and I think this

is the best answer for it.

We are always actively tracking the types of requests that are

made and looking for those trends, which is how we come up with those

proactive release categories. For example, the latest one was a

summary

of briefing notes. That’s something that was continually being asked

for. We had the ability to take a look at that, see that pattern and

say: “Well, this is something we can pr

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20220407pm-CommitteeA-Blues
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20220407pm-CommitteeA-Blues
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d870550148ea657001f9be35a21a2416b2b3fff1

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

British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — Thursday, April 7, 2022 p.m. — Number 185 (HTML) (42nd Parliament, 3rd Session)

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

ISSN 1499-2175

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022

Section A, I call continued Committee of Supply,

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

CVSE.

section 59.4, I just want to clarify what kind of

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT,

section 3. I’ll maybe phrase it this way, then, if I may, hon. Chair, to

section 1, I just want to do a quick review of

section 1, the definition of

section 1 — I’m

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is constantly evolving. Courts

section 35

section 1. Perhaps the

section 1.

section 35 of the Constitution Act, is constantly evolving.

Part of the process of defining a First Nation we have canvassed

section 3 of the act.

section 1. This is definitely in clause

section 35 rights

Section 35 of the

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CITIZENS’

SERVICES

Part of the frustration I heard from the suppliers is that there’s

summary

Document details