Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 189

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

E. Ross

L. Doerkson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. N. Cullen

D. Ashton

A. Olsen

Hon. N. Cullen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. B. Ralston

D. Davies

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

M. Lee

C. Oakes

J. Sturdy

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. K. Chen: I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 14, the Wildlife Act,

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, followed by the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:40 p.m.

On clause 3 (continued) .

J. Rustad: I want to start, first of all, by thanking the minister and the

minister’s staff for offering an additional briefing on Bill 14 today at lunch.

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to take advantage of it, but I just want to

thank the minister and, particularly, the minister’s staff for making that

offer.

Just before lunch, the minister responded to the question and talked

about elements of the agreement related to enforcement or at the discretion of

the Indigenous body, in response to when I asked if the components of whether

people qualify as a guest or a host First Nation would be included in the

shelter agreement or whether the ministry would be responsible for reviewing

it.

Given that the minister has said that the elements of the agreement are

at the discretion of the Indigenous body, how will this be enforced? How will —

I’m assuming it’d be — a conservation officer be able to check the validity of

both a guest and a host nation if they challenge somebody who is in the forest,

somebody who’s hunting, and they say they’re part of a sheltering agreement?

How would those components be enforced if it’s at the discretion of the

governing body in terms of the actual sheltering agreement?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Sheltering agreements provide a framework for enforcement, and they may

produce regulations, which will be publicly available. Enforcement will be done

as all other parts of the Wildlife Act are enforced — in the same

way.

J. Rustad: I understand, having not hunted in many years, that once a conservation

officer asks for information, they have to provide their licence, firearms

permit and all of these types of things, for an individual in the forest, that

that conservation officer would ask for. I understand that that information

would be required.

What I don’t understand, which is why I’m asking the question, is how a

conservation officer will determine whether or not the terms of this bill — the

definition of a guest — are to be met?

If the minister says it’s going to be required and will be part of

regulations and worked out — it has to be there and has to be available if a

conservation officer asks for it — then so be it. That’s good. That means it

will actually enhance enforcement. But if it’s not available, I’m not quite

sure how a conservation officer can enforce this act in terms of whether or not

somebody who has entered into a shelter agreement qualifies as a guest, by the

definition in the act.

That’s why I’m asking the question. Perhaps the minister could provide

some detail as to how the conservation officer would be able to access that

information.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Exactly what the member said is why we need this bill. It will provide

transparency for enforcement. The regulations will be publicly available once

there’s a sheltering agreement. We don’t have that now, but it will be publicly

available. A guest will have a permit that will be held by them when they go

hunting. It makes it all very transparent and much easier for conservation

officers.

J. Rustad: I would agree with the minister that it would, on the surface. The

problem is that the minister has just said, in her answer before lunch, that it

is at the discretion of the Indigenous governing body. “Elements of the

agreements related to enforcement are at the discretion of the Indigenous

governing body.”

Those are the words that the minister said before lunch, which is why

I’m asking the question. Before lunch, I asked whether the ministry would

actually be confirming whether or not guests qualified as guests, and the

minister said that would be up to the Indigenous body and that she had answered

this question before. So now I’m asking the question about how things are

enforced. If the minister is not going to be doing the verification of a guest

because it is the First Nation’s right to do that, that’s fine.

Okay.

Then the minister says it’s up to the discretion of the governing body

as to whether that information would be in a permit. Okay, that’s fine. How

does somebody enforce it, then, if it is not required to be there and available

as part of an agreement and if it has not been verified by the ministry that it

is truly there as a host or as a guest person?

In other words, what would have to happen in order for this to work….

The minister is saying that we just have to trust the First Nation — that

they’re going to be doing this appropriately. I don’t know any other body in

the province where the province just says: “Well, we’ll trust some other body

to do something.” The responsibility for managing wildlife is the provincial

responsibility. You can’t just trust somebody else to say: “Oh yeah, I’ve got a

permit. Trust me.” You’re asked for that permit. You need to provide the

information. That is why I’m wondering how this is enforceable.

Now, if that’s going to be defined in regulations, that’s fine. The

minister can say that, and then she can retract what she said before lunch

about it being at the discretion of the Indigenous body, as to where that

information is available. I’d be happy with that. That’d be good. But what the

minister has said has provided that confusion, which is why I’m asking this

question.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: If the nations enter into a sheltering agreement, it’s at the discretion

of the nations to include the province. When they include the province, it’ll

then be enshrined in regulation, and enforceability regulations would

apply.

J. Rustad: I apologize to the minister. I’m pretty confused with that

answer.

We talk about: “The minister and the governing body of a first nation

may enter into an agreement respecting hunting in the traditional territory of

that first nation….” So if I understood the minister from what she just said,

the province doesn’t have to authorize it. As a matter of fact, this province

may not have to be involved at all.

The Indigenous governing body could just create this sheltering

agreement without having the province even look at it or see it, which means

that the terms in the agreement, as per the minister earlier, is at the

discretion of the Indigenous body, in the terms added. How on earth could a

conservation officer do any kind of verification whatsoever, if the province is

not involved in the agreement and there’s no verification process for the terms

that are within the agreement?

I’m sorry. I’m very confused by what the minister has just said because

it seems to be…. Earlier yesterday, or whenever we were last looking at it, the

minister said that these agreements would help with enforcement of the act, yet

what the minister has just said is that there is nothing that can be

enforced.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I’ll try to clarify things. The earlier statement, regarding what is in

the discretion of the governing body, was in relation to the member’s question

about the governing body determining for themselves who is a member of the

First Nation. That was what the member was asking about, so that’s what that

question response was on.

We expect that sheltering agreements would clearly set out how guests

will be identified. Just to remind the members, right now the province doesn’t

currently have jurisdiction to recognize existing sheltering agreements.

Nations have asked for that. That’s what this bill will do.

E. Ross: If anything, this goes to show how complicated Aboriginal rights and

title case law is. I’ve always believed that in reading case law and

understanding it, you’ve almost got to think about it in the abstract. You know

it’s there, but you can’t really quite pin it down on exactly what it

is.

I think what we have come to understand over the last couple of days is

that, with or without the province’s involvement, sheltering agreements do

exist in some form. Because it’s not really legislated or regulated, this

causes problems for officers who are trying to enforce wildlife regulations,

for example, or firearms laws. So I can understand that side of what’s trying

to be accomplished here.

We also came to understand now that this is optional, in terms of a

First Nation opting into this type of agreement with the province. There are

only two clear benefits I can see coming out of this. It relieves First Nation

hunters, as well as conservation officers, from the stress of having to

determine who has the right to hunt where. There’s also another objective here

that I think was confirmed: this could also contribute to management and

conservation regimes within the province of B.C., if I’m correct.

My confusion is on the two areas of enforcement that we’re talking

about. There are two distinct areas. One is an area of enforcement that applies

to everybody — Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal — under the Wildlife Act, under

parallel regulations that are designed not only to protect the resource but

also to protect the safety of the citizens of B.C. The other component of

enforcement is within this bill that we’re talking about right now, the

sheltering agreement itself. I’ve actually lived with this in another context,

in fisheries. I understand the complexities of it, especially when you’re

talking about something that’s duly authorized, to authorize a

permit.

We battled with this as an elected chief and council for years, even

under treaty negotiations with B.C. and Canada, in that it had to be, one,

within the confines of the laws of B.C. and Canada, and two, it had to be from

an official organization such as an elected chief and council. It had to be an

official document recognized not only by the B.C. government but also by a

conservation officer. It couldn’t be a letter from Uncle Joe Smith saying:

“Yeah, I give my nephew the right to hunt in our territory.” The conservation

officer will not accept that.

[2:05 p.m.]

I think what my colleague from Nechako Lakes is…. Out there in the

forest when the conservation comes across this, how is he supposed to enforce

it or understand that this is an official agreement, between the province and

the First Nation in question, that allows this activity to happen and that

relieves all the parties of the legal stress that’s currently involved in

today’s environment?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is right about the benefits. Thank you. You nailed

it.

The identification requirements will be part of regulations. The First

Nations are currently required to follow provisions of the Wildlife Act when

hunting outside their traditional territory. Through this bill, the shared

agreements will enable regulations to permit the First Nation guest to hunt on

the host First Nation’s traditional territory, when requested by the First

Nation. The regulations will create further transparency and clarification for

enforcement of the sheltered hunting.

Sheltering agreements will be in regulation, so they’ll be available to

conservation officers, who will have access to them. Currently the team is

working with the conservation service on policies and procedures that will be

implemented and in place by September 1, 2022, of this year. They’re currently

working on those policies and procedures now.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer, Minister. This is quite the learning

exercise. I wasn’t aware I’d been contravening some of the case law in terms of

being in a guest First Nation for hunting in other territories.

Interjection.

E. Ross: What’s that? I know, I know.

This is going to be a shock for many Aboriginals across B.C. who are

actually in the same boat that I was in, but you can’t know everything about

Aboriginal rights and title. The topic is too vast and complicated.

Related to that, it seems to me that so far, what we’ve been talking

about is existing rights and title, as described in

section 35 of the

constitution, as well as the pursuant case law. For the most part, I’m going to

assume that we’ve been talking about undefined rights and title. I think I’ve

got a good, broad understanding now of what the province is trying to achieve —

not only through this bill but also with the upcoming regulations that will

further define this — but we haven’t really talked yet about defined

rights.

Really, what we’re talking about is modern-day treaties. I’m not talking

about treaty 8; I’m not talking about historic treaties. I’m talking about

modern-day treaties. Modern-day treaties have actually traded in, for lack of a

better word, their undefined rights and title for defined rights and title, in

exchange for land, revenue, some level of jurisdiction and some level of

law-making, as long as it abides by the laws and regulations of B.C. and

Canada.

Can the minister describe to me…? For a modern-day treaty member who has

signed on, basically, to define their rights, will they be permitted to hunt in

a territory such as mine, which doesn’t have defined rights but has undefined

rights and title? Will they basically, outside of their treaty boundaries, be

allowed to hunt as if they had never defined their rights and title with B.C.

and Canada in forms of a modern-day treaty?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a good question. B.C.’s relationship with modern treaty nations is

set out in the modern treaty that B.C. is a treaty partner to. Hunting rights

of modern treaty nations are set out in the treaty. If modern treaty nations

wish to have their citizens hunt outside of their treaty harvest area, we

discuss that with them and look to their treaty, as some of the treaties do

contemplate these kinds of sheltering agreements with other nations, so it’s

actually in the treaty.

E. Ross: Thank you for that. I did not know that. There’s another thing I

learned.

You know, this is not new. I mean, the treaty is basically a formalized

sheltering agreement. They traded in their undefined rights to harvest and hunt

for prescribed terms and prescribed limits in exchange for money, in exchange

for land.

[2:20 p.m.]

As far back as 1980, there was a sheltering agreement of sorts in terms

of salmon that came from Canada for First Nations. It’s talking about the same

thing, basically — talking about how a First Nation can allow another First

Nation member to come into their territory and harvest salmon. But it’s got to

be very formal between the First Nation’s council giving out a legitimate

permit to that guest First Nation.

The difference here is we haven’t really talked yet about the difference

between an Aboriginal fishing strategy, which is a sheltering agreement, in

relation to what the province is proposing here. As I understand it, based on

the answers, there is a parallel objective here that actually benefits B.C. in

terms of conserving and managing the resource in question. That’s what the

Aboriginal fishing strategy does for Canada.

In the Aboriginal fishing strategy context, it’s almost like a voluntary

commitment by the First Nation to limit their harvesting rights, in terms of

salmon, in exchange for money to manage a fully developed fisheries program

within the First Nation itself. A lot of First Nations have these fishing

strategies within their communities, and it’s monitored under the Indian Act

funding agreements. So a very similar concept here.

In light of their conservation and management concerns here and how it

kind of combines all of the above, is the province considering some funding

mechanism to the First Nation so they can manage and enforce this sheltering

agreement in partnership with the provincial government?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s not the intent of this bill. Part of other policies and

procedures…. We provide other funding to Indigenous nations for those very

purposes.

E. Ross: So the idea of managing an agreement, such as a sheltering agreement…. I

just want to get this right. Those provisions that would look to enforcing the

sheltering agreement are currently or would be covered by other funding

sources. So a First Nation would not have to incur extra cost to enforce the

sheltering agreement. Did I get that correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill envisions the government providing the enforcement, not the

nations.

[2:25 p.m.]

E. Ross: Yes, I understand that, Minister, through the Chair. The question

was….

A sheltering agreement, like the Aboriginal fishing strategy program

that’s delivered by Canada right now for salmon purposes, actually comes with

funding, so that sheltering agreement, for lack of a better word, can be

enforced and implemented in a lot of First Nation communities around B.C. and

Canada.

The question is: will there be similar funding provisions for a First

Nation to manage a sheltering agreement when it’s actually considered being

negotiated and agreed upon with the province of B.C.?

Hon. K. Conroy: No. This bill doesn’t provide for that.

J. Rustad: Thanks to my colleague from Skeena. Definitely some interesting

components, especially about the modern treaty side and how that works. I was

glad he raised that question.

Just before that, when you were still talking about the enforcement and

the tools for enforcement, if I have it right, to summarize what we were

talking about before, it’s that a First Nation will enter into a sheltering

agreement with a guest, in terms of that agreement. I believe the minister said

it would be made public. So I just want to confirm that those sheltering

agreements would be made public or whether or not those sheltering agreements

would remain between a First Nation and possibly be shared with the

ministry.

Hon. K. Conroy: When the First Nation asks, the shared agreement will be signed by the

minister. Regulatory provisions of the shared agreement will be made into law

through the regulations and publicly available, as are all laws in British

Columbia.

J. Rustad: I do understand the regulations and the act…. This is the actual

sheltering agreement that I was asking about, whether or not they would be made

public.

[2:30 p.m.]

A sheltering agreement is an agreement that is signed between a host

nation and a guest that the province may or may not even have a copy of, I

suppose, because the province doesn’t necessarily have to sign off on it. So

I’m just wondering whether or not those sheltering agreements will be made

public.

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill itself doesn’t address sheltering agreements that are between

the host and the guest First Nation that doesn’t include the province. That’s

what happens now, so that’s status quo. That’s what’s happening in the

province.

It’s when the nations have asked the government to support the

sheltering agreements. That’s what this bill will do. All provisions related to

the Wildlife Act will be made public, so conservation officers can see that.

Anyone can see it. That’s how that’ll work. The overall sheltering agreement

itself is at the purview of the nations and outside of what I’ve already shared

of what we would be sharing.

[2:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Okay. I think I understand now, with that. So I thank the minister for

that answer.

The components of the sheltering agreement that are related to the

Wildlife Act would be made public, but anything else wouldn’t necessarily have

to be. I think that’s what the minister has just said, so I’ll go with that

assumption, unless it needs to be corrected.

The question, of course, then, would be: in terms of the sheltering

agreement, in terms of enforcement, would the CO — I’m assuming the

conservation officer is the one who’s going to be enforcing — have access to

the full sheltering agreement or only the components that are related to the

Wildlife Act?

Hon. K. Conroy: Their role is only related to the Wildlife Act.

J. Rustad: Okay, so it’s only related to the Wildlife Act. It’s interesting. Of

course, this goes into the Wildlife Act, which means “guest” is in the Wildlife

Act, which means that component would then have to be made available to the CO.

That is good. That’s an important piece to know.

The only thing we need to do now is try to figure out how we can confirm

whether the guest meets requirements based under the act or not. But we’ve been

down that rabbit hole. I’m not getting an answer, so I’m not going to go any

further on it.

In terms of these agreements where it’s a guest, is there any limit to

the number of guests that may be part of a single agreement? Or is there a

sheltering agreement for each individual guest? For example, if you have an

agreement between two First Nations and one family says, “Hey, I’ve got 15 of

my relatives that would like to come and hunt,” and the other nation says,

“We’re in agreement to that. Let’s do a sheltering agreement,” does that cover

off all of them? Or does it have to be 15 different agreements?

Hon. K. Conroy: It could cover off all of them.

J. Rustad: That’s good to know. It helps with that component.

So “guest” means…. When it says “means a member of a first nation,” it

could be multiple members of a First Nation.

When it’s talking about an “agreement may include parties in addition to

those referred to in subsection (2),” which, of course, is the government and

the governing body, what is the minister contemplating? This is under clause 3,

70.1(3).

It says: “A sheltering agreement may include parties in addition to

those referred to in subsection (2),” which is the province and the governing

body, “including the governing body of the…nation of which the guest is a

member.”

I’m just curious as to what the minister is contemplating in terms of

what other parties may be included.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The word “parties” in 70.1(3) covers First Nations with overlapping

traditional territory who may be signatories to a sheltering agreement and not

members of the public or companies. Guests who would be permitted to hunt in

the traditional territory of a host First Nation have to be a member of a First

Nation.

J. Rustad: I think, if I understand what the minister was just saying, that as

these sheltering agreements are created, it is possible, particularly in a

situation of overlap, that it may be other First Nations that are involved as

part of an agreement that would allow a guest to come in. I think that’s what

the minister just said.

Well, I’m not sure. Otherwise, why would other parties be involved in

creating a sheltering agreement if they had no interest in that particular

area? I see the minister’s staff in the back nodding her head on that, so I

think that is what the minister is meaning. But that does leave a question of

where you do have disputed territory, in terms of overlap.

Part of the process between First Nations was…. This is being told to me

by Elders from many First Nations. Historically, they knew where their

boundaries were. It was this ridge, or it was that water system or wherever the

case may be. They understood where the boundaries were between nations,

particularly nations that were friendly to one another. Of course, there were

many disputes where First Nations went to war with one another over territory

and over other areas.

Having said that, when Europeans came around, when we came around and

created the province of British Columbia and the country of Canada and created

these nations, as we called them, under the Indian Act, and then, of course,

through the treaty process…. Those boundaries have been blurred significantly.

They’ve been expanded for various territories.

Overlap of issues has become very prominent in the province. There are

many First Nations, for example on Vancouver Island, which don’t have any

territory that’s not in dispute with a neighbouring nation. It creates some

challenges and issues in terms of how sheltering agreements could potentially

be enacted, given that if they don’t have a relationship with the neighbour

that has disputed a particular area, it could create a real problem.

Does the ministry require a sheltering agreement to have approval of any

nation that has a strength of claim or that has a statement of territory under

recent treaty process or otherwise? Does it require all of the nations that may

have an interest in an area to agree before a sheltering agreement can be put

in place for a guest to be able to hunt in an area?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hopefully, I made that clear enough. I know it sounds kind of confusing.

The bottom line is if you’ve got neighbouring nations and they don’t agree but

one of the nations decides they want to do a sheltering agreement in an area

where there isn’t agreement, how is that agreement actually implemented where

there is potential dispute, and who is the arbitrator of the dispute — that

side of things?

I’ll start off with that piece of it, and we’ll see where it goes from

here.

Hon. K. Conroy: I believe that I’ve answered this a number of times. There won’t be a

sheltering agreement with the province if the nations don’t agree with each

other.

J. Rustad: Okay. Given that it’s about 120 percent of the province or thereabouts —

strength of claim — that falls under a traditional territory claim by First

Nations, and there is significant overlap with many nations around the

province, is the minister saying that there’s only an opportunity for a shelter

agreement in a nation’s core territory where there is no dispute or where there

is agreement between nations that have a disputed territory?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the sheltering agreements would only be with nations with core

territory or mutually agreed-upon shared agreements. This bill is not a

mechanism to resolve disputed territories. Another benefit of this bill is that

it is a mechanism to work collaboratively with nations to achieve agreement. We

intend to work in consultation and cooperation with First Nations in developing

the policies regarding sheltering agreements and how to address such

issues.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. It’s a good, clear answer on that

question. But it does make me have to ask one more question associated with it,

which is: if a First Nation comes to the province with a sheltering agreement

for a host, and it’s for anywhere within their traditional territory, who

arbitrates whether or not there is an overlap or a dispute that needs to be

addressed?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I am shaking my head. It’s déjà vu. I did answer this yesterday, but

I’ll answer it again.

If the territory overlaps with other First Nations, we have established

policies for addressing this type of matter. Our general approach will be that,

first, we’d expect that the host and the guest nation would work this out with

the other nations who have overlapping traditional territory in this

area.

As sheltering agreements are a tradition and have been in place between

nations for generations, we expect that most cases will be handled between the

nations. In cases where nations are not able to work this out, we would, at

their request, offer to support the process with a strength-of-claim analysis.

If there is no way to resolve the overlap in traditional territory, then it’s

unlikely that we would enter into a sheltering agreement.

J. Rustad: I guess this comes back to the question about whether a sheltering

agreement is needed. Regardless of that, the issue, I think, is…. If I heard

the minister correctly in terms of this, where there is a sheltering…. A nation

comes to the province and says: “I’m entering into a sheltering agreement with

a guest.” That qualifies as being a guest, but we don’t know if that’s being

confirmed or not.

A host nation comes to the province and says: “I want to enter a

sheltering agreement with a guest.” It will be the province that determines

whether or not there is a dispute, if it’s not mentioned in the agreement —

whether or not there is overlap. I guess that means that the province will ask

and require a host nation to show that there is no dispute in the territory

that would prohibit the province from signing an agreement.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I’m trying to figure out, if a nation comes to the prov­ince with

a sheltering agreement with a guest, whether or not the province asks the

question, “Is there dispute with neighbours?” knowing that where the

traditional boundaries are of a claimed territory is of nations, all nations in

the province…. Whether the province will ask that question. If there isn’t an

agreement in place, whether the province would then ask the nation to go and

get an agreement with the neighbouring nation before approving the sheltering

agreement.

The Chair: Minister.

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

Yes.

J. Rustad: That’s good to know. That’s actually very good to know. There’ll be a

process that has to go through…. So there’s a check by the province associated

with that. I’m just, like I say, trying to understand exactly how these

processes will work.

As part of a sheltering agreement, if a First Nation…. Or, as part of a

sheltering agreement, I guess I should ask, can a host nation define a specific

geography associated with a shelter agreement? So in other words, it says:

“Everywhere in our traditional territory west of the Fraser River is available

to you but not east of the Fraser River because we have a dispute.”

Can that be defined in a sheltering agreement so that it is specific to

an area as opposed to an entire traditional territory of a First Nation? The

reason for asking that is because that may avoid the need for a discussion with

a neighbour to create a solution for the overlap.

Just as some background with it, the reason I’m asking the questions

around this is that for many First Nations that have overlapping disputed

territory…. I’ll just use one example in my riding of Yekooche, with its

neighbouring nations, particularly, maybe Lake Babine Nation. I’ll use that as

just one example.

Yekooche is in the process of trying to finalize treaty. Lake Babine

Nation does not recognize Yekooche’s claim within what they say is their

territory. So there is a dispute of the boundary. The problem becomes…. Lake

Babine Nation would be concerned about agreeing with something like a

sheltering agreement that potentially could go into their territory, because if

they do that, then it would be basically recognizing Yekooche’s claim to a

territory that they don’t recognize.

[3:00 p.m.]

They will never agree because of that potential overlap, and they don’t

want add anything to the strength of claim from Yekooche, because that would

then be used against them in court if a treaty was ever signed and the overlap

was never properly addressed.

I’m using that example because you’re going to be in a situation, as a

minister and as a ministry, where you’re going to have these sticking points,

and nations may not want to agree because they don’t want it to be used against

them in a proceeding down the road, whether it’s treaty or

otherwise.

To the question I had…. This is why I’m asking the question of whether

or not the sheltering agreement can be restricted to a defined geography, as

opposed to a traditional territory, and whether or not the ministry is allowing

those sort of provisions to be in a sheltering agreement as part of how they

can resolve this.

Hon. K. Conroy: The answer is yes.

J. Rustad: Good. That helps to clarify a little bit about what may or may not end

up being in a sheltering agreement in terms of that.

One of the other components, though, that is often thought about between

nations and associated with sheltering agreements — or between this, of course

— is a quid pro quo. There may be a condition that is put on, saying: “Yes, we

have an overlap, but if we’re going to allow a hunt in a disputed territory,

the nation wants to be compensated for allowing that to happen in a disputed or

an overlap territory.” There may be some financial transactions or other types

of transactions, which would be included either between the guest and the host

nation or the host nation and its neighbouring nations to resolve the

dispute.

If there are those types of conditions, like financial or other sorts of

benefits that would be used to help to resolve or to help to open up the

opportunity for a sheltering agreement, would those be required to be made

public?

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill is silent on remuneration in the context of sheltering

agreements. This is because the intention of the amendment is to, when

requested by nations, align existing traditional sheltering protocols with

provincial laws, thereby allowing for the transparent enforcement of sheltered

hunting. As hunting may take various forms from nation to nation, it would not

be within the spirit of that intention to dictate how a specific aspect of

sheltered hunting should occur, if it occurs at all.

J. Rustad: In an earlier question, with regards to the sheltering agreement, the

minister said that the shelter agreements could potentially strengthen

conservation and management, and I’m assuming conservation management to

wildlife. I understand that shelter agreements would help to formalize the

process that’s going on. They would help to, potentially, track the number of

these types of interactions that are going on.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could potentially provide some examples of

how a sheltering agreement would be able to help strengthen conservation and

management.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m not going to presuppose what could be in the sheltering agreements.

Sheltering agreements might possibly have included a prescribed number of

animals; a class of animals — i.e., male or female; the time of harvest; the

method of hunting, either bow or rifle; things like that.

J. Rustad: As the minister has said, those sorts of things may be in there, but

they may not be in there. I’m just curious, because the minister did clearly

say that these would help to strengthen conservation and management, which, of

course, is one of the key things of the Wildlife Act to begin with.

One of the other components I’m just curious about, just before we move

on to the next part of clause 3…. When sheltering agreements are created, is

there a time frame associated with the sheltering agreement? Can it be

open-ended? In other words, could it be for the next five years that there’s an

opportunity for a guest to be hosted, or the next 20 years? Along with that,

can a sheltering agreement be retroactive to include, perhaps, last year or the

year before?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: They are not retroactive, just to be clear. Timelines would be case

specific, and we expect reviews and renewal would be built into the agreement

process.

J. Rustad: If I understood that right, they’re not retroactive. That’s a good

thing. But they could be of varying lengths, depending what the agreement, what

the First Nation wants to do.

I guess that leads to a question, because they could be multiple years,

in terms of a sheltering agreement. Is there a provision for being able to

amend the terms of a sheltering agreement? What would that process

be?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Amendments would be made under a case-by-case basis. We would make

required appeals or enactments of regulations as necessary.

J. Rustad: If I understood the minister, their amendment is possible. There isn’t

necessarily a process associated with it, but I suppose that’s just what would

happen if a First Nation wanted to come forward. There would be a discussion

that would take place, and I guess we’ll see what that process looks like over

time.

There is a case, just within the last couple years, of a First Nation

that invited a significant number of Indigenous people into the territory. They

harvested quite a few animals, many ungulates, but seemed by some, described as

being a tremendous amount. They kind of cleaned out an area of ungulates within

that particular area of a First Nation.

That leads to the question. Is there any limit, or any consideration to

the limit, as to how many sheltering agreements could be put in place or how

many individuals, under a single agreement or under multiple agreements, would

be allowed to come in and harvest an animal within a traditional territory or

within a subset of a traditional territory?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Conservation is our shared priority, and the shared goal is to ensure

that the harvest is sustainable. As I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again,

during this debate, I have great faith in our First Nations partners in

wildlife management. I hear from them often about it. I fully expect to see

that the limits are collectively in place through the agreements

process.

J. Rustad: If I understood the minister correctly, in there, there are no limits

that would be defined or implemented, which is fine. We’ll get to the issue of

conservation and animal challenges, I guess, in terms of sustainability for

certain animals. We’ll get to that when we get into 70.2 of clause

The sheltering agreements, as I look at them, are pretty broad-based.

The provisions in this act are very broad-based. I’m just curious. There are

some restrictions in the Wildlife Act. For example, could a sheltering

agreement allow for somebody, say, nine years old to go out and hunt as a

guest?

The reason for asking that is that there’s a limit, say, to the age ten

for hunting. I’m wondering whether or not there’s potential for a sheltering

agreement to supersede other types of restrictions that are within the act,

such as allowing an individual of nine years old or even younger to be able to

go out and hunt.

[3:25 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The province wouldn’t enter into a sheltering agreement if the

province’s guiding principles of conservation and public safety aren’t

met.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. That helps, certainly.

One of the things that the member for Skeena had talked about were the

issues of safety. You know, hunting within X number of metres of roads and

these types of things. So I’m glad to hear the province won’t enter into

agreements that would potentially compromise those safeties.

There is the issue of private land within traditional territory. There

hasn’t been any case law that talks about whether or not there are rights

extended into private land or not in terms of it. Clearly, when you look at the

Williams case, where private land was completely surrounded by title, there is

a serious question as to whether or not title and rights would extend into

private land.

Would private land be excluded from a potential sheltering agreement

even though it may be, obviously, within a traditional territory? Or could

private land be included as a hunting opportunity within the traditional

territory as part of a sheltering agreement?

Hon. K. Conroy: The province wouldn’t enter into a sheltering agreement without the

agreement of the private landowner.

L. Doerkson: Just to follow up on that question. That is a specifically interesting

area of Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I wondered how these agreements may affect any

other agreements that the province may have in that specific area with respect

to guide-outfitters or other people that have tenure on the land. Will all of

that land be available for a second agreement with other bands?

Hon. K. Conroy: We just need clarification if the member is referring to private

land.

L. Doerkson: I’m actually talking about…. The area that we’re talking about would be

in the West Chilcotin. That area is sprinkled with private land in the Xeni

Gwet’in territory, okay? But there are other people doing business in those

areas, right? Guide-outfitters. There are certainly traplines. There are all

kinds of different things. There’s Crown range that is kind of sprinkled all

through that territory.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m wondering. If there is an agreement with other First Nations, will

that, I guess, supersede the agreements? I mean, could people tend to see other

people, for instance, hunting in their guiding area? Could they expect to see

hunters in through rangeland in the back country of that area, specifically to

that Xeni Gwet’in territory?

Hon. K. Conroy: First Nations enter into sheltering agreements between themselves and

have done so historically for a long time. These rights are enshrined in the

constitution.

The purpose of the bill is to allow host and guest First Nations to ask

the province to support their sheltering agreements. This would apply in the

Chilcotin.

Chair, could I please get a recess for ten minutes?

The Chair: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:37 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

L. Doerkson: I just wanted to go back to the question…. I appreciate the answer that

you gave, Minister, before the break. Maybe I’ve complicated things by

specifically talking about the Xeni Gwet’in. I guess what I’m trying to get at

is that, obviously, in all of these territories, there are a mixture of other

stakeholders inside these areas, whether they be guide-outfitters or ranchers,

whatever. I mean, there are many different users in the back

country.

What’s been contemplated around those users? How will this affect

them?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the purpose of this bill is to allow host and guest First Nations

to ask the province to support their sheltering agreements. And sheltering

agreements won’t change the intent of existing tenure holders.

J. Rustad: Along the lines of the sheltering agreements and what’s allowed and

what’s not allowed, as I said, I was very happy to hear about the safety

component — that the province would not enter into an agreement that would

potentially violate those safety components. That was good to hear.

I also wonder, in terms of conservation, about whether or not sheltering

agreements could include animals that are restricted — for example, an animal

that might be endangered or a grizzly bear — and whether or not a sheltering

agreement could be entered into to allow for a guest to be able to harvest an

animal like a grizzly bear.

Hon. K. Conroy: We won’t enter into any agreement that compromises the government’s

principles on conservation or safety.

E. Ross: In reading what the sheltering agreement is and what it isn’t, I’m

starting to get a good idea of what the government wants to accomplish. But in

reference to the idea of shooting a grizzly bear, that’s traditional practice —

killing a grizzly bear not just for food, not just for its pelt but for reasons

of safety.

It was a traditional practice, especially in a community like mine,

Haisla, where we didn’t eat grizzly bear meat, but my dad’s generation and his

dad’s generation would monitor a population of a watershed that had grizzly

bears. When it got over a certain number, they’d go out and kill grizzly

bears.

[4:05 p.m.]

Well, the recent legislation that came from the B.C. government actually

put a stop to that, to the point where it limited the Aboriginal right to

harvest the grizzly bear — for whatever purpose — and to the point where

shooters, designated on behalf of a band, had their firearms confiscated for

contravening the grizzly bear.

In this sheltering agreement, I know we’re contemplating a whole range

of laws and management principles and regulations. I’m presuming, also, based

on the UNDRIP discussion, that the B.C. government wants to incorporate

traditional practices, as well, and traditional laws.

In light of the idea that the minister just said — that they will not

contravene existing grizzly bear practices — will that mean there will be no

consideration or bringing back traditional practices in terms of culling

predators such grizzlies?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify, just to correct the member. What I said is that

for the sheltering agreement, our guiding principles are safety and

conservation. Traditional practices will be considered on a case-by-case basis

through the lens of the province’s guiding principles, which are conservation

and safety.

[4:15 p.m.]

E. Ross: Thank you for that. It sounds like the direction will be actually

existing regulations in terms of management and conservation through the

regulations, and somehow that’s going to meld with the First Nations’ right to

hunt as well as the existing practice of allowing other hunters to come in from

other jurisdictions to hunt under that Aboriginal right. That’s what I’m

getting.

I think the principles of conservation, safety and management will guide

the sheltering agreements. That’s what I’ve come to understand over this past

day or so. In terms of that, I’ve seen these types of agreements

before.

Unless you want to correct me there, Minister, on that point? Otherwise,

I’ll just move on.

The principles of conservation, safety and management through the

regulations will be B.C. guiding the sheltering agreements in partnership with

what the sheltering agreements are meant to achieve in terms of the Aboriginal

right to hunt and harvest and allow other harvesters to come in from other

jurisdictions.

That’s what I’m presuming the sheltering agreement will be. That’s

correct? Yeah. But the guiding principles will be existing regulations in

relation to health, safety and conservation. Am I correct?

The Chair: I would ask you to ask through the Chair, please.

E. Ross: Through the Chair, of course. I’m not going to repeat that, by the way.

It’s too long and convoluted a question.

Better than that, what I’m going to get at is that I’ve seen these

agreements before, especially in terms of Aboriginal fishing strategies. It

does accomplish a number of objectives that I think are what are contemplated

here in Bill 14, the Wildlife Amendment Act.

In terms of management and conservation, these types of agreements don’t

work without data. They don’t work without numbers. In fact, take the

Nisg̱a’a treaty, for example, where they

traded in their undefined right to hunt for defined rights. Their quota is

actually within the scope of the B.C. wildlife plan and regulations to manage

wildlife populations. They don’t get that unrestricted right to hunt within

treaty boundaries anymore for Nisg̱a’a.

They’ve actually got to go into a lottery system, and the lottery is actually

based on numbers and data.

Every type of sheltering agreement I’ve ever read and come across, even

from my own band, talked about management in those terms. So we’re talking

about that. Is the sheltering agreement contemplating the overall objective of

B.C.’s duty to manage the resource in the context of gathering data and numbers

along with trying to fulfil the idea of hosting guest First Nations to

hunt?

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify. Previous to this question, the member was

talking about the government’s principles, but I want to make sure that he

knows it is also including

section 35 rights, which are enshrined. That’s

definitely a part of it as well.

[4:20 p.m.]

Then we expect that through the enactment of this bill, we will have

better data to support the management of the harvest.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.

Yeah. Well, that’s what the Aboriginal fisheries strategy actually

proposes as well. It not only talks about information coming from the First

Nation in terms of their harvest amounts; it also prescribes amounts of a

certain species of salmon to be captured, for instance, in exchange for funding

to run a fisheries program in our communities. These are all over B.C. So we

have examples already of sheltering agreements.

I’m pretty sure I have got it right now, in terms of the principles of

conservation, safety and management being incorporated in with the idea of

allowing a First Nation or formalizing a First Nation to have a guest come into

their territory and exercise the right to hunt under the host First Nation’s

Aboriginal right. I’m pretty sure I’ve got that right now.

The minister had said that they take into consideration, on a

case-by-case basis, the idea of culling a predator, such as a grizzly. That was

a traditional practice in my community, culling grizzly bears. If we didn’t,

the grizzly bears would move into our community.

This happened not just six, seven years ago in my community. Two young

grizzlies who got kicked away from their mother bear took up shop right in

behind the convenience store in my community. It took two weeks of harassing

the conservation officer to come in and do something about the grizzly bear.

Since no incident had hap­pened, this conservation officer would not act.

Our hands were tied. The last time that we had a designated shooter to shoot

the grizzly bear for safety purposes, our designated shooter got their firearms

taken away.

Our First Nation actually does abide by the laws and regulations of B.C.

We gave up the practice of culling grizzly bears in a neighbouring watershed.

We gave that up. But if it is going to be on a case-by-case basis and the

province is willing to look at traditional practices of culling predators, say

just for the purpose of safety, then that does raise another question in terms

of the economic opportunity to cull a grizzly bear.

Now, in this case, is the province considering the guiding opportunity

to be regulated by existing wildlife regulations under the B.C. government? Or

is the government considering having that provision within a sheltering

agreement to allow that economic opportunity for a guiding outfit to go in and

cull a grizzly bear?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The answer to the member’s question is no. This legislation is about

sheltering agreements be­tween First Nations.

E. Ross: Yes, I understand what the sheltering agreement contemplates. It’s

really…. The sheltering agreement is talking about taking my Aboriginal right

to hunt and harvest and allowing a guest First Nation to come in under that

right and allow that hunt to happen on our territory under my existing rights

and title. That’s basically what I read into it. The meat of it, I guess, will

be brought out in the regulations.

The question really relates, maybe…. In relation to traditional

practices and a need, in terms of safety, in culling a grizzly bear, for

example, a right — I want to say a right, but there is probably a better word —

that was taken away by B.C., by the law that said you cannot shoot a grizzly

bear….

Well, under a sheltering agreement, then, you’re considering, on a

case-by-case basis, maybe a guide-outfitter coming in to actually take

advantage of the opportunity of a culling operation, if allowed through

agreement between the government and the First Nation in question.

Maybe a guide-outfitter was not the right reference. Maybe the right

reference is to say, okay, a guest First Nation that is hired to come in or

requests, not as a guide-outfitter but comes in as an economic opportunity to

cull a predator like a grizzly. That was an Aboriginal right before the

legislation kicked in, which the province kicked in, in terms of making it

illegal to shoot a grizzly bear.

If this sheltering agreement does contemplate traditional practices

coming back like that, will there be the issue of money being exchanged, say,

in the question of harvesting a predator such as a grizzly bear?

Hon. K. Conroy: The member’s question is: does the bill consider economic opportunities

as part of a sheltering agreement? The answer is no.

[4:30 p.m.]

E. Ross: The last question before I turn it back over to my colleague from

Nechako Lakes is…. We’re talking about First Nations within the boundaries of

B.C. That’s what I gather. We’re also talking about the right to harvest or the

Aboriginal rights and title in question. You have to be from that specific

territory before you can be the host First Nation. When we’re talking about

that identification, how are we going to identify the host First

Nation?

I know that we’ve talked already about governance and the authority.

We’ve talked about how the government will issue that notice in some form that

makes it easier for a conservation officer to recognize that they’re not

breaking the law or vice versa. But what will the government use as terms of

reference to identify a host First Nation, a resident of a certain territory? I

know what it means for my territory, but it also means that I’m also looking at

a number of different areas that are actually covered by overlap

questions.

To give you an idea of what I’m thinking about and where I’m going with

this question…. Will the B.C. government consider, say, the Indian Act

registry, for example, that would determine a host First Nation and its

members, or will it consider the band list, membership list, to determine who

is the host First Nation? Otherwise, you’ve got no way to determine who is the

actual First Nation.

If you do go with the Indian Act registry, for example, it’s a simple

matter of looking at the Status card that shows your band number. But that

might not necessarily correlate with the band list that’s actually managed by

chief and council. So how will the government determine the host First Nation —

how to identify it?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve already covered this, but perhaps I’ll reiterate it for the

member’s benefit. The host nation will approach the province, and they’ll be

identified as a governing body as per the definition, which is a part of the

definition in clause 1. It’s: “‘governing body’, in relation to a first nation,

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

established by the members of the first nation.”

J. Rustad: To the minister, thank you for entertaining the questions from my

colleague from Skeena. I do know that some of that had been covered off

already. So I appreciate you taking the time to go through that

answer.

It’s interesting that in that exchange, there is the opportunity,

potentially, to use the shelter agreement to be able to help out with the

safety issues such as grizzly bear populations and overpopulations in the

area.

[4:35 p.m.]

I’m happy to hear that, although the ministry may — and this isn’t part

of this bill — want to consider, in future, providing First Nations the

opportunity to be able to do that directly, as opposed to having to do it

through a shelter agreement and a guest coming in. Currently, Haisla First

Nation, for example, isn’t able to carry on with that traditional practice of

culling for safety. But through a sheltering agreement, perhaps there is an

opportunity for them to do that now. I’m happy to hear that’s the

case.

Like I say, perhaps in the future, the minister could consider trying to

work through a way that First Nations such as Haisla or Tahltan or others that

have expressed concern to me about the grizzly bear populations…. To give them

the opportunity to be able to do that as well.

I want to go into talking a little bit about what the minister had said

near the close of yesterday, which was managing wildlife effectively. There is

huge concern across the province right now with declining ungulate populations.

Some areas are far more severe than others in terms of the decline. Part of,

obviously, good wildlife management and managing wildlife effectively is being

able to control the number of animals that are allowed to be

harvested.

Predators and that sort of thing are another thing that’s outside of

this, which I won’t go into, associated with this bill. But managing to targets

is important: what is sustainable, what’s needed to be able to help with

recovery of ungulate populations where you have overpopulations, and what other

components are allowed. It’s the effective management and the ability to have

good management of wildlife, and sustainable management in terms of the numbers

of animals and the types of animals that can be harvested.

I’m wondering, in terms of the shelter agreement, whether animals such

as cows or calves may be considered as part of a sheltering agreement, even

where we have an area where there might be significant decline in animals and

the need for recruitment.

Hon. K. Conroy: Once again, the guiding principles are conservation and public safety.

They’ll be used on a case-by-case basis in the development of sheltering

agreements.

J. Rustad: Artfully answered by the minister to avoid the question about cows and

calves, which is fine, be­cause it’s a tangent to this particular bill.

Like I say, the issue is around conservation recruitment. Right now there are

no limits for Indigenous harvest within their traditional territory.

[4:40 p.m.]

To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I’m wrong about

this, there are limits for, of course, residential hunt and how many animals

are available, or for guide-outfitting. There are formulas around that, but the

number of animals taken within a territory by First Nations isn’t necessarily

reported and, to my understanding, isn’t necessarily restricted.

Obviously, the issues of conservation and recruitment are pretty

significant within traditional territories, and shelter agreements could add

pressure to areas that have significant population issues or population

declines. In terms of sheltering agreements, will the issues of the number of

animals harvested and the targets that are set be a factor for the minister in

terms of approving shelter agreements within traditional

territories?

What I’m trying to get at, just to be clear, is that in order to be able

to have recruitment, you need to be able to have good numbers. You need to be

able to have good reporting of the numbers that are harvested. You need to have

good science in the database and the information that goes into all of that. I

know that the minister will know all this information already — that that’s

what’s needed — but there’s a gap.

The gap is that we don’t know, necessarily, how many animals are being

harvested annually within a First Nation’s traditional territory by a First

Nation. The question becomes: will there be limits on the number of shelter

agreements that would be approved in an area that has significant ungulate

population issues? If the numbers are low — in other words, there are very few

opportunities, or maybe a limited hunt only for resident population or

virtually no opportunity for guide-outfitters — will those same kinds of

restrictions be put on shelter agreements to make sure that there isn’t an

overharvest of animals in the area?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Once again, I will reiterate what I’ve been saying. Sheltering

agreements will enable our partnership with First Nations to work together on

harvest. We will not compromise conservation in agreements that involve the

province.

I have to say that I do take exception with the member’s assertions that

First Nations don’t believe in conservation. I believe First Nations strongly

believe in conservation and in good stewardship. So I am somewhat concerned

about the member’s assertions that are…. He’s giving examples where they don’t.

I just am having trouble with that. I would really look forward to moving on,

discussing the basics of this bill.

J. Rustad: Madam Chair, it must be getting late in the day. I quite took offence at

what the minister just said, which is fine, I suppose. The minister is allowed

to make those kinds of comments. In no way did I say that First Nations don’t

care about conservation. What I have said is that there have been many examples

in history where that hasn’t been the case. Sorry, that’s the truth. If the

minister wants to deny it, that’s fine, but there have been

examples.

I can quote issues — for example, Roosevelt elk on Vancouver Island. I

can quote issues up in my own riding, where moose and stuff are harvested.

Having said that, I think the majority of First Nations in this prov­ince

want to see healthy populations and want to engage in it. When I was minister,

I engaged with many First Nations across the province to enter into agreements

to look at managing how we recover species and putting plans and stuff in

place.

First Nations don’t always control all their members. There are issues

that happened out on the land base. There have been many reports to your very

ministry, just in the last four or five years, which give examples of

that.

In any case, I’m not making a claim that First Nations do not care about

conservation. I think they do. I’ve worked closely with many First Nations that

want to do that, but like I say, they can’t always control their members —

they’ve told me that — and there are issues that happened out on the land

base.

It’s one of the reasons for my concern in terms of the data that is

collected and the need to be able to make sure, if sheltering agreements are

approved, that they’re within the framework of what is allowed to be harvested

or the targets for harvesting, to allow for recovery of ungulate populations in

areas where they are particularly low.

This is why I asked the question, which really wasn’t answered, about

whether or not those conservation targets, the limits in terms of the number of

animals that would be allowed to be harvested, would be a limiting factor on

the approvals of sheltering agreements. I’ll give the minister another

opportunity to be able to answer that question.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As everyone knows, wildlife targets are a key part of conservation. We

will consider them on a case-by-case basis, as I’ve already said.

J. Rustad: I won’t bother arguing with the minister with regard to what she’s

already said or not. I appreciate the fact that that is going to be

used.

The question to the minister is: where shelter agreements are approved

in tight areas…? Will that have an impact on the number of animals that will be

available for non-Indigenous people to be able to harvest in a particular

area?

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is asking if these agreements will have an impact on

non-Indigenous harvesting opportunities. The answer is no.

[4:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Okay. That’s interesting. That’s an important piece to know, in terms of

the number of animals that will be harvested within particular areas and how

those are set. We’ll monitor that over time, but I appreciate the minister

answering that question.

In 70.2 of clause 3…. This component of the bill reads a little

confusingly. I’m going to need some clarity, if I may, from the minister on

this. It says:

“Subject to subsection (2) and without limiting the matters that may be

addressed in a sheltering agreement, a sheltering agreement may include

provisions that do one or more of the following: (

a) in respect of hunting and

traditional territories of the host first nation, authorize a guest to (

i) do

anything that is prohibited under this Act, or (ii) omit to do anything that is

required to be done under this Act; (

b) set out conditions or limits that a

guest must comply with in relation to an authority provided for under paragraph

(a).”

I think I understand what that says. That’s basically meaning that a

guest doesn’t have to follow the rules in the Wildlife Act. But then in the

next part, under 70.2(2), it says: “A provision included in a shelter agreement

under subsection (1) is not effective unless the Lieutenant Governor in

Council, by regulation, approves the provision.”

What I’m curious about is that under the first part, it seems to say

that a guest can do anything that is prohibited under the act, or omit to do

anything that is under the act. But then it seems to say that the ability to do

that has to be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I’m curious.

Those two things seem to be in conflict — unless, under this act, the minister

is basically going to authorize a sheltering agreement to not have to follow

the Wildlife Act. Is that true?

Hon. K. Conroy: First Nations hunting within their traditional territory are already not

subject to most provisions of the Wildlife Act. They have treaty or

section 35

rights. The “anything prohibited” clause in this bill allows the government to

support implementation of a sheltering agreement that allows a guest to hunt in

a host territory under the host First Nation’s laws. This is to support the

rights that nations already have set out in treaty and in the

constitution.

Provisions of the sheltering agreements that alter the operation of the

Wildlife Act must be approved by cabinet and the LG and then deposited as

regulations for the public. This is an increased level of

transparency.

[5:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for explaining that. That makes sense to

me, in terms of how I was reading it.

It does raise the question…. In terms of transparency and, in

particular, in terms of managing wildlife effectively and strengthening

conservation and management, there are provisions in the Wildlife Act that

require — for example, in the Kootenays — parts of the animal to be submitted

to the conservation officer to deal with and to look for animal health issues

that may arise in certain species. Those are the requirements under the

Wildlife Act to help with managing ungulate populations and the health of

ungulate populations.

Under this section, it may be that a guest hunter does not necessarily

have to follow those rules, would not have to submit those samples for

monitoring. I understand

section 35 and how that implies, but I’m curious as to

why, for a sheltering agreement, the ministry would not be more concerned about

making sure that those kinds of provisions for animal health and reporting

would not be required, even under a shelter act, to be able to help with better

management of the species.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Provisions for animal health are a key part of our conservation

principles and, again, would be considered on a case-by-case basis. I want to

ensure that the member knows that there is already a high rate of voluntary

submissions by First Nations when it comes to animal health issues.

J. Rustad: Maybe it’s just getting late in the day, and we’ve been going at this

for a long time. I find it kind of amusing. This whole act, of course, is

modifying the Wildlife Act and then says it doesn’t have to follow the

provisions of the Wildlife Act. Well, that’s what it says here: “do anything

that is prohibited…or (ii) omit to do anything that is required…under this

Act.”

[5:05 p.m.]

Does the minister have the ability to — on a case-by-case basis, I

suppose — authorize whether or not a shelter agreement meets the intent of what

they’re trying to achieve within the act, or does it follow, to the letter of

the law, that it doesn’t have to necessarily follow things?

What I’m saying, for example…. Like I say, it’s getting late in the day,

and we’ve been going at this for a long time. There are requirements that the

minister just talked about in terms of management of species, restricted

species, etc. This clause seems to say that a First Nation and a guest can

enter into an agreement that doesn’t necessarily have to follow those

requirements.

I’m just wondering, I guess, in terms of this, how this particular

section or this part of the bill could be used to circumvent what’s in the

Wildlife Act and the intention of what we’re trying to do for both conservation

and safety or any other provision that’s in there and whether or not the

minister has the ability to look at those and say: “No, that goes too far” or

“That is outside of the scope of what we want to see happen.”

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to correct the member. First Nations hunting within their

traditional territory are already not subject to most provisions of the

Wildlife Act. This legislation doesn’t change that. They have treaty or

section

35 rights. So just to clarify that again, because the member seems to be

misrepresenting that in his comments.

Again, our guiding principles in considering a sheltering agreement are

public safety and conservation.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Under Indigenous knowledge…. Maybe I will just start with something

pretty straightforward. What actually constitutes Indigenous knowledge that

would be considered to be included as part of this?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Incorporating a definition of Indigenous knowledge was contemplated.

There were a number of venues. We ended up using the First Nations–B.C.

wildlife conservation forum and got input from them.

We recognize that the definition of Indigenous knowledge is ultimately

determined by a First Nation, and it could vary by First Nations. So this

flexible definition was co-drafted with forum members, which will be

incorporated in the Indigenous knowledge policy, and that will be developed by

September 1, 2022.

J. Rustad: Under this, it says: “…must consider relevant Indigenous knowledge….”

Could the minister provide some examples of what would be relevant Indigenous

knowledge in terms of information that would go into managing the Wildlife

Act?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Examples could include observations or experiences about the biophysical

world relevant to wildlife management. It could include information about

community practices and teachings related to wildlife or wildlife habitat. It

could also include knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora relevant to

wildlife management.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for those examples.

I’m curious, though, in terms of decisions and decision-making under

this act, why that information would be kept confidential. I do understand that

there is local knowledge, local issues on the ground that are important for

Indigenous people, particularly some history — archaeological. I understand why

there would be a need for many things to be kept confidential as knowledge is

shared.

When we’re talking about wildlife management, when we’re talking about

issues of sustainability and issues of recovery of animals, I’m not quite sure

why there would be a need for confidentiality of this information. I’ll explain

why, and I talked about this in second reading, around this particular issue.

When you’re dealing….

There are thousands, tens of thousands if not even hundreds of

thousands, of people in the province who follow the Wildlife Act that are

concerned about hunting. They’re concerned about management and concerned about

conservation. When decisions are made that aren’t transparent, when people

don’t understand why those decisions are made, it raises suspicion. It raises

confidence issues with people of the ministry of the rationale for those

decisions.

I’m concerned that the issue of keeping confidentiality of these types

of issues will actually do more damage in terms of creating friction or

challenges or issues than it would be in terms of being able to promote good

wildlife management and the need for making these decisions.

[5:20 p.m.]

Could the minister provide some rationale as to why there is the need to

keep this information confidential?

Hon. K. Conroy: Not all information currently used in decision-making is public.

Article

31 of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples states:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop

their cultural heritage and traditional knowledge.”

To be consistent with this clause in the UN declaration, Indigenous

knowledge will be used for the purposes it was originally shared. Consent will

be sought for all other purposes of use of the Indigenous knowledge. Indigenous

knowledge shared may represent aspects of Indigenous laws or protocols,

locations of sacred sites, knowledge of important wildlife habitat or

use.

Some Indigenous nations have adopted formal policies that govern the use

and access to their Indigenous knowledge. Decision-makers will document their

considerations and how all information was used in significant decisions

without disclosing the confidential specifics of the Indigenous

knowledge.

Further policies and procedures will be published by September 2022 to

inform this type of scenario.

J. Rustad: I understand and have read the UN declaration many times with regards to

that, but it still leaves the question, particularly around what you are

talking about, wildlife management. I understand many of the other components,

but there are lots of people that are concerned about it. When there’s a shift

or a change, people like to be able to ask why was there was a change. That may

be relevant to a number of things, and in some things, it may not be

relevant.

However, I believe in open, transparent government, a title that this

current government does not have, by the media. It is very unfortunate that’s

the case, but it is what the media said, not us. I look at this example, and I

think where there are decisions that are being made and people don’t understand

those decisions, it creates problems.

I’ll give you an example of what I’ve used in the past and that I used

in second reading. When there’s a gate put on a road, you will always get

people that have access and people that don’t have access. I will use the same

example when it comes to knowledge. When there’s a decision made based on

knowledge and that knowledge is not shared, there will be resentment, there

will be friction, and there will be challenges and issues that are created by

that.

I understand what the intent of the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous people is, and I understand the intent of why that information

should be kept confidential. But when it comes to wildlife management and it

comes to the management of wildlife as a provincial responsibility, I have a

concern with keeping information that would impact on those decisions

confidential.

Now, if there is specific site information that is sensitive and

decisions around a particular area, okay, I can accept that, because there are

areas around the province that are like that. But when it comes to making

broader decisions around wildlife management, I fail to understand how there

would be information that would be sensitive, that would not be able to be

revealed to the broader public in terms of why a decision is made.

I know the minister will just get up and reread the

section that she had

just said in her defence, but I’m still going to provide the protest that I

think there are circumstances, particularly when it comes to managing wildlife,

where we are far better off with the sharing of that information publicly than

we are trying to make these decisions in secret. I do not understand why there

would be hesitancy or resistance within government to want to be able to be

transparent associated with that.

Having said that, the act outlines a number of situations where

information can be made public, which I won’t bother going into. Those are all

pretty straightforward in terms of this. But like I say, it is disappointing

that there is that decision to be made. I would much rather have seen an error

on the side of being more transparent than having the default of

secrecy.

[5:25 p.m.]

As we move on in this bill, there are a number of things that the

minister has mentioned in terms of the regulations that will be required to be

set up by September, the date of enactment that is coming up.

Can the minister provide a detail of just what extent the regulations

will actually need to be created as part of this and whether or not there will

be any opportunity for engagement with broader groups, such as the B.C.

Wildlife Federation or guide outfitters or others, with regards to the creation

of these regulations?

Hon. K. Conroy: A point of clarification. It’s policy and procedures that will be

developed, implemented and publicly shared by September, and there will be

targeted engagement with First Nations and stakeholders.

J. Rustad: Just before we leave this clause of the act, I do wonder a little bit

about where there is a contravention of or where somebody doesn’t follow issues

that are in a shelter agreement. What I mean by that is you’ve got a host First

Nation that lays out some requirements for a guest. The guest then has the

opportunity and is signed off by the ministry. The guest then has the

opportunity to go hunting. If the guest does not follow the rules that are in

that…. Perhaps that should be better addressed under

section 4 of this, as

opposed to

section 3.

[5:30 p.m.]

Regardless of that, the question, I guess, is: how is…? If there is a

breach or a contravention or if there is somebody that does something they’re

not supposed to do as defined under a sheltering agreement, and a conservation

officer finds a person that hasn’t been following this agreement, what are the

penalties that could be applied to an individual? I’ll start with that one, and

I’ve got one follow-up question on it.

Hon. K. Conroy: That is under clause 4. If the member would like to move to clause 4, we

can do that now.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

J. Rustad: The question is already asked. I’ll wait for the minister’s

response.

Hon. K. Conroy: Under clause 4, 108(q), it says: “pro­viding that contravention by

a guest of a condition or limit set out in a sheltering agreement under

section

70.2 (1) (

b) constitutes an offence.”

J. Rustad: First of all, I guess the question would be: what sorts of measures,

what sorts of penalties or what sorts of provisions could be taken,

potentially, if an offence were undertaken?

The second question around that is: if there are provisions in a

sheltering agreement which provide restrictions that may not be a restriction

under

section 35 in case law, how would that actually be upheld?

Hon. K. Conroy: Chair, none of us understood the premise of the member’s question. If he

could rephrase it, please.

J. Rustad: Well, I’ll put it into two questions. The first one is quite simple.

What are the penalties that may be imposed for any kind of contravention or any

kind of offence that is discovered?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There are various penalties under the Wildlife Act, and these are

prescribed in regulation. Clause (

q) establishes the offence to which the

penalties will be applied, and will be on a case-by-case basis.

J. Rustad: If a sheltering agreement puts some restrictions in place that would

require a guest to follow those restrictions, but under case law they wouldn’t

necessarily be required to follow those restrictions….

I guess what I’m saying is…. I understand that right now in the province

if somebody…. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this. If an Indigenous person,

by law, wanted to hunt somewhere outside of their traditional territory, they

would have to follow the rules of the Wildlife Act and hunt like anybody else

would in the province of British Columbia, a non-Indigenous person in British

Columbia.

What this act is doing is it’s basically saying that because

historically there were these agreements, we’re now allowing an Indigenous

person to be able to enter into a sheltering agreement and then not have to

follow the rules of the Wildlife Act but follow the rules that may be in a

sheltering agreement, to give them the right to hunt in another traditional

territory other than their own. That’s my understanding of what we have been

going through with this whole discussion of the sheltering

agreement.

I guess the question that just keeps rolling around in my mind is….

Well, it just seems to me that the rights of Indigenous people, which don’t

have to follow the Wildlife Act…. I’m just wondering how you could apply

penalties or other restrictions or other issues if there’s a contravention to a

shelter agreement that may not be in….

[5:40 p.m.]

Okay. My apologies. It’s getting way too long into this thing, and my

mind is just not working the way it should be. Maybe I could put it another

way. I’m just trying to think of this.

If an Indigenous person breaks or contravenes anything that’s in the

Wildlife Act in their own traditional territory while they’re hunting, there

are no provisions that can be taken against them because they don’t have to

follow the rules. Under clause 3,

section 70.2, it says that those same

provisions apply to an Indigenous person hunting under a sheltering agreement.

So I’m just wondering how it is that there can be penalties to somebody who

doesn’t have to follow the rules, based on 70.2, when they’re hunting under a

sheltering agreement.

I’m just trying to understand. I think staff are finally getting what

I’m trying to ask, which is good. It is confusing, and I do apologize. I’m just

wondering how the rules, the penalties, would actually be implemented if, under

70.2, they don’t have to follow the rules of the Wildlife Act.

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify, a First Nation hunting outside their traditional territory

needs to follow the Wildlife Act. In the case of a sheltering agreement, a

guest will be subject to the provisions of the sheltering agreement.

[5:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Like I said in

section 3, in what we had already canvassed, in 70.2,

where it says that they could “do anything that is prohibited” or “omit to do

anything that is required,” just as the minister had described during that

section. That’s the right that they have, and this sheltering agreement allows

them to extend those rights outside of their traditional territory into a host

territory.

When a sheltering agreement is created and there is a provision in there

that is contravened — that is, somebody doesn’t follow the rules that are in

the sheltering agreement…. I’m not quite sure. Will the sheltering agreement

define what the penalty is? How does that work? If they don’t have to follow

the rules according to the 70.2, but there’s a rule that’s put in place under a

sheltering agreement, how does a penalty get applied? How does that work in

terms of those provisions?

Hon. K. Conroy: The same answer applies. The penalties for contravention of the

regulations are under the Wildlife Act.

J. Rustad: Obviously, I’m not describing the issue well enough for the

minister.

So 70.2, according to what the minister has said, gives the Indigenous

person as a guest the same rights that they would have in their traditional

territory — I think that’s what the minister said — in terms of their ability

to be able to hunt outside of their territory in wherever they have an

agreement. That is why, when I asked why that provision was put in there, the

minister said — maybe the minister can correct me — that this is what they have

in their traditional territory, which is why it’s put in here as part of

recognizing it as a sheltering agreement, that they don’t have to follow the

rules.

This is why I’m wondering: if there is a breach of a rule that’s in a

sheltering agreement, what kinds of penalties would be applied if they don’t

have to follow the rules that are in the Wildlife Act?

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify, the “anything prohibited” clause in this bill allows

government to support implementation of a sheltering agreement that allows a

guest to hunt in a host territory under the host First Nations’ laws, and

that’s what I said.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that answer. That’s good. Okay. So I understand

that. It’ll follow under the host nation’s laws.

The host nation’s laws are not the Wildlife Act. The penalties and

provisions are written in the Wildlife Act, so will the sheltering agreements

be required to define the penalties if there is a breach?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The regulations may create an of­fence for failure to abide by a

sheltering agreement, and the agreement itself may provide for consequences for

the guest hunter.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 14, Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. R. Fleming: I call second reading of Bill 20.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll take a short recess to allow the appropriate parties time to be

here. We will take a short recess.

The House recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Deputy Speaker: We are here for second reading debate of Bill 20, Municipal Affairs

Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I’m pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this important piece

of legislation. As I admitted to colleagues, I was taking good use of the

parliamentary basketball hoop just recently. I had received important

information that colleagues would run the last bill up until the end of the

House, but I’m glad that we’re able to get up and start the debate on this

important bill.

I know a number of our friends in municipal government have been quite

eager for a number of the statutes and amendments that we’ll be moving today.

This is the first bill I have moved as a relatively new Minister of Municipal

Affairs and minister responsible for immigration. I want to, in advance, thank

my colleague from across the way and look forward to his comments on this bill

and the important debate that we’re having.

Bill 20, the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, is a

critical piece of legislation that has five important key goals, which I’ll

speak to, each one, more in depth. Just to give colleagues and those watching a

sense of what it is that we’re talking about, it removes redundant legislation.

That is, essentially, housecleaning, getting rid of things that have already

been decided by this House.

Secondly, it clarifies local governments’ authority on electronic

meetings and subdivision of land that is not agricultural land. That’s an

important piece to emphasize. I know the Minister of Agriculture will be keen

to know about that.

It updates legislation to provide gender-neutral language, which we’ve

been doing as a government, consistently.

It also provides the city of Vancouver the same authority that all other

local governments have with respect to energy benchmarking, an incredibly

important tool in our efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and fight climate

change.

Lastly, it implements new requirements for local officials who are

charged with or convicted of criminal offences.

To achieve these goals, Bill 20 proposes amendments to the following:

the Auditor General for Local Government Act, the Community Charter, the Local

Government Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), the

Vancouver Charter, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Islands Trust Act and, finally but

not lastly, the Cultus Lake Park Act — which, I know, all of my colleagues are

very familiar with and know well.

Let me start with the first one first, the Auditor General for Local

Government Act repeal. Now, the Auditor General for Local Government, the AGLG,

closed its offices in the spring of 2021. The repeal of the Auditor General for

Local Government Act reflects the closure of the AGLG office. Consequentially,

there are amendments that are required to the Community Charter, to the

Vancouver Charter, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and

the Public Service Labour Relations Act to remove reference to the AGLG office

in legislation.

As I noted in my opening statements around this bill, there are times

when the House has made a decision on an office or a statute — in this case,

the AGLG — in a previous session. We then have to go through and look at any of

the other acts that might be consequentially effected. This is a natural course

of events. The House has made the policy decision, if you will, and now we’re

into the housekeeping to make sure that all consequential acts are kept

correct.

The second piece, the electronic meeting for local government bodies.

These proposed amendments will clarify the authority for local governments,

municipalities, re­gional districts and their meetings, such as advisory

committees, that can be held electronically.

[6:05 p.m.]

Of course, we’ve all adapted. I can see colleagues on the screen. Local

governments, too, have adapted. We, as a government, help local governments

adapt to the impacts of the COVID pandemic, unable to meet together. These

amendments include transparency requirements — this is important — to ensure

that the public can hear or watch meetings that are held electronically. As

we’ve adapted, there have been some of the subcommittees and other groups of

local government where this wasn’t entirely clear. We wanted to make sure, in

the efforts of transparency and accountability, that this was the

case.

An amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4)

is also required to validate electronic meetings of local government bodies

held since September 29, 2021, when expanded authority for electronic meetings

came into force. Essentially, we can do this as legislators, and it’s an

amazing fact.

We have a bit of a time-machine capability in which we’re able to go

back and validate decisions that were taken in good faith as government

expanded the role of electronic and online meetings, to make sure that any

decisions that took place under some of these subcommittees also remain valid.

We wouldn’t want a decision that a city, municipality or regional district

took, in the proper way, to be later invalidated because of a small

amendment.

The correction of Consequential Amendments Act, the ALCA, 2018. The 2018

consequential amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission created

inadvertent policy change with respect to an approving officer’s statutory

discretion to permit subdivision of land that is not agricultural land. Now of

course, we all understand what the agricultural land reserve is there to do and

what the ALC is charged with. This was an error, and we’ve taken the

opportunity to correct that error and improve consistent legislative reference

to agricultural land.

One of the reasons this is important. I was just speaking with a number

of municipalities today — Kelowna and others — where they have opportunities

for development of new housing properties within their region, within their

municipality, other types of development that they deem to be important, and

they run into places that are not agricultural land but that fell under this

error. This is something that’ll be very important, and other municipalities

will be looking very keenly to the legislators to correct this

aspect.

Gender-neutral language. I believe this is the third aspect of this

bill. These are proposed amendments to the Vancouver Charter. There are

necessary steps towards building a more inclusive British Columbia by reframing

the language that we use. We, as a government, have been doing this,

consistently, over legislation, other new legislation that we are introducing —

or, in this case, looking at the Vancouver Charter. This is something that

Vancouver wanted, of course. They need the Legislature, under the Vancouver

Charter, to enable their ability to improve language into a more gender-neutral

frame.

These amendments will eliminate all instances where gender-specific

language is used and replace it with gender-neutral language. These amendments

do not alter the existing authority or power granted under the sections where

gender-specific language was removed. In doing this, there is no effect on the

ability and the authority of Vancouver city council. It doesn’t improve their

authorities in any way or, in a substantive way, change the authorities that

they have.

There is also an amendment which adds sexual orientation, gender

identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination as

identified in the human rights code. These changes are both symbolic and

meaningful, and they demonstrate our continued commitment to

inclusivity.

Energy benchmarking. For those familiar with this aspect, this is an

incredibly important tool for municipalities. This act will also amend the

Vancouver Charter. The city of Vancouver has noted that they don’t have the

ability to use this tool right now in meeting the goals outlined in their own

climate emergency action plan.

These amendments respond to requests made by the city to grant the city

the authority to establish energy benchmarking through bylaw. These amendments

provide the council with the authority to make bylaws to establish requirements

to report information respecting greenhouse gas emissions or the use of energy

and water.

These provisions do not provide the city a special authority, as these

provisions are exactly equivalent to the Community Charter. You can see this as

another bit of, I suppose, legislative housekeeping. Sometimes when acts are

brought in — energy benchmarking, in this case — we have to make further

changes. Vancouver, as you know very well, Mr. Speaker, is special and exists

under a special charter, the Vancouver Charter. When we have to make changes,

we follow through, particularly when the city has asked us to make these

recommendations and changes in law.

Now, the last piece in Bill 20 is probably the one that has gotten the

most attention. This is with respect to the unfortunate, and rare, instances

that happen in which a locally elected official is charged and/or sentenced for

what we call an indictable offence.

[6:10 p.m.]

These are serious offences. These fall under the Criminal Code. There

have been instances in which someone sitting on locally elected government, a

city or town or village or regional district, has been charged with an

indictable offence. This is not jaywalking. These are serious. Sexual assault,

theft over $5,000. These are significant charges.

We are offering two new tools to the province — and, through the

province, to municipalities — for circumstances where a locally elected

official has been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence. The first

amendment makes changes to the existing disqualification rules to ensure that a

local elected official is disqualified at the time of conviction of an

indictable offence.

The reason this is pertinent…. I’m not a lawyer myself, but I’ve seen

some played on TV, and this sounds like it’s really critical. And it is,

according to all the lawyers in the House. Some say there are far too many. I

choose to disagree.

If somebody is charged and found guilty of an indictable offence, and

they sit on a local council…. Sentencing can take a little bit of time. Again,

these instances are rare, but it’s important that there is no delay between

once they are charged and found guilty until the sentencing, where someone

could continue to hold their elected seat in municipal office. The effect of

this is that they would be disqualified immediately.

In general, and in this

section of the act…. We’ll get into it, I hope,

in third reading, in talking about the particular aspects. I take very

seriously, and we take very seriously as a government, any point at which we as

a province initiate legislation that affects the democratic outcome of anything

and that experience between voters and those they choose to represent

them.

We have heard consistently from elected officials and from those that

they represent that in an instance where someone is charged and found guilty of

an indictable offence and, in the period in which they are waiting for

sentencing, continues to attend town council meetings — village meetings, RD

meetings — it creates an incredible distraction for that local elected

government. In fact, in some cases, they are unable to do any other work in the

meantime because, obviously, there is controversy that follows. Currently

disqualification is dependent on sentencing and may occur later than conviction

if sentencing is at a later date, which it sometimes is.

The second amendment. This is the second aspect of this, of a local

official charged with a serious offence. This is in response to calls for

legally enforceable tools available to a council or board to require a paid

leave — this is important — when a local elected official is charged with any

criminal offence for the period from the date of charge until the criminal

process is completed or the charges are resolved.

Of course, we always operate under the auspices of innocent until proven

guilty, so this is not in any way meant to be a penalty for somebody who is

seen as charged. Of course, all of us in this place are elected people, and we

know facing such a situation would obviously impact one’s prospects of

electability, but that’s not for us. That is between somebody and their

voters.

The difference here is that councils find themselves, sometimes, in a

situation which they feel — I don’t know about conflicted — somewhat

constrained in terms of voting somebody off of council who has received a

serious charge, an offence. The disruptions at local council when this happens

are significant.

There are some people in this place who have served in local office,

either in an RD or in a village or city. They can tell — I’ve had many

conversations with colleagues — of how difficult it is to conduct normal

business in any kind of way when the person sitting by you is continuing to

vote, yet this cloud of a serious and significant charge has been

laid.

Councils have been disrupted. They’ve asked UBCM…. The Union of B.C.

Municipalities, I believe, has passed two resolutions on this specific effect:

one in 2017 and again, I believe, in 2019. Our government is responding to

those calls.

There are sometimes questions in the media and from others, which I find

a bit passing strange, as to whether these aspects of the act apply

retroactively. We don’t pass laws retroactively, especially when it comes to

criminal offences. We are go-forward, generally speaking. This does not apply

retroactively. This is something that is for the future so that all the rules

are understood by all of the parties.

[6:15 p.m.]

We have been very attentive to the declaration of the rights of

Indigenous peoples as we developed this legislation. Treaty nations, which also

fall under the purview of my ministry and have varying levels of involvement

with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, were contacted.

Regional district boards. We’re seeing more and more treaty nations and

other nations, in fact, beginning to attend meetings. This is a conversation I

hope to have in this place at some point in the near to medium future. As our

regional districts are coming to us, in particular, they have sitting members

from local First Nations who are participating in meetings yet have no voting

rights and powers. We have heard expressions from various regional districts

around the province — this might be the beginning of something larger, but

that’s where it is right now — that are seeking voting rights, not just

participation in meetings.

I’m greatly encouraged by these aspects of involvement, where First

Nations have chosen to participate in groups and meetings that clearly affect

their rights and titles and interests. There are clear pathways for those

rights and titles to be expressed to the province and to the federal

government, but clearly, in local government, there is a role to play. I look

forward to perhaps working with colleagues across the way to draft some

legislation or look at amendments that we can make.

Our government is listening to the needs and requests of local

communities by clarifying the authorities and providing them with the tools

that they require. Sometimes I feel like the local RONA. The municipalities

show up and say they need a few more tools to do this job or that, whether it’s

accepting more housing densification development or dealing with challenges

that they have faced in the past.

These amendments are supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and

the city of Vancouver where it affects them directly.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to thank you and all members of the

House. I look forward to listening to my colleagues. I know we have only a few

minutes left in the day, but I am sure that there is interest from across the

way on these aspects of the bill. I thank you and the House for its

attention.

D. Ashton: First of all, to the minister, thank you for your comments and

broaching, basically, the five major changes that are coming forward. I will be

discussing those with the minister in the committee process, going

through.

Today I’d like to concentrate, basically, on what I think is one of the

most important sections of the bill, and that is the amendments to the

municipal affairs statutes in regard to indictable offences. You know, as a

councillor, a member of the regional district and the mayor after that, and

coming from a small town, it is disturbing when we read about elected officials

that do not toe the line or are not as straight as they should be.

Unfortunately, that brush paints many of the members of councils and

regional boards and mayors in a bad light. I really, really think it’s

important we address this issue. We believe that public officials that commit

indictable offences should be held accountable, and we fully support them

holding to the same standards as provincial and federal policies.

When elected officials are charged or convicted of a crime, public trust

is shaken, and steps need to be taken immediately to hold them and to restore

the trust that the office of an elected official has and should always follow.

This bill would create a mandatory leave of absence for elected officials that

are charged under the Criminal Code of Canada or the Controlled Drugs and

Substances Act.

I would also, at this point in time…. I had a discussion with the

minister and his great staff, and I threw something else out. Civil actions are

also difficult, especially in smaller communities where, again, a cloud or a

web is cast over not only the individual that it’s in response to but also to

the other elected officials that are present. I’m hoping that at some point in

time, the minister and ministry will take a look at that and maybe extend the

brush a little bit further.

Again, as the minister mentioned, individuals, if they are charged,

would be put on paid leave until it’s resolved, either through conviction,

acquittal or a stay of the proceedings.

[6:20 p.m.]

One other thing is that there are going to be some that are going to

wonder that if somebody is not working and is still getting paid…. I fully

understand the labour relations act and that. However, if there are charges,

especially criminal charges, I’m going to wonder if there isn’t some form of

recourse where a municipality or a regional board could not recover some of

those funds from the individual that has not been there and then is charged in

a criminal offence. As the minister has said, if there is a conviction, they

would be removed from elected office.

It’s incredibly important that we collectively keep the public

confidence in the highest of expectations for each and every one of us that

hold not only a position in this House of the people but those that are on a

council, those that are on a board. It’s incredible important, especially….

Again, I’m going to refer to all municipalities elected and those elected to

regional districts. It’s incredibly important that we hold our position to the

highest point and the highest calibre, if at all possible.

I would also state that at times, as this continues to evolve, the

public expectation in terms of consequences that elected officials should be

subject to and related to their crime…. In fact, on this side of the House

we’ve been asking for these changes since 2019. I would ask that that be

considered in one other point that the minister has brought up, and that’s the

Auditor General.

I know there’s some language housekeeping that he had mentioned. Just a

point of interest is…. I was reading today — and if I remember correctly, it

was in the Vancouver Sun — where the auditor general for

municipalities in Alberta found that Calgary is $149 million to the black and

has an operating surplus of about $20 million this year. That’s pretty nice for

the people of Calgary. It’s too bad that it was after taxes were

issued.

I would just say there was a good reason that the auditor general for

municipalities was put in place. Having asked, as a mayor, for an audit on

several occasions by the auditor for municipalities, maybe in the future,

collectively, we in this House could think about that possibility again of

having somebody there, because we all know how valuable the Auditor General is

for our branch of government.

I would say that at this point in time, we are looking at going into the

estimate period of this, and I know that there are a few minutes left. My peer

would also like a couple minutes to say some things on this.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would say there are mechanisms in place that I hope will come to

fruition. I really, really look forward to the committee stage, where a lot

more of this can be discussed in detail.

Hon. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity. I will reserve my

right to continue my conversation in the committee stage of the

bill.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for Penticton for leaving a couple of minutes at

the end of the day. I only have a few brief comments. I’ll start with

this.

I want to recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe this is

the first piece of legislation that the member has brought to the floor. I

want, after many years of service to the people of Canada and to the people of

British Columbia…. Congratulations on bringing this piece of legislation

forward, and enjoy the committee stage.

I’m just kidding.

I rise today to make just a few comments to Bill 20, the Municipal

Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

The components of this, as the minister and as my colleague from

Penticton have raised, are very, very important in addressing the issue around

where municipal leaders have been charged with a crime. A crime such as assault

or sexual assault has been highlighted. It is incredibly important that we

ensure that these charges and these actions, potential actions, don’t

jeopardize the relationship that people have with their elected governments and

their elected officials.

I would say that an aspect of this is there are criminal charges — a

focus in this bill on criminal charges. We had a conversation about this in our

caucus office earlier. Unfortunately, the way it currently is within our legal

system and within our society, it’s very difficult for survivors of sexual

assault, as an example, to have any redress for those actions.

[6:25 p.m.]

We have heard many stories where unfortunately, charges are not pressed;

really unfortunate comments are made. I would just like to say that oftentimes,

the civil route is the route where survivors of sexual assault cases are able

to get the attention to the crimes that had happened exist. I wanted to

highlight that aspect of it, recognizing that the bill is doing something else

here. I just wanted to raise that.

I also raise my hands in gratitude for the work that is being done to

the Vancouver Charter, allowing them to do the important work and to report on

the greenhouse gas emissions and energy use and water use. I also will take up

most of my questions that I might have for this bill in the committee

stage.

Again, congratulations to the minister. I look forward to engaging in

the rest of this process.

I will now take my seat.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further members wishing to participate, the minister to close

the debate.

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to both of my hon.

colleagues across the way. I do very much look forward to the committee stage,

where we can get into the details of this particular legislation. I thank them

for their support, and the staff who have been bringing us all along with

respect to the amendments that we’ve moved today.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be

considered at the next sitting day after today.

Bill 20, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted

leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND

LOW CARBON INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dykeman in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:38 p.m.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $109,556,000

(continued) .

The Chair: We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

T. Shypitka: I left a question with the minister before the break. So I will just

quickly…. Unless he wants me to rephrase it?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the question the member has posed. Let me just say a couple

things as a prologue to discussing that suggestion further. Clearly, climate

change and climate solutions are an important part of public discourse and

public policy, not only here in Canada but around the world.

The recent International Energy Agency report shows the potential

pathways for the global-to-global energy sector and the implications that each

could have upon climate change. This ministry is committed to developing a

low-carbon future by supporting electrification and energy efficiency and

reducing methane emissions. The recent report that I’ve referred to validates

the work that we’ve done.

Here the CleanBC plan, which is our guiding policy document, puts our

province on the path to a cleaner, better future with a low-carbon economy and

creates opportunities for all, while protecting our clean air, land and water.

As part of CleanBC, we’re also focused on working with industry and the federal

government to reduce methane emissions — I think widely recognized as being a

very deleterious greenhouse gas, linked to the upstream extraction, reduction

and liquefaction of natural gas.

We recognize and know that the energy industry has a significant role to

play in reducing emissions and fighting climate change. Our government has made

it clear that any LNG development must meet our four conditions, which includes

fitting within our climate targets. Just as a refresher, the four conditions

are: guaranteeing a fair return for B.C.’s resources; jobs and training for

British Columbians; respect and partnership with First Nations; and protection

for British Columbia’s air, land and water. That includes living up to our

climate obligations.

We’re committed to working with the industry to meet our climate targets

by investing in electrification of up­stream oil and gas production to

allow extraction and processing to be powered by electricity instead of burning

fossil fuels. By moving to clean, renewable energy, like our abundant supply of

B.C. electricity, we can power our growing economy and make life better and

more affordable for British Columbians.

T. Shypitka: I’ll try to decipher what the minister said there. It was a simple

yes-or-no question. It was whether the minister agreed with the statements made

by the member for Boundary-Similkameen and doubled down by one of the ministers

of the Crown here in the government. What I heard was that they’ve got all

kinds of initiatives put forward — climate change, identifying climate change.

They’ve got CleanBC initiatives and four conditions on holding true their

commitments to reducing emissions.

Through that, I guess what he’s saying is that because of the programs

they’ve put forward and the fact that the LNG industry in B.C. — we’ll go into

that a little bit later — is, arguably, one of the more responsible

jurisdictions in the world, he disagrees with the member for

Boundary-Similkameen — that there is a future for LNG here in British Columbia,

that we do it responsibly, that we do it better than anybody else in the

world.

Perhaps the member for Boundary-Similkameen…. Who was it? It was the

Minister of State for Infrastructure who tweeted out and also agreed with the

member for Boundary-Similkameen. What I’m hearing — the minister can debate it

if he wants — is that he’s saying: those statements were incorrect, and there

is a future for B.C. LNG. Is that what I’m hearing?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Certainly, our goal in British Columbia, following our CleanBC plan, is

to reduce emissions to create the lowest emissions profile possible. In the LNG

sector, the way we plan to do that is by sticking to and adhering to the four

conditions that I’ve set out. That’s the manner in which the LNG industry will

proceed forward here in British Columbia.

T. Shypitka: Not to belabour it too much, but we can’t kid ourselves. There are

offsets to industry. There are offsets to production of fossil fuels,

extraction of fossil fuels, production into LNG, and shipping those abroad.

There is some carbon intensity to those projects, but we’re talking about

global emissions.

There was a report that came out in Science Digest not too long

ago that suggested that B.C. LNG shipped to China could lead to a reduction in

global greenhouse gas emissions. This is what we’re talking about. When members

of either party make suggestions contrary to what I’m hearing the minister

saying, they’re trying their best to make B.C. clean and green as much as we

can.

We have got some of the cleanest and greenest hydro power anywhere in

the world. We’re very fortunate that about 95 percent of our production comes

from hydro power here in B.C. — clean and green. LNG provides those offsets

outside of Canada, to China, India or anywhere west of us, I guess, over the

Pacific. It leads to a reduction of thermal coal burning, for example. I think

China has put in 800 thermal coal plants in the last year or two.

We want to try to get those folks off higher-intensity, carbon-emitting

products such as thermal coal and transition them to liquefied natural gas. I

think it’s the responsible thing to do. I think the ministry sees that. So I’ll

take it that the minister disputes the member for Boundary-Similkameen on his

statements, and the Minister of State for Infrastructure, on what he said as

well.

To kind of double down, in the budget here — I think it’s on pages

103-104 — it kind of highlights what I’m saying here. They’re talking about

“real business investment” as just another by-product of what LNG can do for

British Columbia. “Over the 2023 to 2026 period, growth is forecast to range

from 1.1 percent and 3 percent annually. The LNG Canada project is expected to

generate a significant amount of economic activity, which will support B.C.’s

economy over the forecast horizon.”

Once again, it’s expected to generate revenues “over the forecast

horizon,” which is into the future. This member is saying that there’s no place

for it in the future, no further expansion of fossil fuel extraction. The

statement was: “If we want good jobs for our children’s children in a world

that’s safe and secure, then all indicators are that future LNG expansion isn’t

the answer.”

I would expect that future expansion would mean the LNG Canada project

maybe going from two trains to four. That’s an expansion. Could the minister,

maybe, make a comment on the fact…? Would he support an expansion of LNG Canada

to four trains?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member has mentioned LNG Canada phase 1. It was widely recognized as

having substantial economic impact, particularly in northern British Columbia,

the biggest private sector investment, at an estimated $40 billion. The

employment benefits and the impact upon GDP growth in northern British Columbia

are, I think, well understood.

Phase 2 is a part of the project which is fully permitted. The private

sector consortium will have to make that decision as to whether they intend to

go forward. There is, I think, some anticipation that that decision will come

sometime in 2024. We’ll see what’s decided by the private sector consortium at

that time.

T. Shypitka: I understand LNG Canada will be making their own decisions on their own

project, for sure, but the question was: would government support a move like

that? Hearing what the member for Boundary-Similkameen said, and the minister

in the tweets, suggests that they wouldn’t be supportive of that.

The question to the minister was: would the ministry support a move,

expansion? Given the economic benefits, given the opportunities to reduce

global GHGs across the planet, given those things that the minister said

earlier about LNG as an economic driver for our province, would the ministry

support such a move?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: We’re expecting, as a government — I’ve discussed the four conditions

for LNG development —