Today in the legislature I had the great pleasure of introducing Denis Canuel. Denis runs a professional gardening business here on southern Vancouver Island. He was the recent victim of a vicious dog attack featured in the Saanich News.

Later in the afternoon I introduced my private member’s Bill M212 — Animal Liability Act, 2016. Based on similar legislation in Manitoba, this Bill will ensure that owners of animals are held liable for the actions of their animals. Below I reproduce the text and video of my introduction of the Bill. I append our media release at the end.

Text of my Introduction

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Animal Liability Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Animal Liability Act. Earlier this year a number of vicious dog attacks occurred in the Lower Mainland. Over the years, British Columbians have called on B.C. legislators to act.

According to the Canada Safety Council, more than 460,000 dog bites occur in Canada each year. Just last week, there was a case of unprovoked dog attack reported in Saanich, an attack that nearly left an individual without his employment for years to come. In this case, the dog was a repeat offender.

Here in B.C., we do not have adequate laws that ensure owners are liable for the actions of their animals. Indeed, we only have liability being imposed on the basis of scienter doctrine, negligence or, in some cases, the occupier’s liability act.

This bill would ensure that owners are liable for any damages resulting from harm that the animals cause to a person or property. This bill, based on similar legislation that exists in Manitoba, is designed to ensure that owners of animals take their ownership seriously and are held responsible for the actions of their pets.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill M212, Animal Liability Act, 2016 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of my Introduction

Media Release

Media Release: April 6, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Legislation needed to ensure responsible pet ownership in B.C.
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Today Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, tabled legislation that would ensure pet owners are held responsible for the actions of their animals.

“Thousands of people are bitten by dogs in B.C. each year,” says Weaver. “While provinces like Ontario and Manitoba have enacted legislation to ensure that public safety is put first, BC is falling behind. We need appropriate measures in place to hold the owners of dangerous pets to account.”

Weaver introduced the Animal Liability Act, 2016, which is modeled on Manitoba’s legislation, to make owners directly liable for any damages caused by their pets. The Bill would not apply to damages caused by livestock.

“As it currently stands, when someone gets bitten by a dog the options available for legal recourse hinge on the dog having a previous history of violence. That’s simply not enough,” says Weaver. “This legislation does not affect the vast majority of caring, responsible pet owners. It targets negligent pet owners who are not appropriately socializing, training, or restraining their animals in public places.”

“In most instances I would expect this legislation to be used in situations where an irresponsible owner fails to take appropriate precautions and their violent dog attacks someone. If someone happened to have a particularly aggressive cougar, llama or emu and they let it run around biting people, however, it would certainly apply,” Weaver added. “We need clear liability legislation so that owners are required to ensure their pets behave safely and are held to account if their pet does behave in a dangerous manner.”

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Introduction

Genetically modified (GM) foods are widespread in Canada, with the potential for further expansion. Though the majority of studies show no negative health effects from consuming GM foods, there is controversy regarding the validity of these studies, and many significant concerns and unanswered questions regarding their effects on the environment.

Background

Genetic Modification (GM) refers to the introduction of new traits to an organism in a way that does not occur naturally, by making changes to its genetic makeup through intervention at the molecular level.

The first GM crops were approved for sale in Canada in the mid 1990s, and they have since become pervasive: they are found in more than 70% of processed foods sold in North America. More than 90% of canola and sugar beets, 80% of corn and 60% of soy grown in Canada are genetically engineered.

While genetic modification can be undertaken for a variety of purposes, including nutrition improvement, virus resistance, and drought resistance, virtually all GM crops on the market today are engineered exclusively for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance.

Herbicide tolerant crops have been engineered to withstand application of herbicides: most common is Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn, which tolerates glyphosate. Crops engineered for insect resistance produce their own pesticides. The most common are Bt crops, such as Bt Cotton and Bt Corn, which are engineered to synthesize Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxin in their cells, making them toxic to some insects. Many GM crops are “stacked” with both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.

There is a strong “right to know” movement advocating mandatory labelling of GM foods in the US and Canada. Polls show that 90% of Canadians support mandatory labeling, and 64 countries around the world have mandatory labelling. Going further, some countries have banned the cultivation of GMOs altogether. Some US states have passed mandatory labelling laws, but a bill is currently under consideration in the US Senate, which would mandate that any such labelling takes place only at the Federal level, and only if health and safety is shown to be at issue.

Some of the Key Issues

GMO foods have been widely consumed for 20 years. The majority of scientific studies undertaken suggest no negative health effects from consuming GMOs (see here and here). However, there are a number of criticisms aimed at these studies, including their short-term nature and the fact that industry funds a large proportion of them.

Some studies have shown negative health effects of GM foods, including toxicity, immune responses, hormonal effects, and allergenicity, but their results are also contentious within the scientific community. Many of the studies showing negative health effects focus on the effects of glyphosate, which the World Health Organization has listed as a probable human carcinogen, and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which are present in GM crops but are also used in conventional, and, in the case of Bt, organic agriculture. It is debated whether the levels at which Bt is found in GM crops are higher or lower than in conventional or organic crops, and whether there are qualitative differences in Bt, with human health and environmental implications, depending on how it is used.

The environmental effects of GM crops are a second key issue. Herbicide resistant plants – so-called “super weeds” – are on the rise, resulting from the widespread use of herbicides, particularly glyphosate. Herbicide use has increased significantly since the advent of GM crops; one study estimates a 15-fold increase between 1996, when glyphosate-resistant crops were introduced, to 2014. Many draw a direct link between herbicide-resistant GM crops and the increase in herbicide use (see here and here, for example). In response to weed resistance to glyphosate, chemical companies are developing new herbicides and engineering crops to resist them, such as 2,4-D resistant corn and soybeans, grown with Dow’s Enlist Duo, which combines herbicides 2,4-D and Glyphosate.

The other major GM crop, modified with Bt to resist insects, has led to a reduction in the use of chemical insecticides in the US (the Canadian government does not track the impact of Bt crops on insecticide use). However, it is debated whether the GM plants have more or less pesticides present than those used in conventional or organic agriculture. Furthermore, since Bt has been used so widely in GM crops, insects are becoming resistant to it, thus farmers may have to switch to other, more toxic pesticides (see here, here and here).

In terms of contamination, GM crops have the ability to contaminate organic farms, which prohibit the use of genetic modification, thereby making organic farming difficult or impossible in regions close to GM agriculture. There is a largely unknown risk of transgene transference from GM crops to wild gene pools: some instances of transference have been reported, but the extent and future potential is unknown.

A Canadian expert panel put together by the Royal Society of Canada noted that the uncertain environmental impacts of GM crops could justify mandatory labeling. Independent research is lacking, as research is primarily funded by industry. The Canadian government doesn’t undertake an independent review process of industry studies on the health and environmental safety of their products before approving them.

Underlying discussions of the health and environmental effects of GM crops is a problem with treating GMOs categorically. Genetic modification is a process that can be used for different purposes and to a wide variety of effects. As noted, while herbicide resistant GM crops are associated with increased herbicide use, pesticide producing GM crops, such as Bt crops, have reduced the use of chemical insecticides. Genetic modification can potentially improve nutrition, such as “Golden Rice” with vitamin A added, or GM potatoes that release fewer carcinogenic acrylamides when cooked; it can make crops virus resistant, by inserting virus proteins into the DNA, as with the GM papaya; and it can help plants become drought resistant, potentially improving global food security. A key point of criticism of mandatory labelling is that it does not differentiate between the types of modification taking place, and their associated effects on human health or the environment.

Mandatory labelling has a significant amount of public and political support, advertised as a means to give customers the ability to know what they are eating. The effect of mandatory labelling on consumer demand is debated: some argue that it will be widely perceived as a warning, thereby decreasing consumer demand for GM products. In response to consumer demand it is predicted that producers will shift away from GM products and source non-GM ingredients. The costs of labelling to the consumer in Canada are debated, but a large study in the US estimated that mandatory labelling would cost US$2.30 per person annually, not incorporating potential behaviour changes.

Another significant issue is the role of chemical companies and large corporations in agriculture. A small number of large corporations exercise ownership over a large and growing amount of food. Farmers cannot save and replant GM seeds; they must purchase them from the manufacturers. There are fears seed diversity will be negatively impacted, impacting food security.

Several Questions

Whereas today GM foods are primarily present in processed foods and animal feed, there is potential for the commercialization of many other GM crops. Efforts are underway to commercialize the non-browning “Arctic Apple”, GM alfalfa, wheat, and some species of fish. What would the effects be of the expansion of the kinds of GM crops being grown, especially for our ability to grow organic produce?

GM crops have only been on the market since the 1990s, so the long-term effects on health and the environment cannot yet be conclusively known. Given the concerns regarding industry funding of scientific studies and the lack of long-term independent studies, many questions remain regarding the chronic and long-term effects of GM crops on human and animal health, and the environment.

Evaluation and Summary

Given the number and the extent of the unknowns associated with GM crops, precaution would suggest, at a minimum, mandatory labelling, an independent, peer-reviewed process to ensure the safety of GM crops before they are approved by government regulators, and long-term, well-funded independent studies on the effects of GM crop on human health and the environment. Mandatory labelling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients would enable people to choose if they want to consume GM foods and support GM technology through their purchases. It would also have the likely effect of decreasing demand for products containing GM crops, moving producers away from sourcing GM crops.

Labelling that specifies the nature of genetic modification (e.g. genetically modified for insect resistance; herbicide tolerance; vitamin A added) would differentiate between kinds of genetic engineering and make the information conveyed through labels more meaningful for consumers. Investigating the extent to which specific labelling is possible, what its challenges and costs would be, and whether there are best practices elsewhere, is suggested.

Industry is a significant source of funding for scientific studies on the health and environmental effects of GM crops, and the Canadian government does not independently review company studies on the safety of GM crops. Funding independent and long-term research on health, environmental, and other effects of GMOs would provide a trusted scientific source of information to inform policy going forward. The establishment of a national research program to monitor the long-term effects of GM organisms was recommended by the Royal Society of Canada expert panel to the Canadian government in 2001, but has not yet been realized.

It seems that many of the strongest motives for concern regarding GMOs come less from an issue with the technology of genetic modification itself, and more from the context in which it is taking place. Regulation and independent long-term research are lacking, and a small number of large chemical companies are driving forward a huge expansion of GM technology in the midst of many uncertainties and unanswered questions regarding its potential effects on our health and the health of our environment.

Let us know what you think.

We were pleased to see a good turn out for our Oak Bay-Gordon Head MLA Town Hall on Seniors and Health Care held on March 29th at the Oak Bay Recreation Centre Sports View Lounge. We were fortunate to receive a very informative presentation from Isobel MacKenzie, who was appointed as the BC Seniors Advocate two years ago. Isobel brings over 20 years of experience working with seniors in home care, licensed care, community services and volunteer services. Isobel led BC’s largest not-for-profit agency, serving over 6,000 seniors annually. It is clear that Isobel is passionate and dedicated to her work. Her presentation was very well received and those in attendance were given an opportunity to ask questions and learn more about the important work undertaken by her office.

There are five mandated areas under the responsibilities of the Office of the Seniors Advocate (“OSA”):

• Health care
• Housing
• Transportation
• Income support
• Personal care

The OSA is an independent office of the provincial government and has several key functions, including analyzing, reporting and monitoring systemic issues that affect seniors. The OSA makes recommendations to government for change and provides information and referral to seniors and their families.

The OSA produces reports, including recently published BC Residential Facilities Quick Facts Directory (March 2016) and a report on Monitoring Seniors Services (January 2016).

More information about the OSA, including programs and subsidies for seniors is available at their website. The office can be reached by phone Toll-Free at 1-877-952-3181 Monday to Friday, 8:30am – 4:30pm (except statutory holidays) or by Email at: info@seniorsadvocatebc.ca

Translation services are available in more than 180 languages.

We will be featuring an interview with Isobel MacKenzie in an upcoming MLA Constituency Report, airing on Shaw Cable April 30, 2016 (8:30am) and May 1, 2016 (10:30am and 3:00pm).

Our sincere thanks are extended to Isobel for participating in our town hall.

With over 4.5 million Canadians in need of a family physician, Canada appears to be facing the largest doctor shortage since the creation of Medicare in 1968. Our practicing physician to patient ratio landed us 17^th out of 21 in a 2006 OECD report on physician services and the situation hasn’t improved since – despite being the focus of many political promises.

a) b)

Figure 1: Percentage of Canadians without a family doctor by age, group and sex aged 12 and over. a) For various age groups; b) Averaged 0ver all ages. Data from Statistics Canada.

Over the last few years, the B.C. Liberals have repeatedly vowed that every British Columbian would have a family doctor by 2015. In 2010 then Health Services Minister Kevin Falcon announced that the Province was going to overhaul its primary health-care system with a $137-million investment to “strengthen service delivery, ensure patients are full participants in their care and provide every British Columbian who wants a family doctor with one by 2015.”

Figure 2: Practicing physicians per one million population for several countries. Repropduced from the OECD report: The Supply of Physician Services in OECD Countries.

In February of 2013 the BC Liberals renewed their commitment with the $132.4 million ‘A GP for Me’ pilot program they said would ensure everyone who wanted a family doctor would be able to access one within two years.

“The objective is clear, all British Columbians will have access to a family physician…” Unfortunately, 2015 has come and gone and there are an incredible number of people still in need of a family doctor.

In fact, fewer British Columbians have a regular doctor now than before the government made those lofty promises. According to Statistics Canada, in 2012 3,397,007 people in BC had a family doctor. By 2013 that number had fallen by 27,947 to 3,369,060. In 2014 it was lower still at 3,361,856.

Despite the incredible amount of money that has been thrown at this problem, today in British Columbia it is estimated that over 200,000 people are still actively looking for a family doctor.

When facing a problem of this magnitude and complexity, it is important to look back at the policies and regulations that got us here. While there are no doubt countless contributing factors that influence doctor shortages, what follows is an overview of the major changes that shifted our course towards one critically deficient in family physicians.

In 1961, the average medical ratio in BC was 758 patients for each doctor. Much like today, however, the rural-urban distribution of doctors was uneven. In rural areas the ratio was much higher, at 1,229 patients per doctor, and 73.6% of the province’s physicians were concentrated in Vancouver and Victoria.

Sensing problems ahead, the federal Royal Commission on Health Services (who outlined the foundation for Canada’s universal medicare system) analyzed the medical workforce statistics and predicted an overall shortage of doctors by the 1970’s (source available in hard copy only, page 246). Along with increasing med-student intake at universities across the country, the report recommended the establishment of at least four additional medical schools to meet the needs of a growing population. Their shortage projections extended until 1991 (page 70).

When 1991 arrived, however, the perceived supply of doctors did a rapid reversal. A report presented to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health by Barer and Stoddart cautioned that we were, in fact, heading towards a doctor surplus. Public policy shifted accordingly and drastic changes were made to the way physicians were trained and licensed in Canada.

Barer and Stoddart were concerned that there were too many doctors, especially in urban areas, and that this would put people at risk of being over-treated as physicians (who bill per patient) competed for limited cases (page 11, 48-50). This theory of “physician-induced demand,” it should be noted, has always been a controversial and inconclusively proven phenomenon (page 19). Nevertheless, Barer and Stoddart recommended limiting med school entry and reducing the use of foreign-trained physicians and governments followed suite.

In BC, the government introduced a combination of incentives and penalties in the hopes of shifting more doctors away from city centers and into remote areas. By 1993, travel assistance, isolation allowance, and subsidized, salaried positions were offered to doctors willing to move to more rural locations. At the same time, the government tried to manage doctors as they prepared to enter or exit the workforce. Young doctors looking to set up practices in areas deemed “oversupplied” were met with a 50 per cent reduction in their fee-for-service rate. This penalty only lasted a few years though, as it was challenged by physicians and the Professional Association of Residents of British Columbia and in 1997 ruled unconstitutional by the BC Supreme Court. The Court deemed the fee penalty imposed on urban doctors as a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed mobility and equity clause, as well as a breach of Canada Health Act’s requirement for reasonable compensation for insured services (page 24). Mandatory retirement caps set at 75 year were removed as well, following a legal challenge by the Senior Physician Society of BC (page 25).

A few years later, however, opinions had shifted yet again and the public and policy makers were back to being worried about a serious national doctor shortage. Incredibly, within a span of a decade the believed supply of doctors had done a complete reversal. A 2002 report for the Canadian Institute for Health Information, From Perceived Surplus to Perceived Shortage: What happened to Canada’s Physician Workforce in the 1990s?, cited changes to postgraduate medical training programs as the largest contributing factor. By extending the residency requirement for general practitioners there was an extra delay on new doctors entering the workforce. In addition, a higher proportion of medical students elected to specialize, further limiting the number of family doctors (page 36). At the same time more doctors were retiring, fewer students were being accepted to medical school, and the number of positions available to foreign-train doctors dropped – all while the general population continued to increase and get proportionally older.

Five years after the BC government was taken to court for reducing urban doctors billing rates they were back to offering generous financial incentives. Retention Allowances were introduced in 2002 to encourage doctors to start practices in smaller communities. The Northern and Isolation Travel Assistance Outreach Program covered travel costs and accommodation for physicians service isolated communities. In 2007 the Family Physicians for British Columbia program paid $100,000 to doctors willing to establish full service practices for at least three years in underserved areas. That year not one doctor stepped forward to accept any of the 15 Interior Health incentive packages.

Picking up on research that suggests medical students recruited from rural backgrounds are more likely to work in non-urban areas after graduating, the BC government announced plans to expand and upgrade teaching hospitals around the province. They also increased province wide first-year enrollment from 128 in 2001 to 256 in 2007 and authorized the creation of three additional medical campuses at UVic, UNBC, and UBC Okanagan.

Backtracking on foreign-trained doctor restrictions, International Medical Graduates were once again seen as part of the solution to physician shortages across Canada. Canada has never trained enough physicians to meet the country’s needs and foreign-trained doctors account for roughly a quarter of the medical workforce in Canada. Though securing a position is incredibly competitive for non-Canadian doctors, they do account for roughly 38% of Newfoundland and Labrador’s physicians and 46% of Saskatchewan’s. Unsurprisingly, the logistics of integrating and licensing foreign-trained physicians are clumsy and slow, though some medical colleges are recognized as accredited and approved by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia which streamlines applications.

In 2007 the college was licensing 100 to 150 foreign doctors per year and in the 2008 Speech from the Throne the BC government promised that a “new framework to allow Canadian citizens trained outside of Canada to find residencies and practices in B.C. [would] be developed and implemented.”

This included a new health profession review board to “ensure that all qualified health workers can fully and appropriately utilize the training of skills and not be denied that right by unnecessary credentialing and licensure restrictions.”

Bill 25, the Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, introduced in April of the same year provided the legislative structure for these changes

Despite these initiatives the practice of importing doctors is not without controversy and many jurisdictions are trying to become less dependent on them. In 2001 the High Commissioner to South Africa asked Canada to stop depleting the supply of doctors in his country where hospitals were desperately underserved. “Immigration of doctors can ease physician shortages in countries where numbers are lacking but it raises difficult questions about international equity when there are net, long-term flows of physicians from poorer countries with low average health status to richer countries with high health status,” writes Simoens and Hurst’s report on the supply of physicians in OECD counties. “As a result, many OECD countries aim for self-sufficiency in physician supply.”

One possible alternative to the geographically uneven distribution of doctors in BC is the use of “Telehealth” services which use videoconferencing technologies to connect doctors and patients. There are concerns about privacy and insurance coverage with these systems, but the presence of nurses to facilitate calls and operate examination cameras on the patient side do make them feasible in certain scenarios.

The certification of more nurse practitioners is also seen as a promising way to increase patient care while reducing relative health care costs. Nurse practitioners were first regulated in BC in 2005, not as a substitute for doctors, but a compliment. When paired with doctors they can streamline patient care by treating routine illnesses and injuries while physicians handle more complex diagnoses. Nurse Practitioners are able to diagnose, consult, order and interpret tests, prescribe, and treat health conditions. They work in both independent and collaborative practice roles across BC and practice acute care, outpatient clinics, residential care and community settings.

Now at the start of 2016, we find ourselves once again repeating history as we offer doctors a patchwork of financial incentives in an attempt to meet the province’s growing medical needs.

Currently, in addition to recruitment incentives ($15,000 or $20,000), relocation incentives ($15,000), the rural retention program, isolation allowance, and various other training bursaries, rural physicians receive a one-time payment of $100,000 for a commitment to work for three years in a designated rural communities. The incentive is available to family practitioners, specialists and residents who are paid $50,000 when they start work in the community and the remaining $50,000 after one year.

In some situations these economic bonuses have changed the problem, without improving the overall situation. The current set up gives doctors the ability to work less while earning more, and one can hardly fault them for making the most of it. As the graphs from the MSP Physician Resource Report below indicate, the total expenditure for general practice doctors has increased significantly since 2005, but the average number of patients treated per physician has dropped. The government’s policy changes over the last ten years have lead to more doctors, working less days, treating fewer patients. An important, though further complicating, caveat to this data is that it focuses on quantity of care – not quality. In many cases doctors seeing fewer patients is a positive change as it indicates they are spending more time with each individual. For people struggling with multiple or complex conditions this added assistance is essential.

With more female doctors, who statistically allocate more time to each patient, practicing in BC than ever before and doctors in general striving to create a healthier work life balance, the policies used to influence the doctor shortages of the 1970’s are no longer relevant. Family doctors play a vital role in our well being and they deserve a policy framework that lets them treat patients in a manageable, fulfilling, and efficient manner.

Given this province’s complicated history with doctor shortages, what is most concerning about the BC Liberal’s promise to provide every British Columbian with a family physician is not that they have failed – one only has to look back at the struggles Canada has had maintaining an appropriate number of GPs to know BC’s doctor shortage was never something that could be fixed in two years. What is most concerning is that British Columbians were repeatedly mislead about what could be realistically achieved.

We’re beginning to see a pattern emerge with this government. Whether it be promises of 100,000 LNG jobs, a debt free BC, or a GP for every British Columbian, the government is long on rhetoric and short on policy grounded in evidence. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve a government that is transparent and honest with its expectations and promises.

Over the next year, and in collaboration with my policy advisors, I will be outlining ways we might consider to alleviate the British Columbia’s GP crunch.

If you have ideas you would like to share with me and my team, please don’t hesitate to email us at: Andrew.Weaver.MLA@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature I tabled a private members bill entitled: Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015. The purpose of this Bill was to reduce the preferential treatment of non-resident hunters.

Limited entry hunting (LEH) is a lottery based management system used to organize the harvest of species in situations where there are too few animals and too many hunters. Currently the Wildlife Branch has different rules for resident and foreign hunters when it comes to obtaining LEH permits:  Residents must enter a lottery draw, but foreigners (who are required to hire guide) can simply buy their way in.  By eliminating the minister’s discretion to make separate rules for each group, this bill requires ALL hunters to enter a lottery for their LEH tags, as is done in other jurisdictions.

As it currently stands, residents may enter a lottery year after year and still not get drawn, while a non-resident can buy his or her way in every year if they want. This bill seeks to ensure certain groups do not have unfair access to LEH permits.

While people may wonder why we need a lottery system for non-residents when they are already restricted by the allocation split, it is worth noting that the split between permits allocated for resident and non-resident hunters is as high as 60% – 40% for some species. By comparison, Alberta sets non-resident allocations between 2-7 percent with a maximum of 10 percent and Washington State has limited non-resident wildlife allocations to approximately 5 percent. Non-resident hunters in B.C. are already getting a bigger share here than anywhere else in North America – and they are pay significantly less too. A non-resident hunter coming to B.C., for example, can buy a moose tag directly for $250.00 Canadian. In Washington State they would have to enter a draw and if their application got randomly selected they would have to pay $1,652.00 USD.

The price and availability of hunting permits is, of course, influenced by animal abundance and hunter demand. In B.C. compared to other jurisdictions in North America, however, they also seem to favour guide outfitters and their non-resident clientele over resident hunters. I tabled this bill today to reduce some of that unfair legislation.

Below I provide a video of my introduction along with its transcript. At the end i also include a copy of the proposed bill

Video of Bill Introduction

Text of Bill Introduction

A. Weaver: It’s my pleasure to introduce this bill — which, if enacted, would remove the minister’s ability to designate and exempt classes of applicants from having to enter lotteries or other methods of random selection when seeking limited-entry hunt permits. If enacted, these amendments would require all hunters to enter draws for their limited-entry hunt permits, regardless of resident, non-resident or non-resident alien designation, as is done in other jurisdictions.

As it currently stands, local hunters have to enter a lottery if they want to harvest an animal managed under the limited-entry hunt system, but out-of-province hunters can simply buy a permit for the same species and management unit area. Foreign hunters coming to B.C. already enjoy cheaper permits and greater allocation percentages than nearly every other jurisdiction in North America. It’s clearly unfair that they can buy their way into limited-entry hunts year after year, when British Columbians are left entering lotteries in the hopes of being granted the opportunity to harvest a public good in their home province.

The limited-entry hunt system is an important management and conservation tool. Its designation through the lottery system should be implemented across the board, mirroring other jurisdictions that require non-resident hunters to enter limited-entry hunt lotteries. Like every state in America, this legislation envisions a separate draw for local and out-of-province allocations.

I look forward to second reading of this bill. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Text of Bill M230

Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2015,

THE WILDLIFE ACT [RSBC 1996] Chapter 488. The Act is amended by:

Section 16 of the Act is amended by striking out sections 16 (1) (b.1) and 16 (3)

Limited entry hunting authorization

16  (1) The minister, by regulation, may

(a) limit hunting for a species of wildlife in an area of British Columbia,

(b) provide for limited entry hunting authorizations to be issued by means of a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants,

(b.1) provide for exceptions that the minister considers appropriate to the random selection among applicants in conducting a lottery or other method of random selection among applicants under paragraph (b), and

(c) do other things necessary for the purposes of this section.

(2) An application fee collected under a lottery or other method referred to in subsection (1) must be paid into the general fund of the consolidated revenue fund.

(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the minister may define classes of applicants and make different regulations for different classes of applicants.