The committee met at 8:03 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are doing an annual review of statutory offices of British Columbia. First up we have the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth — Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth.

Welcome. We look forward to your first presentation to our committee.

Review of Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE
FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

J. Charlesworth: Good morning. Nice to see all of you. I’m both honoured and pleased to be here today to meet with members of your committee for the first time since my appointment and confirmation as B.C.’s third Representative for Children and Youth.

I feel very fortunate to be in this position and thankful for the talented staff that I have inherited at the representative’s office. Our diverse team has a wide variety of experience — actually, a shockingly wide variety of experience. It’s quite fascinating to get to know people. The common thread is being dedicated to advocating for children and youth and to bringing about improvement for the government services meant to help these children and youth and their families.

I’d like to introduce senior staff who are with me here today: deputy representative Alan Markwart, chief financial officer Dianne Buljat and our ED of communications, Jeff Rud.

Let me give you a bit of an update. My predecessor, Bernard Richard, appeared before your committee in May of this year and provided a summary of the work that we do at the representative’s office. You’ve also been provided with a copy of our annual report and service plan.

[8:05 a.m.]

I was not going to cover details that would have been covered in that session, but I will just briefly say — to remind you, because there is lots on your plate — that there are three core areas of service: advocacy, investigations and monitoring. In the way we’ve restructured things, those are underpinned by an approach to Indigenous strategies and partnerships and Indigenous ways of knowing and being, which I’ll get into a little bit more.

At the end of the presentation, I’m happy to answer any questions that you have about the focus of our office and, of course, anything about the budget.

I’ll give you a brief update of the activities of our office since I began as acting representative on August 31 and was confirmed on October 1. It seems like that time has flown by. We have been very busy on reports and restructuring.

On November 15, I released my first report as representa­tive, which was an aggregate review of youth substance use in B.C. We made five recommendations about how government can help keep youth safer when it comes to substance use, including the development of a comprehensive, wraparound system of services that includes everything from education and prevention on the one hand to harm-reduction initiatives designed specifically for youth. The other key aspect of that was to develop culturally relevant and safe services because of the preponderance of Indigenous youth that are affected by substance use.

Our report was heavily informed by youth voice, as 100 young people with lived experience from all over the province shared their experiences and their ideas about what could be improved. This was important input that was reflected in our recommendations and in the follow-up conversations that we’ve had.

We’ve had two additional reports that I expect to release in the coming weeks. One is an investigation into critical injuries experienced by a child with special needs. It includes recommendations to help prevent similar injuries to other children but also to enhance the array of services and supports to children and youth with special needs and their families. That report will be released early in December.

The other is an update on government’s adoption and permanency efforts that will be released early in the new year. We will also come back to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to further discuss the breastfeeding report that was released in August by my predecessor.

We have a number of other reports and projects in the works for 2019. These include everything from looking at transitions to adulthood, fetal alcohol syndrome, investigating the overdose death of a young person and the interprovincial issues and the legal representation, among others. I’m particularly interested in aggregate reports that enable us to better understand trends and themes, particularly around the more vulnerable populations and areas and challenging issues such as mental health.

Of course, our core work of advocating for children and youth and monitoring the system of services in B.C. continues. It’s been busy, but I’ve been taking some time, as well, to take a look at the structure and organization of our operations and reflect on how I think we should be focusing our efforts going forward.

A big part of that has been the operationalization of our strategic plan that was developed under Bernard’s watch and continues with me as representative. Staff were actively engaged in that and enthusiastic about feeding into the plan and helping set a course for the years ahead, drawing on their wisdom and knowledge from front-line advocacy through to monitoring.

Our main area of focus at the RCY is, without question, Indigenous child welfare. It’s the number one priority of our office, and I’m going to strengthen our capacity to focus on that issue going forward. More than 60 percent of children and youth in government care are Indigenous, which is, obviously, a gross overrepresentation when we consider that Indigenous children and youth make up less than 10 percent of the province’s overall child and youth population.

Our office will continue to research and document the needs and opportunities and changes that will result in better supports for Indigenous families to remain together and fewer Indigenous children being taken into care. Of course, we are going to be advocating for better services to Indigenous children and youth and their families when they do come into contact with the ministry.

As I mentioned when I met with the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, I believe this is actually a watershed time for Indigenous child welfare in B.C. and, indeed, in Canada.

[8:10 a.m.]

Whether it’s the anticipated federal Indigenous child welfare legislation that we expect to be tabled in the parliament soon, the implementation of the recommendations of Grand Chief Ed John from his 2016 report, the ongoing federal inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the continued progress towards the implementation of Jordan’s principle, the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or the rulings of the federal Human Rights Tribunal in relation to Indigenous child welfare, there is a lot going on in this area.

I’ll just take a moment to say that our office has done a tremendous amount in Indigenous strategies over the years. This is the time, we think, to focus on those broader strategic issues that will be the game changers going forward.

We have a vital place in this landscape, and to address this area in the most strategic manner, I’ve modified our organizational structure in a fundamental way. We’ve adopted a new leadership model at RCY, and we have gone to two deputy representatives. Alan is responsible for operations, and Dawn Thomas is responsible for Indigenous strategies. This was actually a model that was recommended by Hon. Ted Hughes in his original report, and I sought counsel from him early on in my tenure. He was strongly supportive and continues to provide wise counsel. An extraordinary man.

Dawn Thomas will head up our Indigenous strategies and partnerships, and she has just returned from secondment to First Nations Leadership Council. One of her priorities will be to determine how to use our staff and resources to best address Indigenous child welfare issues in the most impactful way and to ensure that Indigenous focus, voices and perspectives are featured in all of our work in the appropriate and respectful manner — and, of course, to maintain and develop strong relationships with Indigenous First Nations and Métis leadership in this province and with the organizations that are providing services.

I have been able to consolidate our executive team. We have reduced by one executive director and consolidated two divisions. That has enabled us to have a two-deputy model.

That’s a bit of an overview. I want to just move on now to our budget request. As you’ve seen in our written request, we’re asking this committee to recommend a status quo budget for RCY in 2019-20, in order to maintain our current services. The net budget increase that we’re asking for is $332,000, or 3.5 percent of our total annual operating budget, which, if approved, would put us at $9.75 million. The increase includes $254,000 in salaries and benefits, and $78,000 in operating costs. We’re not seeking an increase in our capital budget allocation.

Most of the requested additional funding is related to scheduled compensation increases over which we have no control. That includes a 2 percent salary increase, plus a 0.75 percent economic stability dividend increase for our schedule A staff, and a scheduled annual 2 percent increase for all excluded management staff arising from the newly implemented management classification compensation framework.

Ongoing costs of an increase in the salary of the representative, which is not discretionary as well, is also included in that.

The other aspect of our salary increase is a realignment of compensation for our research officers in our monitoring division. That was necessitated because they were at a different level within the organization, and we felt it was important to ensure equity, and also because we were having significant recruitment and retention challenges as a result of the inequities.

As I mentioned, all but the final item of the compensation realignment is an increase that’s beyond our office’s control. The remainder of the budget request falls under rent in­creases, including $91,000 in leased office space costs — $47,000 in our Victoria location and $44,000 in the Burnaby office. The increase in our base rent at our Burnaby office is 62 percent. We will be looking at more cost-effective alternative locations, both from the point of view of costs but also service delivery for that office in the next fiscal year. But that will take some time and will require additional funding for at least ’19-20.

Please note too that our budget request does not include any additional funding for what may arise with legislative amendments that have been suggested and recommended by the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. We have not made a funding request for that purpose at this time, due to uncertainties about the timing of the proposed changes to those legislative amendments.

By way of background, the review of the act done by the select standing committee recommended, among other matters, an expansion of our mandate to include advocacy for a broad range of health and social services supports to young adults up to the age of 26 who have formerly been in care. As you no doubt are aware, that is a very vulnerable period, the post-19 period. Such an expansion will result in an appreciable increase in our demand for RCY advocacy services, and of course, that’s a highly vulnerable population, so there will be complexity attached to that.

[8:15 a.m.]

We’re assuming that these changes won’t take place in ’19-20. However, it’s possible, and we’re in discussions with the Attorney General now, that our jurisdiction could be expanded earlier than that by way of regulation. If that occurs, then we may bring a supplementary funding request to you at that time.

The other thing that you should be aware of is that with the second deputy position, we are also realigning our organization to enhance the Indigenous strategies and partnership team. Thus far, we’ve done it through internal restructuring and reallocations, but over the course of the next year, when we take a look at the magnitude of that role and the importance of the strategic innovations, we may come back to the committee in the following year.

That’s the budget request for now. I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your wonderful first presentation. That was great, very thorough, and we really appreciate the background as to what you’re doing with your new role. You’ve obviously done quite a bit in a very short time. So congratulations on that.

Could you talk a little bit more about the 62 percent at the Burnaby office? How did that happen?

J. Charlesworth: How did that happen? I asked the same thing when I heard, in the first week, I think, that we were anticipating a 62 percent increase. The short answer is that the rent that we had for the previous five years was below market rates.

What it’s reflecting now is the market rate. We’ve benefited from the last five years, and now we’re seeing a significant increase going forward. Of course, being in Burnaby or the Lower Mainland, rent increases are significant. What we’re now looking at is that it’s at market rate.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Was it a free rent period? Is that what it was?

J. Charlesworth: No, it wasn’t a free rent period, but it was at below market rate that we were paying before, for the last five years.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I’m just curious. How did that happen? Do you know how…? Was that just the contract? Like, why would it be below market and then suddenly be market?

J. Charlesworth: That’s a good question. My understanding is….

Do you want to speak to that, Dianne?

D. Buljat: It’s a lease managed by central government. So it’s a Shared Services B.C. managed lease. I believe that when we went in the space, which was before my term, the space was vacant for a considerable period of time. The landlord cut a deal to get us into that space. The last five years we have had cheap rent, and we didn’t even realize that it was under market.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So more paying the common areas costs, because they wanted to get someone in there, and now you’re…. So it was a free rent period. Okay, got it. That makes sense.

D. Buljat: Yeah. It’s unfortunate.

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation. I’m just curious. You mentioned some changes that might be coming down the pipe. I think you indicated that there were some broader strategic issues, game changers, going forward, with respect to the Indigenous youth. Can you talk a little more about that and how you sort of see it impacting your office going forward?

J. Charlesworth: Yes. I think there are a number of areas. One is that…. If we take a look at our advocacy role, the number of Indigenous children and youth that we’ve been serving in the advocacy role is below what we would expect. So we are participating now in a right to rights tour. It’s going into communities all across the province, including smaller communities, and raising awareness amongst Indigenous organizations, such as delegated Aboriginal agencies, about access to our services. So it’s possible that that will come forward.

In terms of the strategic pieces, when we start to take a look at things like missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls — I’ve participated in many of the hearings — the fundamental issue that’s coming forward is the history that families have with the child welfare system. If we anticipate the report coming forward in the late spring, then there’s no question that child welfare will factor large in that — I’m just taking that one example — in which case, we feel it’s our responsibility, as an oversight body, to lend our support and our analysis to identify the opportunities for child welfare improvements that would impact the trajectory of those Indigenous children and youth and families.

We have, under our legislation, the opportunity to do special reports. I’m anticipating the use of that vehicle to raise awareness, to ensure that the child welfare system is responsive to that. So missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Another one — Jordan’s principle, particularly for children and youth with special needs. B.C. has the lowest uptake on that in the country. Again, taking a look at analysis of what’s going on there and being able to bring a strategic lens to what it is that would enhance the takeup of Jordan’s principle in support of Indigenous children and youth and, I have to say, a significant number within the youth custody or youth justice system as well.

[8:20 a.m.]

Those are a couple of examples of bringing a different strategic lens to amplify some of the things that we’re learning.

One final comment. We can continue to do reports on single cases, but it seems to me that if we can back up the bus and we can identify the things that will increase the likelihood of a better outcome, my hope is that we’ll have fewer of those catastrophic cases.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I have three people on the list: Mitzi, Ronna-Rae and Dan. Is there anyone else?

M. Dean: Congratulations. Thank you for all your work so far, and thank you also for coming to our committee with a proposed budget based on actuals and an actual percentage increase as well, without kind of trying to create a huge buffer or something.

I’m interested, because the government is implementing now, in budget building, gender-based analysis plus. Also, we’re kind of looking at Indigenous gender-based analysis plus. I was wondering if you felt that you might be able to apply that at some point in the future, looking at staff and the data that you have, and then maybe setting targets or something.

J. Charlesworth: Well, yes, we absolutely could. I’d also like to share with you that we have an exemption — I think we’re the only organization that has an exemption — under the Human Rights Tribunal to be able to have Indigenous-only hires. The intention in implementing that — that was before my time, under Bernard’s leadership — was to create a workforce that was a team that was more reflective of the issues and challenges, going forward, for Indigenous children and youth.

We have a 20 percent allocation, and we’re just shy of that now. I think it was 18-something percent. We actually have more than that if you include our auxiliaries or our temporaries. I think we’re close to 30 percent of staff who are Indigenous right now. That’s one example.

Alan, feel free to add more in terms of the gender-based lens.

A. Markwart: The gender-based lens. Well, off the top, in terms of staffing…. I don’t have the figures, but my guess would be that at least two-thirds of our staff are female. So it’s not really an issue.

In terms of looking at the client population, probably one thing that really stands out, in terms of our critical incidents reports, is that there are a disproportionate number of female critical incidents. If you look at the big three, the types of critical incidents are sexual assault, suicide and suicide ideation, in particular. That tends to be more, obviously, of a female activity. We have addressed that issue in the past. There was a report about two years ago on sexual assaults.

J. Charlesworth: It actually speaks to one of the things that I feel strongly about with regard to the aggregate reviews. We are taking a look every month, when we review the 200-plus critical injuries and death reports…. We’re going to be doing that this afternoon. We’re taking a look now for: what are the themes and the trends?

We’re taking a look at things like how we’ve noticed that a significantly high number of gender-non-conforming, gender-non-binary and trans individuals are either attempting suicide or completing suicide. That raises concerns for me: like, let’s take a look at that. The incident of sexual exploitation of young women, as well, is shocking.

There are things like that that we’re trying to harvest out of our information in order to better understand both a gender lens and a situational lens going forward.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much to Dr. Charlesworth. I have a couple of things. First of all, I noticed that Alan had another comment around the rental thing, and I was hoping that he could finish that thought.

[8:25 a.m.]

A. Markwart: Oh, it was just a clarification. The building occupancy charges are comprised not just of base rent. There are operations and maintenance and administration fees. So it is a 62 percent increase in the base rent. The overall increase in the building occupancy charges is 33 percent, which is still very appreciable, quite obviously.

R. Leonard: Good luck finding something less, I guess.

A. Markwart: Well, we might.

R. Leonard: It seems to be an issue in all of the offices — finding affordable rents.

In my sphere, there’ve been three representatives now. I’ve noticed there was a particular structure that was in place with the first representative. Then Bernard came and shifted things significantly. That changed the dynamic in terms of the staffing.

You’re coming in, and you have a huge shift in mind. It’s a whole paradigm shift, but you’re still keeping it within the confines of what you have available. I think that’s really appreciated. It’s obvious that you’re taking a cautious approach.

I look forward to seeing how it rolls out. I think that when you shift…. It’s not just shifting priorities, but it’s shifting the whole culture of your office.

J. Charlesworth: Absolutely. Yes.

R. Leonard: I’ll be curious to see how that unfolds and how people feel supported in this role and make a success of the vision that you’re portrayed here.

J. Charlesworth: Yes. I just wanted to add that notion of the culture that we’re trying to create — the way in which we are, as I mentioned to the select standing committee, trying to create a culture that is also an exemplar of cultural safety, within our own organization, of being able to model what that can look like and what our journey has been to be a culturally safe organization and to be a receptive and responsive organization to Indigenous children, youth, families, communities and leadership.

It’s a joyful task, I must say. It’s daunting but joyful at the same time.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Doctor, thanks. The successes are joyful. But I don’t want to use the “f” word for failure. I want to use the opportunities that were missed. Do you track that? Do you have anything that gives you a basis for the change of direction?

To be frank with you, it’s nice to see a bubbly personality, and I hope that spreads. I’m being very frank. I hope that spreads throughout the organization, present company excluded. Okay?

I’m being honest. These folks who I’ve had the opportunity to see before have always done an exemplary and a stellar job. I pick on a former minister and ask questions. But it’s very nice to see this.

I hope that exuberance spreads throughout the organization, but I’m curious. In the shifts and the polarization that have taken place, are we picking out the good and readjusting the bad?

J. Charlesworth: Let me make sure I understand the question. Are you talking about from the point of view of service delivery?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Yes.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you for that question. I’ve spent the last couple of years working very earnestly in two areas. One is on cultural safety and the other on social innovation and entrepreneurship and really understanding, from the social services perspective: how do you bring about change?

One of the things that’s become very clear to me is that we need to take a look at both ends of the bell curve so the things that have gone terribly wrong, we can learn from. The things that are going extraordinarily well, in the same context or the same circumstances, are equally valuable in order for us to learn. Already, by even talking about that amongst our staff, the staff have said: “I’ve got examples.”

Yesterday we were in a conversation with our executive director of advocacy. We were talking about a particular community, and they said: “We’ve got this exemplar of a situation in which advocacy….”

Everything has been done right in the community, and we are telling them that so that that can not only inform them and to know when things are going well, but it’s also informing us because it teaches us things about what it takes to deliver really good service. In our reports now, we are talking about practice observations — things that can be improved but also things that are exemplars that can be learned from.

[8:30 a.m.]

That’s one area that I feel very strongly about because I think if we even understand the neuroscience, when people are only seeing the things that are not going well, they don’t have a way of saying: “Well, what could it be like?” We actually have to shine the light on the things that are going well, as well, within the same kind of very challenging context. Does that answer your question?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): It does. You have some exemplary people in that ministry, in probably the toughest ministry.

J. Charlesworth: Yes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I just think they deserve a lot of credit for what they do. They’re the pillar and the rock of that ministry, and they’re hands-on. I just hope that they get listened to. We hear about it in our offices, but we always hear about the things that aren’t going right. We never really get a chance to talk to the people that are trying to implement the programs that come from above. Keep up the good work, and thank you.

J. Charlesworth: I completely agree, having been a front-line child protection worker way back when. I know that it’s way more complex now. I think there’s ensuring that we recognize their voices, their practices, the things that they’re doing well, the things that could be improved.

I go back to Hon. Hughes. He talked about our role as the representative was to enhance the learning, enhance the capacity of the system to be a better version of itself — learning, learning, learning about how to do that. We can learn in many different ways. I very much appreciate your comment on that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Any other questions at all?

Seeing none, thank you very much. I agree that was very uplifting and positive. It was great. It’s a very uplifting and positive presentation. We really appreciate your enthusiasm for the position, and we look forward to all of the wonderful recommendations that we’ll see from your office coming forward. Thanks again for the presentation.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): A short recess.

The committee recessed from 8:31 a.m. to 8:37 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have a new commissioner. The Ministry of Attorney General will be presenting for the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner.

Richard Fyfe, thank you for coming in, with your cold. We appreciate it, you weathering this. We look forward to the presentation.

OFFICE OF THE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER

R. Fyfe: Good morning, hon. Chair and Deputy Chair and members of the committee. I’d like to just start by introducing Carmen Zabarauckas and Renée Mulligan, who are here with me. Thank you for allowing us to present today to discuss the establishment of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner in British Columbia.

I’d first like to acknowledge that we’re gathered on the territories of the Lekwungen-speaking people and of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

For those that don’t know me, I just will introduce myself as the Deputy Attorney General, Richard Fyfe. I’ve been in that role, now, for about 6½ years. There have been a number of changes, of which the one that we’re talking about today is among them. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

My ministry has had the distinct pleasure of working on something that has particular importance to each and every person in this province. That work is the reason we’re meeting today. Premier Horgan called for the re-establishment of a human rights commission last August. Parliamentary secretary Ravi Kahlon led an intensive, eight-week public consultation to inform that work, where British Columbians were able to express what they wanted most in a human rights commission.

Following engagement with the public and partners in the human rights community, an extensive report was developed, with 25 recommendations for the purpose and functions of a new human rights commission. Throughout this extensive consultation, British Columbians have been clear that they want us to create a modern and responsive human rights commission that effectively addresses modern-day issues and is structured for success.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal currently adjudicates individual complaints of discrimination. However, it does so only after the alleged discrimination has occurred. The proactive focus of this new commissioner will be to work hand in hand with the tribunal to build a better social climate respecting human rights in British Columbia.

[8:40 a.m.]

The direct-access adjudicative model and screening powers of the tribunal will be retained. An adequately resourced commissioner will be better equipped to educate British Columbians on human rights, with the aim of fostering social change. Through the functions of education, research and inquiry, the commissioner will protect human rights and hold government and the private sector to account. The commissioner will have the mandate to develop educational tools, policies and guidelines to promote human rights and to address widespread patterns of inequality and discrimination in society.

Members of the public and community partners have communicated that what is universally important is a stable, independent Human Right Commission. It is to this end that we meet with you today to re-establish the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner as an independent office of the Legislature.

I’m incredibly proud to have supported this work and feel confident that we have prepared the future commissioner to fulfil their mandate to advance human rights in our province. I want to thank everyone here today that has committed their time and expertise to establishing a fiscally sound budget for the work of this new independent office.

With that, I’d like to turn it over to Dr. Carmen Zabarauckas, who led the development of the budget submission that we’ll be talking through this morning for the establishment of a strong and effective Office of the Human Rights Commissioner for British Columbia.

C. Zabarauckas: Thank you, everyone. Good morning.

I’m happy to present the formal request to the select standing committee to fund the new office of the Human Rights Commission. My name, as you’ve now heard a few times, is Carmen Zabarauckas, and I’m executive director for the justice services branch, Ministry of Attorney General.

I’m happy to have my colleague Renée Mulligan with me today. Ms. Mulligan led the amendments to the human rights code and can answer any questions that you may have related to that.

I would also like to mention and thank the fabulous team that I had for this project, who are watching virtually right now — Jennifer Helmy, Zac Kremler, Hilary Rasmussen, Kristine Parker Hall, Sean Grills, Philip Ng, Jason Pallan, Ashish Malik, Cathy Stock — and who’ve worked very hard to prepare this submission — and, of course, to my son, London Gress, who had to hear my speech three times last night.

Their work has included everything from developing the budget and organizational structure, identifying initial staffing requirements, hiring processes, facility needs, information technology requirements, office setup and administration needs for the re-establishment of the commission. We are the only province without a human rights commission, and today is a major step towards ending that distinction.

Just to note before the presentation gets underway, for your information, you can find the following in the appendices: detailed explanations of the budget amounts being requested; information on the launch-year budget, which is being financed by MAG, through contingency funds, for ’18-19; the proposed organizational chart for the commission; list of organizations that were consulted in the development of this proposal; draft service plan; draft annual report.

We passed through third reading November 22, just in time, and are expected to receive royal assent at 6 p.m. today.

As the deputy noted, the commission is being established as an independent office of the Legislature. You may recall this is one of the recommendation from the Kahlon report. It’s expected that the commissioner will be appointed on or before July 2019, and the office will be open in the fall of 2019.

There is significant work that needs to take place to ensure the success of the commission when the doors open. The timing is such that a lot of work needs to be completed prior to the appointment of the commissioner. This request is for the first year start-up budget. As such, it is an estimate of resources that will be required for the commission to operate in its inaugural year. Once the commissioner starts, the specific needs of the office to accomplish its mandate will become clear, and some adjustments to the budget may be required. The commissioner may wish to return to the select standing committee for a supplementary request prior to the next year’s submission, and/or adjustments may be needed in future years.

I would like to walk you through how we created the budget to give you a better understanding of the request. While it is an estimate, I want to note that we have used a very rigorous process in developing these numbers to ensure they are as accurate as possible. We reviewed the legislation, of course, and the recommendations from the Kahlon report, considered the mandate of its office and its responsibilities in detail and identified the anticipated needs and functions as a basis for this request.

[8:45 a.m.]

We completed jurisdictional scans of other human rights commissions throughout Canada and independent offices in B.C. We considered the budget needs for comparable independent offices, including the Representative for Children and Youth when it was established 11 years ago. We have also consulted widely with subject-matter experts and incorporated their feedback. We’ve used the most concrete numbers possible to identify the projected costs.

If you look at page 6 of the document, you will find the budget submission. I would like to walk you through some of the numbers to give you a better understanding of the anticipated needs of the office. The ’18-19 budget is being funded by the Ministry of Attorney General, as I mentioned, and you’ll find a copy of that in appendix 2, on page 11.

The funding request for ’19-20 is $2.96 million for operating expenses and $1.66 million for capital expenses for the commissioner to meet the authority and application of the commission’s legislation.

First, let’s review the $2.96 million in operating expenses. I will walk you through the org chart and then review the applicable costs.

On page 13, you’ll find a copy of the proposed organizational structure. The establishment of the commission will begin, as I mentioned, in fiscal ’18-19 with the creation of a launch team of six staff. They are shown in dark blue. That will prepare the office as much as possible, and appropriate, for the commissioner when they are appointed. This will allow the new commission to focus and quickly make a number of informed choices on such things as location, stakeholder engagement, website development, marketing, training, education programs, and so on, so the office is ready to meet its mandate when it opens its doors.

In ’19-20, there will be an additional nine staff, plus the commissioner, and they are shown in light blue on page 13. The additional staff will be hired after the commissioner, allowing him/her/them to review and confirm the skills requirement. By ’20-21, it’s expected the commission will be fully staffed, with approximately 30 or 31 staff plus the commissioner, and they are shown in green.

This phased approach in staffing recognizes that some provisions of the legislation, such as phasing the inquiry-related provisions, come later. In addition, it will give the commissioner an opportunity to establish themselves in their role, ensure the proper setup of the office, hire qualified staff in key positions, prepare to respond to the requests for inquiries and monitor and manage the workload in accordance with the duties of the new office.

If you refer to the budget submission on page 6, you will see a request of $1.68 million in salaries and benefits. This includes salaries and benefits for the six launch team members, nine additional staff and the commission, starting in ’19-20.

Estimates are based on the top end of the salary range, with an anticipated annual increase. A provision for relocation expenses has been included and will be available for the commissioner and other new staff, at the discretion of the commissioner.

The salary of the commissioner will be $297,920 per year for the full period of the commissioner’s five-year term, but please note it has been adjusted for the first year because the commissioner will not be in the position for the full year. This amount is in line with the salary provision for the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. That speaks to staffing costs. Now let’s review the other operational expenses.

Travel costs of $150,000 have been included. The Kahlon report identified the need for significant re-engagement by the commissioner, once in place. The parliamentary secretary, as you know, met with and accepted written submissions from close to 200,000 individuals and organizations in the development of the budget. Several other agencies and groups consulted have recommended making accommodations for face-to-face, in-person engagements around the province. This is expected to be critical for the commissioner to meet their mandate.

Funds are also provided for exploring partnerships and relationship-building opportunities and attending conferences, working groups and events. A model was developed for travel across a number of communities in B.C. and several relevant conferences. The model was then costed out, and we arrived at the figure of the $150,000.

An amount of $338,000 has been provided for professional services. The commissioner will need external expertise, such as strategic and operational planning, public awareness communications and legal service expertise, until their internal legal counsel is hired, to achieve their mandate.

This amount also covers consultants, subject-matter experts to provide translation services, prepare communication materials and provide staff training in key areas such as Indigenous cultural understanding; safety training; and other more up-to-date items, including gender-based analysis-plus.

[8:50 a.m.]

We have approximated the amount for central services support for the commissioner. This includes amounts for items such as payroll, recruitment and corporate accounting services.

We have also incorporated $190,000 to establish mail access, cover hardware and software operating costs, website development and an IT consultant. An on-line presence will be critical for the commission to provide services to all areas of the province.

So $146,000 has been included to cover anticipated office and business expenses. This includes amounts for office supplies, membership dues, professional development and setting up offices for new staff. It also includes funds to allow the commission to deliver educational programs and workshops and for costs related to the advisory council and honorariums for cultural protocol and ceremony. Fifteen thousand dollars has been built in for anticipated advertising and publication costs.

We have provided $16,000 to cover utilities, materials and supplies. There’s $10,000 to cover the amortization costs for IT equipment. Additional amortization costs for tenant improvements and furniture are not expected until 2021.

There are building occupancy charges of $414,000 that have also been included. This amount is intended to give the commission flexibility in determining the location and facilities that will best meet the commission’s needs and recognizes that real estate costs vary significantly from one location to another.

The last major expense I’d like to talk about is the anticipated capital costs of the $1.66 million. The largest portion of this cost is a provision for tenant improvements once a permanent location has been acquired. These funds will be used to ensure a functional and efficient space is established that will meet the needs of the commission and the needs of the public. Additional amounts are provided for new furniture, equipment, information systems and other requirements to establish the office. These amounts are the most significant expenses that we are anticipating.

I should note that as we prepare for the commission, justice services branch and others will continue to support the re-establishment of the commission, including when the launch team turns their focus to implementation and operational support for the hundreds of public bodies with which the commission will have to partner to be ready and successful.

I am happy to address any questions that you may have. We see adequately funding the commission as being a critical factor in ensuring the office is successful and meeting its mandate in addressing human rights issues facing the people of B.C. in an effective way. Thank you for your time and consideration.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. Obviously, your team put a great deal of work into this, and I really appreciate everything that you’ve done here.

Before we go to general questions, I just wanted to clarify something. This first budget is actually coming out of the Attorney General’s budget. Is that correct?

C. Zabarauckas: For ’18-19, we are funding the launch team. The numbers that I just presented now are for ’19-20. That’s the budget we are asking for as of April 1.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Right. The point is, is that the Attorney General would present these to treasury directly. It wouldn’t necessarily come through the Finance Committee for the ’19-20 year. Is that correct?

C. Zabarauckas: No, for ’18-19, we’re covering it. We’re asking for it within our contingency.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, you mean just for ’18?

C. Zabarauckas: Just for ’18-19.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. That’s what I wanted to clarify. Basically, for now until the new fiscal, it’s just the gap that you’re covering, and then what you’re coming to us for is ’19 on.

C. Zabarauckas: Correct.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just wanted to clarify that because I got a bit confused. I thought it was that the whole first year was being funded through the Attorney General, which wouldn’t make sense if it was an independent commissioner. That makes perfect sense.

The other thing, before I go to general questions, is…. Just in terms of the tenant improvements, can’t these be amortized into a lease? It just seems to me that there are a lot of upfront cost for TIs. If you had a five-year lease, those could be put into the lease. Was that taken into account?

C. Zabarauckas: We connected with the real property division to get the estimated amount. They are higher. They tend to build in, I think, a 20 or 25 percent contingency, and it will likely cost a bit less than what we have here. But we will look into all options to amortize across. Yes, we’ll be looking at a five-year lease, probably.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I hope there’s an option, too, so we don’t run into the situation that we were running into with the last presenters so that your costs are at least visual over the next period of time, like a ten-year period.

My question is…. And thank you, by the way, for the presentation, appreciate it. Congratulations. It’s a whole new entity and a job well done so far. So thank you.

[8:55 a.m.]

Has Dave Van Swieten been involved in this, and have you folks talked to him about the opportunity of shared services? I was looking at just some of the accounting and everything on the side. Has there been any direction to try and hold costs down a little bit by shared services?

C. Zabarauckas: Yes. We’ve looked at a couple of different things. To answer your first question, yes, Dave has been involved. He has been a wonderful help for us in giving us a significant amount of time. He’s also on our steering committee for the commission so that once we hire a chief operating officer, he’ll continue to provide support. So he’s been great.

We have talked about, from an IT perspective, bunking in, so to speak, with Dave’s team. We’ve also looked at setting up the commission as a voluntary client with government Shared Services, as well as real property division and PSA for payroll, so that the commissioner actually has a choice to either go completely independent and potentially join the corporate services that support those four independent offices — go there stand-alone — or go through Shared Services. The last one is actually what we would recommend to start off with for the first few years and then decide whether the office wants to be in the business itself of IT and dealing with servers and computers and operating systems and should a hack on a website occur, etc.

There are actually going to be three options, and yes, we have engaged in those conversations. We’re trying to be as cost-conscious as possible.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I like your last comment. Thank you.

C. Zabarauckas: You’re welcome.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a few questions. The first one is: with your FTEs, you go from six…. On whatever page it was, it was 15 and then 31. But when I look at the org chart on page 13, it adds up to 32.

C. Zabarauckas: With the commissioner. So it’s 31 plus the commissioner, yes.

R. Leonard: Okay. All right. I was thinking: “Well, that’ll screw up the numbers.” That makes sense, then. Thank you.

The next question I had is around the professional services. You have, in the first year, $338,000, and then it goes down by $50,000. But you talked about hiring external legal counsel until you got it set up in-house, and it looks like, if I’m following the colours correctly, not until the third year. I would assume that legal counsel would be more than $50,000, and I’m just wondering how that actually unfolds.

C. Zabarauckas: You are correct. Legal counsel would be more than $50,000. We have incorporated $50,000 in there from a few different recommendations for the first year, putting it up to 338, should they need legal services. We don’t actually anticipate they will need them right away, or certainly not for the full year, so at best it would just be a portion. That’s the lower amount.

The legal counsel, we anticipate, will probably be hired in year 2, leaning perhaps in towards 3 if we count this as year 1. But it will depend, of course, on where the commissioner lands and what the commissioner would like.

R. Leonard: Okay. Then my last question is about the location of the office. What kind of criteria are you going to be applying? I’m thinking of the Human Rights Commission, and it’s about public education, and I’m thinking you want to go to the epicentre of where the need is most prevalent. But there are other considerations, so I’m just curious about that location criteria.

C. Zabarauckas: Thank you for that question. It has led to some very interesting debate and discussions as to where the best location is for a commission, which is perhaps why we’ve now left it to the commissioner to decide.

There are pros and cons for Victoria versus Vancouver. There’s Surrey or Richmond. There’s potentially even heading more north. We’re looking at all the different options and the cost of all the different locations. We are trying to, again, fiscally and economically, strike a balance between being cutting edge for the Human Rights Commission and not sticking to your traditional bricks-and-mortar, because that’s not what people are looking for anymore. There will be some of that, of course, but it has to be thought of differently.

[9:00 a.m.]

We’re also looking at how we take advantage of LWS spaces, some open environments, collaborative environments, how we ensure that the needs of the public are met — full access for wheelchairs, limiting stairs for individuals, how long it takes them to get from the front door into a waiting space, openness and the reception of the area. It should be a welcoming location.

Also looking at including…. Even though the commission itself will not be dealing with individual complainants, there will be people that will go into the commission not realizing that they should head to the tribunal for direct access. So there will be a welcoming, in private, in some interview rooms there. Should that be what someone is looking for, a commission staff could actually sit down, work with the person, call the tribunal and start the process, in a sense, so there’s no wrong door.

We’re looking at all of that as well as trying to keep the idea of the costs to a minimum. We’ll be continuing to work with our RPD as well as getting additional feedback from stakeholders as to what different members of the public will need. How do we make it welcoming without being over the top? How do we make it new without looking highly privatized, shiny and that we’ve put a lot of money into it?

It needs to be that balance between being welcome and open and new and cost-efficient.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very polished and professional, and you can thank your son for helping too.

C. Zabarauckas: Thank you very much. My staff have done a wonderful job putting this together for us.

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation. I have a number of questions. I noticed that you engaged in some consultations, including three existing human rights commissions. Can you talk a little bit about those consultations, specifically with respect to the human rights commissions, and how you came up with this structure and this number of FTEs?

C. Zabarauckas: Certainly. Renée and I had the good fortune to attend a conference in June in the Yukon to meet with a number of the different commissions and commissioners there, as well as other respected staff. We talked a lot about their business and what they do on a day-to-day basis, and we looked at a lot of different org structures.

The org structure that we started with and then worked through was actually the Ontario one, because it had the closest match to where we wanted to go. It had the commission. It had a direct access tribunal and then, of course, a non-profit body similar to our Community Legal Assistance Society. So the three legs of the stool to work to promote human rights.

We started with the Ontario model, which is much bigger than 31 staff. We looked at the needs of the legislation. We looked, again, at the Kahlon report and the recommendations. We determined what skills were required to actually do the job required of the commission.

We worked through, probably to no exaggeration, over 25 different versions of the org structure to then come down to this model, recognizing that once we hire a chief operating officer, it may shift again and recognizing that once the commissioner is in place, it may shift again — not necessarily the numbers, because we are looking at the bottom line for staff, but the skill set required and maybe a shift in who reports to who or perhaps some title changes.

We’re watching the dollars, and we’re trying to keep it at approximately that 30 level or less so it’s proportionally representative to other commissions across the country.

T. Redies: My second question, I guess…. I mean, 30 staff is not a big organization, and it seems a bit odd that you would have a chief operating officer as well as the commissioner with, it looks like, five direct reports. Is that really necessary at this stage? You have a manager of operations as well.

It just seems to be a bit of overkill for an organization of this size. Again, coming from the private sector, I have to say this would be looked upon as top-heavy.

C. Zabarauckas: Okay. Thank you for that question. That’s fair enough. We spoke to a number of independent offices, both independent offices of the Legislative Assembly as well as other independent offices — the IIO, etc. — across the province and in a few other locations. We were recommended a number of times to make sure that we had a chief operating officer.

The role of that person is to run the business, to run the office. The commissioner will often be out with stakeholder engagement, communications, building relationships with a number of different groups, working with non-profits — out there all the time.

[9:05 a.m.]

That commissioner should not, then, be responsible for ensuring that the staff have the office supplies that they need, that they have the support and structure. That is the role of the chief operating officer — to make sure it’s well run.

T. Redies: But why wouldn’t you…? I mean, you have an operations manager. A chief operating officer is an executive position. They don’t typically go and order office supplies.

C. Zabarauckas: Correct.

T. Redies: Again, my question is: why can you not manage with the operations manager? You have an administrative assistant there. Wouldn’t that make sense?

The reason I’m challenging you is because this committee obviously has to look at a lot of different requests, and it’s a bit of a zero-sum game. Money that goes into administration doesn’t go into the front line to address social issues. I think, particularly with a new organization — and I’m not disputing we shouldn’t have one — it’s really incumbent to not set up a structure that already is kind of top-heavy from the start but to basically grow it as needed.

That would be my recommendation. Again, coming from the private sector, this looks quite top-heavy.

The third question I have relates to, I think, No. 17, on page 20. I’m curious with respect to the recommendations, No. 17, the commission taking on the issue of foreign cre­den­tials. Can you talk a little bit about that? I’m quite inte­rested in what you’re thinking about there and how that might affect the office and what you do.

C. Zabarauckas: Yes, you’re correct. That is one of the recommendations. As soon as practically possible, the commission should take on the issue of foreign credentials, particularly if either immigrants or other newcomers to the province have been discriminated against.

At this time, we have not looked at how that will be included within the commission. We have looked at setting up the independent office. We have looked at setting up the staff and the budget, etc. — the skills requirement. We believe that from a skills point of view, taking at look at investigating how this would work is applied within the organization. But the actual take the commissioner will look at will be up to the commissioner.

We’ve very been cognizant that the AG is setting up the Human Rights Commission, so we’ve tried to stay away from some of the content of what the commissioner will then come in and do, because we don’t want to bias it in any way.

T. Redies: I’m just curious. Again, as an example, is that somebody who comes in — if they’re a doctor in another country and they can’t get credentialed here? Is that what you’re talking about?

C. Zabarauckas: If that is the case, if a doctor feels that they are being discriminated against because of the country they come from, the language that they’re speaking, the colour of their skin, something else, they would actually, then, access the Human Rights Tribunal, because that’s the direct access model.

Between conversations between the tribunal and the Human Rights Commission, should the commission find that there are a number of these types of cases coming through the tribunal, they may respond in two different ways. They may intervene with the person coming through, and they may look at it and go: “There’s obviously some work we need to do on a preventative measure.” In my head, that’s how I distinguish between a tribunal and a commission.

A commission is about out there promoting and protecting human rights, whereas a tribunal is dealing with issues afterwards. So if the commission does find that to be an issue, then absolutely they will be out there.

T. Redies: Thank you.

C. Zabarauckas: You’re welcome.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Do we have any other questions?

Okay. Well, thank you very much, again, for all your hard work on a brand-new commission. That’s very exciting work, and I appreciate your time.

Richard, I hope you’re feeling better.

A short recess. Then we’ll come back and do a little bit of deliberations before the session.

The committee recessed from 9:09 a.m. to 9:13 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

Deliberations

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just wanted to have a motion to go in camera.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): So moved.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 9:13 a.m. to 9:41 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are out of in camera. Can I have a motion to adjourn, please?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:41 a.m.