The committee met at 10:31 a.m.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): We’ve got our agenda. I know we have regrets…. Do we have some…? Is everybody on line on the phone? Let us know if you’re having any difficulties. You can send Kate or myself an email, and we’ll keep track of that.

Janet, you’re with us, great, from Ottawa.

Everybody’s got the agenda.

L. Throness: I move approval.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. I know there are some additional agenda items. We can add that on in new business.

Committee Report to the House

REPORT ON EXAMINATION AND
RECOMMENDATION OF REVISED STATUTES

M. Elmore (Chair): First we’ve got our recommendations, the transmission of recommendations and report to the Legislative Assembly. Do we have a mover for that motion?

L. Krog: Yes, hon. Chair, if I might. I move:

[That pursuant to the Statute Revision Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 440 and the related motions adopted by the Committee on May 28, 2018 with respect to the Health Act, Veterinary Drugs Act and the Trespass Act, the recommendations of the Committee be transmitted to the Lieutenant Governor and further, that the recommendations form the basis of the Committee’s report to the House which the Chair shall present to the House at the earliest opportunity.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Do we have a seconder? Any discussion?

Okay, we’ll have a vote.

Motion approved.

Examination and Recommendation
of Revised Statutes

OVERVIEW OF
AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS

M. Elmore (Chair): The second item. We have the Statute Revision Act update on proposed amendments to regulations. With us here in the Hemlock Room, we have, from the office of legislative counsel, Janet Erasmus, the senior legislative counsel.

Welcome, Janet.

[10:35 a.m.]

J. Erasmus: Thank you. I was hoping to have an opportunity to explain that our work does not finish with your approval of the revision. You’ll see that statute revision…. We’ve got authority. The schedule to a statute revision includes amendments to acts. But there are a large number of regulations out there that refer to provisions of amended acts. In this case, each of the three that you’ve just approved do have regulations and need consequential amendments.

Now, there’s a magic provision of the Statute Revision Act, section 9, that will deem that if there is revision, you read the current provision as a reference to the revised provision. But most readers on this planet would have no idea that there’s actually a section of law that does that. They can misread because they will read an old section number and not realize that it has moved. We are undertaking amendments for those to be done in relation to the revision.

In the case of the Trespass Act, it actually needs to be done because provisions of the Trespass Act are referred to by the Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation under the Offence Act. That’s the listing of things that, if you contravene them, the police can give you a ticket for. But that section 9 doesn’t assist at all for the police, so what they need is to have the new section numbers in place on the date that the revision comes into force. So we’ll be consequentially amending that.

We’re going to do it for the ones like the Offence Act, where it’s absolutely necessary, and we’re going to do it for the ones that are providing readability for our public.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain that it’s not done yet.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. The work continues. Thank you very much, Janet.

Does anybody have a question for Janet on that?

Janet, you’ll make those changes to the regulations. Does it come back to us again?

J. Erasmus: It’s under the committee. It’s the regulation-making body that cabinet…. It’ll be the Workers Compensation Board for their regulations. We prepare them.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Just one quick question. With regards to the changes, I know that the intent of all this is that they are substantial. The cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — in making the regulations, can they change the intent of any of the related components without having to go through the committee? Is it that the same rules apply, that it’s supposed to not be substantial in changing the intent of the existing legislation?

J. Erasmus: These are functionally cross-reference changes. That’s it. They will not be amending the content.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks.

Any further questions for Janet?

Well, thank you very much, Janet, for taking the time to explain that and for your good work and your continuing, ongoing work. Appreciate it.

That concludes our presentation.

Statutory Review

RECOMMENDATIONS ON
MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

M. Elmore (Chair): Next, do we have any other business that members would like to discuss?

M. Lee: I do have one item that I believe John Rustad did reach out to Kate about. That is the consultation that the Attorney General’s office had asked in relation to recommendations that are being considered to the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. I understand that Doug Routley has been involved with this as well, in terms of receiving some feedback on it.

When we discussed this with the B.C. Liberal caucus, we thought that it would be appropriate to consider whether the committee here should be involved in reviewing these recommendations, given that the recommendations that government is working with originally come from the 2013 report of this committee, the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills and the review of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act.

[10:40 a.m.]

That was a fairly fulsome review, from what I can see, and a number of the recommendations — not all — are currently being considered by government. It seems that it would be appropriate if, given that it was that body of the Legislative Assembly in the first place that came together to review that act and what changes might be necessary back in 2013, that if there was a need to have further review and consultation, then the current committee, with its current composition — including members from the NDP, the Green and the B.C. Liberal caucus, of course — should be involved in that review and consideration.

That would be our suggestion.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Michael.

Any comments from folks on the committee?

L. Krog: From a technical perspective, are we even entitled to give consideration if it hasn’t been referred to us by the Legislative Assembly?

M. Elmore (Chair): I’ve got Kate here. Any other folks want to make comments?

Andrew, go ahead. Then I’ll have Kate….

A. Weaver: Was that Mike who made that suggestion from the B.C. Liberal caucus?

M. Lee: Michael Lee, that’s right.

A. Weaver: The suggestion seems perfectly reasonable to me, subject to what Leonard said with respect to our terms of reference.

It seems to be something that would be in our mandate and reasonable for us to look at. But I defer procedural stuff to Kate.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Thanks, Andrew.

Is there somebody else on the line?

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Sorry, Mable. John Rustad as well, when you get a chance.

M. Elmore (Chair): Go ahead, John.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): I think Doug Routley was in front of me.

D. Routley: Go ahead, John.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Okay, thank you.

I do understand and agree with Leonard that it needs to be part of our mandate. I think it was specifically assigned to the committee back in 2012-2013. What I would suggest is that the Chair ask the House Leader and the Attorney General for a mandate to be able to do that review and to be able to provide that input in a timely way.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, John.

D. Routley: Just that I support the idea, and I’m very pleasantly reassured to hear that it might be reviewed by this committee. I think it’s important, when we’re adjusting or examining any rules that directly affect us in this kind of a way, that all of the members be well informed about it. So thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Anyone else on the line who would like to say something before we ask to hear from Kate?

All right, Kate.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): The report of this committee in 2013 followed a period of some months when the committee undertook work to inquire into potential recommendations to the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act.

They did, in fact…. The committee did undertake to even hold public consultations on the topic and heard from some expert witnesses and met with the commissioner on at least two occasions.

Their report in 2013 made 34 recommendations that were designed to modernize and enhance the act and the role of the commissioner. For those members who may not be familiar with the work of the committee, I’d be pleased to send the report as an information item to committee members. Although, as has been noted just earlier today, the report and the current statute has not been formally referred to this committee for deliberations at this time.

It may, in fact, be a very good idea to have consideration of the status of these pending recommendations and any other discussions members wish to have around its provisions considered for referral to the committee in the upcoming session. We’d be happy to provide any assistance to the House Leaders, if there is an appetite to move in that direction. But in the interim, I shall, following this meeting, for informational purposes, circulate that report.

My understanding is that none of the recommendations have been incorporated into amendments to the act since this unanimous report was presented in 2013. I also note that, at the time, the committee recommended that the act be amended to allow for regular future reviews of the legislation. So it would certainly be in keeping with that view.

[10:45 a.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, Kate, for giving us the background on that. I appreciate having it circulated, and we could all take a look at it.

I’m certainly willing to take your suggestion, John, and to bring it forward and have the discussion in terms of having the referral sent to our committee.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Mable, if I may. I’m just wondering whether we should make it, perhaps, a little more formal and have a letter that comes from the committee — to be drafted by Kate and to be signed off by you and I — to the House Leader and the Attorney General, making the suggestion that this may be a course that government wants to consider with regards to allowing this committee to have a review, given that the report is five years old. Just in case…. I mean, we have, obviously, a very different environment at the moment with the composition of the Legislature, and it may be very appropriate for this review to happen.

M. Elmore (Chair): Yeah, certainly. I’d be amenable to that, for a letter to come forward from the committee.

Kate, would you be willing to draft that for us?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, I’d be happy to prepare a draft letter for review by the Chair and the Deputy Chair. I will do so forthwith.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you, Kate.

Okay. Anything more on that? I think that’s a good resolve, moving forward.

Examination and Recommendation
of Revised Statutes

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

M. Elmore (Chair): I have an item I’d like to discuss. In our last meeting, when we were in session, we had, on our agenda, revisions to the Workers Compensation Act. We were restricted by time and didn’t have a chance to get into those. I’ve had some discussion with John back and forth, and there were some concerns with respect to changes that would result from our deliberations that had been raised by some employers. I agreed to remove that item from the agenda, but I’d just like bring it to the committee and have a discussion in terms of concerns.

I know that this is the recommendation from the Attorney General, and they would very much like the changes to be implemented. Certainly, that’s important. But I wanted to have the opportunity to have a discussion here at the committee.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): I’m in whole support that the work that’s been done in terms of modernizing the act should be implemented. I think we need to get on with that and make that happen. But there is a significant amount of workload and uncertainty, whether it’s for an injured worker or it’s for employers around the province. Multiple changes create that uncertainty and also create a tremendous workload in updating it. This act, the Workers Compensation Act, is quoted, line and verse, more than any other piece of legislation, I believe, from the Legislature in various agreements and components around the province.

The changes need to be made. But if there are going to be additional changes coming, perhaps as early as the fall sitting, it would be appropriate to do these changes just once — have all those components come together and be reflected as one change to the act so that we don’t have to create this significant workload and uncertainty twice over such a short period of time.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, John. We’re fortunate that we have Janet Erasmus, the senior legislative counsel, here with us. I’d just like to give her an opportunity to give some remarks.

J. Erasmus: Statute revision does not change the law. We’ve reorganized the act into one that is more coherent so that the occupational health and safety provisions have moved ahead. If you look at the redlined version of that, you’ll see there are very few changes. There’s one section that’s split into two sections for occupational health and safety. And that’s the major one that, I understand, employers would be looking at.

[10:50 a.m.]

Also, the compensation provisions…. There are sections in there that are 100 years old, literally. The same way, the only change is that “he” was replaced by “he or she,” and “shall” became “must.” It’s ancient, it’s reorganized, but we have not changed the law. That is the nature of statute revision — that we are able to make it read as if it was a new act without changing the law. That is what’s available with the Workers Compensation Act statute revision.

I’ll take this one moment to say that the section I am happiest about is section 17 of that act. That’s the compensation for a worker’s death. It goes on for six pages as one section with huge blocks. Someone who is in the circumstance of having lost a partner is lost within those pages. That is becoming an entire division. It is 24 sections, because there are 24 separate rules that apply. There is not a change in law at all. People can find what they need, and understand what they find, as quickly as possible. That’s what statute revision does.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Janet.

On the speakers list, I’ve got Leonard and Mike. Anyone else on line? I’ll just give you a chance to get on the list.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): I’d like to add another comment after as well.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. So we’ve got Leonard, Mike and then John.

L. Krog: Thank you very much, Chair. As I understand John’s concern around this, it is that there may be revisions made to the statute in the fall sitting of the Legislature. Therefore, from a convenience point of view, for employers and those who have to deal with the statute, given the changes that arise out of this committee, which, I think we all understand very clearly, have no change whatsoever to the law…. With great respect, it is based on the premise that there will, in fact, be legislative changes made, that the House will sit, that the world will continue to unfold as might be anticipated.

I think, in fairness, we all know that whether or not the House sits…. I’m not suggesting for a moment it won’t, but there’s no guarantee. And there’s no guarantee that cabinet, in its wisdom — the government of British Columbia — will decide, in fact, to proceed with any changes. So we might, in fact, be delaying what I think Ms. Erasmus has pointed out very ably this morning and at other meetings in the past are some significantly and unnecessarily complex sections in terms of their readability…. We would hold up the process of making them more friendly, if you will, simply in terms of organization, on the basis of what may or may not occur.

As much as I appreciate John’s concerns around that and the concern of employers, we know for certain that this is what we want to do and what legislative counsel wants to do. It has been in the works for a very long time and is, presumably, supported by those lawyers who deal in this area on a fairly regular basis. So I, with great respect, don’t see any good reason to delay doing what is obvious and necessary on the faint possibility — because nothing is certain, as I said — that further changes that will be actual changes and revisions to the law will, in fact, occur.

We are not revising the law, after all, if I can conclude on that basis. We are simply making, renumbering, changing, shifting order and breaking up what…. I can say, from a lawyer’s perspective, that if you’ve got a six-page section of a piece of legislation, oh my lord, that’s a nightmare. So if you can make it more friendly for the public, which you’re doing, then I say let’s get on with it, with great respect, and we’ll see what happens in the fall, if anything does.

M. Morris: Further to that, what I’ve heard from employers is not the fact that the law has changed or hasn’t changed — there are some section numbers changing — but it’s the expense and the amount of resources that they put into changing their own standard operating procedures, manuals, whatever, right across the board for all the little companies that they have. Some of them have multiple manuals because there are still people that refer to the paper version of it.

They’re looking at more of the inconvenience of having to change all that documentation now, and then having to change it again in the fall with subsequent changes that might occur at that particular time. They’re looking at it as more of a convenience thing and an expense for them to reprint all these standard operating manuals for everybody.

[10:55 a.m.]

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): I very much respect that the laws have changed and that this is an important piece of work. I really want to thank the staff, the people that have been involved in doing this.

In speaking with the minister directly, back a number of weeks ago, when I talked about it…. The minister has said — I believe it’s on the public record — that the entire Workers Compensation Act is being reviewed. There’s only one reason to do an entire review, and that’s because there would be, potentially, sections or components that would be desired to change. When I spoke with the minister with regards to this, the minister said that that sounds reasonable and thought the concerns raised were reasonable and that a delay was also reasonable, given the potential changes.

Now, I agree with Leonard in that there are a number of assumptions — that there will be a fall sitting, that we aren’t going to be in the middle of an election, that there are changes that are being worked on, etc. But like I say, when I spoke directly to the minister, he did seem to think that was reasonable, given the review that is happening. If no change happens, that’s fine. Waiting four months to proceed with approval of the rewrite of the Workers Compensation Act isn’t going to create any potential issues or problems for anybody, given that it is working today.

Yes, it would be nice to have it updated. But given the potential for the additional work that is going to be created…. Quite frankly, if there are going to be changes, it would be nice to have that reflected, and make it nice and simple and straightforward, as part of the review that is being done here today.

That’s why the rationale for delaying this. It makes sense doing a stop. There isn’t a delay tactic or anything else. The companies are more than happy to update the act. They just don’t want to have to be forced to do it twice within a short period of time.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, John, and thanks, folks. I just wanted to bring this issue so we could have a discussion on it.

Janet, did you have something that you wanted to…?

J. Erasmus: It might assist if I provide one more bit of information.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, Janet. Yes.

J. Erasmus: The Workers Compensation Board has indicated that there would need to be a very long lead time before the revision came into force. If it was approved, it would be a large number of months before they moved to the revised act so that their records and everybody else’s records could be updated. It would not come into force right away. The most recent date I heard…. It wouldn’t be until the end of March, at the earliest. That’s the time frame that would be available for everyone to move it up, to go into the revised system.

The revised act is also going to be easier to amend.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. Thank you, Janet.

I want to thank everybody, and John, for the discussion. I suggest that we continue to talk about this and look at timing and how we can reach agreement in terms of these changes that we all want to see. That’s what I’m suggesting here. How does that sound?

A Voice: That sounds reasonable.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Good.

Are there any other items that we’ve got that anyone would like to raise for the committee? All right. It sounds like….

Interjection.

M. Elmore (Chair): Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Leonard, okay. Then I think we will move adjournment.

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, everybody. Thanks for your time. I wish everybody safe travels.

The committee adjourned at 10:59 a.m.