The committee met at 9:07 a.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations): Good morning, Members. As this is your first meeting of the fourth session of the 41st parliament, our first order of business is to elect a Chair.

Are there any nominations?

R. Leonard: I’d like to nominate Mable Elmore.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): Thank you, Ronna-Rae.

Any other nominations? Any other nominations? And a third time, any other nominations?

Seeing none, all those in favour?

Motion approved.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much, Susan.

Thank you, Ronna-Rae.

I’d like to call the meeting to order and open by recognizing that we’re on the unceded territory of the Esquimalt, Songhees and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples and welcome everyone here, in person and on the phone.

The next order of business is to elect our Deputy Chair. I’ll ask for a call for nominations.

J. Routledge: I’d like to nominate John Rustad.

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

Any other nominations? All right. I’ll call a vote.

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): I’m very pleased that John Rustad will be the Deputy Chair for the committee.

Thank you very much.

J. Brar: Chair, does he accept this thing?

M. Elmore (Chair): Do you accept, John?

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

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, thank you.

All right. Next order of business. Let’s do some introductions. I’d like to start with introductions, I guess, on the phone.

Members, can you introduce yourselves on the phone.

Interjections.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. What I’m going to do…. I’ll do a roll call.

Do we have Laurie Throness?

L. Throness: Yes, right here.

M. Elmore (Chair): Do we have Michael Lee?

M. Lee: Yes, thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Do we have Ronna-Rae Leonard?

R. Leonard: I’m right here.

M. Elmore (Chair): Do we have Jagrup Brar?

J. Brar: Yes, I’m here.

M. Elmore (Chair): And Janet Routledge?

J. Routledge: Here.

[9:10 a.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Andrew Weaver sends regrets.

On the phone, we also have Mike.

Mike Morris, are you there?

M. Morris: I am here.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, excellent. Thanks, Mike.

Now, I think I have covered it for the members.

We have two folks, as well, joining us on the phone. We have Justin Mason, legal counsel, Ministry of Attorney General.

Are you there, Justin?

J. Mason: Yes, I am.

M. Elmore (Chair): From WorkSafeBC, we have Louise Kim, senior manager, policy, regulation and research division.

Are you there, Louise?

L. Kim: Yes.

M. Elmore (Chair): And here we have John.

Let’s go around the room, and we’ll introduce everyone here for folks on the phone.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): John Rustad, to the folks that are presenting here today.

L. Guiton: Lori Guiton. I’m a director with the policy, regulation and research division at WorkSafeBC.

M. Tanner: Michael Tanner. I’m the director of labour policy and legislation at the Ministry of Labour.

C. Leitch: I’m Cara Leitch. I’m the revision coordinator at the office of legislative counsel.

J. Erasmus: I’m Janet Erasmus, a legislative counsel.

V. Vojnic: I’m Valerie Vojnic, senior manager at WorkSafeBC’s policy, regulation and research division.

C. Wendel: I’m Christina Wendel. I’m a quality manager with the policy, regulation and research division at WorkSafeBC.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thanks for joining us. If you’d like to speak, just introduce yourself to let everybody know who’s asking the questions or responding.

I’d like to start now. We’ve got a presentation. I’ll ask for the presentation. We’ll hear the presentation, and then we’ll have questions after that.

Janet, you are going to start us off.

Examination and Recommendation
of Revised Statutes

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

J. Erasmus: Very shortly. I’ll start with good morning, hon. Members, and thank you. We are very pleased to be able to be here today and presenting the Workers Compensation Act statute revision for your review. We’ll start first with our revision coordinator identifying one text correction in the revision. She’ll explain this tiny little event.

C. Leitch: For those of you in the room, I’ve just come around with new pages. For those of you on the phone, I will explain this very minor change. If you turn to page 135 — that’s in the clean copy of the statute revision; that’s the first page of part 5 — in section 239(1)(c), you’ll see that it reads: “for payment to the government required under section 283 (2).” That should read “section 284 (2).”

Thank you for making that change.

OVERVIEW OF REVISION PROCESS

J. Erasmus: Thank you, Cara.

Now, for the benefit of members new to statute revisions, we’ll provide a short introduction to its history, its purpose and its process before turning to the specific statute revision being presented today.

I’ll start by saying that I’m particularly pleased to be doing this revision during the 100th year of the office of legislative counsel. The first B.C. statute revision was the Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1879. Since 1919, it has been legislative counsel who has been preparing these statute revisions. I should note that it’s not British Columbia only that does statute revisions. These are used in provinces and for Canada for years and years and years.

[9:15 a.m.]

Why is there this long history of it? It’s because statute revision is about maintaining — indeed, recovering — the coherence of our statute book. New acts will be coherent in their language and organization. They have a structure that allows readers to find what they need and, we hope, in B.C., understand what they find. This is the high value of readability that the office of legislative counsel puts into the legislation we’re drafting.

These are new acts, and changes have to be expected. As members will well know, we’re doing amendments to deal with matters that weren’t anticipated at the time when the act was first made — to provide more certainty, to update cross-references to other acts, to remove provisions that are no longer needed — and, from time to time, making major changes to the act.

The result is that there are gaps from those repeals, and there are decimals from those additions. There are new rules about new matters. Whatever the purpose of those changes, the initial coherence that an act had gets weakened over time.

Statute revision has been the approach, the available technique, for dealing with that from the 1800s. Statute revision doesn’t change the legal effect of an act. What it does allow is that an act that’s been through all those changes over time can be revised into the form of a new act. Not a new act but reformed as if it were a new act and all done without changing the legal effect.

They’re done under the authority of the Statute Revision Act, a copy of which was provided with the overview materials that were sent out. Historically, they’ve been done as general revisions. At the back of that material that was sent out, there was a picture. We have a picture up now in the room we’re in that has the library of these statutes for the office of legislative counsel. You can see that there’s, in amongst there, except this doesn’t have the picture of the revision packages…. There’s a whole set of revisions within there over the time.

Our first statute revision, in 1897, was two volumes. By the seventh statute revision, which was in 1979, it was up to six volumes. The most recent general revision of all the statutes of British Columbia was in 1996. It was 15 volumes. It’s the huge package in the image. It was seven years in the preparation.

I was part of the planning committee for that 1996 revision. When we began work on that, we quickly realized how challenging it was going to be to do these general revisions of all current acts of the province. So in planning for the future, we proposed and government accepted the idea of having limited revisions — authority to do one act at a time, targeting the ones that were most in need and where there would be the most benefit.

We have been now able to use that. The most recent really huge one was the Local Government Act, but we’ve been doing smaller ones, as in last year. Now we’re using these to make changes in…. Really, it’s organization, titles, terminology. These revisions may revise for clarity, consistency. But statute revision, whether it’s general or limited…. They don’t have authority to change the law.

The way we describe it in the legislative counsel world…. Statute revision is often described as cleaning up the statute book — and with good reason. We could rearrange the room, refinish the tables, wash the windows, polish the floors. But there will be no new furniture.

In some ways, preparing a statute revision can be more complex than drafting a new act, particularly with the very old acts that are most in need. We have the revisers. We have the assigned ministry lawyers engaged with it. In this particular case, we have people outside government who are actively working with the operation of the Workers Compensation Act.

That’s the intro to statute revision. Shall we go on to the Workers Compensation Act revision?

M. Elmore (Chair): Sure.

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

J. Erasmus: Thank you. It’s a fine example of an act that is much in need, where there will be considerable public benefit for this revision.

[9:20 a.m.]

It’s an old act, this version. The source is the 1916 Workers Compensation Act. Indeed, some of our current complex provisions are little changed in that more than 100-year origin. The style of legislative drafting back in the day was different.

Truly, the only people who would be reading this law would be lawyers and Workers Compensation Board folk. The law wasn’t available easily to the public. There would be individual acts, and then there would be revisions made by other acts. But there weren’t consolidations until there was a statute provision that put it all together. Now we have the availability of the on-line system, where the public actually can find our legislation and do look on line for our legislation.

Coherency in our current drafting style is much improved. We’re going to head for that with statute revision, particularly targeting the acts most in need, of most benefit. The Workers Compensation Act is at the top of the list.

If I can, I’ll just give a couple of examples of organization improvement that we’ve used in the Workers Compensation Act. An easy one. That act has two methods for people affected by Workers Compensation Board decisions to have a decision reconsidered. One is the review process, which is currently located in sections 96.2 to 96.6, located in part 1, even though it isn’t limited to part 1. Then there is another appeal process that is the back end of the current Workers Compensation Act, part 4. That’s the appeal to an independent appeal tribunal.

What are the revisions going to do? It’s very simple. They’re going to move both of these ones to the back of the revised act. But you can have them…. There’s one for the reviews and one for the appeals right together. Just in the organization, easy.

A more complex example is going to be about compensation in relation to worker death. Currently the rules about that compensation are located in section 17, “Compensation in fatal cases.” It runs on for more than six pages in the statute book — many, many subsections — and the reader can’t be sure about what would apply to their circumstances until they read the entire thing. It’s actually very complex, and they may have trouble reading it.

The revision takes that, and it puts it into its own division — “Compensation in Relation to Death of Worker” — with 24 sections. Yes. The current section 17 is becoming 24 separate sections that have 24 separate rules that apply. People will be able to go, with the revision, and look at the table of contents and identify the information they need immediately.

One last little note. If, as we do hope, the revision is recom­mended by this committee and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor and deposited with the Clerk, the revision will become an act. But this will not be an in form act. It becomes an act in British Columbia, but it’s not in force. Bringing a revision into force is done by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulation. In this case, I understand that it will be a considerable amount of time before WorkSafeBC can have all their materials ready to make the transition to the revision. It will be quite a time before it actually comes into force.

With this introduction, we’ll hope for your approval on what is a pretty important statute revision for many people in the country and in the province too.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, Janet. That concludes the presentation?

J. Erasmus: Yes, thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. I’ll open up to questions and start with John.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the background. Thank you for the presentation.

Of course, the work you’re doing with this…. I can see what a challenge it would be to take an act from more than 100 years ago, and all of the changes and revisions that have happened, and try to compile that together and clean it up. A tough challenge.

[9:25 a.m.]

One quick question, though, is…. Of course, there were some changes. There were some discussions this spring. Does it include everything that’s happened? Was there a cut-off date in terms of information that was included in this revision? Is there anything out there that may need to be looked at going forward?

J. Erasmus: It should all be there. Our revision coordinator was able to get all the bills that were approved, right? It happened; it’s there.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Just to make sure, there’s nothing that is still remaining in regulation to be approved through order-in-council or anything that could potentially be a revision to what we are looking at here today?

J. Erasmus: At the moment, what you have is a revision of the Workers Compensation Act.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. More questions?

L. Throness: I’m just wondering how many statutes are in B.C., and I’m wondering how we’re going to proceed with looking at this act.

J. Erasmus: Okay. Maybe you’re closer. I know that the….

C. Leitch: Over 800. That would include some private, special and local acts. The number of public acts may be 700.

L. Throness: Okay. It’s just a matter of interest. Thanks.

M. Elmore (Chair): Any other questions?

A Voice: Are we talking about, now, all of the sections in the black line of the act? Are you opening it up, Madam Chair, to…?

M. Elmore (Chair): Yes, it’s open for questions — any and all questions.

Michael, did you have a question?

M. Lee: Can I start with the definition of “accident” under section 1? I’m just wondering, under section 1(b), whether the deletion of the word “includes” was meant to make this definition exhaustive and not inclusive.

J. Erasmus: The “includes” is now up at the very top. It includes this, and it includes that. As a matter of language, that seemed to be the easiest way to do it.

M. Elmore (Chair): Go ahead, Michael, if you’ve got more.

M. Lee: There wasn’t a double inclusion on sub (b), then? That was basically deemed to be superfluous?

J. Erasmus: Yes. It includes (a) and (b).

M. Elmore (Chair): Did you have more questions, Michael?

M. Lee: Sure. In the deletion of the definitions of “invalid” and “invalid child,” what is the purpose of that deletion?

J. Erasmus: The definition content is shifted into part 4. I’ve got old numbers here: 4, 5.01, definitions for “worker death compensation,” definition of “child.”

M. Lee: So it’s the style of the drafting, then. That definition is only used in that part?

J. Erasmus: It is only used there, and it’s not used anymore. We’re using the definition that’s in…. I don’t have the cross-references.

M. Lee: The style would be, then…. If it’s only used in one part, we would only define it in that part and not define it up front?

J. Erasmus: That would be the general approach to drafting legislation. This had this going way back in time. What you’re seeing in this revision is what the office of legislative counsel would be drafting if it were a brand-new act. So many of the provisions are so very old in their source. This act has more organizational and language changes than you might find in others.

V. Vojnic: In section 165.

J. Erasmus: Okay. It’s in section 165. Thank you, Valerie, who can flip pages in the other binder.

[9:30 a.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. Michael, if you’ve got some more questions on the definitions, let’s hear those, and then I know Jagrup is next. Just a reminder, everyone, if you can please put your phones on mute, if you’re not speaking, because we’ve still got some feedback here.

Continue, Michael, if you’ve got some more questions on the definitions.

M. Lee: Not on the definitions.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay.

J. Brar: We’ve gone through the act now. My questions are more general in nature, if I can proceed.

M. Elmore (Chair): Yeah, go ahead. That’s fine.

J. Brar: I understand that this whole process is to basically update the act, to put everything together in one place and also for easy access and understanding for the people who use it. There are no substantial legal changes or changes to the intent of the act.

My question is this. How much time does it take to go through a general revision or a limited revision of a statute? That’s my first question.

The second one right now is: who makes the decision as to what is the next statute we want to pick?

J. Erasmus: The length of time depends on the nature of the act that’s being revised. This, I think, would be the most difficult act on our statute books to deal with. It’s the oldest. It’s had the fewest changes. It has the largest effect and has had significant, substantive changes — like the addition of the occupational health and safety part — over the years.

This one took more than a year and, as you know, had a year’s time-out, because we couldn’t get to it last year. The Local Government Act was also a very, very large one. That one had been through so many changes, courtesy of the Community Charter, that it needed big change.

Beyond that, we’re looking at ones where there’s benefit to the public and it needs a revision. We are not doing a number of large ones right now. It’s one at a time. I have another one in process that’s a big one. Again, it was the nature of the change over time that means this affects a great number of people in terms of needing it. But we did small ones last year — the Trespass Act. There are some that are pretty straightforward.

We don’t have any formal process other than inviting ministries to identify acts that are in need of revision and that will benefit from it. The balance point is: does the office of legislative counsel have someone who is able to put time into doing this?

We have a revision coordinator — wonderful. But we also need a legislative counsel who is an experienced legislative counsel, who understands…. We have many fairly young legislative counsel. This is wonderful. But you have to have some considerable experience to be able to do a revision, to know what would be the current style as opposed to the past style.

J. Brar: Is it driven by the legislative counsel, or can a particular minister walk into your office and say: “This act needs a revision as quickly as possible”?

J. Erasmus: A ministry could contact us and propose a revision, identifying an act that they see as needing it. We would definitely consider it and, I would hope, would consider it positively. It depends on the resources that are available to do the revision work. For the 1996 statute revision, the big one — they had one person for seven years, non-stop, working on the revision. We don’t have that availability at this point, so we’ll do what we can because we want to do this work.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, Janet.

Anyone else? Any more questions?

[9:35 a.m.]

L. Throness: I have a number of questions, as I went through the act. My next one was on page 26 of the redlined version, and that’s clause 6. It talks about, “This section applies if the Minister of Education, Skills and Training,” a minister who is named, and then it talks about: “…responsible for the administration of this Act.”

Why wouldn’t we say, since the name may change in the future of the specified minister, the minister responsible for education, skills and training?

M. Elmore (Chair): Go ahead, Janet, if you’ve got it there.

M. Tanner: Do you want me to help with the answer?

J. Erasmus: Yes, I think the ministry may be best.

M. Elmore (Chair): Sure. Michael, did you want to…?

M. Tanner: We’ve looked into this, and tracing through the history of this section, there’s some uncertainty whether this is referring to the current Minister of Education or Minister of Advanced Education. In order to clarify that, we have to do it through a legislative amendment. It’s a change that didn’t fall within the scope of the statute revision.

We have on our legislative plan in the ministry an intention to make that change and make that clarification through a legislative change in the near future.

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

Janet, did you have more you wanted to…?

J. Erasmus: No, he was able to, by the information in his brain, before I could find it on the page.

M. Elmore (Chair): Laurie, did you have some more questions?

L. Throness: The next one would be on page 37, clause 20.

Chair, did you want to go through it page by page and ask if there’s any questions on page…? It’s because Michael might have a question on page or clause 18 or something, and then we would be jumping back and forth.

M. Elmore (Chair): I think what we’re going to do, because people have different ways that they want to go through it….

How many questions do you have, Laurie, just as a ballpark?

L. Throness: Probably 20.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Why don’t you go ahead with yours, and then we’ll go back to who else has questions. Go ahead, Laurie.

L. Throness: Okay. I’ll have to continue paging through the act here, though, so it might take me a moment to find.

Anyway, on clause 20, it talks about “an officer,” and we take out the words “any officer.” Is that a substantive change? One is saying “any officer,” and one is saying “an.” Does it mean “any”?

J. Erasmus: “An” would be the normal language in our drafting. It doesn’t change the effect.

L. Throness: Okay. My next question, Chair, would be on page 42, clause 29. The title says, “Person may be subject to obligations,” and so on. Should we not say: “A person…”? It just seems weird to me.

J. Erasmus: Again, it would be a style thing. It’s just a statement of application.

L. Throness: Well, if we’re looking for plain language, I would say plainly that most people would say “a person,” rather than starting a sentence with “person.”

J. Erasmus: Usually we use descriptors in those headnotes. If I look in section 39, it’s “Employer must re­spond….” We don’t usually put “An employer must respond.” It’s style.

L. Throness: Okay. My next question is on page 53, clause 54(1). It says: “This section applies in relation to a person who is a medical practitioner, nurse….” No, forget that one. I see I made a mistake there.

I’m paging ahead here.

[9:40 a.m.]

On page 62, subclause 75(3)(d), it says: “require that a work­place or part of a workplace not be disturbed for a reasonable period.” You take out the words “of time,” but the words “of time” make it more clear.

Could not a sharp lawyer argue that there may be a period of some other quality, such as a financial period or a period of authority or something like that?

J. Erasmus: It would just be a period of time. Each one of those may be of a particular time in the example given, but each one of them would be a period of time.

M. Lee: The purpose of deleting “of time.” What’s the purpose of that? Isn’t it clearer to have the words “period of time,” then?

J. Erasmus: It is clearer just to use “period.” Within our drafting of current acts — you could go to them — we use the term “period.”

M. Lee: Is that under the Interpretation Act, then?

J. Erasmus: No. It’s not a special definition. It’s the nature of the word and what the word means.

M. Elmore (Chair): Laurie, did that answer your question?

L. Throness: I made my point. I think it’s just more clear to say “period of time” than to say “period.”

J. Erasmus: The act does have a number of other places where the term is used without saying “of time.”

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. We’ll do your next one, Laurie.

L. Throness: On page 81, clause 109(2) and then (3), it seemed to me that there was a confusing repetition. In sub (2), it says: “Without limiting subsection (1).” Then it goes on to describe the list. Then in sub (3), it says: “Without limiting subsections (1) and (2)….” It seems to be a confusing repetition there. Is there a way to make that more clear for the general person who is reading the act? The same thing happens in clause 110.

M. Elmore (Chair): We’ll just give them a moment. They’re just finding the page there.

J. Routledge: Excuse me. Mable. While they’re looking for the reference…. I have another meeting at ten o’clock. I’m just wondering: are we going to be able to complete our business by ten o’clock, or are we going to have to schedule another meeting?

M. Elmore (Chair): Well, we might have to go past ten if we’ve got more questions.

J. Routledge: I’m not going to be able to do that. I just wanted to let you know.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, thanks.

J. Erasmus: I actually don’t have a note in my binder about why, specifically, that was separated.

L. Guiton: I think the reason we have three separate ones is that the first one is speaking to the power to make a regulation with respect to joint health and safety committees. That’s something that the government can make a regulation for, but not WorkSafeBC. Subsection (2) speaks to WorkSafeBC’s ability to make a regulation, pursuant to occupational health and safety. Subsection (3) is separate as well. But I believe the question was more about the structure of how it’s set out.

L. Throness: It just seemed to me to be a confusing way to put it. I’ll just leave that with you.

[9:45 a.m.]

J. Erasmus: Well, what you’ve got is something that organizes them by the organization of the revised act, where occupational health and safety is put ahead — let’s stop people getting injured — as opposed to the back end of the compensation — what happens if they are injured. Subsection (2) there is the occupational health and safety set, and subsection (3) is the other — the compensation for injury, mostly.

M. Elmore (Chair): Does that make sense, Laurie?

L. Throness: Okay, I’ll continue. I don’t want to monopolize the conversation, though, Chair.

M. Elmore (Chair): That’s fine. You’ve got your questions, so go ahead.

L. Throness: Okay. On page 84, in subsection 112(1), it takes out any penalty, which must not be more than $1,000. The old act had penalties to $1,000, but it seems to me that we’re removing that limit. That, to me, is a substan­tive change.

J. Erasmus: The constraint is down in subsection (2) of that, where: “A penalty prescribed under subsection (1) must not be greater than the amount specified….” The authority for that number…. It’s better to refer it to the source, rather than amending it every time the number changes. This allows it to just point to the location for the amount.

L. Throness: As long as that amount is not more than $1,000.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): It’s $1,065.14.

L. Throness: The old act had a $1,000 limit. We shouldn’t be going over that without changing it through the Legislature.

M. Tanner: There’s authority in the act to amend the amounts in the act every year by the amount of the consumer price index. The current $1,065 just reflects the changes that have been made based on CPI since the $1,000 was first established.

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

This change basically allows that. So we don’t have to come back every year to make that change.

J. Erasmus: Yes.

L. Throness: The next question is on page 87, and it’s section 120. It says: “…owing to the government.” Does it not have to specify the government of British Columbia? Could that not be the government of Canada, if it’s not specified?

J. Erasmus: We use “government” in our legislation to mean the government of British Columbia. I don’t have a copy of the Interpretation Act, but it may actually have it. I just don’t have it here. I’d like to thank the member for having read so carefully — yes.

L. Throness: Okay. On page 87, at the bottom of that same page, we’ve taken out the “cash or board or lodging or other form of remuneration,” that was in the old act. How can we take that out if it’s in there? It seems to me that might be significant in a certain case.

J. Erasmus: Right. It’s shifted down into subsection (2), paragraph (i): “the amount of the average earnings of a worker, whether paid in cash or board or lodging or other form of remuneration, for the purpose of levying assessments.”

L. Throness: Okay. On page 91, subsection 128(5), we’ve removed “infant child.” Now we just say “child,” whereas the former act specified an infant. Why did we do that?

[9:50 a.m.]

J. Erasmus: It’s because in the old days, a whole lot of law acts made a distinction between the ages, and there was no functional difference here.

L. Throness: Okay. Next, on that same page, section 130, there’s the word “subrogated.” I have no idea what that means. Could we not replace that with a more reader-friendly word?

J. Erasmus: I’d like to, but being a lawyer, I realize that subrogated is a really complex legal concept, and it doesn’t have an easy word that would accommodate it. There are only a few of these old, difficult words left in the revision.

L. Throness: Okay. At the bottom of that same page, under subsection (4), we have removed the exclusive jurisdiction of the board to determine whether to maintain an action or compromise the right of action and so on. How can we arbitrarily remove that jurisdiction from the act?

J. Erasmus: Do we have a table of concordance here? This would have moved somewhere, and I’m trying to locate it.

L. Throness: As long as it has just been moved, then that’s fine.

J. Erasmus: Yes. It would have moved into the back of the act, into the general reg powers. I’m just not locating them at the moment.

L. Throness: Okay, that’s fine.

On page 92, I think there’s a misplaced hyphen in subsection 131(b). Just before the word “both,” there’s a hyphen. I’m not sure if that’s an editing mark or a hyphen.

J. Erasmus: That would be an editing mark that would have been done in when it was converted to the not redline.

L. Throness: Okay. On page 100, section 142, we have two different words. One is “deemed,” in subsection (1) of section 142, and “considered.” “Deemed” is a legal word, and “considered” is sort of an informal, “let’s talk about it” word. Why did we get the word “deemed”?

J. Erasmus: It’s because the word “deemed,” back in the ancient-world source of this section, didn’t have a special meaning. It does now.

L. Throness: So this is a better word choice?

J. Erasmus: Yes, this is a clearer expression.

L. Throness: Okay. On page 108, section 155, we’ve removed, in a number of cases, under subsection (1), “from the accident fund.” So expenditures or payments “from the accident fund.” A number of times that has been removed. Why have we removed that, since the accident fund still exists?

J. Erasmus: It’s because, historically, the Workers Compensation Board had two money sources. Maybe the board can…. But eventually, it became so that this was the process for the money.

L. Throness: It’s not a change, then?

[9:55 a.m.]

J. Erasmus: It’s not a change. There were two fund sources.

M. Elmore (Chair): Christina, did you want to…?

C. Wendel: Yes, I do. All of that information is consolidated in the new section 239. All of the payments are to come from the accident fund. So for any sections that have referenced it or had stated it independently, it’s all covered off by section 239.

L. Throness: Okay.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, Christina.

You have another one, Laurie?

L. Throness: I do. I’m just paging through here. I’m going to go far ahead to….

On page 196, clause 317, we’ve removed the president. I’m wondering why we’ve removed the president from the list.

J. Erasmus: Right. This is back in the day when the Workers Compensation Board was a different nature of organization, and there were presidents.

L. Guiton: This clause has been revised to clarify that it’s listing the voting directors. The president is a non-voting member. There is a separate section that references the president, who is a member of the board but non-voting.

L. Throness: Okay. Great. Thank you.

I’m just about done here. On page 207, clause 342: “The Board has the same powers as the Supreme Court.” Do we need to specify “of B.C.”? Someone could argue the Supreme Court of Canada.

J. Erasmus: Normally, within B.C. legislation, it would be our court if we were speaking about this. It did not occur to me to change it to say that it would be other than the Supreme Court, our court.

L. Throness: Okay. I’ll leave that with….

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, Laurie. That’s a good point.

Susan has just provided the Interpretation Act. References to both “government” and “Supreme Court” in legislation refer to the government of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

L. Throness: Okay.

Under clause 344, same page, we talk about “transmitted electronically, by fax or otherwise….” Is fax not an electronic transmission? Do we need to include fax? Fax is on the way out as well.

J. Erasmus: Right. It’s transmitted electronically. These are saying by this specific electronic way, fax, or any other. Nowadays we’ve got more others.

L. Throness: Okay. I’ll leave that with you.

That’s all the questions I have, Chair.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Terrific. Thank you, Laurie.

Christina, did you have a point?

C. Wendel: Just to answer Laurie’s question about…. On page 91, in section 130, the question about what had happened to the board’s exclusive jurisdiction. It’s noted in revised section 130(3): “The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether to maintain an action under this section or compromise the right of action, and the Board’s decision is final and conclusive.”

L. Throness: Thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Awesome.

Okay. Any other questions from other members?

M. Lee: Can I ask…? On section 50(2), page 50, the change from “discriminatory” to “prohibited.”

M. Elmore (Chair): Is that page 50, Michael?

M. Lee: In the black line. That’s right, 50(2).

[10:00 a.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, go ahead.

M. Lee: I’m just wondering about the reason for the change in that wording.

M. Tanner: Over the years, there has been some confusion about the existing term “discriminatory action” invoking a human rights type of discrimination. There was an opportunity, through the statute revision change, to make it clearer with the intent. So we are proposing that it be a prohibited action to avoid confusion with human rights concepts of discrimination.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you.

Go ahead, Michael, if you’ve got more.

M. Lee: I was just looking for the section that we were talking about before, which used the term “invalid.” What section was that again? There was a comment on that page.

C. Leitch: Was that the definition of “invalid child” that was removed?

M. Lee: Yes. It was near that section. What section was that again?

C. Leitch: It’s 165.

J. Erasmus: There was a definition of “invalid” in section 1, but it shifted to a direct statement in what I have num­bered as part 4, sub 5, spouse incapable of earning, and a pointer to that provision in the other cases.

If we find in the “Compensation in Relation to Death….” The section that spouse incapable of earning….

L. Guiton: It’s section 165.

J. Erasmus: It’s 165?

L. Guiton: Yes. Because this reference is only used once, it was relocated to section 165.

M. Lee: Then in section 170 on page 115, is that a new requirement that’s coming in on 170(1)(b)(ii)? It talks about the physical or mental disability.

M. Elmore (Chair): That’s page 115, section 170.

M. Lee: Yes.

L. Guiton: Janet, while you’re looking for it…. No. It is an existing requirement. There are no substantive changes.

M. Elmore (Chair): Does that answer your concern, Michael?

M. Lee: Yes, thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. Continue, if you’ve got another.

M. Lee: Earlier when we were talking about specific amounts on page 117, sections 172 and 173…. There’s no consideration of those specific amounts, then, in terms of having those hard-wired into the act? It continues to be that?

M. Tanner: Like I mentioned earlier on the other amount, those are adjusted each year by the amount of CPI. It saves the Legislature having to constantly update the numbers.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks.

Does that make sense, Michael?

M. Lee: Year to year, though, those numbers will change. So next year, or the year after, this will be a different number, right? It will just be by regulation.

M. Tanner: That’s right. Then those are updated in the version of the act that is on line. They are updated to be current with the current amounts.

M. Elmore (Chair): Is that all right, Michael?

M. Lee: Yes, thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Do you have another question?

M. Lee: No, thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Does anyone else on the line have a question?

It sounds like we’ve….

John.

[10:05 a.m.]

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): I’ve got a procedural…. As you mentioned at the beginning, this will take some time. Once this goes through the committee, it goes through an order-in-council process. Then it will take WorkSafe some time to make all the changes.

As you know, there are many, many companies and unions that have quotes from this act. How is that work being coordinated, then, once it goes through here, so that companies, unions and other organizations that reference the act have the ability to update it as WorkSafe is also going through and updating it? I guess I just want to know: how does all that work? Does it have to wait until you guys are done, and then they go out and do all the work that they’re doing? Or is there some process that goes on at the same time?

J. Erasmus: The revision can be made available as soon as it becomes an act, which is….

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Through order-in-council.

J. Erasmus: Well, no. That’s when it comes into force. If it’s approved, this does not automatically come into force, but it will be available. I imagine that WorkSafeBC will have it posted on their website, and maybe the ministry will too. That will be the revised act, not in force, available to the public.

C. Leitch: Yes. Those acts — once the revision is approved, if it’s approved by the committee — are also published on the Legislature website, the same way that third reading bills are. So it’s available to the public that way.

M. Tanner: The ministry, in fact, has had on our website for the past year a copy of the draft revision. So stakeholders are aware of it. The business community is aware of it. We’ve been having discussions with WorkSafeBC and others about the timing. We’re looking now that probably in the early spring — maybe on or around April 1 — it would come into force. Between when approval is given and now, there’ll be time to continue that engagement with the public, let people know that it’s coming, and a period of time of about eight months or so before it would come into force.

M. Elmore (Chair): John, is that good? Okay. Thank you.

More questions? All right. We’ve had a good go-through. Thanks for those very thoughtful questions.

Now we’ve got our next session, and Susan is going to explain that to us.

Committee Report to the House

REPORT ON EXAMINATION AND
RECOMMENDATION OF REVISIONS TO
WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): Good morning, again, Members. I’m just going to walk you through the next steps.

We have a motion that members will vote on — it’s a debatable motion — in essence, that the committee approve the revisions to the Workers Compensation Act and recommend that it be brought into force and, also, that the committee authorize the Chair to endorse the committee’s approval on the title page of the Workers Compensation Act revision — the Chair would sign it — and that the committee’s recommendations form the basis of a report that the committee would present to the House when the House resumes in the fall.

The Chair will present a report to the House. In the interim, the report will be tabled with the Office of the Clerk. There’s also a letter, which the Chair to the committee signs, to Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor — again, explaining that the committee has met and approved the revisions.

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

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): With that, I move:

[That pursuant to section 4 of the Statute Revision Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 440, that the Committee approve the revision of the Workers Compensation Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 492 and recommend that it be brought into force; and

that the Committee authorize the Chair to endorse the Committee’s approval on the title page of the Workers Compensation Act Revision; 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): The motion has been moved by John.

I’ll open it for discussion. Does anybody have any questions or anything to discuss? Okay. Then I’ll move a vote.

Motion approved.

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

Any other business before we wrap up?

[10:10 a.m.]

Other Business

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): As we had discussed earlier, we do have another piece that looks like it will be coming to us, I’m assuming, and that’s around conflict of interest and the review of the work that was done back in 2013. We’ll have to wait until that goes through as an order from the Legislature before we can start that work. I just wanted to make sure it’s clarified that that will be something that will be coming here in October — or some time, I assume, when the Legislature is sitting. Then we’ll have the work that will need to be done through that period.

I did see in the letter that it seemed to be…. I think we had until, basically, spring of 2020 to do that review. Is that correct? I’m looking to Susan.

Interjection.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): I’m just wondering, in terms of that. Obviously, there’s a fair bit of work that went in there. There were a lot of witnesses that were called as part of that, and redoing that work could be quite extensive in this relatively short time frame, if that is the time frame that’s being considered. So I was wondering about that.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): As members will know, the committee will receive a terms of reference from the House, and it’s the terms of reference that will determine the time frame. There will be discussions among the House Leaders as to what that time frame will be.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Susan. Everybody should have got a copy of the letter, and we’ll find out the next steps when we get back in the fall.

Any further questions or items for other business? All right.

I’d like to thank all the members for joining us in the meeting and the Deputy Chair, John Rustad. I thank the staff here, Susan. I want to thank all the staff that we’ve had on the phone, Justin and Louise. Also, for the presentation from legislative counsel, an excellent job and a great team effort. Thank you very much. We appreciate all your hard work. We’re very pleased that we have our motion and that we can move forward.

We have a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much, everyone.

The committee adjourned at 10:12 a.m.