The committee met at 8:17 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Doug Routley. I’m the MLA for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and the Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I would like to begin by acknowledging, with gratitude, that I am joining today’s meeting from the traditional territories of the Malahat First Nation.

I would like to welcome all those who are listening and participating to this meeting.

Today we are joined by officials from the Ministry of Attorney General who are briefing on their involvement in the areas related to the committee’s inquiry. We have 25 minutes for the presentation. That will be followed by questions from committee members.

All audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website. A complete transcript will also be posted.

I’d now ask all the members of the committee to introduce themselves. I will begin with MLA Singh.

R. Singh: Rachna Singh, the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers.

I’m joining you from the shared territories of the Katzie, Kwantlen, Kwikwetlem and Semiahmoo First Nations.

R. Glumac: Rick Glumac from the riding of Port Moody–​Coquitlam, on the lands of the Coast Salish peoples.

G. Begg: Good morning, everyone. I’m Garry Begg. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Guildford.

Today I’m joining you from the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people.

H. Sandhu: Good morning, everyone. I’m Harwinder Sandhu. I’m the MLA for Vernon-Monashee.

I am joining you from the unceded territory of the Oka­nagan Indian nation.

A. Olsen: Good morning. Adam Olsen, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands.

I am joining you this morning from the Legislature, which is in the beautiful territory of my relatives, the Song­hees and Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Hi. Good morning. Dan Davies, the MLA for Peace River North.

I am coming at you from the territories of the Dane-zaa people.

D. Routley (Chair): Assisting the committee today are Karan Riarh from the Clerk of Committees office and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard.

Now I would turn it over to Deputy Attorney General Richard Fyfe for further introductions and a presentation.

Briefings on Police Act

MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

R. Fyfe: Thank you very much, Chair. As you have just indicated, my name is Richard Fyfe. I’m the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister Responsible for Hous­ing. Joining me today are Cheryl May and Colleen Spier.

[8:20 a.m.]

I just want to thank Karan Riarh for managing the slides as we go through this.

Today I’m speaking to you from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, which includes the Songhees, the Esquimalt and the W̱SÁNEĆ peoples.

Today I am here to provide you with an overview of some of the initiatives underway in the Ministry of the Attorney General and Housing. I’m going to first discuss the First Nations justice strategy, talk about how it came to be and the work underway in regards to policing, and then turn to the work related to housing and homelessness and anti-racism initiatives.

If we can just proceed through the slides, on slide 3, discussing the First Nations justice strategy. This strategy was jointly developed by the First Nations Justice Council, B.C. First Nations communities and the province of British Columbia. A parallel approach is being undertaken in collaboration with the Métis Justice Council.

On March 6 of last year, 2020, the strategy was endorsed and announced to the public at a signing ceremony on Snuneymuxw territory in Nanaimo, B.C. This is significant, as it was the first strategy co-developed with the pro­vince that was First Nations–led, as opposed to First Na­tions–informed. The strategy undertakes to make transformative changes to the justice system. It was developed to address the issues of lack of culturally appropriate jus­tice services and over-incarceration of Indigenous Peoples.

On slide 4, we continue talking about the First Nations justice strategy. Working together with First Nations leadership, communities and service providers, 25 transformative strategies were identified with 43 corresponding lines of action with a focus on seven key areas that are displayed on this slide.

Moving to slide 5, to ensure that we are undertaking long-term transformation, the strategy mandates the jus­tice system and its partners to work along two concurrent tracks of change. The first is to reform the existing justice system to make it safer, culturally relevant and more res­ponsive to Indigenous Peoples. This includes reducing the negative impacts the justice system has historically had on Indigenous Peoples.

The second track involves consistent and coordinated action to support the development of First Nations justice systems and institutions consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, which has recently been enacted as law in B.C. through the declaration act.

Slide 6. The B.C. First Nations Justice Council and the province engaged in a collaborative process to co-develop a work plan for implementing the strategy. Strategic act­ions were themed under four main working groups. These included policing, which is particularly relevant to this committee, then prevention of harm. Third is administration of justice, and the fourth is corrections. Relevant strategic actions and lines of actions were developed and assigned under each group. The policing working group was focused on one strategy and three lines of action.

On the next slide, slide 7, we will look more closely at strategy 22. Strategy 22 calls for the establishment of new relationships and protocols between First Nations, the RCMP and other police forces. These new relationships will support new strategic policy and community-level goals, building towards cooperative change and moving to increased community-level First Nations police forces.

The protocols to be developed, as shown in line of act­ion A, will focus on collaboration to advance and support the goals of this strategy. The new approach to community tripartite agreements, or CTAs, as noted in line of action B, should strengthen how they are used to address First Nations priorities and ensure they are flexible in adapting and meeting the needs and circumstances of communities. They will also ensure that there is space for negotiation of community-led priorities and consider shifts in actions that reflect First Nations jurisdiction and governance.

Finally, line of action C speaks to the co-development of a framework for expansion and transition to increased community-based First Nations police forces.

[8:25 a.m.]

An overarching strategy, strategy 1 impacts all actors in the justice system and calls for a presumption of diversion to be applied at every intersection in which an Indigenous person has contact with a justice system actor. It means that at every opportunity, the least restrictive appropriate response to criminal conduct should be pursued.

As police are often the first point of contact, they have one of the first opportunities to make a determination as to an appropriate response that would divert an individual out of the system as opposed to bringing them into the system. Next steps would include consultation and engagement with key stakeholders and Indigenous partners to inform and validate new protocols through a jointly devel­oped framework.

Moving to slide 8, I’d just like to move on now to housing and homelessness. On slide 9, we talk about the homeless population. To start, I’ll outline what we know about people experiencing homelessness in B.C. This is based on the 2018 provincial homeless count, and it’s corroborated by a recent cohort study of homelessness in B.C. that was undertaken in 2019.

From that, we know that people experiencing homelessness are more likely to be male — with around 70 percent of homeless counts counting men versus about 50 percent of the general population being male — and that youth and seniors are underrepresented in the homeless population, with working-age adults overrepresented compared to the demographic split of the B.C. population.

Consistent surveys of people experiencing homelessness indicate that about 30 percent of individuals have been involved in the child welfare system at some point in their childhood or adolescence, a significant overrepresentation compared to the general population. As well, Indigenous Peoples are consistently overrepresented within the homeless population, at an average of 38 percent across the whole province versus 6 percent of the general population.

In 2020, Metro Vancouver collected racial identity in their homeless count for the first time. The results indicate that Black people are significantly overrepresented among racialized groups experiencing homelessness, with 6 percent of respondents identified as Black compared to 1.2 percent in the Metro Vancouver general population, followed by 3 percent South Asian and 3 percent Latin American.

On slide 10, discussing mental health and substance use needs, the 2018 provincial homeless count found that the majority of homeless people, 58 percent, had two or more physical, mental or substance use needs. Over half self-reported as having an addiction, 44 percent reported having a medical condition, 40 percent reported a mental illness, and 33 percent reported a physical disability. These health needs may be — I’d say, in many cases, are likely to be — related to the experience of homelessness itself.

Of respondents in the Metro Vancouver homeless count from 2020, 74 percent met the definition of chronic homelessness, being homeless for six months or longer within the previous year. Almost half, or 48 percent, of the individuals in the 2019 provincial homeless cohort met this definition. This is a significant upward trend compared to historic patterns, where, in the past, 10 to 15 percent of the homeless population met this demographic.

Turning to slide 11, areas for consideration. Police currently play many different roles in response to homelessness, and they’re a key player in the landscape of partners. Police, for example, respond to calls from friends and neighbours with safety concerns, whether that be someone in a mental health crisis, someone loitering on private property, or in response to violence. Police also respond to calls from housing providers regarding violence or threatening behaviour amongst residents or guests in their housing or shelter services or uninvited guests who have come to the site.

Police also sit on community advisory committees of many supportive housing and shelter services, and they’re part of addressing community safety concerns regarding such services.

[8:30 a.m.]

International research has shown that people experiencing homelessness are a vulnerable population, and while the public perception is that they’re threatening and un­safe, they’re actually more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators. I would say, as well, that the ex­perience seems to be that their vulnerability will often attract others who do have criminal intentions.

As I said previously, police play an important role supporting the safety and security of people experiencing homelessness and those in our housing programs. How­ever, not everybody sees it this way, as we’ve seen with some of the homeless encampments. Encampment leadership may have a strong anti-police sentiment, which can impact police’s ability to respond to crimes in an encampment. We’ve seen this take place, particularly in the Strathcona encampment in Vancouver, as an example. A trauma-informed approach is needed in these responses, recognizing that the overrepresentation of people with mental health needs, needs to be taken into consideration.

Now on to slide 12. Finally, I’d like to speak about the ministry’s mandate on anti-racism. Then on to slide 13. In November, the Ministry of Attorney General assumed responsibility for anti-racism initiatives, and Parliamentary Secretary Rachna Singh was appointed as parliamentary secretary to represent government on this initiative.

We’re supporting Parliamentary Secretary Singh to im­plement two anti-racism mandate commitments. The first commitment is to introduce legislation related to race-based data collection, and the second commitment is to support the introduction of a new anti-racism act.

We’re in the early stages of mapping out our approaches for this work with the parliamentary secretary, and we’ve agreed that we’ll do this in stages. We’re going to start by doing some pre-consultation meetings with Indigenous leaders, racialized groups and other stakeholders to get their feedback and perspectives on some of the key policy issues and considerations on these two initiatives. We’ll also seek their advice on engagement approaches.

Once we’ve done this, we plan to focus on race-based data first and envision starting a more focused consultation process on this issue in the summer and fall. We’ll then turn our attention to consultation on anti-racism legislation in the fall and winter of 2022.

Turning to slide 14, the discussion about the Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network. The Ministry of Attorney General is responsible for a key program designed to ad­dress racism at the community level called the Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network. This program was announced in 2019 and implemented in 2020. The network includes more than 50 communities across B.C. that are connected through a hub-and-spoke model. The centralized hub anchors the program and provides oversight, and the spokes are community-based branches that deliver services.

As part of their mandate, spokes coordinate and convene an active local network in their community. This local network supports the development and implementation of a response protocol when a hate crime or hate incidence is alleged to have occurred in the community. It also supports the spoke in identifying incidents, trends and anti-racism resources in the community.

Spokes are required to engage local law enforcement de­tachments — for example, the police or the RCMP — in their local network, in addition to other relevant stakeholders, including but not limited to community service providers, municipal governments, school districts, faith groups, Indigenous partners, members from marginalized or impacted communities, and local experts or advocates in anti-hate work.

If a community does not have a local police contact, they are asked to work with B.C. Hate Crimes, with the RCMP, to facilitate communications with the local detachment. In the program’s first year, 19 spokes have established relationships with local police. This includes six municipal police departments and 13 RCMP detachments, and that represents about one-third of the network.

[8:35 a.m.]

Spokes have advised us that the dynamics of engaging law enforcement in responding to racism can, at times, be complex. For example, engaging with law enforcement is often informed by levels of trust between community partners, including racialized groups, and at local detachments. Providing satisfactory supports for victims — while navigating differences between hate crimes, as defined within the Criminal Code, and hate incidents that don’t meet criminal thresholds — also creates unique challenges for spokes and varying levels of involvement from police.

Spokes have also advised us that levels of engagement and response from local enforcement also depend on fact­ors including staffing levels and presence of racism or diversity committees or task forces.

With that, and on slide 15, I’ll just conclude my presentation and thank you very much for the opportunity to run through that with you this morning. As the slide indicates, we are more than happy to answer any questions that you have.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Fyfe. I really appreciate it.

Members, any questions?

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Good morning again. Thanks for the presentation.

On the one slide, under a recommendation, you talked about supporting the Indigenous groups on tripartite agree­ments and promoting those. Now, one of the things we’ve heard from numerous Indigenous groups, over our last weeks, has been some issues around getting these tripartite agreements worked out — the relationship between the different agencies.

When someone in one of these communities has run into these barriers, what do you recommend that they do as some next steps? Either maybe to engage the AG’s office or…? What do you recommend for them when they just can’t seem to move anymore on these tripartite agreements?

R. Fyfe: Well, thanks very much for the question. I’m going to just see if Colleen Spier, who’s with us, would like to kick that off. I’ve got some suggestions, but she may give you the same suggestions.

C. Spier: Thank you, Deputy Minister Fyfe.

Thank you, Members, for having us present this morning.

I am also calling in from the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peo­ples’ territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations.

In response to your question, yes, we have heard the exact same issues. That was part of the reason for developing this new approach to being flexible and figuring out better opportunities and mechanisms in which communities could negotiate these agreements.

At this point, I would recommend that if you do contact the AG’s office…. We are working in close collaboration with the police services branch in ascertaining better ways to deliver and manage this approach. We have heard that there are some communities already that are struggling with what they do to move these things forward.

Even in advance of our implementation workplan being approved so that we can start progressing on these conversations, policing has already taken some steps forward, in a positive way, to refine the way that these community tripartite agreements look. They are open to this flexibility approach that we are hoping to achieve, and have started those steps already.

In short answer, again, I would suggest that you do contact us. We can connect with the right parties, and we can make sure that the nations are reflected in the approach that the policing services are taking on their particular CTA.

R. Fyfe: Just to add to that, we have very frequent and regular meetings with the First Nations Justice Council.

I think, Colleen, we’d be able to bring those issues to the First Nations Justice Council, as well, so that the approach can be adapted, or whatever we need to do, to ensure that this keeps progressing.

C. Spier: Deputy Minister, we do meet monthly with a leadership circle of the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, and they can also assist. It’s best if we can start internally with trying to work with police services and then include the B.C. First Nations Justice Council so that everybody is aware of the issues and can help put pressure on change.

D. Routley (Chair): That answers a question I had. Thanks, Dan.

[8:40 a.m.]

G. Begg: Good presentation. A question arising out of a statement that the police would divert offenders away from the criminal justice system or at least consider that in their first approach. Is that a decision that would be left to the discretion of the police? Or is that something that they would consult with Crown on? How would they arrive at that initial discussion?

R. Fyfe: Again, I can give Colleen an opportunity to res­pond, but I’ll start by just saying that nothing in here is directive towards the police. This is guidance but is never intended to actually address a limit on their discretion.

C. Spier: Thank you, Deputy Minister Fyfe.

Yes, that is correct. We will be engaging in discussions to explore how we have those discussions about mechanisms in which different actors in the justice system approach these new philosophies, as I’ll call it, in terms of practice. The hope is that everyone in the system is working in a collaborative and cohesive way so that we are identifying, for Indigenous people, the most appropriate way to handle a situation, at whatever level that is.

At every intersection that they are involved in the justice system, we should be looking at opportunities that are appropriate for that fact — the situation — to divert them out of the system as opposed to bringing them in, as the statistics show that once we bring someone into the system, it is so hard to get them out. We typically ingrain them further and further in. Every justice system actor should be working in a collaborative way, cohesively, to manage the client out.

G. Begg: Do we know…? Does that already take place? Or are Crown counsel being brought into the discussion? Is the judiciary being brought into the discussion? Or is it too early to do that?

R. Fyfe: Both are involved. Crown counsel, the prosecution service, has developed a new set of policies that indicate a preference for diversion wherever possible. Those policies are available online.

There have been discussions, I know, between the First Nations Justice Council and the provincial judiciary, particularly — and between our ministry and the judiciary — regarding ensuring that there are other services available and ensuring that the judiciary, for example, is aware of those services. If it gets to the stage where the judiciary is involved, they’re aware of what services are available, in order to consider meaningful diversion.

G. Begg: Thank you.

D. Routley (Chair): [Audio interrupted.] I don’t usually, until the very end.

I’ll just ask a question related to Garry’s question. That is, there’s a professor at the University of Chicago, who lives in Texas, named Tom Trott, who is trying to encourage governments to create diversionary paths, particularly for people with mental health issues — in the case of his son, which motivated him — before they are in the process of arrest, because that shows up on their record as well.

Is there any possibility of being able to have a lesser impact on a person’s outcome — not necessarily a judicial outcome but the outcome on their privacy?

R. Fyfe: I’m not sure I understand what you mean in terms of an impact on their privacy.

D. Routley (Chair): That the arrest record would not show a crime.

R. Fyfe: That’s probably a question better for police services, in terms of the system. They have records of contacts, which are different from arrests. I’m not sure that that would be avoided, but certainly, the preference for diversion could avoid a record in terms of an arrest or of going further than simply making that contact.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Deputy Minister Fyfe and staff, for your presentation. I just have a couple of questions here.

Taking off from a question that Dan asked around community policing, there have been some suggestions, both in meetings that I’ve had and, as well, to this committee, with respect to Indigenous communities’ choice in policing.

[8:45 a.m.]

I’m just wondering. In your role around the community tripartite agreement, recognizing that there are a couple of ministries on the provincial side that are involved — your ministry and PSSG — I’m just wondering if you would support…. I’ll put it this way. What are your thoughts on opening up the ability for Indigenous communities to use the funding that they receive to select or to choose to negotiate an agreement with the community public safety service of their choice rather than having to just default to the provincial service?

R. Fyfe: I can see if Colleen wants to answer that.

I know that the issue of First Nations policing comes up at just about every federal-provincial-territorial meeting with deputy ministers or ministers that I participate in. From a funding perspective, it’s a constant issue. There is strong provincial support across the country for finding ways to increase First Nations community policing as opposed to central provincial policing.

Beyond that, in terms of the ability to divert funds to do that… I guess it’s what you’re really asking. I guess the devil would be in the details on that in terms of how we’d go about doing that.

Colleen, I don’t know if you have anything to add.

C. Spier: I would echo the comments that you made, Deputy Minister Fyfe, and just add that in terms of process and next steps, we are at a place where we have just validated the implementation workplan for this strategy.

Once we have the approval from cabinet to implement the strategy, one of the first pieces is going to be to bring together the relevant people that need to be at the tables for these discussions and to do a quick strategic lay of the land and figure out exactly what is out there — what is funded, how it is funded — and see what kind of appetite there is for looking at different funding mechanisms.

As Deputy Minister Fyfe mentioned, there’s definitely an appetite for looking at ways that we can help nations increase their determination and decide what works best for them and explore ways to work together to help achieve what they need and what their priorities are.

A. Olsen: I appreciate that. Thank you for that response. I think I’m just going to hang on that last sentence or that last phrase just a little bit, just in the context of an Indigenous nation with a few options around them and having the ability to make the decision that they feel is best on behalf of their community.

Just moving a little bit to a different topic, I’ve done a few ride-alongs. I’ve got three RCMP detachments and a municipal police force in my riding. I’ve done ride-alongs on two of those four.

One of the very consistent themes, and it’s somewhat surprising that it didn’t come up in the presentation from the Attorney General, is the intersection between policing and the criminal justice system. Without giving away too much for the officers that kindly provided me their in­sights into the frustrations that they face — the investigative work that they do not always being picked up and taken or the capacity within the criminal justice system to be able to support the work that the officers on the ground are doing….

I am just wondering if maybe there’s some comment around that intersection and the ability of a police officer to focus on community efforts when they’re so heavily in­volved in investigative work. Then the frustration, as they expressed it to me, is only to see those people turned back out onto the street because the criminal justice system is overburdened and doesn’t have the ability to follow through on that work.

Is there any comment from the Attorney General’s office on those complaints that I heard loud and clear and totally unsolicited? They were the biggest complaints of the officer on the street.

[8:50 a.m.]

R. Fyfe: I’m happy to address that. It’s an issue that we’re well aware of in the ministry.

Yes, I often hear it expressed as being directed at the prosecution service. But I would start by just saying that we are one of the provinces that has a charge approval process. This means that following an arrest, the arrest information is provided to prosecution, who apply the two-prong test. That test requires a very comprehensive assessment of, first, whether there’s a substantial likelihood of conviction and then, secondly, whether it’s in the public interest to pursue a prosecution.

It’s applying those two levels of the test that I think results in the frustration for police. Other jurisdictions who don’t have the charge approval process find that what happens is that the arrest proceeds to charges. The charges often then fail down the road because of a failure of disclosure or an inability to meet that test. That test is one that is applied by the courts.

The process in B.C. provides a very detailed prescreening of that process and a rigorous review, where a decision is made not to proceed with charges, up through the regional Crown, up to, in some cases, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General — and, in many cases, a discussion with the Attorney, to take him through the rationale.

Where there are troubling cases, there’s often a detailed, clear statement provided by prosecution service now, which summarizes the issue. We see that quite frequently with decisions on recommendations coming from the independent investigations office, if there’s a decision not to proceed with charges.

It is very difficult. It can be a result of anything from delay to inability to meet disclosure and, in some cases, investigative problems or challenges with the evidence that’s being provided. Of course, we now face the Jordan situation as well, which has applied very strict timelines for proceeding with a trial for an individual once they’re charged. We’re dealing with 18 months in the case of Provincial Court, 30 months in the case of Supreme Court. That does result in a very close review by Crown of those cases.

I can tell you Crown is always available to the police during the stage between arrest and the report to Crown counsel, to provide advice on what is necessary, what’s needed and so on. It’s only where those deficiencies or where there’s a public interest issue — that the second prong of the test isn’t met — that charges aren’t proceeded with. I’m not sure that the offer to provide that advice is taken up sufficiently frequently. But that is a big role for Crown — to advise police on their disclosure requirements.

We are working towards a much more efficient electronic disclosure, or e-disclosure, process — working with police services to develop that. As we do that, I think what we’ll find is we are able to pull disclosure material together more quickly, make it available more comprehensively, have a good record of what is disclosed. That should help, as well, in supporting Crown in approving charges wherever they can, wherever it’s appropriate.

That, of course, is also combined now with the recent Crown process in terms of a preference for diversion. We hear from communities that many times people who are arrested, particularly chronic or prolific offenders, end up back in the community, almost as though…. They’re just sort of arrested and then go right back to what they were doing.

That, of course, is relevant in terms of bail conditions that are applied, or trying to apply only appropriate bail conditions, trying to release individuals. That, of course, has been made even more noticeable as a result of the re­cent pandemic, where there has been a preference not to maintain people in custody if they can be in the commun­ity unsupervised.

It’s a combination of factors. I don’t want to downplay the frustration that police experience and have expressed to you, MLA Olsen, but I think it’s important to understand for this commission that there are so many factors going into that whole process. It’s probably not surprising, and education for police is probably the best way to help them understand what goes into the process and why they sometimes feel frustrated with that part of their work.

A. Olsen: This may be one comment and then a final question. I think there’s this….

[8:55 a.m.]

What I noticed in the conversations was an interesting thing playing out. That was the decision as to whether or not certain cases were going to be tracked down, depending on…. The decision-making about whether or not to do something I think is impacted by the receptivity on the other side. I think you’ve done a very good job — and you know it much better than I do — of explaining the situation.

However, I just think how that plays out on the street, where you have someone that needs to be investigated…. That’s great, and an investigation follows through. We also want police officers to be building relationships with peo­ple in their communities, balancing that and making sure that not too much time is spent on a case that’s not going to go anywhere but, as well, not discouraging officers from maybe following up on issues and on people that need to be followed up on and cases that need to be investigated.

I think it’s a tricky balance that needs to be struck, with limited resources both in your ministry and, speaking to a deputy minister, in Mark Sieben’s ministry.

One final question. You mentioned that a Métis justice strategy is coming in the future. Do you have a timeline for that? I recognize that this First Nations justice strategy is a good one, and I’m looking forward to a Métis justice strategy. What is the timeline on that?

R. Fyfe: I’m going to let Colleen give us an update on that.

If you can, Colleen, just because you’re probably closer to the latest information than I am.

C. Spier: Thank you for the question.

We have received — the province — an embargoed copy of the draft Métis justice strategy at the beginning of the year. It’s currently going through different levels of government so that we can assess input and feedback and look at any amendments that might have to be jointly made to that document. The process will then involve the MNBC, Métis Nation British Columbia, going back to their board and senate and making sure that they are comfortable with the proposed amended changes.

Once we have a final draft that both the province and MNBC are agreed on, we can bring that to cabinet. Our hope is that we would bring that for recommendation of approval this coming summer. I’m thinking around the July time frame.

We would be working in an effort to align any of the recommendations in the Métis justice strategy with those of the First Nations justice strategy, just to create synergy and make sure that there’s no duplication, that we’re actually aligning things where appropriate. Both the B.C. First Nations Justice Council and the fairly newly developed Métis Nation B.C. Justice Council are meeting on a mon­thly basis to have those conversations, even in advance of the Métis justice strategy being endorsed.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, everyone. We’ve gone a little bit over time but only because we’re learning so much. Thank you very much to our presenters for that.

I’d ask, as I usually do in these meetings, that if the committee has further inquiry or issues that we’d like to sort out, we might be able to contact you, if necessary. Conversely, if there’s anything that you would like to submit to the committee going forward, we certainly welcome anything that you think should be noted by us.

Unless I see further questions, we’re over time. I want to thank our staff for sticking with us and everyone for ap­pearing here on a Monday morning, a beautiful Monday morning where I am.

With that, I would ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting. I have that from MLA Olsen, seconded by MLA Singh.

Motion approved.

D. Routley (Chair): The committee is adjourned. Thanks very much, everyone.

The committee adjourned at 8:59 a.m.