PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION (SPECULATION
AND VACANCY TAX) ACT, 2018

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 45; R. Glumac in the chair.

The committee met at 1:47 p.m.

On section 139.1 (continued).

S. Bond: I would like to withdraw the previous amendment that was tabled in this section.

The Chair: All right. For that, we need unanimous consent.

Leave granted.

Amendment withdrawn.

S. Bond: Now I would like to move an amendment to this section, section 139.1(3).

[SECTION 139.1 (3), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(3) The minister must, report to the Executive Council in respect of each consultation conducted under subsection (1), lay a report before the Legislative Assembly.]

On the amendment.

S. Bond: I, first of all, want to recognize and offer my appreciation for the help that the Finance Minister and her staff provided. She was able to confirm language that is approved by legislative counsel, and I very much appreciate her interest in allowing us to move forward with this amendment.

The minister, in her remarks, did point out that she is not opposed to there being transparency and a public discussion about the meetings that will take place with the affected communities and elected officials. So with that and our appreciation to the Finance Minister and her team, I move that amendment.

Hon. C. James: I will speak in support of the amendment. As we discussed before the break, on the issue of whether the report should be made public, it was my presumption that the report would be public. And I think this just ensures a comfort for people to know that that report is public. I think it is important to make sure and to have had the time to be able to work…. Huge kudos to staff who did an incredible job over lunch hour to be able to pull together language that works for the legislative drafters and works for this legislation. So with that, I will be supporting the amendment.

A. Weaver: Just very briefly, I, too, stand and rise and support the amendment. As I noted earlier, prior to the break, I thought the intentions of this was absolutely something that we would support. I’m glad it came in a form that we could support, and I’m delighted to be able to offer my support to this amendment.

[1:50 p.m.]

Amendment approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[1:55 p.m.]

The Chair: All right. We’re now going to be voting on the entire section.

Section 139.1 as amended approved.

Sections 140 to 155 inclusive approved.

On section 156.

Hon. C. James: I move the amendment to section 156 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 156, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

156 Section 9.7 (3) of the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 436, is amended by adding “or the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act” after “the Property Transfer Tax Act”.

(a) by adding the following subsection:

(0.1) In this section, “specified area” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act. ,

(b) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraph:

(d.1) amounts received by the government under the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act; ,

(c) in subsection (4) by adding “subsection (4.1) of this section and” after “but subject to”, and

(d) by adding the following subsection:

(4.1) An amount received by the government under the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act in respect of a regional district that includes a specified area may only be paid out of the special account under subsection (4) if

(a) the purpose for which the amount is to be paid relates to a housing, shelter or rental initiative in or for a specified area that is part of the regional district, and

(b) the total of all amounts paid in accordance with this subsection in respect of all specified areas that are part of the regional district does not exceed the total of all amounts received by the government under the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act in respect of that regional district.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: Just to describe this amendment, this amendment directs the revenue raised from the speculation and vacancy tax to the housing priority initiatives special account to ensure that it goes in the special account. I think we talked a little bit about it in previous sections. Once in the special account, the revenue can only be spent on housing initiatives and only in the respective regional district from which it has been raised.

A. Weaver: I rise to stand in support of this. To be very brief, this is an important amendment. Local communities need to directly benefit from the tax. This should not be a tax grab or be seen as a tax grab by government, where the money rolls into provincial coffers with no clear benefit to communities.

This will ensure that those communities with the most vacant homes or the most foreign money benefit proportionally from the revenues raised by this tax, and it’s part of the concomitant package of amendments brought forward from our earlier agreements.

S. Bond: I am going to move an amendment to that amendment.

[SECTION 156, by adding the following subsection:

(4.2) Money allocated by the Minister under subsection (4.1) must be in addition to money already allocated as of the date this Act received first reading.]

I think what we want to do is…. Certainly, I know that this has been a significant discussion for people in communities. If they were going to have to deal with a spec tax, where was that revenue going to go? What this does is enshrine the principle of incrementality. It says that any funding that’s provided through either a regional district or to community directly will be incremental to funding that the government has already allocated for affordable housing.

We want to be perfectly clear, and we understand that the minister pointed to a variety of special funds. I think it’s inherently important that it is clearly enshrined in legislation that this money is in addition to any other programs, supports or funding that is provided to communities or regional districts for housing options.

I think it’s fair. I think people will want to know that there are already existing programs and commitments. The minister frequently reminds us of the 30-point plan. We hear about announcements on a regular basis. What we want to be sure of is that this money reflects the principle of incrementality. That’s why we are moving this additional subsection.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Speaking against the amendment, we certainly have been advised by leg. counsel that this would be out of order. This kind of amendment that makes a change to how government allocates its money or spends its money would be ruled out of order.

Putting that aside, again from my perspective, I think the other amendment was fairly straightforward, and we had the opportunity to be able to talk with the legislative drafters to look at the legal implications. We do not have the time with this one, and it is a separate fund already. The money is being allocated into a separate fund. It’s not going into consolidated revenue.

From my perspective, we have done a very specific thing, which is to put it into a fund that’s already structured within government, the housing allocation fund, to ensure that the money will go in there. The language in the legislation is clear on that piece.

S. Bond: Perhaps the Clerk or the Chair can provide direction to us. Having said that, in essence, what this says is that any additional funds that are received in this fund are incremental to what the government already allocates. It’s not about taking money away from government programs. In fact, this is a new source of revenue. In the case of the last amendment, legislative drafting was about consistency around the bill. Is a ruling from the Clerk required in terms of the admissibility of the amendment?

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 2:01 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.

[R. Glumac in the chair.]

The Chair: On the amendment, as the Chair, I’m ruling that this amendment is not in order because a private member cannot extend the allocation of funds. So we’re back on the original amendment.

Subamendment ruled out of order.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 156 as amended approved.

Sections 157 to 159 inclusive approved.

On the title.

T. Redies: I have an amendment here to the title. I’d just like to pass the copies to the Clerk. In speaking to this amendment, what we are proposing is an amendment to the title of the bill.

[SECTION 141, by deleting the text shown struck out and by adding the underlined text as shown:

141 The title of this Act is repealed and the following substituted:

SPECULATION AND VACANCY ASSET TAX ACT .]

Despite the minister’s protestations, this bill never was and never has been about speculation in the true definition of the word. When it was first introduced back in February, one of the principles of the bill was that it was supposed to address speculation by foreigners. Instead, by May, we found out that the majority of people who were getting attacked by this tax are British Columbians and Canadians who, just by virtue of their hard work, have invested in property, second homes or retirement homes in the province of B.C., when they could have actually invested in a GIC or a property outside this province. Instead, this tax is an asset tax. It’s not a speculation tax in the true sense of the word.

From our perspective, the tax has caused tremendous consternation. Whilst there have been amendments, there is still this clear indication that this is not a speculation tax. It is an asset tax.

This government talks a lot about transparency. Again, I appreciate, like my colleague from Prince George–​Valemount, the minister accepting the last amendment that we put forward. But I think, in the interests of transparency, we should be calling this tax the asset tax, not the speculation tax. Therefore, I’m proposing that that’s what the name be changed to, so that we can be clear to British Columbians and that the government can’t hoodwink British Columbians into thinking that this is really a speculation tax, when all it is, really, is a tax on assets owned primarily by British Columbians and Canadians.

The Chair: Before we move forward, I’m going to make a ruling that this amendment is out of order. Looking through the legislative process guide, we cannot amend the title of the bill at this stage. So that amendment is out of order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

[2:15 p.m.]

Point of Order

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order, then. This is what I was going to speak to. If you go back to the discussion at committee stage of the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting Act in 20-something, I made an amendment, in a similar vein here, to change that to the Greenhouse Gas Increase and Industrial Reporting Act. That amendment was supported by the now government. It was ruled okay at that stage.

I’m not sure what has changed since then. I think if the Chair is going rule in this way, the Chair should provide a justification as to what has changed since I put the motion forward and today.

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: The ruling on this is that the only time a title of a bill can be amended is when the bill itself has been amended to necessitate a change to the title. That is the ruling on that.

Debate Continued

Title approved on division.

T. Redies: If I could just put some closing comments. This has obviously been an emotive discussion over the last four days, but I would like to, on behalf of my colleague from Prince George–Valemount and my other colleagues on this side of the House, thank the minister for her patience in taking our questions and also the staff for their patience in responding to our questions.

S. Thomson: It has been a long four days in the process. I’d just like to add my comments in thanking the minister and her staff for all the engagement and all the work.

I think, during this process, from my perspective, we made very, very important points on this initiative from the beginning. The minister said it a number of times. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the implementation of this, because we feel strongly that this is not meeting the objective that was originally communicated. We pointed out….

We tried to provide the opportunity for municipalities to be able to opt out. I think they had provided ample evidence during the process that would have justified those areas not being included. I know they now get a meeting and are going to get some reporting on it in order to continue to make those arguments. I think there were valid legitimate arguments prior to that that would have warranted that….

We made important points about the impact on seniors in our community, people’s retirement plans and retirement incomes. We looked at the prescribed area, got commitments from the minister that there would be no extension in that. We didn’t see the need to have a prescribed area indicated in there if those commitments were made.

All of those processes we will watch carefully, particularly around the commitment this will be incremental funding.

[2:20 p.m.]

I recognize the comments that the minister made in that area. Even though the amendment wasn’t accepted, it’s certainly something I know that communities and regional districts will be watching very closely to make sure that it is incremental. Some disappointment in the results of all those, but in the end I think our constituents in our communities will remain concerned. We’ll continue to bring forward the evidence and the information that indicates that this is, as we said in the beginning, ill-informed and ill-advised, and we’ll see.

Again, thank you very much for the engagement, the respectful manner in which the engagement took place and the support that was provided by the staff on a very technical, complex bill. There will certainly be ongoing questions that have to be answered, and there will be a lot of work on the part of staff in answering all of those individual situations that are going to come forward now that this is going to be implemented. Thank you.

B. Stewart: First of all, I do want to thank the government, the staff for their work on this in the sense of their patience and trying to understand and explain this. I know that there’s been a lot of time occupied in the minister’s office. People on our side of the House have grave concerns about what this does, because I think it’s clear that we see it as not necessarily, as we have tried to change the name…. It is a wealth tax. It’s bad tax policy.

I think it’s been made clear that…. I understand the objective. However, the communities have suggested and recommended alternative taxation methods that really do target speculation and flipping and the things that…. I think the government was intent on doing this.

I know that our community will be, obviously, looking forward to their meetings, but they will be watching. They are going to…. The impact has already affected, as we’ve laid out…. It has been impactful on new housing starts, the reduction in terms of rental stock, which I think everybody knows we need. And we’re going to be looking at, hopefully, more definition in terms of the metrics so that this policy becomes more aligned with what true speculation is really all about.

I know that the over 20,000 people that have emailed and the hundreds of letters that I have in my office…. I know that these people are, today, going to be disappointed to see that this bill is going ahead. And hopefully…. I think the big surprise for many of them is going to be the fact that they’re going to get a notice in January that assesses a tax for 2018, which I think many of them are going to find very offensive.

With this, hopefully, we can work together collaboratively and have more discussion between the communities that are involved in terms of how we can come up with taxation that works to achieve the objective of what the minister has laid out.

A. Weaver: To the minister and to the staff, both the staff in her office as well as the ministerial staff, the civil servants, this has been a long haul. I appreciate the time, the effort, the collaborative spirit that the minister has taken to this. Times were tough. The minister knows that we met many times. I appreciate the ongoing cordial relationship that existed. This has been a very tough bill for many people, myself included. And I do appreciate the sincere efforts that staff and the minister put towards getting it to a place where we are today. I recognize there will be people who aren’t pleased. There will be people who are pleased. There will be some who will be in-between. But I think, as we stand now, with some checks and balances in place, it’s a bill that I’m able and my colleagues are able to support.

I’m grateful that the minister was open to listening, both now, with respect to the amendment put forward by the member for Prince George–Valemount, as well as over the many months as she listened to input from our caucus, from the Liberal caucus, from other stakeholders. In terms of the time the bill was first signalled out through its initial intentions paper to the day it was brought in as an actual bill, a lot changed. That’s a credit to the minister, her staff and the civil service. So thank you all.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the members who took part in this debate and discussion. I think, as everyone has said, there has been much discussion on this bill since February and since the February budget. From my perspective, even though some of the discussions have been very difficult, that is democracy in action, which is having exactly that kind of discussion and debate, putting out the principles of the bill.

I recognize, and I think it’s important to note, that this is a brand-new tax. This really is a historic tax in that perspective, because it is a brand-new tax. And I understand that there were members who felt that there shouldn’t be opportunity or we should have had pieces decided when the bill came forward.

I am very proud of the fact that, in fact, we put the principles of the bill forward and gave the opportunity for people to give feedback, gave the opportunity for people to be engaged. It was not always an easy process, I think, as other members have said, but I believe it’s a better process. I have always believed in the importance of listening to the views, whether I agree with them or not. I think it’s important to listen to other people’s views to be able to take them into account and to make changes when they’re needed. I think this bill shows exactly that.

Did it make all the changes for everyone? No. Will everyone be happy? No. Were there changes that we made that would not have been changes that we would have supported? Yes. But that’s part of making sure that the fairness lens was put on a piece of tax legislation that was new.

I want to close by talking about why this is coming forward, because I think that’s the important piece in all of this. The principle of bringing forward this bill is part of a 30-point action plan to address the housing affordability crisis in British Columbia. And I don’t need to tell any member in this Legislature, because all of us have seen the examples in our community and have had the personal stories come into our office of individuals who are in crisis because they can’t afford housing.

Again, when I look at the family, two weeks ago, three weeks ago now, that was living in a tent in Vancouver with their children and told their children they were camping because they wanted to make sure the kids weren’t afraid about living in the tent…. I had a senior citizen in my office who was living in their car. We’ve talked to businesses that are struggling to be able find employees because of the housing affordability crisis.

Addressing this issue isn’t simply the right thing to do; it’s the right thing to do for the people but also the right thing for our economy. So I am proud to bring the bill forward.

I’m looking forward to the discussions with the mayors and with the communities because we want this to have an impact on the people that we’re bringing it forward for. We want to make sure that we have more affordable housing. We want to make sure that we increase the vacancy rates in communities, because a healthy real estate market has a variety of housing at a variety of prices for a variety of families and individuals.

We don’t have that right now because speculation in our market has caused it to skew. It’s caused people to use the housing market as a stock market. That’s not healthy for British Columbia, and it’s not healthy for our economy. Relying on a speculative real estate market does not mean long-term sustainable economic growth for our province. As Finance Minister, I really feel it’s my obligation to look at long-term sustainable growth, and as I said, speculation doesn’t do that.

I appreciate the debate that we’ve had. I appreciate the discussion. But most importantly, I’m bringing this bill forward and our government is bringing this bill forward on behalf of the people of British Columbia who’ve been calling out for action on the lack of affordable housing. We are moving ahead. We are acting, and I’m very proud of that.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:28 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 50; R. Glumac in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I look forward to canvassing this act with my colleague across the way. He should feel free to let ’er rip.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Lee: I’d just like to consider the deletion of the sections under the code, section 5 and section 6. Are all of the responsibilities of the minister responsible under the act, being the Attorney General, covered…? With the deletion of these two sections, are they all covered under the proposed amendment to act?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right that the same powers for the minister are now transferring to the independent officer, but they’re actually expanded beyond those set out in the old act.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. If you look at section 47.12 of the amendment act, that is the section that sets out the powers of the commissioner. When I look at subsection 6(b) of the code, I’m just querying where the coverage is for the intention that the minister would carry out consultations relevant to this code, first of all, in terms of what that meaning is and whether that’s captured under 47.12. And if so, which particular provision would deal with that or address that?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a good example of what we were just talking about. Sub (g), of the section the member identified, provides the ability for the commissioner to consult not just on the code, which was what the minister did under the old act, but on broad areas related to human rights. That’s the subsection that captures this consultation piece. Under the old act, it was limited to consulting on the code. Under the new act, it’s much broader than that — the consultation and engagement that the commissioner is empowered to undertake.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: I just would like to walk through the further time limit for filing complaints being extended from six months to a year. Is this limit provision customary for other similar legislation in the country? If so, what is the reason for this change in terms of what feedback has been derived from the consultations on this extension?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will be familiar with the work that the parliamentary secretary did in consulting. One of the issues that was raised in his consultations was that the six-month limitation period has been an issue. For people who have faced human rights–related complaints that they wanted to bring forward, it’s been a challenge for them to meet that timeline — to find someone willing to take on their case, to collect the necessary information, and so on, within the six-month period. So that was one of the recommendations in that engagement.

To the member’s question about other jurisdictions, all other Canadian jurisdictions included a 12-, 18- or 24-​month time period for filing complaints. In Alberta, New­found­land and P.E.I., you get 12 months without the opportunity for extension. In Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and for federal complaints, you get 12 months with the possibility of extension. You can apply for an extension. It’s 18 months with the possibility of extension in the Yukon and 24 months with the possibility of extension in Quebec, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. That puts us right in the middle of the pack in terms of these other jurisdictions.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. In terms of the concern regarding complainants being able to come forward and getting the right sort of assistance to file their complaints, is there, related to this greater expansion, any greater resources or assistance being provided through the Human Rights Clinic?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s certainly a possibility, but the answer is: not at this time. The first process will be to get a commissioner in place and give that person the opportunity to get the commissioner’s office set up and to engage with the commissioner and appropriate supports at that time. That’s where we are right now.

M. Lee: Related to that point, when we talk about the powers of the commissioner, which we’ll be canvassing with my colleagues here in more detail when we get to that section…. When the Attorney General pointed out sub 47.12(g)…. Does the commissioner also have the ability to recommend greater resources being dedicated in terms of human rights complaints or through the human rights clinics in the way that we just discussed? Is the commissioner empowered to make those sorts of recommendations?

Hon. D. Eby: Through their own budget, the commissioner could theoretically apply to the Select Standing Committee on Finance for additional funding. The commissioner is not able to, on their own motion, somehow increase their funding. The commissioner certainly could make recommendations to government to direct funding in certain areas if the commissioner felt that that would achieve the goals of preventing or eliminating discriminatory practices, policies and programs, for example, under sub 47.12(c).

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Lee: With the addition of the ability of the commissioner to intervene in a complaint, I’d like to ask the Attorney General to give a sense in terms of the scope of this power to intervene, in terms of what’s intended here.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: An individual may bring forward a complaint that affects that individual directly. The commissioner may look at that complaint and say that this looks like it does affect that person directly, but it also has broader implications. So the commissioner, in the situation where the commissioner believes that there might be a broader or more widespread or systemic aspect of the discrimination that’s alleged, could appear and intervene.

As an intervener, the commissioner could, for example, and as has been done in other jurisdictions, provide data, research or a suggested strategy to the commission. All of which would be further towards the goal of obtaining a remedy that would deal with the broader issue, not just the specific issue that might otherwise be in front of the commission.

M. Lee: As the Attorney General raises that, I just, without having the complete benefit of going through the specific provision in the code that might relate…. When the commissioner, under this new power, has the ability to intervene in the way the Attorney General just described, what ability do third parties who might be drawn into that systemic concern have to intervene as well?

Hon. D. Eby: Essentially, that provision would continue unaltered from the existing process under the commission, where an individual could apply to the commission or a group could apply to the commission for leave to intervene as well in the matter and to provide those perspectives to the commission.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

M. Lee: Just to ask the Attorney General the purpose for repealing these particular sections of the code, as set out in section 7.

Hon. D. Eby: The ability to approve a special program is passing from what is currently at the tribunal. It’s passing to the new commissioner, so there is no need, anymore, for there to be an ability for the tribunal to make rules related to special programs, which is the reference to applications under 42(3).

That’s the provision that relates to special programs, so because that power has been removed from the tribunal and given to the commissioner, the tribunal doesn’t need a rule-making power related to special programs anymore. It’s just essentially housekeeping to be consistent since that power has been removed.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

Hon. D. Eby: I have an amendment on the order paper in my name on section 9. I move the amendment to section 9 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

[SECTION 9, in the proposed section 47.12 (2), by deleting the text shown as struck out:

(2) The commissioner may not file a complaint with the tribunal under section 21 but may assist a person or group of persons with any aspect of a complaint under that section.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: The amendment essentially strikes the words from the bill “under that section.” This is the proposed section 47.12(2), which reads: “The commissioner may not file a complaint with the tribunal under section 21 but may assist a person or group of persons with any aspect of a complaint under that section.”

The amendment would strike the words “under that section.” The reason for that is to clarify the intention that the human rights commissioner may assist a complainant or respondent with any aspect of a complaint, such as research, or may assist in a mediation or other dispute resolution process.

The risk of leaving the words “under that section” is that an interpretation could be made that a commissioner could only assist a complainant in filing a complaint under section 21 of the code, essentially just the paperwork of the complaint.

Amendment approved.

On section 9 as amended.

M. Lee: I’d just like to invite my colleague from Richmond North Centre. She has a statement to make as well as some questions to ask.

The Chair: This is on section 9? Okay.

Member for Richmond North Centre.

T. Wat: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Every human being is entitled to enjoy human rights, regardless of their race, gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, ancestry or place of origin.

[3:05 p.m.]

The protection of human rights is a very important issue to British Columbia. It’s one of the primary duties of any democratic government. That is why we support this bill and the establishment of a new human rights commission.

The objective of human rights legislation is to eliminate discrimination and achieve equality. In particular, I’d like to touch upon addressing racial and gender discrimination. This issue I hold dear, because the riding I represent, Richmond North Centre, is a fast-developing community that has attracted residents from around the world. This makes Richmond a very ethnically diverse and multicultural community, where over 76 percent of the population is a visible minority, the highest proportion of any municipality in British Columbia.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

In addition to racial equality, I also want to echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who recently stressed the importance of equal opportunity for women, both in the workplace and in society. Discrimination hurts victims and demeans us all. For this reason, I support this bill to establish a new human rights commission.

While this bill is maintaining the direct-access model of the human rights tribunal, it is shifting the responsibility and power of public education and research to the commissioner. The commissioner will also have broad inquiry power.

Much has been mentioned in the discussion around this legislation around the idea of systemic discrimination. Could the Attorney General please discuss it and how it relates to subsection 47.12(1)(a)?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member very much for that statement in support of the bill and in support of human rights in British Columbia and for her advocacy for the diverse community that she represents in Richmond.

So 47.12(1)(a) talks about “identifying, and promoting the elimination of, discriminatory practices, policies and programs.” The member is asking about systemic discrimination. A good example of a systemic discrimination issue might be a program that is delivered on a Saturday. While it’s a facially neutral policy, the program is always delivered on Saturdays, yet there are religious groups in British Columbia that observe Saturday as a holy day when they are not allowed to partake in work or in certain activities. So although the system itself is not discriminatory, the effect of the system is discrimination in that there are groups of people who aren’t able to participate.

If someone from one of these groups came forward to the commissioner and said, “We’re really concerned this program is only delivered on Saturdays. We are not allowed to participate. This is systemic discrimination. It’s not specific to any individual; it’s part of the system. It’s facially neutral, but it has the effect of discriminating against everyone who shares this religious belief,” then the commissioner could make recommendations dealing with that particular issue of systemic discrimination that’s preventing a group from participating.

I hope that assists the member in understanding some of those provisions under 47.12 and that issue of systemic discrimination.

T. Wat: Thank you, Attorney General, for that example.

Could the Attorney General give some example of the types of resources, policies and guidelines contemplated under subsection (b)?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a large number of reports on various issues related to discrimination that have already been done, not just in British Columbia but across Canada. One of the recommendations that came out of the consultations across B.C. was: “Look, there have been so many reports that are gathering dust on shelves. Some of the work of the commissioner should be looking at the recommendations coming from those reports and identifying opportunities for implementing programs or policies to address discrimination from that baseline of work.”

Now, certainly, it doesn’t limit the commissioner from identifying new issues that the commissioner thinks are worthy of being addressed, but one of the key recommendations coming out of the report was: if you’re going to look at making recommendations about policies or procedures or so on, maybe start with this existing base of reports and recommendations around discrimination, racism, and so on, and work from there as a good place to start.

T. Wat: What kinds of areas would the commissioner be examining with regard to subsection (c)? Has anything been considered?

Hon. D. Eby: This is something that the commissioner will come to as a result of consultation with communities. We’ll see, later on in the bill, a discussion about a representative advisory group. It will make recommendations to the commissioner about different areas to look at.

An example of using this type of authority in another province is in Ontario, where the commissioner there looked at police use of authority to do check stops to stop people and ask for identification, looked at the racial breakdown of who was being stopped and who was being asked for identification and issued a report on that that resulted in reforms in that province. It’s just an example of the type of report that could be done.

This bill and government would not be prescribing to the commissioner certain areas that the commissioner should be looking at. We’re hopeful that the commissioner will go out and do the work with communities to identify priority areas for that kind of work.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister.

Regarding subsection (d), what kinds of education programs are being contemplated? What can we expect to see?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the issues that was identified during the consultation process was that many British Columbians support human rights. They are opposed to discrimination, racism and other types of conduct that restrict people from doing things based on unalterable things about who they are.

The issue has been that although there’s this large support for that particular kind of approach of treating people equally — and not just formally equally but actually giving them a chance to succeed…. Particularly, small businesses, landlords, employers, smaller employers want to do the right thing, but they may not have the information to do the right thing and may not realize until they’ve been taken to the tribunal that what they were doing was not the right thing.

One of the areas that the recommendation that came forward to us really emphasized was that there was a great opportunity for education of different groups that often end up in the tribunal for one reason or another to help them avoid being in the tribunal: “Here are ways in which you can work with employees or customers or tenants or others to avoid allegations of human rights violations, to avoid ending up at the tribunal.”

Typically, when the word “education” is used, people think of schools. But I think the focus coming out of the recommendations was very much on small business and others that want to do the right thing and may just not know how to do the right thing and may make a mistake that ends up in the tribunal, even though they had good intentions.

[3:15 p.m.]

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the explanation.

Regarding subsection (f), could the Attorney General explain how this would work in practice?

Hon. D. Eby: This is related to 47.15, which is the inquiry power of the commissioner. It involves the possibility that the commissioner could make a report to the Legislature if the Legislature required assistance in identifying human rights implications related to any policy, program or legislation. Similarly, the commissioner may identify existing legislation in British Columbia that needs to be addressed and may make recommendations to the Legislature in order to bring the legislation into consistency with the human rights code.

T. Wat: Attorney General, the same for subsection (g): how is this going to work in practice?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s one of those things that maybe you wouldn’t think would have to be written down, but it was just included out of an abundance of caution. There are many groups across the province — public sector, private sector, non-profit — that are interested in human rights, that are concerned about human rights. They see what’s happening in society. They want to be places that are welcoming to everyone and promote British Columbia as a diverse place.

What we wanted to do was provide explicit direction to the commissioner that the commissioner has the power to go out and make partnerships and to work with different groups to promote human rights in the province and protect human rights in the province.

There might be a group of businesses, for example, that get together and say: “We really want to increase awareness of human rights within our organizations.” The commissioner could partner with them in doing that. There might be non-profit organizations doing awareness campaigns for British Columbians. The commissioner could partner with them on that. What we’re hopeful of is that the commissioner will find those opportunities for partnership across the province.

T. Wat: Attorney General, from what you said, does it mean that the commissioner would take the initiative to go and talk to all these…? For example, you said small business groups and other organizations.

Hon. D. Eby: As we work our way through (a) to (j), in terms of the powers of the commissioner, clearly this is a wide scope of authority for the commissioner to craft a work plan and policy for that office in consultation with different groups across the province and with the advisory group that we’re going to talk about when we get to that section of the bill. It empowers the commissioner to go out and form partnerships with external organizations to promote and protect human rights.

Certainly, all of these pieces, actually…. In particular, section (g) talks about consulting and cooperating with individuals and groups. It could be small businesses. It could be big business. It could be non-profits. It could be individuals. It could be religious organizations. You name it — finding those opportunities to improve, protect and promote human rights in the province.

T. Wat: One final question regarding subsection (i). Would the commissioner be working to promote B.C.’s compliance or human rights obligations in other jurisdictions as well?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The federal government provides regular reports on how Canada is doing internationally with our human rights. The commissioner’s work here is around identifying opportunities for us to ensure compliance with the documents that Canada has signed around international human rights, to make sure that British Columbia is on side with those, and to provide reports up to the federal government and to other provinces about how we’re doing and what we’re doing in relation to these various human rights obligations.

L. Throness: I want to ask a few questions of the minister regarding section 9 of the bill, but I would like to provide some context first. I would beg the indulgence of the committee, of the Chair and of the minister as I set some context for my remarks. For my constituents’ sake, I’m querying the minister on Bill 50, which is the Human Rights Code Amendment Act which will establish a human rights commissioner.

I want, in particular, to address the issue of religious rights. It’s something that I have a lot on my mind. I have a personal interest in that, and also, I’m representing many of my constituents who feel the same way.

Historically, human rights commissioners have been less about justice for individuals — which is the specific job of the Human Rights Tribunal, which we have always had and won’t be changed by this bill — and have been more about social change. In 2002, the government removed the commissioner. I think the government of the day, reading the speech from the minister at that time, wanted to emphasize the resolution of individual human rights complaints at the tribunal rather than emphasizing an agenda of social change. But this government has taken a different tack, and that is its right to do so.

The bill before us flows from a report that the parliamentary secretary, the member for Delta North, made to the Attorney General in late 2017 entitled A Human Rights Commission for the 21st Century. It is an activist document. It talks a lot about discrimination due to colonialism, classism, racism, ableism, and about LGBTQ rights and gender, but it doesn’t talk a lot about religious rights.

The purpose of the commissioner, according to the report, is to proactively promote and advocate for human rights. Its education function should be aimed at “fostering social change.” Accordingly, in the bill before us, the commissioner is mandated to do ten things, which my colleague was just talking about, all regarding social change, even to intervene in any court case. So we can expect much activity from the commissioner created by this bill, which positively urges him or her to be aggressive in accelerating social change.

However, in the report done by the parliamentary secretary, there was hardly a mention of religious discrimination. Indeed, the words “religion” or “religious” do not appear in the Bill 50 before us. In fact, under the heading “Religious discrimination” in the foundational report, the narrative following the heading was about protecting people who are not religious.

Allow me to quote from that section entitled “Religious discrimination,” which quotes a fellow saying the following: “Under Canadian case law, religion requires worship of a supernatural deity. Non-believers in supernatural deities should be protected as well.” It goes on to make more of the same point.

It’s amazing to me that the protection of religious rights would be recast in this report as protection for those who are specifically not religious. It is the antithesis of the protection of religious rights. In this way, the voices of people of faith were effectively excluded and silenced in this report.

This extends further still in the report. Let me read from a recommendation to the Attorney General to appoint a human rights advisory council, which said this: “Representation should be drawn from a range of communities, including the business, disability, local government, Indigenous and LGBTQ2S-plus — that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited — communities.”

Religion is not included on that list, and people whose religion is important to them will probably not be represented on the advisory board created by Bill 50 — people, perhaps, of the Sikh religion, whose temple was vandalized in Kelowna just yesterday. This could be thought of as a racist act, but it could also be thought of as religious discrimination, since it was perpetrated against a temple.

People of faith may not have a voice or representative. They may be silent and unheard. I say that because a precedent was set in the report. There were no religious people represented on the advisory group to the parliamentary secretary who authored the report. People of faith are at the bottom of the list. Yet their rights are important, and I want to assert that their rights are under pressure.

Finally, just to underscore this point, I looked at the 198 participants who attended workshops or meetings or provided written submissions that informed the report and the bill before us. There were just two religious groups among them. The Salvation Army and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs made written submissions.

[3:25 p.m.]

There are upwards of one million Christians in B.C., a fifth of our population, so it is astounding to me that their input, in particular, comprised one-half of 1 percent of the total submissions.

I want to speak about them, about Christians in particular, as a category of people of faith in Canada, and I want to talk about what they are like. Christians are important in the charitable world in B.C. and Canada. I searched and quickly found over 20,000 Christian charities in Revenue Canada’s database. They’re all over Canada and in B.C. In Vancouver, the Salvation Army helps 1,200 people every day in the Downtown Eastside. Union Gospel Mission serves 320,000 meals every year.

In my own city, the Salvation Army has been working since 1924, and a mission recently created by local churches, called Ruth and Naomi’s, now serves 70,000 meals per year and runs multiple programs for the homeless and addicted. On Saturday, I will attend the fundraiser of PEARL Life Society in Chilliwack, a faith group which ministers to women and girls working on the street. There are some of the most difficult ministries around, but Christians are there with the poorest, the homeless, the imprisoned, the sexually abused, the addicted and the mentally ill.

You will find them embedded everywhere. They come up all the time, and I want to give a few recent examples.

This week I met here in the Legislature with a chain of Value Village Stores. We learned that they were started by a Christian family which had first started Salvation Army thrift stores so that they have a strong sense of mission. That’s why Value Village is so active in supporting many non-profit causes as part of its business plan.

Last week three young guys came to see me. Matthew, Seth and Calvin came to see me in my constituency office. They’re 13 years old. They’re young guys. They go to a Christian school, and they wanted to query me about what the government is doing for the homeless, because they have a concern for the homeless.

They have that concern because they are part of a ministry called Vancouver bread ministries, in which four churches get together without government assistance, totally private, and they put together periodically a trailer full of sandwiches. Families with these four churches take their young kids, 13 years old, and they go into Vancouver, and they hand out these sandwiches to people in Pigeon Park and all around Vancouver.

I had to take my hat off to them. I don’t do that. But these young guys are deeply concerned with helping others, and they go to a Christian school.

At church last Sunday, it was announced that Samaritan’s Purse…. Shoeboxes were being taken in, and there were 3,800 shoeboxes that were taken in, in Chilliwack last Sunday. Samaritan’s Purse has Operation Christmas Child, which gives out millions of shoeboxes full of goodies to underprivileged children every year at Christmas time. Last year Canadians in total gave 615,000 shoeboxes. Since 1993, Samaritan’s Purse has given out 157 million shoeboxes in 130 countries. Their vision for kindness is vast.

Christians are active internationally. In addition to Samaritan’s Purse, Canada has World Vision; Compassion International; Food for the Hungry; One Life One Chance and Hungry for Life, which are two international charities headquartered in my own city, in Chilliwack; and there are dozens more.

Christians founded many of the universities and hospitals in Canada, like McMaster, which was Baptist; Dalhousie, which was Anglican; Wilfrid Laurier and Waterloo, which were Lutheran. The Ontario school system was designed by a circuit-riding preacher, and Ryerson University is named after Egerton Ryerson. In Vancouver, St. Paul’s, Holy Family and Mount St. Joseph hospitals were founded by Christians. Wherever there are Christians, there is a profusion of charity.

If there is any academic doubt in this point, committee members may want to borrow my copy of Indian theologian Vishal Mangalwadi’s new book entitled The Book That Made Your World, where he recounts the contrast between his own culture and the West, how scripture lies at the root of many of the good things we enjoy as a matter of course in western culture — concepts of passion, compassion, liberty, humanity, heroism, science and the university. They were all informed, not exclusively but in great measure, by scripture.

All this is to provide evidence that Christians are not hateful or hating people. They are helping people. They are good people. In fact, the greatest commandment for the Christian is to love God and the second to love their neighbour as much as they love themselves. And while individual Christians, like everyone else, are at various states of maturity, mature Christians are characterized by love, even for those with whom they may disagree.

That’s why it’s so odd to me that the faith that experiences a lot of pressure of discrimination in Canada is Christianity, and, in particular, Christians who hold to the Biblical teaching that sex should be confined to traditional marriage, although, in my lifetime, this was the prevailing standard of human relations.

[3:30 p.m.]

At lightning speed, in historical terms, our society has changed course, and Christians are paying the price, as they have often done in disagreeing with governments over the past two millennia. I want to offer a few examples of discrimination to this committee.

Federally we are all well aware of the requirement to be pro-choice in applying for summer job grants. We might add to that the requirement that all federal government MPs be pro-choice. Because many pro-life people are Christians, they and their organizations, such as summer camps for kids, experience discrimination by these requirements.

In Ontario, Bill 83 gave the provincial government permission to remove children from homes where the parental ethic does not agree with the child’s ethic. Recently in Ontario, a child was removed from a foster home by the province because the parents refused to tell their foster child that there is an Easter Bunny. The Christian parents won in court, but the point is that the province went to court to fight to be able to discriminate against this family because of their beliefs.

I think of Alberta, where the NDP government is pressing independent schools to the wall, and 28 of them will lose their government funding next year because of their conviction of conscience on the issue of biblical ethics.

It is happening in B.C. as well. In 2014, Nanaimo city–​owned Vancouver Island convention centre had been scheduled to host a religious telecast featuring speeches from such religious extremists as Desmond Tutu, Malcolm Gladwell and former first lady Laura Bush. Just four days before the conference, the permit was withdrawn.

This summer a religious youth conference put on by Grace Chapel in New Westminster on sexuality and identity issues, to be held at the Anvil Centre in New Westminster, was suddenly cancelled. The other day in Pine Centre mall in Prince George, the promotions director shut down a Salvation Army choir singing Christmas carols. Though the decision was later reversed, the damage in terms of public embarrassment and public odium was already done.

These are actions directed against Christians and Christian groups. I would point out that until now the courts have stood between these groups and attacks by various bodies, including government bodies, but now the courts have also capitulated to discrimination. I fear that human rights bodies may do the same.

Trinity Western University was openly discriminated against in the case of its application for a law school this summer. The Supreme Court of Canada made no bones about it. The chief justice even said it was not minor or trivial discrimination, but he agreed with it anyway. I find this to be chilling.

Casual discrimination is becoming routine, and I would submit that it is becoming systemic. I give, as another example, the front page story from the Chilliwack Progress from last Friday. It talked about school board candidates who ran with an “admitted religious focus” as if a faith perspective is a matter of guilt, something to be ashamed of and admitted to. This kind of anti-religious language, this bias, is being built into all of our public discourse.

In addition to formal and informal discrimination, Christians are increasingly subject to vitriol in the public square. In my own riding, the media carried a story about a student named Valerie Flokstra. I met this very nice person, who brought up a relevant medical fact about abortion in her class at the University of the Fraser Valley. Two professors interrogated her for nearly an hour, an interview which she recorded and made public. She says that she was told to keep her Christian identity to herself when she entered teachers college.

Most recently there was a great deal of public anger directed at Christians in the school board election in Chilliwack. I could use many quotes in which candidates who were religious were called “hateful” and other very nasty things in public, over and over. This was even though every candidate, including religious candidates, decried all bullying and advocated for the acceptance, protection and inclusion of every child.

Not long ago I met with the principal of a conservative independent school in Chilliwack who told me that he is expecting that one day a child will identify as trans or gay in his school and that he is getting ready to accommodate that child. There is no suggestion of hatred or bullying. It is not there.

In response to a tweet in which I disagreed with SOGI 123 because I think it will harm children — and I do — someone tweeted back: “Sir, you are a villain.” But I love children…

The Chair: Member, you have about one minute.

L. Throness: …and want to protect them all.

Do I not get 15 minutes, Chair?

The Chair: Yeah, it’s been time.

L. Throness: Okay. I am not a villain, but this increasing kind of rhetoric is breaking through and building intolerance toward Christians as a group. Allow me to quote from a private Facebook message I received a couple of weeks ago. “Let me put this bluntly,” the man said, “Christians like yourself and the hates that you represent are horrible people. I don’t like you, I don’t like what you stand for, and I don’t like who your friends are.”

[3:35 p.m.]

The undertone was ominous. It was ugly and even threatening. This person doesn’t know me or my friends. We love children and would never countenance bullying or harm any child. We are good people.

This language is ominous. It fills me with distress about the future, because if a person is hateful, if a person is a villain, if a person really is a horrible person, you can justify doing just about anything to that person. This kind of language, this vilification of good people, is a precursor to persecution of Christians, who want to be true to their conscience and follow the ethic of Jesus. So allow me, since….

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

L. Throness: Can I ask some questions?

Interjections.

L. Throness: Okay.

The Chair: Does another member have any questions?

M. Lee: While we’re on section 9…. I’d like to go back through to the beginning of section 9, in section 47.01. If I may, when the special committee of the Legislative Assembly is to make this recommendation, first of all, what is the time frame for that process that the Attorney General would expect — when this code amendment is passed and moving forward? What will be the next steps for that special committee process?

Hon. D. Eby: As much as I hesitate to predict the future, the plan is that we strike the committee, if it is the wish of the House to pass the bill. Once the committee is struck…. As an example, it took three months for the search process to find and hire a new Representative for Children and Youth. That might assist the member in a timeline in terms of a hiring process. The intent would be to strike a committee as soon as the bill is passed, before the end of November.

M. Lee: Thanks for that response. In terms of the actual reappointment process under sub (4) of 47.01, what would that process look like? Would that special committee come back together again, depending on the composition of the House at the time? What would be the mandate of that special committee process?

Hon. D. Eby: It would be a new special committee struck for the purpose of reappointment.

M. Lee: We’ll just have a sequence of questions here, because this is a very long section, on these various sections that are provided. On section 47.02, when there’s a resolution, passed by at least two-thirds of the members present, of the Legislative Assembly, what is that standard that’s been chosen there as that threshold? What’s the rationale for setting it at that level?

Hon. D. Eby: This is something that we’ve seen in other independent officers. The Police Complaint Commissioner and the Representative for Children and Youth have similar provisions requiring a two-thirds vote.

M. Lee: Speaking about the other officers of the Legislature similar to the Ombudsperson or the Representative of Children and Youth, are there any differences as to how the commissioner under this code amendment act would be, first of all, overseen, in terms of his or her duties and responsibilities, versus the other officers of the Legislature of that nature?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: They’re accountable to the Legislative Assembly in the same way as this proposed new commissioner, and just like this proposed new commissioner, those commissioners provide an annual report to the Legislative Assembly.

M. Lee: Under section 47.08, in terms of the advisory council that’s proposed here…. I’m sure my colleague will have a further question on this, but just to start off with…. The role that’s stated in this section is that the advisory council is to advise the commissioner on issues with respect to human rights and perform any other functions specified by the commissioner. Could the Attorney General explain what is contemplated by establishing this council and provide some examples as to the work that the council might undertake?

Hon. D. Eby: This is an independent office of the Legislature, so the commissioner is going to be taking control of the areas that the commissioner is going to be looking at.

In terms of the advisory council, our expectation is that the commissioner will be recommending people to government for appointment. The goal of this council is to advise the commissioner on issues related to human rights. So it may vary in composition, depending on the particular focus of the commissioner’s work.

M. Lee: With these forms of advisory councils to commissioners or officers of the Legislature, with the other bodies that might be established here within this Legislative Assembly, is there a terms of reference that might be set out that would be provided to the Attorney General from the commissioner, just in terms of the scope of the activities of this council?

Hon. D. Eby: Just a small point of correction — well, maybe not that small. It’s the nature of the office. The human rights commissioner is an independent officer, so doesn’t report to the Attorney General, and would establish the advisory council on the commissioner’s own initiative and direction.

Ontario’s Human Rights Commission has a community advisory group, and the commissioner there — just like the commissioner here could — did in fact establish terms of reference. They set out as their strategic priorities: embodying human rights through reconciliation, enforcing human rights in the criminal justice system, advancing human rights by addressing poverty and promoting a human rights culture through education.

You’ll see that those aren’t particularly distinct from some of the purposes that we’ve set out more broadly for the commissioner’s office. They do, indeed, have a terms of reference. But the key here is that the terms of reference would be set by the commissioner as an independent officer — not by my office and not in a manner to report to me.

M. Lee: Would the expectation be that the Legislative Assembly would receive a copy of that terms of reference through the report, for example?

Hon. D. Eby: I would reasonably expect so, but it is up to the commissioner how the group is structured, how the terms of reference work, and so on.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: Well, we’re not at that section of the amendment yet, to speak to the report, but perhaps that’s something we can consider, in terms of the nature of that report that might be provided to the Legislative Assembly.

Let me just move to the composition of the advisory council itself. Can the Attorney General give us a sense as to what the commissioner will be looking to, to structure the composition of this advisory council?

My colleague the member for Chilliwack-Kent just made a comment about the nature of the stakeholders that were consulted by the parliamentary secretary’s, the member for Delta North’s, report. How do we ensure that there’s broad coverage of all the stakeholders who have concerns about human rights in this province, that they’ll be part of this advisory council with all the different representative stakeholders in this province?

Hon. D. Eby: The recommendation that came from the engagement process was that there be a human rights advisory council with representation from all regions of the province. That includes individuals who can ground the commission’s work with lived experiences. This, typically, is understood to be that these are people who are living with the reality of facing discrimination, racism, and so on, and they can advise the commissioner.

One of the big mistakes in human rights work is often assuming you know what’s best for a particular group, attempting to help and actually inadvertently making things worse. That’s why you bring in members of the representative groups to advise and assist. It’s where the maxim “Nothing about us without us” comes from. It’s this idea that groups that are affected by racism and discrimination should be part of the solution, and that’s the goal of the advisory council. I would expect that a commissioner would be structuring the council in a manner that would assist the commissioner in the type of work the commissioner aims to do.

Now, with respect to consultations on the report and how that happened, there was a press conference. Members of the Legislative Assembly all received packages to post in their offices to receive submissions from people about what they thought the commission should work on, what it should look like, and so on. The hope was…. We were quite successful in that, actually. There were more than 13,000 site visits on the public engagement site. There were submissions from people across the province. So that is where the engagement report came from.

I hope that assists the member in understanding where that composition came from. If the member is concerned that there were certain groups that were underrepresented in the engagement process, it was an open call for engagement. Certainly, I’ll take the member’s comments under advisement in terms of future engagements to make sure that we do a better job of reaching out to particular groups that may have been underrepresented.

L. Throness: I want to ask a few questions and finish making just a few very short remarks. I had just recounted a very direct message that I received, and I reflected that when people get to know each other, it makes it much harder to vilify one another. So it’s important to reach across the aisle on questions like this, especially questions of ethics, to try to understand each other instead of to vilify the other person.

I want a commissioner who will do this because, to me, human rights are not a zero-sum game. To suggest that if one must win, the other must lose is a false dichotomy. That’s what pluralism is all about. In a pluralist society, different groups can enjoy the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, and the government should be a neutral arbiter between them.

My concern about Bill 50 before us is that the government might choose a commissioner who does not understand this, who will, without a lot of thought, take one side and further advance the popular trend that is moving against people of faith, spurred by the parliamentary secretary’s report, which effectively ignored religious rights.

Now, I make no strident demand of the government in this regard. Instead, I make a humble plea to choose a commissioner who will counter that very negative and ominous trend, a person who will defend with energy the rights of conscience of all British Columbians, including those who are religious.

Because I believe it more likely that the commissioner will follow the popular trend unless the government commits otherwise, I will be abstaining from voting on this bill. But I have four questions. The first one. Will the government commit to select a commissioner who will be willing to protect the rights of British Columbians of faith, including the right of Christians to follow the biblical ethic that their Lord and their conscience requires?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of comments. It’s not clear to me that the member has a full grounding of the human rights law in British Columbia. The human rights code has, as one of the core areas of protection against discrimination, religion. The commissioner’s work, expressly by this statute, is to protect and promote those areas that are contained in the code, which includes religion.

Now, I think that when we look at some of the most dis­turbing examples of recent racism and discrimination, we’ve seen they have indeed been targeted at religious groups. I saw a message from the opposition member’s party in relation to some spray-painting on a Sikh temple in, I think it was, Kelowna. We saw the massacre of people of the Jewish faith in the United States — a rise in anti-Semitism.

I think the member is mistaken if he thinks that somehow racism and discrimination against people of faith is not contained in the bill or is not part of this process. I just wanted to clarify that for him, because it seemed that his understanding of the bill might be that that isn’t covered when in fact it is.

L. Throness: Well, we understand that in words it is covered, but I want it to be effectively covered. So my second question is: will the government consider appointing an MLA to the committee, under 47.01, who holds to biblical or other strong religious values so that they can question candidates for commissioner about their commitment to religious rights?

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of the makeup of all special committees in this place, they’re made up as a result of consultation among the three House Leaders. So it’s a cooperative process, usually. The member can engage his House Leader in making sure that the views he is interested in seeing on that committee to represent his party’s perspectives are put forward.

L. Throness: My third question: will the government. under 47.08, commit to naming a person or persons who hold a biblical ethic to the advisory council mandated in this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: In some of my earlier answers, I indicated to the members opposite that the advisory council makeup, terms of reference, and so on are the responsibility of the commissioner as an independent officer of the Legislature. So these are questions that the member could put to potential candidates through the special hiring committee process for a commissioner, which will be an all-party committee that requires unanimous consent for the hiring of the commissioner. The actual forming of the advisory committee will be done by the independent commissioner, not by government, not by my office, not by MLAs. It’s by the commissioner.

L. Throness: My final question. Because discrimination is usually based on ignorance of the intentions of the other party, will the minister amend the act to require that the commissioner seek to understand the positions of opposing groups on moral issues before coming to conclusions so that he or she cannot rush to judgment on programs and recommendations that would be hurtful to good people; to require that the commissioner be a healer, one who seeks to understand and build bridges rather than one who increases societal fissures?

I would suggest that this could be done in section 47.12, adding a subsection (3), which could be worded something like the following: the commissioner must seek to understand and to promote understanding between groups or individuals of sincere intention who differ on profoundly held issues of conscience, prior to taking actions under subsection (1).

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll refer the member to 47.12(1)(g), which talks about “consulting and cooperating with individuals and organizations in order to promote and protect human rights” — which rights do include religious rights, as we canvassed earlier. So it is already contained in the bill.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

[3:55 p.m.]

M. Lee: I’d just like to ask: in terms of the shifting of the power or responsibility to determine special programs from the tribunal to the commissioner, were there challenges previously with the determination by the tribunal as to what special programs would be supported or permissible?

Hon. D. Eby: No, it’s just better suited to the role of commissioner, who’s tasked with the promotion and protection of human rights.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

M. Lee: In reference to section 11, the ability under the new section 47.15 to make inquiries: can the Attorney General, for the purpose of this committee process, provide some context around the purpose and the scope and the nature of those inquiries?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a provision that is not identical but draws a little bit from the Ontario inquiry power. That’s maybe the best jurisdiction to look at in terms of how a commissioner might possibly use this power.

In April of 2018, Ontario concluded an inquiry, the title of which was Interrupted Childhoods: Over-representation of Indigenous and Black Children in Ontario Child Welfare, which inquired into whether First Nations, Métis, Inuit, Indi­genous and black children are overrepresented at Children’s Aid Societies in that province, particularly in admissions into care.

Another example was an inquiry titled With Learning in Mind. This was an inquiry that looked at systemic barriers that students with mental health disabilities experience in post-secondary schools. It also outlined the changes that the Ontario Human Rights Commission called for in college and university policies and programs and the progress that institutions have made in implementing those changes.

It was interesting. In the last bill, I overheard a conversation about the restaurant sector, the previous government and a bill brought forward by the Third Party — I guess they were the Third Party then — related to high heels in the restaurant sector. In 2016, the Ontario Human Rights Commission initiated a human rights inquiry into dress codes in the restaurant sector in that province. So that’s the way that that province looked at that issue. We did it a little differently here in B.C.

There’s quite a wide range of different areas that the commission has used that inquiry power to look at.

M. Lee: I appreciate that Ontario is the example, under human rights commissions in the country, that has this inquiry power. That is the only commission and commissioner that has that ability. That’s not there under any of the other provinces or even under the federal jurisdiction.

Are there any reasonable limits around the scope of the inquiry power of the commissioner that the Attorney General can foresee? Is the commissioner, for example, limited solely by the nature of the powers sort of set out in this bill, which are general and broadly defined? Is there any consideration by the Attorney General as to the reasonable limits around that inquiry power?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of practical and then some maybe more theoretical limitations on the inquiry power. The first is that the commissioner will be developing a workplan and a strategic plan for the office going forward. We’ll be focusing any use of this power on strategic priorities as a limitation.

A more practical limitation is that inquiries are quite expensive. The office will have a budget that’s set by the select standing committee. If the commissioner decides to engage in multiple inquiries, they’ll have to come back to the select standing committee for additional money in order to do so. The committee will have an opportunity at that time to raise concerns or to provide additional funding if the committee believes it’s appropriate.

The third, another sort of practical limit, is that this section is coming into force by regulation. The intention is not to bring it into force for a year so that the commissioner will have an opportunity to set up an office, set up a strategic plan, give an indication about where they’re heading with the office before the inquiry power is brought in. This gives the commissioner an opportunity to find the commissioner’s feet before getting started on the work.

M. Lee: I know we touched on this briefly before, but just to ask the question in this context: with the next steps that the Attorney General just laid out as to the establishment of the office and the timing around that, does the Attorney General, based on the other work by commissions in Canada, including Ontario, as to the scale of the commissioner’s office — that is, the number of staff and even the size and budget that might be devoted for the commissioner — have any sense as to what that would look like from an order-of-magnitude point of view?

Hon. D. Eby: If the member is looking at the budget for Ontario, it’s not a perfect comparison in terms of potential office size. We are a different population from Ontario. A better comparison might be similar officers in British Columbia.

The emphasis on this office is going to be a nimble office that heavily leverages outside organizations in terms of empowering them to protect and promote human rights. We talked a lot about the partnerships with the private sector, the public sector and non-profit organizations. That is our hope for where the office will draw its strength, rather than through size.

All these questions will be going to a select standing committee in terms of the actual composition. Part of it is that we want the commissioner to work with us and work with the Legislature on the design of the office, what it will look like and how it will operate.

M. Lee: I just have a few questions remaining here. Because we’re in the course of a dialogue here, they don’t necessarily pertain to this specific section. But just before we complete this committee process, a couple of questions arise from that.

I appreciate that there is the leveraging of resources here, which we’re all mindful to do. Speaking to that, in terms of the Human Rights Tribunal, how will the new commissioner and his or her office interact with the tribunal?

Hon. D. Eby: They’re definitely two distinct offices, with two distinct legislative mandates. However, there are opportunities for the commissioner to intervene in complaints in front of the tribunal.

[4:05 p.m.]

In addition, we’re expecting that there will be a mechanism established between the two offices so the commissioner is advised about complaints that are coming in to the tribunal, so the commissioner can be aware about issues that are being raised and make decisions about intervening or, potentially, support for complainants. We know that the tribunal is looking forward to having an engaged relationship with the commissioner and working together in a less formal way, as well.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Just as a follow-on to that, will the mandate or workings of the tribunal be altered in any way with this new office being created?

Hon. D. Eby: The only changes will be that there’ll be a new group, a new entity, entitled to intervene — which, we’ve canvassed, is the commissioner — and the removal of the special programs from the mandate of the tribunal. Other than that, the tribunal’s operations should continue as previously.

M. Lee: Just to go back, I meant to ask, specifically, on the section we were on, 47.16…. Under this section of the bill, is the specific authority or ability of the commissioner to order a person to attend — say, in person — to answer questions on oath or solemn affirmation or in any such manner…? Is that power similar to the power that the Ontario commissioner has as well?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, Ontario has a similar power.

M. Lee: I just wanted to come back to one topic that the Attorney General had mentioned. This does, perhaps…. I’ll just mention it, and then we can get to that section on the annual report.

With the select standing committee, what is the nature of any ongoing interaction, let’s say, or reporting, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, that that committee might have vis-à-vis this commissioner?

Hon. D. Eby: Each legislative officer goes every year to that committee for their budget request.

M. Lee: And with that annual interaction for the budget request, presumably there is a review as to the activities of the commissioner and their office and the resources that are being requested. Is that the case?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s also an annual report that goes to the entire Legislative Assembly through the Office of the Speaker.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

M. Lee: Speaking about the annual report, this is the section that sets that out. What is the expectation that the Attorney General would have as to the contents of that annual report?

Hon. D. Eby: The previous human rights commissioner in B.C. was required, as well, to submit an annual report, so those reports exist as a bit of a template.

[4:10 p.m.]

Typically, from an independent officer, you would see a message from the commissioner, an outline of the strategic plan for the work, the vision and purpose of where they’re going, who’s on their team, the approach they’ll be taking in the year and what their priorities are for the year, which is a forward-looking piece.

Then you’ll see the year in review. There will be, potentially, emerging issues and trends, outreach and education, accessibility, partnerships, collaboration.

Then typically, also, you’ll see metrics — measuring performance, the year in numbers, outcomes, a financial summary of how the money was used that the office received.

Just to give an example of some of the topics that are typically covered and have been covered historically by human rights commissioners in B.C.

M. Lee: Thank you for that summary. I would suggest, of course — and I presume the Attorney General will just take note of this, as this gets implemented — that additional items that would be included in that report would be the status of any interventions, inquiries and the activities of the advisory council. Would the Attorney General agree with that suggestion?

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly. That’s a great suggestion. I hope the commissioner takes it up.

Sections 12 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:12 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 57 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 57; J. Rice in the chair.

The committee met at 4:32 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Lee: As we start the committee process on this particular bill, I’d just like to ask…. I understand that none of the amendments to the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act that are proposed in this bill change the underlying policy to that legislation, which passed in the spring. Could I ask if that is correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that is correct.

I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce staff now that I have my list here. I’m joined by Robert Goldschmid, legal counsel, justice services branch, Ministry of Attorney General; Darin Thompson, legal counsel of the same, who is here on the class action portion of the bill; Nina Bindra, legal counsel, legal services branch, Ministry of Attorney General; and Krista Prockiw, legal counsel, ICBC.

M. Lee: With the last response, is there a reason why the specific amendments, then, that are included in Bill 57 were not included in the original Bill 22?

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, the issue was simply staff identifying…. Probably, the member may have similar questions for future sections relating to this. Staff went through…. They’ve been going through it with a fine-toothed comb.

We expect these provisions to be challenged in the Supreme Court, so we want them to be as clear and as understandable as possible. These amendments are aimed at that spirit. There are minor errors that were identified and clarifications, as an example.

M. Lee: I’d just like to ask: are there any other amendments that the Attorney General and his team are contemplating to the act which are not included in Bill 57?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are none that are currently planned. But I want to be clear to the member that as we go forward and as cases begin to move into the system, it’s very likely there will be amendments to clarify and to deal with issues that show up as people start using the act. Just like the Supreme Court rules, it’s an evolving statute to ensure a smooth process.

M. Lee: Well, I guess I’m mindful of that response in terms of the challenges in the court system to this new framework, certainly in terms of expanding the jurisdiction of the tribunal. To the extent that any of those amendments might be necessary to respond to what is occurring, potentially, through legal challenges, what expectation would the Attorney General have that those amendments to the tribunal’s jurisdiction might be dealt with by way of regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s hard to say in a vacuum without knowing what the specific problem is in advance. Otherwise, we’d be fixing it in this bill. But if it’s a problem that there’s a regulation-making power for, then we would be dealing with it through a regulation. If not, then it would require a statutory amendment.

M. Lee: Well, I’ll just take this opportunity, if I may, to ask a question, then, relating to that. Since the time of the passage of Bill 22 and these amendments that are being tabled as part of this Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, there have been follow-on regulations in terms of the minor injury regulation. So there was the opportunity there for consideration to be given as to the scope of minor injuries.

I appreciate that in terms of the potential legal challenges that might arise, particularly around the definition of “minor injury” regulation…. Can I ask: despite the previous confirmations by the Attorney General that brain injury and concussions would not be included in that definition, can the Attorney General please explain why that was expanded by way of regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad to do my best to answer the member’s question. I note that the regulations are not related to this section or to any of the amendments. But it is an opportunity for the member to ask the question and for me to put on the record government’s decisions around this.

We had to make a number of difficult decisions around ensuring that rates are affordable for drivers in B.C. and that ICBC will be sustainable in the long-term. Initially, the member’s correct: we issued a white paper. We did not expect that there would be a need to include mild concussions in the definition of “minor injury.” We did go out and consult with the medical community, and we looked at the experience of other jurisdictions, and it became very clear to us that B.C.’s minor injury definition should include mild concussions.

The concerns and considerations here were that excluding it from the minor injury definition might significantly increase reporting of the injury. Alberta had that experience. When they excluded the temporomandibular joint injury from their definition, they had then an epidemic of TMJ injuries. They became the North American capital. We wanted to avoid that with concussions.

Some concussions can, in fact, be mild and have impacts that are consistent in someone’s experience in day-to-day life with other minor injuries that are contained in the definition in the regulations. So the research that we were advised of says that most people with a mild concussion fully recover with appropriate treatment in a relatively short period of time.

[4:40 p.m.]

As a result, medical stakeholders were supportive of these regulations. We have support from both the Physiotherapy Association of B.C. and Doctors of British Columbia.

We’re proceeding very cautiously with the inclusion of mild concussions, given their complex nature. They fall under the minor injury category only where the incapacity lasts fewer than 16 weeks. “Incapacity” is ability to perform the activities of daily living, which was consistent with the white paper definition we put out. The time frame for recovery from this is shorter compared to other minor injuries in the definition, which are 12 months. In this case, it’s 16 weeks. As soon as you go past 16 weeks, then you’re kicked into the other category.

One of the other realities of concussion is…. There’s certainly a recognition, based on our consultations, that the signs of a mild concussion may appear days or weeks after the crash. The 16-week incapacity does not mean that the concussion must be resolved within 16 weeks of the accident. And a person can bring a claim any time within the two-year limitation period in relation to a concussion.

One of the other pieces of this is that ICBC is going to be tracking and monitoring concussion claims better going forward, which should provide a good evidence-based foundation to ensure that we’re only capturing the mild concussions as intended.

I want to underline that. This means that you don’t go to B.C. Supreme Court — you go to the civil resolution tribunal — if you have a mild concussion, which is an incapacity that lasts less than 16 weeks as a result of the concussion. And it does not deprive you of any of the increased benefits, whether it’s loss of pay or the need for housekeeping support, physiotherapy, occupational therapy. All these kinds of benefits that we’re increasing the amounts for — you are entitled to that as well.

There is a limit on the pain and suffering award that you are eligible for, as a result. But those are the only two restrictions — that you don’t go to full B.C. Supreme Court for it and that there’s a limit on the pain and suffering award. And you maintain access to all the full and increased benefits under the provisions.

M. Lee: I appreciate that the Attorney General is open to having that discussion here at this committee stage in the context of Bill 57. I think it’s important that we have that opportunity. I appreciate that he’s open to having that conversation here during this committee stage. After all, of course, the civil resolution tribunal is being asked to determine, under a section that we’ll come to in a moment, as to whether an injury is a minor injury.

That, clearly, is being put front and centre in the tribunal’s jurisdiction. As a result, any court that might be hearing a proceeding that might involve something of that nature must stay the proceeding until the tribunal determines that. Clearly, minor injury determination is being put front and centre in the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

I think it’s important to have this discussion here. Even though it’s not the particular subject per se of this set of amendments, I think it’s related. If I could just ask a few more questions along these lines, just for clarification in terms of what the Attorney General indicated.

With the level of consultation that has occurred with those who deal with concussion injuries — those who deal with mental health, psychological or psychiatric-type conditions — could the Attorney General, recognizing he did acknowledge that this is something that the government is proceeding in, in a careful way, let’s say…? What other considerations did the Attorney General and his team hear about, including concussion — even if it’s minor concussions, mild concussions — as part of this definition?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It was very clear to us through our consultations and looking at the experience of other jurisdictions that there was a significant risk, in excluding mild concussions — that is, a concussion that resolves within 16 weeks of symptoms arising — that we would significantly increase reporting on this type of injury, along the lines of what Alberta saw in relation to the TMJ injuries when they excluded that from their definition.

It was also clear to us that the research said that most people with mild concussion will fully recover if they get appropriate treatment in a relatively short period of time. Keeping that in mind, we are proceeding in a cautious way. It is distinct from other minor injuries in terms of 12 months of incapacity for those injuries. Concussion is 16 weeks. So it’s a significant difference there. And there’s certainly a recognition that this may appear days or weeks after the crash.

Another common misunderstanding around the minor injury piece is there’s a suggestion that, for the individual, this might not be such a significant thing. But certainly, for an individual, it would be potentially quite a serious injury. The issue is the relative amount of process that’s required for different types of injuries. There are some injuries that are relatively more easy to determine the extent of damages, and so on. They’ll go to the civil resolution tribunal for resolution.

More severe injuries — where people are rendered quadriplegic, where they have brain injuries, where they have broken bones, and so on — will be going to B.C. Supreme Court. So trying to get a process in place that is proportionate to the injury. It’s not meant to be a judgment about the injury itself. Concussion is a serious thing in sport, and we should be concerned about the impact of multiple concussions.

I saw some comments in the media that suggested because it’s in the minor injury definition, that means there’s not concern about concussion on the part of government. That’s not the reality. The reality is that we need processes that are proportionate to the different types of injuries. Certainly, if I could go back and rename the category and not call it minor injury, I’m not sure quite what I would call it, but I would definitely call it something else to convey that we’re trying to have a proportionate process in place to respond to different types of injuries and the extent of proof that’s required for these types of injuries.

M. Lee: Well, I appreciate the response and even the language use. I know that when we had this discussion in the spring around the original bill, we had discussion around the terminology use. There can be misconceptions, certainly, as a result of the way that this particular form of injury is being defined.

Can I ask why 16 weeks was, as a period of time, selected as being a shorter period of time which would apply to incapacity relating to concussion and other prescribed injuries?

Hon. D. Eby: The look at the research and the medical consultation suggested a 12-week period, and then four weeks was added on for administrative processes, trying to get an appointment with a doctor, these kinds of things.

I do want to note that, although I’m glad to do my best to answer the member’s questions, we don’t have here with us today all of the background material on all of the regulations and so on, so I’ll certainly offer to the member that if he wishes a detailed briefing on the regulations, we can have staff available to answer questions like this.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

M. Lee: This provision removes the reference to tribunal small claim or strata property. Was this deletion also done as a possibility that the tribunal’s role may expand again in the future?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a very good question by the member. It was an oversight, certainly, that this wording wasn’t removed, because obviously, now it’s not just tribunal, small claims or strata property claims in the civil resolution tribunal as a result of the amendments we’ve put forward. It will also include these car collision–related claims.

The member is correct that the wording has been removed from this section in this way. What the member is seeing — it started when his party was in power; it’s continuing under ours — is that the civil resolution tribunal has been very successful in a number of different areas where people struggled to access justice through the B.C. Supreme Court or through provincial court.

It’s certainly not out of the question that additional areas of jurisdiction would be looked at in the future for the CRT. We don’t have any right now, but staff thought, instead of just adding each time, in terms of statutory drafting, strike those and just make sure that all claims of the tribunal that come forward that haven’t been resolved during case management go to resolution by tribunal hearing.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Again, with the theme that this is very much an important framework that the Attorney General and this government is bringing on, could I ask the Attorney General to make a comment or an update, from his perspective, on how he is seeing the continued buildout of the expertise that’s going to be required to make these determinations around minor injury in terms of new tribunal members being retained for that purpose, the capacity that the tribunal will have to deal with these new responsibilities in this new area of jurisdiction? If I can get an update from the Attorney General about that.

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly. I thank staff for providing me with such a comprehensive list.

In terms of human resources, the CRT is hiring new positions, including a deputy registrar, legal counsel and additional case managers. The provincial government has a­ppointed four full-time tribunal members in the past couple of months after a merit-based competition process which hired people with experience in personal injury and based on the civil resolution tribunal’s recommendations to government.

The CRT is currently recruiting additional full-time tribunal members with experience in motor vehicle accident and personal injury disputes. We do anticipate hiring a vice-chair for accident claims in January 2019. They are planning and developing a new organizational structure and reclassifying positions to adjust to the new regime.

In terms of the rules, the civil resolution tribunal has been working over the past three months to identify requirements for new civil resolution tribunal rules, and drafting of new rules is underway. They plan to conduct stakeholder consultation on rules for accident claims beginning in early 2019.

There is a program called the Solutions Explorer, which essentially directs people whether they’re appropriately at the civil resolution tribunal or not and assists them in completing the documents to begin their process with the civil resolution tribunal. Over the past five months, a team has worked to create new content for the Solutions Explorer, which included consulting with both plaintiff and defence lawyers in relation to accident claims. User testing of this content will begin in January 2019 and will include testing by advocates, legal stakeholders and lay litigants.

The case management system for the CRT has been upgraded. Last week they introduced a new tribunal decision process feature that allows parties to provide arguments and evidence through a web portal instead of by email. Identification of system upgrades and requirements is currently underway.

They have an intake 2.0 process that’s been designed and is expected to be launched by the end of 2018. This includes new features like allowing a party to tell the civil resolution tribunal which pronouns they’d like to use when addressing them through the civil resolution tribunal process, and it will also allow users to create user accounts and resume applications without having to start from the beginning or complete it all in one sitting.

There will be a revised intake process specific to accident claims, which is under design and will be user-tested before launch as well. And revisions to negotiation and facilitation are under design and will be user-tested as well before launch.

In terms of facilities, a new location for the Victoria office has been obtained with long-term plans of a purpose-built space underway right now. The new location for their Vancouver location is planned for mid-2019.

[4:55 p.m.]

For policies and procedures, they’ve reviewed their existing dispute resolution process to see what works and what needs to change for motor vehicle personal injury disputes. Revised policies and procedures are now under development based on those gaps that were identified.

They’ve hosted two information sessions on the civil resolution tribunal and their approach to resolving motor vehicle accident and personal injury disputes with community legal and medical organizations in order to get feedback from them and draw on their wealth of experience and knowledge in serving people who’ve gone through motor vehicle accidents.

They’ve invited those organizations to join their advocates roster, where they will be able to participate in testing and feedback sessions for new technology, forms, rules and other things they develop for the tribunal. They’ve also scheduled and conducted presentations for a variety of stakeholders, including Volunteer B.C., CBABC’s civil litigation section, the CLEBC’s societies and non-profit conference, the B.C. Council of Administrative Tribunals, the amici curiae paralegals association, the National Pro Bono Conference, Courthouse Libraries B.C. and many others.

They’ve been posting regular on-line blog posts about their new area of jurisdiction, as well as monthly implementation blog posts. The member and others can follow along as they continue their work.

They’ve also retained a consultant to develop a plan to build public awareness and understanding in the civil resolution tribunal in their new area of jurisdiction. That promotional plan will be in place by the end of 2018. They also have active social media accounts which they are using to build public awareness of the new areas of jurisdiction, because that outreach will be very important as well.

M. Lee: Thank you to the Attorney General for that fulsome update. There’s obviously a lot of ground to cover. We’re still some months in advance before this is going to be under full operation.

Can I ask, just because it’s an important juncture to be considering as we look at how this tribunal will function and some of the specifics around this within this bill: what’s the expected volume of claims that might fit under the new expanded definition of minor injury that government or the tribunal is preparing itself to deal with when it looks at its human resources capacity; training hires; and, also, physical space? What’s the running expectation that the Attorney General and his ministry have as to that volume?

Hon. D. Eby: The way this works is that accidents taking place on or after April 1 of next year will begin to move into the civil resolution tribunal system. So it’s not like a whole bunch are going to show up on day one. It will be as they occur going forward. What is expected is that by the end of year 1, it will have built to 10,000 potential claims going through the civil resolution tribunal process. It will be a gradual process over the year to build up as the accident claims come in.

M. Lee: I’ve had the opportunity, of course, to talk to personal injury lawyers who are in this practice area, and obviously the Attorney General’s ministry and ICBC have the data on this and are the better source. The 10,000 potential claims coming to the tribunal as of April 1 and on, in the first 12-month period, is, I would say, far short of what others might expect. I’ve heard figures in the 60,000 range. I’m not sure…. That may well be based on the total universe in terms of how many minor injury claims ICBC receives in any given year. I wondered if the Attorney General could comment on that higher figure.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the claims filed in court in 2016 were about 15,000. That should give an idea about what we’re expecting here, keeping in mind that not all claims are going to fall within the jurisdiction of the civil resolution tribunal. You wouldn’t say that the full 15,000 are all going to go to the CRT; some will remain in B.C. Supreme Court. It will be divided between the two.

Also, keep in mind that these aren’t all of the collisions that take place in the province. These are areas where there is a dispute and, then again, only those that take place after April 1, 2019.

M. Lee: In terms of the tribunal itself, with four new commissioners that have been retained, as the Attorney General just indicated, who have personal injury expertise, how many other commissioners have that sort of expertise? What is the pool of commissioners that will be dealing with these claims, at least as projected as of April 1?

Hon. D. Eby: All four of the recent new hires at the tribunal have personal injury and motor vehicle accident experience. There is also a roster of existing adjudicators, some of whom already have motor vehicle accident and personal injury experience. The recruiting focus of new adjudicators is on people with personal injury and motor vehicle accident experience. We’re very hopeful that we’ll have quite a robust roster of people with experience in the sector.

M. Lee: I’m just working through the math here. We’re talking about 10,000 potential claims and maybe a pool of four or six commissioners dedicated, with an additional roster of adjudicators, which could be 15 or 20 other adjudicators, but I could stand to be corrected there. What’s the expectation of the caseload that an adjudicator or a tribunal member will need to be dealing with through the life of their workweek?

Hon. D. Eby: What I’d like to offer the member is that the civil resolution tribunal — I mean, to the extent I’m able to commit them — are certainly very engaged in outreach.

We just had a quick consultation here. Certainly, the spirit of the organization has been quite willing to sit down with him and go through, in detail, their plans for having the necessary people in place, the caseload, the time to resolution. They have some experience around this from their existing work. But I have a feeling the member would have some more comfort if he were able to ask specific questions about how many people they’re going to be hiring, how many cases they’re going to take on and how long do they think they’re going to be to resolve those kinds of things.

The reason why I offer it is that we don’t actually have someone from the CRT today, simply because these provisions, although they relate to corrections around the civil resolution tribunal…. We have folks from ICBC and from Ministry of Attorney General related to the statutory provisions which are being corrected. We might be able to provide the information to him in a more constructive way and a more comprehensive way through that. If he’s amenable to that, we’re happy to do our best to set that up.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response and will certainly take up that opportunity.

I’ll just ask one other set of questions, which I appreciate that I might get a similar response. It is in a related area, and it relates to my concern around volume, timing and speed, particularly because of the expansion of the minor injury definition to include concussion.

I’d just like to ask one other set of questions, if I may, Madam Chair, to the Attorney General. That is in the clarification around registered care advisers and the time period that is being provided for what is now another roster of care advisers to determine and to provide written reports on diagnosis or treatment of injuries as part of this process.

[5:05 p.m.]

I know that there have been some initial concerns — perhaps the Attorney General has heard this as well — from others in the community about the time period that’s being set out. That is, the assessment being done within 15 days of the injury of the individual, and then the written report being provided to the referring physician who will provide that treatment within ten days.

Can I ask if the Attorney General is able, at this juncture, with whatever staff he has present, to address this consideration of the short time periods that are being required here, the volume of claims that might be run through the system that need to have these sorts of reports?

Is there any concern regarding how prejudicial this might be to an individual who has an injury and might be grappling with the impact of that injury, concussion or otherwise, having to rush through this process to get a report in order to move forward with the next step of dealing with getting the right level of claim being dealt with to do with their accident?

Hon. D. Eby: The registered care adviser is a new resource to support physicians. This is in the event that a patient shows up at the doctor’s office with a particular injury. The doctor expects the patient to recover within a certain time frame. They show up weeks or months later at the physician’s office, and they’re not recovering as expected.

What it is, actually, is an expedited referral that’s available to GPs in the event that someone’s not healing the way that they’re expected. This person is a physician. They are independent. They are meant to provide assistance to the GP, if the GP, the treating physician — that person’s family doctor or the clinic doctor, wherever they’re going — needs that assistance. This is not a government or ICBC employee. It’s an independent, expedited referral to a physician with expertise in this area. Physicians will volunteer to be on this registry.

The Ministry of Health and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. were consulted about this. Is this realistic? Can we do this? They were supportive of the idea. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. will confirm practising status to make sure that the people providing this are appropriately qualified in order to do so.

The member will see, under sections 10 and 11, that these are the provisions related to minor injury. The reason for this is: if someone shows up with what appears to be a minor injury, and they’re not recovering the way expected, there may be something that could be done to help them heal faster, help them recover faster. We want to make sure they’re getting the expert advice that they can in order to recover more quickly.

It’s part of the idea behind this whole thing. We’re increasing access to care for people who are injured in car accidents to help them get better — the increased benefits to third-party service providers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and so on, and this new, additional resource of the registered care adviser.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response and hearing about the level of consultation that was held with the college about this.

In terms of the tight time frames and also…. Well, first of all, two parts. One is the tight time frame. That is something that, given the capacity that we see in terms of getting access to physicians of expertise…. Is there any concern regarding the ability of British Columbians to actually be able to get in the line, so to speak, to see someone who is on this roster within the tight time frames that are provided?

Secondly, what is the fee schedule for this service that will be provided by a registered care adviser? I understand, although I don’t know if I’ve seen it, that it is a lower dollar amount. Perhaps the Attorney General can comment on that as well.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The only time line that’s in the act is that within 90 days of the date of the accident, if you’re not recovering the way that your physician would expect, the physician must consider whether to refer you to one of these folks. That’s the only…. “Hmm, should I refer this person to a registered care adviser who has an expertise in this area?” That’s the only deadline that’s there.

If they do decide to refer, what we want to have happen is a quick turnaround. We don’t want this to linger for months or years. There are a series of timelines that are binding on the person who accepts the referral. If you accept the referral as a physician, you need to assess this patient within 15 days after the date of the referral and you have to provide the report to the referring physician within ten days after the date that you assess the injury.

The longest period of time that you can sit on this thing is 25 days. Otherwise, don’t take the referral, because you have to have it back in that time period. The reason for that is we want the physician to have the information necessary about the patient to assist their recovery in a timely manner.

M. Lee: Well, thank you again for that opportunity to talk about the regulation in the course of talking about this bill. I’m going to stop it there and just ask, in terms of the bill, on section 6…. Sorry, we’re not on section 6.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Lee: The terminology to substitute the word “penalties” for “costs” here. Is there any significance to this change, as to the actual terminology of what’s being captured here?

Hon. D. Eby: One of the opportunities that’s available to you in a civil resolution tribunal is to file a notice of objection and go to court and try to get…. Essentially, it’s almost like an appeal. The restraint on that or the attempt to discourage people from just appealing everything to the court if they lose the civil resolution tribunal is if you don’t do better in court than you did at the tribunal, then you might face a penalty.

Unfortunately, the wording of the section refers to showing the trial judge the civil resolution tribunal decision for the purpose of assessing costs, but that’s not why you show the decision to the trial judge. You show the decision to the trial judge to assess the penalty. “Look, this guy appealed this decision here, essentially, didn’t do better and wasted everybody’s time and the court’s resources. So there should be a penalty. Here’s the original decision where they didn’t do better. That’s why I’m handing it up.”

It’s just an error. It should have said “penalty” instead of “costs.”

Sections 6 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

M. Lee: We are now under part 2 of the Class Proceedings Act amendments. Thank you, again to staff for your assistance and your patience to go through some related questions previously with the Attorney General and myself.

[5:15 p.m.]

Obviously, in terms of the nature of the amendments under this particular part of the bill, for the purpose of the context of the amendments, could you just walk through the genesis and the process for bringing these amendments and making these changes, as proposed, to the Class Proceedings Act? If you could just walk through that process as to how we got to this stage.

Hon. D. Eby: The Law Foundation of British Columbia is an organization that provides a number of different justice-related programs throughout the province. The history of the cy pres principle is that you have a class action, you have someone who has done wrong, they’ve produced a product that was defective, they were sued in a class action, and damages were awarded against them, into a big pot that goes into the court.

Then the court hands out the money to everybody who bought the product, or there’s a system set up for distribution of money for everyone who bought the defective product. Only 400 of the 500 people who bought the defective product make a claim, so there’s still some money left over. The justice principle is…. You don’t want to give the money back to the wrongdoer and say: “Hey, you got lucky. One hundred people who have bought your defective product didn’t show up.” You want to make sure that the tort principle works, that the person who did the wrong, essentially, the tort, doesn’t get rewarded by getting some of their money back because people didn’t show up and claim it.

The court, historically, has allowed the court to distribute the remaining award. Typically they take advice from counsel — where do you think this should go? — and they provide it to a group that…. They try to find some way of awarding the funds to a group that would advance the interest of the class as a whole.

Class actions themselves. An access to a justice mechanism where people have maybe a small claim that wouldn’t itself be worth bringing to court but, when you get together in a big class, is worth bringing to court. It allows wrongs that are smaller in value to be addressed through the court system.

When you put those two things together — this idea of a class action as being related to access to justice and this idea of the courts distributing the awards — that’s the history of this cy pres power of the court to distribute the remaining amount of money in a way that addresses justice.

The Law Foundation of B.C. is funded currently by the interest from lawyers’ trust accounts. They do a lot of really important work across the province, and they have been the recipient of many cy pres awards. The court has awarded the Law Foundation of B.C. money through cy pres awards in the past. Because they have done such a successful job around access to justice in the province, the courts have recognized that and made those kinds of awards.

What the Law Foundation noticed was that in other jurisdictions, in the United States, this has been this informal process that was formalized. The courts were directed: “Give a portion of the cy pres award to our local law foundation.” Interestingly, the Law Foundation of B.C. was the first law foundation. We were the leaders here in B.C., and now they’re looking to other jurisdictions and saying: “Hey, look at this mechanism other jurisdictions are using.”

It was brought to my attention and to government’s attention through the efforts of the Law Foundation of B.C. that other jurisdictions were benefiting greatly from using this mechanism and formalizing these cy pres awards, going in part or whole, to law foundations in those jurisdictions.

We had some conversations on: “Would that be beneficial for British Columbia?” The answer was certainly yes. The Law Foundation has very low administrative costs. They support a lot of important access-to-justice work across the province.

The concern was, though, preserving the ability of the courts to have discretion over the award. So what’s put forward here is 50 percent of the cy pres award going to the Law Foundation and 50 percent at the discretion of the judge. They can give the whole thing to the Law Foundation if they want. They could give the remaining 50 percent to a different group or organization.

Also, the other concern that was raised was: what about Indigenous people? The Law Foundation does a lot of great work, especially supporting organizations that deliver services to Indigenous people who live in urban settings across the province, but it is not an Indigenous organization. So we said that as far as Indigenous awards or class actions related to Indigenous people, we’ll leave that entirely within the court’s discretion, as opposed to directing some of that money towards a non-Indigenous organization.

[5:20 p.m.]

That is how this came forward to government. That is some of the thinking that was in place about why we’re bringing this forward.

M. Lee: We’re really, effectively, dealing with sections 19 and 20 of the bill. We can talk about that as a whole. Just on the last point that the Attorney General made, I appreciate the point about settlements relating to Indigenous peoples, class action claims that might be the case.

Would the expectation be, as to how a judge makes that determination in his or her discretion, that he or she would take guidance or submissions from whichever First Nations or Indigenous peoples were involved in that claim? Or is there some other advice or counsel that that judge might want to see?

Now, I say that in the context of some of the opportunities I’ve had to visit with First Nation courts and seeing the different tenor of those courtrooms, with judges that are clearly more attuned to issues relating to First Nations, Indigenous peoples. That sensitivity and that understanding and awareness are what I’m wondering about, in terms of whether the Attorney General sees an opportunity to provide that level of support, let’s say, to those determinations?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s certainly a good suggestion from the member about that. Currently what this does is it allows the existing cy pres jurisprudence to carry on for class litigation involving Indigenous people, so it doesn’t change it. The current principle is to apply the remainder to benefit members of the class as near as possible.

In practice, that’s meant class counsel, the plaintiff counsel and sometimes defence counsel, too, will work together or separately will provide suggestions to the judge about appropriate distribution of the award, very reliant on the class counsel having the information and so on to make recommendations to the judge about how it should be distributed.

Sometimes it’s very obvious. A residential school claimant is probably a bad example, because there was a separate statutory regime, but as an example, that could be distributed to the Residential School Survivors Society. It would be very obvious in a situation like that. Sometimes it might be less obvious, and the court is very dependent on class counsel.

There’s nothing that stops a group or individual from coming forward to provide a submission to a court around how cy pres should be distributed. The challenge there is: how would they know that there was remaining money? How would they know that there was an action going ahead?

I definitely take the member’s suggestion that there may be ways that we could improve that. The other pieces — obviously, we would do that in consultation with Indigenous people as part of a larger piece, and I’m glad to engage with the member on his suggestions about that.

M. Lee: I appreciate the briefing that I had from your staff prior to this bill. It was two days ago, I think. I know that I asked the question in the briefing, but just to frame it for the record here with the Attorney General.

As the Attorney just mentioned, many of the decisions and settlements are private and may not be generally disclosed for a lot of public access. But in any event, as we look at the shift in area of funds that might become available for the Law Foundation or to Indigenous peoples as a result of unclaimed settlements in this way, through the cy pres principles, I wonder whether there is a way to track or have a sense as to the dollar value of funding that might become available under this and whether the Attorney General has any sense of what that might look like.

[5:25 p.m.]

If not at this time, when in the future? What ability will the Attorney General Ministry have to have a better sense of that as we go forward with this change?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will recall that last session we amended our class action legislation in the province to change from an opt-in to an opt-out jurisdiction, which means you’re included in the class unless you specifically opt out. It may result in, ultimately, more class actions being commenced in British Columbia as a result.

It’s hard to say with any certainty, but anecdotally we’ve heard from experts that there are about ten to 20 class actions started in B.C. each year. Only about one to four of these would necessarily have any undistributed funds. They can be quite significant, and they can be quite paltry, in terms of the undistributed funds. It’s really not a reliable and consistent source of funding for the Law Foundation or any other organization, and it’s very difficult to predict.

There is some discussion about a national class action registry, which would provide great assistance in a couple of things. One is in product — someone who brought a product, for example, and knowing where the class actions are that relate to that product. Another would be in jurisdictions that have cy pres legislation like this, making sure that both the judge and the counsel in the case are aware of that.

The Law Foundation does some informal tracking of class actions in the province, and there is some informal work that’s done by, I understand, an academic, in terms of national tracking of class actions. But that registry does not currently exist in terms of class actions across Canada.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. I would like to ask whether there were other organizations or foundations that were considered, besides the Law Foundation of British Columbia, as a recipient. Was there a consideration of…? Obviously 50 percent is going towards the Law Foundation under this proposal. Were there any other organizations that might be considered recipients — for a smaller percentage, for example?

Hon. D. Eby: For this particular statutory regime, 50 percent is prescribed to go to the Law Foundation. The remaining 50 percent is dependent on the recommendations of class counsel to the judge and the judge’s order in terms of the distribution of the remainder of any award that has gone undistributed. That is the remaining 50 percent.

Again, because there’s no formal tracking of class actions, it’s difficult to know fully about this, but we may be capturing some of the practice that’s taking place already informally and formalizing it. The Law Foundation has been the recipient of a number of cy pres awards. Typically, where you have a health-related product that’s defective, you’ll see a donation. For example, for a drug that increases the risk of stroke, you’ll see a contribution of cy pres proceeds to the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

[5:30 p.m.]

It’s very dependent on the nature of the class and trying to match the class up with the benefiting organization as closely as possible.

M. Lee: I guess one of the reasons I asked that question is…. Obviously, the Law Foundation is well situated to fund many organizations — whether it’s for research, delivery or public education — that deal with access to justice. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, I used to sit on the board of an organization that certainly received good funding from the Law Foundation as well as the Ministry of Attorney General.

In terms of…. As we continue to build out, including other parts of this bill that we’ll be having some further discussion about, there are other organizations that continue to work on improving access to justice, like the Legal Services Society or the Law Society as well. They obviously have different funding regimes.

That’s really what I was getting at in terms of, as we look at the build-out…. I know that there’s a broader mandate here that the Attorney General is considering, which, obviously, I generally support, which is: how do we continue to improve access to our justice system in this province? This is one potential pot of resources that, as the Attorney General has mentioned, isn’t well defined, for good reason.

As we look at this, I’m really asking the Attorney General: how does he see those other organizations, the role they play and whether there are other resources that will be brought to bear as they continue with their initiatives as well?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for that clarification. I misunderstood his question.

The benefit of the Law Foundation is that they fund a number of the organizations that the member listed. They provide funding to Legal Services Society. They provide funding to the Courthouse Libraries. They provide funding to various access to justice organizations. So when you provide funding to the Law Foundation, they’re the distribution vehicle to many, many, many access to justice organizations across the province.

For example, in a 2015 class action called Marshall v. Yellow Cash Centre, the terms of this settlement directed $158,000, which the board of governors applied to support the creation of the children’s lawyer initiative in 2016. Then there was a 2015 case called Steele v. Toyota Canada Inc. which directed $550,000 to the Law Foundation and which the Law Foundation passed on to benefit Access Pro Bono.

In Ontario, the Law Foundation there has received 16 cy pres awards since 2010, including a really significant one of $14.6 million in a case called Cassano v. Toronto Dominion Bank. Those were distributed across Canada, actually, and access to justice organizations in B.C. received the benefit of some of those proceeds because it was a national class action distributed by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

The way to think about the Law Foundation is as an organization that distributes funding to access to justice groups rather than as a group that would use the funding itself to deliver services.

M. Lee: Thanks for that confirmation. What I’m hearing from the Attorney General is that he sees the Law Foundation as really being that vehicle which will distribute those funds to those other organizations, which I do appreciate.

In that regard, in terms of the actual functioning of the Law Foundation and the composition of the board of governors, it is…. First of all, if I could ask the Attorney General to make a comment on the intention of the broad composition of that board of governors.

Secondly, in terms of the role that the Attorney General — or his appointee, in this case — might have, sitting on that Law Foundation board: what’s the expectation of that appointee in terms of directing or suggesting to the Law Foundation where funds should be directed in terms of access to justice?

Hon. D. Eby: There are currently 18 volunteer members on the board of the Law Foundation in B.C. There are 12 members of the Law Society, or the judiciary. They’re appointed by the benchers of the Law Society to represent the geographical areas of the province.

[5:35 p.m.]

There are two members of the Law Society that are appointed by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. There are three individuals who are not lawyers who are appointed by my office, the Attorney General’s office. Then I have the ability to sit on the Law Foundation board of governors. I do not. I can have an appointee, in my place, sit on that board, which is currently the case.

These individuals — the appointee of the Attorney General, the three lay members appointed by the Attorney General, the 12 members of the Law Society appointed by the benchers, and the two members of the Law Society appointed by the B.C. branch of the CBA — make determinations about grants.

They do so based on the strategic priorities of the Law Foundation, which are set through consultations with community groups and through a rigorous process that evaluates the accountability mechanisms in place and the track record of various organizations that are applying for grant funding. They set those priorities independently of government and with a significant majority of the members coming from the Law Society, which makes sense, because the proceeds for the Law Foundation come from lawyers’ trust accounts — with the exception, obviously, of the cy pres awards they’ve received historically.

Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

M. Lee: Now we’re on part 3, “Gaming Control Act Amendments,” under Bill 57. Certainly, working with my colleague as a critic for gaming, the member for Richmond-Steveston, I’d just like to run through a few questions here on this particular part of Bill 57.

We understand that these changes that are being proposed to the Gaming Control Act were in light of recommendations from the German report. Could the Attorney General please address which specific recommendations are these amendments meant to address?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined by Rachel DeMott — she’s the director, policy and communications — and Sam MacLeod, ADM and general manager, both from the gaming policy and enforcement branch. Thanks for joining us here to assist us through this process.

These relate to recommendations 2, 27, 30 and 31 — recom­mendation 2, that the GCA clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of BCLC and the regulator; recommendation 27, that British Columbia transition to an independent regulator in the form of a service delivery Crown corporation; recommendation 30, that anti–money laundering be a responsibility of the regulator; and recommendation 31, that the regulator also be the regulator of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

GCA stands for Gaming Control Act.

M. Lee: I appreciate that what is set out in subsequent sections 22, 23 and 24 are steps to address what the Attorney General referred to in terms of the recommendations. Can the Attorney General give us a sense as to the additional steps that will be necessary in order to carry out those recommendations?

Hon. D. Eby: Just to clarify the member’s question, the four recommendations that I listed or the entirety of Dr. German’s report?

[5:40 p.m.]

M. Lee: What I meant by that is: in terms of what’s proposed here under these amendments, are there further amendments that will be required or other policy changes or statutory changes that will be required in order to implement the recommendations from the German report?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, there are many, many, additional statutory amendments coming. What the member will see over the coming months and potentially beyond…. What we’re doing right now are the amendments that we can do quickly, out of the gate, to begin to achieve the spirit of the recommendations. Then going forward….

For example, one of the recommendations that this section deals with, recommendation 27, is that British Col­um­bia transition to an independent regulator in the form of a service delivery Crown corporation. Now, that is a significant undertaking with separate legislation establishing a Crown corporation and policy and procedures, and so on.

All of this amendment in front of us takes us a step closer in that direction. We are still a ways off from achieving the entirety of recommendation 27. This will be a phased implementation of Dr. German’s recommendations.

The member will remember that there was a recommendation around establishing a police force. This is not a small undertaking. So he will see, and the public will see, going forward, how we roll this out. We have a deputy ministers–​ADM committee that is sitting — because it’s multiple ministries involved here: Public Safety, our ministry, Finance — that is working on the project plan for implementation of all of these recommendations. This is a very significant piece of work, and it will be rolling out over months and years, not just in this legislation.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. That certainly demon­strates, obviously, the scale of the recommendations in that report and the time that will be required to implement those recommendations.

Speaking to the initial steps here, can the Attorney General please share with us the instances where the right to refuse entry has been necessary at gaming facilities and how this will expand the scope of that coverage — certainly the general manager of the Lottery Corporation or the person acting on behalf of the Lottery Corporation.

What’s the expectation in terms of what’s been occurring to date and what this provision will enable in the future?

Hon. D. Eby: The member will recall that one of Dr. German’s interim recommendations was to have the gaming policy and enforcement branch members present in the casino at peak times, not just Monday to Friday, nine to five. That’s been a significant project for the gaming pol­icy and enforcement branch to hire up and get people in place to do that.

The concern is that they’re there. They’re in the casino. They may be doing an anti–money laundering investigation. They identify an individual who is engaged in activity that is undesirable in the facility. They need to have the ability to bar that person from the facility. They don’t currently have that ability, and we want to give them that ability, in terms of being an independent regulator, to say, “No, I’m sorry; you’re not allowed to come into the facility,” and to make that decision as an independent regulator.

M. Lee: I appreciate that one of the initial initiatives the Attorney General took was to deal with the staffing during peak times. Could we just…? Given that it’s related to this, just in terms of the current update on the status of how many individuals are performing those roles and what that looks like at the gaming facilities currently.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The gaming policy and enforcement branch was given authority to hire 12 additional employees to do this work. Four are currently doing this work right now, in addition to the complement that already existed. Eight beyond those four have all received offer letters and are in various stages of being placed. Gaming policy and enforcement branch employees have been deployed at Lower Mainland casinos at peak hours for quite a period now. The additional hiring is in relation to relieving some obvious strain that has come from deploying people from different areas and making sure that there’s coverage.

As the member might expect, working late nights and weekends at a casino might not be everyone’s cup of tea, so hiring has been a bit slower than we’d hoped. But we’re in a place now where all 12 are either out the door, working, or have received offer letters or are in some process of being brought on to start work. So some good progress has been made there.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.