PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $554,901,000 (continued).

The Chair: Minister, do you have some remarks?

Hon. D. Eby: At the conclusion of the Housing portion of the estimates last week, I made a number of commitments to the critic with respect to some data that I would get to him. But first, two corrections.

[2:35 p.m.]

During the estimates process, I responded and advised the member, with respect to units that are completed or under construction, that there should be 17,707 completed or under construction. It should be 17,685 units, because one 22-unit building was counted twice. That should modify the complete units total, which should have correctly been stated as 5,247.

I also said that 6,000 people were supported through the homelessness prevention program. In fact, that number is spread over three separate programs: the homelessness prevention program, the homeless outreach program and the Canada-B.C. housing benefit.

I committed to the critic that I would get the number, the breakdown, on post-secondary housing units under construction. So 970 units are complete, 3,296 are under construction, and 1,435 are initiated.

I committed to the leader of the Green Party the breakdown of the acronym RRAP. It stands for residential rehabilitation and assistance program.

I committed to the opposition critic further details about Kelowna. There are two programs that could be applied for in relation to workforce housing: the provincial rental supply program and the affordable home ownership program. Those are both, of course, through B.C. Housing.

I committed to the critic that I would provide information about the residential tenancy branch. We’ve increased the budget of the RTB by $2.9 million since forming government, which increased the staffing at the RTB by 30 additional FTEs. I understand that the branch is hiring additional arbitrators. Once they’re on board, they should hope to clear up some of the backlog associated to the pandemic.

I also advised the critic that I would find what information I could about medical licences to grow cannabis and the impact on home insurance. I’m advised that he should direct his question to the Ministry of Finance.

The critic also asked about the budget of the ministry. The budget for Housing within the ministry is $576.465 million. The $561 million that the member referred to includes transfers to B.C. Housing. There is an increase of $69.9 million associated to various things, including decampment costs, sustainable services, negotiated mandate, community social services recruitment and retention, and additional Building B.C. and HousingHub programming resources.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the opportunity to partake in this part of the estimates process with the Attorney General. I think everyone goes about these things in their own way, and there are different approaches. I have some general topics that are certainly of interest to me, I hope of some interest — I think they are — to the Attorney and, I know, of interest to people. Some of them are issues that have been unresolved for a lengthy period of time. I’m curious to explore some of them to determine whether they are likely to make any progress in the year ahead — in the years ahead.

The first topic I wanted to have a conversation with the Attorney about is something that I think he’s familiar with. It’s interesting insofar as…. I will state right at the forefront that I’m having the conversation recognizing that it’s a matter that has been of long-standing interest to me. It’s an issue that I failed to resolve a decade ago, when I sat in the minister’s chair, and was unsuccessful at making progress upon. I regret that. The intervening decade hasn’t seen much in the way of progress made by way of the government that I was a part of and, thus far at least, the government that the Attorney General serves.

I’m talking about — sorry; I didn’t mean to keep the Attorney in suspense — the Family Compensation Act and wrongful death legislation.

[2:40 p.m.]

I know that the Attorney is aware of the issue generally. It’s an opportunity, today, for to us have a conversation and for him to place on the record his understanding of the issue.

I will say this. I believed, when I sat in his office, that the legislation governing these matters in British Columbia, the Family Compensation Act, is out of date. That the tragic stories…. The tragedy exists at two levels: the tragedy, of course, of a death, and the impact, the devastating emotional impact, that has on a family.

Then in British Columbia, the realization that…. The value we attach to that lost life, the value we attach to the trauma that death causes surviving members of the family is very different than what occurs in other parts of the country and is determined by legislation that emanates not just from the previous century but the previous century before the previous century.

Before I get too engaged, my purpose is not to stand here making a speech all afternoon. It’s far more important, I think, for people to get a sense of the Attorney General’s impression of where we’re at. Does he agree with the proposition that we are dealing with outdated legislation that requires a significant rewrite? What are the principles around which he believes that updating should occur? Of course, eventually we’ll get to a conversation about the timing and when that might occur. But there’s a general introduction of a topic that I am interested to hear the Attorney’s views on.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. The member is right. I am engaged and interested in this issue.

One of the reasons why I think we can have this discussion is because of the reform work that was done around the No. 1 cause of wrongful death of British Columbians, which is car collision. Our public insurer…. I don’t know the ins and outs of why the member was unable to address this issue in his time in government, despite his interest in it and despite serving as Attorney General, but my suspicion is that it was the same barrier that I saw, which is that it’s almost impossible to address without dramatically increasing people’s car insurance rates.

Because we have shifted to an enhanced care model, we were able to dramatically increase the compensation for people wrongfully killed — or killed, period — in a car collision to support their families and to recognize that all deaths of British Columbians are tragedies. We wish to do what we can to prevent them and, certainly, if they happen, to respond to them.

Now, because that issue has been addressed through that reform, it does create the possibility to examine other types of wrongful death in the province, which is something that I’ve committed to do. There was a case on the North Shore of a young woman who died, her family alleges, as a result of medical-related errors. There has been a sustained campaign.

The member will know that this is not an isolated case — that there are young people and people in general who die tragically through many different means in our province that would theoretically be amenable to tort law and to litigation, to claim damages, but that the damages that are available under the law in British Columbia are insufficient for most lawyers who take on these types of claims to do so on a contingency basis. That has acted as a block to them accessing the court system.

I am not convinced, personally, that the sole and only answer is to open up the tort floodgates and encourage everybody into the court system to respond to this. I think there might be other avenues. I’m not sure what they are, just to pre-empt the member’s question. Staff are doing research about other jurisdictions’ approach to wrongful death and how those deaths are marked and recognized and families can get the answers that they need.

[2:45 p.m.]

As the member notes, there are two aspects to the tragedy of an untimely death. One is the death itself, and the other is the trauma to the family. In my opinion, there are a couple of aspects to what families are asking for. One is certainly the issue of compensation, but for most families, the priority does seem to be on getting answers about what happened. They just want to know the details about what happened to their loved one, and sometimes they have difficulty getting that information. It’s my hope that we can address those concerns of the families.

There’s a tertiary concern. Sometimes families are looking for consequences for the individual who has caused the death in the criminal justice system. The member will know that that is jurisdictionally beyond our reach. However, there are aspects that are certainly within provincial jurisdiction, and that’s what our staff are looking at in terms of policy reform. I have committed that we will be taking action on this issue within this term of government.

M. de Jong: All right. Well that’s, I think, a good start. Let’s try to break some of that down.

There’s no question that there has been an element of institutional pushback around reform in this area. The Attorney has mentioned one agency of government. I would suggest it’s not the only one that he has probably been confronted by.

There have been some interesting estimates developed in the past around quantifying the cost of particular changes. The Attorney has referred to one category of accident that can lead to wrongful death, and then other examples that derive from the medical health system. He will have seen, I’m sure, the same material — the stories, the family tragedies — that understandably lead people, as he says, to wanting answers, but also seeking some tangible expression of the value of the life of the family member that has been lost.

Maybe I can ask the…. He has now confirmed that the matter is very much before him. Today, what does he see as the biggest impediments to moving forward? What are the key decisions that need to be made around the type of model that might address some of the issues that the Attorney has mentioned?

My purpose here isn’t to sandbag anyone. I think we know what some of those issues are. Some of the other jurisdictions have adopted approaches to this, have updated their approaches. They have included caps that the people interested in this issue and impacted by it in British Columbia have expressed negative opinions around.

I think some of the frustration, quite frankly, today derives from the fact that after an initial expression of interest, the issue doesn’t seem to have been at the forefront. I say that not to in any way suggest that the Attorney hasn’t had lots of work to do. But the people within the society that are at the forefront of the campaign to bring about change, I think it’s fair to say, feel as if any momentum that may have been had for change has been lost.

But we can come to that. Right now I’m more interested in hearing the Attorney’s thoughts on what those key decision points are that will need to be addressed in order to bring a reform package to the floor of the Legislature.

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member is right in noting that there hasn’t been a shortage of work within the ministry. That’s absolutely true.

[2:50 p.m.]

The member will know some of the work we’re doing around modernization of the court system in partnership with the judiciary. Supporting our tribunals through the pandemic is taking, obviously, a front seat as we work to maintain our system under the public health restrictions.

I can advise the member that personally, I think there are a number of different values at play that need to be weighed in any potential policy response. One is, obviously, accountability. What is the accountability for the individual alleged to have caused the wrongful death? It’s balancing public recognition of the death and how it happened with the fact that often there’s private information involving those who were killed — the family’s desire to have information may not be the same as the family’s desire for that information to be public — and balancing whether existing systems are appropriate to use or whether we should be looking at new systems.

For example, the coroner’s inquest process is a sort of public fact-finding about an unexpected death, versus new systems of accountability, either using the court system, with an enhanced tort, or some other type of tribunal. Obviously, in any public policy change like this, how much will it cost? How much will it cost taxpayers? Who pays for it? Is it the person who caused the wrongful death? What if they have no money? These are the kinds of considerations.

Timeliness. How quickly can it happen in terms of proximity to the death? The family wants the answers right away, versus a full due-process court hearing — which, we saw in car collisions, would last, in some cases, five to seven years and would settle on the courthouse steps.

Unintended consequences. When you’re talking about, for example, the area of medical errors, it’s balancing the desire to have doctors, nurses and other health practitioners come forward and frankly acknowledge when they’ve made a mistake as quickly as possible, versus the mechanism you put in place that may cause them to be more cautious about sharing that information and allowing us to improve the system.

Just generally, whether there are working systems in other jurisdictions. Should we reinvent the wheel, when someone else has done this properly? So there are a large number of considerations in this kind of policy work. The member is right; this is a priority for all those families. Certainly, I want to address it during my time as Attorney General.

We also have a fairly significant workload within the ministry right now, so I’ve committed that we will get this delivered within the term of government.

M. de Jong: I’ll ask this for returning to the sort of substantive conversation about some of these matters. I think it’s only fair to put the concern, as it has been expressed to me, to the Attorney, so that he can deal with it. The representatives of the B.C. Wrongful Death Law Reform Society were troubled to see the reference to this issue disappear from the Attorney’s mandate letter.

I don’t know to what extent the Attorney participated in the preparation. I know that in the past there has tended to be a discussion or exchange between the Premier’s office, the author of the letter, and the minister and the ministry, particularly when the minister continues on in the role. I don’t know if that’s the case presently with the government — or was, in the case of this letter — but the disappearance of reference to the issue in the mandate letter was noticed and causes concern. Is there anything that the Attorney can say to allay those concerns?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure I can provide much more assurance than saying that it’s my intention that we’ll address this within the term of government. The mandate letters are regularly revised by the Premier’s office in terms of the priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. I can assure people that staff within the ministry are working on policy, and that has not changed.

M. de Jong: Let’s go back for a moment to a couple of the issues that the Attorney raised. They’re not dissimilar from issues that I have encountered in discussions with affected family members.

[2:55 p.m.]

That is, on the one hand, the compensatory aspect of compensation, the other being the desire, yes, for information but — I have to say, and it reveals itself in some of the material one sees from the society — a desire to incorporate a punitive dimension to the compensation where it has been found conclusively that an individual bears responsibility.

To the Attorney’s mind, can those two concepts co-exist in a structure? And will he go further and indicate, if they can, whether that’s something he believes should be pursued?

Hon. D. Eby: I appreciate the member’s patience. I just wanted to check in with staff and make sure there wasn’t anything additional I could provide by way of guidance about what we’re looking at.

The best I can do is advise the member that we’re in very early stages. His question is a good one and is one of the policy questions that we’re examining. Our hope is to try to deliver to these families what they’re looking for as best as we can and as efficiently and appropriately as we can with limited public resources.

These are the governing considerations. I understand — incredibly broad, and almost certainly a statement of policy considerations for any government policy, period. So not seeking to…. I don’t think this is a partisan issue, particularly, or necessarily one that requires a great deal of secrecy about government’s intent. I imagine that as we get further along, we’ll be out engaging with families and other stakeholders to make sure we’re on the right path. So it will be an iterative process. But at this stage, we’re in very, very early stages.

M. de Jong: I’ll come back to that last part in a moment or two, just because I think it’s an opportunity for the Attorney to provide some comfort to people whose lives have been so dramatically affected and who have, in many ways, dedicated their lives to the cause of reform in this area of the law. I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Is it…? This will be a far less sophisticated question than the topic warrants. It is not meant to, again, trap the Attorney.

[3:00 p.m.]

My sense of the conversation thus far is that he recognizes — or accepts or recognizes and agrees — that addressing this issue in a fulsome way involves not even a major rewrite of the existing legislation but, essentially, a wholesale replacement of a structure and a statute that has its roots in the 19th century.

Am I exaggerating? I don’t want to exaggerate, but if that’s not the case, if the Attorney believes the existing act can be amended to address these issues, please tell me and the committee that, but that’s not my sense. I wonder if he agrees.

Hon. D. Eby: At this stage, it’s hard to speculate what legislative or policy reforms would be required. I have heard from many stakeholders their concern about the existing statute and what would be required either to amend it or to withdraw and replace it, and that’s exactly what we’re looking at. What is the most appropriate response, and how would we achieve it? I don’t have an easy answer for the member about that.

M. de Jong: In the time I’ve had to meet with the representatives of the B.C. Wrongful Death Law Reform Society, the frustration they have expressed goes something like this. Again, I say this both in my capacity as an opposition member to channel those frustrations but also to provide the Attorney with an opportunity to address them if he can and perhaps provide some level of comfort to those interested parties that their perceptions may change and their concerns will be dealt with.

The leading members of the society indicate that going back a year and a half, to October of 2019, they had a good meeting with the Attorney, with a positive indication that progress would be made. They were grateful for that. In fact, their information to me was they left with what they thought was a very specific timeline involving movement forward, statutory change as early as the spring of 2020.

Their frustration today is that the level of communication between the government, the ministry and them, as the society at the forefront of leading the public discourse on this issue, has virtually dried up, disappeared, is non-existent, which has, again, reinforced in their minds the notion that this isn’t a priority and that steps aren’t being taken.

I suppose I should ask the Attorney General. If that information is incorrect, by the way — if he has met with them more recently — please, by all means, correct the record. But when is the last time that the ministry and the people involved with this, leading the work that the Attorney has referred to, have had detailed discussions with the society? What have they said to the society about the level of engagement that they will have going forward?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that, to the best of my understanding, the Wrongful Death Law Reform group has been meeting with a number of my associates and colleagues. I’ve met with them as well. October 2019 sounds about right to me. I’ll take the member’s date.

[3:05 p.m.]

To the best of my recall, I’ve only met with them once. I have met with Ann Forry, who’s the mom of Natasha Forry. I’ve met with constituents who are friends or associates of Natasha Forry. My colleague George Heyman — Ms. Forry is his constituent. He’s met with her on multiple occasions. I would say that our caucus and cabinet members have had fairly steady meetings with the society, with Ms. Forry or with Natasha Forry’s friends and family. This is the woman on the North Shore who died, her family alleges, as a result of medical error.

So from my perspective, the meetings have been steady and ongoing. There’s not a lot of work with respect to stakeholders at this point. As I advised the member, staff are in their earliest stages of policy work, looking at international comparators, different systems that different jurisdictions have brought forward.

But it would be wrong to say that we are without progress on this. The biggest group of people wrongfully killed in our province, as I have mentioned, are people who die as a result of automobile collision. As of May 1, their treatment under our system changed quite dramatically in terms of both the recognition that they’ve been killed and the damages available to them in a timely manner — to their family, to their surviving family members — through the ICBC reforms that we put in place.

So we are moving on these issues. We see the injustices. We are addressing them. It may not be the exact policy recommendations that come forward from the Wrongful Death Law Reform Society, which, I understand, is focused very much on tort law. However, we share a lot of values around what families deserve and what they’re entitled to — appropriate recognition, clear and concise answers about what happened and accurate information as well as recognition.

Our goal is to work on those kinds of values together with families, with the Wrongful Death Law Reform Society and other stakeholders as this work rolls on. But as I say, our timeline on this is the mandate of this government.

M. de Jong: Maybe I’ll just explore the last part, since the Attorney has made special emphasis of his commitment to that. Let’s maybe explore briefly what that means in the mind of the Attorney.

Addressing the issue within the mandate of the government. For the Attorney, does that mean introduction and passage of the legislative instruments necessary to address this issue? We clearly are not going to settle the question today about how it will be addressed. But when the Attorney says this issue will be dealt with within the term of the government, it’s incredible to think, but we’re coming up almost to a year into a four-year term.

What does that timeline look like for people that are very interested in this? Does that mean a white paper this fall, with a period of consultation, to be followed by legislation the year after? When we start to plug in those dates, we see how rapidly time runs out. So maybe I’ll press the Attorney a little bit to give a little better indication of what that calendar of progress looks like over the next three years.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the member is right, and he’s been at this business of government for much longer than I have. But I can hear in his question, certainly, my understanding of how time has changed since taking on this job. Four years used to sound like a long time. He’s right; this time goes in government before you know it.

My goal with respect to this is to achieve wrongful death law reform within this term of government, which would mean a statute that is passed or amendments or whatever — the legislative framework — is in place within the term of this government.

[3:10 p.m.]

If that changes, of course, I would let key stakeholders know, because when I say that we’ll be addressing the issue within the term of government, that is what I mean. And when I say the issue, I mean the issue of wrongful death law reform.

M. de Jong: Both of us have used this term a couple of times: the “stakeholders.” I have referred to the society representing the families who have been impacted by wrongful death. To the Attorney’s mind, who are the major stakeholders that will be at the forefront of discussions and consultations with the government? I’ll let him put on the record — as I’m sure that he will — the inclusion of the society itself and the others that he believes will, in the weeks and months ahead, be directly engaged in the work.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, certainly, the families and friends of people who have wrongfully died. I can see existing government agencies — arm’s-length, quasi-judicial bodies like the coroner’s office, the Ministry of Health, the health authorities — given the overlap with deaths arising from health care, as one example. Staff are doing analysis about the sources of wrongful death and the different categories, as I mentioned — car collisions, as an example. There are large and discrete groups that bring on different stakeholders to make sure that we are not having unintended consequences while addressing the concerns of the families.

I’ll advise the member — this is off the top of my head — that staff will be doing a comprehensive review of people who have spoken out on this issue. Certainly, I would imagine the bar and, to the extent appropriate, the bench consulted if there are issues that overlap with those groups — as, I imagine, there would be. The Canadian Bar Association has expressed interest in this, as has the Law Society.

There’s no shortage of groups that we can think of. Staff will do a systematic review, and we’ll all do our best to make sure that we don’t miss anyone. Certainly, we welcome suggestions from the members and the opposition as well, to ensure that we don’t miss any relevant or affected group.

M. de Jong: I don’t think this was a purposeful oversight on the Attorney’s part. Only because they are the citizen group most directly organized around this issue, it would be, I think, helpful and appropriate if he agreed to confirm on the record that the B.C. Wrongful Death Law Reform Society will be directly engaged.

If he is in a position to say today that he will provide direction and instruction to the leadership of the team within the ministry who are doing this work, to reach out, sooner rather than later, to establish — “re-establish,” I think, is probably the better word — contacting and engagement with that group, this would, I think, be helpful today.

Hon. D. Eby: Yeah, a conspicuous oversight — and I thank the member for drawing it to my attention — to avoid the group — which, obviously, has communicated to the member a feeling that, maybe, things were happening that they’re not aware of, or that I’m not meeting with them or something, despite all the meetings that have happened. It’s not the case. Absolutely, the Wrongful Death Law Reform Society would be a key stakeholder. Staff would be engaging with them, when appropriate, at key decision points — absolutely.

M. de Jong: I’m going to ask a question…. I don’t want to leave the impression with the Attorney that I’m going to cross-examine him on individual clauses of this. My purpose at this stage — as it has been throughout our discussion thus far — is to have a more general discussion. But he is likely aware that the society we have referred to has provided their version of a draft piece of legislation.

[3:15 p.m.]

Legislation, of course, is a difficult thing to…. It is a very specialized vocation to be able to draft legislation in the context of a provincial body of law. There are clearly issues with any attempt by any group outside of government to try and put together a comprehensive piece of legislation.

But I think it is fair and appropriate for me to provide the Attorney with an opportunity today to say, with respect to the general approaches advanced by the group in their attempt at a draft piece of legislation entitled the wrongful death accountability act, something of a response or feedback about approaches that he believes are worth exploring or, conversely, approaches that he believes are problematic.

Hon. D. Eby: I do not have sufficient familiarity with the proposal, other than that I understand it to be a proposal that we essentially create a jurisdiction within the B.C. Supreme Court to be able to deal with this. That is one potential avenue of many for reform. It will be examined by staff as one of the options available to us with respect to reform.

M. de Jong: I think just a couple more questions. If the Attorney could, again, indicate on the record his comfort with and preparedness to suggest to the team leading this that engagement with the society and a preparedness to discuss some of the concepts and approaches included in that document, as a starting point at least, it would, I think, provide some level of initial comfort that the work was not undertaken in vain. So that’s one.

Secondly, because we should move on to some other topics here, I was interested to hear the Attorney talk about the possibility of entirely different venues and structures for the determination of compensation in cases such as this. Again, I’m interested to hear any additional information or thoughts that the Attorney may have on that point.

Thirdly — I’ll be a little bit persistent — does the Attorney anticipate that in the drive to meet his timeline objective, we are likely to see a white paper, a discussion paper, in calendar year 2021 or calendar year 2022?

Hon. D. Eby: Let me start with the last one first. What I’m comfortable committing to the member is that my goal is to have this law reform complete by the end of the mandate of government and, also, to engage with stakeholders. In terms of exactly when and how that will fall and the priorities of government over the next three and a bit years, it’s premature to set out schedules.

With respect to possible venues, I mentioned some venues that already exist, with respect to wrongful death, including the coroner’s inquest process and the B.C. Supreme Court. We also have venues like the civil resolution tribunal, and then, under the ICBC reforms, we had an enhanced care model, which focused on compensation and recognition, rather than adversarial approaches. So there are a number of different approaches that could be taken. These are just B.C. examples and, as I said, we’re looking internationally at how other jurisdictions handle this.

[3:20 p.m.]

In terms of going through the draft statute by this organization, I have every confidence that it’s written to the best level possible. I imagine very much that lawyers were involved in drafting it. It will be informative and useful to staff as they do this work going forward.

M. de Jong: Okay. This being our first opportunity to engage in this exercise with the member as Attorney and I as critic, I’ll leave it at that, and I guess we’ll check in, in the year ahead.

The Attorney has been, I think, straightforward about communicating his interest and desire to make progress to the extent that that can be reinforced by meaningful engagement between the team within the ministry conducting this work and sharing with interested parties, in as timely a way as possible, the issues that they identify.

I know the Attorney is knowledgable in a very effective way about the workings of legislation and government. Identifying for parties if not the choices government makes, the options that government is confronted by can sometimes provide those parties with a better understanding when the time comes when government does have to make choices.

I think at this point there is still quite a gap between what the groups and the families that have been so devastated, and now are working to effect change, think that change can and should look like and the work that government has to do and the decisions that government has to make to bring any of that about and to have it happen.

The last thing I will say — if the Attorney wishes to respond, that’s fine — is merely to pay tribute to family members who, in a desire to address what we will call public policy but what for them begins with a huge personal loss…. It’s a form of unique public service because it requires them, if not on a daily basis, a weekly basis, to focus on the nature of that loss over and over and over again. The motivation, in that sense, is as pure as one can imagine. They are deserving of tremendous recognition and respect.

I’m certain that the Attorney agrees with that. I’ll give him a brief moment, if he wishes, to emphasize that.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the line of questioning. Certainly, there’s no shortage of reasons for him to be raising this line of questioning with me. It’s not squarely related to the budget, but I’m glad to entertain the questions, because I agree with him that this is an important issue for government to address.

What animates it is the grief of families that want answers and recognition, which is certainly understandable for any of us who have ever lost a loved one. I thank the member for raising the questions.

M. de Jong: On a different but perhaps similar vein, maybe something the Attorney just mentioned triggered a thought on my part. We can have a sometimes, depending on the ministry, fascinating conversation about numbers and dollar figures. Sometimes that’s very appropriate, and sometimes it’s very necessary.

[3:25 p.m.]

We don’t have a limitless amount of time. Sometimes some of these other issues which go to the heart of how dollars are spent within branches of government, in this case the delivery of justice services, are ultimately as important, if not more important, because they will influence, in the longer term, the expenditure of those moneys and the resources that are required. My next general area of topic I think falls into that category.

The Attorney and I, on a piece of legislation…. I can’t remember which one it was, but we diverted off in committee to a conversation about the provision of legal services and the challenges that people are facing and the impact that is having on the courts. We had, I think, briefly referenced some work that the Law Society has been undertaking with respect to the possibility of securing amendments to the Legal Profession Act to allow for the creation of categories of Law Society members who aren’t lawyers, to permit them to provide certain legal services.

They’ve identified a number of areas, including employment law and tenancy law. But the area that I think the Law Society has focused upon — correctly, in my view — is family law and the possibility of creating amendments that would allow for categories of members of the society to practise in that area on the basis of certain levels of training.

The Attorney, in addition to all of his other responsibilities, is also a bencher with the Law Society, one of the — I’m not going to call it a perk — obligations of office that fall to the Attorney. What can he tell the committee about that work, which, from 2014, seemed to be making a measure of progress within the Law Society and now seems to have hit some obstacles? Where are we?

Then I’d like to have a bit of a conversation about some of the details of that and get the Attorney’s thoughts on some of the scope-of-practice issues that might be relevant to this conversation.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member — he may know this — that either despite or perhaps because of my interventions and support of the authorized paralegal proposal, it was approved by the Law Society and then rejected in a special meeting that was called by the membership. I had supported it at that meeting, and the members still voted, of course — perhaps because of my interventions — to not move forward with that proposal at that time.

The Law Society executive committed that they would do some more work on it and bring it forward again. I understand, from my most recent meeting with the Law Society, which was a couple of months ago — pandemic time can be a bit distorted, but I think it was a couple months ago — that that work continues.

In the meantime, they have created what they’re describing as a regulatory sandbox, where they create the possibility for people to engage in practice that previously would have been considered unauthorized practice of law in discrete areas in order to see how it goes, study it and then consider expanding that practice.

There was a story today — I can give the member details if he wants — about an individual, who had struggled with the Law Society for many years around his work of representing people who have tickets of various kinds, around allegations of unauthorized practice, being notified by the Law Society that they would no longer consider his work unauthorized practice and would be approving him to be able to do that work under this regulatory sandbox approach.

What we’re seeing is them receiving proposals in a number of areas of law, including family law, for different types of practice by groups other than lawyers in discrete areas to see what the impacts are, in terms of access to justice as well as quality of service, before they’re expanded. It’s a very interesting approach, and I wish them luck. I continue to advocate with the president of the Law Society, and the executive director, for expansion of practice in areas where we see significant demand from the public and where people are attending, unrepresented, in large numbers. Family law certainly meets those criteria.

With respect to family law generally, I know the member knows, but I’ll put on the record how grateful I am for the work of Nancy Carter, QC, and her team on the family court rules project; Chief Judge Gillespie and Associate Chief Judge Wishart, who worked on that; and the remarkable results that we’re seeing out of Victoria and Surrey with early interventions with families — and our hope to expand that early intervention program across the province, under the new rules.

It’s a very exciting time, in terms of providing support to families in crisis, so that the court system doesn’t amplify the challenges that they face but instead supports them in reaching resolutions that are mutually agreeable in appropriate circumstances. Lots of good work is happening on the family side, independent of all of these other issues that the member has, rightly, raised.

M. de Jong: I’m grateful to the Attorney for the update on some of the other matters. I will, though, spend a few moments and come back to the original initiative. What I will say next is meant to be a question and not meant to be a provocative question. It is merely to try and ascertain where we’re at.

[3:35 p.m.]

The concept, the proposal, the idea of amending the legal services act to facilitate and provide for a new class of legal professionals that could provide legal services in the area of family law — is that, essentially, dead for the moment? Or is there ongoing work to try to breathe life into that?

By the way, if I didn’t say it, I should, so that the Attorney at least has an appreciation of my bias. I believe there is merit in that initiative. I’m not here trying to surreptitiously pose questions. I was disappointed by the outcome — as, I think, the Attorney was — but where are we now? Is that specific initiative dead? Or is there still an attempt being made to breathe some life into it?

Hon. D. Eby: To the best of my knowledge, the issue is not dead. In fact, I raised it with the Law Society at our most recent meeting. The member may not recall — I believe, actually, that another member was my critic at the time — when we passed the authorization in the legal services act to allow licensed paralegals to practise. It would require additional regulatory work — depending on the framework recommended by the Law Society and if government supported that particular approach — but all the legislative authorizations are in place for this to happen.

That was done at the request of the Law Society. I was obviously very enthusiastic about that request. We shall see where the Law Society ends up on it. I’m supportive, at this stage, of allowing them to work through their process to come up with a recommendation that works for everybody.

M. de Jong: The situation that we find ourselves in now is that the act can accommodate the type of change being contemplated. It is merely a case — this is a question that I’m asking — of the structure, the decision being settled upon by the Law Society to move forward. Presumably, there are some regulatory requirements that would require OICs from government. Is that where we stand?

Hon. D. Eby: The member has summarized it correctly.

M. de Jong: Well, let me step back for a moment. I think the Attorney has some appreciation for this — in his role as Attorney, perhaps as practising in counsel and as an MLA: the practical challenges that families are confronted by when they embark upon one of the worst kinds of disputes.

[3:40 p.m.]

That is a dispute around the breakup of the family, the emotionalism attached to that, the complex issues that arise, and the brutal fact that legal assistance, traditional lawyer-provided legal assistance, is beyond the means of, I would say, 75 percent of the population.

The phenomenon of the self-represented client and the challenges that that presents for them, the challenges it presents for the courts, are all, I think, pretty well documented. It then gives rise to the question and, I suppose, the submission — it sounds like it has been one that the Attorney has some sympathy for — which is that if traditional forms of legal representation are out of reach for people and families in these circumstances, it behooves us to take steps — and the Law Society, which is, after all, a body charged with protecting the public interest, to take steps to address that fact.

The statutory legal framework, happily, appears to be in place. So what is the next step? Is it a…? Again, I say this in an investigative way as opposed to an accusatory way. Is the Attorney in a position where he feels he must wait for the Law Society to provide a specific request and a specific framework around which he can build the regulations that government is obliged to implement? Or is there a means by which he can provoke that with the Law Society?

What I’m not clear on is: good intentions notwithstanding, is the ability to get beyond the sandbox dependent on another vote from the Law Society and its membership?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I was just checking with staff about the requirements for legislative change, the legislative basis for the sandbox approach and the family paralegal.

On the sandbox, this is a mechanism established by the Law Society, and it’s based on their ability as regulator to choose not to enforce the unauthorized practice — the monopoly provisions that they have — and to do it in a structured way. They don’t need legislative change to do that, nor are they relying on it in order to create this process.

I’m not sure quite how the member stated it in his question, but the question about whether we needed to wait for a Law Society vote in order to have licensed family paralegals, or family paralegals as enabled by the statutory amendments that have been made…. The answer is no. But there’s a great deal of benefit in working in partnership with the Law Society and their task force that they established to assist with working through the issues, the scope of practice and other kinds of questions about what these paralegals would do, what kind of supervision they would require, and so on.

We’re very supportive of the Law Society’s approach of exploring these different areas of what were, previously, unauthorized forms of practice by non-lawyers, to see whether they deliver better access to justice for people. At the same time, we’re not waiting for it, and the member rightly notes that we shouldn’t wait for it.

We have made very significant changes and delivered additional services to families, designing the system, really, in Provincial Court around assuming that families are unrepresented — that there are family justice workers who support families, that there are mediation services delivered to families that assist them in working through their issues and identifying what issues need to be determined by the court and what documents they’re going to need before they get into a courtroom — so that when they finally appear in front of a judge, they’re ready to go and the judge can make a determination so that they don’t have to take a whole bunch of time off work in order to do it and do multiple appearances and have the judge say, “Do you have your pay stubs,” or whatever, and have people say no, and then have it put over for another week. Then people have to take more time off work, and so on.

So there are a number of different approaches we’re taking to this, and we’ve seen good success through this approach of supporting families to narrow their issues and make sure they’re prepared for court, while working with the Law Society on these other reforms.

M. de Jong: I suppose, since I was thinking it, I should say it, and the Attorney can agree or disagree. The approach, at the moment, to try and address this through non-enforcement of existing provisions strikes me as being a relatively poor substitute and fraught with elements of uncertainty for everyone, including the people attempting to provide the service. Does the Attorney agree with that? I think I’ve characterized it as a very poor substitute for a specific, purposeful, regulated initiative that will provide people with access to these alternative legal service providers in the area of family law.

Hon. D. Eby: It could be that you could make an argument like that about the sandbox, but the experience is…. This is based out of Utah, where the state-level government there enabled the sandbox, and the Law Society equivalent in Utah created this sandbox approach.

[3:50 p.m.]

What they found was that they were able to identify those areas that were particularly amenable to non-traditional practice — practice by people who aren’t lawyers — and then focus their resources accordingly on implementation of areas where there was success. I think that having the Law Society go through the work and try a bunch of different experiments and see what works well and what doesn’t in practice — and people actually delivering services to the public — helps government focus our attention on reform in areas where there is a good chance of success.

If we push through the family paralegal piece without Law Society engagement with the profession, the risk is always that nobody picks it up. It’s a huge amount of work to amend the statute, create the regulations — congratulations.

Everybody can go out and be a licensed paralegal in Washington state. The way this works is the paralegal works under the supervision of a lawyer. If the lawyers are unwilling to do that training and work with a paralegal because they find the process by which that was established to be one that was inconsistent with engaging with the profession, then that’s a lot of time and energy wasted on a reform that people aren’t going to pick up.

The goal here is to find those reforms where we can deliver maximum impact for people in the justice system. One of the ways we can do that is in partnership with the Law Society. I do agree, though, with maybe a supposition that underlies the member’s question. At some point, it may be that the Law Society loses track of this public interest obligation that they have — that their obligation is to serve the public and not the profession and to ensure access to justice. But that’s not been my experience yet.

I think the sandbox process is working well and is positive. It’s based on success in other jurisdictions. I support the Law Society’s work on that.

M. de Jong: I will take advantage of the opportunity to state on the record that I think it is hugely advantageous and preferred to be making progress on this in partnership with the agency charged with protecting the public interest, the Law Society. I’m hopeful that that will take place, but I’m also hopeful that progress will be made.

What can the Attorney…? I’ll have a couple more questions — maybe a few more detailed questions to solicit from the Attorney his views on what this might look like, in a practical way, if we were to get to the point that, at one time, it seemed the Law Society was striving to get to.

But maybe I’ll start by asking: how will he measure progress on this question over the course of the next year and over the course of the next three years? The regulated sandbox is apparently an approach — if not his preferred approach, one that he sees some merit in. When we have this conversation again in a year and maybe three years, what will he want to tell me and the committee about how this has worked?

I mean, it’s the old question about what the measurables are here, both for the government and the Law Society that works with it. We all recognize what the problem is. We see the numbers of unrepresented clients growing in the trial courts, in the appeal courts, and that is surely one aspect of this.

But how will we know we’re making progress in addressing this challenge? I am speaking now, specifically, about the family law area. There are clearly other issues in other areas around access to justice. But in the family law area, where I ask the Attorney to help me braid the rope a little bit, what are the fair questions that I or a critic will be able to put to the Attorney a year and three years from now about whether any progress has been made whatsoever?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not aware yet if the Law Society has identified a family-related initiative in their sandbox piece. I do understand that the outcome of that will be looking at the experience of the people who receive the service, as well as those who deliver it and other stakeholders — potentially up to and including the court, depending on where people are appearing. Some of the key outcomes we’ll be looking to the Law Society for are recommendations around training, quality of service and regulatory oversight that’s needed of any non-lawyer service provider.

It gets a little bit easier when it comes to government because the Law Society is, of course, independent of government. I can advise the member that we’re collecting very rigorous information about the family law system under the new family law rules and some of the services we’re providing.

One of those is user satisfaction. Users are surveyed to determine how satisfied they were with the process. Time to resolution — so from the initiation of a family law matter to its resolution. Sort of a split measurement to determine whether individuals who receive early services and advice have reduced time to resolution. Our expectation would be the answer is yes, but we’re not assuming that. The number of appearances that someone needs to make in court in order to resolve their matter, as well as the duration of hearings and trials in family law matters.

Our expectation is that, under the new rules and with the new services we’re offering, our hope would be that those hearings and trials would be shorter because there would be fewer issues. More would’ve been resolved before getting to a hearing or a trial.

M. de Jong: What’s the venue for reporting out on…? Is that annual report material that I should be looking for?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of venues by which this data could be reported. I note that typically, we’re in partnership with the court on decisions around release of data related to court services. So in the absence of conversation with the chief judge, it’s premature to say when and how any data would be released. With that said, I think there is some desire on both the part of the chief judge and of government to share information about where we’re at. So we will be engaged in those conversations.

I can advise the member that there is a two-year evaluation underway for Victoria that should be complete by the end of the year. This is an ongoing evaluation project, as well as broader statistics collected and available for the chief judge for the Provincial Court annual report, which should include, certainly, the data from previous years for the purposes of comparison. Certainly happy to raise with the chief judge the conversation that we’re having here about the member’s desire for this information about the family court system, because I think there’s quite a positive story to tell about a lot of work that’s gone into this in partnership between court and government.

M. de Jong: It sounds like there will be an attempt made to benchmark the data, which I think is important. I don’t know how far back the existing work intends to look, but if we’re going to be measuring progress or lack thereof, we’ll need to have some benchmarks, for what it’s worth. Variables like time to resolution and number of appearances, I think, are useful.

Probably not my job to say this and provide agencies of government with an out, but I’m not sure data on user satisfaction…. I’m not sure how many people come out of a court hearing and say: “I had fun. It was a good experience.” So we’ll see. I think I understand what the…. It’s perhaps a little more subtle than that. But the fact that someone has to go to court doesn’t generally lead them to reflect positively on the experience, particularly in a family court situation.

Finally, on this matter, to canvass for the work that is apparently going to take place in the future. If I can get the Attorney’s views, feedback and position on the proposal for the establishment of family law legal service providers, in terms of scope of practice — which, I think, at the end of the day, is always the rub when trying to address these issues. The dispute is: what should they be allowed to do? You’re encroaching on someone else’s territory and someone else’s scope of practice.

The proposal would have seen professional family law legal service providers being able to establish contractual relationships with a client not represented by a lawyer or a client who is represented by a lawyer where the lawyer consents. They could conduct client interviews; advise clients about available legal options; take instructions to begin legal processes; communicate with another party’s representative or another party, if that party was unrepresented; advise about anticipated courses of legal proceedings; attend at mediations within certain limitations.

Are those all areas that the Attorney believes were appropriate and are appropriate areas for a family law legal service provider to engage in?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is testing my memory. To the best of my recollection, those were the areas that were in the initial proposal that I supported at the special meeting of the Law Society and supported by bringing forward the amendment to enable this kind of practice to take place. I still support that.

M. de Jong: Thanks. That’s helpful. Just a couple of questions. And the minister is correct, by the way. Those were the original proposals.

The original proposal also contemplated a family law legal service provider to be able to act as a mediator. Of course, there’s a traditional conundrum for traditional lawyers, when there may be a dispute for which mediation is an obvious and preferred route to settlement, but the lawyer is bound by all of the tenets of representing a single party, including confidentiality with a single party and privilege with a single party. The notion that a family law legal service provider could do both, represent one client and act as a mediator, is that something that the Attorney is comfortable with?

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of things. First, I didn’t understand that what was proposed would be that these individuals would be simultaneously representing one of the sides as well as acting as mediator, but rather that one of the roles that could be taken on is to be an independent mediator. When I say independent, I mean independent of either of the parties in the mediation — that they could be retained for that purpose.

I suspect one of the reasons why that found its way into the list of things that these folks could do is that there are, to the best of my understanding, a significant number of people who are not lawyers who engage in mediations between couples to negotiate things like division of assets and time and access to children, and so on.

Now, to get those finalized, to get those agreements put in front of a court, and so on, and to give them the effect of a court order, is a process that likely would require the assistance of somebody authorized by the Law Society or to do it yourself. However, there are many people who engage in this mediation work, to the best of my knowledge, who are not lawyers.

So a two-part answer. If it was proposed that these folks could simultaneously represent a client and act as a mediator in the same matter, that is not something that I would support, due to the inherent conflict of interest between being a mediator between the two parties as well as advocating for the best interests of one of the two parties.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful.

[4:10 p.m.]

Communications between a client and a family law legal service provider, which is a term that…. Does the Attorney believe that it would be appropriate and necessary to develop some equivalent notion of solicitor-client privilege, and would that exist or would that need to exist? My view is it would need to exist. Would that have to be developed statutorily to afford that protected status, in terms of the communications between this new type of profession?

Hon. D. Eby: The member raises an important question and one that we grappled with at the time of the legislative amendment. The amendment was put forward with the intention that, having satisfied whatever requirements the Law Society had around training or education, these paralegals could practise independently and not under the auspices of an existing lawyer.

The privilege related to solicitor-client relationship is a common-law-developed privilege. Our intent was that that issue would be filled in through common-law development, much like solicitor-client privilege has. To what extent it should be expanded to accommodate this type of practice, this person acting in a role that historically would have been filled by, hopefully, a lawyer — although we know the reality for most people is not a lawyer — the expectation was that the common law would be filling in if there were any departures from the understanding that there would be solicitor-client privilege here.

M. de Jong: It sounds like the Attorney and his team turned their minds to this. There must have been concern, though, that that approach would have created a relatively significant period of uncertainty until that judicial filling-in took place.

Or maybe I’m missing something. Because if, on the one hand, people were practising in that area without a clear sense that the communications they were having with their clients were protected, waiting for three or four or five years of common-law jurisprudence to flesh that out strikes me as being a bit problematic.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member has caught us a bit flatfooted, in the sense that a lot of this work was done in 2017 when we did the amendment. Staff have some recollection. I’ve done my best to pass it along. It was based on jurisprudence about the role of paralegals, generally, and solicitor-client privilege. So it wouldn’t be a vacuum, as the member suggests. There is already some jurisprudence about this broadly.

What I can do is provide the member with additional detail about that. We just don’t have it at hand, about the jurisprudence in relation to solicitor-client privilege for paralegals in the common law and the state of that right now.

M. de Jong: That’s fine.

I think the last question on this area that continues to evolve and, hopefully, will evolve further and make some progress…. The original recommendation around scope of practice — and I’m sure this was a difficult decision, and it appears to have generated lots of conversation — was to exclude from scope of practice all matters with respect to children involving relocation and child protection concerns. That’s a pretty broad category, and sometimes the single most emotional category.

Does the Attorney have thoughts that he is able to share on, going forward, whether excluding that area from scope of practice is still the preferred route to go?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised by staff that this list was prepared, in terms of jurisdictional scope of practice…. This list of areas excluded or included was prepared by the Law Society through its engagement processes in the development of the proposal.

I can’t say, at this stage, if we pursued, independent of the Law Society, amendments related to this, whether or not these sections would also be the same ones that we would consider excluding, because we haven’t done that policy work. But just so the member knows the origin of that list, it was the Law Society and presumably their engagement with the sector and their understanding of the need.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I’m not disputing that. That’s indeed where it came from. I think I’ve had the audacity, though, to ask the Attorney for his view on the matter and whether he thinks…. I understand that he hasn’t got the whole policy shop, with the papers and the options. It just strikes me that if we’re heading down this path, the idea that that broad area of family law would be excluded…. I think there was a similar discussion around family violence, and the decision was made: “Well, that’s going to be excluded.”

We’ve just passed some amendments that redefine “family violence.” The decision was made…. If we’re going to exclude issues of domestic violence, well, that’s going to remove this option from a whole host of folks who, maybe, need it most. The same argument can be made around matters of children, the care for children or the relocation of children.

I think I’ve had the audacity to prevail upon the Attorney to maybe share, with the committee, his views on that proposition.

Hon. D. Eby: Given that we’re waiting on the Law Society and on any potential changes they may be making to the proposal, it would be premature, I would think, for government to be weighing in on what we would do in the absence of the Law Society acting on this issue.

I definitely appreciate the member’s concern that there be a sufficient area of practice for any new group to be successful. I also appreciate, likely, the considerations that led to the exclusion of these areas — namely, that these are highly sensitive areas with, in some cases, very tight statutory timelines, statutes of limitation and requirements for caution, as well as, when you’re talking about child protection, potentially, the rights to counsel that parents may have.

It’s a complex matter, and I don’t feel adequately prepared to advise the member in terms of expanding what was put forward as the scope of practice for this group that doesn’t exist yet.

M. de Jong: The only follow-up I would have to the Attorney’s comment is to re-emphasize…. I, hopefully, have not left the impression that I’m advocating for the government to launch off on its own without the Law Society.

I did think, perhaps, it was an opportunity for the Attorney, insofar as the work is continuing — and the Law Society, of course, is playing a key role in that one area — to share some thoughts that he might have about the advisability of that particular exclusion. I understand he is reluctant to do so at this point. Hopefully, we will see progress on this matter.

I’m going to move to a different topic area. This is where…. Before the Attorney pulls out and dusts off his “I can’t comment because it’s before the courts” speech, I will try to preface this in a way that will, hopefully, communicate to him that I have some appreciation for the things that he can talk about and some appreciation for the things that he can’t and that it wouldn’t be appropriate for him to talk about, insofar as the matter is before the courts.

I’m talking about the decision that British Columbia made — maybe one of my questions is going to be how that decision gets made within this government, because I think it has differed in differing governments — to seek intervener status in the case before the Supreme Court of Canada around the Ontario municipal election back in 2018.

[4:25 p.m.]

To simply put it on the record, two months ahead of the Toronto civic election, the provincial government in Ontario passed a bill to reduce the number of wards in the city from 47 to 25. That worked its way through the courts. There have been arguments about the legality of that. It’s certainly relevant to Toronto and to the province of Ontario. To be fair, there were other interveners, I think, numbering 18.

British Columbia is the only provincial jurisdiction to have intervened, and I guess the straightforward question is: why? What is it about this case that prompted the province of British Columbia to seek intervener status when no other jurisdiction did? I say that cognizant of the fact that certain provinces — Quebec, for example — are rarely hesitant about wanting to assert and protect provincial jurisdiction. B.C. is the only province in this case.

Maybe in answering, if he attempts and is prepared to offer an answer, he can indicate to the committee how those decisions are generally made within this government. And this is a more general question. Is the decision to seek intervener status a decision of the Attorney General, of the Attorney General Ministry? Is it made in consultation with a line ministry who is impacted or who has interests or a party? Well, not a party, if it’s seeking intervener status. How are those decisions made in a general way, how is it made in this case, and why?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. I’m limited in what I can say, as it is before the courts. I think the member reminded the Legislature, rightly, of that rule recently.

What I can say is that this is an important case in relation to the relationship between cities and provinces. Independent of the fact pattern that brought the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, that is the subject matter before the court and the question of the constitutionalization of some parts of that relationship. So it’s important that British Columbia be there and be on the record on that.

The decision to attend was my decision, as Attorney General. The member has served as AG and will be familiar with some of these processes. I imagine they’re relatively unchanged.

For some decisions about intervention, I think, on occasion, the deputy has made the call, in my time as AG, but for the majority of them, it’s my decision as AG. On occasion, in different matters, I will consult with affected ministries or ministries that have relationships or arrange for solicitor-client briefings — of course, I’m speaking generally about all these things — so that the relevant minister is aware of the issues in the case and can advise me about sensitivities or particular concerns in relation to arguments that might be made.

I think that might be the best I’ll be able to do for the member on this one.

The Chair: I’m going to call a recess now, Members, for ten minutes, as we change the Chair. So we will return, according to my clock, at 4:39.

The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

The Chair: We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Attorney General.

I now recognize the member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleague from Richmond has a series of questions she would like to pose to the Attorney at this time.

[4:40 p.m.]

T. Wat: Thank you to the member for giving me about an hour to try to canvass the minister on an issue really dear to my heart.

In the past year or so…. As the minister is well aware, 70 percent of my constituents are of Asian descent. They have been approaching me really having a lot of concern about the spike in anti-Asian hate crime. They also expressed the worry that the minister’s actions and behaviour several years ago as an MLA…. They want me to bring this up when I have the budget estimates debate. Not only have I been approached by my own constituents; British Columbians in the Lower Mainland of Asian descent have also approached me. So I’m glad that today we have this opportunity to have a dialogue with the minister.

I hope this can be a really genuine dialogue, not a political one. I am hoping that we can all work together and try to really remove the title of the anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America once and for all if we can genuinely work together. So my first question to the minister is: what is the minister’s view on racism in B.C.?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m opposed to it.

T. Wat: I don’t really understand what the minister was talking about. I’m asking for the minister’s view on racism in B.C.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m opposed to racism in British Columbia.

T. Wat: Sorry, it did not get through. Thank you, Minister.

Was the decision to bring anti-racism under the Attorney General a decision the minister advocated for, or was this a decision made by the Premier?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not sure how the decision was made. It’s in my mandate letter.

T. Wat: What I was asking the minister is whether the minister has been advocating for taking over this portfolio from the Tourism Minister. Or was that a decision made by the Premier, and it was given to the minister?

Hon. D. Eby: My advocacy with the Premier is always to do the work that I’m best placed to do on behalf of the government, and that was the case for this.

T. Wat: What does the minister view as his role as Attorney General in overseeing the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives?

Hon. D. Eby: I try to give the parliamentary secretary as much independence as possible, recognizing that there’s a difference between the role of cabinet minister and parliamentary secretary.

T. Wat: From the minister’s response, does that mean that the parliamentary secretary can make all the decisions without having the blessing from the minister?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a difference between the roles, so some matters need to be decided by the cabinet minister. But I try to give the parliamentary secretary as much independence as possible.

T. Wat: Can the minister elaborate on what he really means by “independent”?

Hon. D. Eby: It means the ability to make decisions without interference.

[4:45 p.m.]

T. Wat: So from what I understand from the minister, the parliamentary secretary can make a decision without the minister’s interference. The decision the parliamentary secretary makes — can it be put into policy without interference from the minister?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member would have to be more specific about what she means, but my understanding of the work of the parliamentary secretary would be that she generates policy for government in relation to anti-racism.

T. Wat: I am, of course, referring to all the anti-racism initiatives.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, I try to give the parliamentary secretary as much independence as possible in relation to the generation of policy related to anti-racism.

T. Wat: Thank you for the minister’s clarification.

I would like to go back in history. What was the minister’s role in the 2015 study where non-anglicized Chinese names were confounded with foreign buyers?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m glad to answer the member’s question but struggling to connect it to the budget estimates process. But given the extent of the commentary in the Monday morning motions, I’m willing to do my best to answer the member’s question.

Andy Yan, a Canadian of Chinese descent working for Bing Thom, an architect also of Chinese descent, prepared this study. To support his work in doing that, I provided him with land title records for a number of properties on the west side of the city of Vancouver. My disappointment with how that study was covered by the media led me to apologize for my involvement in that study. I thought, mistakenly, that the study was interesting and that it dispelled a number of myths around how people were purchasing homes. There were a lot of rumours at the time. But obviously, my naivety about believing that I could influence the perspective of the media led me to insufficiently, I think, set the context for it.

I want to be really clear that I support Mr. Yan’s ability to do this work, to be fearless in doing it, to examine important questions.

The member will recall the context at the time of a government that was openly hostile to discussing the matter at all — the matter being international money in our housing market. We were left to scrabble around the edges to try to find ways to quantify what a lot of people believed, rightly, was a serious issue in our housing market. I say “rightly,” because ultimately, the previous government put in place a foreign buyer tax once they realized the scope of the problem — a scope, by the way, I will note that they denied for a long, long period of time.

It’s a complicated issue. I assume that the member supports — she was there at the time — her government’s imposition of the foreign buyer tax. I support our government’s imposition of the speculation tax that brought 18,000 previously vacant homes back onto the market and rigorous data collection around what’s happening in our housing market so that we don’t have to rely on these kinds of studies anymore. So I’m glad for that.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I would like to remind all members that the committee is discussing Vote 15. I would encourage you to ensure that your questions are clearly relevant to this vote.

T. Wat: This is definitely relevant to this vote because the minister is overseeing anti-racism initiatives. My decision to ask this question is because — that’s why I’m going to canvass the minister later on — of this study. The minister has provided limited data to Mr. Yan, and that’s why it led to the wrongful conclusion.

[4:50 p.m.]

The report was being widely being reported by many English-language media to the extent that the Chinese Canadian community, including myself, were being accused of contributing to the spike in the housing prices, and which, in turn, led to racism against Asian Canadians. So this is definitely relevant to this file.

Thank you to the minister for having responded to my question. Does the minister…? I know that the minister kind of felt that it’s not right to, if I’m understanding the minister correctly, provide the kind of limited data — 172 households [audio interrupted] Canadians of Asian heritage, including my daughter, myself, my friends, my community and my constituents.

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s screen froze during the question. As a result, it was unintelligible. I wonder if she could ask it again.

T. Wat: I don’t know how much the minister has caught of my narrative. I guess I won’t repeat it again, but my question to the minister is: is the minister aware of how hurtful the study he was involved in with Andy Yan could have been towards Canadians of Asian heritage, including myself, including my daughter, including many of my friends and my constituents and British Columbians of Asian descent?

Hon. D. Eby: I absolutely accept responsibility for failing to adequately understand how the study would be used, reported on in the media, and have apologized for that, actually. But there’s a member who hasn’t apologized, and actually, he’s here in the room with us. He made a mistake that I think is qualitatively different but similar.

March 9, 2016, in the Legislative Assembly, the issue in question period was the purchase of the NDP headquarters. The NDP had sold the party headquarters, and the then government had done the due diligence to pull the title to see who had bought the property.

So 2016 was a time when I recall trying to raise the issue of foreign capital in our housing market as being a serious issue, being met with comments like: “We won’t help you build that wall.” That was, of course, before the government realized it was a serious issue and actually acted on it.

In that question period, I stood up to ask a question about international money in our housing market, and the member for Abbotsford West, based on the names on a property title, Wei-Teng Hung and Shan He, said the following: “… at the same time that he and his colleagues have been decrying the entry of foreign investors into our market, the party coffers of the NDP seem to be benefiting quite nicely from some of those investments.” — implying that, because these individuals had Chinese names, they were foreign investors.

I responded: “I’ll set the minister straight on the record. The NDP sold the party headquarters to the hotel owner next door, a local business owner of Taiwanese decent. If the minister” — the then minister — “has a problem with that, he should bring it up with the local business owner in Burnaby.”

Then, the member for Abbotsford West responded to me: “So if I have any other questions about that transaction, I’ll contact the lawyer involved — one Chairman, sorry, C. Mao, who appears to be involved.”

So, first of all, assuming that because these individuals had Chinese names, they were foreign investors in our market. Second of all, openly mocking the name of the lawyer involved, C. Mao, suggesting that his first name was probably Chairman. I haven’t heard an apology from the member from Abbotsford West about that, and I wonder if the member is as concerned as I am about it.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister. I think my time is really quite precious — less than an hour. So I leave it to my colleague to respond to the minister if we have more than enough time.

[4:55 p.m.]

I just want to continue my questioning — my dialogue, not questioning, with the minister. Does the minister think this narrative of Asian money and housing purchases being criminal has added to some of the hurtful stigma that surrounds Asian Canadians?

Hon. D. Eby: Madam Chair, I’ll put up with a lot, but it’s clear the member hasn’t even read the study, read my comments about it, talked to Andy Yan, looked at any of this. Her allegation that the study concluded that there was criminal money in the housing market because of people’s names is just so out to lunch that it is not even worthy of a response.

I will say that I do grasp the member’s narrative quite well, but unfortunately, the narrative is not connected to reality, nor is it connected, with all due respect, to the conduct of her own colleagues in the Legislature. She purports to hold me to a standard while at the same time she sat and applauded while the member made those comments in the Legislature about people with non-anglicized Chinese names.

T. Wat: I hope this is the dialogue between the minister and myself, so I’m not going to respond to the minister’s questioning on my colleague.

Does the minister believe this stigma could contribute to an anti-Asian hate crime?

Hon. D. Eby: I am incredibly concerned about the rise in anti-Asian racism in British Columbia. I think the member is too. I have told the member repeatedly, in question period and in correspondence, that this is not a partisan issue, despite her rather awkward and painful narrative she’s trying to force onto an event that took place five years ago, six years ago. Frankly, I’ve replied in kind in relation to members of her own party.

I think that if the member truly believed that she was concerned about this issue of anti-Chinese racism, perhaps, given the multiple offers that I have made to her to work with us and to work with the parliamentary secretary on our anti-racism initiatives, you’d think maybe she would have set up a meeting to sit down and talk about the initiatives government is putting into place.

I think she’s got a lot of experience. I think she’s very smart. I think she knows the community very well, and I think that we could benefit. I think the programs would be better if she responded to the letters that we’ve sent, to the invitations that we’ve offered to sit down and design these programs together. But she has not.

Instead, she’s here in estimates, about a budget. She hasn’t asked one question about the money available for anti-racism programs, how we’re spending it, how we’re supporting community groups. She hasn’t asked one question about that. Instead, she’s raising a study about which, by the way, I have apologized six years ago, and I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the member is actually not interested in a non-partisan conversation about how we fight racism in this province.

I think that it’s possible to conclude, based on the member’s conduct, that what she’s actually interested in is a political bun fight, which does not advance the cause of anti-racism in our province. The invitation remains open to the member. I hope she takes me up on it. I hope she sits down with the parliamentary secretary, brings her knowledge and wisdom about the community to the file, instead of engaging in whatever this is.

T. Wat: I have to really put on record that I hope the minister and I can go back and look at the first letter I responded to the minister when he responded to the first letter addressed to him, asking him to proclaim May 29 as anti-racism education day. In that letter, I did say that I would love to be involved in trying to come up with programs for Anti-Racism Awareness Week for the last week of May. By the way, I must say that I am quite pleased with the minister for taking on my idea to expand it into one week — Anti-Racism Awareness Week — but I was also perplexed to see that I wasn’t even approached to get any of my input. So I just want to put this on the record.

[5:00 p.m.]

Just to let the minister know how much he did five years ago…. He talked about many years ago just now — about my colleague. If he said that I shouldn’t talk about what happened many years ago, why did he bring up what happened many years ago?

Let me quote an article written by SFU student Rose Wu on July 4, 2019. When I read this letter, it really made me cry. You know why? Because I, too, have a daughter, and I do feel that she is in the same shoes as this Rose Wu, even though my daughter is older than Rose. She now has a family, and she has my two grandsons.

Ng Weng Hoong, in October 2019, said:

“SFU student Rose Wu has written a poignant commentary about the anti-Chinese racism that has come to underscore panic over Vancouver’s housing crisis. Her piece in the Tyee should be compulsory reading for the influential politicians, academics and journalists whose campaign against skyrocketing housing prices has cast a pall on ‘Asian-looking people’ while downplaying the role of other major factors.

“How did the Canadian housing story become linked to race? Specifically, what has led to the framing of this narrative as the ‘Vancouver housing crisis with Chinese characteristics?’”

This Ng Weng Hoong was referring to the article written by Rose Wu on July 4, 2019 [audio interrupted].

“…and I haven’t contributed to the skyrocketing prices, it’s like we have been lumped together with all Asian-looking people.

“I often wonder what catalyzed housing, an economic issue, into racial discourse. Vancouver’s housing crisis has shadowed my entire life, affecting where I lived, how I lived and where I could live next. As a Chinese-Canadian youth, housing goes far beyond my physical living arrangements. It has profoundly affected my relationship with my heritage and identity as a racialized youth.

“My parents arrived in Vancouver with next to nothing and worked for years to afford an apartment, a story similar to those of many Chinese-Canadian immigrants of their time. I was proud of this image of Chinese-Canadians. But somehow, in my teenage years, the popular media discourse about Chinese foreign investors ruining the city managed to turn that pride on its head. Working-class Chinese immigrants had always been part of Vancouver’s history, but wealthier newcomers from Hong Kong and Taiwan in the 1980s and Mainland China in the new millennium captured a different kind of attention.

“I often read comments on news articles about foreign investors that told people like me to go back to my country. But this is my country. I’ve got the baby-faced citizenship card to prove it. My parents tell me to brush it off: ‘It’s not directed at us. We’re not rich.’ While it’s true that my family and I haven’t contributed to the skyrocketing prices, it’s like we’ve been lumped together with all Asian-looking people.

“The conversation around Chinese homebuyers is particularly dangerous because much of it is what my professor Jackie Wong calls casual racism. For example, when a Chinese kid moves into a wealthy neighbourhood, it’s automatically assumed that mom is a mansion wife and dad works in China, avoiding Canadian income tax. There are no direct racial slurs, but it’s harder to combat implied hostility.”

The article goes on and on. In view of the limitation of time, I won’t go on and on.

But I also want to relay my own experience. I live in a quiet, early-developed neighbourhood. I have been working on my front yard, on my garden, because I love gardening. People come by while doing their walk during the early evening during summertime. They would say hi and talk to me.

[5:05 p.m.]

But in the last year, I notice that when people come by, when I look up, they see my face. Obviously, I look Chinese. They would walk to the other side of the street. Even though there’s no…. I mean, I haven’t experienced any physical violence. But you can tell. You can tell the implied attitude.

For my own daughter, she left British Columbia in 2013 just to see the world. She had all the determination to return to Vancouver to start a home once she satisfied herself with opening up her horizons. She now has two sons. I have two grandkids. But from what she read in the media and watched on TV, she told me that she really doesn’t want to come back. She doesn’t want her two sons to be discriminated against.

My daughter is not like me. She is a full Canadian. She speaks English just like any locally born Canadian. She doesn’t have any cultural barriers. I am an adult immigrant. I speak English with an accent. I might have some cultural gaps between myself and the locally born Canadians, but not her. Yet she hesitates to come back, seeing such an anti-Chinese, anti-Asian immigrant environment.

I just want to see what the minister believes his role is. He needs to work harder to eliminate racism and bias in our province.

Hon. D. Eby: I believe I have a really important role to work hard on this issue. I am incredibly moved and disturbed by the stories of racism that people have faced, including and particularly people of Asian decent over the period of the pandemic.

I note some of the expressions of very similar concern not just here in British Columbia but across North America over the period of the pandemic. I don’t pretend that before the pandemic, things were perfect, in terms of the experience of Chinese Canadians or people of Chinese descent in British Columbia. But we have seen a real spike in this activity, and it’s incredibly disturbing.

The member rightly notes that it is my responsibility as minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism’s work to fight that racism. I would encourage the member…. If it is truly just a misunderstanding about the member’s apparent lack of interest in reaching out to the email address we provided her about getting involved in anti-racism, well, I regret very much that misunderstanding.

I would encourage the member to review the correspondence that we sent her on a couple of occasions, with an email address about how to arrange a meeting so that we can discuss how to work together on these issues. Although I accept my personal responsibility in working on this issue on behalf of British Columbians and my responsibility to work in partnership with the parliamentary secretary and all of my colleagues — it’s in all of our mandate letters — I also think that there is a responsibility on the part of the official opposition here as well.

I hear the passion in the member’s voice about her experience, the experience of her daughter and others, and I think we will work better together on this issue. Really and sincerely, I do. We will not get there by raking each other over the coals for mistakes — I acknowledge my mistake — especially mistakes from five years ago.

I understand why the member might see some advantage in doing that. Perhaps now she’s got it out of her system, and we can all move forward on this together. I hope so.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister. I can tell the minister is very genuine in inviting me to work together with his parliamentary secretary. As I said, I already responded in my first response letter to the minister that I would love to be involved. So let’s get this going. I would like to thank the minister once again for the offer and for the genuine desire to try to really eliminate racism once and for all. Hopefully, in the next budget estimate debates, we won’t have to talk about this issue again.

The next question I’m asking, on behalf of many of my constituents is: what is the government doing to make reporting hate crimes to the police more accessible?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will be familiar with the Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network. In the months of March and April, there was a real focus on multilingual tools, distributed throughout this network — around what a hate crime is, how to report them, and so on — to ensure that people are aware of when and how to report hate crimes to police. We have a dedicated team within the Crown counsel office that is prepared and ready to assist with reviews and that has that specialist knowledge around hate crimes in our province.

I can also advise the member that we are working on a hotline for people to report a hate incident. Sometimes various groups in the province are very reluctant to contact police, and we still want them to be able to let us know what’s going on, to identify trends, hotspots, and so on, and to also provide them with support. Currently there’s engagement about what this will look like and how best to roll it out to support communities, because one of the key principles of this work is to ensure that we’re informed by the affected communities about how best to support them on these issues.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the response. I hope the minister can really work on this as soon as possible.

Another related issue is the hotline. I am pleased that the ministry has made an announcement on the operating of a hotline with multilingual services. Since the incidence of anti-Asian hate crime is still extremely active, if the ministry is still doing consultation during the summer…. At the same time, there’s no hotline being used by the victims. As the minister is well aware, it’s not easy for any victims of anti-Asian hate crime — not only anti-Asian but any hate crime victims — to call 911 and wait for at least half an hour. Then, some of them don’t even speak English.

So the sooner we can have this hotline in place, I think, the better it is — and also the more data we can gather so that as a government we truly get to the bottom of this issue and understand how serious it is. Even though we do know how serious it is, maybe the true figures will shock us.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that staff are through the first round of engagement with our Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network. Based on that feedback that they’ve received, they’re currently in the process of designing the program issues around the best models for delivery, training required for staff and necessary budgeting work to implement this. Our hope will be that the hotline will be in place this year.

I feel the urgency that the member does around this. I think it’s very important that people have access to another method of reporting other than police reporting, and I suspect, as the member does, that we’ll be unpleasantly surprised, but necessarily so, by what we find.

This information will help us to deliver better services across the province and identify the scope of the problem, so it is important and necessary work. We also want to make sure we do it properly and that the people who are answering the phones are properly trained and have the resources they need to do this well so that people don’t call up with certain expectations, not having them met. So we do feel the urgency, and we’ll get this done as quickly as we can.

T. Wat: Thank you for the minister’s response.

In the estimates for the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, we asked the Tourism Minister about the Vancouver Asian Film Festival’s hate crime videos. In a note from the ministry, it said that the paid targeting of the films was paused due to the snap election, at a time when hate crimes were on the rise. The Tourism Minister referred me to ask the Attorney General this question. She is no longer responsible for this file.

The question is: does the minister believe that if the promotion had not been stopped by the snap election call and these hate crime videos had been widely distributed via many channels, as first designed — by the way, that video has several other languages, as well, which is very commendable, not just English — British Columbians would have been better informed and educated about hate crimes last year?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There was some very important work done in a partnership between government and the Vancouver Asian Film Festival. Six videos were prepared. They were completed in August. They were promoted extensively by the Vancouver Asian Film Festival and by government.

During the election period, they were not on the government Facebook page. That is true. However, throughout that period, they were promoted by the Vancouver Asian Film Festival and by OMNI TV and community organizations, because the videos were all complete and distributed before the election call.

So the member is not correct in what she’s saying. I can assure her that those videos were done, complete, distributed and promoted in advance of the election, and that work continued throughout the election by community groups.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the response. I just want to put on record that from the briefing materials from the government, I noticed that the hate crime videos were viewed more than 2,400 times between September 3 and October 26 last year, even though targeted promotion was paused. Due to the election call, it was paused. There’s no promotion during the election.

I still want to say…. Does the minister believe that if the promotion was not stalled by the election call and the hate crime videos were widely distributed via many channels, as first designed, British Columbians would have been better informed and educated about hate crime and there might be less hate crime as a result of the great work done by the ministry staff and the Vancouver Asian Film Festival?

Hon. D. Eby: I don’t see that the member and I were saying different things. I said that the videos were complete, promoted extensively in August, distributed to community partners who also promoted them throughout the term of the election. They were not promoted on the government Facebook page during the election period, so the member describes that as a pause, and I would too, but that is just one channel. The videos were distributed through many different channels across different sectors, different organizations, media outlets, and so on.

T. Wat: Does the minister believe that a 20 percent cut to multiculturalism and anti-racism sends a strong signal of this minister’s commitment to fight racism?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I was startled by the member’s number, because it wasn’t my understanding of what has happened with the budget in relation to anti-racism, and it’s just a misunderstanding.

The budget was previously $2.3 million in Tourism, Arts and Culture. So $1.9 million of it moved over to the Ministry of Attorney General, but that wasn’t a cut. The money, the $400,000, remained in Tourism, Arts and Culture to support staff there who are working on, currently, the Chinese-Canadian museum project and then will also be doing work on the South Asian–Canadian museum initiative. That museum work happens within Tourism, Art and Culture. Those staff stayed there, that funding stayed there, and the remainder of the staff and the funding came to the Ministry of the Attorney General to do the anti-racism work.

T. Wat: I thank the minister for the clarification, but that still doesn’t see any increase in the budget of the anti-racism file. I just want to confirm that with the minister.

Hon. D. Eby: The base funding is the same as the previous year, but the base funding is not the only funding.

In March of 2021, we provided an additional $1 million in recovery funding, which was on top of a further $1.9 million in recovery funding. So a total of $2.9 million in recovery funding was invested in the following initiatives over and above the ministry’s base budget for anti-racism: $550,000 for an anti-racism public education campaign, $944,000 for a multiculturalism grant program expansion, $956,000 for Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network expansion and training, $250,000 for an institutional change project and $200,000 for Vancouver Foundation grants. Those projects will be rolling out throughout this year.

[5:30 p.m.]

T. Wat: Given the time, I’d like to pass over to the Green Party. I have one final question.

On May 27, I wrote to the minister regarding a ten-point action plan on anti-racism. I got a response from the minister already, but there are still a few recommendations that I haven’t seen the minister responding to.

I’m asking the minister now, especially on the ninth recommendation — that is, to “Apply to the National NewsMedia Council for a review of media coverage to determine the extent, if any, to which language, visual depictions and editorial content may have conditioned people to accept racial stereotyping and racial intolerance.” Given the minister’s background with this issue, will he commit to doing this?

Hon. D. Eby: The Resilience B.C. Anti-Racism Network held a media round table a few months ago. There were 20 media outlets that attended, seven major media outlets and a number of Resilience B.C. anti-racism organizations. The point of the conversation was: how can community organizations and media work together better to reflect the lived experience of racialized groups?

This is also a topic of discussion in our engagements with various groups across the province — all, obviously, in the context of the importance of the press being independent of government. But facilitating these conversations between racialized groups and media is a very positive outcome and work that was prioritized by the Resilience B.C. network. So the member’s suggestion is being taken up by Resilience B.C., with the support of government, to facilitate those conversations between media and racialized groups.

The Chair: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, you have some questions.

[5:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Yeah, thank you. I’m happy to be here to canvass with the Attorney General some important issues that we’re facing in our province right now.

Last week I asked a question in question period with respect to forestry. In the response, the Premier stated: “At this time, more than ever, we need to acknowledge their rights and title,” speaking to Indigenous nations, “to that territory — and sovereignty, in my opinion, over those lands.” In a press release today, Premier Horgan acknowledges interests.

We’ve got these words that are being used, and I’m wondering if perhaps the Attorney General, just for the purpose of the discussion here, could provide the government’s definition, as our top lawyer, around what the Premier might be talking about when he talks about sovereignty.

Hon. D. Eby: I just want to clarify the member’s question. I think what he’s asking is: does the Ministry of Attorney General have a working definition of sovereignty in relation to land claims or litigation, as opposed to what the Premier meant? I just want to clarify that.

A. Olsen: Yes.

Hon. D. Eby: Hopefully, this helps the member, but perhaps he’ll give me more context for his questions. The broad answer would be, with respect to sovereignty: the authority and jurisdiction of First Nations over lands prior to the assertion of European sovereignty over those lands, and that litigation or treaty or other negotiations or attempts to reconcile those two separate expressions of sovereignty and authority over those areas. I realize that’s quite high-level, but maybe we’ll be able to drill down a little bit.

A. Olsen: As is my intention here, as we go forward.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered their Tsilhqot’in decision addressing Aboriginal title and sovereignty, specifically Aboriginal title, in the decision. I think I’m just going to paraphrase what Mandell Pinder wrote about this. Mandell Pinder was the law firm that represented my father to the Supreme Court. It stated that Aboriginal title covers “the right to decide how the land will be used; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to proactively use and manage the land.”

Does the Attorney General agree that this would be a good definition for Aboriginal title?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: My understanding of what the member has read is that it matches up very closely with the legal definition from the Supreme Court of Canada of “Aboriginal title,” articulated by Justice Lamer in Delgamuukw and cited again in the Tsilhqot’in decision. So yes, that would be my understanding of Aboriginal title.

A. Olsen: Okay. Excellent, thank you.

There’s no reference to sovereignty in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act that this Legislature passed unanimously in November 2019. However, articles 3 and 4 reference “self-determination.”

Just a question to the Attorney General. Would the articles referencing self-determination reflect sovereignty? Would that reflect what the government intends to be sovereignty? When the Premier is talking about this and using this word, and the government is using this word, would that be interchangeable, in the Attorney General’s opinion?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, I can’t…. Well, I could, but I won’t presume to speak for what the Premier intended.

The understanding within the ministry is that whether you talk about self-determination, self-government or sovereignty, it’s the recognition that prior to the expression of European sovereignty, Indigenous People had laws, governance structures and existence that need to be recognized and reconciled in our efforts, whether it’s through the treaty process or litigation or otherwise, and the expression of self-government, sovereignty or self-determination is the expression of those laws and governance structures that were imposed upon them by the European expression of sovereignty.

[5:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I think it’s part of the reason why I wanted to ask this series of these three questions. I think the Attorney General hit on it a little bit, in that not understanding what might be behind a member of government, the highest-ranking member of this government, using those terms. See, because they mean things. They mean things to people who are paying attention. They’re words that, as the Attorney General highlighted, are defined.

So when the Premier of the province uses a word like “sovereignty,” or when the Premier uses the word “title”…. It took the Tŝilhqot’in 25 years to achieve title. Last week the Premier stands in the Legislature and uses the word “title,” saying that he believes that certain First Nations have achieved that without the considerable litigation that other First Nations had to endure in order to achieve it.

Now, I think that it’s important to just draw attention to the fact that when we use these words, it’s important that we understand the meaning behind them when they’re being used. We have the Supreme Court of Canada determining that the Tŝilhqot’in proved title over parts of their territory. Last week the Premier asserted his belief in Indigenous sovereignty in relation to a question that I asked about forestry.

Two years ago all members of this Legislature passed, unanimously, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act with articles around self-determination. It’s very clear — in two articles, 3 and 4 — that Indigenous People have the right to self-determination and that Indigenous People, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs. Those are things that we’ve all passed together. It’s a commitment that we’ve made.

Yet as late as February of this year, but even more recent, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is signing agreements — the forest and range consultation and revenue-sharing agreements — with Indigenous nations.

My question to the Attorney General: do these forest and range agreements, in his opinion, reflect an approach that is achieving self-determination, title, sovereignty — those words that have all been used; or are they a reflection of the colonialism that the Premier warned of us last Tuesday, when he announced the forestry intentions paper — the threat that we would be returning to a more colonial past if certain things didn’t happen?

Hon. D. Eby: Really, the goal of these agreements, as best I understand them, is that there’s a recognition of Indigenous rights and title on the land and that sometimes it’s necessary in the interim, as we wait either for directions from a court or completion of a treaty, to enter into agreements to recognize and protect those rights as we’re working out that reconciliation between those competing sovereignties that we talked about earlier.

[5:50 p.m.]

The understanding that I have of these agreements is not that they are a colonial threat but rather that they’re an effort at collaboration and cooperation with nations as we move towards either treaty or, if it has to be the case, some sort of a court declaration.

A. Olsen: British Columbia has signed about 130 of these agreements for forestry in particular. There are lots and lots of other similar agreements that have been signed, and 40 of these agreements have been signed in 2021, 12 in 2020. In all, I would say there’s about 40 percent of these agreements that have been signed after we unanimously supported the DRIPA 18 or so months ago.

These agreements are templates — the same conditions, basically, for all First Nations that sign on. The Attorney’s former colleague, the former minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, called these take-it-or-leave-it agreements, meaning that’s the approach of government. You take this or you leave it. He’s in Hansard. The government’s members are in Hansard criticizing the former government for using this approach that, now they’re in, government have wholeheartedly adopted.

I think it’s important that British Columbians understand, just in the context of the Attorney’s response. Part C of these agreements reads: “The parties intend this agreement to assist in achieving stability and greater certainty for forest and range resource development on Crown lands within the traditional territories.”

Again, I think it’s important to recognize the words and the intention behind this. The assertion is that it’s…. When we talk about sovereignty and the claims of sovereignty, pre-existing sovereignty, and then Europeans show up and make…. It’s very clear in this agreement that these are Crown lands that exist within a traditional territory, a current statement within the relationship of a previous thing — the traditional territory. Crown sovereignty, present tense; Indigenous, past tense.

Article 2.1(c) states that the purpose and objectives is to “assist in achieving stability and greater certainty for forest and range…development on Crown lands within the traditional territory.” It’s important to acknowledge that the nuances that the Attorney General provided for this are not in these agreements. These agreements are clear. This is Crown land that exists within the traditional territory.

Article 8.1 of the agreement states that a First Nation must prepare a statement of community priorities that it intends to “fund to help achieve the socioeconomic objectives referred to in section 2.1(b).”

And 8.2 requires the First Nation to prepare an annual report “identifying all expenditures made from the payment account;” 8.3 requires the First Nation to publish their community priorities to the public; 8.4 states that British Columbia “may, at its sole discretion and at the sole expense of the…First Nation, require an audit of the expenditures made from the payment account to determine that all such expenditures were made in furtherance of the purposes and objectives referred to in section 2.1.”

See, I grew up on a reserve in this country. I know the racist stereotypes that have been advanced about Indigenous people around the inability to manage land and resources and money. It’s something that we’ve always lived with.

[5:55 p.m.]

So does the Attorney General consider these clauses as the Crown, the government that he represents, embracing Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty, expression of title over the land, all those things, or is this another example of a colonial entrenchment of the racist beliefs that people have of Indigenous People in this country?

Hon. D. Eby: For the first, just as a caveat for this answer, these agreements are within the Ministry of Forests. We did not prepare for this line of questioning. We could, and I’m happy to engage with the member on this. I’ll do my best to answer. I just wanted to provide that sort of high-level overview.

On the Ministry of Attorney General’s understanding — what the member sees as a description of Indigenous rights in the past tense and Crown land in the present tense and, therefore, implicitly incorporating a particular hierarchy of rights — the reason for this particular wording is the reflection of the framework for implementation of section 35 set out in Haida and Tsilhqot’in.

[6:00 p.m.]

The court said that until there is a specific resolution of claims, whether through treaty or court decision, the lands remain Crown land, and they’re managed by the Crown. Once they’re resolved, then they’re no longer Crown land; they’re held by the Indigenous collective, whatever it is in the given case. The intent behind that is not to preserve that kind of structure forever but rather to recognize that outline by the court — that this is the structure of how lands pass to Indigenous nations, as they are managed as Crown land until that claim is resolved. So in other words, intended to reflect the legal landscape.

Now, for the second set the member read out, several points…. This is Crown sharing of revenues, and provincial Crown does have certain accountability responsibilities in terms of where we send money. We impose those accountability responsibilities on other agencies and other governments when we distribute grants, and so on.

I do take the member’s point that First Nations are distinct and perhaps that this set of requirements around distribution of public money might not be appropriate. I can’t prejudge it. It’s not my ministry. What I can do is commit to the member to go back to the Minister of Forests and Lands to understand the intent behind the sections, why they’re there, and make sure that they make sense and to share that understanding with the member. I appreciate him drawing it to my attention.

A. Olsen: In the few remaining moments that I have here, I’m happy to respond to the Attorney General’s response to that first section, 2.1. The reality is that what it takes to resolve these has been largely a part of the big disgrace of us over the last number of decades.

The fact that treaty process drags on…. First Nations and my colleagues, the community, have been at it 30 years or so to get to the end of this, and they’re still not there. The Tŝilhqot’in took 25 years of litigation through the courts to achieve title over a part of their territory. My father defended himself against this Crown government for more than a decade, for 12 years, on rights that were already established, but we were just getting back at it to test them out again.

In order for us to be able to…. When we talk about the rights and the title and we assert that it’s the Crown’s, the Crown treasury…. That these are all resources that Indigenous nations don’t have access to. They have to defend themselves and their rights and define it. So the tense actually matters, especially for people like me, where the tense is actually always present tense. I’m always presently, intensely involved in all of this.

From a government’s perspective, we can be…. I think that it is important that the Attorney General does take a look at the agreements that this government is signing, because those definitions matter, those words matter and the agreements matter. Article 11 — and this strikes at the freedom that we have just as British Columbians — of this contract…. It’s in a different ministry, I respect, but I still think it’s important to get the perspective of our top lawyer on this.

Article 11 of the contract states that members of the First Nation, including the elected leaders “will not support or participate in any act that frustrates, delays, stops or otherwise physically impedes or interferes with provincially authorized forest activities.” Again, asserting the Crown’s interest here out in front.

Once you’ve taken it, rather than left it — because those were the choices that have been largely pointed out by former NDP cabinet ministers — then you can’t talk about it publicly. I imagine that there’s probably a lot of challenge for you to kind of frame how you’re going to respond to it. So you see, there’s a lot of silence around this.

So 11.2 states that the First Nation “will promptly and fully cooperate with and provide its support to British Columbia in seeking to resolve any action that might be taken by a member of the First Nation that is inconsistent with the agreement.” So not only can the chief and council not raise concerns that they have with these agreements, but they must….

[6:05 p.m.]

This is the divide and conquer aspect of this right? This is where it turns Indigenous people onto themselves. Now a chief and council has got to go to the membership and tell them to be quiet when they’re raising concerns about this relationship that’s been agreed to.

I’ll frame my last question to the Attorney General in this way. Let’s get back to the “once they are resolved” part of the quote that he gave earlier. People have said to me, over the last number of weeks: “Look, you know what, Member? The Indigenous nations signed these agreements and many more. This is on them as well as it’s on the provincial government. This is on them for signing it.” There is a lot around that that is complex, that needs to be delayered. However, mostly for communities that immediately need resources to support their people, these agreements are a way to achieve that.

When the former Minister of Forests stands up and says that this is a take-it-or-leave-it agreement when he’s arguing with the former government about this, that’s what he’s talking about. In fact, he’s quoted in Hansard as saying exactly that. The socioeconomic conditions in Indigenous nations largely mean that you take it — 136 of these agreements on forestry alone.

The provincial government knows that the need is great, because their members have stood up and talked about that need. The Attorney General and his colleagues, when they write these agreements, are exploiting that need. They’re exploiting those conditions.

The other option is, as the Attorney General has answered a couple of times, to go to the courts or go to the treaty process. It’s 25 years for Tŝilhqot’in. Good on them. They stuck it out, and they got a result. That’s not mentioned in these agreements. Tŝilhqot’in isn’t part of these forests and range agreements, but Tŝilhqot’in was about forests.

The treaty process? Languishing. Most of these nations are in the treaty process languishing, signing these benefits agreements, hoping to get to the day when they get a final agreement. That was the promise of the former NDP government of the 1990s, the B.C. Liberal government of the 2000s, and now, here we are today, in 2021. It’s easy for the Premier to stand up and talk about sovereignty, to say things like “rights and title” — those words. However, you know how long it takes to achieve that?

In November 2019, this Attorney General that we have here today received a letter outlining several complaints from the Tyee Ha’with Jordan Michael of the Nuchatlaht. He stated: “We expect the government to respond to the historic claim honorably, respectfully and in the spirit of Tŝilhqot’in and UNDRIP. Unfortunately, that’s not happening. The Crown lawyers of B.C. continue to make our case far more expensive than it should be, using every possible tactic of procedural delay.”

If the Attorney General doesn’t want to stand up and talk about a court case that is potentially currently before the courts, and wants to use that, I can tell you that he only has to respond to the experience that my father has shared with me about how the this provincial and the former provincial government did exactly the same thing. You could say, made it more expensive than it should be and used every opportunity to delay the procedures, drag it out, take money from the seniors fund, take money from the education fund and take money from the kids and the seniors in order to defend ourselves in court once again.

As the Attorney General highlights today, one of the ways that we could achieve this is through litigation. We’ve got a government that’s frustrating that. One of the ways to achieve sovereignty and recognition of rights is through the treaty-making process. We’ve got examples of nations and the provincial and federal government languishing away for decades on end in those processes. So those are the two options that Indigenous nations have, other than this.

So in the spirit of the DRIPA, the thing that we passed all together, unanimously; the recent comments of our Premier regarding sovereignty, rights and title; and Supreme Court decisions like Tsilhqot’in, does the Attorney General feel that the litigatory process of bankrupting Indigenous nations is an appropriate approach for this Crown government to maintain its control over the lands and resources?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: A number of responses to the member’s remarks, some of which is to agree and some to maybe part ways a little bit.

Litigation is very lengthy, complex and costly, and we’re not going to achieve reconciliation through the courts. I think that’s very clear. That is why our government is entering and negotiating a number of unique non-treaty agreements.

I would point the member to examples like Lake Babine, Carrier-Sekani. There are a number of incremental agreements of advance provision of lands and recognition of different rights in advance of treaty or litigation being determined, and we continue that work. It’s very important work.

I want to note, just with respect to the forestry agreements, that none of this precludes a nation from, or prevents them from, expressing concerns throughout the consultation process, in relation to land base where they have rights and title, or judicial review of permitting decisions made by government, where they express concern, and it’s not respected by government. So there are avenues available there.

I will thank the member very much for his question, for his passion and advocacy on this very important issue. I know we share a lot of the same concerns, and there are lots of opportunities and progress. It’s not as grim as he said, but also, there’s a whole lot more work to do. On that, I’m sure we agree.

D. Davies: Thank you to my colleague from Abbotsford West for this very brief time. I’ll combine my couple of questions into one question for the Attorney General and thank him for his time in advance.

Just following up on a letter I wrote the Attorney regarding Edward Berry, a former B.C. Ministry of Children and Families manager charged with sexual assault, sexual interference to a person under 16.

[6:15 p.m.]

Of course, I know the minister is probably somewhat aware of this. Basically, the trial was thrown out due to delays — in fact, a 116-day delay. Judge Daley found the loss of the August 2019 trial was due to the Crown’s failure to act in a collaborative, time sensitive and proactive manner. He goes on to say: “The dismissal of the case is an unfortunate example of the current state of our provincial judicial system, which is overburdened with a backlog of cases.”

I appreciate the Attorney General’s reply to my letter. That is where my question comes from. The Attorney General stated three points. Obviously, he recognizes that this was an issue, which is good, and that we want to do better.

He stated three points here, one about how they’re going to be improving the judicial system, a comprehensive disclosure strategy. That was one point. The other one was a continuous improvement plan that is focused on streamlining the B.C. prosecution service administrative process. And the third point was the development of an electronic Crown counsel scheduling system. The fourth one, I will add there, which I still hear is an issue in our courts in the north, is a lack of judges.

My question to the Attorney General is those four questions, if we can have a bit of a timeline that could be attached to those four points that I’ve raised.

With that, that is my question. Thank you very much for the time.

Hon. D. Eby: We’re under very tight timelines. I’ll provide the member a written follow-up answer with respect to those timelines.

I can advise the member in relation to what are called Jordan stays or judicial stays, due to the Supreme Court of Canada Jordan decision. For those, we’ve marked them as red cases. Those are those that have languished for more than 18 months. In March of 2013, there were 3,365 of those; March of 2017, 2,157; and March 31, 2019, 1,724. So pre-pandemic…. I will give the previous government credit as well. We’ve made good progress in cutting down those number of Jordan risk cases.

For the blue, kind of medium, 3,000, March 2013; 3,100, March 31, 2017; and then back down to 2,899, March 2019, pre-pandemic again. Making progress on that category, too, which our government will take some credit for, turning that trend line around.

So we’re headed in the right direction on this. Definitely one of the better jurisdictions in Canada for Jordan risk cases. That’s thanks to the work of our Crown counsel — and, obviously, our judiciary — in case management.

I will note that as a result of the pandemic, a number of jurisdictions across Canada, including our own, are seeing an increase in Jordan risk cases. We’re involved in discussions with the federal government around possible statutory amendments related to Jordan timelines and the definition of extraordinary circumstances and what that means for Jordan timelines, given an international pandemic.

We will see. There are already Jordan applications being made across Canada in relation to this. We’ll see some jurisprudence about pandemic-related Jordan stays and how the court will reconcile the efforts that governments have made to get our courts up and running.

On the record, in wrapping up, I’d like to thank the judiciary in British Columbia for their work in keeping our courts open throughout the pandemic and for having matters heard despite enormous challenges — and for our partnership in court modernization to be able to do that and, also, to build on the legacies of the pandemic.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress….

M. de Jong: I’ll do this quick, but I do want to get this on the record. Two issues that I hope the Attorney will pursue. I’m grateful to my colleague the member for West Vancouver–​Capilano. I’ve received a couple of indications of this from lawyers as well.

[6:20 p.m.]

An issue around the Land Transparency Act that goes, very quickly, like this. Someone dies. They own property. Property reverts to the executor of the will after probate’s been issued. The land transparency form requires all beneficiaries of a will to be listed, including those receiving a very small testamentary gift. That, apparently, is causing, I think, unintended consequences of the sort that I hope that the Attorney will be able to investigate.

Lastly, we didn’t get a chance to canvass it, but I’ll draw it…. I’m sure…. Well, hopefully, he’s aware of it. The last report of the Human Rights Tribunal points to a growing problem around timelines, both with respect to the screening process where the delays are getting longer and longer…. I note where only in 6 percent of the cases were the targeted timelines met and, in another instance, 16 percent. In the case of hearings, it appears from…. That’s at page 16 of the report.

Later on in the report, with respect to actual hearings, the delays in setting a hearing now, the tribunal recognizes that it is not meeting its service standard for virtually all hearings. It looks like that’s taking more than a year now.

The Attorney likely doesn’t have time to respond at length here, but he may be able to provide me with some indication through other channels as to what the situation is there.

I will leave my comments and questions at that.

Hon. D. Eby: Thanks to the member for putting those questions on the record. I will respond to them in writing.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister and Members.

Vote 15: ministry operations, $554,901,000 — approved.

Vote 16: judiciary, $89,547,000 — approved.

Vote 17: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 18: independent investigations office, $9,093,000 — approved.

Vote 19: housing, $576,465,000 — approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.