DABC's submission to the Special Committee to Review the Provisions of the Human Rights Code
The Special Committee to Review the Provisions of the Human Rights Code held a public consultation from July 28 to September 26, 2025, which is detailed here. DABC has made the following submission to the Special Committee, which provides our perspective on the value of the Human Rights Commissioner’s work and the impact this work has had on issues important to the disability community. We provided three observations and two recommendations.
Special Committee to Review the Provisions of the Human Rights Code
c/o Parliamentary Committees Office
Room 224, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Canada
Phone: 250-356-2933 (collect) or 1-877-428-8337 (toll-free)
Fax: 250-356-8172
Email: HumanRightsCodeCommittee@leg.bc.ca
Dear Committee,
Re: Special Committee (the “Committee”) to Review Provisions of the Human Rights Code, sections 47.01-47.24
We write this submission to provide our perspective on the value of the Human Rights Commissioner’s (the “Commissioner”) work and the impact this work has had on issues important to the disability community. We provide three observations and two recommendations throughout this submission, and these are also summarized at the end.
Who we are
Disability Alliance BC (DABC) is a provincial, cross-disability non-profit organization and registered charity that has been advocating for people with all disabilities across the BC since 1977. Our mission is to promote a more inclusive and equitable society for people with all disabilities through direct services, community partnerships, systemic advocacy, research, and publications. Our vision is a future where people with disabilities live with dignity, independence, and full participation in society.
Through our direct service programs we:
- Help people with disabilities access federal and provincial benefits including Persons with Disability Benefit, CPP-Disability, Disability Tax Credit, and Canada Disability Benefit (through the Advocacy Access and Access DTC programs);
- Help people with disabilities file their taxes, a necessary step in accessing government benefits (through the Tax Aid program);
- Connect wheelchair users with accessible housing (through the Right Fit program); and
- Provide legal advice and information to people with disabilities on issues related to human rights and discrimination, long term disability insurance, guardianship and decision-making rights (through the Disability Law Clinic program)
Through our programs, outreach, and community connections we hear about issues impacting persons with disabilities individually, and we recognize issues that impact people on a systemic level.
Nearly one million people in BC have a disability and 29% of human rights complaints in BC are filed on the basis of disability. Despite its impact, disability is often overlooked as a system of oppression, ableism[1] and disablism[2] are not widely recognized terms, and people with disabilities regularly face barriers to their full and equal participation in society.
Almost immediately from her appointment in 2019, Commissioner Govender has raised awareness about, and done advocacy on, issues that affect people with disabilities. We have appreciated this work and will detail some of it as examples grounding our observations about what is working in the sections of the Human Rights Code. We also provide recommendations for changes that could be made to further facilitate the Commissioner’s work.
Observations and Recommendations
Observation 1: The Commissioner has been broadly effective meeting her mandate outlined under s 47.12
The Commissioner has outlined many of her office’s projects in the report she provided to the Committee. An additional example of her work in furtherance of her responsibilities under s 47.12(1) is her leadership around protecting people with disabilities during pandemics.
Very shortly after the Commissioner’s appointment in 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic was sweeping through our communities. Much of the rhetoric at that time devalued the lives of people with disabilities. Statements to the effect that “only” older people or people with pre-existing conditions (i.e. people with disabilities) experienced severe illness or death, suggested that those people’s lives were less important than others. Unfortunately, many policy decisions taken during this also served to marginalize people with disabilities.
In this context of (dis)ablism and dehumanization towards people with disabilities, the Commissioner called for policies and actions that kept human rights principles at the core of any response to COVID-19.
In addition to the inquiry report “From Hate to Hope” (mentioned in the Commissioner’s report to the Committee), the Commissioner took several other steps during the COVID-19 pandemic that championed marginalized communities in general, and the disability community in particular. These included:
- Publishing a policy statement in March 2020 about COVID-19: BCOHRC_Mar2020_COVID19-Policy.pdf
This policy statement highlighted that some people were more vulnerable to the virus than others, and that some had more barriers to following public health advice. The statement emphasized that both public and private-sector organizations must recognize their human rights obligations when taking steps to mitigate the risks of the pandemic. It also provided specific guidance to landlords, employers and service providers about their human rights obligations, including towards people with disabilities:
- Urging the continuation of mask mandates: Commissioner urges Public Health Officer to maintain mask mandates | BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner % %
When the Provincial Health Officer ended mask mandates in 2022, the Commissioner highlighted the disproportionate impact this would have on seniors, persons with disabilities, indigenous people and other racialized people, and low income communities. She noted that people from these communities would feel the need to isolate themselves from society in order to protect their health and urged taking a human rights approach to these policy decisions. Unfortunately for the disability community, the Provincial Health Officer did not follow the Commissioner’s recommendations, but this public dialogue would not have happened without the Commissioner, and without her independence from government.
This work served many functions: it raised public awareness about the intersections of human rights principles and public health policy; it provided valuable information to employers, landlords, and service providers about how to respect human rights; and, critically, it created transparency around deficits in government policy decisions.
Recommendation 1: Section 47.01 should be amended so that the Legislative Assembly must appoint a Human Rights Commissioner rather than may appoint a Human Rights Commissioner
The work of the Office of the Commissioner has been of tremendous value. As we know from history, the existence of this office is not guaranteed. Amending the legislation to require the appointment of a Human Rights Commissioner would increase the security and stability of the office, and insulate it from the whims of government. It would also serve to emphasize the importance of the Commissioner’s work.
Observation 2: The Commissioner’s ability to meet its Office’s mandate is limited by s. 47.12 (f) in that it can only make non-binding recommendations respecting policies and legislative impacts that are inconsistent with the Code
While the Commissioner’s recommendations are not enforceable in law, meeting them is required to achieve compliance with law—both domestic and international—and to build a society that is defined by substantive equality and that realizes the dignity inherent in being human.[3] It would therefore be beneficial to provide the Commissioner with additional enforcement measures.
In May 2025, the Commissioner has reported that only 16% of the recommendations made in letters directly to government ministries, offices and committees during her first term had been implemented, while 57% were not implemented, and 27% were partially implemented or in progress: BCOHRC_May2025_Where-we-stand.pdf.
As one example, the Commissioner has made several recommendations regarding the need to include social condition as an independent prohibited ground of discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code (the Code). In 2020, the Commissioner recommended that the provincial government consider strengthening human rights protections through the addition of social condition as a protected ground to ss. 7(1), 8(1), 9, 10(1), 11, 13(1), and 14 of the Code, and provided a definition for social condition: Social-Condition.pdf.
In 2022, the Commissioner cited the government’s failure to provide “clarity on when and how your government will address discrimination based on social condition” as the basis for not offering public support for the Homeless Strategy in a letter to the Ministry of Housing.[4]
In 2023, the Commissioner referenced the outstanding need to respond to discrimination based on social condition in two recommendations[5] from its Report of the Inquiry into hate in the COVID 19 pandemic.
As of the “Where we Stand” report published in May 2025, the Commissioner’s recommendations regarding addressing discrimination based on social condition have not been implemented by the Attorney General.
Recommendation 2: Expand the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.12 to include additional mechanisms for holding duty-holders accountable to make changes required to bring policies and legislation into accordance with the Code.
Observation 3: the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.16 are essential for her ability to uncover serious human rights violations impacting our community
The Commissioner’s inquiries have uncovered systemic human rights violations occurring in our community. We took particular note of the report of the inquiry into detentions under the Adult Guardianship Act (“AGA”): https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Were-still-here_2025.pdf
The AGA provides certain designated agencies the power to detain adults against the will for specified purposes. The Commissioner’s inquiry found that these designated agencies are detaining adults without legal authority; that adults’ rights to fair process have not been adequately respected; and that transparency and oversight over detention are lacking. These detentions violate the human rights of the adults the legislation is designed to protect. Further, and of relevance to our community, the inquiry found those who have been illegally detained under the AGA are disproportionately seniors, people who are unhoused, and people with disabilities.
Because of the lack of transparency and oversight over these detentions, the only way for this information to become transparent is through the Commissioner’s power to order designated agencies to provide necessary documentation. There is no way to get information related to these detentions without the existence Commissioner to do an inquiry. The Commissioner’s inquiry powers are essential to bringing awareness to these human rights violations and make recommendations for change.
Summary of Observations and Recommendations
Observation 1: The Commissioner has been broadly effective meeting her mandate outlined under s 47.12
Observation 2: The Commissioner’s ability to meet its Office’s mandate is limited by s. 47.12 (f) in that it can only make non-binding recommendations respecting policies and legislative impacts that are inconsistent with the Code.
Observation 3: the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.16 are essential for her ability to uncover serious human rights violations impacting our community
Recommendation 1: Amend s. 47.01 so that the Legislative Assembly must appoint a Human Rights Commissioner rather than may appoint a Human Rights Commissioner
Recommendation 2: expand the Commissioner’s powers under s. 47.12 to include additional mechanisms for holding duty-holders accountable to make changes required to bring policies and legislation into accordance with the Code.
Conclusion
In a time of rising fascism around the world, the work of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner is more critical than ever in BC. Our observations reflect many successes during the Commission’s initial 5-year term, and the need to protect and build on those foundations during its second term. We recommend that protection for the Office itself be enshrined in the language of s. 47.01, and that the Office’s powers to achieve its mandate under s. 47.12 be expanded to address the gap between recommendations and implementation.
[1] Ableism is a form of discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities. It includes attitudes, actions, or systems that devalue, marginalize, or exclude individuals who have physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments.
[2] Disablism is another term that describes discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities. In disability studies, the term ableism often refers to systems that privilege non-disabled norms and bodies, while disablism emphasizes active harm and exclusion. At DABC we often use the term ableism to cover both kinds of harm.
[3] Holding the line – Annual Report 2024/25 and Service Plan 2025/26-2027/28
[4] Where we stand: Recommendations monitoring report, 2019–2024, p.36
[5] There were: 1. The head of the BC Public Service should create a role at the assistant deputy minister level or higher to coordinate and lead prevention and responses to hate. This role should include the responsibility to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in this report aimed at the provincial government and related public bodies. It is essential that the mandate of this role stretch across all areas of hate, including hate on the basis of gender (including gender identity and expression), race, religion, Indigeneity, sexual orientation, disability, social condition and more.
12.(c) The Attorney General should take steps to enable the BC Human Rights Tribunal to be more responsive to hate, including by introducing legislation for consideration by the Legislative Assembly to amend s. 7, along with other substantive sections of the Code containing prohibited grounds of discrimination, to include social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination for the purposes of hateful publications.
