The committee met at 9:03 a.m.

[S. Bond in the chair.]

S. Bond (Chair): Good morning. Welcome to day 2 of our Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts meetings. I’m very much appreciative of the assistance that the Clerk’s office has provided, and also for Hansard — day 2 on the road with us. We know that it is a complex task getting us ready to go for public viewing, so thank you very much to the Hansard team and also to my colleagues who are here today.

We have a full agenda today. We will be considering three reports of the Auditor General over the course of the day. I want to get started, because I know that they’re certainly very significant topics and reports — each one of them.

I want to once again welcome the Auditor General, Carol Bellringer, who has joined us for each of the days that we have met as a group. That is appreciated especially. I know that these two days were complicated, and we appreciate the Auditor General making herself available. Also, the acting comptroller general is here, and we appreciate that as well.

This morning the first report that we will consider is the Auditor General’s report titled An Audit of B.C. Housing’s Non-Profit Asset Transfer Program, released in March 2017. We’ll obviously hear comments first from the Auditor General. Her team will then present a PowerPoint, and we will then hear government’s response from the assistant deputy minister and also the CEO of B.C. Housing.

With those opening remarks, it’s over to the Auditor General for her comments about this report.

Consideration of
Auditor General Reports

An Audit of B.C. Housing’s Non-Profit
Asset Transfer Program

C. Bellringer: Thank you so much. Good morning, everybody.

[9:05 a.m.]

With me for this report is Malcolm Gaston, assistant Auditor General; Peter Nagati, the executive director; and Laura Pierce, senior manager, who all worked on the audit.

In 2013, the ministry introduced the non-profit asset transfer program, or NPAT, to better support the non-profit housing sector and generate funding for social housing. The program involves selling some of the province’s social housing assets, which include both buildings and land, to non-profit providers and reinvesting the proceeds back into the sector.

We did an audit to look at whether the program benefits outweigh the costs and risks. Simply put, does it provide value for money? We made several findings in our report, some very positive and some not so much. The good news is that at the time of our audit, the province was on track to generate $500 million in sales and had already begun reinvesting the proceeds back into social housing.

I do want to emphasize that our audit does not in any way discuss the merit of the policy. We were looking only at the measurement of the various benefits and risks.

The program comes at a cost. Over the 35-year life of the program, the province will subsidize — this is not the present value calculation — about $1 billion in mortgage payments. The program also introduces risks — risks that the ministry did not adequately assess or mitigate. These include potential changes in the amount of rent providers charge and, in a worst-case scenario, having the property fall out of use as social housing.

The social housing sector is facing significant challenges, such as deferred maintenance on aging buildings and loss of federal funding for current housing agreements, and we need to make some tough choices to remain sustainable.

In the end, we found that the ministry had not demonstrated that transferring ownership of land and buildings will result in a more sustainable non-profit sector, as intended.

Before we move on, and Laura will go through the details of our work with you, there are two places in this particular report where government objected to the disclosure of our findings because they felt that public interest immunity applies. Those two spots in this report are on pages 27 and 39.

We don’t agree with that conclusion. In fact, we believe that disclosure of ministry analysis, like what you find in a business case, for example, is in the public interest. We did choose to release this report with those limitations in place. We felt we had evidence from other sources that we were quite comfortable to do so.

We did want to provide timely assurance. We’d already spent several months trying to work through the public interest immunity, or PII, process, and we had resolved a number of other issues, but we were unable to reach agreement on those two items. So you’ll note that in the report. We continue to work with the various groups that we need to work with to improve and streamline the PII process. It has been quite a successful process, but it’s always a challenge, and it has been for many, many years, in our world.

I’ll turn it over now to Laura, who will go through the details of the work with you.

L. Pierce: Thank you, Carol. Good morning, Members.

Housing plays an important role in our lives. It has been shown to impact personal health, education achievement, social connections, employment opportunities and community identity. But access to housing is a challenge for some.

At the time of our audit, 15 percent of the B.C. population was considered to be in core housing need, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That means that their housing was considered to be unaffordable. It cost more than 30 percent of household income, required major repairs or had an insufficient number of bedrooms to accommodate the household size and structure.

Social housing can help individuals who struggle to find housing on their own. In B.C., assistance is targeted to specific housing needs, ranging from emergency housing, like shelters, to rent assistance in the private market.

In 2015-16, the province provided support to just over 104,000 households. Like other jurisdictions in Canada, the social housing sector in B.C. faces some significant challenges. Demand continues to outpace supply. Unfunded repairs on aging buildings total close to $1 billion, and the federal funding for current social housing agreements is set to expire in 2036.

[9:10 a.m.]

The non-profit asset transfer program, or NPAT, is a key initiative of government’s housing strategy. It involves transferring some of the province’s social housing stock to the non-profit sector as a means of better supporting the sector and generating cash for reinvestment.

Our audit examined how the ministry and B.C. Housing planned and implemented the program — specifically, whether the ministry had demonstrated that the benefits of the program outweigh its costs and risks, and whether B.C. Housing was on track to achieve the program objectives and outcomes.

We’ll start by addressing the benefits. From the start, the province anticipated that the program would bring in $500 million in cash proceeds that it could reinvest in social housing. We found that the province was on track to meet that target and had earmarked the proceeds for purposes consistent with its business case. We also found that the province had already begun investing some of that funding. This is good news for the social housing sector and the people who rely on that assistance.

The purported benefits of the program don’t stop there. The ministry also anticipated that the program would allow the non-profit providers to increase housing options and undertake needed maintenance on existing stock. However, we found that the ministry had not established how or if non-profit providers could achieve those benefits nor how it would measure and monitor progress against them.

When we looked at how the program was implemented, we found that B.C. Housing had not transferred assets based on a provider’s ability to meet those long-term outcomes. That is, of course, in examples where documentation was available. This reduces the likelihood that the program will enhance the long-term sustainability as intended. We also found that the program comes at a cost and introduces some risks to the social housing sector.

Looking at the financial costs first might help to explain how the sales are structured. They’re not like a typical real estate transaction that most of us are familiar with, where you go out, you buy a house, you take out a mortgage and you pay that back over time.

Under an NPAT, the non-profit provider takes out a mortgage, but the province provides a subsidy over the course of that mortgage to cover the principle and interest payments. Over the 35-year life of the program, those payments will add up to $1 billion, before discounting into today’s dollars. In other words, the funding that the program provides now for reinvestment will be paid back over 35 years.

Shifting to the risks now. When we examine the program in more detail, we observe that it supports evolving changes that the ministry has made to the type of social housing it funds and how B.C. Housing delivers it. These include moving away from rent-geared-to-income housing, which is the only form of housing that guarantees affordability; increasing reliance on rent assistance programs; and shifting ownership from the province to the non-profit sector. Although these shifts have been in motion for years and are not new as part of NPAT, we did expect the ministry to have evaluated the impact they have on social housing. It had not.

At the end of the day, government needs well-designed programs to ensure that it receives value for money and that the benefits of its decisions outweigh its costs and risks. This is the crux of any business case. Unfortunately, we found that the ministry did not recommend the NPAT program based on this type of analysis. We concluded that while the program provides immediate investments in housing, it also introduces costs and risks without demonstrating that it will result in long-term outcomes for the social housing sector.

Though we have additional findings here, this is one of the examples that Carol referenced at the beginning, where we could not disclose our work due to public interest immunity.

Our report contains five recommendations. If implemented, these will help the ministry and B.C. Housing monitor and measure the long-term outcomes of the program and better manage the program risks.

That concludes our presentation.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much, Laura. We appreciate that.

We’re going to ask for the government response. I’m not sure who’s going to lead the presentation. I don’t know if Shayne is….

A Voice: We’re going to start with Shayne.

S. Bond (Chair): Okay. Well, perhaps you can introduce yourselves to the committee. It would be most appreciated. We’ll just make sure the PowerPoint is on the screen as you get ready to speak.

S. Ramsay: Great. Good morning. My name is Shayne Ramsay. I’m the chief executive officer for B.C. Housing.

G. Steves: My name is Greg Steves. I’m the assistant deputy minister for the office of housing and construction standards in Municipal Affairs and Housing.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you. Welcome here this morning.

I think we’re just about ready with the PowerPoint.

[9:15 a.m.]

The format is such that you’ll present your PowerPoint, and then committee members will have an opportunity to ask questions of you and the Auditor and her team.

S. Ramsay: Great. Thank you. I’ll begin, and I thank the committee for this opportunity.

The non-profit asset transfer program was announced in 2014 and will complete at the end of this fiscal year — March 31, 2018. Policy direction came through both our mandate letter and the provincial housing strategy that was updated in 2014.

There are two types of transfers that were undertaken. The vast majority of those were land that the province had purchased over decades and leased on a long-term basis to non-profits. The non-profits then built housing on that leased land. The typical term of the lease was 60 years.

There was a myriad of different federal and provincial programs, but the general setup is that non-profits finance the construction of the buildings on those lands. Then the province and federal government, through various unilateral and cost-share programs, would subsidize the difference between what it cost to operate that building, including a debt service payment, and what the tenants paid in rent.

The second type of transfers was our public housing sites. Those are the direct-managed units, primarily built in the postwar period. Those are the larger public housing projects that you see in many cities across the country. At the end of the day, we transferred four of those properties. They totaled 1,246 units. And we transferred 178 pieces of land to non-profits. Those totalled 6,581 units.

As I said, the program is winding down. There are just a few properties left to transfer under the program. The financial targets will be fully met.

The purpose of the program. It had a number of purposes. One was to strengthen the non-profit sector and really begin to support transformation of the sector. In Canada, we see a history of housing that really can be blocked off into three kinds of periods.

One is that postwar period, where federal governments and provincial governments set up housing companies and built housing that they owned and managed. That’s what we call our direct-managed or public housing.

It’s interesting. In British Columbia, we had a Social Credit government for much of that period, so we only ended up building around just under 8,000 units of public housing over that period of time. Other provinces, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, built two or even three times the amount of housing. The history of our programs has really been one focused on non-profits.

Then in the early ’70s, you see a change from the public housing projects. A lot of those had faced stigma, in particular in places like Toronto. So the government retooled its whole approach to housing and then began to work through community-based non-profits. They became the main funding model. Most of those programs were 100 percent subsidized by government in some way.

Those types of programs lasted between the early ’70s and, really, up until the mid- to late ’90s. Since then, you’re seeing different types of federal and provincial housing programs, where we provide partial funding and grants. What we’re really trying to do is help that transformation of the sector. Rather than relying on government to provide 100 percent of the funding, you’re now looking for different forms of partnerships — with faith-based groups, community groups, municipalities and the private sector — to achieve our housing goals.

Finally, one of the main purposes of the program was to generate revenue for reinvestment back into other affordable housing initiatives.

An example of a leased property. This is the Affordable Housing Societies. They’re a Lower Mainland–based group. In fact, they’re the largest community-based non-profit in the country. We ended up transferring 25 properties to them. They have a significant portfolio now and are beginning to look at opportunities to redevelop their portfolio.

As I said, we transferred four public housing sites. Here’s an example in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. It’s called Stamps Place. It’s 375 units. The buildings were transferred to the New Chelsea Society, a strong Lower Mainland–based non-profit. The selection process was done by a committee of the board and then recommended to the board against a published set of criteria that were set out in the RFPs for those properties.

[9:20 a.m.]

Reinvesting the NPAT proceeds. As Laura said, they were a total of $505 million, and $150 million of that was used to cost-match the federal housing programs, which is currently still in place. That ran between 2014 and 2019. The federal government invested $150 million, $30 million over five years, and required provincial cost-matching. So the first $150 million of the NPAT proceeds was our cost-matching vehicle for that program, and that levered the $150 million in federal funding.

The $355 million went into a new supply program called the provincial investment in affordable housing. To date, 84 projects have been approved, almost 3,400 units, and a total capital investment of around $647 million. There is still $141 million of the $355 million proceeds left to invest, so those 3,396 units will increase quite substantially over the next couple of years as the remaining NPAT funds are invested into new housing developments.

I’ll just turn to some of the short- and long-term outcomes. Its first outcome was to generate funding that could be reinvested in strengthening the social housing sector. I talked about how those funds had been reinvested to create additional housing units and fulfil our commitment on the cost-matching side of the federal money — $150 million for that. It had a positive impact on government’s fiscal plan and helped to contribute to a balanced budget.

As mentioned earlier, under the federal-provincial cost-matching investment, $30 million was provided each year to the province over that five-year period. We invested a significant amount of that money to improve our rent assistance programs, including the rental assistance program for families and the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, and developed a new program called the homeless prevention program. That really targeted folks…. It really targeted the gateways into homelessness. We know what they are. They’re women and kids leaving violent relationships, people being discharged from hospitals and correctional facilities.

It really targeted those pathways into homelessness and tried to address some of the upstream needs. Getting people housed with supports in the private sector has helped more than 1,500 individuals get out of homelessness and allows B.C. Housing to move away from owning and managing housing — a really strong belief. It’s been a strong belief in the province since the early ’70s. Non-profits manage more than 90 percent of the housing, and they really are the backbone of our housing system in British Columbia.

The longer-term outcomes, as the Auditor pointed out, will take more time to realize, but it really is about creating the opportunities for non-profits to innovate and transform. Key ingredients to allow that to happen are things like access to equity, access to financing and access to land so that non-profits now have that toolkit at their disposal and then can begin to take some of those steps to transform and innovate. We believe that over the longer term, you’ll see much more housing being developed.

I had a couple of examples that I just wanted to go through quickly. The first one is the Pacifica Housing Advisory Association in the capital regional district, primarily. We transferred Oak Park in Langford to them in 2015. We’re now working with them to redevelop this property. Oak Park was 25 units of family rental housing. That will now be replaced and will create 73 units of affordable rental housing. So 25, through densification and other opportunities, becomes 73 units. It’s expected to be completed later this year.

The second one I’d just like to highlight is Sonja’s Garden in Cranbrook. It was transferred to the Canadian Mental Health Association for the Kootenays in 2016. It was and still is a 35-unit affordable rental project. It actually had some excess land, so CMHA has now completed 18 new units of family housing on that site — again, another example of being able to lever those kinds of opportunities. For that one, we provided construction financing of $3.9 million, and CMHA provided equity of $1.7 million.

I really think it’s important that when these lands are transferred, either public housing or the leased properties, we still have a very strong oversight system. Non-profits are required each year to submit budgets, which are reviewed and approved. End-of-the-year audited financial statements are required. There are restrictions on title that prevent the use changing to other uses.

[9:25 a.m.]

One of the most important things is that every three years, we undertake a detailed operational review. That will be meeting with the group, looking at their policies and procedures, but also, and importantly, looking at the physical condition of that building and continuing to monitor the kinds of opportunities for redevelopment that might occur. So this is not just a sale and walk away. It’s a sale and a continued relationship with that non-profit.

I’ll turn it over to Greg, who’s going to speak more specifically to some of the audit findings.

G. Steves: Great. Thanks, Shayne.

I just wanted to provide a little bit more context. In the context, we really do agree with the auditors that the social housing sector is facing significant challenges today and will continue to do so in the future. We know that the demand for affordable housing is certainly outstripping supply. We’re seeing that demand grow beyond what would have typically been contemplated as the demand for affordable housing — that core need demand — and recognizing, especially in our urban centres, that affordability challenges are affecting a lot more households in the province.

We also know that the stock is aging, and that as buildings age, they require more maintenance. Maintenance costs increase. As a result of federal funding declining, as housing agreements expire, there’s a need to look at how to rejuvenate that stock going forward so that our partners can continue to provide affordable housing.

We also know that many small non-profits who really only operate a single building or a small handful of buildings are struggling with capacity. Capacity has been a priority of ours to help societies understand the condition of their asset and what their options are as they approach the expiry of their agreements. It gives an opportunity to work with the societies to sort of reimagine what their business model is and how they may work together moving forward to address long-term sustainability. In those conversations, what we’ve certainly heard from them is that not having ownership over their land does limit the tools that they can employ moving forward.

We reached a point in 2014 where government really wanted to make a decision on how to respond in this area. At the time, safe, appropriate and affordable housing was the ministry’s sort of stated purpose, with the intent of capturing the entire range of activities of the ministry. The ministry has a focus on providing affordable housing through B.C. Housing, but it also addresses safety and sustainability through building codes, safety standards and managing landlord and tenant relationships. It is an encompassing mandate that is intended to capture the entire breadth of the ministry’s activities in housing.

What we found in working with the auditors and going through the process were the Auditor General’s observations that the programs were not well defined and were not well assessed or reported. I think one of the major outcomes intended was really to transfer that land base and consolidate ownership of both the building and the land. To that end, I think that outcome was achieved.

The province committed to provide non-profits with $30 million a year to address the mortgage costs. The mortgages are either 25- or 35-year mortgages, depending on the type of asset. This, I believe, showed government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that that housing stock remained as affordable housing. It also demonstrated our commitment to unit-level subsidies and to the sector itself.

It also gave us the ability to enter into new agreements with these societies. In some cases, they may have only had a few years left on their operating agreements, and the mortgage subsidy gave us a new opportunity to enter into either a 25-year or 35-year — or, in some cases, less, depending on the amount of time left on their mortgage. So it was a new opportunity, a new agreement, for the province to enter into.

Moving to the government’s response. We’ve accepted and implemented all of the recommendations that were made by the OAG. At the moment, the new government is going through the process of reviewing their strategic direction. Regarding housing affordability, we are conscious of the recommendations made by the Auditor General, and we will be incorporating them in government’s new vision and plan for affordability, particularly as it relates to the recommendation around defining affordability and measuring what we need in that regard.

[9:30 a.m.]

When it comes to the risks associated with the NPAT program, I think it’s fair to say that we disagreed with the Auditor General, politely, on the magnitude of risk that that represented through the asset transfer program. We have a lot of faith in B.C. Housing, as the largest property manager and developer in the province, and the relationship that they have with non-profit societies to work with them to mitigate any risks.

We feel that B.C. Housing’s insured risks are contained and that subsidies are maintained. To that, one of the comments was around the preservation of rent geared to income. One of the things that we’ve insured through this process is that the rent-geared-to-income units that were transferred in the directly managed stock remain as rent-geared-to-income units and will do so in the future.

As Shayne mentioned, every transfer was assessed by B.C. Housing’s executive committee. The non-profit provider’s ability to manage the unit was taken into consideration, and an assessment of their ability to manage that stock in the future was contemplated. So we didn’t feel there was an increased risk in transferring that stock or that land to the non-profit societies. Those non-profits already had a degree of risk associated with managing those buildings. Through this, we think we’ve taken several steps to mitigate that.

The directly managed stock. As I mentioned, the RGI units were preserved in the directly managed stock. The stock was assessed prior to transfer to deal with any deferred maintenance. So we insured that as those public housing units were transferred into non-profit ownership, we weren’t transferring a maintenance liability to the non-profits.

We worked closely with the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association on the maintenance and liability in the existing non-profit stock as an entire portfolio so we could better understand the maintenance risks there and take measures, working with them, to help address that. Having access to the land base and being able to take equity out of that land moving forward is certainly one of the options that societies have in looking at that stock.

That risk existed prior to the asset transfer program. The maintenance risk in the current buildings was there prior to transferring that land base. So the land base, we feel, does give the societies an asset that they can leverage to help address that.

Another risk-mitigation measure that was employed was the use of section 219 covenants to ensure that the housing units, the land that was transferred, continued to be used for affordable housing. As well, the new Societies Act created the authority for the minister to approve a change in purpose. The non-profit affordable housing societies are defined as affordable housing societies, and they need to get agreement if they want to change the purpose of their societies.

By far the biggest risk associated with non-profit housing is the risk of what happens to the stock at the end of its operating agreement. We’ve been working closely with the non-profit housing sector to better understand the options that societies have as they approach the end of their operating agreement.

It’s an area that we have been in continuous negotiations with the federal government on. The recent federal housing strategy contained a commitment to preserve the subsidy flow for those units that will come off agreement over the next ten years. So we’re confident that working in partnership with societies, we will have the tools available to us and to them to ensure that that housing stock remains viable moving forward.

I guess, just in summary, we’d like to thank the Auditor General for the report. We’re looking forward to continuing to implement the recommendations and to ensure that they’re considered as we develop policies and strategies moving forward.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much, Greg and Shayne. We appreciate your detailed response.

We’re going to open up the question period time now — not that we’re going to behave like we’re in question period, for sure. Right, Adam?

We’re going to start with Bowinn.

B. Ma: Shayne and Greg, thank you so much for sharing with us the positive investments made from the $500 million gained through this program. There is, at this point, no reason for me to believe that those new investments, at this time, are not good programs, are not valuable.

I also want to acknowledge the not-for-profits in B.C. I think we are very fortunate to have not-for-profits that are fantastic and are so dedicated. So many of them are such altruistic non-profits that are involved in our housing sector.

[9:35 a.m.]

My questions are really not about those programs and are in no way representative of any criticism of not-for-profits. I’m really interested in the asset transfer program itself. I want to start by asking, first: Shayne and Greg, were you around at the start of the program? Have you been around through the entire process? Were you there since the beginning?

S. Ramsay: Yes.

G. Steves: Yes.

B. Ma: How did this program start? Was it an initiative that was proposed by B.C. Housing or the staff at, I guess, whatever the ministry was called before? It’s now called the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Was it a staff-level initiative? Was it a government initiative? Where did the asset transfer program idea begin?

S. Ramsay: I would say it really began in 2014, when the government of the day revised its housing strategy. It had released the housing strategy in 2006 and updated it in 2014. In the 2014 update to that was where it was first contemplated, but the thinking behind it was really a collective effort by the ministry and B.C. Housing and government.

B. Ma: Okay. I have a number of questions that come up after that. You said in your presentation that the Societies Act does guarantee government involvement in future use of these assets once mortgage is paid off. On page 37 of the Auditor General’s report, there is actually a bold and italicized note that says specifically: “The Societies Act does not guarantee that assets will remain as social housing.” Can you maybe address some of the conflict there?

S. Ramsay: Sure. When the asset is transferred, there is still a system of controls in place — an operating agreement that provides for the budget and audited statements. The land titles covenant 219 is put on, and a mortgage is put on to facilitate the transfer. All of those remain in place as long as there is a mortgage in place.

If the society at some point in the future…. I think this was the comment by the Auditor General. A society could choose, at some point in the future…. If they had the wherewithal and the financial resources to do it, they could pay out that mortgage, and then the covenant and the operating agreement at that point would fall away. So the protections that are afforded by the covenant and the operating agreement are no longer there.

The backstop has always been the Societies Act. The Societies Act requires that upon dissolution, the assets of that charity would go to a charity with a similar purpose. Those are the requirements that we have in the constitution and bylaws for housing societies.

Really, you’re relying on the pieces like operating agreement, covenants, mortgages, but you’re also relying on the mission-driven values of the society. We’ve had those risks in British Columbia since 1973, when we began developing under a non-profit program. Whenever those programs end, the controls and hooks that government has often fall away, and then you’re relying on the values and mission of the society.

B. Ma: So in that case, in those risks previously, though, the province still would have owned the asset that they operated out of. If the charitable organization or the not-for-profit dissolved, we would still maintain control over the asset, and that would not be the case under this new regime.

S. Ramsay: That’s correct.

B. Ma: I just want to make sure that I have all this straight, because it was a little bit shocking to me when I read through this report.

From what I read, what we basically have is a program where the province received, effectively, a one-time cash gain of about $500 million, and in exchange for that, we’ve assigned $1 billion in mortgage obligations on ourselves. We’ve divested ourselves of multiple building assets and land assets, lost control over the social housing assets, maybe added risk.

I’m hearing that there are varying opinions on the level of risk that’s been added, but there is an increase in risk to the long-term provision of social housing, because there’s potentially no guarantee that these assets will remain in social housing once the mortgages are paid off.

[9:40 a.m.]

We’re also, on top of all of that, still on the hook for maintenance and operation of these assets. Is that an accurate summary of what’s going on here?

S. Ramsay: It is.

B. Ma: I’m going to be really honest with you. There are a lot of words running around in my head right now. “Unacceptable” is one. “Grossly irresponsible, unconscionable….” Some of these words probably wouldn’t be appropriate for Hansard.

I was really quite livid as I read this report, and I’m practically shaking right now. With respect, your response today hasn’t really eased my concern. So I’m going to ask you honestly: given this report and given what we know of how this program went down, do you still believe that this was a good program and that this was the way to go?

S. Ramsay: Yes, I do. I think the long-term benefits outweigh those small amounts of risk. We have the faith in the non-profit sector, and we’ve seen examples where they’ve already begun to use those assets to further their own social housing goals.

C. Bellringer: I just want to clarify. From our perspective, we have not concluded that the risk was too high, nor that there was too much, and so on. What we focused on was…. We felt that the assessment and documentation of that was insufficient. I just want to make sure that…. It’s not a disagreement around the level of risk, but rather, we couldn’t in fact conclude on that because of things we couldn’t see.

S. Bond (Chair): I think that’s an important clarification. Thank you, Carol.

B. Ma: I really appreciate that clarification as well. I also appreciate the insistence that it was a good way to go. I’m guessing that you feel this was a good way to generate revenue — the one-time $500 million at the cost of $1 billion over 35 years. I’m sorry. It doesn’t strike me as a fantastic revenue source.

Let me regroup here. Your insistence that it is a good program, long term, and that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs — or, potentially, the long-term costs as well…. The Auditor General’s report, from what I understand, did not seem to find a lot of documentation to show that we are looking at a good long-term program. How do you base your assessment of the value of the program, long term, at this time?

S. Ramsay: The long-term benefits are beginning to become tangible. We’ve seen some redevelopments of a couple of sites. We’ll see more of those as the years unfold. We still maintain very strong relationships with each of those non-profits that received that land through the operating agreement and operational reviews.

We believe that over the next decades, there’ll be those continued opportunities to have those discussions around both maintenance of the building and opportunities to redevelop and densify land where those opportunities exist.

C. Bellringer: On the comparison of the $500 million to the $1 billion. I’ll just draw your attention to page 38 in the report. We did look at, also, the net-present-value comparison, which was an important one for the area to calculate and an important one for us to review. It isn’t a comparison of $500 million to a billion, because it’s not a today’s-dollars calculation.

We did end up with a disagreement around it, but it’s around $100 million one way or another, as opposed to…. It sounds more dramatic when you compare the $500 million to the billion. Their calculation was a $95 million positive net present value, if you brought it to today’s dollars.

We did disagree on that calculation, because it included some things, including that the $150 million from the matching could have been used for another program. If you remove that from the calculation, then, plus some other items, we felt that that net present value was closer to a negative. But again, $73 million was our calculation, not $500 million.

B. Ma: Okay, thank you so much. Another very excellent clarification, and an important one.

Can I ask: what’s the current state of the not-for-profit housing in the province? Are they in need of repair? Are they in good condition or…?

[9:45 a.m.]

S. Ramsay: We have a strong partnership with the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association and non-profits. We’ve undertaken what we call a facility condition index assessment of both our own stock and the non-profit stock, and we have a provincial priority list for repairs. As funding becomes available, it is directed to those developments that need the repair.

B. Ma: Thank you. Two more questions, quick ones. On page 6, in 2011, it was reported that 15.4 percent of the households in the province were unable to find adequate housing. Can you tell us what that number is now?

S. Ramsay: It’s actually gone down.

G. Steves: It was 2016. The number is right around 15 percent. It had gone down from 2011. Percentage-wise, it’s gone down about half a percentage. In absolute terms, it’s gone up a few thousand people.

B. Ma: Thank you. My last question is around the disclosure of some of the Auditor General’s findings. My understanding is on two occasions there was some disagreement about the disclosure, whether it was for the interest of the public or not. Am I correct in saying those pieces were not reported in the report, then, because of that disagreement?

C. Bellringer: In fact, our conversation on those items is with legal services branch and cabinet operations, as opposed to the ministry. We were able to reach a conclusion, but we couldn’t tell you why.

B. Ma: All right. That probably makes my question moot. It was: why is that?

I really appreciate you answering my questions. I’m still very, very concerned about how the program went down. I acknowledge that there may be some long-term benefits to this, but it concerns me that those long-term benefits were not…. We weren’t able to see them at the time of the program launch. It kind of feels as though this program was implemented with the hope that we will see tangible benefits in the future.

From where I’m sitting, I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to actually proceed on a major government program like this. Thank you.

J. Yap: Thanks to the Auditor and the ministry for the comments. I’d like to start with a couple of technical questions. With all these land and property transfers, do the non-profits have to pay PTT? I’m just curious because there are large numbers here involved.

S. Ramsay: PTT is not payable by non-profits that are registered charities. If it’s just a non-profit society and not a registered charity, then PTT is payable.

J. Yap: Thanks. The mortgages to finance these transactions — are they directly provided by the province or by another lender like CMHC?

S. Ramsay: B.C. Housing has a financing program, so we tender those mortgages into the private market. So a private lender would bid on a mortgage package, and they would hold the mortgage on those properties. It would have CMHC insurance attached to it. That’s through an agreement that we have with CMHC. We’re able to tender mortgages into the market with CMHC insurance. That’s effectively what allows us to get good mortgage rates.

J. Yap: So the mortgages are with private lenders, sometimes with CMHC guarantees. The province doesn’t guarantee the mortgage?

S. Ramsay: The province does not guarantee the mortgage, no.

J. Yap: But the province does provide the mortgage payments — the $30 million over 35 years that’s referred to.

S. Ramsay: The way that would be determined, then, is the new mortgage becomes a debt of the non-profit. Then we look at its revenue stream, because the revenue stream changes over time, and then the subsidy gets adjusted based on that new level of debt — how the rent changes each year and what the subsidy becomes.

J. Yap: Thank you. Following on Bowinn’s questions, I guess the essence here is: how confident are we that not-for-profits can fulfil their mission and meet the goals of government, of the province?

[9:50 a.m.]

In the history of dealing with not-for-profits in the housing sector, have there been any major instances when not-for-profits have gone offside? I understand that there could be one or two…. There are always some challenges with not-for-profits. How would you describe the experience of the province with not-for-profits in the housing sector?

S. Ramsay: It has been quite good. There have been instances. I’ve been the CEO of B.C. Housing since 2000. I have dealt with — just, in fact, last year — a seniors group in Kelowna who decided to sell their social housing building. They gave their one-year notice, and they have, in fact, sold that building.

We went in to work with the tenants to ensure that they wouldn’t be impacted by that sale, but through my tenure at B.C. Housing, that’s one that does, in fact, come to mind.

J. Yap: You referred to these not-for-profits having their mission. Some are faith-based. Some are community groups. They have a mandate to do good in the community, including social housing, as their objective. I guess this is part of the essence of how much control or influence the province has in ensuring that not-for-profits stay the course.

I’m hearing that we do have some levers to ensure that they do stay the course and build social housing and maintain it, develop it, grow it. Is that correct?

S. Ramsay: Yeah. But that’s to the extent where there are existing agreements, mortgages and covenants that remain in place. Those are your strongest levers. There’s also that piece around, as discussed, the mission-driven piece of the non-profit and their constitution and bylaws. Several of those bylaws are unalterable with respect to dissolution and what happens with assets.

It’s quite right. It’s not an absolute guarantee that you’re able to maintain that once those agreements and covenants and mortgages do run their natural course.

J. Yap: Right. All of us as MLAs, I’m sure, have experience with multiple not-for-profits. Not-for-profits are as good as the people who control them through the board of directors, through the membership.

What happens if a group goes rogue, and a board is controlled by folks who don’t have the same sense of values about social housing — I’m thinking worst-case scenario here — and decides to sell the property or go into private housing and build private condos? Is that something that could happen, and if so, how would the province stop that?

S. Ramsay: As long as you have the operating agreement, the 219 covenant, in place and the mortgage in place — they’re all cross-defaults in those — then we’re able to take action to stop that sale. Oftentimes we will work with a board. There are 800 non-profits in British Columbia. Half of them manage only one building.

A lot of service clubs are now beginning to age. We would work with those groups that at that point may, in fact, be no longer able to manage that building. We would work with that group in order to transfer the units to another non-profit. We’ve done that on dozens and dozens of occasions, especially over the last few years.

Where you’re left with that other piece, where there are no covenants or agreements and you’re relying on the constitution and bylaws, then it’s: are they offside of what the constitutions and bylaws say? Then it becomes actionable by the province or whoever’s governing the Societies Act.

J. Yap: In that scenario, the province may have to go to court to stop some transaction.

S. Ramsay: That’s right.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the Auditor General, to B.C. Housing and to the ministry. Thank you to Bowinn for framing this in a conversation, not to cast aspersions on anyone who’s delivering programs.

[9:55 a.m.]

I think that this, again, comes to a policy discussion that we have to have. It ultimately always comes down to that here.

I had much the same response to reading this report. Frankly, this is the first time that we’ve had a report come in where it seems like the response is completely disassociated from the report.

We’re not even having a conversation here, at this point right now, in the context of the Auditor General’s report, I feel. The response from Mr. Ramsay didn’t even reference the report, really. It just sort of outlined the program. To me, one of the most telling paragraphs in this is on page 10 in the response from the Ministry Responsible for Housing and the Housing Management Commission. It’s the third paragraph.

The decision about this program wasn’t a housing-based decision, I don’t think. The decision about this program was a budget-based decision. It was about balancing budgets. I may be wrong on this, but it feels, to me, like this was about: “How can we generate some cash in order to spend the $150 million that the federal government is putting on the table?” What we did is we ended up divesting a whole ton of social housing.

In the process, two non-profits…. And, yeah, I know a lot of non-profits that are phenomenal. The people around them are phenomenal. I just met with one on Friday. But in the end, I think vulnerable people in this are more vulnerable. That actually scares me, because I come from a place in which vulnerable people are very vulnerable because of their housing.

I grew up on a reserve. When I’m hearing this story that’s being pointed out here, in terms of housing policy, I come from a place that’s been informed by one bad housing policy after another bad housing policy. And I see what happens to a community that has bad housing policy.

I have a very visceral reaction to this report because I see what happens when vulnerable people are made more vulnerable. In many respects, the ministry has got to do what the political masters ask it to do. In this case, I feel that the political masters around the table wanted to divest themselves of social housing and move away from rent-geared-to-income and move towards dropping some cash on some renters every month in order to help the rent — disconnecting renters from stability and creating an unstable situation for them, which happens when we move to providing some cash and moving renters into entirely market-based rent.

We have to look no further than the 600-and-something Indian reserves in this country to realize vulnerable people in housing have low productivity. So we have this third paragraph, the minister’s response, basically suggesting that what inspired all of this was a commitment to maintaining balanced budgets, not a commitment to finding good housing solutions. Like I said yesterday, balanced budgets and fiscal prudence and all that — that’s really, critically important. But it’s not the most important thing when you’re thinking about delivering housing policy. The most important thing in delivering housing policy is good housing policy.

That’s where we, I think, at this end of the table, need to get it straight. It’s not a distraction about: are non-profits good and stable? It is whether or not we are delivering good housing policy. I find, to me, that when the response to Bowinn’s question, frankly — and perhaps you can respond to this — was that…. “Was this short-term decision-making beneficial over the long run?” The response was: “The long-term benefits will pay off.” Yet the whole report says we can’t quantify the long-term benefits.

[10:00 a.m.]

The whole justification of this program was that the long-term benefits will pay off, but the whole point of this report was that we can’t quantify the long-term benefits, nor has it been proven that we even had an understanding of what the long-term benefits were in this, going into it.

Am I confused? I feel confused. I feel like we’ve just divested ourselves and created a ton more risk simply because the government doesn’t own these units now. The non-profits do, and non-profits are inherently less stable than the provincial government.

G. Steves: I know Shayne is writing some notes, and I’ll let him speak to this as well.

I think there were two types of long-term benefits that were contemplated through the program. One was the overall expansion in the number of new, affordable units — what will be around 4,000 new units of housing.

The other was the preservation of those 7,800 units that were transferred into non-profit ownership. The uncertainty around the long-term sustainability around those 7,800 units is an area that we continue to monitor and evaluate, and will do so.

The 1,200 public housing units, we know, are secured through renewed long-term operating agreements. We’re confident that those units have a 35-year agreement and will continue to provide rent-geared-to-income housing for those 35 years.

The land transfers. There’s a new 25-year agreement supported by section 219 covenants and the Societies Act, and we’ll continue to work in partnership with those societies over the long term to make sure that housing remains well targeted and affordable to those households.

Shayne, I know you’ve got some notes as well.

A. Olsen: Just to that response, if you’re going to use the section 219 covenants and the Societies Act tied to the mortgage, then I think that you have to…. The operating agreements, the covenants, the Societies Act…. I think the Auditor General’s report is pretty clear that those are not as secure as…. I mean, they continue to be brought up by the ministry and B.C. Housing as justifications in order to make me feel more confident in the security. Yet I think that we need to address the gap that is here.

The Auditor General’s report is pretty clear that it doesn’t provide the security that perhaps is being suggested. So can you respond to that?

S. Ramsay: I’ll let the Auditor respond to that, but I hope, in my previous comments, I was clear around…. I think it’s reflected in the Auditor General’s report that as long as the mortgage covenant and operating agreements are in place, the province has the necessary tools in order to ensure that that housing doesn’t get sold off into the private market.

Once those agreements end, and they still have many decades to run on them, then as one member said, the rogue non-profit could in fact try to sell off the property. That did happen one time with a seniors building in Kelowna.

A. Olsen: What if…? Let’s just say a developer or an investor comes with $25 million — there’s $25 million left on the mortgage — gives it to the non-profit, pays off the mortgage, and the non-profit then sells the investor the property.

The mortgage is gone. The other two pieces, the Societies Act and the covenant, don’t fit within it. They operate as three, from what I hear. So now the mortgage is gone. That connection to the B.C. government and to the taxpayers is gone.

Isn’t that a way in which…? I’m sure this is not shining a light where a light hasn’t already been shone. But doesn’t that create an extra level of vulnerability?

S. Ramsay: That is a potential scenario. The constitution and the bylaws would govern what happens with the use of those proceeds. But a non-profit, in that specific set of circumstances that you just described, could end up in that place.

C. Bellringer: The description of what’s been outlined around the operating agreements, the covenants and the Societies Act are included in the report, on page 37. What we don’t know is if anything has changed since the report to further mitigate those risks.

[10:05 a.m.]

I would agree with the importance of the operating agreements. That does become a very significant…. Again, I don’t know to what extent they’ve been renewed or extended or if there are any that are soon going to be renegotiated or put in place. I haven’t been made aware of anything in addition to what was in place at the time that we did the audit.

A. Olsen: I look at all of this being done to build 4,000 new units of housing. That’s essentially the number that we were given. B.C. Housing is in this business. This seems like pretty drastic action to build 4,000….

The alternative would be that the government would support the construction of 4,000 new units of social housing. Right? This seems to be…. How many units have we divested full control over — admittedly, to retain some control — to build 4,000 units in this program?

S. Ramsay: Four direct-managed developments have been transferred. Those total 1,246 units.

A. Olsen: Then there have been 137 properties that have been sold.

S. Ramsay: So 178 properties.

A. Olsen: How many units is that?

S. Ramsay: That’s 7,827 units.

A. Olsen: So that’s about 9,000 units we’ve lost the full interest over — certainly, we still have some interest — in order to get the cash to build 4,000.

S. Ramsay: I just wanted to correct something. So 7,800 is the total. It’s 6,581 non-profits and 1,246 direct-managed units, so the total is 7,827.

A. Olsen: Are there other jurisdictions that are taking this approach? Sorry. I asked the question as if I didn’t know. There’s an article that I read, which was shared with me, that they were doing this in England as well. Are other jurisdictions other than that…? I haven’t had a chance to do much research. Can you talk about other jurisdictions that are divesting themselves of social housing units?

S. Ramsay: In the United Kingdom, their transfer to non-profits — they’re called housing associations in the U.K. — have been happening over the past decades. It was a significant transfer of local council housing to housing associations, which were really nascent kinds of organizations in those days. Now they’re the largest providers of housing in the U.K.

Various states in Australia have also initiated what they call stock transfers. Australia is interesting. It never made the switch to non-profits until the early 2000s. Up until 2000, they were still building state housing. So the state would build the housing. They would own and manage it.

In the early 2000s, they began what they call stock transfer. A lot of the public, state-owned housing is now being transferred to what they call growth non-profits. You really see those growth non-profits being able to lever the assets and begin to redevelop and improve them. A number of jurisdictions have done stock transfers of public housing to non-profits.

A. Olsen: Did the ministry and B.C. Housing do an analysis of what happened in those other jurisdictions and evaluate whether or not the assumptions that were made by the ministry and by B.C. Housing played out — that, in fact, it did turn into giving non-profits the equity they needed to then redevelop or…? Do we see what the result is from other jurisdictions — being overwhelmingly positive? Our program is not that old.

G. Steves: The Australia program was emerging at the same time as ours, so we certainly tracked and followed what they were doing. But too early, at that point in time, to speak to outcomes.

The U.K. model, as Shayne has spoken to, is more mature, but it is quite a different model as far as the program design and delivery and the existing management of those stocks.

[10:10 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Okay. I think I’m just going to leave it at this. I am very uncomfortable with what’s happened here. Perhaps I come informed from a different perspective, but I believe that we have made renters and people in vulnerable situations more vulnerable in an effort to raise some cash in the short term.

The theme that I’ve been talking about all along here is about long-term decision-making. What we’ve seen come to roost…. I try not to border on being political here, but I don’t think I can stay away from it today. We’ve seen decisions to smooth rates over the long term. We’ve seen decisions to generate cash in the short term having long-term impacts.

I really hope that we can get to making long-term decisions around here where my kids and our kids are not paying for the decisions and that we’re not okay with justifying the decision based on: “Well, we’ll see how it turns out in the end, but we need some cash right now.” Perhaps we did need some cash, but there are lots and lots of priorities that this government invests in, and to chase $150 million from the federal government…. I think that we could probably have found, had we had the political will to do it, the $150 million to match. I’ll leave it at that.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you for your comments.

I do want to remind members that we should concentrate on the scope of the report, as difficult as that is. This report focuses on B.C. Housing, and we really do need to try to reflect our comments based on the report in front of us.

J. Thornthwaite: I do have a question to the Auditor General about the solutions. Again, I’m paraphrasing. I don’t know exactly what you said, but you were talking about the reporting aspect and the amount of transparency and information. If what you’re saying is that the partnerships with non-profits are not a good idea, what is a good idea? What is your solution?

C. Bellringer: No, we have not made a comment to suggest that the partnerships are in any way a problem. There’s nothing in terms of what we’re saying here that would go into that discussion.

We did see a very good analysis and a lot of very specific information around how the short-term outcomes were being measured and how they were being considered. I will have to say we did look at information that was provided to cabinet, or to Treasury Board, which is the part that we can’t speak to what that information was.

What we did not see was the same level of detail. It was the combination of documentation but also the extent to which we could see a demonstrated assessment. I think there’s quite a lot of belief, and belief based on long-term experience. It’s not unfounded, but it wasn’t…. For the long-term outcomes, we didn’t see the same level of documentation and assessment around how there would be a measurement and monitoring of the success of the program. That’s where our focus was. We’re not saying the program design was poor, nor are we saying there was a different way to do it.

On those exposures, we aren’t entering into the conversation about what the program policy should have been. We do recognize the number of risks that were there before and after…. We’re not saying the program created risks. We appreciate they are risks to the sector, not to the program.

We still saw…. In deciding that this was a way to go, we do believe that whether the decision-maker is within an organization, within the ministry, within cabinet or a committee of cabinet, all of them should be provided with a really thorough assessment of the risks and benefits of something in order to then choose where you want to go.

[10:15 a.m.]

It doesn’t mean that the decision can’t be made with regard to that, but we just felt that that information was inadequate.

J. Thornthwaite: Shayne, do you have a response to that? I understand from one of the slides there that either the government or B.C. Housing — I can’t remember the ministry — had said that they have accepted those recommendations or are working on them. Shayne, can you respond to that?

S. Ramsay: As we described, around some of the longer-term pieces…. The short-term pieces, as the Auditor said, are more easily defined — the revenue generated, the investments that are made in both new supply and housing allowance programs. We do have that continued relationship with the non-profit annual budget and audit process and thorough operational reviews every three years, where the entire operation of the non-profit is looked at, including the maintenance and condition of the buildings.

If one of our goals is to look at how those assets are being levered over the longer term, that discussion will happen with that non-profit every three years. Is there opportunity for redevelopment on this particular site or on some of your other properties that you own? That regular check-in provides us with an opportunity to begin to push some of the other long-term outcomes that we hope to achieve.

J. Thornthwaite: On page 11…. I’d just like to make a comment about the rent supplements.

“…the homeless prevention program, which provides rent supplements to British Columbians who are at risk of becoming homeless, and enhancements to benefits provided to low-income seniors and family households renting in the private market under the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, SAFER, and the rental assistance program, RAP. Without the non-profit asset transfer program, these significant investments would not have been possible. The remaining proceeds of $355 million generated from the non-profit asset transfer program have been allocated to provide the provincial investment in affordable housing program, which was announced in 2016-17 to create more than 2,000 affordable rental housing units in British Columbia over five years,” etc.

I just wanted to make a comment about the rental assistance that is obviously being allowed by this program. It was my understanding that it is far better and appropriate with results for people living in, essentially, housing that everybody else is living in — in other words, not segregated or ghettoized. That term I’ve heard used. It’s better for people to get assistance through rent assistance so that people’s neighbours don’t know that these people are part of that program, and the outcomes for children and families that are in that type of situation are far better than having people housed in one particular place.

Maybe somebody could comment on that with regards to the benefits of that program, because that’s the response I had gotten from many in this industry.

G. Steves: The housing strategy that government released in 2014 very much took a continuum approach to housing, looking at prioritizing the most vulnerable British Columbians and building supported housing for those groups, investing in affordable housing for low- to moderate-income households, as well as investments in rental assistance.

The RAP and SAFER programs were enhanced at that time — modest improvements to the benefit that those households received — as well as, as Shayne mentioned, a completely new rental program, the homeless prevention program, which was rent subsidies administered with funding from B.C. Housing through non-profit agencies tied to homeless outreach, so that individuals who were at imminent risk of homelessness or were in fact homeless could be placed directly in housing.

It wasn’t one over the other. It was really around balancing a holistic approach to try to ensure that there were adequate responses across the continuum.

[10:20 a.m.]

R. Glumac: This NPAT program. What was the problem that this program was intended to address?

G. Steves: Those are identified by the Auditor General in her report. It was to increase the supply of affordable housing, to generate the ability to cost-match the federal dollars and to re-invest both in new supply and in rent supplements.

R. Glumac: What different options did you look at when you tried to solve those particular problems?

G. Steves: I think that I’d have to take some consultation on that question before I could answer that.

R. Glumac: Why is that? You don’t have the answer now?

G. Steves: I think I’d have to seek some guidance on how to answer that question, given the concerns the Auditor General raised around public interest immunity.

R. Glumac: Okay. Well, how would we get an answer to this, then?

G. Steves: We’ll have to take some consultation on that and get back to the committee with an answer to that question.

R. Glumac: Back to the committee with an answer. Okay.

You identified the things that you were trying to address. Can you say anything about why it’s against the public interest to speak about different options around that?

S. Ramsay: We believe your question is touching on the public interest immunity issue. Because of that, we’re not able to reply. I don’t know if the Auditor would like to add anything else to that.

C. Bellringer: I would agree that that’s the reason why we couldn’t go any further than saying why the program was needed and so on. We do have the opinion that knowing that information is in the public interest, as opposed to the opposite. So that’s where we landed in the discussion I described, where I said: “But we thought, well, we either hold the report until we can resolve this for more months, or we just give it to you and let you know that we’ve got this disagreement.”

As I say, it is the legal services branch and cabinet operations who really are interpreting what constitutes public interest immunity and what doesn’t. It is a valuable and important principle, so we’re not arguing with the principle. What we end up having the discussion around is: at what point is it going to…? I mean, one of the applications of PII that becomes the really tricky part is that there is a precedent. Within Commonwealth countries everywhere, there is an understanding that cabinet confidences are that. They can’t be disclosed.

We’re not talking about the discussion that took place in cabinet. We’re talking about the rationale and the analysis that go into cabinet, as well as a transparency around the outcome from that. That’s where we don’t think there’s any disagreement. But we get into a debate about whether it’s a cabinet document or whether it’s just a business analysis that should be on hand anyway. We take the position that the definition of need is an important component of any business plan. So we do think it’s something that should be available publicly.

S. Bond (Chair): I think the point being made, though, is that there is a principle involved here and that there has been a discussion about this. We’re not going to resolve that at this committee today, obviously, in terms of what can be released and what should be. So the ministry has given us an undertaking that they will take a look at the question and provide feedback. We’re not going to resolve the issue today about what’s in the public interest. There’s been a lot of discussion between the two parties.

[10:25 a.m.]

We’re not going to decide today what can be released and what should be. We appreciate the question. The ministry has given us an undertaking. They will go and sort out what is appropriate to say.

R. Glumac: In a scenario like this, where there’s a disagreement about the application of public interest immunity, how does it get resolved?

C. Bellringer: This is something that…. We have protocols around it in place currently, and they’ve developed over the years. It is an understanding that we can get access to quite a lot of information, where cabinet and legal services branch have not made a determination on some of that information as to whether or not public interest im­mun­ity applies, so we’re able to see it. It’s really a long and drawn-out process to reach that conclusion.

It’s only at the point where we get into reporting that we say: “Well, these are components of what we’ve seen that we believe need to be included in a public document.” At that point, they’ll make the assessment.

It gets into how much…. It does take them a lot of time. If we say we’ve looked at…. In some cases, we’re looking at stacks and stacks of documents. It is totally impractical for them to make that assessment on the full batch of documents that they’re giving to us, so narrowing it down to the smaller components is an important part of the process.

When we get to this final discussion, the only place you could go to, to get, if you will, a higher opinion is…. We can take it to court, or they can take it to court. We do not want to get into that scenario. That doesn’t seem practical. It’s really, in my view, a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

The process that we’re talking about is one that involves lawyers in my office, lawyers within legal services branch, individuals who protect that through the cabinet confidence process. So we understand how hard it is to make sure that that is done properly.

We did not see this as a major issue in the context of this report. It is a very precise area where we still believe it would have been a useful piece of information, but it didn’t hold us up from completing the audit. It didn’t hold us up from giving you all of the information we did provide. We thought that was more important than resolving these two small items. I say “small.” They’re still strategic in nature.

I’ll probably leave it there, because it is something that we devote quite a lot of time to respecting but, at the same time, always keeping the public interest in mind.

G. Steves: I think we should say that there were a number of instances through this report where there were areas that were identified that we worked very closely with the Auditor General to ensure that we were able to disclose everything. But we do defer to cabinet operations and legal services branch on the ultimate decision around public interest immunity.

R. Glumac: Yeah, I guess it’s my view that the rationale for a program that several people have expressed concerns about is a very important thing to understand. I wouldn’t say it’s a small thing at all.

I think it’s really unfortunate that we can’t get to some resolution on that to better understand what the rationale was. It seems like, basically, what you’re saying is that the public interest immunity can be called any time, and it won’t be challenged and there’s nothing we can do about it. That seems to be the situation — immunity from scrutiny in a certain level there.

I don’t know if it’s, like…. Maybe in some circumstances, it could be so important that maybe you would pursue taking it further. Maybe in this case you feel that it’s not necessary. I feel it is an important thing to understand. It’s unfortunate that we can’t, because then all we can do is draw our own conclusions as to why that happened — why we made a decision to sell off housing units owned by the province.

Would you say that property values are increasing in British Columbia?

G. Steves: Yes.

[10:30 a.m.]

R. Glumac: Would you say that there’s a greater chance of these housing units being sold off into for-profit and non-social housing inside, when owned by government or when owned by an outside entity?

G. Steves: They’re certainly at greater risk under the non-profit model — of those units being used for a different purpose.

R. Glumac: There is a greater risk, so when we’re talking about the risk, we are acknowledging that there is a greater risk of losing these housing units.

G. Steves: On the direct amount of stock, there is a greater risk over time. We feel that risk has been addressed, as we’ve said, through the operating agreements and covenants on title.

R. Glumac: Right. But I mean, in the scenario that Adam outlined, with the incredible profit potentials because of the rising property values in this province, certainly an investor could buy out a mortgage and a non-profit entity could get into an arrangement to sell that off and then it could go to condo development or something like that.

I don’t know what we’re supposed to do here. We hear this, and it’s troubling. To me, it seems like the rationale for this, because you are not able to explain it to us, is just: “We need to balance the books.” Were you given directive from leadership in the government to basically sell off these units?

G. Steves: The purpose, as we have said, was to generate revenue to reinvest in new units, to augment rental supply programs and to strengthen the non-profit sector. And looking at the long-term viability of the non-profit sector, we thought the consolidation of the land interest and the chattel were important tools for them to look at their long-term sustainability.

R. Glumac: It’s another example of prioritizing balancing of the books, in my opinion, so it’s really unfortunate that this course of action was taken. But what are we going to do about it here? I don’t know. It’s just….

G. Steves: This is the final year of the program. There’s no expectation or plans for extending the non-profit asset transfer program.

We will continue to monitor all of the units that were transferred through the program, and we’ll be watching and working with those non-profits to ensure that those affordable housing units continue to provide the purpose that they were intended for.

R. Glumac: Are there still some units being transferred right now?

S. Ramsay: We’re just in the last two months of the program. There are a few more planned transfers, but those would number, kind of, in five to ten.

R. Glumac: Five to ten units?

S. Ramsay: No, five to ten sites. We can get the exact number.

R. Glumac: Do you have a rough estimate of how many units that would be?

S. Ramsay: Average project size in non-profits is 50 to 60 units, so five to ten projects would be in the kind of 250 to 300 unit….

R. Glumac: All right. Thanks.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentations and the discussion. I’m not going to repeat anything that’s already been said. We’ve had a really detailed discussion.

What I’m interested in is the message from the Auditor General around the long-term outcomes and the measurements and the performance measures. I’d like to start from the very beginning.

When this program was initiated in 2014…. Can somebody from B.C. Housing help me? How did the sector respond? How was the sector engaged in what this new program was going to be rolling out? So I can understand what the expectations were of people signing up into the program.

S. Ramsay: The sector had, for many years, been asking the provincial government to consider the transfer of assets to them, particularly the leased land. The non-profit owned and managed the housing on a piece of leased land, and those leases were 60 years old. Many have 20, 30, 40 years left on them.

[10:35 a.m.]

As the groups began to get into that kind of 15 years or 20 years left, they came to us and said: “Well, why would we make a decision, if we’re pooling our investments, to invest in something that we’re not going to own anymore? If we have other sets of assets that we own, we’re going to direct any of our resources there.”

They said: “Why not consider the transfer of these assets and provide us with some incentive to continue to maintain them” — well, at that point, then, the leases would have disappeared, and they would add ownership — “and then be prepared to make those kinds of investments?”

The sector, in general, is very supportive of it and have been asking government for a number of years to consider transferring assets.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): The process, then, was that…. Were all of the non-profits told about this program? Or was it non-profits of a certain…? When the program was communicated to the sector, was it clear that there were going to be any conditions attached — that any of this transfer of provincial asset to a non-profit would mean there would be an expectation that they would help contribute to these other outcomes?

S. Ramsay: Certainly, as Greg said, one of the program purposes was the strengthening of the sector. Transferring assets and balance sheet improvements to non-profits would provide them with one of the tools in order to be able to do that. That was clear, especially on the lease properties — that these were going out because we expected or hoped that they would be levered over time.

You have to look at the portfolio and the 6,000 units. There are some there that we know probably have no redevelopment potential at all. They’re probably in good shape and are going to provide that quality housing for many years to come. It’s only certain of those properties that actually — the two examples that I gave — have those opportunities for densification and reuse of land that they may have acquired initially and have some extra land.

What’s clear is that one of the expectations was for groups to look at those kinds of opportunities if they in fact had them.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Was there evidence provided to the Auditor General that could demonstrate that in handing over this asset, there was an expectation on that non-profit on how much leverage they would put back into the system from having benefited from that asset transfer?

S. Ramsay: There were no specific requirements. It really was about, as it says in the report, creating that opportunity. We did provide the Auditor with examples that we had seen in that very short period of time around groups actually taking advantage of those opportunities. But there weren’t specific metrics around what those expectations were.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): The fact that some non-profits did that was actually because of their initiative rather than because there was an expectation in the asset transfer?

S. Ramsay: I would say it’s probably both, because when you transfer that asset, then they have the ability to consider that. It’s not provincial ownership of that anymore. They actually own the land — so plunking, as in the case of the CMHA in the Kootenays, an additional 18-unit development as part of that overall development.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Did you have any kind of metrics then around the return on investment of looking at: “Okay, so there’s this number of dollars’ worth of assets that can go into the sector. Over a ten-year period, we would expect to see a 3-to-1 ratio return on the increase in the capacity in the sector”? Were there any measures that have been developed that would help you evaluate the success of it?

S. Ramsay: No specific measures, but based on the Auditor’s recommendations, that will be one that we’re taking into account. We’ll build it into our three-year operational review so that when we go back and check in with the non-profits on that detailed basis every three years, we’ll begin to encourage them to look at other opportunities and begin to track things like leverage units, improvement in maintenance, improvement in facility condition index — so work some of those measures into that regular three-year cycle.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): I’m really interested in that as well, because it isn’t just about increasing the capacity; it’s about increasing the condition and the standards of the existing stock as well.

I mean, the program’s been operating since 2014. Have you seen any…? We’ve heard about increase in capacity, increase in numbers through leveraging. Have you seen a general lift or a focused lift in conditions in housing stock as a result of this program?

S. Ramsay: Nothing tangible yet because it depends on where they were within that three-year cycle. As we complete one or two of those three-year cycles, we’ll be able to get more of that information.

[10:40 a.m.]

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Do you have any tools, then, as you do these three-year check-ins with the organizations…? Rather than the catastrophe of, like, a rogue thing happening and the whole stock is lost, do you have any tools to increase their motivation to do some leveraging or to meet some of these targets? Or is it just more a kind of encouragement?

S. Ramsay: It’ll be both. The ministry and the minister are working on a comprehensive housing strategy, leading up to Budget 2018. I think the combination of those opportunities plus the encouragement piece that we’ll be able to provide at those three-year cycles…. I mean, we want to see groups taking advantage of these opportunities now, especially around the areas of densification. As we have more tools, both financial and financing tools, we’ll be able to help influence that in a greater way.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): I think we’ve all heard the concerns about what the sustainability of this is. If there’s a way of actually continuing to try to pursue those outcomes, then that would…. What we’re looking for is: how do we benefit British Columbians as a result of this program?

I guess I would just say I’m going to be really interested — and I don’t know whether part of the committee work can be — to have a look at those performance measures that, as a result of the Auditor’s report, are going to be developed, and how targets are going to be set and how you’re going to measure progress towards them. I’d be really interested in more concrete follow-up at the committee.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Mitzi. I think that’s a very constructive potential follow-up.

R. Sultan: I would like to read into the record, again, the paragraph in the report summarizing its conclusions.

“We concluded that while the NPAT program will provide immediate funding for the ministry to reinvest in housing, it will also incur substantial costs and introduce risks to the long-term provision of social housing in B.C. The ministry has not adequately assessed the benefits of the program against these costs and risks or shown how the program will contribute to better outcomes for safe, affordable and appropriate housing.”

I would like the author of this report to explain what B.C. Housing should be doing to incur lower costs and lower risks, because you obviously have a model in mind. You say they’re incurring costs that are higher than they really should and they’re incurring risks which are inappropriate. Would you please explain to me the alternative you have in mind?

I’m really addressing Laura, I suppose. You are the principle author, I presume?

C. Bellringer: It could be any of us.

Do you want to take this one on?

P. Nagati: Sure. I’ll give it a shot.

The report does speak to risks, but as Carol pointed out earlier, we don’t quantify the risks. What we do is we identify categories of risks. When it comes to evidence-based decision-making, our expectation was that the ministry and B.C. Housing would have assessed those risks and understood those risks. We found that that did not occur.

R. Sultan: Well, I suppose the way they incur lower costs and lower risks is to cancel this program. Is that correct, in your view?

P. Nagati: No, we have no view on the program. That’s a policy decision. We think that any policy decision should be supported by sound evidence, though.

R. Sultan: But surely, you’re being hypercritical of what, frankly, I regard as one of the most successful government operations that we have seen in this province, particularly in the housing area. In fact, it’s, you might say, the only game in town.

When you say, “Well, they’re incurring substantial risks and costs,” I suppose you could say that about our health system. You could say that about TransLink. You could say that about anything. You must have, inherent in your mind, something less costly and less risky.

[10:45 a.m.]

Just to say: “Well, that’s a policy decision….” We don’t let you off the hook that easily. You come in here, and you give us a big, thick report condemning this department. You say it’s too expensive and it’s too risky. Well, fine. Tell me what your benchmark is.

P. Nagati: Once again, we don’t wade into the policy decision. The expectation is that more could’ve been done to set the program up for success. If the objectives of the program were to ensure long-term outcomes for the non-profit sector, including ensuring more investment and increasing housing stock, there could’ve been, for example, measures in place to find what that would’ve looked like, describing what success was and how it would be achieved.

The criticism here isn’t about a policy direction. It’s about ensuring that that policy direction succeeds.

R. Sultan: So you are saying we can always do better. I guess that’s true of every government program. It’s not very convincing to me. I’m sorry.

C. Bellringer: I’d like to add…. I think if I had to narrow it down to one specific area…. I mean, in fact, it is the whole report that answers the question. But on page 28, what we did in terms of looking at the measurement of the outcomes was not saying what we determined those outcomes to be, but rather, what the program had outlined as both its short-term and long-term outcomes.

They’re listed quite specifically here. We got it from B.C. Housing. It’s not something…. We did put it in one place, and this is where we did conclude that the short-term objectives were set out and clearly measured. It was looking for the reinvestment of funding. It was looking for the ability to receive the federal government cost-matching, assisting more people through the rental assistance program, impacting the fiscal plan positively and moving away from owning and operating social housing.

On the short-term outcomes, we did conclude that the ministry met good practice. It isn’t an overall criticism of the program. And I will say…. I get back to documentation, but it is the documentation of an assessment. There were a lot of things that were discussed, and we had a lot of people telling us that the analyses were complete. But we couldn’t see it for ourselves to form an opinion. We think that’s an important component of any strong decision-making process.

The specific area where we saw the discussions taking place in camera at the board level on the sale of the properties that had been owned by Housing was that there was no documentation, and we could see nothing. We outline in the report that that’s not good practice in any board setting. We get it that it can be held in camera and kept confidential, but to not document it isn’t something that is done anywhere, and we can’t support that.

On the long-term outcomes, we do get it that measuring long-term outcomes is more difficult than looking at short-term outcomes. That is the case. Any program we look at…. The more long-term you get, the harder it is to establish what it is and the harder it is for us to say it’s being done. But we did find that in that case, it was…. I’m not going to say it was absent but definitely at a much higher level than the detail that we saw on the short-term outcomes.

Government decisions are made with long-term outcomes being a major component of them. So yes, we do take the position that there should be a very carefully thought-through…. It doesn’t mean it can’t change, and it doesn’t mean there aren’t different views on what it is, but you can’t make the decision in the absence of having it really well thought out and presented to you. And we do expect to see that. On the long-term side, we do think that that was something that should have been done much better than it was.

R. Sultan: Well, I would grant you…. I wouldn’t call this outfit, B.C. Housing, very slick on the PowerPoint stuff. In fact, I would say they tend to be inarticulate at times, compared to other groups that appear before us. But that does not really correlate with performance, in my opinion.

What I find a bit upsetting…. Let me answer my own question. How could they reduce costs? Well, they could stop selling these important government public assets, which is offensive to some.

[10:50 a.m.]

They could call up the Minister of Finance and say: “Hey, we want to develop another X units. How about 114,000, in fact? Just send the capital over, please. We want to get rolling on this program as soon as possible.”

That’s the cost side, and we know the government can borrow money more cheaply than anybody else. Certainly, we would avoid some of the high mortgage expense that I’m sure some of those non-profits are really going to end up shouldering. That’s a cost improvement. I would grant you that.

As far as risk is concerned, who knows what these 800 non-profits, or whatever Shayne refers to, are up to at any day of the week? Some of them are great. Some of them are terrible. Some of them are probably stealing our taxpayer money. We don’t know. We can’t track what’s happening in each and every one them, every day of the week.

By and large, we put our faith in community-based activities. But if you want to have lower risk, from one point of view, let’s make sure this is all run by the government itself, because we know the government is always honest and pure and not subject to these shenanigans you get at the local level.

That would be my answer to my own question on the risk side. Let’s finance it through the government balance sheet, and let’s do it with government employees. Any argument? Well, my argument against my answer would be…

S. Bond (Chair): He’s going to argue both sides.

R. Sultan: …they’ve tried that in places like England. It’s called council housing. I mean, this is the meat of these gritty movies we get from Britain from time to time explaining what life in the council flats is like. It’s like the red brick projects we used to see in the Bronx before New York City, as a humanitarian gesture, dynamited them all and said: “This is no way to house our citizens.”

This would not acknowledge government housing on Indian reserves — to refer to my good friend Adam here. Talk about social scandal. A national embarrassment. How many Indian reserves have you been on? The first Canadian Indian reserve I really visited, aside from being a child, was in northern Quebec. This was government housing on full display. Half the houses had big holes bashed in the siding. You could almost drive a pickup truck through it. I thought: “What is going on in this community?” It was a horrible place.

You understand the social condition of our First Nations people a little bit better if you visit some of these very remote communities and see what’s happened to the housing, which, of course, is the federal government in action. It’s a scandal. It’s shameful. It’s something, as a nation, we should not tolerate.

I find myself somewhat skeptical of the idea that government, from the centre, can do a better job than a local organization. I contrast that with our own Kiwanis organization on the North Shore, which provides a significant chunk of all the seniors housing. It has its ups and downs, and it’s run by a bunch of retired folks. But by and large, economically and with a great deal of compassion, they provide very low-income housing to a big chunk of our population, even in West Vancouver.

After all, this is an organization, on the whole, which is providing income assistance of one sort or another to 4 or 5 percent of all the households in the province. This is a huge social enterprise. We should acknowledge that.

When we come in and say they’re really not very good at explaining themselves, which I would agree with, we should step back and say: “Should we just tell them to down tools and go back to the council flat model?” I would say not.

Auditor General, I admire the work of your office enormously, and you do a great service to the taxpayers of British Columbia. On this one, though, I’m afraid I’m going to give you a failing grade.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you for that, Ralph.

I’m going to take the liberty of asking a few questions myself, and then hopefully we’re going to be able to move forward. We do have two other reports that I want to fit into the day.

[10:55 a.m.]

The Auditor General herself summarized and, in many ways, provided some caution. I think we have to look at what the report is not saying. I can understand the passion around housing and around all of the…. That is not a partisan issue. Everyone around this table, every government, wants to make sure that they can provide affordable housing.

To quote the Auditor General, the report is not saying that the program created additional risk, necessarily. It is not about the merits of the program. The red flag that’s being raised here, in my opinion, by the Auditor General is that government needs to be provided with a thorough — and I quote the Auditor General — “analysis” so that decisions can be made.

The paragraph that I was going to quote is exactly the one the Auditor General pointed out. This is not about a complete condemnation. In fact, in the report it says: “We found that the ministry’s planning for the short-term outcomes met good practice.” So I think we have to be cautious about extrapolating from a report when the report — in my view, rightly — points out that there needs to be documentation. Should there be records of what happens? Yes. That doesn’t mean they would appear at this table. There are protocols and processes around materiality and all of the things that go into decision-making.

I think what’s important is that this wasn’t…. There are merits to the process that was followed, and there are shortcomings. We need to find a way to close that gap between what was done well and what wasn’t done well. The Auditor General clearly defined that certain practices met practice. I think we do need to be cautious, as a group. In this case, it wasn’t a total condemnation of the program. It isn’t the job of the Auditor General to talk about the quality or merit of the program. It’s about: what are the risks? In fact, this report doesn’t quantify the risks.

I just think we need to be thoughtful about the…. I do want to say that all of us have non-profits in our communities that operate housing. It is not the unique responsibility, in my view, of government to do everything. How we work with those non-profits…. The question was asked: “Were you directed to do this?” Non-profits have been asking for the transfer of leases for decades. It’s not that this was cooked up in a back room somewhere. There has been an evolution in terms of how housing is delivered.

My point is simply that from my perspective as a member of this committee and as an MLA, I think we simply have to be cautious about extrapolating from a report when the Auditor General herself reminds us that there are things missing but that that doesn’t imply other facts.

The point is: there was a gap, and there was, particularly, an issue around long-term goals. I don’t know how anyone around this table…. As the Auditor General also said, it gets much more difficult to measure, identify and define long-term goals when you’re looking at 20- and 30-year plans. Does that mean this should be a work in progress and improvement? Obviously, it does.

I just want to clarify for the record. Was a business case prepared?

G. Steves: The analysis of the options was prepared for government.

S. Bond (Chair): So there is documentation that relates to the program and how it would be created?

G. Steves: Correct.

S. Bond (Chair): Right. When we look at…. On page 14 in the government’s PowerPoint, it points out that the ministry disagreed about risk containment. Is it fair to say to the Auditor General that the issue, from her perspective, wasn’t that risk had been contained or not; it was that her team did not have the ability to actually measure that because of the information that had been prepared or that was available to her?

[11:00 a.m.]

C. Bellringer: It’s somewhat of an answer to your first question as well. Our conclusion is on page 39. We did specifically conclude that the ministry had not recommended the NPAT program. We described the analysis as…. It was not based on “an adequate analysis of its benefits, costs and risks.” That’s where we’re unable to disclose further information about how we reached that conclusion.

S. Bond (Chair): The essence is the analysis and preparation of the information on which government makes a decision. Is that correct?

C. Bellringer: Correct.

S. Bond (Chair): I think that’s an important context for this discussion. It’s not about the merits of the program. It’s not about whether or not there were risks or containment of risk. It’s that the Auditor General’s office couldn’t tell and could not make that decision based on what had been prepared.

I think it’s just an important caution, to look at what the report says and, also, what it says about the basis on which those decisions are made. There’s no doubt about it. A red flag is raised, and I think rightly so. But it is more about documentation. It’s about analysis. It’s about giving government the best information possible in terms of making those long-term decisions. In fact, the report does point out that short-term outcomes met good practice. I think that’s an important thing.

We probably need to move on. Is there anyone else who has a burning contribution they need to make?

A. Olsen: Thank you, Shirley.

I’m reminded, as I come around this table, that for me, housing is a very emotional subject. It’s something that my family has worked in for 20 years. Perhaps we can spark a policy debate here that can be continued, and we will continue the policy debate. But this place often needs to be scrubbed of emotion and get down to what’s actually being said.

I’m not sure if I entirely agree with your analysis of this, so we’ll talk about it in the future. But thank you. The experience that you show — I appreciate it. I want to acknowledge that. I come in here on this issue pretty hot and leave pretty hot, but I also recognize we have an important job to do.

S. Bond (Chair): I appreciate that. I certainly think that all of our comments come from a place of emotion. I think that is important. I just want to ensure that both the public servants who appear here and the Auditor General’s team have the opportunity to express themselves in the most candid and appropriate way.

It is an intimidating venue for people to appear. I just want to be sure that we recognize that they are the messengers. I appreciate them being here today.

B. Ma: I’ve heard a lot of clarifications in regards to the risk associated with the program. There are some sections of the Auditor General’s report that led me to believe that there were conclusions made about risk. I just wanted to flag that for the Auditor General’s team if that’s not their intention.

For instance, on page 32, the first paragraph says: “We concluded that the ministry’s approach increases the risk of the program failing to enhance the long-term sustainability of the social housing stock at a time when the sector is facing challenges such as growing maintenance needs on aging buildings and the loss of funding from expiring agreements.”

I know that I’ve read a number of other sections of the report that seem to make very clear that the Auditor General’s office’s opinion was that there were increased risks, again recognizing that there are disagreements about the level of increased risk.

I guess what I’m saying is that from reading the report, it did provide the sense that there were increased risks. If I’m hearing now that there were no conclusions about increased risk, then maybe some adjustments to wording in the future might be warranted.

R. Glumac: Just in regards to the conversation earlier and what was stated about seeking some guidance and coming back with some of that analysis, my question is: will that be happening, and what will the timeline of that be?

S. Bond (Chair): I think the ministry has undertaken to look at the question that Rick asked and look at what is within the parameters of the protocol. My point was simply that there are protocols that supersede the discussion here at this table, including protocols around cabinet materials and those kinds of things.

[11:05 a.m.]

I’m assuming that the ministry will go away, look at that question and provide us with a synopsis of an answer within the parameters that they’re allowed to.

G. Steves: Correct.

S. Bond (Chair): We will endeavour to have the Clerk’s office follow up to make sure that that’s on a follow-up list of actions from this meeting.

All right. Thank you very much for the candid discussion today and for the strong feelings that are expressed. I think that’s part of this process.

I do want to thank the Auditor General and her team for the work that was done here. I also want to thank the government representatives for their participation today but, also, for the work they do on the ground every day in communities around British Columbia. We have some exceptional people where I live, in B.C. Housing, who do an extraordinary job of trying to meet the needs of people where there is a huge demand. We thank you for your time today and appreciate your appearance here.

We’re going to recess for five minutes — only five because we’re going to come back and deal with our second report. I want to try to keep us on schedule as much as possible today. With that, we’ll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:06 a.m. to 11:12 a.m.

[S. Bond in the chair.]

S. Bond (Chair): All right. We want to try to work through our next report before we’ll have a proper break for lunch, before the third report.

In this session of the Public Accounts Committee, we’re going to be looking at another…. This is a progress audit, so we need to recognize that there was an initial report prepared by the Auditor General. This represents a progress audit looking at what has taken place since the original report.

Members, I believe, have been provided with both the original audit and now a copy of the progress audit. This will be regarding the Evergreen Line rapid transit project. It was released in February of 2017.

We have representatives with us today — obviously the Auditor General and her team, once again. She’ll make some opening comments, walk through a PowerPoint. Government will be represented by a number of ministries and organizations, and we’ll ask them to introduce their team as they respond to the Auditor General’s PowerPoint.

With that, Carol, if you would make some opening comments, and then your staff can present the PowerPoint.

Progress Audit: Evergreen Line
Rapid Transit Project

C. Bellringer: With me for this report, I have Chris Thomas, who was on both the original and the progress audit teams, and also Punitha Perumal, who is actually on secondment in our office with Western Australia. Too bad we didn’t have that lineup yesterday, when we had our guest from Western Australia.

This is our progress audit of the Evergreen Line rapid transit project. With the progress audit, we follow the same process and approach, the example, from the last round of Public Accounts Committees. The ICM progress audit came to the committee at that point. That was presented to you on January 17.

We issued the original report, Audit of the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit System, in March 2013. That report included seven recommendations, and they were directed to three organizations — the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Partnerships B.C.

We conducted the progress audit of the organizations’ self-evaluations and action plans. We had published those in February of last year, 2017. Included in your materials is a second action plan, and that update from the Ministry of Finance is dated November 2017. That was outside of the scope of the progress audit. We do see that they’re demonstrating…. Some small progress has been made since their first action plan.

[11:15 a.m.]

We do appreciate that the ministry will continue to submit those updates until the recommendations have been addressed.

Chris will provide you with the overview of the results of the progress audit.

C. Thomas: Good morning, Members. We released our original audit of the Evergreen Line project in March 2013. We looked at the scoping and procurement decisions that government made, as well as the quality of information that government agencies provided to Treasury Board during planning and approval. Given the project’s magnitude, we expected to find more evidence of due diligence from government agencies. We also expected decision-makers to have received more information so that they could make well-informed decisions.

At the time, we made seven recommendations to the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and Partnerships B.C. Our progress audit looked at whether government has accurately presented its progress in implementing the seven recommendations. All told, it has implemented five of our seven recommendations and has fairly and accurately presented its progress to the Legislative Assembly with only one exception.

Government reported that one recommendation had been fully addressed, but we concluded that it is only partially complete. That recommendation concerns government’s capital asset management framework — which, boiled down, is the province’s minimum standards, policies and processes for managing capital assets such as the Evergreen Line.

We recommended that the Ministry of Finance implement a project plan to update this framework, to improve guidance on the information required for capital planning and to clearly outline how to document and oversee that work. The Ministry of Finance has made some updates to the framework, but the ones that will address our recommendation have yet to be made. We will continue to monitor this progress.

The other outstanding recommendation is about the due diligence required for developing and reviewing business cases for projects. Partnerships B.C. and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure have fully or substantially completed their work on this recommendation. However, the Ministry of Finance has just begun its work on this recommendation. It intends to review project planning and approval guidelines as part of its overall update to the capital asset management framework. These changes will impact project planning and approvals across government organizations, not just within the transportation sector.

Government has made important progress in some other areas as well. For example, all three organizations have taken steps to better document project reviews and analyses. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has changed the guidance it provides to its staff on preparing ridership and economic benefit forecasts for transit projects. The Evergreen Line team has developed a performance management plan that details how the government will measure the line’s performance against the original goals outlined in the business case.

Finally, the conclusion of this audit bears repeating, as it is a recurring theme. Decision-makers should always be provided with complete information about the costs, benefits and risks to be managed when making decisions about capital projects. This is especially important with expensive and far-reaching projects like the Evergreen Line.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Chris. That was certainly building on the theme we heard in the first report this morning. We’re hearing it again. We’re hearing that.

All right. I’m not sure who’s going to take the lead. David, are you taking the lead on behalf of government? Then perhaps you could introduce your other colleagues that are here with you today, please.

D. Galbraith: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I’ll be walking through the presentation, but I have my colleagues here that can provide more in-depth answers to any questions that come up, as they have been around during the time.

To my left, I have Heather Hill, who’s the executive director of capital within Treasury Board staff. To my right, I have Amanda Farrell, who is the CEO and president of Partnerships B.C. Further to my right is Patrick Livolsi, Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

[11:20 a.m.]

One thing I didn’t do yesterday was talk about the slides. I think I forgot that everything that we say here is kept on Hansard, so I’ll do a better job today of talking to the slides and then providing colour around the slides. That was something I missed yesterday.

In summary, thanks to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the opportunity to present the government response to the OAG, Auditor General, progress audit of the Evergreen Line rapid transit project. Staff were here in 2013 to provide the government’s response to the original audit of the Evergreen Line. Today we are here to respond to the Auditor General audit of our progress on the actions recommended by the Auditor General to Partnerships B.C., the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and the Ministry of Finance.

Before we go through the recommendations in the progress report on the action plan, I would like to tell you of the progress of the Evergreen Line itself. The Evergreen Line was substantially complete October 31, 2016. The Evergreen Line was officially opened and responsibility for operations transferred to TransLink effective December 2, 2016. With this, Metro Vancouver SkyTrain service is the longest automated rapid transit system in the world.

The Evergreen project is one of the largest transportation infrastructure projects in B.C.’s history and was delivered $70 million to $85 million under the $1.431 billion budget, once trailing costs are closed out. Final savings are expected by the end of this fiscal year.

In overview, following the audit of the Evergreen Line rapid transit project in 2013, seven recommendations were made by the Office of the Auditor General. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure was wholly responsible for action on four recommendations — Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, in conjunction with Partnerships B.C. and the Ministry of Finance, were jointly responsible for two recommendations, 2 and 6. The Ministry of Finance was solely responsible for one recommendation — No. 1.

The Auditor General carried out a progress audit of Finance and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s 2015 action plans and recognized that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Partnerships B.C. had fully or substantially completed their respective actions related to these six recommendations.

In the November 2015 action plan, Finance assessed two recommendations as “fully/substantially implemented,” Nos. 1 and 2, and one as “partially implemented,” No. 6. The February 2017 Auditor General progress audit agreed that recommendation No. 2 has been “fully/substantially implemented” but disagreed with the Finance assessment for recommendation No. 1.

Maybe some colour about that. When we last came in front of this committee in 2013, some work had already been initiated by government on these recommendations, and the Public Accounts Committee acknowledged that. However, the OAG, the Office of the Auditor General, agreed with Finance’s self-assessment that recommendation No. 6 had been “partially implemented” and that recommendation No. 2 had been “fully/substantially implemented.”

However, the Auditor General disagreed with the Finance assessment for recommendation No. 1. Finance assessed recommendation No. 1 as substantially complete, as the project plan to update the capital asset management framework has been implemented. For the update of the capital asset management framework, a project plan is in place, resources have been identified, and a governance framework has been established.

The Auditor General assessed Finance’s actions as only “partially implemented,” as an update of the planning chap­ter of the capital asset management framework, which is where the recommendations will be addressed, has not been completed.

Finance has acknowledged this interpretation of the recommendation and changed its action plan to reflect this recommendation as “partially implemented.”

The capital asset management framework, CAMF, applies to a broad range of agencies with differing governance, legislative and policy frameworks that must be considered when revising this overarching capital policy document. Therefore, significant due diligence and meaningful consultation with government and industry stakeholders is required.

[11:25 a.m.]

Recommendation No. 1. “The Ministry of Finance implement a project plan describing the scope, required resources, timelines and deliverables for updating the capital asset man­age­ment framework to provide comprehensive guidance for public sector agencies on the information required to underpin capital project planning and how this should be documented and the type of oversight that should be applied to verify the information presented to government.” The Auditor General’s assessment was “partially implemented.”

Government’s overall response. Treasury Board staff has implemented a project plan to update CAMFand continues to work through the deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum to implement priority initiatives. Finance’s updated action plan, dated November 2017, has changed the assessment to “partially implemented.” Work is expected to begin on the planning chapter of CAMF in summer 2018.

A little colour on this. Representatives from the construction industry and the provincial government have been working together, through the deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum, to review capital procurement practices and current policy direction.

I would love to call this DMIIF, but I will keep spelling it out. The deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum provides support for consolidated input from and engagement with industry. The Ministry of Finance works with the capital asset management framework subcommittee of the deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum to implement priority initiatives related to CAMF.

As a result of that work, the province has implemented three new best-practices guidelines under CAMF: prequalification processes, privilege clauses and guidance for the release of information and/or documents related to competitive procurement opportunities.

Implementation of project plans for the update of CAMF has begun with the approval and release of best-practices guidance documents mentioned above, under the “Tools” section of CAMF. If there are going to be some questions on that, I’ll have Heather walk through that, because she can give much more on what’s happening on the ground. In addition, revisions of the procurement chapter are underway and nearing completion.

In keeping with the CAMF update project plan, the next section of the document to be updated is the planning chapter. Work is expected to begin on the planning chapter in the summer of 2018.

The revision of CAMF will include guidance on the information required in planning a capital project, documentation needed and the due diligence required on information presented to government, particularly as a part of the update of the planning chapter. As the update of CAMF is an ongoing project, the project plan is reviewed and revised internally, as needed.

The next recommendation, No. 2. Finance, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and Partnerships B.C. document project reviews so that the scope of these reviews and the analysis underpinning the decisions are clearly described in written records. The Auditor General’s assessment: this has been “fully/substantially implemented.”

Just a little bit of colour on top of this. The Ministry of Finance reviews of capital project submissions are documented and retained through Treasury Board staff briefing notes prepared for the advice of Treasury Board.

The Ministry of Finance has implemented a risk screen tool to provide consistent documentation of the analysis performed to support the initial review of risk and complexity for a capital project and to determine the level of government oversight required for project approval.

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has changed its mandated procedures in its project charter, completed in December 2014, to ensure that project teams follow standards established in CAMF.

Partnerships B.C. has created and implemented a peer review template and new guidance to document project reviews. These are being used as part of its quality management framework. In addition, Partnerships B.C. has prepared and implemented a standard template to document its internal project reviews, otherwise known as peer reviews.

Information required to complete the template typically includes but is not limited to: key project information; peer review meeting participants, including project team members and reviews; key discussion topics; action items and take-aways; and final review, sign-off and confirmation. Peer review meeting minutes are retained within Partnerships B.C.’s project files.

Recommendation No.3. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure provide more detailed guidance on its requirements for estimating ridership and the economic benefits of transit projects. The Office of the Auditor General’s assessment: “fully/substantially implemented.”

[11:30 a.m.]

A little bit of colour. In addition, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has done a literature review, which summarizes academic studies of forecasting accuracy in large transportation projects around the world. In addition, it’s updated its business case handbook to specify that staff must complete and retain comparisons of viable options in project records for each business case. The ministry made improvements to the transit business case template, including new guidance to finding project inputs such as ridership forecasts.

Recommendation No. 4. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure provide more detailed guidance on performance measurements so that business cases included appropriate detail on performance indicators, targets and how these indicators will be measured. In the Office of the Auditor General’s assessment: this has been fully/substantially implemented.

Some quick colour. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has updated its business case guidelines to strengthen linkages to CAMF and improve performance measures, including: responsibility is assigned to project executive boards in their terms of reference. The ministry requires that staff identify performance measure information as part of the critical success factors.

For Evergreen, a consultant helped develop performance measures and how to measure them. These are a benchmark for future transit projects.

Recommendation No. 5. “The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure develop and apply a detailed framework for measuring, managing and reporting on the performance on the Evergreen Line.” Office of the Auditor General assessment: fully/substantially implemented.

A little bit of colour on this one. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has created a detailed performance measurement framework and monitoring plan. These align with the business case goals, objectives and commitments. In addition, the ministry has gathered the data needed to measure business case objectives, such as ridership and economic development along the corridor.

Recommendation No. 6. “Finance, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and Partnerships B.C. improve how they assess and report on whether strategic options, assessments and business cases have followed the CAMF guide­lines.” Office of Auditor General assessment: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Partnerships B.C. have fully/substantially implemented, while the Ministry of Finance has partially implemented.

A little bit of colour on this one. The Ministry of Finance reviews of business cases, including strategic options analysis provided by agencies, are aligned with the principles in CAMF and reported through TBS briefing notes prepared for the advice of Treasury Board. The Ministry of Finance plans to review guidelines for strategic options, assessments and business cases — i.e., certain things like creating concept plan templates — during the update of the planning section of CAMF. This would include those development tools as needed — i.e., besides concept plan templates, scalable business case templates.

In addition, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure developed, tested and implemented a CAMF checklist for projects. A concept plan process for strategic options is still in development. However, the scope of this work surpasses the Auditor General’s recommendation.

In addition, Partnerships B.C. revised its quality control process to include review for compliance with the principles of CAMF. The vice-president, projects, at Partnerships B.C. is responsible for ensuring that reports have met company standards before they are released.

Recommendation No. 7. “Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure update its guidelines to make relevant comparisons with observed data central to justifying and explaining traffic and ridership forecasts.” Auditor General assessment: this is fully/substantially implemented.

A little bit of colour. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has updated its business case guidelines for highway projects to require the use of observed data to inform forecasts. The ministry is also assessing the use of GPS-based propriety traffic volume data as an alternative to other more costly collection methods. This will provide data that is both more detailed and timely than older methods of traffic measurement.

Basically, in summary, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Partnerships B.C. have fully/substantially completed their actions on six recommendations by the Auditor General. The Ministry of Finance has partially implemented actions on two recommendations. These recommendations will be completed as part of the planning chapter of the capital asset management framework update that’s occurring this summer.

[11:35 a.m.]

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Finance and Partnerships B.C. appreciate the due diligence of the Auditor General in auditing the Evergreen Line 2015 action plan and appreciate the good working relationship between the agencies in this audit process.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much, David. We appreciate that very thorough response to the recommendations and the added colour commentary that you provided today. Thank you for that.

Just a reminder that today we’re discussing the progress audit, so we’re not necessarily going back to the initial report. We’re talking about did the ministries make progress.

We’re going to start with Adam.

A. Olsen: I have a question for the Office of the Auditor General, first. I just note that we’ve got “fully/substantially implemented.” Those are kind of two different things to me. Either it’s fully implemented or it’s substantially implemented, meaning that it’s not fully implemented. Can you explain at what point at which you accept it as being enough, I guess?

C. Bellringer: It’ll be unique to the recommendation, for sure, in terms of how we make that assessment. What we do find…. Sometimes, the way we’ve described the recommendation and the way that it’s been actually unfolds as the ministry or the organization we’re auditing is actually doing something about it. There’s a slightly different solution to it than you might read into the way we’ve described it in the recommendation.

Sometimes we’ll make a list of, you know, there should be a plan and it should include the following ten things. Then, as it turns out, the plan covers nine out of the ten, and we go: “Yeah. That tenth one is incorporated sufficiently.”

It’s the words we use. We are, at that point, satisfied that we don’t need to keep looking at it to see whether or not the recommendation has been addressed. “Substantially” is a pretty high test, in our view. If there’s some action that’s taken place, if there are plans to do something, then we’re in the “it’s in progress” category.

The one difference of opinion — and it isn’t unique to this particular report; we’ve seen it in a couple of the progress audits — is that we do end up in a significant difference of opinion when the organization has done a lot of work, they’ve got a plan in progress and they’re well along the road, and they will feel like it’s been implemented. And we go: “Not until it’s tested. Not until it’s complete.”

Sometimes there needs to be a follow-up cycle, so we may say…. When we talk about having a guideline to do X, we not only want to see the guideline in place, but we want to see whether or not it’s been applied at least in one situation.

I know it’s a long answer to the question. We’ve changed the wording around how we define progress over the years. I think this one is capturing it quite well in terms of how it’s a satisfactory response for us for it to get that description.

A. Olsen: Too, Madam Chair, I have a challenge here, because we’re doing a progress audit. As was pointed out, it’s come up that in a number of the audits that we’ve been reading about, the business case, the rationale for a project just to be done…. I’ve got a bunch of questions in looking at the recommendations.

I understand that we’re probably supposed to be focused on the bottom part, which is: have you completed the recommendations, or are you substantially or fully completed, and maybe not necessarily the recommendation. That was a different committee. I’ll just editorialize for one minute, and then I’ll move on and not get into it.

What we’ve seen here is…. I have some questions about: how are decisions made, if they’re not made based on ridership and economic development? How are decisions made, for example, without…? The fact that there’s a recommendation saying “write,” you have written records about how this decision…. That, to me, seems like it’s a bit of a suggestion that perhaps some of these decisions, with 1.3 or one-point-whatever billion dollars…. There’s no written rationale for it. Or maybe there is, but it couldn’t be found.

Just the very fact that we’ve got a business case. You know, have a business case for this. Be able to produce it.

[11:40 a.m.]

I think it’s an opportunity for us, going forward, to ensure that the decisions that are being made…. Sure, we can sit in all of our ridings, and we can say: “I actually know of three or four projects, just in my own riding, that the people, the municipalities and the local governments have spent a substantial amount of time developing a business case for, and it’s there.”

I just think I have to ask the question. I’m not going to seek an answer for it, because it’s not the role. How are these decisions made if it weren’t for business cases and the process? How can we, as citizens and elected officials, ensure that in the future, we have a strong rationale and that it’s there? There are more than enough projects that do have rationale that we could be supporting. I’ll just leave it at that.

S. Bond (Chair): I actually think that’s a great question that would fit this discussion. I think we should. I think you should ask the ministries about business case preparation when it comes to a project.

A. Olsen: Okay. I didn’t want to go too far back into history.

S. Bond (Chair): No, I think that’s a general question that relates to the issue.

I see people nodding. They want to answer it, so let’s do that.

A. Farrell: I’m happy to. Yes, we’d like to clarify that.

There’s actually very extensive business case documentation about the Evergreen Line. The first business case was published in 2008, and that includes economic data and ridership analysis. Then there was a follow-on for a business case that went to Treasury Board in 2010.

I think the issues that came up in the audit were more about…. There’s a very, very extensive body of evidence around the business case planning — what was presented to Treasury Board, what was presented in terms of sensitivities and then the point that you’re mentioning around the documentation.

For example, at Partnerships B.C., we’ve always had a peer-review process for 15 years. It wasn’t our practice to prove it right in the minute. So we could show the Auditor, for example, the dates that we had those meetings. We didn’t have a formal written minute. That was the kind of recommendation that was coming out of the review. How had we documented the backup to some of the risks? It was more around some of the backup documentation, in one instance.

In the second instance, it was which parts of the evidence we took to Treasury Board and if there were things that we should have taken to show more of the range around sensitivities. That was the nature of the recommendations in the audit. We’ve addressed those recommendations.

D. Galbraith: From a finance perspective, it’s making sure there are standardized templates on the type of information that people provide. When I say people, I think of different ministries for different projects.

One of the things that we like, in Treasury Board staff, is providing clarification on process and products. The more that we can standardize that, the better — better is a strong word — and the easier the analysis for the Treasury Board and other decision-makers to understand, because they see products that look similar. They get very comfortable with the look and feel of those documents. It makes sure that you don’t miss particular components, that type of thing.

I think from our perspective, it’s more about making sure we have as tight a process with as tight a product as possible to help the decision-makers make the decisions they need to make.

A. Olsen: In reading this, you kind of get the feeling that the decision was made and then the rationale comes after.

D. Galbraith: No.

A. Olsen: This is simply to ensure that you’ve got a…. The Ministry of Transportation must have, like, one trillion projects that need to be done. In fact, I know you’ve got a whole pile.

A Voice: Not a trillion, but close.

S. Bond (Chair): Stacks of them.

A. Olsen: Okay, maybe one billion. Rationalizing which ones should go first, bringing it to the minister and the ministry and then working through having a consistent approach to that, a consistent evaluation, is basically what we’re talking about here. Did I get that right?

D. Galbraith: From my perspective, it’s making sure within the capital asset management framework, which is intended to act as a best-practices document for all ministries, for all capital projects…. It’s to do our best to make sure that all ministries and all projects have the best possible information in a consistent format to enable decision-makers to be able to make those decisions.

[11:45 a.m.]

It’s really about guiding as best as we can. It continually evolves, depending on where the focus and priorities are of government.

One of the challenges we have is this deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum where the deputy ministers from the major capital ministries get together with some of the major players in construction to make sure we are enabling public sector projects to occur in the fairest, most transparent and most informed way. That involves the entire sector. So moving through that process is not as fast as we would like. But it involves so many stakeholder groups, both from a government perspective and an industry perspective, that it takes time to work through that.

Ultimately, what we get out of that are much better products, both for the people that are competing on projects…. They have signed on to transparency all the way through the process. Government gets, basically, for lack of a better word, the best bids that we can from industry, and industry knows what government wants.

That way, we can get the best — sorry, I can’t do air quotes — deal out of industry that we can, because then they won’t price in a bunch of, say, risk factors or unknown factors or “we don’t understand what you want.”

It’s not a fast process, but it has been incredibly valuable.

S. Bond (Chair): Just a comment. I think, Adam, in some cases, your comment is absolutely accurate, because there are political decisions made about priority projects. Obviously, the business case is then developed after that. For example, if we decide to put tolls on something, and other people decide to take them off, those are decisions that are given as direction to ministries, and then the business case and analysis is often done. It may have been considered previously.

I think there is a two-way process here. It is about developing a business case and looking at options. It’s also about political decisions being made: “We’re going to do this.” Then ministries are put in the position of developing the analysis of that information after a political decision.

I think both happen.

C. Bellringer: It’s something that you mentioned in describing what the process is. I would emphasize the information around…. I think you referred to it as sensitivity analysis. Part of that information is going to naturally include assumptions and estimates. So you end up with, in the case of something like ridership, if the number is this, the outcome is different than if the number is that.

The guidance is particularly necessary at the program level to know how much of that you want me to give to you. There’s a whole spectrum of outcomes that could be provided to the decision-makers. So that would be at the heart of why it’s difficult to put those estimates together.

A. Olsen: That whole toll thing didn’t happen, did it?

S. Bond (Chair): Okay, maybe that was not the best example to use, but it’s the one that was top of mind.

To the Auditor General’s point, there was a great comment…. I usually write those things down. I can’t find the page at this moment in time. But when it came to ridership numbers, for example, the Auditor General reflected in her report that there was a lot of experience and a lot of understanding of ridership numbers. But once again, there wasn’t necessarily the transference of that information into the analysis. Isn’t that one of the reflections that was made in the report — that there was a lot of experience looking at other lines but, in fact, that it hadn’t been translated into the data?

C. Thomas: Correct. We concluded in the report…. I believe we said that we agreed that the decision that was made was the most likely to achieve government’s outcomes and objectives, but we relied on a lot of information that was not distilled into the business case in order to get to that conclusion.

S. Bond (Chair): Other questions or comments?

Sorry, Mitzi. I didn’t look to the list. Mitzi is next.

[11:50 a.m.]

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you, again. So trying to focus on the update report. Thank you for the presentations. The proposal is that the planning chapter is going to start to be reviewed summer of this year, 2018. My question is: does that create a risk? Does anybody have any commentary on the timing of that and whether that creates some kind of a risk in between now and then when that chapter will actually be updated?

D. Galbraith: My short answer would be no. We do an incredible amount of due diligence on major projects. Both the ministries do. If Partnerships B.C. is involved, they do. Finance does.

It’s more about: can we do things a little better? Always we can do things a little better, but when it comes to constructing things, government has been reviewing them for a very, very long time, and we’ve gone through a number of iterations of the types of information and who’s involved. Can we make it better? Yes. Is there a gaping hole? I would argue no.

Like I said yesterday, I’ve been in Treasury Board in the ’90s and the 2000s and in the teens, and these major projects do get a lot of scrutiny. That is our intention, as public servants — to provide the best advice we can and enable the decision-makers to make the decisions. Can we do better? Yes. There’s always the opportunity to do better. Do I think there’s a major risk here? My belief is no.

C. Bellringer: We were just discussing how we would characterize it, and we’d say it’s more in the category of efficiency than around risk, that it could get there faster with better guidance. I guess it’s five years since the audit was done, so should those guidelines be in place? We always argue for faster is better, but we understand the complications of a comprehensive stakeholder engagement strategy. I mean, not dismissing the challenges with that, but at the end of the day, it’s always good to have a little bit of heat to keep it moving faster.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): We’ve reached a point now where pretty much all the recommendations have been met and are being implemented. How have you found…? Having gone through the whole process from the audit through to the recommendations’ implementation, can you give me a sense of the effectiveness of that process or how it’s enhanced in the other aspects of your operations — any added value that you’ve got? It is lots of ministries coming together. It might be a by-product. It might not have been intentional. But what, overall, has this process really resulted in for you?

D. Galbraith: I think it’s been very positive. I’ll let Heather hop in. I encourage my team to tell me when I’m wrong because they’re the experts more than I am. What I think it’s done is it’s encouraged a lot more work up front. I think the more work you can do up front, the better off you are, especially in these big projects.

The risk screen tool that we’ve developed has been very helpful. It’s probably expedited a number of things, where if something doesn’t meet the risk screen threshold, then we can utilize a faster approval process. So I think it’s been well worth it. We, at Finance, love templates, love structure, love process, love policy, because then I think that helps the decision-makers have a much more clear piece of advice to choose from.

From my perspective, I think it’s been very beneficial. I’m a big believer in continuous improvement.

Heather, is there anything you’d like to add?

H. Hill: No, I think I would agree. I think the risk screen template also has brought improved consistency between ministries in terms of how we approach, especially the risk and complexity and analyzing for each project and what level of approval a project would require.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Mitzi.

Adam, to your comments earlier, I think this is one of the areas where it can give us hope that the consistency that we see missing in some places, in the gaps that have been identified, in terms of risk analysis and quantification…. This is an example of how audit direction has made a change in practice, which is for the better.

[11:55 a.m.]

I think there is some hope. We just need to see how that applies itself more broadly. I found that very encouraging.

Ralph, you’re up next.

R. Sultan: Just for my education and perhaps the education of the entire committee, I’m very interested in the role played by Partnerships B.C. in this project. I presume the consensus is that the project has been a success, and I presume Partnerships played an important role in that.

However, I do get the impression that Partnerships B.C.’s job description has changed somewhat since the early days when Gordon Campbell was going to save the world with infrastructure built on the basis of a 3P model. I’m not even sure if that is the way the world actually evolved.

Can you give just a bit of a snapshot of the role you played in the Evergreen project, through Partnerships B.C., and the ongoing role you’re playing?

A. Farrell: Yes, of course. I’d be happy to.

Partnerships B.C.’s main role was with respect to the business cases. We developed the 2008 business case on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation, and we did a lot of the procurement analysis in the 2010 business case that went to cabinet.

It’s a bit confusing, because my personal role…. I had a dual role during the time with Evergreen. I was the CEO of Partnerships B.C., but at the same time, I was the executive director of the Evergreen Line, working for the Ministry of Transportation. I sort of had two hats during that time, which is slightly unusual. That’s partly why I’m more involved in the delivery than I normally would be.

In terms of how Partnerships B.C. has evolved over 15 years, certainly in the early days, it was very much a sort of public-private partnership delivery type of agency. That has changed a lot. In fact, Evergreen isn’t really a public-private partnership. It’s a design-build-finance and is operated and maintained by TransLink. Over the years, we’ve moved into more broad — some P3s but a lot of design-build — design-build-finance type approaches.

Generally, we’re involved through the procurement process, and occasionally, when we’re asked to by a Ministry, we will help out during the actual design and construction of the project.

D. Galbraith: Sorry, if I could hop in. Amanda is not taking credit. I think Partnerships B.C.’s involvement in this process saved us upwards of $75 million on helping us on the structure of the contract and helping us with the risk allocation in that contract. Partnerships provides a number of services and, in this case, with a real return to the province, so to speak, in their involvement and what they did for us.

R. Sultan: Do you see that role continuing into the future as we hopefully have infrastructure, in all manner of speaking, under our new government?

D. Galbraith: All service delivery agencies will be receiving their mandate letters soon. We’ve been working on the relationship in the development of that mandate letter, and that will be coming out shortly, I believe.

S. Bond (Chair): I think that means, “Stay tuned,” Ralph.

All right. I just wanted to reflect on one thing, and not meant to be overly critical, because it isn’t. Maybe to the Auditor General, the whole issue of self-assessment…. This is not the first report we’ve seen where ministries think they’ve completed something, and the Auditor says: “Well, not quite.”

Is there a practice of…? I don’t know. Maybe it’s the comptroller general or somebody. Do people work with ministries on the whole concept of self-assessment? It is important to look at the progress realistically, to say: “Have we met the tests, and is it a consistent application of that?”

[12:00 p.m.]

We’ve had other ministries come through. “Yep, we’ve done it all.” Then the Auditor comes back to us and says: “Well, no, actually, you haven’t.” Is there a practice of improving that assessment and lining it up, making sure that changes are in a more direct alignment with the recommendations from the Auditor?

C. Fischer: There’s certainly an emerging practice on how action plans or documentation of the actions that will be taken have been evolving. That’s been very positive. Over the past year, we’ve had a lot of feedback as well that OAG has been quite proactive and engaging with responding ministries to talk about: “Well, why do you think you’re complete? What is it that we think provides the threshold that means complete or not complete?” As the Auditor General pointed out, it’s not merely having a plan to do something. It’s doing something and demonstrating that it’s effective and it works.

Given the nature and array of recommendations made across all audit projects, I don’t know that it’s possible to describe a yes-or-no tick or X-type approach to informing people when they are complete. I think it will be a process where, based on the individual needs of each audit and each recommendation, there will have to be a dialogue between the Auditors and the ministries to share their perspectives and determine where we are really on the spectrum.

C. Bellringer: I will go through some of the things that we do. When the action plans come in, the team that worked on it review them. They will often pick the phone up and call whoever has submitted it and say, “Can you explain to me what you’ve done,” and so on. But it’s a very preliminary and informal process that we do at that level. Then we do the more detailed assessment to determine which of them we’re going to go in and look at in detail.

Yes, we tend to look at the ones where everything across the board has been implemented because we appreciate as well that that is probably the last time you’re going to see an update from them. So last chance to make sure that that’s the case.

I’ve actually also provided feedback to the Deputy Ministers Council, to all of the deputy ministers as a group, just so that they know the kinds of things and the trend that we’re seeing around some being overstated. We say, “You know, it’s really important both for the committee as well as for us to do the assessment to know in a very open way what the real status is.” Overestimating the progress isn’t useful to anybody, and it isn’t good to have the progress assessment done to have that disagreement.

We’re quite okay with knowing what the status is if there’s been progress made. We get it that sometimes things can’t be complete. I think we’ve seen that improve. There’s always room for additional assistance from anyone who wants to jump in and provide central help to them, but that’s what we’re doing.

S. Bond (Chair): It’ll probably be more relevant with this afternoon’s report, but I’m actually fairly relieved that it’s not a black-and-white: “Yes, here’s the wording. Did you meet it to the…?” When you look at, for example, the report we’re going to look at this afternoon, there are massive implications of 63 recommendations.

It’s not black and white. There’s interconnectivity between ministries, and there may well be progress being made, but perhaps not discovered or defined in the Auditor’s report. So in essence, I assume from your perspective there needs to be some thoughtful discussion about what the action is related to the recommendation.

I think you’re saying that that’s the kind of discussion you do have with the ministry. So it’s not an automatic, that’s an X and this is a check mark. Is that a fair description?

C. Bellringer: It is. The only thing…. One of the reasons why the process moved from the way it used to be…. We published those updates previously, and we felt that it was then providing some assurance that by publishing it, we were satisfied with it. We hadn’t been doing anything with those.

For those that we have not looked at, even though we’re making a few of those calls, it’s part of the dynamic process of improving them. We’re not saying we’re okay with it. So that would be the only caution in terms of the only ones we can say we are or are not okay with the progress….

[12:05 p.m.]

It’s not an assessment of whether we like the progress and think it’s enough. It’s whether or not the self-assessment is being reported fairly to you, only on the ones where we have selected them and done that detailed analysis. As you described, it is not a very easy thing to do. It takes us several hundred hours to get to the conclusion that we can or cannot agree. Those are the only ones we are providing assurance on.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you for that.

A. Olsen: If I may, I think that the self-assessment processes that I’ve been through provide an opportunity to reflect. But it does require there to be…. You know, that’s the check. You need the balance on the other side of it, which is that we circle back around to the point that we made, I think, a couple of weeks ago — that we circle back around and follow up.

In self-assessments, it’s pretty easy. If we know that no one is going to be following…. “Oh, yeah. I did great. Man, I’m doing awesome.” Right? Then gone and move on to the next one.

There is a lot of work to do. Part of our job, in terms of the accountability and transparency and making sure that people are following up is just that: circle back around. Then maybe the self-reflection takes a little bit longer. We reflect a little bit deeper and are less willing to just say how awesome we are and actually have a more honest assessment. Not an honest assessment. Sorry, that’s assuming there’s dishonesty. But an assessment that accurately reflects what’s happening.

S. Bond (Chair): I totally agree with that. I think all of us recognize that when we prorogued parliament, this Public Accounts Committee in this form needs to be reconstituted. Once we have some certainty and longevity for the committee — because we don’t know, and you may not know…. We don’t know who the new members will be. It may well be all of us.

I think that we’ve made it clear that follow-up is something that this group of members, at least, is very interested in. The previous Public Accounts Committee had a different approach. I think that we, at least as a group, have expressed exactly the kinds of concerns that Adam has talked about. It’s great. We do feel like: “Okay. This report has been produced. We’ve had a conversation. We’ve identified some things.” And then we move on.

I think that there is an evolution of discussion that may well come from this group once there is, perhaps, some more longevity over the next session of parliament. It’s a good reminder. That certainly is on Mitzi’s and my list of things that we agreed to follow up on as Chair and Deputy Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you to the presenters today. Finance, you did pretty good there. But MOTI and Partnerships sort of got the gold star today, and you kind of got a silver. So I assume you’re working on that.

Thank you very much to the audit team for their work. We appreciate that. It’s been a busy morning. The committee will now recess. I’m very conscious that we have a large number of people available to respond on behalf of government, so I won’t change the start time because we obviously can’t contact all these people.

We will reconvene at 1:30. In the meantime, lunch for members and others will be provided, I’m told by the Clerk, in this room. We’ll recess the committee, with our appreciation to the presenters this morning, and reconvene at 1:30.

The committee recessed from 12:08 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.

[S. Bond in the chair.]

S. Bond (Chair): Good afternoon. Welcome back to the afternoon session of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I appreciate everyone being on time so that we can continue our work.

This afternoon we will look at a report released, obviously, by the Auditor General. The work that we’re going to look at today is a work that was produced by the Auditor General’s office in December of 2016.

The report is titled Follow-up on the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. I think you can tell by the number of people that are in the room that this is a very complex and, obviously, very emotional file. I know that all of us, in preparing, and many of us who have been engaged on this file over time, would probably want to reflect for a moment on the magnitude of what happened.

In the background of the Auditor General’s report, there is a quote that captures probably how all of us feel. I think this is one of those very specific places where these kinds of things transcend politics. The quote says, and I will read it: “Individually, the loss of each woman is heartbreaking. Taken together, the murder and disappearance of so many women is horrific. It is incomprehensible because of the immensity of the tragedy, and it is appalling because of the vulnerability of the victims.”

That was a quote directly taken from Forsaken, volume 1. There was a massive amount of work done by commission chair Wally Oppal and received by the government.

[1:30 p.m.]

We want to thank the Auditor General for her and her team’s work, and also the government representatives who are here today. I don’t know who’s taking the lead speaking on behalf of government, but I’ll just ask you to be prepared to introduce or have each person introduce themselves and which ministry they represent.

As is the practice at Public Accounts, the Auditor General will make some opening remarks. At that point, her staff will walk through a PowerPoint which summarizes the recommendations, and then government will present its response, whoever is leading that presentation. Our committee members are fantastic at doing their homework. We’ll then open it up for questions, and each ministry representative should be prepared to answer some of those questions.

Not an easy topic. Not an easy afternoon. As we discussed this morning in Adam’s comments, many of these comments come with emotion and a great deal of feeling and the unimaginable horror for families that they continue to face today.

With that, Carol, would you mind making some opening comments?

Follow-up on the Missing Women
Commission of Inquiry

C. Bellringer: We are pleased to present our report Follow-Up on the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. With me for this report I have Malcolm Gaston, the assistant Auditor General, and Sarah Riddell, senior manager, who led the examination. And I will answer that. It was a very difficult piece of work for them to be having to plan and then to complete, so a lot of credit to that team.

The examination followed up on government’s progress in implementing selected recommendations and both of the urgent measures that were made by the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry to increase the safety of vulnerable women and girls in British Columbia. It’s not a follow-up in the same context as the other follow-up reports that we’ve brought to the committee. It’s not a follow-up of our work. Rather, when we decided that it was important to look at the area, we did recognize that the work of the commission just wasn’t something that could be duplicated in any way and that that was the best starting point.

We did look at the extent to which government could demonstrate that it had addressed the intent of the commission’s recommendations. We did find that government had achieved significant results in some areas, and there was still important work to do and, therefore, to communicate. Because so many families and communities are impacted by these tragedies and their legacy, we do feel it’s important that government continue to share its progress with the stakeholders and the public. The commission’s recommendations are still relevant, particularly with the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls that’s underway.

We did complete the work over a year ago. Since that time, we do know that progress has been made in enhancing the transportation options along Highway 16, including expanded bus services and community vehicle grants. The ministry — and I know they will speak more to this — is set to release its first annual status update on the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry recommendations, I believe in February, and we really do look forward to hearing about other progress that has been made.

I’ll turn it over now to Sarah, and she’ll go through the details of our examination with you.

S. Riddell: Good afternoon. In the 1990s and early 2000s alone, almost 50 women disappeared from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. After years of calls for a full public inquiry, the provincial government announced the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry in September 2010 and appointed Wally Oppal as the commissioner.

The commission had a mandate to make findings of fact on police investigations into 67 women who disappeared from the Downtown Eastside and the decision to stay the proceedings on the 1998 attempted murder charges against Robert Pickton. It could also recommend changes to investigations into missing women, suspected multiple homicides and homicides that involved multiple investigating organizations.

The commission issued its report, Forsaken, in December 2012. The report made 63 recommendations and identified two urgent measures; 54 of these recommendations and both urgent measures were directed at the provincial government, primarily the Ministries of Justice and Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Government issued two public status reports detailing its progress in implementing the recommendations, in 2013 and 2014. It stated that the second report would be its last.

[1:35 p.m.]

The purpose of our examination was to report on how the provincial government had responded to 21 of the commission’s recommendations and both urgent measures. We selected these recommendations based on risk, significance and the likelihood of driving positive change for vulnerable women.

For each recommendation and urgent measure included in our examination, we asked four questions. Did the provincial government commit to taking action in response to the recommendation? What actions did the provincial government take in response to the recommendation? Can the provincial government demonstrate that its actions respond to the intent of the recommendation? Does the provincial government have any future actions that respond to the recommendation?

We found the government had achieved significant results in some areas. For example, a compensation fund had been established for the children of the missing women. The Missing Persons Act was established and came into effect in 2015. And ongoing funding was being provided to WISH, an organization that provides services to women involved in sex work. Work in other areas, like transportation along Highway 16 and developing provincial bias-free policing standards, was still underway.

But some important measures were still outstanding. Government had not developed a protocol to help women involved in sex work feel more comfortable reporting violence to the authorities or provided additional support to family members of missing persons and the families of the missing and murdered women.

Through our work, we identified four challenges that impacted government’s overall progress in addressing the recommendations that we reviewed. The first was funding. In some cases, government did not allocate dedicated, sustainable funding to address the commission’s recommendations, which posed challenges.

The second was stakeholder engagement. During our fieldwork, we heard that government was not fully engaging with stakeholders on the implementation of recommendations, which increases the risk that its response will not address the target population’s needs. We were encouraged to see that stakeholder engagement improved as we carried out our work.

Third was reporting. Government stopped reporting on its progress in implementing the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations in December 2014. Continuing to report publicly until government has completed its planned work would allow the provincial government to be held accountable, ensure the public is aware of new resources and enable the provincial government to share knowledge to help people work together more effectively and efficiently.

Finally, there was no champion to drive progress. Government appointed a champion shortly after Forsaken’s release, but he resigned after 5½ months and was not replaced, leaving no one to spearhead the implementation of the recommendations or stakeholder engagement.

Ultimately, we made only one recommendation to government in our report: that it continue to report publicly on how its programs and initiatives are meeting the intent of the commission’s recommendations. This is a complex issue with a diverse range of stakeholders, and there is still significant work to be done. A return to regular public reporting will set the foundation for meaningful engagement and collaboration between government and stakeholders going forward.

That concludes our presentation. Thank you very much for your time. We would also like to thank the ministries involved for their positive cooperation and support of this project. We look forward to seeing the upcoming status update.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Sarah. Thank you for the work that you and your team did. I’m sure it was a very challenging project, but we appreciate the report today.

I’m not sure who’s leading the presentation. Why don’t you introduce yourself and then perhaps your colleagues, so we have a sense of who’s in the room. You can start the introductions, and Susan will make sure that we have the PowerPoint on the screen.

T. Walsh: Good afternoon. I’m pleased to be here today to have this opportunity to discuss the Office of the Auditor General’s report. Deputy Solicitor General Mark Sieben sends his regrets. Unfortunately, due to a conflict with cabinet meetings, he is unable to join us this afternoon.

My name is Taryn Walsh, assistant deputy minister, Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. I am presenting today because up until recently, I worked with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, most recently, until December, leading B.C.’s coordination of our participation in the national inquiry on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

[1:40 p.m.]

As you referenced, Chair, the report includes a number of recommendations that touch on a variety of ministries and branches. For that reason, we have a number of colleagues here today who I’ll introduce: Clayton Pecknold, assistant deputy minister and director of police services, Solicitor General; Marcie Mezzarobba, executive director of victims services, Solicitor General; Deborah Bowman, assistant dep­uty minister of transportation policy and programs, Min­istry of Transportation and Infrastructure; Peter Juk, QC, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, B.C. prosecution services; James Deitch, executive director, justice services branch, Ministry of Attorney General; Toby Louie, executive director, corporate policy, Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I’m now on slide 2. Since the release of commissioner Oppal’s report in 2012, a substantial amount of work has been accomplished in response to the broad and complex recommendations contained in that report. While there has been significant progress, our work on implementing the commission’s recommendations continues.

For example, in 2018, consultations will continue on provincial policing standards for the promotion of unbiased policing, and government will continue to implement the Highway 16 five-point transportation action plan, which I will be discussing more in a moment.

The Auditor General’s report contains one recommendation, as was referenced, that the province report publicly each year on how programs and initiatives are meeting the intent of the commission of inquiry recommendations. The province has committed to implementing that recommendation, and the first public report will be released by the end of February. In future years, the scope of reporting may be modified to incorporate other related initiatives, such as recommendations from the national inquiry.

The Auditor General’s report identified four challenges that impacted progress on recommendations: funding, stakeholder engagement, reporting and accountability, and oversight of the implementation of the recommendations. The OAG report notes that some recommendations were implemented with grant funding and asserts that one-time-only funding poses challenges regarding service stability.

Grant funding, which involves an annual application process, has been provided to support the implementation of some recommendations. For example, grant funding has been provided for several years in a row to support organizations providing services to vulnerable women in the sex trade.

The province has made significant funding contributions to support the implementation of the recommendations and, as just a few examples, $4.9 million for the establishment of a compensation fund for the children of missing and murdered women; $6.4 million for safer transportation along the Highway 16 Corridor; $1.4 million for counselling and other benefits to family members; and over $1.2 million for projects supporting healing and rebuilding from violence against Indigenous women.

With respect to stakeholder engagement, the Auditor General’s report concludes that stakeholders were not fully engaged regarding the implementation of the recommendations. We have heard the concerns reflected in the report and from the stakeholder community. The province is committed to improving engagement with stakeholders, moving forward.

That said, targeted stakeholder engagement has taken place over the past several years on particular recommendations. For example, in 2014, two stakeholder dialogue sessions on policing were held, in Vancouver and Prince George. They included representatives from community agencies, Indigenous programs, families of missing and murdered women, and police. Input from these sessions was utilized in the development of police standards on missing persons investigations and the Missing Persons Act.

A second example is the stakeholder engagement undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure over the last three years. Community representatives, First Nations and other stakeholders along the Highway 16 Corridor have been engaged to identify transportation challenges and to develop and roll out the deliverables of the Highway 16 five-point action plan.

Stakeholder engagement remains ongoing. The Solicitor General Ministry is in the initial stages of stakeholder engagement on the development of provincial policing standards on the promotion of unbiased policing. The Ministry of Transportation will continue to engage and work closely with a variety of community and local government partners and organizations as it continues to implement the five-point action plan.

Government’s commitment to long-term engagement has been established through ongoing commitments, such as the memorandum of understanding to stop violence against Aboriginal women and girls, signed with First Nations leadership in 2014; the memorandum of understanding on social determinants of health, signed with First Nations Health Council in 2016; and the memorandum of understanding to develop an Indigenous justice strategy, signed with the B.C. Aboriginal Justice Council in 2017.

Additionally and more broadly, government has committed to implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action.

[1:45 p.m.]

The Hon. Steven Point was appointed in December of 2012 to provide advice to government as the province implemented the recommendations. The role was not intended to be an official oversight function, and as noted, he resigned in May 2013. The Auditor General’s report concludes that the provincial government’s decision not to appoint another champion left no one to spearhead the implementation of the recommendations. The work Mr. Point engaged in is appreciated and left government positioned to move forward and continue leading the implementation of the recommendations.

Ultimately, the provincial government has responsibility for reviewing, considering and responding to the recommendations contained in the report. The recommendations in the inquiry report are broad and reach across many areas of government. A single champion would not be well positioned to respond to the full range of recommendations. Additionally, engaging a new champion amidst the current national inquiry on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls would pose additional complications.

The provincial government previously issued two public reports regarding progress on the implementation of the recommendations, in 2013 and 2014. As has already been noted and stated, government has heard and acknowledged that there is a need to resume annual reporting. We’ve committed to do so, and that will be released next month.

Since the release of the inquiry report in December 2012, significant progress has been made to expand services, enhance policy and increase knowledge and skill of front-line service providers. Recommendations contained within the report can be categorized into four broad themes: compensation and healing, improvements to policing, safety for vulnerable women, and supports in missing-persons investigations. Progress has been made within each of these four themes.

Regarding compensation and healing, to date, 93 of the 98 children identified of the missing and murdered women have been provided with $50,000 each in compensation. Efforts continue to provide compensation to the remaining five children.

Counselling continues to be available for family members through the crime victim assistance program, and there is a network of almost 400 victim services and violence-against-women programs available to provide emotional support, referrals and information to victims and family members. Healing and rebuilding from violence remains a priority. The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General has provided civil forfeiture grant funding since 2014 for projects supporting healing and rebuilding from violence in Indigenous communities. In 2017, over $336,000 was provided.

Roughly half the commission’s recommendations involve policing. The inquiry recommended that the provincial policing standards be established in four areas. To date, the province has completed standards in three of these areas, and consultation on the remaining standards is underway. In addition, the Police Act has been amended to permit the director to order an external audit of an inactive major crime investigation if it is determined that the provincial standards have not been met.

Steps have also been taken to further integrate policing across jurisdictions. The Real Time Intelligence Centre was established, providing 24-7 support to police as they investigate crimes that pose a threat to public safety, including missing persons.

Section 4 of the Police Act was amended to clarify government’s authority to enhance the structure and delivery of specialized policing services.

The province has collaborated with the policing community on the response to a number of recommendations, including sex work enforcement guidelines and communication strategies for issuing public warnings.

The work continues. For example, on recommendations related to training, fair and impartial policing training has been adapted for British Columbia and is currently being rolled out. Indigenous cultural safety training has been piloted.

Safety for vulnerable women. Actions to improve safety of vulnerable women have also been taken. Annual funding of $750,000 has been provided to WISH Drop-in Centre Society since 2013 to improve services to vulnerable women who work in the sex trade in Vancouver. Effective November 2017, funding to WISH increased to $1 million annually. In addition, nearly $1.2 million in grant funding has been provided to other organizations serving vulnerable and/or sexually exploited women.

A lack of safe transportation in rural and northern areas of the province was also highlighted in the commission’s report. In response to these concerns, a $6.4 million five-point Highway 16 transportation action plan is being implemented. Key components of the plan include expanding transit services along a stretch of the highway, supporting community-based transportation, providing driver training to First Nations members and increasing safety through infrastructure improvements such as webcams and transit shelters.

[1:50 p.m.]

The B.C. prosecution service has also developed a Crown counsel vulnerable victims and witnesses policy. The new policy identifies best practices for Crown counsel, aiming to ensure that all victims and witnesses, regardless of vulnerabilities, have an equal opportunity to participate in the criminal justice process.

Supports in missing-persons investigations have also been undertaken. These include the Missing Persons Act and regulations, which were implemented to provide police with tools to locate missing persons sooner. Provincial policing standards on missing-persons investigations were developed and took effect in September 2016. These new standards include a requirement that a family liaison be appointed to each missing-person investigation to provide updates and timely information to the family throughout the investigation.

Front-line victim services workers have received additional training to enhance their ability to support family members who have a missing or murdered loved one. And in 2017, a new family information liaison unit was established to assist families of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, provide them with information about the justice system and also facilitate access to case-specific information from police, coroners’ services and other agencies.

In summary, the provincial government is committed to leading action necessary for change to address violence against women, and this includes continuing to implement the recommendations from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry report. It will also include consideration of additional recommendations going forward, including those that result from the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

In closing, we would like to thank the Auditor General and her staff for their work on this report. Their approach to the examination was appreciated, and we thank the Auditor General for this balanced report.

At this point, we’re pleased to answer any questions from the committee.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Taryn, for the very detailed overview of steps that have been taken. We appreciate that and appreciate all of your colleagues that have joined us today.

We’re going to start with Jane.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just have, initially, one question. What is the relationship between the work that’s been done on a provincial level and what is happening nationally?

T. Walsh: The terms of reference for the national inquiry specifically include reference to Commissioner Oppal’s report as well as a number of other reports from across jurisdictions. The intent is that the national inquiry does not replicate that work but builds on the work. B.C. is seen as a leader in this regard, since we’ve had an inquiry on a relatively similar topic. So it’s very much incorporated, and we work very closely with our colleagues across the country.

J. Thornthwaite: I know that that particular project, nationally, has had some problems and some turnover. Has that influenced your work at all?

T. Walsh: The inquiry has had some turnover in staff. We have two FPT working groups. One is chaired by the Department of Justice, concerning legal issues; the other, by Indigenous affairs Canada, concerning issues such as family supports and others. We have representation on both of those committees and work closely with our counterparts in other jurisdictions to ensure a coordinated approach as much as possible.

My understanding is that the inquiry is proceeding with hearings imminently and that, potentially today, additional family hearings in Vancouver are going to be announced for this spring.

A. Olsen: Thank you to all of you for having your attention on this. The only thing that really showed…. I see government working towards it. I just am a bit concerned that it seems to be taking quite a bit of time. It appears to me that it needs to be a culture of government to be very proactive about this, in being on top of it.

I put some notes throughout. It’s taken five years for us to get this. Why five years? Maybe there could be a comment just in terms of the pace. Is it because…? Why is it that we seem to have such a long period of time between this devastating reality and then the results, or getting on it?

[1:55 p.m.]

S. Bond (Chair): Taryn, feel free to have your colleagues also respond. Obviously, one of the major issues is policing, and that’s taken some time. Why don’t you start, and then if others feel that they want to respond, please do.

T. Walsh: I think some of the challenges include that the recommendations themselves are broad and complex, but the issues that they relate to are even more broad and complex in the sense that they touch on all of the social-economic factors at play that result in a number of unfortunate circumstances.

Many of the women, for example, in these cases were vulnerable for a variety of reasons — personal trauma, mental health, substance use, poverty, challenges with education, health care, etc. These are complex issues that are difficult to address. We prioritized actions as possible, in terms of front-line services, and also a number of responses in the policing area thus far. But we acknowledge that work needs to continue. The pace is definitely a challenge, and we’ve heard that from stakeholders as well. We want to acknowledge that.

A. Olsen: I guess I look at and certainly recognize the complexity of the challenges that we have here. But then I look at one of the recommendations, which was to fund WISH for 24 hours, from five hours, I think. WISH — I think it’s WISH — got increased funding to 18 hours. I’m just wondering: at what point does it say: “Okay. Well, we could have this a 24-7, 365 service, but we’re going to choose not to”? Is there a rationale that said that, actually, the times throughout the day…? Or is this…?

It just seems to me like we could be going further. We could be pushing harder and just fall short, and then we could push further. Anyway, I’ll stop at that point.

M. Mezzarobba: With respect to the funding that was provided to the WISH foundation — which, as Taryn mentioned, is now up to $1 million — that is the funding that was provided to the organization. They look at their resourcing and the needs of their operation and how they want to allocate that. The agency offers their drop-in services now for 18 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

In addition to that, the ministry also provides the WISH foundation with $200,000 annually to operate the MAP van, which is a mobile access vehicle that is out from 10:30 at night until 6:30 in the morning to provide additional supports to street-level sex trade workers that may not actually access a centre.

We had conversations in the early days with the organization about the funding amount that would be available, and then they look at how they would like to allocate that — what resourcing they need for the centres, what resourcing they need for the MAP van — and allocate it accordingly.

A. Olsen: With respect to this notion of having a champion of moving this, of keeping it forward, I would imagine that — and I’m speculating a little bit here — the reason to have a face and a voice for this initiative is to continue to keep pressure on. It’s to ensure that momentum — I wrote here “accountability, momentum” — and actually to create a level of discomfort, really. That level of discomfort is there in order to keep the momentum and the accountability, to keep pushing it.

I’m just wondering if I could hear a little bit more on why it was chosen. I understand that now there’s an extra complexity with the missing and murdered Indigenous women, but I recognize that there was a large gap between then and now. I would like, I guess, more explanation as to why we haven’t had that voice, that face, that can be put to this really important work to keep the pressure on us at the political level — and on everybody throughout government, frankly.

T. Louie: I think, from the government’s perspective, we were actually very grateful to have the work that Mr. Point did in the short time that he was in place as a champion.

[2:00 p.m.]

When government appointed the champion, we recognized we needed a person to actually consult and talk to the affected communities, to the Downtown Eastside, various groups. But at the end, regrettably, Mr. Point also had to step aside because of the litigation that was underway. From the short time that he was there, we recognize that given the broad scope of the recommendations and the difficult issues, there wasn’t just one single champion.

Government had a task at that time to decide how we would proceed. The strong recommendation from Mr. Point was to be very careful how we actually proceed. I recognize, and we recognized, that there’s a need for a champion, but Mr. Point also made it clear that you have to be very careful. He had some challenges himself, when he was appointed, in consulting with community, and his advice was to be careful how you actually proceed and how you select another champion.

Some time had actually gone by, and we decided…. I think government made the decision. It wasn’t just one single champion, but we actually needed to have efforts on different fronts. And given the complex issues, we’re proceeding on different fronts. And through stakeholder engagement, we’re doing that as well.

A. Olsen: Just to be frank, what I see…. I feel that the opportunity that presented itself when Mr. Point stepped down was to heed his advice, which was to take care — and to take so much care, in fact, not to appoint another person. To me, one of the telling things here, which is really in this, is that we had this decision not to write another report, not to follow up again — that this is going to be the last report. I think it was in 2014.

If there was a champion there, then there would’ve been…. I mean, part of this comes to light because the Auditor General does the report. So this is why I’m saying: yes, there’s some discomfort that’s created, but also we need somebody to ensure that the momentum is maintained. That’s what this role was.

I see the government deciding, once Mr. Point steps down…. Yes, he did good work in 5½ months, but we’ve now had a number of years, a full four years since then, where we haven’t had somebody other than the Auditor General’s office doing the status report to say: “Okay, let’s go in and see where we’re at with this.” One of the recommendations that the Auditor General has looked at and has recommended that we have is that voice.

Is it inconceivable for us to have…? Is it so difficult that we cannot have a champion named? Have we come to such great obstacles that from a legal perspective or from an advocacy perspective, that position cannot be filled? To me, it needs to be pretty compelling that this is an impossible situation, really.

T. Louie: I think it’s difficult for one person or one champion. I think we recognize the recommendations made by Mr. Oppal, with regards to the champion. I think how we decide to proceed is to actually have a number of people step up and be champions, on the policing front, in terms of supports for the community, in terms of transportation. The community is also key and centre in terms of what they would like to see.

I do take the question and the point, and we recognize the need for one champion, but I think the approach was that we would actually have a series of champions, and the ministers responsible would actually be moving this forward as champions for the recommendations.

A. Olsen: Who are those champions? I mean, the point…. If we have multiple champions leading various sectors…. I’ve been pretty plugged in. I’m new as an MLA, but I’ve been plugged in. I could identify Steven Point because it was a public announcement, a public thing. But I can’t identify the other champions on the other aspects of this. There are so many recommendations here.

[2:05 p.m.]

On the other side of it, we do have a champion for children and youth, and we have a champion for seniors. Those are also very complex, multifaceted, integrated all through society. We have other examples of people who champion a complex issue.

I think the reason why I’m putting a fine point on this is because it’s so easy, for these most difficult things, for us to want to just move past them. By having a very strong public voice, a public face, someone with very strong credentials, makes it difficult for us all. I’m not saying the bureaucracy…. This is not pointing fingers. This is all of us. I call for accountability on us politicians much stronger. We cannot be let off the hook on this. This is awful — what has happened in the past in our province.

I’m asking you to maybe defend what were political decisions, but I want to know that we cannot do this, and if there is a way for us to do it, then I’ll be calling on government to do it. I guess I need a compelling reason that we absolutely could not do this or that it was maybe a choice to not do it. That’s why I’m pressing on it.

It’s fine. Yeah, you’ve answered it several different ways. It’s good.

T. Louie: Maybe if I could just add one thing. I certainly take the points being raised, and I think “could not” or “never” is really a strong position or term. I think what I can say is that at the time when government was faced with how to proceed with this, it actually looked at the decisions very carefully and also took into account Mr. Point’s views of being careful how to proceed. I think it was more of a decision at that point in time. I didn’t want to give the impression that there’s a “never” here.

S. Bond (Chair): Thanks, Toby.

A. Olsen: I would say that we were very careful — very, very, very careful — and we didn’t have that. Anyway, I would also just say…. What impact has the one comment in the report with respect to annual funding to stable and consistent funding? Is there anybody that can make a comment to that?

There’s clearly a fairly substantial amount of money, although in the grand scheme of things in the budget, it’s not a huge amount of money that we’ve been investing into changing the course in our society. Can you maybe shed some light on how having these organizations make application on an annual basis for money as opposed to maybe committing stable and consistent funding to them — what the impact of that choice would be?

M. Mezzarobba: I’ll respond to that question.

With respect to supporting organizations to respond or address the needs of vulnerable women in the sex trade or whether we’ve been focusing on healing and rebuilding initiatives, the budget for victim service and violence against women program was allocated. We looked at the funding source that we had available, and that’s our civil forfeiture funding dollars. We made decisions that these were important initiatives that we needed to respond to.

We identified that, identified what we thought were a scope of criteria that would allow agencies to apply for funding to meet the needs of the community that they were working in — to support the women that they were working with. We’ve made a decision to make those funding categories available on an annual basis, as that is the funding that we’ve had available to do that with.

We’ve recently had a renewed call for proposals for fiscal ’18-19. Again, categories for supporting vulnerable women in the sex trade are included within that funding allocation.

A. Olsen: Thank you, and one final thing, Madam Chair, if I may. In meeting Mr. Buti yesterday and hearing about the difference between their PAC and our PAC, one of the things that’s repeated a couple of times throughout this report is that there were public calls for an inquiry into this, and there was eventually an inquiry into this.

[2:10 p.m.]

This is one example of where…. Had a committee such as PAC had the ability maybe not to do a full, in-depth inquiry but to review it and to make a suggestion from the peer group of the MLAs to say: “Yes, this is something that we should….” Maybe, perhaps, it would have been expedited and not happen 12 years…. I just wanted to point that out.

It was interesting, as I was reading through it, that other Westminster systems have that in place so that we could hold the government — I understand that this is a bit of a different situation right now — to account.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Adam, for those questions.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you to everybody for being here. I think it speaks volumes about how important this matter is. I’m also really impressed by everyone coming here today, which sends us the message, as well, of how serious this is and the work that has gone on, which is really important.

Thank you, Adam, for your questions. I don’t want to repeat any that I shared.

I just want to try and focus a bit more on the idea not of a champion but of leadership and accountability. That was probably what a champion was designed to do — to have that focal point that everybody recognizes and to also have the authority or the mandate to go around and ask the ministers to produce reports or whatever.

I think the committee is probably still left with an inadequate understanding of what we have in place — because it is across many ministries — that can demonstrate that we have champions in each ministry or we have leadership in each ministry, that that leadership comes together and that somebody takes responsibility for making sure that all ministries are meeting really high standards in this area of work.

Could somebody give us the sense of that?

S. Bond (Chair): Maybe another way…. I had this on my list too. I think both Adam and Mitzi are capturing a point that’s important to us. It’s often said that joint accountability means no accountability. So could you perhaps describe to us the working group configuration? Who is the leader?

There must be somebody who convenes, especially since we have a new government. Where does the leadership authority lie at this point in time? And how do those groups function, basically, to demonstrate that there are multiple champions? Maybe if you could help us figure out the configuration.

T. Walsh: Sure. And apologies, Chair and committee. I should have specified, for the sake of clarity, that it’s the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General that’s the lead for government on continuing to implement the Oppal recommendations and, also, coordinating the participation in the national inquiry.

That would be currently…. In terms of a staff lead, it would fall under the Deputy Solicitor General’s office. Until last month, it was me. We’re in transition right now in terms of a specific staff lead. That responsibility includes coordinating, across the AG and SG, with other ministries such as Transportation and, as we move forward and look at these issues more broadly, with other relevant ministries such as Children and Families, Education, etc.

I did just want to comment. There was a mention before about stopping the annual reporting. Just to provide some context around that, there was never any thought that we were complete and mission accomplished in terms of these recommendations. That was never the intent or position.

There was consideration of rolling up that reporting into broader initiatives around addressing violence against women generally, such as under the violence-free-B.C. strategy, and addressing violence against Indigenous women, in particular.

Again, I want to acknowledge that we’ve heard, through the Auditor General’s report and through stakeholders, that there is a high level of need and desire and interest in specific annual reporting. We’re committing to do that going forward.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Part of my inquiry about the leadership is also around the momentum, which was another question that we’ve already had here today. There’s the accountability, but I think there’s also the momentum — rather than it getting sucked up into something bigger or: “Why is it taking so long to reach this far?” Are there any ways that people can be supported and given incentives to accelerate any of the work that’s being done?

[2:15 p.m.]

T. Walsh: Is there a particular area of work or recommendations that you’re interested in hearing about or just generally?

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Generally, in terms of the process as well. You know what I mean? As Shirley was asking, is part of the configuration of actually addressing the recommendations that people come together and that people can share ideas and come up with action plans and then come back together really quickly and look at progress and success that’s been achieved?

T. Walsh: There are internal discussions within ministries and branches. There are also discussions and consultations with stakeholders. Some of the key stakeholders would include the Missing Women’s Coalition, which is an amalgamation of a number of anti-violence and Downtown Eastside organizations. There are a number of Indigenous leadership tables, including the missing women’s advisory council on Aboriginal women, which has its particular focus on violence against Indigenous women.

The national inquiry, and that process, is facilitating a lot of connections, discussions and meetings, be they formal hearings or more informal gatherings and discussions that are taking place as that process unfolds. We’ve had family hearings already in Smithers, back in September. Now, about to be announced, are hearings that will take place in April in Vancouver.

All of these are opportunities for us to further engage, facilitate and make sure that we’re especially meeting the immediate needs of family members — again, acknowledging the incredible trauma that they’ve experienced. And to have to retell their stories, sometimes in a public setting…. That right now is definitely a key priority for us.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): I really appreciate the work that has taken place and hearing about what has happened and what actions have been taken.

I’m interested in: have you also then looked at what difference it has made? Do you already have a set of performance measures to say…? Like the investment in the Highway of Tears — do we also, then, have corresponding data that tell us: “Therefore, this number of women are safer,” or “We’ve seen a trend of missing women going down,” or “We’ve heard back from families that they’re feeling more supported”?

I appreciate all the actions. I’m really interested in what kind of difference it has created.

T. Walsh: I think there’s a different level of evaluation and data that’s available depending on the sector. But I see Deb Bowman nodding, and I know that she has some pending information that’s about to be released from her sector.

Deb, maybe you could share your perspective.

D. Bowman: Thank you very much, Taryn. Thank you, everyone, for the invitation to be here today to discuss this very important topic. I would like to, also, just state that from a personal and professional perspective, this has been a highlight for me in my time in the public service.

Working on the Highway of Tears and connecting communities along Highway 16 has been a huge focus of my group, policy work and programs. We have engaged, while not under what I would consider a banner of one champion, many champions across the corridor of people from all walks of life — elders, First Nations, local politicians, interested parties and stakeholder groups — around the need for adequate and safe public transportation along the corridor.

It has taken some time. I can understand some frustration and questioning about why this takes so long. Going back to the urgent measure, it was probably to look at a shuttle service along the corridor or some type of public transportation. What we found, when we did very intensive discussions along the corridor with a number of stakeholders, was that it was more than a shuttle service that was needed. We had to come back and think about a very comprehensive strategy to address transportation. So it did take some time.

We also had to build partnerships with all of the communities, the regional districts and the electoral areas along that corridor — that 800-kilometre stretch, which I travelled quite a bit over a number of years, meeting people and having discussions — because our transit system, as most of you know, is publicly funded. There’s a contribution from local governments.

A number of agreements had to be struck with those local governments and, along the way, agreements between local governments and local area First Nations and dialogue that had never really happened. What we’ve been able to accomplish…. We’re coming up to our first year of our transit program.

If you’ll indulge me, Chair, I have some numbers here. I think it speaks to MLA Dean’s question about what the results are.

[2:20 p.m.]

On the B.C. Transit route connecting Smithers to Moricetown, which started just about a year ago today…. Approximately 90 passengers use the service each month. The fare is $5, which is a reasonable fare. Some of the regional districts have also put in a reduced fare for youth and for elders.

On the B.C. Transit route connecting Burns Lake and Prince George, which started halfway through last year, approximately June 19, approximately 300 passengers use the service each month. Those numbers are far in excess of what we anticipated.

On the B.C. Transit route connecting Burns Lake and Smithers, which started on June 19, the same date, approximately 100 passengers use this service each month.

On the transit route connecting Terrace and Hazelton, which only started in November of 2017, approximately 240 passengers used this service in its full month. There was a demand there, and it’s being met.

On the B.C. Transit route connecting Smithers and Hazelton, which increased service because we found that we were actually…. Unfortunately, there were more people needing to use the bus, so we increased the service to what was agreed upon with the local government. Approximately 355 passengers used this service in its first month.

Canada’s Public Transportation Infrastructure Fund has helped with the purchase of new buses on Highway 16, and the vehicles will be arriving and put into service later this year.

We have been able to negotiate an agreement with B.C. Transit that is far different from any other region in this province — where we, the province, are paying two-thirds of the operating costs, which is a different ratio of funding, and also 100 percent of the capital.

The community vehicle grant program, we felt, was very important to support the transit, knowing that communities needed transportation to go more day to day between their communities and neighbouring communities or do ad hoc travel for First Nations, elders and youth. We have granted $2 million to 12 organizations along the corridor. This was launched in March 2017. To date, 9,000 passengers have used the service, and not all of them are up and running yet. There are only five of the 12 that are actually up and running. Some of them are still purchasing their vehicles and working out their routing and operations.

The First Nations driver education program is being delivered by the Carrier-Sekani Family Services. They were awarded the contract in October 2016. This driving instruction provides training to First Nations community members to boost the number of class 4 and licensed class 5 drivers. This includes initial training for class 7, which is learners and new drivers. To date, 100 people have received training from this program. We anticipate another 200-plus students through 2018.

That’s just a bit of an overview for you, MLA Dean, of some of the numbers. What we’re seeing, obviously, is a lot of use of the transit. We are committed to the program. The ministry initially announced three years of funding, and I can tell this committee that we are committed for five years of funding, so our contribution to urgent measure No. 2 has been growing increasingly every year that we’ve been working on the five-point action plan.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thanks. Just a final point on the funding and the grants. It does sound like some funding is still yearly. I know the recommendation from the Auditor General is that that isn’t stable enough, so I think that’s something that is still outstanding.

When I was reading the report from the Auditor General and knew the recommendation was another report, and then I heard that we are producing another report, I was really pleased to hear that. I really look forward to reading it and having an opportunity to look at it in more detail.

B. Ma: Many of my questions have already been answered, so I’ll just have a few specific ones outstanding.

During your presentation on slide 9, I believe, Taryn, you were talking about improvements to policing.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’m not certain if I heard it correctly, but I think I had heard that there were three out of four policing standard recommendations that had been completed, and there was one still ongoing. Did I hear that correctly?

T. Walsh: Three separate sets of policing standards…

B. Ma: …had been completed, and one remains. Would you be able to tell us a little more about that one that remains?

T. Walsh: Yes, it’s regarding unbiased policing.

Clayton?

C. Pecknold: Certainly, MLA Ma. If you don’t mind, I’ll give you a little context. The standards are created pursuant to statutory authority under the Police Act, which I hold as director. I make those decisions on standards, in terms of the creation of the standards. We’re ultimately accountable to the minister. That gets at the previous discussion with respect to accountability. The standards that were initially created were the missing-persons standards and the major-crime standards. To give further context, when we create policing standards, they are created in the context of the arm’s-length relationship with police agencies.

For example, municipal police agencies in this province are governed by a police board. Our standards can be binding on the police boards or the chiefs of police. With respect to the RCMP in the province, the standards are not legally binding, but we incorporate the RCMP into our discussions, into our planning and into our various working groups to try to make sure that we harmonize with their national standards.

That can add complexity. It does add significant complexity, and sometimes it adds to the time factor, especially when those standards ultimately must be approved in Ottawa.

We did prioritize coming out of the prior inquiry, the Braidwood Inquiry, where we created standards for the use of conducted-energy weapons, commonly referred to as Tasers, and a number of binding standards. We then took the team that was working on that, essentially put a boundary around them, and asked them to start working on the various standards. They completed the missing-persons standards, which had a number of components, and the major-crime standards.

We are now about to embark on a broad engagement on bias-free policing standards. There has been quite a bit of work done on bias-free policing standards, mostly with respect to creating a framework against which we can ultimately create the standards and then ultimately audit against those standards.

B. Ma: Thank you so much. My next question is in regard to the reporting, and I’m very pleased to hear that we will be producing another report in the future. I believe it was MLA Dean who had asked about what happened when government stopped reporting in 2014. You had mentioned that there were intents to roll up the reporting in different areas — I guess to roll up this report in other violent-crimes reports and so forth.

I’m wondering. Did that happen? Is there a section somewhere that’s available? I’m sorry that I haven’t gone through every single report that exists out there. But is there a section out there that covers what we might see in an independent report on this particular topic?

T. Walsh: The broader strategies around violence against women and addressing violence against Indigenous women would not contain a specific, detailed update on all the 65 recommendations or the 56 directed at the province. Again, acknowledging that there is that need, that will be the intent of the report that will be released next month. It’s to provide an update on all the major areas and themes of the report.

B. Ma: I do want to echo MLA Olsen’s comment that it does seem to be taking quite a long time — recognizing that it is very complex. I’m wondering whether or not we have an estimated time of 100 percent completion. Is there a time at which point government is confident that all the recommendations have been completed?

T. Walsh: To date, there’s been action taken on 46 — we’re double-checking with staff — of the 56 recommendations directed at government. It’s not that they’re all complete, but some action was taken.

It’s challenging to determine or estimate when there would be 100 percent completion, because some of the recommendations may be considered but not implemented for various reasons. Some are perhaps getting a bit outdated. Some of the specific feasibility studies are maybe no longer relevant in the context of the significant research and consultation that’s going on at the national inquiry, for example. But there has been significant action taken on many of the recommendations to date.

[2:30 p.m.]

Again, I’m wanting to acknowledge that that work needs to continue, and we anticipate there will be many more recommendations coming out of the national inquiry. We expect that report in…. Currently it’s due one year from now.

B. Ma: My last question is more for the Auditor General’s team, in regards to terminology. On page 17, there’s a little call-out box that talks about using the term “sex work” versus “sex trade” versus “prostitution” and acknowledges that there’s ongoing political and philosophical debate over the appropriate terminology. I’m wondering whether you might be able to elaborate a bit on the use of various terminology, as you understand it, and how the Auditor General’s office came to the term “sex work,” at the end of the day.

C. Bellringer: We don’t have anyone here who was in the…. When we were doing the work, it most certainly did come up within our internal review processes that the use of terminology definitely was an emotional trigger, and we wanted to be very careful with everybody we were speaking to that we were using a language they were comfortable with. The use of the wrong terms…. We wanted to highlight the fact that we never intended to show disrespect in the use of any term. It’s a non-judgmental process. It was very much looking at it from our own perspective and recognizing that it was certainly taken into account within all of the work that was being done to do the same.

You can see that neutrality in the sense of looking for ways for vulnerable persons who may be engaged in something that is seen as being…. There are legal implications to talking about certain things, but there would be protection for them in the actions that should be put into place to protect as opposed to judge. That was why we had to land on a language that we wanted to then use throughout the report.

It was also so there wasn’t seen to be a difference if we used one word and then changed to another wording, because some of it was taken from the different areas we were looking at. There might be a different language used in the documents we were reviewing, but we meant the same thing, so we chose the wording accordingly.

We also had a group of subject matter experts that were assisting us with the examination, and we asked them what the most appropriate language would be for the report.

R. Glumac: I’d like to pick up on the questioning regarding the champion. I think there have been some good points made about this, so I’d like to dig into this a little bit. On page 39, it says: “Many of the stakeholders we interviewed would like the provincial government to appoint a new champion or advisory committee to continue moving the recommendations forward.” Is there anybody from the Office of the Auditor General that was part of all those stakeholder meetings and can elaborate on the context of that and help us understand why they feel a champion is still necessary?

C. Bellringer: We’re actually quite protective once we’ve talked to everybody who we’ve engaged in the stakeholder consultations. We don’t then identify anybody specifically unless we’ve done so in the report. We do have the full list, on page 81, in a general sense, of who we engaged in the conversation. There were women’s service provider organizations, other social service provider organizations, Aboriginal service provider organizations, First Nations, local governments, legal organizations, community organizations, police organizations and then of course, internally, the ministries and agencies.

I would say that it wasn’t something that was coming from any one group. It would have been something that we heard from multiple groups and from multiple individuals so that we weren’t just repeating what one person happened to believe to be the case.

[2:35 p.m.]

R. Glumac: Given what’s been stated that we have many champions, it doesn’t appear that the stakeholders, in a broad sense, feel that that is as effective as having a single champion was maybe in the beginning. I think the comments that have been made about the value of having a champion to push these issues forward are valid.

I think the questioning earlier…. Is there any real strong reason why we couldn’t have a champion moving these issues forward? It seems like we could. From what I’ve heard in this discussion, I would like to see a champion be put in place to complete the recommendations.

I guess my question is: as a committee, can we make a recommendation that we would like to see a champion, to have our voice put to this issue? I guess, a question to the Chair and the Clerk.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, it’s certainly not the practice of this committee to wade into policy matters in that way. It doesn’t mean that…. Potentially, as we discuss the way this committee operates, that well may be a possibility.

I think, more poignantly, we represent all three parties in the House, and you have a mechanism through which to make that recommendation directly to government. So, I think until we sort out how this committee will evolve, we have to deal with the mechanisms that we have in place.

I certainly hear the intent. That’s not been the practice. That doesn’t mean it can’t change to be the practice, but I think we need to have a further discussion about those kinds of things, as we have discussed. I think you can certainly…. So there are ways that you can make your views about that known.

I think Toby also wanted to respond to that.

T. Louie: Thank you for that comment. I think we’re very appreciative of the work of the Auditor General on this particular matter and the views of the various stakeholders that the office consulted with.

The one thing, if I could just also add another element or an aspect to this…. Part of the reason why it was difficult to identify another champion, someone to take over for Mr. Point, was that there were different views. We do not dispute the fact that there were groups and individuals that wanted a champion, but we also were aware that there were differing views of who that champion would be. It wasn’t very clear-cut that there was someone else.

There were many people that could have been identified as a future champion, but we felt that, given the broad range of the recommendations and the issues, it was best, actually, to have, as we say, a series of champions or a number of champions. I believe Deborah Bowman mentioned that in terms of the work on the Highway 16 Corridor. So there was that element as well.

Even Mr. Point, in his advice to us, just as he was stepping down, said…. Even though he was very well regarded and very well respected, and still is, he also noted for us in the government that he even came across issues where it was difficult for him because the various communities that he was consulting with hadn’t been engaged. Government just identified a champion. Some groups also had some issues: how was he selected as the champion? We were mindful of those issues, and I just want to raise that — as some issues as to why it wasn’t clear-cut that there was just one champion to step in.

R. Glumac: Right. Okay. The situation right now is that, in the ministry…. You’re saying there isn’t a specific staff lead right now.

Mrs. Walsh, you’ve stepped down, so there isn’t one right now.

T. Walsh: There’s one who’ll be starting next week, so it is within the Deputy Solicitor General’s office.

R. Glumac: Okay.

T. Walsh: I just want to acknowledge the comments by the committee and that we in the ministry have taken note of that and will be following up.

A. Olsen: I couldn’t…. Mr. Pecknold thought that because my comments were over there, I wasn’t going to ask him something.

I should point out that when I was elected in Central Saanich… I called him Clayton then. But maybe I should call you Mr. Pecknold now. He was the deputy police chief in Central Saanich. We go back as long as I’ve been in politics, so it’s great to see you again.

[2:40 p.m.]

I just want to ask a question. Two questions, actually. The first one is dealing with the comment that was made with respect to victims who have warrants and the difficulty…. I respect that there are probably substantive legal challenges here. You’ve got somebody with a warrant who has experienced violence, and if they can’t go to the law without getting picked up, then who can they go to? I’m just wondering if maybe you can highlight what some of the challenges are. Are there solutions that you’re working towards?

It might be too difficult a question, but I think that it was important to bring it out, because this is one of those places that we need to address in order to provide some protection.

C. Pecknold: MLA Olsen, I regret that my first response to you is to pass the buck. I will pass that to Mr. Deitch, but I’ll be happy to follow up on anything.

J. Deitch: Thank you. I’d just like to commence and acknowledge that we’re meeting on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish people. I’m grateful to be here with you today for this meeting.

MLA Olsen, in respect of your specific question. If I could just step back, because I think what we did was we looked at what the intent of the recommendation was, reflecting on Commissioner Oppal’s comments in this regard. I would describe the intent of that recommendation — around the enforcement of warrants with regard to sex trade workers — was really to address an issue that community members and police could agree on as a priority issue.

Unfortunately, the way in which that recommendation was framed, it referred to a protocol. A protocol has distinct legal meaning, which raises certain concerns and undermined the usefulness of any consultation. It also referenced the consultation between the judiciary and the police, which raised further issues. I can go into more detail about that, if you’re interested.

There were a number of reasons why we concluded that a protocol was not workable in the circumstances. Largely, that relates to the way in which the criminal justice system works. It operates in an environment where there are independence issues between the various participants in the system — the judiciary and the police being two who have distinct areas of independent discretion, an independence which is regarded as sacrosanct within the justice system.

I suppose the other thing is that the police already have discretion in how they exercise their authority and their enforcement proceedings, and that applies to warrants just as it does to a whole range of other things. So the development of a protocol, which does have a legal meaning, could actually have effectively undermined that exercise of discretion and could have fettered that discretion.

C. Pecknold: May I add, Chair?

Perhaps to get to some other aspects of your question. Part of the work, with respect to the sex enforcement guidelines that were created and have now been endorsed by the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police — the work we’re doing with fair and impartial policing, the work we’re doing with Indigenous cultural safety training, the review of the curriculum that we’ll be doing at the Police Academy — is to get at those underlying biases in question so that when police officers are approaching people in vulnerable situations, they’re looking at it with a different perspective and a different lens.

I think that was very much an underlying, very significant theme of Mr. Oppal’s report. Frankly, in policing at that time, these women were viewed as worthy of being discarded, which is a great tragedy. All of this work is meant to come together to adjust and shift those attitudes.

[2:45 p.m.]

I’m happy to say that those attitudes have evolved and shifted significantly over a long period of time. We’re not going to stop moving forward on adjusting that culture and making sure that policing is responsive to that.

We’ve seen, more recently, concerns with respect to perspectives on sexual violence and investigations of sexual violence. We’re now incorporating that into our thinking around bias-free policing standards. It’s a constant evolution.

The specific recommendation we found was legally challenging to implement.

A. Olsen: One more, and then I will be done.

It’s interesting to hear “bias-free policing.” I recognize…. In the community that we come from…. Perhaps you had a much longer career before that, but where we met was in Central Saanich, where Indigenous, non-Indigenous Canada really plays out, with two First Nations reserves. You’re acutely aware. We had the RCMP and municipal policing service, which adds further to it.

When the coppers show up onto the res, there’s a lot of bias there, in terms of who’s showing up and what’s showing up. In many respects, it’s 150 years or 200 years of government policy that’s showing up at the door, and there are a lot of challenges there. I just wanted to point out that the job that’s done by the police is often to represent something much, much bigger than what they’re being called to deal with on that day, and also to point out on the other side that there have been substantive challenges with First Nations people being treated with bias by the police.

We have a collective duty, I think, to right that ship, in dealing with the really big challenges that we have there. I don’t know if you have a comment to it, but I didn’t feel like we could go through this without recognizing the really strong discomfort that’s there in this conversation that we have a duty to unpack.

C. Pecknold: I would simply say that I agree with you. It’s our collective duty.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, thank you. I have a couple of comments and questions. In the spirit of disclosure….

Adam, sorry. Did you have something?

A. Olsen: Mr. Juk had his hand up.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. Did you want to respond? Go ahead.

P. Juk: I just have a brief response that I thought might assist MLA Olsen with his question about the police.

One of the specific recommendations was, with respect to Crown counsel, putting in place a vulnerable victims and witnesses policy. If the members have had an opportunity to look at that, or if you haven’t, it’s worth pursuing, in my respectful suggestion.

The policy specifically talks about categories of witnesses. It includes specific references to Indigenous witnesses and victims, to sex trade workers. It talks about some of the difficulties of being in a vulnerable or precarious legal status — for example, outstanding warrants or immigration status in question — and talks about prosecutors needing to be specifically trained to deal with these types of situations and, at all stages of the process, working proactively with police, sheriffs and other people in the justice and public safety sector to ensure that, as best as possible, these witnesses and victims have an opportunity to get to court and that their evidence can be brought to court in a proactive way.

That’s one of the ways that we have worked together with police, moving forward on these matters.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you. I appreciate that.

In the spirit of disclosure, I think there are moments at committees like this…. I, like Deborah, was deeply impacted by this work and this report. I received the missing-women report and appointed Steven Point immediately. The recommendation, I believe, was: “Within 12 weeks, government should act.” We did it immediately, recognizing that there needed to be a significant response.

First of all, I’ve worked with many of the people around this table. While there may not be a face, I know personally how invested people who are in these roles are.

To Adam’s point, it can never be fast enough. All of us want it to be…. We want to ensure this never happens again. It was horrific.

[2:50 p.m.]

I will never forget the day that the report arrived. It was literally boxes of recommendations. It’s not like a piece of paper. It is incredibly complex and thorough. Commissioner Oppal’s time was extended as the commissioner in order to finish the work.

I, too, am relieved that public reporting will continue. I think that is essential. While my tenure ended…. I think we received the report of this in December of 2012, if I recall. Of course, we went to an election, and my position changed after that. I think a lot of fantastic work has been done, but there is more to do.

One of the things I was very relieved about today was knowing that our partnership in the national inquiry will actually build on the work that was done in British Columbia. While people may have speculated that there was a reluctance to be involved, it was a reluctance to replicate the work that had been done. We needed to get on with doing something about it. So I was very relieved to hear you say, Taryn, that it’s basically built on the work that has been done in British Columbia.

I have a couple of specific questions. I’m sure that even on the Auditor General’s team, anyone who has a connection with this report will be changed. It is staggering in terms of the impact that it had on Aboriginal women and their families. That somehow it happened in this province is unspeakable, and we do have more work to do. But I’m very encouraged today by what I hear. I share the concerns about joint accountability. I think the more specific the leadership that can be demonstrated, in terms of even the configuration of that…. It’s so that we can be assured that there are regular meetings, that we know the go-to person and how we can replicate that.

The Steven Point decision was a very difficult one, and as I say, it occurred sort of in transition time. But there were very significant legal matters that occurred. So it wasn’t a simple replacement issue, I think it’s fair to say.

I did want to point out something that I thought was very important work. The Auditor General is always very clear about the scope of their reports, and I think that’s an important thing. We look at a period of time and a snapshot. I was very grateful that on page 20, where the Auditor General looks at the scope of the examination, while the period that was covered was December 2012 to November 2016, I think this statement really matters.

To Adam’s point — what took so long? Why can’t we do this more quickly? — the Auditor General points out: “We also considered relevant actions taken by the provincial government between 2002 and 2012,” the time between the events examined by the missing women’s commission and the release of Forsaken. Of course, there was the Robert Pickton trial in between, causing additional complexity.

I think what encouraged me was that ministries and government were taking action. It wasn’t that people were just sitting there. I appreciate that, and I wanted to highlight for the Auditor General that I thought that was an important perspective. While it isn’t reported on, there were things happening, particularly in the world of policing. I too have worked with Clayton and called him Clayton. We’ve had some very interesting discussions in our past, but always respectful and very much appreciated. So I wanted to make that comment.

Taryn, I think it was you that made the comment that some recommendations — or maybe it was a combination — may not be seen as completed or getting a check mark. But you made the point that those recommendations may have been folded in elsewhere or that a particular process may be outdated. I’m assuming, though, that there will always be a rationale provided as to how the government responded to that particular recommendation. It’s so that people understand it’s not that you’re just not paying attention to it, but that it was either viewed differently or may be outdated. Can you just confirm that that would be the case?

T. Walsh: Yes, I would confirm that. I think the language that we jointly established with the Office of the Auditor General was whether government has met the intent of the recommendations. Sometimes the specific wording, as has been highlighted already regarding some recommendations, might be problematic.

[2:55 p.m.]

Just as one example, there was a recommendation for a healing fund. That specifically has not been implemented, but there is annual funding every year for healing and rebuilding from Indigenous violence through the office of civil forfeiture grants.

That’s the kind of example I would use. We want to make sure we’re meeting the intent of the recommendations and report out on that. Especially as time moves forward, it might not be exactly as it was recommended at that time.

S. Bond (Chair): But at least the intent would be recognized, or the rationale, so that, ultimately, we will be held accountable by these families for the work that now, more than just us…. There’s a new government, and we will all be held accountable by these families for the actions we took. In essence, Commissioner Oppal’s work provided that road map. So I think there needs to be a very good rationale and explanation as to, if there is a different path chosen, why, so that families, in particular, can understand. Because they will hold us accountable, and rightly so.

I think you’ve heard our concern, and it crosses…. This isn’t a political issue. We do want to ensure…. Momentum does matter. I think that it can only be frustrating. I can’t even imagine families grappling with what happened in the first place, but to be looking decades later and still seeing what progress are we making. So I do think the public report will be welcome. I appreciate that that will continue. I think we do want to express our gratitude.

I will never forget, in my life, meeting with those families on the day the report was received. I’m sure Clayton and others who were there with me will never forget it either. I hope that it motivates us to be watchful and press for ongoing improvements and support the national inquiry as well in terms of how we make a difference on the ground.

This committee, I think, has a role to play and, as we’ve discussed, the follow-up and the momentum. Unless there are any further comments, I….

Rick, go ahead.

R. Glumac: Just one more question that I had. With the compensation fund for the children of the missing and murdered women, 90 of the 98 have been compensated so far. What’s happened with the other eight?

M. Mezzarobba: It’s 93 of the 98.

R. Glumac: Okay. What’s happened with the other five?

M. Mezzarobba: There are a few different reasons in some cases for circumstances in their personal lives. They’re not in a position to stay in contact and haven’t proceeded. In other cases, we’re challenged by having very limited information available to us in order to adequately identify who those children may be.

It has been a challenging exercise in some ways. For family and the children as well, it’s a process, and many of them face their own challenges. So we are doing our best to support where we can and have done that all the way along through the process.

We worked very closely with the Public Guardian and Trustee to ensure that there were supports in place to assist those who have come forward in accessing that funding and some guidance on that process, as well as what they might want to consider doing with the funds once received. So those are some of the challenges that we’ve faced.

We continue. We did extend the timeline. We’ll continue to look as that timeline is nearing conclusion in April, 2018. We’ll look at what options we have to ensure that funding remains available should the children who are not compensated come forward at some point in the future. That’s what we’re currently looking at now.

R. Glumac: We know that there are five. We know their names?

M. Mezzarobba: In some cases, no.

R. Glumac: Oh, really?

M. Mezzarobba: Correct.

R. Glumac: How do we know there are five?

M. Mezzarobba: We have done our very best through the process. Of the 67 women who were identified in the report, we have done our very best to identify any known living, biological children. In some cases, it’s unclear the specific identities of some of those children for a variety of reasons.

R. Glumac: Right. Okay. It’s already an incredibly tragic situation, and I can’t imagine what the children of those victims have gone through as well. I’m hopeful that we can reach out to them and find them as well.

Thank you.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you to the ministries represented here today. We urge you to be sure that there are champions in each of those ministries and that the accountability mechanisms are in place. We also look forward to the report in February and the work that will be done jointly with the federal government and other jurisdictions. Thank you to the Auditor General and her team for this report and the others that we have addressed over the course of these two days.

Unless there are any other items of business, we will adjourn this session of the Public Accounts Committee. I’m not sure when we will meet again. Obviously, the Legislature will prorogue, and we will need to be reconstituted. It’s unlikely we’ll meet before that, so I want to thank all the members for their hard work, doing their homework and bringing their, at times, emotional but important and thoughtful comments to the table. Thank you.

With that, we’ll adjourn the committee.

The committee adjourned at 3 p.m.