2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 6

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: Here in the main chamber of the assembly, Section B, I call continued committee stage of Bill 21, and in Section A, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, Deputy Premier and Minister Responsible for Housing.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On section 4 (continued).

G. Heyman: I like eagerness to get the bill through.

[1335]

In 91.61, it refers to a minister’s advisory committee and says: “The minister may establish an advisory committee, consisting of individuals appointed by the minister….” I’m wondering if the minister has any thoughts as to the nature of what she would consider an appropriate makeup of the committee — how people might be selected, whether there would be a public call for interest or terms of the selection process that are made publicly available for scrutiny.

Hon. M. Polak: I know the member will see in the legislation that this is very discretionary on the part of the minister. It’s intended to be that way in order to respond to any number of circumstances that may arise over time.

For example, there could be an overarching advisory committee that’s established to exist for the life of the legislation, with members renewed over time — what have you. Or there could be some issue arise about which the minister would wish to have some specific advice, and therefore, there could be a short-term advisory committee established to deal with a specific topic.

Of course, the member will also note that while representatives from local governments, First Nations governments and those with technical expertise have been outlined in the legislation, nevertheless, that’s without limitation. We think it’s important to be able to have that tool in order to engage and involve stakeholders, other levels of government, First Nations in whatever way is going to best suit the needs of the system at the given time and in a given circumstance.

G. Heyman: In section 91.7, there’s a reference to a “prescribed frequency,” under which the minister would report to the Legislative Assembly. Does the minister consider annually to be reasonable frequency for such reporting?

Hon. M. Polak: We are currently considering a time frame of every two years. However, we haven’t finalized that. Of course, we’ll be interested to hear input throughout the consultations.

[1340]

I will point out some examples. Western Canada Marine Response Corp. is required to be certified with Transport Canada on a three-year basis. Alaska reports biannually. Washington state reports biannually, although that’s specific to their geographic response plans for spills.

There are a number of ways to do it. We’re aware of other jurisdictions where it’s on a three- to five-year basis. We’re gravitating toward the every two years much like we see in Alaska and in Washington state.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Heyman: Section 92(1) talks about prescribing application requirements and qualifications that a preparedness and response organization must have and requirements that an organization must satisfy to be conditionally certified as a PRO or a conditional PRO.

Could the minister give some examples of what those qualifications might be and what the requirements that an organization must have might be — or at least, what the parameters or methodology of further determining and specifying those might be?

Hon. M. Polak: These would, of course, be regulations designed to provide criteria against which their application could be examined. In that regard, we are thinking of a number of different things.

Some examples could be requirements with respect to training and exercises and drills. How often do they have to have them? What types of drills and training do they need to undertake?

[1345]

It could be requirements around responder qualifications, types of equipment that would be available. It could also be requirements with respect to what attributes an applicant would need to have to become a conditional PRO or, ultimately, a certified PRO. But all those will be developed in line with what we’ve been hearing and also what is reflected in the intentions papers.
[ Page 12912 ]

G. Heyman: Will these qualifications as well as any information referenced in subs (iii) and (iv) respecting issuance, amendment, suspension, etc., as well as terms and conditions of a conditional PRO certificate or a PRO certificate be made public?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll just seek clarification, because I think I may have missed precisely what the member is wishing to know. All of this would be stated in regulation, so it would be public. I’m thinking perhaps that’s not the question the member had. I’m not sure.

G. Heyman: No, I think that does answer my question.

Would that be the same for the process for public review and comment referenced in (a.4)(ii)?

Hon. M. Polak: Yes. These are all about reg-making powers, so they would all be public.

G. Heyman: Sorry. Could the minister repeat that, please?

Hon. M. Polak: These are all regulation-making powers. All of this would be public.

G. Heyman: I believe the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has a question at this point.

A. Weaver: I was coming to…. On section 5(b), where it says: “by adding the following paragraph.”

I was wondering if, in more detail, the minister could provide exactly what was meant and what was being thought of when this paragraph…. It reads as follows: “Exempting a person, an organization or a thing or a class of persons, organizations or things from any provisions of Division 2.1 or the regulations under this Division, in circumstances and on conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes.”

If a few examples could be given in some detail. The reason why I ask is this sure looks to me like it’s essentially a loophole that essentially grants Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council powers to do anything they want. I don’t have any sense of guidance from this language as to what was intended here.

[1350]

Hon. M. Polak: First, the provision exists already. There is already a provision under the Environmental Management Act that is similar. Under section 138: “(s) exempting any operation, activity, industry, waste or works or any class of persons, operations, activities, industries, wastes or works from any or all of the provisions of this Act or the regulations in circumstances and on conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes.”

We have, in adding (d), then specified what would be in this legislation — so in this case, “exempting a person, an organization or a thing or a class of persons, organizations or things from any provisions of Division 2.1 or the regulations under this Division, in circumstances and on conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes.”

The intent in having this added to our new set of sections that are amending EMA is to accomplish the same thing that we have done in EMA.

I’ll provide an example. We have, of course, in this legislation…. Much of the public attention is on topics of interest to them — primarily right now, shipment of oil. That’s what people think about — an oil pipeline or what have you. But the effect of this legislation will be felt upon all 100-and-some-odd classified hazardous substances and how they’re stored and used and transported, and how that relates to spills.

[1355]

For example. This decision has not been made, but one of the things that staff are currently examining is: should one include your corner gas station under this scheme, or is there a more appropriate way to deal with that?

The power is there not for the purpose of being used widely to allow everyone to cheat on the legislation. Certainly, we can see in evidence the fact that this has not been a power widely used under EMA. The same would hold true here. It simply allows for the ability to exempt when we encounter a circumstance that really is presenting an unintended consequence and capturing those that maybe don’t fit very well under this scheme.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer. I guess my concern is when you go to EMA, it’s a little more specific. Here we’re talking about “a thing” — that this addition, this paragraph, exempts a person, an organization or a thing. When I hear language like “or a thing,” that implies to me that it could be anything.

I get that the purpose of this is to provide powers for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to exclude perhaps a corner store or gas station. My worry here is that so much of this is left to regulation that, essentially, we’re being asked to trust government with the enabling legislation, trust government to define “a thing.”

My question to the minister — final question — is: can you please give me very specific examples of “a thing” or why the words “a thing” were included in this legislation? My understanding is that was not in the EMA. It was talking about waste and other more descriptive terms. But here we’re talking about “a thing,” and that’s not defined. At least, my recollection is “a thing” is not defined. It’s left up to our imagination.

Hon. M. Polak: In fact, the inclusion of the word “thing” is also important to these amendments. The previous definition of spill read as follows: “‘spill’ means the introduction of a substance into the environment, whether intentional or unintentional, otherwise than as authorized under this Act.”

The new definition of “spill” reads as follows. It means “the introduction into the environment, other than as authorized under this Act and whether intentional or unintentional, of a substance or thing that has the potential to cause adverse effects to the environment, human health or infrastructure.”

[1400]

The inclusion in the definitions is important because it takes us beyond “a substance.” It could be cargo that in and of itself isn’t a substance, but maybe it has a substance in it. We’re trying to capture as widely as we can. But that also is why we have included this in the exemption. Someone spills something. Is that thing something we want captured within this or not? We would have, under this exemption, the discretion to manage that.

Again, though, it is certainly an exception. The provisions under EMA have not been utilized very frequently. I don’t anticipate that these would be utilized any more frequently, but important for us as we develop the regulatory scheme and the implementation of this. As we become aware of instances that capture in some way unintended, we are able to provide that exemption and, therefore, manage, under the act. Also, it’s important if something was to be enacted by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Now, albeit those decisions are not made in public, the decision is public. Certainly, no government would be able to get away with doing something like that secretly, because all of that would be known and public.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to thank the minister for that response. It’s very helpful in clarifying the meaning of “thing” in the context of the definition of “spill.”

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

G. Heyman: Section 120(c)(21) refers to “a fine not exceeding $300 000,” and (22) refers to “a fine not exceeding $400 000.”

I have two questions related to this. The first is: why is there a difference between the maximum fines in each case? The imprisonment time is the same in each. Is there any relationship between these fine amounts and costs that might also be levied against a spiller? By that, I mean: could you both be held liable for all the costs and receive a fine on top of that bill?

[1405]

Hon. M. Polak: The way the numbers were arrived at. In section 21, we drew from the existing scheme under the Environmental Management Act for similar types of offences. In the case of section 22, it really didn’t fit as well, so we drew from a related statute, the Integrated Pest Management Act, that better reflected similar types of offences.

In terms of whether or not they would be responsible for cleanup costs in addition to this, the answer is yes. These would be separate and judged as offences, whereas the responsibility to pay for cleanup would still remain.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:08 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Bill 21, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 23, intituled the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: The chamber will recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:09 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND
MISCONDUCT POLICY ACT

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I rise to move that Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, now be read a second time.

As we have made clear, our government takes student safety very seriously, and this bill will contribute to improving that. The bill will make campuses safer and more responsive to the needs of victims of acts of a sexual nature.

The bill is the result of government working with the sector — that is, our post-secondary institutions — to
[ Page 12914 ]
address the issue of sexual violence and misconduct on our campuses. The bill also fulfils a commitment made by the Premier, who said that government would work promptly with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who joins us today, to pass legislation as soon as possible.

Currently our public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia are not required to have policies to address sexual violence or misconduct. This issue has proliferated as a matter of public concern in the last few years, with events at Dalhousie University, the University of Ottawa, Lakehead University and elsewhere. Partly, this is because of a more open society with more willingness to report these matters, but then the treatment of the victims, upon reporting, has become a matter of grave concern. Hence, this bill.

Our proposed bill requires that all of our public universities, colleges and institutes establish and implement a policy that addresses sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct is defined in the bill to include a wide range of acts of a sexual nature, ranging from voyeurism to stalking to harassment and through to assault.

It’s important to note that the provincial Legislature does not have jurisdiction over these criminal offences. That is a matter of the federal government’s jurisdiction. So this bill is designed to frame the need for a policy for institutions to respond to the occurrence of these acts and these events. It cannot proscribe them or provide criminal procedures related to them because that’s a matter of federal constitutional responsibility.

The bill requires institutions to have a policy that not only addresses how it will receive and respond to complaints of sexual misconduct but also how the institution will endeavour to prevent these tragic episodes from ever happening in the first place. This, again, is a matter of societal change that has become much more visible in the past few years. I think we all realize that it’s well past time that this is exposed to the light of day and dealt with much more effectively.

Because institutions, for the most part, have a great deal of autonomy in their administration, they will be provided the autonomy to set out procedures on how the institution will receive and respond to these complaints. That autonomy will allow the institutions to create procedures based on their specific circumstances. This can be crystallized in terms of comparing the resources in the community and the structure of a place like UBC with the corresponding resources, community and structure of a place like Northern Lights College. These are very different institutions and very different environments, so their policies will have to be tailored to their local circumstances and their local resources.

[1415]

Having clear and specific policies in place enables post-secondary institutions to respond quickly and appropriately when these incidents occur. A quick and appropriate response protects the health and safety of students, ensures that appropriate procedures are initiated and that students will have the certainty of knowing where their process will be headed rather than going into a void and not knowing where they stand.

If passed, the bill would make British Columbia the second jurisdiction in Canada to have specific legislation that deals with this issue on campus.

Once established, these sexual misconduct policies will need to be reviewed, with student consultation, at least once every three years or as directed by the minister of the day. Institutions will be accountable to their boards for the implementation of their sexual misconduct policies, and under the proposed bill, the presidents of public post-secondary institutions will be required to report annually on the implementation of the policies to the boards of their institutions.

Our public post-secondary institutions will be given one year from when this bill receives royal assent to establish a sexual misconduct policy that is consistent with and compliant with the legislation. Institutions will need some time to develop these policies, to consult with students on the policies and to obtain the necessary internal approvals and legal advice so that the sexual misconduct policy will be compliant with the legislation and be effective in its implementation.

Institutions may establish and implement their policies earlier if they so desire, and we’ve heard, of course, that UBC is proceeding with this apace. They expect to report out in mid-June on the first round of their implemented sexual misconduct policy. We will be encouraging all of our institutions to learn from that and build upon it so that we can have a best-practices approach around the province.

The British Columbia Institute of Technology has already, actually, posted their sexual assault policy on their website. These policies will not be static. They will be developed and improved and enhanced as these institutions learn from each other and as our society continues to evolve to recognize this pernicious problem and deal with it as best we can, especially at the university and college level.

The legislation will be supported by a framework developed with input from universities, colleges and institutes as well as the anti-violence sector in our civil society on the best way to prevent and respond to sexual violence and misconduct.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome a grade 5 class that we have from Corpus Christi School. We’ve got 40 in
[ Page 12915 ]
total — 32 students and eight adults — accompanied by two teachers: Ms. Perrotta and Mrs. DeLuca, the grade 5 teacher and teaching assistant. As well, we have parents Mr. Castro, Mrs. De Jesus, Mr. Demalanta, Mr. Apostol, Mrs. Madaloso and Mr. Young.

I had the opportunity to meet them — very vibrant and lively. They had a lot of questions. Very active kids, the teachers and parents tell me, playing a lot of volleyball, basketball and track.

One of the things I wanted to share is that the students have very active imaginations. On April 1, they played a lot of April Fools’ jokes on their teacher right throughout the day — whoopee cushions and the whole gamut.

They decided to also have another practical joke for the kids. The kids knew that they were coming to visit the Legislature, but the teachers told them that they were going to be travelling to Ottawa to meet Justin Trudeau. It got their attention. Interestingly, the grade 5 students were very excited that they were going to meet the Prime Minister. They’re very engaged.

When they learned that they were just coming to the B.C. Legislature, maybe it was a bit of letdown to meet me, their MLA. But hopefully I made up for it a little bit.

Great to have them here. As they make their way in, I just ask everybody to please give them a warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: Hon. Chair, we’ve shared a border of a riding for many years, so I’m always pleased that you remember what riding I’m from — after a moment of reflection.

[1420]

I rise to support Bill 23. We will be supporting Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. We have some concerns about it, but I do appreciate that, overall, it is a good piece of legislation.

This legislation requires post-secondary institutions in British Columbia to bring in a policy, create a policy and some procedures to deal with incidents of sexual violence and misconduct in our post-secondary institutions.

It’s an endemic problem. The minister mentioned in his remarks that there had been problems in Halifax — Dalhousie — and some other universities. He didn’t mention any universities or colleges in British Columbia, but the truth is, we all know, that there have been some very serious incidents of sexual assaults and violence, harassment — a whole range of behaviours at various post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. That has heightened concern about the fact that sexual violence is so prevalent in our colleges and universities and institutions.

I want to tell a bit of a personal story here. When I was going to UBC…. I started UBC when I was 16 years old. I moved out when I was 17. I thought I was strong and independent, and I was a strong and independent young woman. But when I was at UBC, one day I walked down to the beach, the tower….

Sorry, I didn’t know this was going to bother me. See, it stays with you for a long time.

I walked to Tower Beach one day by myself, because it was a beautiful day. A man…. There was nobody else on the beach, and suddenly there was a half-naked man running towards me, masturbating and chasing me. I was 17 or 18; I’m not sure. I was absolutely terrified.

There was nobody else there, and I was terrified of what might happen. Luckily, as I ran — I was young, an athlete and pretty fit — and he was chasing me, trying to grab me, a couple just happened to appear around the corner of the beach. I ran to them, and they looked after me, and the man ran away. I was not touched, but I was targeted, and I was a victim.

Every second of that incident stays in my mind today. There are those that experience far worse. I’m not trivializing any event of sexual violence, because you don’t know how it’s going to affect an individual. I looked at myself as a very strong and independent person, and I remembered that incident for the rest of my life, because I was terrified at the moment of what might happen.

A couple of years later, I was working in a summer job. I was still a student in the economics department at UBC. I went to work as a summer student and got a job with one of the provincial departments. I won’t mention which one, but one of the provincial ministries. I went to a worksite where there was a boss. Right from the first moment, he started making suggestive comments to me. He was the manager of the place.

I was shocked. At lunch that very first day, another young woman, who’d actually been working there full-time as an economist for a couple of years, took me aside and said: “Just don’t be alone with him. Avoid him, and have somebody around with you all the time.” That would never be the advice anybody would give now, but that was the reality of the day. It was the second time where I was targeted and I was a victim of sexual harassment.

In this world that we live in, I guarantee that almost…. I’ll bet every single woman that is in this building, that is in this room right now, my colleagues on both sides of the House….

[1425]

I bet you every single woman will have stories that are similar to mine. It demonstrates how prevalent, how endemic, how common and how much a part of the experience of every woman — almost every woman — sexual assault is.

It’s particularly troubling on our campuses for a number of reasons. That’s why we need to have legislation like this. But it’s also why I think we need to take a much more holistic and complete view of sexual violence in our society, because it certainly does not just take place on our campuses.
[ Page 12916 ]

I want to point out a couple of things from a study done by METRAC, which is the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children. METRAC has been around for about 30 years. They work with individuals, communities and institutions to change ideas, actions and policies with the goal of ending violence against women and youth.

Here’s what they say about the time that is now, as opposed to almost 40 years ago when I was going to university. Some of it might be somewhat obvious. “Although people of any gender can experience sexual violence, women are at high risk of victimization, and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators.” Of course, I don’t even have to say that the vast majority of men are good and wonderful people. But unfortunately, when you talk about violence — sexual violence — it is the case that women are predominantly the victims and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators.

In addition, despite decades of research, reports in newspapers and magazines, activism and programs on college campuses, according to this METRAC report, there is “little evidence that female students are less at risk of sexual assault. Four out of five female undergraduate students surveyed at Canadian universities report experiencing dating violence — physical, sexual or psychological assault by a dating partner.”

When you remember that most post-secondary students are women in their early 20s and, in general, that young women are at highest risk of sexual assault, the incidence of sexual violence on campuses is intensified, and even more so…. Some women and groups are at a further increased risk of sexual and gender-based violence due to their identities and experiences of marginalization: aboriginal women, women with disabilities, transgender individuals.

I would add that in British Columbia, we have to be very concerned about the fact that we have so many international students in our universities and colleges, which is a wonderful thing. But when somebody’s an international student — women — it means that they have come from another country. It means they are often here without contacts, without a support network, with perhaps a different cultural background, different understandings and therefore different and perhaps increased risks. I think we have to be very concerned about some international students that come to our campuses and universities.

You add to that the fact — and this is all based on numerous studies that have been done and pulled together by METRAC — that there is increased use of alcohol and drugs at certain times, particularly on our campuses. We know that increased use of drugs and alcohol can be associated with an increase in sexual violence.

[1430]

I was pretty shocked to read recently about the rape chants. It’s not just at one campus but at several campuses. This particular one…. I don’t mean to single out UBC, because it’s certainly not different than other campuses overall, I don’t believe.

Students participating in the Sauder School of Business, the commerce undergraduate students, were led in a cheer by leaders in their Frosh Week — leaders in their introductory events. This is for first-year students coming in, male and female. I’m not going to read the whole thing. It’s just too offensive. But it talks about “liking them young” and “your sister” and “lack of consent” and other more intimate kinds of comments. I find it so disheartening that these chants were being led by student leaders.

After these chants happened in the Frosh Week, the response that came from the leaders and from the organization was, “Well, we now understand that we can’t do them in public. We can do them on the bus, and we can do them in private places. When we get together, we’ll do it, but we’re going to do it in private,” which to me is a reflection of just how endemic the problems are that we have to address.

“We sang it on the bus,” one of the young women said. “They specifically told us right before we cheered and everything that you can only cheer it on the bus and you can’t go elsewhere and cheer it outside.” That was a young woman, a first-year commerce student named Chelsea. How is that? What does that say to young women coming to our university campuses — that they are led by leaders in a chant that talks, essentially, about rape?

METRAC made some other comments as well. They talked about peer influence of men-only groups on campuses and how they’re prone to encourage, justify and support abuse of women by their members. A small number of people, a small number of groups — but some of the problems that can happen on campuses.

One of the issues that we have is that, whether on campus or in society at large, most survivors and victims don’t report their experience of sexual violence to authorities. Only one in ten sexual assaults is reported to police.

When I was attacked — or an attempted attack — at UBC on the beach, there was nothing in place. I did go to the RCMP, and it went a certain distance, but we didn’t have any identification. But there was nothing in place. We do need to have structures in place.

One of my concerns with the bill is that we are talking about having a policy, but the background work and how this is going to work — and the greater work that we need to do across our province and across our society — is not being addressed.

METRAC surveyed ten universities and five colleges across the country, including two in British Columbia. They found that most universities don’t have sexual assault policies, and those that do are lacking in many ways. Some of them are very good, but mostly they are lacking.

I want to talk just for a minute about some of the things that need to be taken into account and that I have
[ Page 12917 ]
concerns about. There needs to be a very clear reporting, investigative and adjudicative function at universities.

[1435]

One of the challenges — maybe my concern about the legislation, but also one of the challenges — that we have is how these policies are going to be formulated. The bill itself is very simple. It says: “You will have a policy, and there will be some surveying. There will be some reporting.” There is nothing in there about…. It talks about surveys, but it doesn’t talk about gathering data. There have been concerns expressed to me about the fact that data is not necessarily going to be gathered — in other words, reported incidents. It doesn’t look to me like there is a requirement.

One of the submissions that was made to me by a few people that were concerned about sexual violence on campuses was the fact that if you don’t require reporting of incidents, there could be a natural inclination for institutions not to report. I don’t know that that is true, but, you know, universities and colleges are very, very competitive for students now.

I think we have to at least watch out for the danger that, without requirement that there be a reporting and data-gathering mechanism, there will be an under-reporting by institutions because of the concern that their reputation can be damaged because of incidents. There are some that have felt that, in particular cases at some of our colleges and universities, in fact, there has been an attempt to suppress information simply because the colleges and universities do not want that information to get out.

I go back to the fact that we have a great number of international students. Because this government has not adequately funded our post-secondary institutions — in fact, has been cutting back funding over the last few years and flatlining funding for several years — universities and colleges are getting more and more desperate, cutting programs.

One of the things that they are doing in order to try to make up the shortfall because of lack of government funding is that they are very intentionally and very aggressively going out and recruiting international students, because international students bring in dollars that subsidize domestic students.

If you were going to do this, then you have to have the infrastructure and the supports in place to make sure that you can support those students. In the area of sexual violence, that’s a perfect example. You need to have supports in place. You need to have processes in place, not only for international students but all students, obviously.

I believe that my colleague from Esquimalt is going to be talking quite a bit about a more holistic approach, so I will touch on it very briefly. I would like to compare, just for a second, what’s in this legislation with the response that happened in Ontario.

Ontario has recently brought in Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2016. In March, the government of Ontario announced It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment. “The government,” it says, “will not tolerate sexual violence, sexual harassment or domestic violence.” Part of that act was a requirement that there be sexual violence policies at the colleges and universities in Ontario.

[1440]

Ontario went much farther. This comprehensive plan has been arrived at after around a year of deep consultation, after a commitment to spend, I believe, in the range of $40 million in order to combat sexual violence and harassment in Ontario, a commitment to education, a commitment to changes to the legal system and a commitment to several pieces of legislation, including a requirement that there be sexual violence policies on the campuses of universities.

I’m going to leave it at that. It’s a very comprehensive plan, and I know that my colleague will want to speak more deeply about that, so I will leave that to her.

I want to talk a little bit about the act itself and some of the concerns that I have. This is a result of both my reading and me reaching out to various organizations and individuals. I want to say, as is always the case in this position that I have as the official opposition spokesperson for Advanced Education, it is always such a pleasure to have the chance to talk to students and student organizations all around the province.

I feel the same way as I did when I was a school trustee in the district of Burnaby for nine years. I always came away from evening meetings, when I was a school trustee, where we would invariably have presentations from students or teachers talking about the great work that was happening in our district. To see the accomplishments and to see how well the students were doing always made me feel like we’re in good hands with the next generation.

When I meet students from all around this province, and particularly the student leaders that we run into in our jobs — and me particularly, being the Advanced Education spokesperson — it is always a pleasure. I again come away feeling, contrary to what some people might think, that we are in great hands with the next generation. They are very bright, thoughtful, committed individuals who take their jobs — in this case, student leadership — very seriously.

So I want to thank all of the young people, as well as other organizations representing various stakeholders, for their input and their thoughtful comments. I’ll just make a few of those.

Here’s one concern. We’ll talk about this more when we get to committee stage. The act applies to post-secondary institutions, and post-secondary institutions are defined as essentially public institutions, institutions established under the College and Institute Act — so that would be essentially colleges, and so on — Royal Roads University
[ Page 12918 ]
Act, Thompson Rivers University Act and the University Act, which essentially covers all the universities. We’re talking about the public post-secondary institutes, colleges and universities in this province.

The Ontario act requires that sexual violence policies will be established not only in public institutions but also in private institutions. Now, I know the minister, when we get to committee stage, is going to say…. I asked about this and expressed my concern. He’s going to say that with the stroke of a pen, essentially, with a regulatory change, a change in a regulation, we can have the sexual violence and misconduct policy requirement apply to private institutions.

The Ontario act didn’t do that. It put it right into the act. It concerns me that private colleges and universities are not going to be subject to this act at this time and that there’s no requirement that they change, that they do. I’ve told this to the minister. I will be seeking a commitment from the minister that if that is the case and if the choice of government is to do it through regulation, a commitment be made that that is going to happen. So I look forward to that.

[1445]

The act doesn’t include private career colleges, for example — the Columbia Bible College, various bible colleges. It doesn’t apply to Sea to Sky University. It doesn’t apply to Trinity Western University, the World Trade University of Canada. I have concerns about that. I’m not sure why.

Again, when you talk about some of these colleges and universities that are attracting students from all over the world, I’m not sure why we would not want to apply those same protections to have a requirement that we deal with sexual violence and misconduct at those universities as well. That is a concern. Depending on timing and so on, we may be bringing an amendment forward to change that.

I’m also concerned, and I’ve had a number of people express concern, about the definition of “sexual misconduct.” It is incidents of so-called sexual misconduct that will need to be dealt with in the policies. It’s important what you’re talking about when you say that universities and colleges need to have a policy that covers and deals with sexual misconduct.

It includes the following: sexual assaults, sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, stalking; indecent exposure, voyeurism. Then, the last one, which really concerns me. Sexual misconduct includes “the distribution of a sexually explicit photograph or video of a person to one or more persons other than the person in the photograph or video without the consent of the person in the photograph or video….”

In other words, somebody sends a sexually explicit photograph or video to another person without the consent of that person who is being videoed or photographed. But here’s the part that concerns me. It’s that there has to be, by the person who sends it, the intent to distress the person in the photograph or video. You have to intend to distress that person.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Rather than just having the act of sending a sexually explicit photograph or video of another person without their consent being enough to be considered to be “sexual misconduct” regarding a student, you have to have intent. Therefore, you would have to prove intent or establish intent to distress the person in the photograph or video.

I got an email today from one of the many people that have contacted me or I’ve contacted about this bill. She said I could share her name and that I could certainly share what her concern was. Kendra Milne is the director of law reform for West Coast LEAF which is the Legal Education and Action Fund, a highly regarded organization which is concerned about achieving “equality by changing historic patterns of discrimination against women.”

They do that through “equality rights litigation, law reform and public legal education.” They’re a really highly regarded organization.

On the issue that I just raised, Kendra Milne said the current definition in the bill, the one that I just read, creates a higher bar for sexual misconduct involving the non-consensual distribution of intimate images than the new offence in the Criminal Code, which addresses distribution, which is reckless with respect to consent.

Regardless of intention, the reckless distribution of intimate images can cause significant harm to those depicted if they do not consent to the distribution. The definition in the bill totally fails to address that situation, and that is incredibly problematic. This is very articulate, but I’ve had similar concerns raised to me — certainly by more than West Coast LEAF. There have been several organizations.

Just to be clear, what Kendra Milne and West Coast LEAF is saying….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

K. Corrigan: I’m the designated speaker. Thank you, hon. Chair.

[1450]

What West Coast LEAF is saying is that it’s harder to establish…. When somebody sends a sexually explicit photograph or video to another person without the consent of the person of whom that photograph has been taken, it is harder to establish misconduct that would, therefore, be worthy of discipline under the act. Under this act, it is harder to establish that than it is to prove a Criminal Code offence. That seems odd. Certainly, I’ll explore that with the minister.
[ Page 12919 ]

These are very difficult provisions and tricky provisions because you want to be balanced in what you do. But that is the comment of West Coast LEAF.

I’m just going to speak for a few more minutes about some of the other concerns that I have. The act is called the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. Yet I believe, from my reading of it, that the only time the word “violence” is used in the bill is in the name of the bill — Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. Everywhere else the acts which are included are called, simply, sexual misconduct.

I’ve had a number of organizations contact me and express concern that it is in some ways, perhaps…. I was going to say downgrading. That’s not the right word. It does not convey the seriousness, from their perspective, of the act. The Ontario act calls it sexual violence and describes the same sorts of activities.

It’s a symbolic thing more than anything else. It’s important. It’s really the activities that are included that would constitute sexual misconduct which are important. I think it’s an important symbolism. It has certainly been important to a lot of people that have contacted me. They say: “Why not treat it just as the Ontario act? Why not call it sexual violence? That’s the name of the act. Why not describe it as sexual violence rather than sexual misconduct?” That’s a concern that I have as well.

One of the other main concerns that I have is that this act does not include any criteria. It simply says to post-secondary institutions that they have to establish a sexual misconduct policy that addresses sexual misconduct involving students. It does not provide a wider, more comprehensive framework. It doesn’t talk about all the procedures that need to be followed. I know some of this can be included in the regulations later, but it is a very, very loose framework. It does not have a lot of meat on the bones, so I am concerned about that.

I had individuals contacting me, as well, that were very concerned about the fact that this act did not include anybody except for students, that it only applies to students. Although we probably won’t oppose that, it is something that some people were concerned about.

I have concerns about the act. We’ll certainly explore them in much more detail when we get to the next stage, when we are going to be going through it clause by clause.

I, again, wanted to just thank all of the students and all of the individuals who contacted me and provided input. I would say the gist of their concerns — concerns that I would like to reflect — is that they felt that there needed to be a more comprehensive approach in British Columbia.

I was just looking for a letter that I have that I’ll probably have to wait and read into the record when we’re in the committee stage. Oh, wait a minute. I think I found it. I won’t read it right now. It’s all right.

[1455]

Anyways, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We will be supporting this act, which requires that there be sexual violence policies. We have some concerns about it, but overall, we’ll be supporting the bill.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington is seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: Members across the way can see the students — they’re seated — from Corpus Christi School in Vancouver-Kensington. I’m very pleased to welcome them. I had introduced them earlier — 32 students, eight adults. We’ve got their teachers, Ms. Perrotta and Mrs. De Luca, accompanied by parents: Mr. Castro, Mrs. Dejesus, Mr. Demalanta, Mr. Postel, Mrs. Mataloso, Mr. Young.

They’re very active and engaged students. I’ll just share. I think some new members…. April 1, the students were very lively, had a lot of good pranks to pull on their teacher with whoopee cushions and this type of thing. The teacher and also the teaching assistant thought they’d pull a little April Fools’ joke of their own and told the students their trip to the Legislature would be to Ottawa to meet the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. They were a little bit disappointed when they weren’t going to go to Ottawa.

I met them earlier. I was very pleased to meet them and just, again, ask everybody to please give the students from Corpus Christi a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

L. Reimer: Many of us who are sitting in this Legislature are parents and grandparents. As a mother, I naturally have a particular interest in the safety of my children, no matter how old they are. Once you become a mother, you always worry about your children.

For students, college or university is the first place they often find themselves on their own. This can be a scary experience for anyone, and they have every right to feel safe on campus, especially if they are students in residence.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for sharing her frightening story with us. It highlights the need for Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. It will help ensure safer campuses in British Columbia.

This legislation represents a high level of cooperation between the offices of the Minister of Advanced Education and the hon. member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Both are to be congratulated for taking the initiative on this issue of sexual violence.

The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act will make public post-secondary campuses in British Columbia safer and more responsive to the needs of victims of sexual violence and misconduct. The act will require public post-secondary institutions to have poli-
[ Page 12920 ]
cies that address sexual misconduct and sets out procedures on complaint reporting and institutional response. Having clear and specific policies in place enables public universities, colleges and institutes to respond quickly and appropriately when an incident occurs. It will ensure that the health and safety of students are protected and appropriate procedures are initiated.

Sexual misconduct is defined within the bill to include a wide range of actions, from the threat to commit an act of sexual misconduct through to sexual exploitation and sexual assault. Once established, policies will need to be reviewed, with student consultation, at least once every three years or as directed by the minister.

It is clear that under-reporting of incidents has become a cloak for offenders to hide behind. In many cases, the victims of assault are discouraged from reporting incidents simply because they do not have faith in the system. This is unacceptable. This legislation will set in motion a process to encourage victims to come forward, with clear policies to reduce the likelihood of under-reporting. The bill specifies a wide range of acts that constitute sexual misconduct, including but not limited to sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking and voyeurism.

Institutions will be given one year from when the bill receives royal assent to establish a sexual misconduct policy that is consistent with the legislation. Change will not happen overnight. Institutions need time to develop and consult with students and to obtain internal approvals for the sexual misconduct policy required under this legislation. The ministry will also provide a detailed framework which will serve as a guide. It will give institutions time to establish and implement their policies and assess their effectiveness before reaching a decision on whether regulations are required.

[1500]

In closing, the proposed legislation respects the autonomy and diversity of post-secondary institutions. Post-secondary institutions will have the ability to customize policies, procedures and support systems. Institutions will be given one year from the date of royal assent, as already mentioned, to establish a policy that is consistent with the legislation, and some institutions are already working on their own policies. This is the first step, but a welcome step, to making campuses on post-secondary institutions a safer place for everyone.

M. Karagianis: I’m very happy to stand and speak to Bill 23 and all of the implications of this.

Interesting timing on this. We have repeatedly, on our side of the House, raised issues around violence against women, sexual assault, rape, rape kits, domestic violence. We have raised those issues time and time again in the House, looking for movement from the government to help show, in a tangible way, some legislative frameworks that would help support and protect women. So I’m glad to see this bill come forward.

I would describe it as an adequate piece of legislation at this point. Not as fulsome as we would hope for, but it is adequate and, therefore, supportable.

This morning in the House, I introduced a group of high-school students who came to the Legislature today to speak to members of the opposition about some issues that they’re very concerned about in their school. I think that it’s very timely. When I spoke with them this morning, I said that I would bring some of their words and feelings and thoughts here into the Legislature in the discussion of this bill, Bill 23.

The group of students came today to discuss with us the lack of modern, 21st-century sex education in schools. Particularly, their attention had been drawn to our discussions here in the Legislature around a sexual assault policy and some of the other discussions we’ve had. They have been having very meaningful discussions about all aspects of sort of health and well-being for young people in school. This, for me, comes under the heading of early intervention.

They expressed very similar thoughts about this. They feel that they are ill-equipped in their school, and with the lack of sex education, to have meaningful discussions about things like consent, about incorporating a culture of respect for yourself and for others. They felt that without any real sex education, there were so many questions left unanswered that often they are seeking answers from the Internet.

And what they get is pornography — hardly the best source of real information, respectful information, for young people about sexual conduct and misconduct. In fact, we know that pornography tends to often be very violent and certainly demeaning of women, in particular, yet if we’re not giving our young people adequate and respectful and appropriate information early on, where else are they going to get that information? And what impressions are they going to be left with?

They felt that real sex education was a part of health and well-being. One young woman expressed it as learning early on what is right, what is wrong, how to say no, what no means, what yes means. She said: “Let’s nip it in the bud before these kinds of behaviours explode themselves into society or on school campuses or, for women, make women feel unsafe anywhere in their lives.”

They talked about teaching people much younger than themselves and talked about alcohol and drug implications and all of those overlays that they are starting to experience in their lives.

We talked about the fact that I would bring their concerns and their desire to have a healthy health and well-being course that encapsulated all of these things in their schools but early enough that we’d begin to change the culture of behaviour of violence against women, in particular — but sexual assault, sexual violence and, as this bill has also conjured, the idea of misconduct.

[1505]

I would like to give a special thanks to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who talked here today about something that happened to her early on in her life. She told us a story about something, and you could see that she was very moved. She was very emotionally touched by that. Now, that happened to her when she was a young girl. Many of us have had experiences in one form or another that were aggressive or of a sexual assault or harassment nature.

It is interesting how very long that stays with you. That member expressed emotion today that touched all of us, that touched emotion in me and others here all these years later. It goes to show how very deep the wounds and scars are that are left for individuals who have experienced sexual violence, assault or misconduct.

I would say thanks to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for taking on what I consider a piece of the story in his private member’s bill. The government has taken it and added another, perhaps, layer to the story. But the reality is that for women in the 21st-century, we need a much more broad and comprehensive sexual assault policy for young women on campuses and for women everywhere.

I have raised in this chamber — many, many times — the issue around sex assault and rape, where and when it occurs and the actual experience of far too many women. Women who, if they choose to report it, are often put through a process that is revictimizing them, that is demeaning, that is difficult and traumatizing in itself.

For women who are assaulted, to even get themselves to a clinic, in some cases in communities, can be a challenge. We have discussed the issue around just campuses. UBC did not have an appropriate rape kit or response policy in situation, in place. For anyone that was going through sexual assault or had been raped on their campus, they were having to go downtown to a hospital, wait in emergency, keep themselves — and I’ve talked about it in this House before — absolutely untouched from the rape or assault so that evidence is not compromised.

If you are a young woman, you cannot comb your hair, wash your face, change your clothes. You may sit in emergency for a long time waiting for emergency medical response. Then you have to encounter a police investigation. You have to report. You have to have all of your evidence collected in a way that keeps it absolutely pristine and intact, so that you have even the remotest chance that if you take this to court — if you seek justice — you will have evidence in place that will, in fact, see that happen.

There is a national discussion happening for women across this country about the inadequacy of the 21st-century culture and approach to sex assault, to violence against women, to rape. It is happening worldwide. But the fact that it’s happening in a country like Canada, in our community, in British Columbia, on our doorstep, in our neighbourhoods and that we are only just now getting around to addressing it is disturbing and somewhat shocking.

In this bill, I think that there are certainly many deficiencies. I know that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake talked about that. When you listen to young women on campuses when they talk about these bills and the language in these bills, there are still many, many things that need to occur here.

Institutions are not required to regularly survey students and staff about the effectiveness of their policies. Now, I know that the minister talked about that there will be frequent updating of this policy, and I think that is a very good direction to take. The results of these surveys are not often made public. You know, we think about what’s occurred at the University of B.C. — a whole series of assaults that remained hidden for such a long time.

Policies within post-secondary education facilities are about silencing, about not allowing this to be made public. Keeping it muffled. The culture of silence around abuses on campus protects the facility, protects the campus, but that doesn’t protect young women.

When you see the comments made by young women around their experience…. I look at comments by Glynnis Kirchmeier, a former University of B.C. student who filed a human rights complaint over the school’s handling of a sexual assault case, who said that the bill does not ensure anyone’s privacy. It doesn’t say that the university has an obligation not to silence students. We cannot allow any of that to happen. We cannot allow any legislation to allow a loophole.

The reports from the University of Victoria. A young woman talked about being warned to stay quiet about her findings regarding an investigation into sexual assault complaints. Students said that they had requested the investigator’s report.

[1510]

She received a redacted version several weeks later and an attached letter warning her to not discuss the findings with anyone. That is inappropriate. If this legislation does nothing else than to rip the lid off this silence, then I think it’s worthwhile.

Now, I know that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake talked about the Ontario legislation. I want to talk about that for just a moment because whereas the bill we have here before us, Bill 23, is five pages, in fact Ontario has gone somewhat further. They have 14 pages in their legislation. It is the sexual assault and sexual violence policy and protocol act, and it’s quite comprehensive. I think that there are many lessons to be learned in here about the breadth and the depth of this legislation, so this is something on which we believe we can build.

I know that at the committee stage, there will likely be some amendments, because there are some holes in the existing bill, Bill 23, that I think need to be filled before it’s ready to fly, even in its current state. But certainly, we’re going to be looking…. This is a piece to build on in the future.

I did hear the minister say there was going to be consultation or a consultation process is underway, and I
[ Page 12922 ]
think that’s essential in this. When the Ontario act, the policy, was brought in, there was immediately a wide-ranging consultation process. Several months were undertaken to consult with local groups before putting finalized policies in place for each and every school and campus.

They’ve defined that campuses “must be safe and welcoming and…ensure immediate and effective help is available to victims of sexual assault.” Those things have to be in place as well. Every campus has to be ready to meet the need. They have to be welcoming. They have to be open, respectful, supportive. It’s exactly the same kind of scenario that you have in any health care facility. If we had rape kits, appropriate rape kits and assault kits, in every health facility in this province, we’d go a long way to assisting women to at least in their first encounter have any hope or likelihood of justice.

I know in comments that we’ve seen from other women who’ve experienced sexual assault as well that there is a great deal of concern about going to the police because they don’t feel that they’re going to get fair or sympathetic or supportive treatment. We’ve talked about that in this Legislature as well.

In the Ontario bill, there has been lots of attention to detail. There’s been much attention to detail here and lots of discussion around their legislation, the depth of it.

It says that while colleges have existing policies in place to manage sexual assault — some meagre, some certainly better than others, and I would say that case is probably similar here in British Columbia — the task force agreed that it was difficult to find and navigate your way through that. If you’re a student, it has to be easy. Women have got to know that it is not going to be an uphill climb, a battle, to have someone hear them, help them, respond to them and make sure that they get justice.

There are 14 pages, as I’ve mentioned, in this legislation, so it’s very comprehensive. It spells out very, very clearly definitions, points of contact, promises of support and academic accommodations, and it lays out responsibilities for staff.

We haven’t even talked in this legislation about staff, about what the circumstances are around reporting to staff. What if the staff member is the person who has assaulted you? There are lots of variations in this that need to be thought through, including a requirement to report an allegation of sexual assault to the school as soon as they become aware of one.

You know, the culture of silence that has gone on for a long time, where people don’t…. They feel if they don’t acknowledge it, it doesn’t exist. I think we’ve seen that in the cases of several campuses where those who’d been accused of assault were still free on the campus. Women saw them every day.

We’ve seen reports from one young woman who said she ran into that student every single day, felt revictimized and traumatized every day until something was done. Yet she’d reported it, and there was no attempt whatsoever to intervene. That is a serious concern.

The Ontario legislation is very clear. It outlines the options the victim has, including the options of a police investigation and internal school investigation. I think that this is important.

[1515]

Often, I think, post-secondary education facilities are loathe to bring the police in unless it’s something so extreme. But why would we let it become extreme before we send those supports in for women?

In the Ontario legislation, if someone chooses an internal investigation, the procedures that govern the school’s student code of conduct kick in, including those around due process and fairness. Discipline would result in sanctions like suspension and expulsion. I’m not even entirely sure…. I know that, in recent news stories, we’re seeing some of that just beginning to happen around UBC, but I don’t think it’s common practice. Certainly, women at UVic have reported something different than that.

The Ontario policy makes it clear that accused individuals are to be given full details of an investigation and an opportunity to respond. Complaints that are unsubstantiated, of course, will be dismissed. That also is due justice. If someone has been accused, they do have the right to have a full investigation, an opportunity to be heard. We don’t want any frivolous activities or malice to colour this in any way.

The colleges in Ontario are making two recommendations. The first is a request for a 24-hour hotline. Now, we didn’t make any…. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn’t make reference, in any way, in our legislation here to these kinds of supports for young women. A 24-hour hotline would ensure all victims of sexual assault have immediate access to help — this is not just in colleges; right across the province — and connect with local resources. The province has stepped forward to provide around-the-clock help.

Perhaps the government here will claim, “Well, we have a help line and other things,” but I’m not sure that that has been proven to be adequate. We are bringing legislation in that deals with a direct problem that’s occurring now on campuses, so the existing help line services, obviously, are not up to the job.

The second request from colleges was that the province consider regulatory changes that would allow the police to share more information with post-secondary institutions. For example, this would stop long, protracted two- and three-year court cases from occurring and justice being dragged out.

Ontario has gone a very long distance to put together some legislation that’s a bit wider, deeper and more meaningful. Eventually, I’d like to see this legislation also be given more breadth and depth than it has.

The Ontario legislation has a very interesting appendix. They have three pages of an appendix which very specif-
[ Page 12923 ]
ically deals with myths and misconceptions about sexual assault and talks very directly about rape and the context of rape within sexual violence.

This policy — I’m going to read just a little bit from that — “refers to the offence of sexual assault to align with the current offence contained in the Criminal Code. The word ‘rape’ is no longer used in criminal statutes in Canada. The term was replaced many years ago to acknowledge that sexual assault is not just always about sex but is also about psychological and physical violence.” We saw a little bit of evidence today of psychological trauma of an individual who had an assault many years ago and still feels very emotionally charged by that.

There are, as I say, a whole number of items here in this appendix that spell out, very clearly, myths and misconceptions. I think that this is an important piece of this. I would certainly urge the government to take a look at this appendix and the language around it. I specifically draw attention to it because much of what’s contained in here are things that we were discussing across this country in the most recent trials with Jian Ghomeshi and the women who alleged sexual assault from him.

Many of the topics that were teased out then, I think, especially for young women, may have been surprising — around what constitutes sexual violence, what constitutes rape, what constitutes sexual assault. The language that was used in this appendix really spells out the myth. For instance, it says, “Sexual assault can’t happen to me or anyone I know” — for young women, it’s not going to happen to me. Well, of course, we heard from the member from Deer Lake, and I know from many women I know that of course it can happen. It can happen to everyone.

[1520]

I listened to the member talk about our daughters and granddaughters. Of course, I have daughters and granddaughters as well. I live in fear all the time when they are late coming to visit, when I don’t hear from them for a certain length of time, if their behaviours change, I worry. Has something happened to them, right? I look at all the little girls, my little granddaughters, and think: “I do not want them to grow up in a world where they will ever be assaulted, where I have to fear that when they go to school or leave home to go to university, they are going to be assaulted, and permanently scarred and traumatized by that.”

Sexual assault is most often committed by strangers. Well, in fact, that’s one of the myths that’s debunked by the Ontario appendix to their legislation here, because quite often people do know the perpetrators.

Sexual assault is not always a stranger on a beach. It can quite often be people that you know well, that you spend time with, that you have to encounter again after the assault happens. There are many reports of that. I’m sure, if we tapped into stories of the women even here, our friends and neighbours and the women in this Legislature, we would probably begin to find out that women’s encounters with people they knew have often been as disturbing and traumatizing as from any stranger.

Sex assault is something that will happen outside in dark and dangerous places — also not true. I go back to this issue — the high school students that I talked with this morning, who talked about the implications of alcohol and drugs. Certainly, for young people experiencing their first opportunity for freedom, frequently excessive lifestyle is something that they may try out. Then they become vulnerable. Those are the situations….

Most frequently I’ve talked, too, to friends of mine that talk about their encounters. Often their first unfortunate violent or assaulting or harassing encounters were the first time they sensed freedom, went away to school.

I know when my eldest daughter went away to Sherbrooke to college at Bishop’s University and talked about the first week and a half or two weeks there and another friend of hers who…. The age for drinking was lower than here in British Columbia, and everyone got drunk and crazy and misbehaved, and horrendous things happened. My daughter said observing all of that was a very sobering experience and scared her a little bit. She was so far from home, and people were out of control. That’s when these kinds of events can happen.

The Ontario legislation goes on to describe many other graphic details. I’m conscious of the fact that we may still have students here, and this is a bit of a blunt conversation to be having with young students in the room. Not that it’s bad. The students I talked to this morning really welcomed frank conversation about these issues.

I think that it’s fair to say that not all young students and young women understand the nature of what constitutes assault or harassment until after the fact. If this legislation does nothing else than start a real conversation, a broader and longer conversation, with young people, about changing our culture — changing a culture of violence, changing a culture of secrecy, changing a culture of fear — altering a culture in British Columbia where victims have to re-victimize themselves to find justice, then I think that this is a worthwhile piece of legislation on that basis alone.

It does not solve all of the problems that our students are having in colleges. It certainly doesn’t go all the way to solving all of the problems that we are seeing in our society: the escalating incidents of violence, the increasing number of domestic violence incidents. Hopefully, we’re going to now see sexual assault on campuses drop. But this is a broader conversation.

I say kudos to the high school group that initiated the conversation today to say: “We need to start discussing these things early. We need to start discussing how we respect ourselves, how we respect each other and how that respect translates into a violence-free society.”

You know, we aspire to that, and we put in place pieces of legislation like Bill 23 to chip away at a small piece of it
[ Page 12924 ]
and try and legislate good behaviour, but as these young people very clearly knew, they want to sit and have a discussion about: what is consent? When does no mean no?

[1525]

What is really the basis of appropriate and respectful behaviour to each other? How do we change the discussion? How do we change the culture? Well, like many things…. And we know this from every aspect of health care. We talk about it in youth mental health — early intervention, making sure that young people have appropriate information. Yes, legislated protection goes a long way.

In all cases…. I introduced a bill here in the House the other day which was paid leave for domestic violence victims who wanted to flee domestic violence. It made sure that their jobs were protected and that they had paid leave so they could go and pull their lives together in an appropriate way. I’d like to see the government champion that one as well. They are all pieces of a larger story around how we protect ourselves in a society where it’s easier to access violence on TV or anyplace else than it is positive messaging, positive reinforcement for young women and young men about how we respect ourselves and each other and how we prevent this kind of pervasive violence in our society.

It’s so much easier, you know, to let the Internet teach our kids these lessons if we don’t set it up in schools where they have appropriate sex education that talks about well-being and about healthy psychological environments for young kids to grow up in.

There are huge implications to this bill. I certainly will look forward to the committee stage of this, because I know that there will be a number of amendments we’ll be proposing to close any loopholes and gaps as it exists.

It does need to go a lot further. I’ve talked before about a provincewide sexual assault policy in this House. I still firmly believe in that. I believe that until women feel absolutely secure and confident that they will get justice; that it will be easy to get justice and it will not be a re-victimization to try and do that; that they can rely on the system — from the police to the medical personnel to the courts — to be there to assist and make sure that if they’ve experienced violence, they will get justice….

We have a long, long way to go, but I certainly see that this bill is worth supporting. I will support it, and I look forward to hearing other comments from other members of the Legislature here on their views.

J. Tegart: Thank you to the member opposite for your comments today. On behalf of the people of Fraser-Nicola, I’m pleased to add my voice in support of Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. Speaking as a mother and grandmother, there’s nothing more that we want than the knowledge that our young people are safe and protected. And even though I know that there is never a 100 percent guarantee of anyone’s safety, this legislation will help make our public post-secondary institutions much safer for our students.

There have been a number of high-profile sexual violence and misconduct incidences reported in the media recently. There are also many incidences that do not make the media or even get reported at all. So we know that the problem is even more widespread than the general population is aware.

This legislation will help institutions promote an environment where students and others are safe from sexual misconduct. It also ensures that proper reporting and response structures are in place for incidences of sexual violence or misconduct when they do occur. As parents, we expect our sons and daughters will be safe, and for students, university is often that first time they’re out on their own. They have every right to feel safe on campus, and this legislation is a step in the right direction.

Clear policies help ensure safer campuses and reduce the likelihood of under-reporting incidences. Having specific policies in place enables post-secondary institutions to respond quickly and appropriately when an incident occurs, to ensure that health and safety are protected and proper procedures are started.

[1530]

The scope of this bill is not limited to sexual assault. In fact, Bill 23 specifies a wide range of acts, including but not limited to sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking and voyeurism. Our post-secondary institutions are willing to comply with government direction, and several institutions, such as UBC, the University of Victoria and the College of the Rockies, are already working on policies. We expect that schools will comply with the obligations under this legislation, and penalties will not be needed.

Each institution will develop, in consultation with their students, the sexual misconduct policies for their specific circumstances. Institutions will be given one year from when the bill receives royal assent to establish a sexual misconduct policy that is consistent with the legislation.

Institutions may establish and implement their policies early, and some institutions are already working on that. For example, a draft of sexual assault policy will be presented to the UBC board of governors next month, and a final version is expected this fall. The College of the Rockies plans to have a stand-alone sexual violence policy and protocols in place in the 2016-17 academic year.

Institutions need time to develop, consult with students on, and obtain internal approvals for the sexual misconduct policy required under this legislation. Certainly, in my experience as a school board person, the development of policy is an incredibly important part of how the institution runs, and I think that this is long overdue.

The opportunity to develop policy and to invite others to be a part of that development is critical around the conversation of this subject. I hope that, in the develop-
[ Page 12925 ]
ment process, it will be inclusive, and people will feel they had the right to say what needed to be said and to have input into processes that will work well for our students.

The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Act will make public post-secondary campuses in B.C. safer and more responsive to the needs of victims of sexual violence and misconduct. The act requires public post-secondary institutions to have policies that address sexual misconduct and sets out procedures on the reporting of a complaint and the response by the university or college.

Having clear policies in place enables public universities, colleges and institutions to respond quickly and appropriately when an incident occurs and to ensure that the health and safety of students is protected and correct procedures are initiated. It is but one step forward on this very important topic.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. As we know, this bill arose in response to an earlier private member’s bill which was submitted to this House. It represents the cumulative input from numerous stakeholders across the province and is ultimately based on similar legislation that was tabled and passed in Ontario, catered slightly to the needs of British Columbia post-secondary institutions.

There were some changes in this act that was brought forward, as mentioned by the official opposition, from the earlier version, including, for example, the focus on public post-secondary institutions, no longer including some of the private institutions. I have had discussions with the minister about the intention of this, and I’m sure we’ll explore that further as the minister is posed questions during committee stage.

[1535]

There’s also, of course, the issue of gender identity and gender expression which, I have argued quite strongly, is important given that the transgender community experience sexualized violence and misconduct at even a greater extent than do women in our society. So we need this to be inclusive. But again, government will respond at the committee stage with reasons and rationale for the language that we have here.

In addition, there has been a comment made that the words “sexual violence,” under the definitions, was changed to “sexual misconduct.” In the original version, it had “sexual violence.” I recognize that for some people, that might be troubling. What, to me, was very important is that the words “sexual violence” still appear in the title. Under the definitions, it is a definition meaning sexual misconduct.

I recognize that for many…. Including the original version I put in, sexual violence was used there. However, because it is a definition, what it is saying is anything within the quotes, wherever it follows in the legislation. Whether it be the words “sexual violence” or “sexual misconduct,” it doesn’t matter. What matters is that wherever you see those two words, it is defined by sexual assault, sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, voyeurism, etc.

This bill was the culmination of many, many hours of engagement with students, faculty associations, support services for survivors, and others. We had a town hall on this bill just last week, attended by quite a large number of University of Victoria students. It was put on in collaboration with the University of Victoria Students Society. It was also attended by representatives from a number of agencies in and around Victoria. I will say that the overwhelming majority…. In fact, in its entirety, there was very strong support within the student body for the work that’s represented in this bill.

Now, what is it that this bill is trying to address? Let me see if I can provide some very illustrative examples of the type of things that occur.

There was a very unfortunate, in my view, editorial in the Times Colonist, which missed the point of this bill. In the Times Colonist recently, they talked about the fact that this should simply be a matter to be dealt with by the police. Of course, we recognize that when criminal charges are to be laid, the police must be involved. Universities, post-secondary institutions, colleges, do not file charges and take people to court in a criminal sense. That is the role of the police.

However, that is not the issue. The issue is the systemic prevalence of sexualized violence on university and post-secondary campuses. I’m going to give you a few examples, but it comes to a much broader issue. While some might say that it’s always been around, it has always been around.

Fundamentally, we have in our society an entire generation of youth who have been brought up in the Internet age, where the accidental typing in of a woman’s name can lead you to websites that put forward images of sexualized violence at the click of a finger, the push of a button. A whole generation of youth are exposed to graphic images, such that I begin to worry whether or not many within our society understand what a healthy relationship is. A healthy relationship is often — more often than not, certainly most often than not — expressed in some of the imagery that one can see on the Internet so easily, and so difficult to control.

This is not something that existed during my time as a student at university or as a grad student. Of course, there has been and continues to be sexualized violence on campuses, both past and present. While our goal is to eliminate it in the future, we will do our best, but there will always be cases. No case is acceptable, and we must work towards zero cases.

However, there is a difference. The exposure to the Internet and exposure to the type of behavior that is highly graphic, highly offensive to many — to most, to all — that in more cases than not demonstrates a very
[ Page 12926 ]
unhealthy relationship between a man and a woman or between two people of the same gender.

It is unhealthy, yet we have a generation of youth exposed to this, entering post-secondary institutions where, for the first time, they are moving away from home, they may be living in close quarters with others, and where for many, the concept of consent has never been discussed.

[1540]

I’ll come to that later, when we talk about the movement of policies like this into the K-to-12 sector and the work that we’ve been doing to try to engage students in that regard. But let me give a couple specific examples, without quoting universities, without quoting colleges. I will say that in many cases, what I’m going to say as an example happened at multiple universities.

Here’s one. Let’s suppose, hypothetically…. Well, this is a true case, so we don’t need to suppose hypothetically. In at least two universities, there are cases where a very serious sexual assault occurred in student residences. Now, the difficulty with that is that student residences are places where people have to live beside each other.

If a serious sexual assault occurs in a residence, obviously you would like to get the people away from each other. In at least two cases, that didn’t happen. The survivor had to live in the same dormitory as the perpetrator of the assault because of the inaction of an institution. That’s unacceptable. That’s unacceptable that an institution would cave to the legal threat of the perpetrator that they would sue if they were kicked out of residence. There needs to be policy that allows institutions to do that so that they’re not afraid to put the survivor first and to deal with the matters that are appropriate.

Here’s another story, a story that occurred in many places. This is a story about a very bold survivor named Jean Strong at Thompson Rivers University, who was quite forthcoming with us, participated in our panel last week and who went to Thompson Rivers University. Jean Strong was sexually assaulted twice in one term on campus. The psychological effects were profound, yet this student had to be on campus and attend the same classes as the perpetrators.

When going to the administration, she was told that perhaps the institution was not the best for her and that they would help her fill out forms to apply to another university in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. Now, that’s clearly not an acceptable response. And when the bold survivor, Jean Strong, told her story, what happened? More students came out and expressed their concern to Jean, who became like a flag-bearer for this issue on the campus.

I’ll give you another story. This is a story about Capilano University and a professor who, in their class, discussed the introduction of this bill. The reason why the professor wanted to discuss the introduction of this bill is because the official reporting stats from Capilano were that there were zero cases of sexualized violence on the campus. When the professor raised this to the class and discussed this bill to talk about the issue, one young woman in the class ran outside of the classroom, quite upset. Why was that the case? Well, as you might imagine, there were not zero cases of sexualized violence that occurred in the Capilano University environment.

I could go on with other examples — cases where people were told that in fact because they didn’t say no, then, really, the university or institution cannot do anything. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what consent means. Consent does not mean saying no or not saying no. Consent means specifically saying yes, which seems to be missed in the several cases that we’ve heard.

I’ve had cases come to me of international students who felt lost that the institutions had not looked after them, and they don’t know where to go. They don’t know what the services are, and they were hoping to get some support — and, in some cases, didn’t. The litany of stories that we got from across British Columbia was overwhelming. It was not only across British Columbia; they started coming in from across Canada. This is an issue that’s not exclusive to one university, not exclusive to one college. It’s pervasive across North America, and it says that there is something very wrong in our society — something very wrong when this sort of behavior can actually go on, on campuses and a lid be put over it.

[1545]

One of the themes that came up at the town hall we had last week — it was actually quite an interesting theme — was that there was a concern expressed by more than one individual that the growth of the concern on campuses about the suppression, the perceived suppression, of actions on sexual policies came in lockstep with the corporatization of some our university and post-secondary institutions — perhaps less of an issue to some of the smaller institutions, but more of an issue to some of the bigger ones. Universities must and need to be perceived as safe places for students, not only local but across the world — safe places for those students to learn, to innovate, to be creative and to contribute to research and understanding of everything around us.

Universities, colleges and post-secondary institutions spend a lot of time trying to brand their university, to have a corporate brand on it. Now, the last thing you want is a corporate brand that actually gets undermined by the kind of outpouring of concern that we’ve seen, for example, happening on some of our university campuses of late. We have had examples from UBC. We’ve had examples from Thompson Rivers, which I mentioned, and elsewhere too. This is not good for the corporate branding of an institution.

There’s an inherent, built-in wish, whether acted upon or otherwise, that these issues not blow up, because it doesn’t do a good thing for one’s branding — hence, some of the concern that in fact a lot of the concerns are being brushed under the table on our university campuses.
[ Page 12927 ]

My hope and goal is that this actually go beyond university campuses. As I’ve alluded to earlier, some of the problems are that university campuses…. Post-secondary institution campuses are really the first place where young people today move away from home, have constraints and barriers removed from them and are living away, perhaps in close quarters in dorms. They’ve grown up in an age of unrestricted access, on the Internet, to videos, to images that actually portray relationships in very unhealthy ways. Many may not understand what is or is not a healthy relationship. So we need to get education happening in the K to 12 as well.

In fact, I was in a Vic High class two weeks ago, with a teacher there. There’s actually a project that was initiated by a group called BCSpeaks, which is a citizens’ assembly pilot project. What they did is they went and worked with Jim Pine, an outstanding socials teacher at Vic High, who’s in their 12 grade social justice class. They picked up the issue of sexualized violence, and they went to understand how the curriculum in British Columbia could be modified or changed to actually incorporate this in the K-to-12 sector.

These are the key points that this amazing class of individuals came up with. They recognized that key issues, like incorporating consent in the curriculum, are important. The term “consent” does not appear anywhere in the new sexual education curriculum that’s being discussed now. They want to emphasize respect. Sexual education is more than learning about body parts and sexual intercourse. It’s about learning to be a good person and to treat others with respect.

They want more time spent, to increase the time spent, on sexual education. Eighty minutes per grade is too small an amount to deal with all the complexities of this topic. Many questions are left unanswered, they say, or are informed by poor sources, such as the Internet pornography that I referred to earlier. They’re hoping to see sex education curriculum for grades 11 and 12, as there is none in the grades 11 and 12 curriculum. They’re hoping to see a new course on human well-being being introduced. The course would deal with sexual, emotional, physical and mental well-being. It would be mandatory, they would argue.

Now, I have some sympathy for this. All students are taking a course called “Grad Transitions,” and I can think of no better course to actually embed the important issue of what is or is not a healthy relationship and what is or is not consent than in a course that all students must take.

They point out that there’s inadequate sex ed in grade levels, which leads to poor behaviour at universities and beyond, something that I have great sympathy for. They went so far, as I alluded to, as to actually develop some suggested curricula. We are in good hands when the next generation recognizes that there is an issue in our society for which solutions exist, and they’re willing to stand up and be part of forming those solutions and disseminating them through others.

[1550]

Let’s come back to the bill. We sought, in the earlier version that I introduced as a private member’s bill, input from every university student society in the province as well as input from support services for survivors, and we got an enormous number of responses — let me say, overwhelming support for this bill. Without question, there was no person, no group that responded that we don’t need this bill.

There were some institutions that would argue that they’re further along the advancement towards the development of such policies and look forward to tweaking their policies to bring them in line with others. And there were some who felt that there was a desperate urge and need for policies to be brought in.

If we go to BCIT, for example, we had a number of comments from there. They actually have a student code of conduct, non-academic conduct, which states the following:

“BCIT’s Student Code of Conduct applies to conduct that occurs on BCIT premises, at BCIT-sponsored activities and to off-campus conduct that has the potential to adversely affect the institute, community and/or the pursuit of BCIT’s objectives. The policy is applicable to students as well as other individuals while they are on BCIT premises or in attendance at BCIT-authorized or BCIT-sponsored functions.”

Now, this is important, because there are two things that they start to talk about in this code of conduct. We’re not specifically talking about sexualized violence, but they actually raise the concept of a code of conduct.

In their comments, they raise the concern that we need to ensure that more people are included other than just university students — a point that was also brought forward by the University of British Columbia. It is talking now about university faculty-student or staff-to-staff or staff-to-faculty or staff-to-student relationships and the role of sexualized violence in poisoning some of these relationships on campuses across the province.

With that said, one of the good things here with the legislation is it does allow for this. It doesn’t prescribe only students. In fact, it prescribes some language called “prescribed persons.” That is, regulations will allow for others to be included in this legislation, such as faculty, such as staff, bringing this concept broader, integrating it fully within the university community.

The code of conduct within the BCIT also states:

“Each student will be responsible and accountable for his or her conduct from the time of application for admission or enrolment through the actual awarding of a credential. This includes but is not limited to conduct that may occur in the following times and situations: during the academic year; before classes begin or after classes end; during periods between terms of actual enrolment; during periods when the student may be completing a practicum or work term for an employer or other organization, either for compensation or not, when required by a program of study at BCIT; during a time when a student withdraws from the institution while a disciplinary matter is pending; conduct that is not discovered until after a credential has been awarded.”
[ Page 12928 ]

This is a rather broad student code of conduct that exists at BCIT in terms of the time at which it applies. This is one of the things that the BCIT folk we talked to suggested was important, recognizing in the development of policies that the time at which these policies applied must be broad, and they’ve offered some suggestions here as well. We had a number of comments, as I mentioned, from BCIT.

We had extensive feedback from a nine-member panel, a multi-stakeholder group called the sexual assault prevention and response working group. They were, overall, quite supportive of the legislation. They had a couple of things that they thought might need some clarity. They thought that more clarity was needed regarding the scope of application of the legislation.

As I’ve discussed earlier, there were some concerns about the survey. That is, they had a number of concerns related to this. They were concerned when it comes to collecting and reporting data. They were concerned about lumping together incidents of sexualized violence that, broadly defined, could mischaracterize the nature and scope of the issues, as well as potentially trivialize the seriousness of the more serious.

[1555]

In essence, what they were saying is that the data needs to be quality data. We don’t want to have lots of reporting data that inflate statistics or multiply report the same statistic or diminish the importance of more serious cases over some cases that may be slightly less serious. They outlined in their detailed and thorough response to us quite a number of recommendations with respect to that.

Of course, the concerns about confidentiality were first and foremost. We do have the privacy legislation here in British Columbia. There’s concern expressed, by numbers, and I’m sure the government would agree with this — that the concern for the privacy of the survivor and also the alleged perpetrator be protected at all times during this process.

We had extensive feedback from UBC, talking about the requirement for policy, specifically talking about the needs for staff and faculty to be involved, the need to have very broad consultation and to increase the consultation beyond just students, also to include First Nations students, as well as transgender students and people representing a diversity of our society.

This is very solid advice that I think we should act upon and that I think is the intent of this legislation. Most university campuses attempt to be inclusive in their consultative process. What the UBC group that we talked about there were hoping to ensure is that this is actually part of the intent of the legislation and be made aware. These are the things we’ll explore during committee stage.

We had some comments from, as I mentioned, survivors services. We had some comments from the Canadian Federation of Students; from an anti-violence project, on one campus; from the Native Students Union at the University of Victoria. Again, this is one of a unique, rather large group at University of Victoria, the student union there, who, again, were concerned about the treatment of First Nations and the means and ways the process includes them and the fact that — they would argue, then, and the evidence is borne out — there is an increased risk of sexualized violence amongst First Nations students.

We had, again, many, many suggested amendments. We had comments from staff. We had the Capilano Faculty Association formally pass a resolution supporting the private member’s bill. I won’t tire Hansard staff by listing all the multitude of people that we were discussing with and we continue to discuss with.

There were some more concerns out of UBC. This was important. Not concerns we received from consultation with people from the University of British Columbia. There was concern that a problem that needs to be clearly identified is that the present legislation has no requirements for universities to acknowledge their own liability. One of the things that’s important about this legislation is that the sheer fact it exists means that there will have to be an education component.

One of the ways that universities and colleges can deal with ensuring that people understand the existence of these policies is to go to their orientation weeks. Every new student who is going to these new post-secondary institutions typically participates in orientation weeks, and it is in the orientation weeks that the education component of the introduction of this bill could start to talk about the issue of what consent is.

Consent is not saying: “Oh, the person didn’t say no. Therefore, I have consent.” Consent is about specific statement of yes. Consent is not about not saying no; it’s about saying yes. We need talk about what a healthy relationship is, talk about what is expected or not expected behavior in a dormitory on campus. These types of things need to be and will be included as various institutions across British Columbia move forward with the development of their policies.

Another problem that has arisen was the following rights for individual students should be required in the legislation. Now, some of these are implicit in the actual existence of privacy laws within B.C., but the specific ones that they talk about here are explicit steps to ensure an individual’s right to privacy, due process — equally of both accused and victim — and the prohibition of silencing. These I think are key points that, again, we can explore as we discuss the bill further at committee stage.

Again, another problem. This is with respect to section 5, regarding the survey. This is recent feedback we have got not only on the government’s bill but also on the prior version of that via the private member’s bill.

[1600]

It said: “As written, this introduces political decision-making, the infrequent discretion of the Minister of Education, into what should be an annual fact-inves-
[ Page 12929 ]
tigation process which allows standardized comparison across all institutions of higher learning in British Columbia.” It’s an important point. I’d be delighted to share some of this feedback with the minister or at committee stage where we can actually flesh out where these concerns are coming from.

That’s not to say that this bill is not supported. It was wholeheartedly supported. But it’s important that we reflect upon the various comments and concerns that were raised as we move forward in the development of the required policies.

Another good point that was raised, coming out of the UBC cases that we were talking about, is that the legislation does not require institutions to warn about ongoing possible threats; regularly disclose the number of expelled students, fired employees, and ongoing investigations; or specifically collect and publish statistics about incidents.

The issue of ongoing threats is an important one. There have been documented cases, high-profile cases in British Columbia, where known perpetrators, known to institutions, have gone on and subsequently been involved with sexualized violence with other survivors on campuses, and the institution knew of existing examples. It’s important that there be some requirement for institutions to warn about possible threats within their community.

There are other issues there were raised here with respect to the employee-student relationships. A very important one, of course, is that in an employee-student relationship, there is a power over. That can be abused. Recommendations we received in that area were quite common.

We have another series of 44 recommendations, which came from some legal advice we received that would actually also be very helpful in the formulation of policies across campuses, which we will make available, subject to approval from the people who sent it to us.

There is great interest in this bill across British Columbia. There is great desire for this bill to pass across British Columbia. This bill, like every bill, will not be perfect. It will need to be reviewed and evolved as time goes on, as society changes.

It does point out the need, from the feedback we got, for complementary legislation to start to emerge for the K-to-12 sector, particularly in dealing with the fact that students are now graduating in an age where times have changed, given the preponderance of availability of the Internet and all the good and bad that happens with that.

With that, I thoroughly look forward to discussing this bill further at committee stage. I’m sincerely grateful to the many survivors across this province, to the student associations across this province, to the faculty associations across this province, to the hard-working people at the survivor centres across this province and to the Minister of Advanced Education and the government for their work towards making this act a reality. It came. It was a lot of hard work, a lot of people involved. But first and foremost, we must thank those who’ve had bold courage to actually stand up and speak out.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak on Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. I’ll be speaking in favour. I’ll be giving just some general comments, in terms of the committee stage, right now. I appreciate the government bringing it forward. I also recognize the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who initiated the process in submitting his private member’s bill, Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

In terms of the need for a specific act that outlines responsibilities for post-secondary institutions to establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy, that has become very evident through the last little while in terms of cases that have come forward through, primarily, women who have experienced acts of the sexual violence at colleges and have had their cases mishandled.

[1605]

They have been told to be silent, to not come forward with the details of their case. Certainly, there is a need for…. It’s quite shocking, actually, that in this day and age we have post-secondary institutions, institutions of higher learning, without adequate policies and without adequate protocol in handling of complaints once they come forward.

Certainly, it’s pretty amazing that in 2016 we find ourselves talking about this issue now, when it’s only now that post-secondary institutions are going to be required to establish a sexual misconduct policy and to lay out appropriate protocol for handling complaints that come forward.

Having said that, this bill will address, specifically, public post-secondary institutions to bring this to the fore, to address this challenge that is happening on campuses across our province.

I want to make some remarks, as well, in terms of not only the challenge that women students have on campuses and in colleges and at universities but also the disappointing reality that women face around sexual violence — and many British Columbians.

We need to not only ensure that post-secondary institutions have policies in place and handle complaints adequately once they come forward, but we need at this time and in this day and age a vision moving forward: how we are going to end sexual assault and the suffering it causes in our community, recognizing that the victim is not the only person who’s impacted but that it also negatively impacts the whole community.

The other important aspect to consider, in terms of a comprehensive vision on bringing to an end sexual violence anywhere in our society, is that we need to, at the same time, challenge all forms of oppression and recog-
[ Page 12930 ]
nize their connection to sexual violence. Certainly, the compounding issues, realities and dynamics around racism, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, transphobia — these all contribute and can compound and multiply the vulnerability of individuals, of students, of citizens to being attacked.

I want to address and talk about the cases that have come forward to my office. They have to do with a couple of categories of individuals — international students — in terms of the challenges they face and the difficulties of coming forward and reporting in cases of not only discrimination but sexual violence on campuses. That’s been identified to me.

As well, I’ve talked to members in my community policing office who put out a very good resource that’s used across the country and addresses the challenges and difficulties of trafficking that international students are exposed to. This is another layer that international students who come into British Columbia are also vulnerable to in terms of the increased barriers around reporting — the stigma, being silenced, not sure where services are. That’s of concern — to ensure that those students are supported if they encounter such an assault.

[1610]

The other area that I’m concerned about…. When we talk about the need to address policies at our post-secondary institutions — and these are our public post-secondary institutions — it captures some of that. But in terms of a broad vision of really eliminating sexual assault and violence across our society, this is an area that we also need to address. In particular, the area of concern…. Cases that have come forward to me and that I have concerns about are not addressed adequately in British Columbia.

Certainly, there are steps that we can take to ensure that victims of sexual violence are supported, that there are services in place to support the victim and to ensure that cases move forward and that if they choose, their stories can come out and they can really overcome that assault and really become part of the conversation around how we bring change in our province around this issue.

There’s a lot of stigma associated with it. I know the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads talked about legislation that has passed in Ontario, and encouraging the approach that they took was a broader perspective in terms of: once the legislation had been brought in, they conducted community consultations. This is a very good and very positive step that is important in terms of bringing to an end the culture, really bringing to an end the stigma and the silence that sexual assault and violence happen within.

We debate and pass laws, and it’s important. There will be concrete steps taken to adopt adequate policies in public post-secondary institutions, but we know that to uphold the law and to bring change, it has to be embodied, as well, by citizens and that it’s not enough to have it on the books.

Certainly, there will be policies in place, but individuals also engaged in the process is part of how we make these changes. That’s one area where I hope the government will take that initiative and really be actively engaged once we get through the various stages of the bill. I think that would be an aspect that would bring a lot of positive change and engagement in the communities and certainly really bring these discussions up at those institutions. It would be a positive step around really actively creating that change and changing the dynamic and the silence and the stigma around sexual violence.

The other area that cases that have come forward to me have to do with, the vulnerability of…. When I referenced international students, there’s also another area of individuals that are very vulnerable and open to exploitation. These are, amongst our midst, the domestic workers, the temporary foreign workers as well.

They’re in a very marginalized position. They’re in a very vulnerable position. Often if they’re working in their employers’ homes, that’s an area that is very difficult to enforce. Really, these workers who are really vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination are in a very marginalized position. That’s a reality, and that’s an area, I think, that we need to address in terms of our goal of bringing to an end exploitation and sexual violence against everyone in British Columbia.

Those are the issues that I wanted to address. I look forward to the continued discussion, once we get into the debate on the sections of the bill. It’s five pages we’ve got here.

[1615]

I’m hoping that the government will also take the positive example from Ontario and really embark on community consultations to raise awareness about the responsibilities in public post-secondary education, engage students and faculty in the conversation and really participate in creating a culture that does not tolerate violence in any form.

It’s a positive step in that direction. We need a broader vision to address the whole scope of, really, how deep-rooted and challenging it is to address this difficult situation of sexual violence.

It really is a tribute. I’ll echo the comments from many colleagues here on both sides around how it’s really the courage of victims and survivors who have come forward. It’s overcoming that difficulty — often that shame and not being treated appropriately — and, for them, refusing to remain silent. It’s in terms of their pursuit for justice that we are seeing positive gains. I think a tribute…. I thank them for their courage. We, all of us collectively, need to work together to ensure that we bring an end to any form of violence in British Columbia.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, 2016.
[ Page 12931 ]

Over the past year, we’ve heard stories in the media of sexual violence and misconduct on university campuses across our province and our country. However, there are also many incidents that are not reported in the media. In fact, we don’t know how many incidents have never been reported to the universities at all. It is a difficult choice to make for some — to relive the incident again as they go through the reporting process. We need to make sure we have the necessary supports in place so that all people feel comfortable to come forward.

We all expect universities to be a safe place where students can focus on their studies and not worry about their safety as they walk across campus at night. As parents, we expect our sons and daughters to be safe. Moving away to attend university is usually the first time they are living on their own. This bill is a step in the right direction to help ensure the safety of all students.

This act requires public post-secondary institutions to have policies that address sexual misconduct and sets out procedures on complaint reporting and institutional response. The last thing we want is for victims to feel like they aren’t being heard. Having clear and specific policies in place will enable public universities, colleges and institutes to respond quickly and appropriately when an incident occurs.

Institutions will be given one year from the date of royal assent to establish a policy that is consistent with the legislation. Institutions need time to develop, consult with students and obtain internal approval for the sexual misconduct policy required under this legislation. They also need time to address any resource requirements through budget planning cycles.

I am happy to see that some institutions are already working on their policies. At UBC a draft sexual assault policy will be presented to the UBC board of governors in June, with a final version expected in the fall. The College of the Rockies plans to have a stand-alone sexual violence policy and protocols in place in the 2016-17 academic year. Once established, these policies will need to be reviewed at least once every three years or as directed by the minister with student consultation.

We have consulted with a number of key stakeholders when writing this legislation. Students across B.C. have a vested interest in this bill, and it is important that they were included in the process.

Some of the stakeholders we consulted with include: the Research Universities Council of British Columbia, which is the sector association for UBC, SFU, UVic, UNBC, Royal Roads and TRU; the Association of Institutes and Universities, which includes four teaching universities — the University of the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island University, Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Emily Carr University of Art and Design; three institutes — British Columbia Institute of Technology, the Justice Institute of B.C. and the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology; B.C. Colleges, which represents the colleges across the province; and the student associations. I want to thank all of these organizations for their input.

[1620]

“Sexual misconduct” is defined within the bill to include a wide range of actions, from the threat to commit an act of sexual misconduct through to sexual exploitation and sexual assault. This bill specifies a wide range of acts to be addressed in the required policies. This includes but is not limited to sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking and voyeurism.

Having clear policies helps ensure safer campuses and will hopefully reduce the likelihood of underreporting. If people feel their voices will be heard and there is a recourse for what they’ve experienced and suffered, they will be more likely to come forward.

I’m pleased that we’ve been able to work with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on this bill. It is a sign of what this Legislature can do when we work together. The ministry has a team of qualified people who know the intricacies of writing legislation. Building on what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head brought forward in his private member’s bill, M205, we were able to include some improvements to the bill.

Bill M205 did not accurately reflect the statutory scheme in British Columbia or drafting conventions. For example, the provision in M205 that allows the minister to require information is not needed. As well, the authority for the minister to require information from the public post-secondary institutions already exists in the University Act and the College and Institute Act.

There are similarities in the two bills. Both bills require public institutions to establish and implement a policy to address a wide range of sexual misconduct. Also, both require consultation with students, a policy review every three years, annual reporting on the policy implementation to the board of governors and an option for the minister to compel an institution to survey students on the effectiveness of that policy.

I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for bringing this bill forward, and I thank the Minister of Advanced Education for working to improve this bill so we can ensure that students feel safer on their campuses.

H. Bains: I also rise to speak in favour of this bill. As I was reading through the information here, the thoughts that were going through my mind were: “What took us so long? I mean, we have such high-profile cases coming from all different universities and colleges, and we heard of the culture that existed in universities and colleges. Why didn’t we take steps to protect those young women — our daughters, our sisters — that we sent to university for higher education?”

Those stories that those young women tell the world, the victims of sexual assault — the impact left on them is
[ Page 12932 ]
permanent. I think it’s about time that we start to think about these things very, very seriously and take some real steps.

When you look at what’s going on in universities and colleges, you wonder. These are the institutions where we send our youngsters to get the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed in their careers, and this is where the research is taking place. This is where I think the universities play a role — a key role, in my view — in shaping our societies. If that kind of culture existed and the lawmakers knew that this was what’s happening — they were told time and again — why didn’t we act?

I’m not pointing fingers at anybody. I’m sure that we all can take blame for not pushing hard enough to have a policy such as this come earlier and sooner. When you look at some of the things that you read and some of the studies and surveys that are conducted…. The Toronto Star did a survey and did a thorough investigation on this issue. Nine out of 78 universities that they surveyed — only nine of the 78 — have some sort of a policy to deal with issues of sexual assault on their campuses. They also talked to 24 colleges; none of them have it.

[1625]

You’re talking about over 100 universities and colleges. Only nine of them have policies. Only nine of them felt that there was a need to have a policy to deal with sexual assault cases. How you investigate, how the victim can report without getting humiliated over and over again and explaining her story over and over again — that policy does not exist.

I think it is very, very disturbing. It’s shameful, in my view, that renowned universities, the universities that the world looked up to — universities like UBC, our own here; McGill; University of Toronto; Ryerson — none of them had any policy.

It just tells you. What kind of culture is that? What kind of thinking is going on out there? Are we only concentrating on the academic development of those students, not looking out for their health and safety? Who are we trying to teach these skills? How are you supposed to teach them? How are they supposed to learn if we don’t even protect them from these kinds of assaults?

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you take a seat.

Hon. J. Rustad: We need to reinvigorate the Committee A. In Committee of Supply A, I call the Ministry of Justice.

H. Bains: I think those are the thoughts that go through your mind and what was going on in…. I mean, these are very smart people who run the universities — very, very smart people, and some of the smartest people around. They never thought it was important enough to have a policy to protect the students that they’re trying to teach. It is timely that we have this debate going on and that we have this policy.

Let’s go on. The Star also said in their survey that they spoke to administrators, professors, residence advisers, rape crisis centres, police, parents, friends of victims. They spoke about sexual assaults taking place at parties, at dorm rooms, at apartments rented by students.

They also found out that the victims, who were victims of assault have…. It derailed their academic careers completely — women attending top institutions across this country. It left them shaken, confused, anxious and depressed. That’s the thing that we are trying to…. Why wouldn’t anybody figure out how serious this issue is so that we do something about that?

My issue with this bill is this. I hope the minister is listening. It talks about…. When you look at the explanatory note, it says the bill requires public post-secondary institutions to establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy — only the public post-secondary institution.

You know, there are so many private colleges, and this bill does not apply to them. I wonder why. I think those are some of the questions that we will be asking the minister. Why would you not cover the private institutions?

Here, I think, the problem is even more serious. These are international students who come. A lot of the private colleges and institutions have them, and we have heard horror stories about international students. They are in a much more vulnerable situation than our own students. Our own students are facing the issues that I just described, in our universities, as serious as they are. But those foreign students in those private colleges are more vulnerable.

[1630]

I think the minister needs to think. We need to expand this to the private colleges. Those students are at much more vulnerable situation than our home students here attending our universities. These students, many of them, have no place to go. They can’t complain. When they complain, they know they probably would be sent back to their country.

I think there are some real issues here. I think the minister needs to pay serious attention to this part here. Why would you leave the private colleges out? You need to add them and include them in this bill — through regulations, if you can do that. I don’t know. When the bill only talks about the public post-secondary institutions….

You need to include private colleges here so that we are serious about protecting all women, all young women going to our universities and colleges, regardless of whether they’re public or they’re private.

Being a father of a daughter, and many of the members here, the people who are listening…. It is one thing that goes through a parent’s mind when our daughters are at universities and colleges. We take pride, when they go to these universities, that they are acquiring the skills and knowledge that they need to be equal in society and be equal participants in running our country and making those decisions that affect all of us. But we always have it
[ Page 12933 ]
in the back of our minds — are our daughters safe when they are in university and college? — after we read all kinds of stories in the media.

That’s why I’m saying that those are daughters of somebody. They come here from other countries, and they are in private schools, private colleges. They need just as much protection, if not more.

So I would hope that the minister will take a serious look at this and try to include the private colleges so that all of those foreign students that are here are protected as well. They require just as much protection, as I said before, as our students in universities and colleges here. Hopefully, the minister will find some way to have this policy expanded to the private colleges. Hopefully, when it comes to the committee stage, we will be asking this question, and hopefully, the minister will have an answer to address that issue.

But I’m happy about this bill because it does talk about having a very comprehensive policy to deal with sexual assault cases in our universities and colleges and then to have a survey periodically to make sure, to see if the policy is working, going through consultation with the students and with the office, with the university faculty and staff, so that we understand whether the policy needs changes and that they are required to report to the governing bodies periodically. I think that is a good thing.

So I’m happy that I was able to have my contribution to add to this bill. I think overall it’s a good bill. I think it’s long overdue, and we need this in place, like, yesterday. But I’m hoping that the minister will seriously consider finding a way to expand this to cover all universities, colleges, private or public.

Thank you very much for the time, and I look forward to further debate.

D. McRae: Today I rise to speak to Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. I begin by wanting to thank members of this chamber. I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I want to thank the Minister of Advanced Education, and, of course, I want to thank the Premier of British Columbia. It is so nice to see, when some important social work comes forward, that there is work on both sides of the floor that basically results in a bill that will make our province and our society better.

When I rise to speak today, I find myself both pleased and saddened on this issue. I thought I would begin by saying why I’m saddened. It’s funny how it’s 2016, and we — and I mean the collective “we” of the Legislature — should have done this a long time ago.

[1635]

That being said, after spending seven years in this chamber, sometimes the right epiphany or the right situation or the right catalyst, and sometimes just the wrong catalyst, basically prompts people to action. When you look at the goals of this act…. While we should have done it and could have done it a long time ago, I am happy to say we are doing it today.

As I listen to speakers on both sides of the floor, there are obviously suggestions about how it could be revised to a better place. There is an opportunity, I think, here, to again make sure that our sons and daughters, be they born or not, as they go forward, are going to be living in a better society.

What are the goals of this legislation,? Well, firstly, basically, they want policies to ensure safer campuses and reduce the likelihood of underreporting. I think we would like to say we could live in a perfect world where everybody was willing to come forward and speak their mind, but with these circumstances, like many other circumstances, there is a call to silence, and the call to silence can only be broken with, I think, awareness, confidence and supports.

We also want to make sure that universities have clear and specific policies that enable the post-secondary institutions to respond quickly and appropriately when an incident occurs to ensure that health and safety are protected and appropriate procedures are initiated. Of course we do.

I think, sadly, people in this chamber and beyond, when they think of circumstances that are so horrendous, often they are not learning of them soon thereafter and getting supports for those who need it soon thereafter. It comes later, sometimes much later — sometimes decades later. It causes a person’s life to be affected in ways that are unimaginable.

Lastly, the bill requires that a wide range of acts be addressed in the required policies by said universities, post-secondary institutions, etc., that include, but are not limited to, sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking and voyeurism.

Like many of us in this chamber, I did, too, attend university. I, too, attended and lived in dorms. I enjoyed my time in the 1980s and 1990s very much. I think I was blissfully unaffected, but also, perhaps, incredibly ignorant of what was going on around the place that I lived. I don’t want to pretend for a second that incidents didn’t occur. I just happened to not be aware of them. But as I age and get wiser, I realize that just because I didn’t know about them, there were definitely opportunities that occurred there and ones that were definitely inappropriate and wrecked people’s lives, wrecked people’s educational experiences and wrecked, sadly, their potential, sometimes.

I know because of that, especially in the past, and probably very much today, people often suffer in silence. They’re often suffering in silence because they were not provided the necessary supports that they needed at the time. I think back, even on a very basic level, to some of the incidents 25 years ago, when I was at a post-secondary institution. Again, as I mentioned earlier, I did live in dorms. I remember one of the policies, I think, of
[ Page 12934 ]
the university I went to school at, which seemed eminently reasonable at the time. To prevent voyeurism in our dorm, they put men on the bottom floor as many times as they could. I think voyeurism occurs regardless of gender. I think that while that was probably brought in, well before my time, with good intent, it probably was a pretty hollow policy.

There were attacks at university when I was there, lots of attacks. When I say lots, I don’t have numbers. I just mean that they did occur. I remember the university was scared. It was scared to the point where…. To the students’ credit…. I will include myself in this, but definitely many, many others. I remember nights…. Especially, it would be women in libraries. They would call our pay phones in our dorms and say: “It’s ten o’clock. I don’t want to walk home with someone I don’t know. Will you come and get us?” Even though we were probably watching some really important Cheers episode on TV, you would actually watch people who didn’t really know this person get up, throw on a jacket and walk 20 minutes across the campus to help someone get back, in a safe environment, to the dorm.

Now, I think the university did provide some supports there as well, but it was more just a sense of community that the residents had. But it wasn’t as formal as I would have liked at the time. As I look back, I don’t think I’d want my children, at that stage, to have their support network being “we’re going to call a pay phone, and hopefully, someone’s going to come get us and walk us home.” Now, I’m glad people do, but I think we could do better.

Because of this act that the minister is bringing forward today, I think we’re getting to a much better place. Like, probably, today — though I don’t go to university today — there was the consumption of alcohol and drugs, which is no excuse for anything, of course, but it does reduce people’s defences. I suppose that’s the best way to say it.

[1640]

People are taken advantage of, and it’s just not correct. We need to make sure that the supports are there. The earlier speakers on the other side were talking in ways that I totally agree on. We need to make sure that people are consenting but are also not put in places of risk.

The other thing that saddens me a little bit…. I speak from my professional career, one that I will be returning to in short order. I had the fortunate situation of teaching high school for many years, sending young people off to post-secondary experiences, and I gladly did so. I think, as a teacher, I did a pretty darn decent job of teaching things like how to create a term paper, critical thinking, research, perhaps some study skills.

I also wanted to make sure that they went off to post-secondary because they knew there were some great opportunities there — opportunities to have educational experiences, perhaps employment experiences later on but also just a social, fun experience. But I don’t think I did a very good job as a teacher in the system of making sure that they were prepared for some of the challenges that they would face, some the responsibilities that they would face, when they went to post-secondary.

I think the school system is getting to a better place, where we are making a more worldly student who leaves the school system, but parents also have a place to play.

Now, while I did say I’m saddened to some degree to speak to this bill — and I’m saddened because I wish it was done earlier — I’m also very pleased to speak to this bill. I’m pleased because, as members in this chamber know, I am the father to two young children. I want them to have as many opportunities in their life as possible. Post-secondary is something that I want them to consider.

When they go…. And remember, we live in a small rural community where I’m from. There’s a chance that they might take post-secondary in our community, but they might also leave home. I think for most of us, in our experiences in this chamber but also for our children, we’re excited to see our children go off to post-secondary opportunities, but we’re also a little nervous for them. We want to make sure that there are the supports for these children that they need and that when parents aren’t there — and we’re not always going to be there — there is that support network but also that policy network.

I look at the world that we live in today, and I know it’s just so much more complex than it was even just a short time ago. I remember thinking, even back when I was in university, the idea of high tech at university when I went was that there were two or three CD-ROMs in the library. People were talking about this thing called the Internet, but we didn’t really understand it. Our PCs at the time — you had these floppy disks that you had to shove in. Realistically, high tech, still, at university when I went, was the microfiche and the card catalogue.

Yet with technology, whether it’s at post-secondary or beyond, I look at what the on-line world provides, and I’m excited by it to some degree, but as a parent, as well, it makes me so incredibly nervous about choices.

I think that in this chamber, many of us have probably seen the downside of politics when we try our very best — whether we’re in government, whether in opposition — and the haters that exist. I think we always want to put forward that — you know what? — that vitriol, the hatred that sometimes can be spewed our way, chances are by people we’ve never met and will never meet, is hurtful. We’re grown adults, probably fairly confident in many things, and the Internet can be just a vehicle of hate. It’s so sad. Social media has that place, and I worry about that a lot.

I’m also excited, though, about what the students are learning both from their parents and from the school system. I think there was a decade of scary unawareness. I think they’re doing a better job going forward, but the on-line world does concern me a lot. I always use the line to my daughters but also to my students when I used to
[ Page 12935 ]
teach, that boring emails I’ll delete all the time, but emails that are bad or maybe more interesting, they never get put away. They’re always there.

The other thing, too, is that as our sons and daughters and our neighbours go off to public post-secondary or private post-secondary institutions, I’m excited because I think we have students that are perhaps more worldly in a positive way than ever before. I look at the students that I see in the Comox Valley — I know it’s not just our community — and I see a global awareness that didn’t exist. I see a self-confidence. I see better communication skills. Even at the very young kindergarten stages, we start things like Roots of Empathy and Seeds of Empathy.

I see, as well, in the world…. I was very fortunate, as the people in this chamber know, to be the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation for a period of time.

[1645]

I see the younger generation. Their willingness to accept, to be tolerant, to include and have an inclusive society with persons with disabilities is just so much more than it was five or ten years ago and definitely more than 20 or 30 years ago.

When we talk about this Bill 23, we want our sons and our daughters to be safe. University can provide that. I think the formal opportunity, with this bill, will make sure that parents…. It’s never going to be a perfect environment, by any stretch. But we can make sure that there is a test and the test is being reached — that we have the ability to send our young people off and they feel safe on campus and they’re going in the right direction.

It’s the opportunity to make sure that there are clear and specific public policies for our universities or colleges. They have to respond quickly, like was said in this chamber. There are circumstances where, when incidents occur, supports need to be provided. And you know what? Everybody has the right to attend a post-secondary institution to get their education in an area that is without harassment, without threat, without prevention of wanting to improve oneself.

Right now it’s possible that that does not exist. But it’s exciting to see that the minister is bringing forward a bill. Once the bill is completed in this chamber, post-secondaries will have one year to step forward and make sure those policies are there.

While I referred to some of the bizarre technology as it has moved forward from CD-ROMs and microfiche to the on-line world of social media, this bill allows for an evolution of process. One of the points is that, once established, policies will need to be reviewed, with student consultation, at least once every three years or as directed by the minister. I think that’s an absolutely essential element of this act. It’s a recognition that we live in an ever-changing world. What we think we know today will not be what we know tomorrow.

This bill allows flexibility to make sure when…. Say, for example, myself — my oldest child is 12 years old. The world she will know six years from now or nine years from now, I can only imagine. I hope it’s a far better place, that world. What the technology is and the challenges are, this act will be actually responsive to. I think these kinds of elements being brought in make this bill much stronger, and I applaud the minister for doing so.

I also applaud the universities for embracing this. They recognize there is huge value and opportunity. While maybe they would argue they weren’t always thinking about this before, this is what leadership is all about. The minister has said, “We demand leadership from our post-secondaries,” and to the post-secondaries’ credit, they’re there. They are going to step up and do it.

I look forward to watching this bill as it gets passed in this Legislature and as it evolves. I look forward to knowing that our children will be better served because of the work that we did in this legislative chamber today. By “we,” I mean the collective we — all of us. I want to thank all the members and the minister. I fully support Bill 23.

M. Mungall: I rise to speak to Bill 23, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. What this bill does is require that post-secondary institutions bring in sexual misconduct policies, post those policies, consult with students and others about those policies and review those policies once every three years. Institutions must also issue a survey about their policies at the request of the minister and must report to their boards of governors about their policies each year.

What we have here is a bill that is mandating post-secondary institutions to have an appropriate sexual misconduct policy in an effort to not only prevent but to address any type of sexual violence or harassment that can take place on campus.

For those who are watching and following this debate or those who are just tuning in right now, a little bit of backstory of how this legislation came forward. Prior to this legislation hitting any of the desks here in the Legislature, there was a real issue happening on our campuses right across this country. B.C. is no exception.

[1650]

This issue is that mostly female students are finding themselves having to advocate for their rights to safety. These are basic human rights — to be able to walk to class, walk home, go to the bus stop, go to the train station or whatever it is, and to be able to go a party. We all have been to post-secondary institutions — colleges, universities — and, of course, socializing is just as important as getting to class. We should all be able to participate in all of these activities, not having to worry about our safety.

Unfortunately, still today, that’s not the case. Many of us, mostly women, have to worry about our very safety on campuses, and the violence that we’re experiencing is often sexual in nature. As women, we are targeted because we still don’t live in a society where the men and women are fully equal.
[ Page 12936 ]

I know, like everybody else in this chamber, that when I started to hear the stories that were coming out of campuses, whether it was chants during frosh week that legitimized and epitomized rape culture or actual stories of assaults and women surviving assaults and going to their institutions and not feeling like they were getting the support that was needed — even in some cases, being silenced and ignored and dismissed — these types of stories really impacted me, as I’m sure they did everybody else in this House. That sort of stuff should not be going on. It’s not acceptable. It’s not okay in our society.

I want to applaud the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who represents two campuses in his riding, for listening to the students who came forward to him and for taking initiative on this very swiftly. I think that him doing that, and the response that we’re seeing from all MLAs, is very indicative that we don’t always disagree in this House.

Often, disagreement is imperative in a democracy — being allowed to disagree. Being allowed to debate is imperative for a democracy to thrive, but when good legislation comes forward, it’s also very important that we as legislators really take the time to acknowledge that and do the work necessary to see that legislation be moved forward and ultimately passed. So when the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head brought that forward, I was very pleased to see the government make a commitment to act on it sooner rather than later.

As a member of the opposition — independent members are also opposition members — I was very pleased to see that that was taking place, because it’s not very frequent, as you know, where an opposition private member’s bill gets picked up and, ultimately, brought forward for debate — even, at the very least, for debate. But ultimately, what I’m hearing, from the debate that’s going on right now, is that it will be passed with overwhelming support in this House. I think that gives testimony to how important this issue is and how non-partisan women’s safety must be.

As I mentioned, this bill addresses issues of equality and safety and treatment of all students. We know that in our society, unfortunately, the largest group of survivors of sexual violence and sexual misconduct are women. Taking action to ensure that our post-secondary campuses are ensuring that safety and that equality of treatment is incredibly important.

I think it’s so important that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to public institutions but that we need to be involving private institutions. Private post-secondary institutions are regulated. They are governed by this House, and to make an exception for them for this kind of policy, I’m not sure why that would be the case. It seems a natural inclusion, and I imagine that’s exactly why the original introducer of this type of legislation included them in his bill, but the government has since removed that.

[1655]

I’m sure that this issue will be canvassed in committee stage at length, but I hope that the minister is hearing the concern right now, very open to hearing that concern, because it’s not just us in the opposition, but this is students all across the province wanting to see private institutions included in this legislation.

It seems to make sense that that needs to take place, and it’s a mystery why that has not been done. So I hope that that’s canvassed during committee stage and an amendment is accepted by all members of the House that we must include private institutions so that every campus — every campus — in this province has a policy aimed at ensuring the safety and equal treatment of its students, because that’s what this is ultimately about.

In my conversations with students from Nelson-Creston — from Selkirk College, College of the Rockies, as well as students who recently had a day here at the Legislature — of course this issue came up, and we had extensive conversations on this particular issue. Student groups very much wanted to see this type of legislation. I have no doubt that they’re very pleased to see this come forward.

They also recognize that this is not an end-all and be-all, that this doesn’t cover all aspects of violence — the sexual-based violence that exists in our society. They recognize that this is campus-specific, that it’s meant to ensure that there are policies and, therefore, practices at institutions so that, should somebody survive violence, there is an appropriate process that the institution must follow that does not involve silencing or dismissing charges; that there is an appropriate policy that aims to educate and protect students from sexual violence.

Prevention is so much better than reaction in this situation. The damage is done when we’re reacting. The damage is done. Just waving a stick and saying, “You will be punished if something happens” is not the full picture in this story.

The full picture has to include on-campus education of how we treat each other respectfully, what sexual harassment is, what sexual violence is, what “no means no” is. Those education tools are absolutely imperative to prevent sexual violence. I believe that campuses, that institutions have an obligation to ensure that they’re delivering that type of education.

I hope, as they start to develop these policies, that that will be included in these policies. Because reacting means the damage has been done. Someone has been traumatized. Someone has lived through violence, and that’s not okay. Nobody should have to live that — nobody.

I remember a statistic showing that — this is incredibly surprising — many survivors of sexual assault didn’t understand the full scope of their assault. They downplayed it. They didn’t even know that no means no, that they had rights — a lack of understanding of what our own rights are and that being pressured isn’t okay and giving in isn’t something that we have to do.

[1700]

The incredible statistics around that very issue — that the majority of students don’t know the full extent of their rights, that they don’t know the full extent of what no means in legal terms, in practical terms — are hugely disturbing. Again, to me, that points to the need for that educational component. It’s exactly why student groups are speaking to that very issue.

Something else along with what I’ve already pointed out, particularly around private institutions not being included in this bill, is another issue that gives me a little bit of concern. I recognize my own limitations here, not being a litigator myself and having to address the legal nature in the courts around sexual misconduct and sexual violence. But what I see in this bill gives me a little pause for concern, and that’s that the definition of “sexual misconduct” does need to be more clear.

Right now, the current definition allows for…. What misconduct would be would be non-consensual sharing of sexual photos and videos, as long as the person sharing doesn’t have intent to distress the person in the photo or video. It’s that word there: “intent.” “What is the intention of the person who is doing harm?” is at question.

My understanding of the way the law has rolled out in terms of addressing sexual violence and people’s rights to be safe is that the issue is not the intent of the person causing harm. The issue is the effect of their actions. I’m concerned that this legislation is not in line with jurisprudence on this issue.

People are making faces at me right now, hon. Speaker. This is atrocious when we’re talking about this bill. I’ve already acknowledged my limitations on this issue. I don’t think that type of behaviour should be done at this time. That being said, I will continue on with my remarks.

My understanding of the jurisprudence in this country is that it is the effect that somebody could have on another individual. For example, we have somebody who has in their possession nude photos of a fellow student and posts them on line and says: “Oh, it was only a joke.” Well, their intention might have been to get a few laughs, but that’s certainly not the effect of that action. My understanding is that the law has been clear that it’s not the intent but the effect that it’s had on the person being targeted — I hate using this word but, ultimately, the person who has been the “victim” of these acts.

I know that will be canvassed in committee stage, and I hope that the minister responsible has his staff looking into this very issue right now. It’s a very important issue, as we make laws, that we are consistent with the way that laws have been interpreted around sexual violence. My understanding in the cases that I’ve been following is that it is a matter of effect and not intent — the effects that it’s had on the person who has endured that harm.

That being said, I think this bill is definitely headed in the right direction. It is where we need to be going in terms of ensuring that equality of safety, that equality of treatment on our campuses. I think it is moving, as I said, in the right direction. I think it is going to bring a lot of reassurance to students that these policies will exist.

[1705]

What it does is it also creates an accountability mechanism of institutions so that students are aware of these policies. It is in writing. It is cemented into the institution’s code of conduct, and students are able to hold that up. When they’ve been harmed, they are able to say: “You can’t silence me. You can’t dismiss me. This needs to be followed. This is the law.”

I’m very glad that all members of this House are speaking in support of this, because I do believe that this is an imperative issue of our time. I hope, in a few years from now, the stories that we have been hearing of sexual violence and sexual harassment on campuses come to an end. This is one of the tools we have to facilitate that end.

I thank everybody for their work on this. And I thank everybody for their supportive comments on this bill. I look forward to the ongoing debate and the ongoing discussion in committee stage and, ultimately, the passage of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, the Minister of Advanced Education closes the debate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to see the progress of this bill into second reading.

Of course, the bill originated with an initiative from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, which was promptly taken up by the Premier. The bill was further developed with the advice of legislative counsel and made its way through the committee process to make its way here today.

This has been a truly productive multilateral effort and, of course, it’s a pleasure to see support from both sides of the House — all components of the House — in terms of moving this bill forward.

Through that process, there was also significant consultation with our institutions and with student associations and student advocacy groups so that we could make sure that this was actually on track to proceed in a useful and productive direction to the satisfaction of all involved. That, of course, is our goal — to bring about, in fairly short order, a situation where all of our institutions have developed the necessary policies to make much less likely and much less unpleasant the kind of regrettable and miserable acts that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake recited in her poignant and moving remarks about her experiences with these circumstances.

As we move into this century, we can look forward to a more modernized approach on our campuses. This, of course, is where tens of thousands of young people congregate. It’s not only that population coming into adulthood who are exposed to these risks. It’s also the fact that the congregations of those young people attract outside people who should not be there, who have come there
[ Page 12938 ]
for all the wrong purposes. We hope to address that in the preventative side of this bill.

With that in mind, I move second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for second reading of Bill 24, intituled Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, 2016.

BILL 24 — PROFITS OF CRIMINAL
NOTORIETY ACT

Hon. M. Morris: I move that Bill 24 now be read a second time.

Deputy Speaker: Did you want to make a statement, Minister?

Hon. M. Morris: It’s my pleasure to rise today and speak about Bill 24, the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act.

Our government wants British Columbians to know that criminals will not be allowed to profit from recounting their crimes.

[1710]

We have a responsibility to protect victims, and it’s unacceptable that criminals benefit from the harm they have caused others. The Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act would, if passed, provide government with the tools to prevent criminals from profiting financially from the recounting of crimes. In the light of the book recently written by convicted serial killer Robert Pickton while in prison, it’s clear that this kind of legislation is needed in British Columbia.

While government cannot prohibit a criminal from telling his or her stories, the legislation would prevent them from profiting from their crimes. This bill will apply to criminals convicted of serious and violent crimes such as murder, criminal harassment, kidnapping, and trafficking in persons or drugs. It targets those who recount stories of their crimes through books, movies or television.

The legislation will also apply to criminals who sell memorabilia and receive financial gain due to the notoriety of the crime. Our government believes it’s wrong for criminals convicted of serious offences to profit in this way. The proposed legislation will also prevent offenders from assigning any of their rights under a contract to other parties, such as a spouse or relative.

Under this legislation, if a person decides to retell their crime, they cannot collect any money from doing so. If a profit is made from the recounting of a crime, the money must be turned over to the government.

The focus of this bill is not to restrict individual rights, such as freedom of expression, but to prohibit serious offenders from financially exploiting the notoriety of their crime. This bill strikes an appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of victims of crime.

Bill 24 would allow the government to seize and recover the profits from a person convicted of a designated crime where such payment results from any kind of verbal or written contract for the recounting of a crime. All parties to a contract for a recounting of a crime designated under the legislation will have an obligation to report the terms of the contract to the government and pay any money or other consideration under those contracts to the government.

If money due to government is not paid, government will be able to recover any profits made under the contract. Any person who contravenes the act may be liable for a fine up to $50,000 plus an amount equal to the value of consideration under a contract. In addition, the person still has the duty to turn over any profits made for the recounting of a crime.

This bill also supports victims of crime. The legislation provides that any funds government receives under the act will be kept in a trust fund to enable proceeds to be paid to victims or their families and any surplus amounts to a general victim support fund.

Bill 24 is similar to legislation that has been passed in five other provinces, directed at preventing convicted offenders from financially profiting from the recounting of their crimes. The Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act will ensure government has the tools it needs to effectively prevent the profiting from crimes in British Columbia.

I hope that all members will agree on the intent and necessity of this bill.

A. Weaver: Near the end of February, British Columbia faced an issue similar to what other provinces have faced in the past. Robert Pickton, one of Canada’s most prolific serial killers, published a book entitled Pickton: In His Own Words.

This book was available on Amazon for a short while before it was taken down. As one might have expected, the situation outraged many people across the province and brought to light a gap in our current legal system. Prior to the introduction of this legislation before us, we had nothing in our province that prevented convicted criminals from financially profiting through the recounting of their crimes. That’s why my office and I delved deeper into this issue and identified a number of provinces that had already introduced legislation to address this issue.
[ Page 12939 ]

On February 25, 2016, I introduced Bill M204, Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, 2016, which was based on similar legislation in Nova Scotia. I am strongly in support of the intentions of this legislation and look forward to its passage in the Legislature.

[1715]

However, please let me take a few minutes to recount the other side of what we uncovered as we looked into this issue. It’s my hope that by doing so, I can contribute positively to making a strong piece of legislation that is applied appropriately to specific situations, such as the case with Robert Pickton.

Now, Ontario was the first Legislature in Canada to enact legislation that prevented criminals from profiting from the notoriety of their crimes through recounting them, typically through publishing books that retold their crimes. Ontario passed this legislation in 2002. Manitoba followed in 2004, Alberta in 2005, Nova Scotia in 2006 and Saskatchewan in 2009.

I think it’s important to note that, as far as I can tell, Canada’s Parliament has refused to bring in similar legislation for fears of impairment of the free speech of Canadians. This concern arose in 1996 when the Senate rejected Bill C-205, which would see amendments made to the Copyright Act and the Criminal Code in order to create a federal law. While the bill passed through the House of Commons, the Senate received legal opinions that cautioned that the legislation would cause an infringement to their freedom of expression guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is here that I’d like to highlight the work of Joanne Colledge, executive officer to the Chief Justice of Saskatchewan and the provincial judicial council, and John Whyte, an emeritus professor in the department of politics and international studies at the University of Regina. Their paper, entitled “Capturing Proceeds from Criminal Notoriety: A Case Study,” was published in 2012 in issue 2 of volume 17 of the journal Review of Constitutional Studies, pages 41 to 72. You can get the link on my website after today.

This paper provides an excellent overview of one of the most important debates we must undertake in advancing this legislation. It further shines a light on a potential pitfall for governments who seek to take this law too far or to prosecute a specific individual instead of an issue of public policy. The work by Colledge and Whyte explores the series of events that led to Saskatchewan’s bill being introduced in 2009 and their concerns that it represented a possible Charter violation. This was due to the way in which the bill seemed to target an individual specifically rather than a public policy in general.

The individual in question, Mr. Colin Thatcher, was in the press at the time in discussions about his attempt to publish a book recounting some elements surrounding his arrest and conviction. Please let me quote directly from the work of Colledge and Whyte:

“While certainly not unique to Saskatchewan, the enactment of the Notoriety Act caused concern precisely because it was done so quickly, without due consideration for potential constitutional considerations; because it was targeted specifically to ensure that Thatcher’s book would be captured by the act’s provisions, including expressly making the Notoriety Act’s application retroactive; and because of all this occurred before anyone in the government or elsewhere had seen the book’s content. That the Notoriety Act may have been targeted specifically to capture Thatcher’s book seems especially significant, since written into the Notoriety Act are two sections that were not applied by the government. These two sections allow exceptions to the act’s application when the content falls within certain statutory definitions.”

What ultimately came to issue here was the language used by the Saskatchewan Legislature. They created: “definitional layers and an indeterminate scope that serve to frustrate a clear understanding of which writings will actually fall within the Notoriety Act’s expropriating provisions.” That was a direct quote from the same paper.

Now, I know that this Legislature will have ample opportunity to ensure that the language chosen in the government’s bill, the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, does not create a similar issue. However, I felt it was important to take an opportunity at second reading to ensure that the principle in question was expressed.

This bill and the similar legislation I introduced followed a specific case where an individual whose actions horrified British Columbians attempted to publish an account of these crimes for profit. While I’m convinced that we must address a glaring legislative gap, and I further stand behind the principle that this legislation advances, we must ensure that we are setting up a legislative framework that works to create a fundamental tenet: those who commit criminal acts should not profit from the direct retelling of their crimes. We must ensure that this is restricted to instances where the purpose of the individual was exactly this.

[1720]

The concerns expressed in the Colledge and Whyte paper are that the individual in Saskatchewan, Colin Thatcher, who I mentioned earlier, was not attempting to publish a recounting of his crimes but rather “to examine the police investigation and prosecution, and to analyze critically both the evidence and the theory on which his conviction was based.”

The central tenet expressed in their critique seems well founded. We must not allow this legislation to become a tool that represses legitimate forms of free speech. Whether or not a government likes something that is published should not be the determining factor; rather, whether the text meets the specific requirements of the legislation before us should be.

This is why the words matter. Words matter. They must be able to diverge unpopular opinions from those where an individual seeks to recount their crimes for profit.

I look forward to exploring this in more detail when the minister brings this bill to committee stage and hope to get his perspective on where, in this balancing act, this
[ Page 12940 ]
particular piece of legislation lands. I commend the government for bringing the legislation forward. It’s timely, needed. I thank you for your attention.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 24, the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. We brought this bill in so that murderers and others convicted of serious crimes will not be able to profit from their crimes through memoirs or other memorabilia and inflict further pain and anguish on their victims and families.

We were all shocked when we heard the news that Robert Pickton had published a book under a pseudonym and it was selling on line. It’s hard to imagine the feelings that the victims’ families must have felt when they heard this news. Criminals should not benefit from the sale of their stories in any form, and we are taking steps to make sure this doesn’t happen.

If passed, this legislation will target those who attempt to benefit from the sale of their stories in any written form or broadcast form or for memorabilia related to their crimes. Any profits would instead be required to be paid to the province for redistribution to victims or their families, and any surplus amounts would be used to support victim services. The act prevents offenders from assigning rights to another person — like a spouse, friend or relative — and this way any proceeds will again go towards victims, their families or to support victim services.

This act will apply to criminals convicted of serious or violent crimes, including murder, sexual offences, child exploitation, kidnapping, drug trafficking and trafficking of persons. This legislation is designed to be retrospective. This will apply to contracts signed since January 1, 2001.

For constitutional reasons, the act cannot ban a criminal from telling his or her story. People still have the constitutional right to freedom of speech. However, it will ban a criminal from receiving financial gain from telling those stories. The act will apply where there is a substantive B.C. connection, such as if the crime occurred in the province. Or if the crime occurred elsewhere, if the person paying for the story or the criminal receiving payment is a B.C. resident or is serving a custodial sentence in B.C., this will apply.

This government took swift action when the news broke that Robert Pickton had published a book and was selling it on line. We worked with Amazon to pull the book and began drafting legislation to prevent any other notorious criminals from making money from retelling their stories.

Other jurisdictions in Canada have already implemented similar legislation. These include Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This kind of legislation is frequently developed in response to a particular situation to prevent a convicted criminal from profiting from his or her crime. The legislation in Saskatchewan is an example of this and was enacted in 2009 after word got out — as the member opposite just mentioned — that convicted wife-killer Colin Thatcher was penning a book for sale.

[1725]

While we need to respect the constitutional right of freedom of speech, we still can and do, through this legislation, make sure that any profits from such telling of stories, writings, can be distributed to victims and their families.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on Bill 24, the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. I rise to say that we will be supporting this bill without hesitation.

I think all of us, as has been alluded to by the two previous speakers and the minister, were shocked when we heard that Robert Pickton — I’ll do a bit of a backstory on that in a second — was publishing a book on his horrific and heinous crimes, which actually occurred in my riding, very close to where I live. The idea that he would profit from that, I think, was abhorrent to just about everybody when they heard it.

At the time when the news of that broke, I remember being asked for my comments, and I said that I hoped…. The government needed to move quickly on that — that this should not be allowed, should not be happening, that it was just disgusting. I know the minister responded by saying that the government would be looking into ensuring that we were able to make sure that that did not happen. The member from Oak Bay responded by tabling a private member’s bill.

I think it reflected the feeling expressed by members on all sides of this House, reflected the abhorrence that all of us felt to the idea that an individual who had committed, I think, some of the most heinous crimes that have ever occurred in this country should stand to profit. I think the outrage was such that Amazon saw it and realized that this book needed to be pulled, and it was so.

This legislation is important because it will ensure that not just in the case of Robert Pickton…. As has already been stated, it is retroactive to 2001. It is a bill designed to ensure that those who participate in particularly violent crimes — whether it is murder, whether it is kidnapping, whether it is drug trafficking — do not profit.

This is a bill that does not stifle free speech. As has been pointed out, individuals have the right under our system, under our constitution, to free speech. But we as a legislature also have the ability to speak up on behalf of victims and ensure that those who commit these kinds of crimes in fact do not profit. That is a key part. That is what this legislation will accomplish.

It’s not new in this country. In fact, it’s not new in other jurisdictions. We have seen this kind of legislation in the United States. We have seen it in other jurisdic-
[ Page 12941 ]
tions in Europe. We have seen it other provinces. As has been listed, Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have all put in place similar legislation.

It is legislation that has stood the test of time. My colleague from Oak Bay outlined issues around free speech and the work that has been done on that. It is our reading of the bill that it is certainly in line with those constitutional protections and, at the same time, will reflect the will of this House that those who have committed such horrific crimes do not profit from them.

There will be, no doubt, I think, some discussion during committee stage to look at the language to make sure that it is right, that it will accomplish what we want, and I think that it will. As has been said already, words do matter, and in legislation like this, we do want to make sure that those words are right.

I will let the minister know ahead of time that there is a section where I will be proposing an amendment where I think that we can strengthen and improve the bill. I will be happy to discuss that with him and offer it either as a formal amendment or as a friendly amendment. I think there is an area that could be improved on, and I look forward to the discussion on that at the committee stage.

[1730]

The bottom line is this. With this bill, this House is responding to the outrage that the public in this province felt upon hearing the news that Willie Pickton was going to be potentially profiting from a book recounting his crimes. I can tell you, as someone who lives in Port Coquitlam, that that was absolutely unacceptable.

I will have a question — in some ways, it is probably a moot point — how the date around 2001 was arrived at. My initial reaction was: how would this impact someone like Clifford Olson, for example? Then remembering, of course, that that most evil of individuals is in fact dead, so it’s moot in that regard. Again, it raised the issue of those who have the potential to do that. So I would seek clarification on how the date of 2001 was arrived at.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This is a piece of legislation that this side of the House most certainly will be supporting, one which we will explore further at committee stage to make sure that it does everything that we want it to. With that, I will take my place and listen to the remarks of others on the debate.

D. Barnett: Thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to this very important bill on behalf of the constituents of Cariboo-Chilcotin. The Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act is in direct response to news that serial killer Robert Pickton had written a book and that it was selling on the Internet. Our government worked with Amazon.ca to pull the book from shelves, and then our government began drafting legislation to prevent any notorious criminals from making money retelling their stories. The book written by Pickton while in prison has been removed from circulation.

This legislation means victims or their family members will not be forced to endure the public retelling of the crime committed against their loved ones. This kind of legislation is often enacted in response to a particular situation to prevent a convicted criminal from profiting from his or her crime. The same kind of legislation was enacted in Saskatchewan in 2009 after word got out that convicted wife-killer Colin Thatcher was in the process of writing a book.

Under the legislation, convicted offenders will not be able to give their profits from the sale of books or memorabilia of their crimes to another person, like an agent, friend, spouse or relative. The new act will apply to contracts for recounting of serious crimes, including verbal contracts, where consideration is paid to an offender convicted of the crime that is being recounted, or to his or her agent. How the act will apply to a specific case, including on-line publishing, will depend on the facts of the case and nature of the publication.

Under this legislation, murderers and others convicted of serious crimes will not be able to profit from their crimes through memoirs or memorabilia and inflict further anguish on their victims and families. If passed, the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act will target those who attempt to benefit from the sale of their stories in any written or broadcast form or from memorabilia related to their crimes. Any profits would instead be required to be paid to the province for redistribution to victims or their families, with any surplus amounts used to support victim services.

The act will apply to criminals convicted of serious or violent crimes such as murder, sexual offences, child exploitation, kidnapping, drug trafficking or trafficking in persons. It’s also designed to be retrospective, applying to contracts signed since January 2001.

[1735]

For constitutional reasons, the act cannot ban a criminal from telling his or her story; only from receiving a financial gain as a result. The new legislation follows public outrage and swift action earlier this year in the wake of news that Robert Pickton had published a book under a pen name and that it was selling on line.

The proposed legislation will require that parties that enter into a verbal or written contract for recounting of a notorious crime notify government about its terms; prohibit a person from providing or accepting money or other consideration under such contracts for recounting of a notorious crime; allow government to apply to court to take profits from sale of crime-related memorabilia; and prevent offenders from assigning rights to another person like a spouse, friend or relative.

The act will apply where there is a strong B.C. connection, such as the crime occurred in the province or, if it occurred elsewhere, the person paying for the story or
[ Page 12942 ]
the criminal receiving payment is a resident of B.C. or is serving a sentence in the province.

The new act will apply to contracts for recounting of serious crimes including verbal contracts where consideration is paid to an offender convicted of the crime that is being recounted or his or her agent. How the act will apply to a specific case, including on-line publishing, will depend on the facts of the case and nature of the publication.

This legislation does not prohibit publication but rather prevents persons from financially profiting from a recounting of their crime. This bill will certainly help those who have been victims of crime and notorious incidents.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to conclude the debate.

Hon. M. Morris: I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading of Bill 25, the Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016. I’d just ask for a five-minute recess, if we may.

Deputy Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 5:38 p.m. to 5:43 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: The debate on Bill 25 will continue now, recognizing the Minister of Advanced Education. Before that, the member for Vancouver-Kensington is seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I appreciate the opportunity to make an introduction. I have two very special guests with us here in the precinct. We have, of course, my partner, Natalie Drolet, a very distinguished immigration lawyer and executive director for the West Coast Domestic Workers Association, joining us here, accompanied by her father, John Drolet. He’s visiting from Ottawa — first time in the B.C. Legislature and returned to Victoria. They enjoyed the day here.

John has had a distinguished career in Canada Post. He was the postal inspector in charge of security and investigations in western Canada, from Ontario, including B.C. — really overseeing security and investigations right across half our country.

[1745]

A lot of great stories and adventures, from northern Ontario right across to Calgary and even to British Columbia. He really played a part in terms of shaping the dynamic role that postal offices played right across our country — in particular, the special role they played in rural communities.

I appreciate him here. He’s now a commissioner, usually in Ottawa, with the parliament there and with the School of Public Service and Environment Canada and the Governor General of Canada. He’s the sergeant commissioner there.

I’m very happy to have him here and ask everybody to please give both Natalie and John a very warm welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(GENERAL) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016, now be read a second time.

Bill 25 amends a number of statutes. In part 1, the bill proposes two amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The first amendment will require the Agricultural Land Commission to obtain landowner consent before making a decision to exclude land from the agricultural land reserve. This amendment is critical to resolving the problem of unilateral exclusion decisions by the commission.

Currently, the commission is able to exclude land from the agricultural land reserve on its own initiative or in response to an application from a local government or a First Nation of jurisdiction. This process is typically referred to as a boundary review. In certain cases, owners may have a strong interest in retaining the ALR status but have no ability to stop the commission from excluding their land. The amendment will ensure that landowners’ consent is obtained before exclusion occurs and maximize the amount of land retained in the ALR.

The second amendment addresses the current inability to place different conditions on events held on different types of land within the ALR. This proposed amendment will allow regulations to differentiate the circumstances under which events such as weddings or other forms of agritourism can be held at wineries and the circumstances under which those events can be held
[ Page 12943 ]
on different ALR properties designated for different land use. There is currently no ability to set different conditions for events held on properties with different types of land use in the ALR.

The proposed amendment to the Assessment Act will provide authority to prescribe assessed values by regulation for designated restricted-use properties such as B.C. Ferry Services or Nav Canada navigation facilities. Regulated values will effectively eliminate the application of current and future nominal valuations and significantly reduce the prospect of appeals on those assessments. The rationale for this legislation is that it supports a fair and consistent assessment system, predictable and stable property tax revenues as well as the government’s stated policy that all property owners and taxable occupiers should pay their fair share of property taxes.

A correction is proposed to the Local Government Act. Last year the office of legislative counsel revised the Local Government Act under the Statute Revision Act. The Local Government Act is the largest act in the B.C. statute book, and there are hundreds of internal cross-references.

The revision separated the former division 7 into four more readable divisions. However, a cross-reference was missed, which resulted in a contradiction. The proposed change removes the contradiction but will not change the legal effect of this provision.

Part 3 of the bill amends two Ministry of Environment statutes. The amendments to the Environmental Management Act would add mechanisms to provide greater certainty concerning waste discharge authorizations issued in the context of an approved area-based management plan under the act and greater flexibility in maintaining area-based management plans.

The new provisions will allow the minister responsible for the act to, by order, require the issuance of permits with specified conditions and within a specified time frame when a project is covered by an approved area-based management plan. The new authorities will also allow the minister to, by order, require the preparation of amendments to approved area-based management plans when appropriate — for example, to implement adaptive management based on new information.

Further, the proposed amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will modify the boundary of Finn Creek Park, north of Clearwater, to remove 2.43 hectares to enable construction, maintenance and operation of Kinder Morgan Canada’s proposed Trans Mountain expansion project. Under the provincial protected area boundary adjustment policy, procedures and guidelines, a proponent may request the province to consider a boundary adjustment proposal and evaluate the request. The province’s approval of the application to adjust the park boundary is separate from the assessment of the entire project.

[1750]

To be completely clear, the boundary adjustment is not being brought into force at this time. Kinder Morgan will not be permitted to start construction until (1) there is approval by the National Energy Board, (2) the province is satisfied that its five conditions have been met and (3) the province subsequently issues an environmental assessment certificate. The province is unable to support the expansion at this time, based on the evidence submitted by the proponent to the National Energy Board.

The bill further amends the Income Tax Act to provide a regulation-making authority to adjust the basic production services tax credit rate and the digital animation or visual effects tax credit rates.

The government, as well as representatives of the industry, are concerned about the rising cost of the film tax credits. Government and the industry have discussed ways to control the costs, while maintaining this vibrant and important industry. These amendments will allow the government to limit the cost of the tax credits, while keeping the certainty that helps sustain the industry here in British Columbia.

Further, the bill also amends the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act to remove an outdated restriction preventing the Mutual Fire Insurance Company of B.C., which is currently the only company incorporated under the act, from incorporating and operating a subsidiary insurance company. The act limits investments to one type of subsidiary — namely, an insurance broker.

The company has advised that it would like to incorporate and operate a wholly owned property and casualty insurer to offer personal lines of insurance in non-rural areas. With the amendments, a Mutual Fire Insurance Company would continue to be subject to the act’s requirement to obtain member approval for the creation of a subsidiary company, as well as the Financial Institutions Act’s comprehensive investment provisions and regulations. The proposed change would help achieve a streamlined regulatory environment that encourages growth and business innovation.

There are two further proposed changes, to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act. These will add to the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting support services that are currently provided in conjunction with provincially funded housing.

These services are often essential to ensure vulnerable residents can access and remain in housing successfully. The amendment will also provide authority to engage in multipurpose developments which include both housing and non-housing components and were not contemplated when the act was written. The amendment will retroactively validate the provisions of support services and multipurpose developments.

Finally, proposed amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act will create a new process that enables the general manager of the liquor control and licens-
[ Page 12944 ]
ing branch to reconsider liquor enforcement decisions. These changes will allow licensees to have enforcement decisions reviewed without having to apply to the courts for judicial review. This legislation implements another liquor policy review recommendation and provides an efficient and affordable review process that will be accessible to all liquor licensees.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016. Like so many of these other miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, this act is a potpourri of changes to a variety of acts, with some additional transitional provisions attached to them, as need arises.

The act amends ten acts: the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which I’m sure the member for Saanich South will have some comments on; the Assessment Act; the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act; the Environmental Management Act; the Income Tax Act; the Insurance Act; the Liquor Control and Licensing Act; the Local Government Act; the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act; and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

Under the ALC, there are two amendments to the ALC Act. The first is an amendment that will require the ALC to obtain the owner’s consent before excluding land for the reserve. This is mostly applicable in boundary reviews.

The second, as the minister mentioned, adds a regulation-making authority so that the commission can provide clarity to farmers about agritourism activities — for example, a wedding on a farm. Regulations on these are expected this spring.

However, there is a clause that does raise some concern, and that’s clause 1.3 in this bill, which I’m sure we can explore further at committee stage. This seems to allow the commission to have a loophole so that the consent by owners is not actually required to remove land from the ALR. I’d be interested in exploring what the government has in mind with respect to the inclusion of section 1.3 further at committee stage.

[1755]

In terms of the Assessment Act, the amendment for this will give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to prescribe assessed values for certain restricted-use properties. The change is designed to ensure that Crown corporations, either provincial or federal, on Crown land are paying their fair share of property taxes. On this, I think, there will be a broad agreement as these are fine changes.

Similar with the Local Government Act on page 5 of this bill, the amendment there fixes a mistake that was done in 2015 under the Statute Revision Act. It removes a contraction that exists presently.

Under the Environmental Management Act, there is an amendment which gives the flexibility to the minister to be able to update area-based management plans and improve permitting certainty within those areas. Specifically, a director is given the power to amend a permit after consultation with the minister. I, again, see no problems in supporting this aspect.

Then we come to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, page 7, which is troubling. The amendment here reduces the size of Finn Creek, of the park there, so that the Kinder Morgan expansion can continue planning its route. The proposed boundary adjustment will not be brought into force unless the NEB, of course, approves the project, the five conditions are met and the province has issued an environmental assessment certificate, as the minister pointed out.

The park is reduced by a couple of hectares, but this reduction will cut a line directly through the northern section of the park. This follows Trans Mountain’s request to the province to amend various parks for its proposed route in 2014.

Obviously, I will be opposing this particular amendment. This is precluding…. Despite the fact that the minister is giving us the assurance of the government that this will not be brought into force unless the NEB and the five conditions are met, the reality is that we are putting it in place now, and frankly, that sends a signal that government is moving forwards to get to yes on a project that the majority of British Columbians realize is simply not reconcilable with their values: to turn the port in Vancouver, through the Burnaby facility, into one of the largest shippers of heavy oil in the world.

It’s simply not consistent with the values of British Columbians. This particular amendment is troubling in that it’s sending a green-light signal — that in its desperation to get to yes no matter what the question is, government is already starting to introduce legislation to amend parks.

Under the Income Tax Act, I find this very troubling as well. Here, there’s going to be provisions for a transitional period that will allow the film and television industry to adapt to the changes in tax credits recently announced. The amendments reduces the digital animation, visual effects and post-production tax credit from 17 to 11 percent of the amount determined by the taxation formula.

In my view, this is troubling, because in doing this, what government is sending is a signal to an up-and-coming vibrant sector that: “You know what? You’re not as welcome as you used to be.” It’s early. It’s too early to be clawing back credits to an industry that is beginning to blossom. A 21st-century economy industry in this province of British Columbia that we are known for internationally, beginning to emerge, and this government is now cutting out its heels, taking out its legs in the process.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Health doesn’t think so, but I would like it hear the input that I’ve…. Rather, I’d
[ Page 12945 ]
be delighted to share the input I received from the industry with respect to this particular cut. It is troubling. It is troubling when we are doing whatever we can to literally give away our natural gas resources to foreign entities, who otherwise would not be here and still are probably not going to be here, even though we’ve given away the farm.

Here we have an industry — a home-grown industry, a jobs-in-B.C. industry, a distributed jobs-in-B.C. industry — and we’re saying: “You know what? Your time is over. We’re going to continue to double-down on the falling stock of liquefied natural gas.” Despite the fact that Australia is years ahead of us. Despite the fact that China is now a seller on the international marketplace. Despite the fact that not a single LNG facility has been approved. Despite the fact that each and every one of the promises made by this government leading to the 2013 election on LNG has been broken. Every one of them.

[1800]

Instead of saying: “Plan B. We need to move towards a 21st-century economy that builds on the strength of what we are good at here in B.C. — innovation, creativity, tech, bringing tech together with resource sector….” No, no, no. What we’re going to do is actually is chop them down at the knees just as they’re getting going.

To the Insurance Act — there are some changes there as well and also to the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, neither of which I found to be particularly troubling. Just a few minor amendments there.

We’ve got the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act. Here the amendments clarify B.C. Housing authority to provide support services and manage multipurpose developments that include housing and non-housing components. It allows the ministry to include land development related to housing. It also expands the powers and duties of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission to include social and other housing services.

There’ll be some questions at committee stage. But because these amendments came under a natural gas development amendment section, they may be worthy of exploring in a little more detail. I’m wondering whether or not this is actually something to do with housing specifically for the natural gas industry, as part of our, frankly, continuing generational sellout as we try to do whatever we can, whatever it takes, to get to yes, no matter what the question.

Liquor Control and Licensing Act, page 15. This amendment is, again, one that I see no major concerns in. It gives the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch the ability to reconsider liquor enforcement decisions. The grounds, of course, for reconsideration are to be set out in regulations, like much of what we’re debating.

This amendment means that the enforcement decisions will be reconsidered without the necessity of having to apply to the court for a judicial review. There are a number of guidelines and prescribed grounds that are to be established by the general manager for these amendments to work. Another piece of legislation there, an amendment, that I think will work well.

Taken together, there are a couple of troubling sections — notably, two — in this overall bill. Obviously, I’ll be supporting the bill at second reading so that we can actually vote upon the individual sections at committee stage and vote them down accordingly.

M. Farnworth: I see by the clock that it is two minutes after six. As much as I would like to be the designated speaker and speak for a maximum of two hours on this particular piece of legislation at second reading….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says: “Please.”

I don’t think that I will take the full two hours. It is my hope that I can get my remarks to at least 20 or 23 minutes to the regular adjournment time that we normally would have in this chamber.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says: “A vote.” You know what? If that is the will of the chamber that there should be a vote, then so be it.

This is an interesting piece of legislation because it is a miscellaneous statutes piece of legislation, which means it’s different than other types of legislation that are generally tabled in the House. Why is it called miscellaneous statutes legislation, for those who are watching at home? It’s because each piece in itself, while important, does not really constitute a piece of stand-alone legislation that would come up through a particular ministry and be tabled as a stand-alone ministry bill.

What happens in that particular case is that government decides that there are a number of pieces of legislation across a number of different ministries that need to be amended. When government and the executive council, cabinet, decides on what specific pieces of legislation need to be amended…. There’s usually a very thorough process where ministers bring up ideas or legislation that need to be improved or issues that need to be addressed by an amendment, for example. It will go through a cabinet process of reviewing and whittling down the amount of legislation that will be brought forward in a particular session.

As we all know, and I know the Minister of Advanced Education will know, within each ministry there are often a myriad of competing ideas around the kind of legislation that should be brought up for government to deal with. It is a challenge sometimes, with all those great ideas, as to what needs to go forward.

[1805]

In the case of a miscellaneous statutes bill, these amendments are packaged together in one piece of legislation. The legislation is traditionally usually tabled by the Attorney General, and with the passage of the second reading debate, which is often general in nature, then the real debate or exploration of the particular amendments takes place at committee stage.

It’s one of the reasons why, when miscellaneous statutes are introduced, there’s often a great deal of scrutiny involving them very early on. As we have seen in different levels of government…. For example, in Ottawa, they’re often called omnibus bills, where they try to table a piece of legislation that may, in fact, impact, amend, eliminate literally dozens and dozens of pieces of legislation. As we all know in this chamber, the devil is, in fact, in the details.

It is no secret that governments often decide to sometimes try and slip something in a miscellaneous statutes bill or an omnibus bill in the hopes that it will not be scrutinized the way that it might if it were in a traditional piece of legislation — a stand-alone piece of legislation — that came through a particular ministry.

I see my colleague from West Vancouver smiling. I take that as that he knows full well what I am talking about, as well as my colleague from Delta South. That’s why it’s important that when we look at a miscellaneous statutes bill, we understand and recognize that the devil is in the details. Therefore, it’s at committee stage that particular scrutiny needs to be paid to each of the sections that are involved. I know some of those who have spoken before us have already indicated some of the areas that they will be paying particular attention to.

I would just like to go through some of the key sections of the piece of this legislation so that people have a real understanding of exactly the nature of the bill and the kinds of amendments that are being anticipated and considered with this particular piece of legislation, Bill 25, the Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016.

There are about six key areas of legislation that are being impacted by this particular bill — six key areas where amendments are being put forward by the government in hope of passage by this chamber — that will amend a number of statutes from a variety of ministries across government.

It’s important that each of these is debated and voted on, on its own merits. Unlike traditional legislation that, as I said, comes stand-alone through a ministry, where it is often a straight up-and-down vote on whether a particular bill shall pass or not — and sometimes the vote is taken on a particular section or sometimes a particular section is amended — in the case of a miscellaneous statutes bill, each section in itself is consequential to a particular piece of stand-alone legislation. As a result, it deserves to be examined and voted on individually.

Sometimes the bill is innocuous in the sense that everybody is satisfied with the intent of the amendments and is supportive of the amendments. Therefore, it passes without a vote being required. Other bills are much more contentious. This is what I said it comes back to, which is the devil being in the details.

You may have a series of votes taking place under a miscellaneous statutes bill on each individual section, where members may vote in favour of a particular section or against a particular section. At the end of the day, the overall bill may still pass, but you have recorded votes on each of those sections. In some particular instances that I am familiar with in my time in this House, you can have a series of standing votes on a number of sections throughout the particular miscellaneous statute that has been under debate.

In the case of Bill 25, the Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016, the amended acts are as follows, in six key, main areas.

In part 1 of this particular bill, it will amend section 29 and section 58 of the Agriculture Land Commission Act. So for example, under the changes made to section 29, the commission may not exclude land from the ALR without the written consent of the landowner, even if the owner is not farming.

[1810]

This has some potential interesting consequences involving the issue of tax breaks for landowners. This, I know, will be one of those areas that, for example, the member from Saanich South, our Agriculture critic — a very capable Agriculture critic who is passionate about the issue of agriculture and, I know, has done a lot of work in this particular area — will no doubt be, I fully expect, asking detailed and in-depth questions on this particular section. How was this particular section arrived at? How did it come into place? Who was consulted? Who was not consulted? How will it work? How will it not work? What are the mechanisms and the processes in place?

One of the things we want to make sure of when we’re debating legislation, regardless of whether it’s stand-alone legislation or amendments made under a miscellaneous statutes bill, is that we have a good understanding of whether or not there are unintended consequences. That is critical in terms of the role and the function of the Legislature, particularly at committee stage. We want as detailed as possible an understanding of each of the sections so that we can avoid, where possible, unintended consequences.

For example, with a particular piece of legislation, if a court case occurs in the future that involves a section because of the decision-making ability that is created by the section or an issue created by the passage of the particular piece of legislation, it’s important that what is said here often helps to shape the decision that a court may make in regarding a particular issue.

They will often look back to what the intent was that government had when it made that particular change. What was the intent that government had
[ Page 12947 ]
when it brought forward the legislation in place? That’s where these debates are critical. What they allow us to do, particularly at the committee stage, is for the individual member…. I’ll use as an example my colleague from Saanich South, the very capable Agriculture critic, who will be asking questions of the Minister of Agriculture.

That exchange on this particular section will be important because what it will do is allow the opposition to do its job — to ask the government critical, crucial questions on why this section is necessary, what the intent of this section is and how this section work will.

If, for example, an issue were to arise because of the implementation or the enactment of a particular section and there was a court case or a legal proceeding, the judge in the case — or even a tribunal, for that matter — would be able to look at what the government’s intent was. What were the answers to those particular questions? What was it that government intended to do? What were they trying to ensure would not take place?

That’s a critical part of the debate around legislation in this chamber. That’s why it’s so important that we understand that, when it comes to these particular kinds of bills — in this case, Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016 — it’s at the committee stage that the important discussion will take place.

I mentioned that section 29 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act is going to be amended. So is section 58. Under the changes made to section 58, the government will be able, via regulation, to impose limits and conditions for land use. This includes making different regulations for different types of land use; different regulations on agriculture values, environmental and heritage values, and economic, cultural and social values; and different types of land use applications and classes of owners or circumstances.

One of the questions that we will have is: will consistent farming use or protection for farmland within the ALR be consistent as a result of this legislation? This comes back to the remarks I made about the need to scrutinize, at committee stage, miscellaneous statutes, because this particular section allows government via regulation.

[1815]

Why is that important? Unlike a piece of legislation that is debated in this House and passed and then becomes law, empowering government to make regulations in a particular area means that government gets to make those decisions and those rules at the executive council, the cabinet. They do not have to come back to the chamber for debate. They don’t have to come back to the chamber for scrutiny. The decision-making process is not done in this chamber.

While, many times, routine regulation is the appropriate format to make changes, to put in place rules because they are routine and standard and there’s an understanding that it is an efficient way for government to operate, at the same time, it gives government a lot of power and the ability to make changes that may not be consistent with what the opposition or the public feel should in fact take place.

So when we see those kinds of sections, particularly in a bill like this, at committee stage, it’s very important that we have the ability to question government. What kinds of regulations are they looking at? What is it that they want to do? What is the intent of the regulations? Can they be specific about those regulations — for example, the nature of them? When will they be introduced? When will they be implemented? Is there going to be a time frame?

I see my colleague from Langley making some gestures. I fully understand, because, unlike in the chamber, where you can say there’s a specific timeline, one of the challenges government faces is that if you’re going to commit to doing regulation, then there should be a commitment to a time frame.

Sometimes the public supports regulations, and somehow they don’t end up being implemented. You can be several months later and people think: “Oh, the government said they were going to make changes. They said they were going to change the regulation, and guess what. Nothing’s happened.”

There really isn’t a venue other than this chamber, other than this Legislature and in the discussion during the committee stage to be able to get a commitment from government as to when a particular set of regulations are going to come into force.

When we’re dealing with something that British Columbians care about, such as the Agricultural Land Commission, for example, it’s important that we have answers to those questions. I know, again, that my colleague from Saanich South will be asking just those questions when we get to committee stage.

Another part of the act will deal with the Assessment Act to allow property assessments for B.C. Ferries facilities to be set through regulation. Again, this is something that not only people who use the ferry system care about. Local governments care; the public cares. They want to know what’s taking place. So the ability to set assessment rates through regulation, again, is an area that needs to be explored through the debate at committee stage, and we will do that.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

My colleagues who’ve spoken, and I know both from the opposition and from my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head…. There are important amendments around the environment — amendments to the Environmental Management Act, sections 6 to 9, and amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, section 10.
[ Page 12948 ]

Section 6, for example, will allow a director to amend a permit ordered by the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council “after consultation with the minister.” Again, I see consultation with the minister; I don’t see consultation with the public there. Those are important questions that are going to be asked.

Whenever you’re talking about environmental legislation, it was passed on a particular understanding of a set of principles and a particular set of questions and answers to questions that were debated in this chamber. Whenever those changes are not being debated in this chamber, whenever those changes are being made at the cabinet table, there are questions that need to be asked.

Section 7, for example, allows the minister to issue a permit allowing for the introduction of waste into the environment if doing so is provided for under an area-based management plan within a specified time frame, in accordance with requirements or conditions. Section 7 also authorizes the minister to establish a process for amending an area-based management plan in the future. The purpose of this section, quite frankly, is unclear as we understand it right now.

[1820]

It is interesting that it’s included in the miscellaneous bill and not in Bill 21, which has been dealing with this entire topic in a stand-alone nature in this session and has been finished. In essence, for those who are interested at home, what we are doing is proposing an amendment through a miscellaneous statutes bill to a piece of legislation that this government tabled already this session. Before it’s even debated and passed — or just finally passed — and even given royal assent, we are already introducing amendments.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, the Minister of Health says that is how quickly they work.

What it says is that the original bill was not drafted as carefully as it should be. That’s what that says. Again, that’s why it’s important…. As we say, the devil is in the details, and these particular sections need to be scrutinized. They will be in committee stage.

I know time is coming to a close, and I hear the Minister of Advanced Education ahemming. Not wanting to disappoint him, because I know that he will want me to get through the rest of the sections of this bill. I will endeavour to do that so that we can finish this bill this evening — and noting the hour.

Part 4, finance, does amendments to the Income Tax Act on the reductions to film tax credits. I would be remiss if I did not respond to some comments from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and an exchange that occurred with the Minister of Health. I’d like to remind both that, yes, the film industry is very much a part of British Columbia’s growing economy and, into the 21st century, is a major employer of thousands of British Columbians right across the province.

It is something that all of us are proud of, and which, I would like to remind the Minister of Health, really took off and got its start in the 1990s with the changes brought in by the government of the day. I just wanted to remind the minister of that. In fact, I think the first time it hit $1 billion was when we were in government.

Anyway, there are amendments that deal with housing that will clarify B.C. Housing’s role as a Crown corporation, and there are important amendments to liquor that will create a new process and allow the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch to reconsider liquor enforcement decisions and allow licensees to have these decisions reconsidered without having to apply to the court for a judicial review. I think that those are important things that we will be supportive of.

In closing my remarks, I think it’s important, as I’ve stated, that this legislation gets the scrutiny that it deserves at committee stage, which it will. We look forward to that discussion. Lots of things, I think, are straightforward. There are other areas of the bill that will need some examination.

With that, I will take my place and look forward to the closing remarks of the minister steering the bill.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
[ Page 12949 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Yap in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $24,218,000 (continued).

B. Ralston: I’m going to move now to a different topic — the relationship between hydraulic fracking and seismicity. The minister will know — and I believe the head of the Oil and Gas Commission is here — that there was a news report in December of 2015 of a 4.6-magnitude earthquake in northeast British Columbia that was caused by a hydraulic fracturing.

The CEO of Oil and Gas B.C. said this, according to the news report: “This seismic event was caused by hydraulic fracturing.” Obviously, a matter of concern.

I know that probably the minister will want to state the response of the Oil and Gas Commission. I’m wondering, though. There has been a recent study which has been released in what’s called Seismological Research Letters — it’s volume 87, No. 3, published in the May-June 2016 issue — which reviews the statistical relationship between 500,000 oil and gas wells and seismic activity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin between 1985 and June 2015. The information on the wells is drawn from the Oil and Gas Commission in B.C. and the Alberta Energy Regulator.

It finds that beginning in 2009, there was a huge increase in the number of hydraulic fracturing horizontal wells and a corresponding increase in seismicity. This is especially significant given that the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin was previously a very low-seismicity region.

Minister, I believe the Oil and Gas Commission has acknowledged that relationship. I wonder what the minister’s general comments are on this new scientific research which would confirm that, if there was any doubt about it before.

[1340]

Hon. R. Coleman: There was a variety of questions within the member’s question. I’m going to try and answer them in a summary, and I’ve asked for some information with regards to the deployment of arrays that may come up after this.

Let’s deal with the first event, which was on August 17, 2015, in northeast B.C. It was actually triggered by fuel injection during hydraulic fracturing. The location and timing of the event, along with the reports on where it was felt, helped determine the conclusion.

Fracturing operations were shut down immediately upon the event and were not resumed until a mitigation plan was approved by the Oil and Gas Commission. The event caused slight shaking but no concerns to public or environmental safety. It occurred 116 kilometres northwest of Fort St. John at 1:15 Pacific Standard Time. It was lightly felt as far away as Charlie Lake.

It was originally reported to the commission by Natural Resources Canada at 1:50 p.m. The area operator of a nearby well site, Progress Energy, reported the event at 2:03 p.m. and immediately suspended operations.

After collecting available data and discussing with the operator, the mitigation plan was approved by the commission at 3:45 p.m. The investigation into the cause included a review of all activity, all active oil and gas operations within a ten-kilometre radius of the epicentre as determined by NRCan. Factors leading to the determination included absence of seismic events before and after the fracturing operation, and the epicentre of the event was located within one kilometre of a wellbore. If I can give you the details, it’s called A-99-J/94-B-16 wellbore, which is basically a location on the map.

The commission authorised a resumption of drilling by Progress on the following mitigation measures. Reduce pump rates from 12 metres per minute to ten cubic metres per minute or lower. Continue seismic monitoring at real time. Report new magnitude of 4.0 felt events as required in permit conditions. Suspend hydraulic fracturing operations and notify the commission immediately if anything over 3.5 was recorded.

The commission itself closely monitors seismicity in northeast B.C. and investigates any potential links to hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal wells. We actually do some of the wastewater pressure back in. That’s why we do bulk and also induce some light seismicity.

The commission has released two reports on investigations of induced seismicity in B.C. In northeastern British Columbia, investigations observed seismicity in the Horn River Basin in 2012. An investigation observed seismicity in the Montney trend in 2014. Recommendations from the 2012 report led to substantial improvements in seismic monitoring in northeast B.C., which captured the data for the study on the seismic activity in the Montney trend. Just so we know, we’re not familiar with the report the member refers to, but we understand they used some of our data with regards to the report.

[1345]

The investigation found that induced seismicity has occurred in association with fracturing in both the Montney and the Horn River areas and with two deep-water waste disposal sites near Fort St. John in the
[ Page 12950 ]
Montney trend. During 11 months of 2015, approximately 9,163 hydraulic fractures were completed in the province. In 2015, hydraulic fracturing–induced seismic events totalled 237, most of them minor and not felt at surface — very small — as a result of the activity, with the majority of those being such that none were even felt at surface. We still measure any of the activity.

In 2015, only seven of the fracture-induced seismic events were felt at surface, caused no damage or injury. Only four induced seismic events related to wastewater disposal sites were felt at surface, and no injury or damages were reported on them either. In each case where seismic events were felt at surface, the commission acted to investigate and limit industry operations, where required.

We have implemented a new induced seismicity regulation that includes magnitude of 4.0 or greater and felt events occurring within three kilometres of an active injection or fracture operation. The activity must be immediately suspended and reported to the commission. Wells identified by the commission or the permit holder as being responsible for any of this must suspend fracturing disposal operations immediately. A suspended operation can only be resumed once the operators have implemented a commission-approved seismic mitigation plan.

Seismic monitoring indicates that the average magnitude of induced seismic activity is not rising with increased hydraulic fracture activity. In addition, the frequency of induced seismicity does not necessarily increase with an increase in hydraulic fracturing. Geoscience B.C., in conjunction with the commission and Natural Resources Canada, is setting up a website that will provide information on seismic activity or any activity related to oil and gas operations.

We actually go further than most jurisdictions in North America with regards to that and continue to monitor our trends. People are using our data because we’re about the only place that keeps this much detailed data with regards to our activities as we continue to build the industry and to do it in a way that’s safe.

I should just say something about seismic activity and its definition. I lived on Sumas Mountain in Abbotsford. When blasting went on, it was felt and rattled houses, because that’s also seismic activity at high surface. Our activity is usually two or three kilometres below the surface, so the activity is very minimal, with regards to the effect of being felt. But there are all kinds of activities that take place that can induce what could be called seismic activity or the feeling of vibrations with regards to types of dirt, types of soil — even where highways and roads are. We monitor this and keep track of it and continue to be on top of it.

B. Ralston: I did hear the minister acknowledge the recent report of the Seismological Research Letters, and a number of Canadian scientists contributed to that report. What I gather from reading the literature is that there are, basically, two types of induced seismicity: one from hydraulic fracturing and the second from disposal of wastewater — what are called disposal wells. In the paper, they distinguish between the two.

The paper is fairly detailed, and there are a number of conclusions or observations that are made. I do have some specific questions that arise out of that paper. I don’t know whether the minister…. I expect that his staff will have a copy of the paper or at least be familiar with it, as he said.

Here’s the first one, and I’m going to invite the minister to comment. “As oil and gas activities continue and an increasingly large crustal volume is affected by increased pore pressures, we expect that more earthquakes will occur, at least in some areas, and their maximum magnitudes may exceed the values observed to date.” Does the minister agree with that or not?

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m not in a position to agree with it. We don’t have the report here, and I don’t have anybody that’s dealt with the report here. I will try and endeavour to get some comments back to the member on the recommendations in this particular paper as soon as we possibly can.

[1350]

I do know that when I’ve talked to other jurisdictions worldwide about hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal deep under the earth, they tell me that we’re probably better at this than anybody else in the way we monitor and all of that stuff and how the rules we have around it are very good — actually, excellent is what I’m told.

Unfortunately, I don’t have that report. I don’t even know the date it was published. If the member would want to get us that information, I can get somebody to start to look at it while we’re doing estimates this afternoon and see if we can comment on any of the recommendations.

B. Ralston: Well, I do have a copy here. Perhaps we can just stand down briefly, have a couple of copies made, and the minister’s staff can analyze it. I’m, frankly, a little bit surprised that they’re not familiar with that report.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Very recently. Just this month. I mean, if the paltry research resources of the official opposition can discover it, surely the well-financed Oil and Gas Commission and operations of the ministry can do that. Anyway, if we could just take a brief recess, we could make copies of it.

The Chair: This committee will take a brief recess.
[ Page 12951 ]

The committee recessed from 1:51 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

B. Ralston: Five copies of the report have been distributed to the minister and his staff. I’m going to draw attention to a further conclusion on page 13, and this is a quotation. “It is important to acknowledge that associated seismicity occurs for only a small portion — less than 0.3 percent of HF operations.” HF stands for hydraulic fracturing. “However, considering that thousands of such wells are drilled every year in the WCSB” — the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin — “the implications for hazard are nevertheless significant, particularly if multiple operations are located in close proximity to critical infrastructure.”

The minister has the CEO of the Oil and Gas Commission there with him. I wonder if the minister has any comment.

Hon. R. Coleman: The commission has taken a leadership role in the detection and mitigation of induced seismicity associated with unconventional gas development — not just in Canada, but North American and globally. Our studies in 2012 and 2014 were used. Some of the information and data was used in that report. It’s available on line.

It has led to enhancements such as increased seismic monitoring in the northeast and stricter requirements around fracturing. Mitigation measures are now in place, including regulations that shut down industry operations if seismic activity reaches a certain threshold — which is part of what is commented on in that report.

Basically, the mitigation measures we put in place are world-leading in standards. Basically, this report, as I understand it, reinforces that we’re moving in the right direction, doing the things that we need to do.

[1400]

B. Ralston: A further conclusion from the report:

“It is important regionally because hydraulic fracturing is widespread throughout the WCSB, an area previously low in seismicity in which seismic design measures have consequently been minimal. The likelihood of damaging earthquakes and their potential consequences needs to be carefully assessed when planning HF” — that is, hydraulic fracturing — “operations in this area.”

Does the minister have any comment on that conclusion?

Hon. R. Coleman: Further to my previous comments, there’s really nothing new than what we’ve already done. We’ve stepped up well ahead of this report, and there’s no fracturing being done near critical infrastructure.

B. Ralston: A further quotation from the report: “More comprehensive characterization of the distinctive characteristics of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing is needed to support development of appropriate risk reduction strategies.”

Does the minister agree that further study is required, and is, in fact, that study underway?

Hon. R. Coleman: We’re actually globally and in North America considered to be the leaders in this. We’ve been taking a leadership role for a long time now. We will continue to do that. Our geologists are always looking at ways to measure and improve better. We work very closely with the federal government on the seismicity side, and the work that we do is, like I say, world-leading, and we don’t….

Basically, the work that’s been done here — it’s commented on in this report — is continuing on all the time with regards to seeing if there are any other improvements we do with our shutdown protocols. Our protocols in and around seismicity now are recognized as being world-leading, and we continue to improve that.

We’ve put new regulations in place, new reporting systems. We’ve expanded our arrays for measuring any activity with regards to the area, with regards to both the companies and on behalf of government.

B. Ralston: The minister mentions world-leading. In an article in the Globe and Mail, the Oklahoma regulations are referenced.

“In Oklahoma, where high-volume wastewater injection has caused quakes” — I appreciate that that is a different process, but nonetheless, it does induce seismicity — “regulators have imposed even tougher rules. There, producers wanting a drilling permit must submit geological evidence that assesses seismic conditions. A permit will not be issued if the conditions are deemed too risky. Under a ‘yellow light’ permit, the operators can only work for six months, must shut down the well every 60 days to take specific pressure readings and must stop if they encounter a prescribed level of seismic activity.”

That seems to be different and more stringent than what is in place in British Columbia at this point. Does the minister have any comment on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Different geology, different results. Oklahoma went from about 200 seismic events in a year to 700 to 900.

[1405]

With regards to that, the induction of water at a lot shallower level has a way different impact on seismicity, as well as the depth of the drilling, which is deeper through different substrates in British Columbia than it is in Oklahoma.

We’ve been ahead of the curve measuring this and doing it and watching our seismicity for a long, long time. Oklahoma had a number of events that occurred. Through the Geological Survey, or whatever it’s called in the United States, they basically saw a significant uptick that wasn’t….

Our uptick is really…. There is normal seismic activity in this area. There’s not a significant change in seismic
[ Page 12952 ]
activity with regards to drilling or not drilling in the particular area in the northeast part of the province, whereas their geology evidently has some other difficulties.

B. Ralston: The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has voluntary guidelines that urge companies “to assess the risk of seismic activity before drilling and to adjust pressure and water volumes in the fracking operation to reduce risks.”

First of all, is the minister familiar with those? I’m assuming that the Oil and Gas Commission would be. Are those voluntary regulations incorporated in mandatory conditions for permitting the fracking operations in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, the regulatory piece comes from us through the Oil and Gas Commission, and the regulations. We’ve actually put stricter requirements with regards to it as we’ve evolved in this, particularly from the commission studies of 2012 and 2014 that I mentioned earlier.

What CAPP does is work with the industry. The industry works with its people with regards to sharing best practices and that sort of thing. But with regards to activities here, if there are certain things noticed, like I said earlier, they have to automatically shut down and they have to go through a protocol with regard to being able to start up again. The measurements of seismic activity are not just by our arrays, but other arrays.

So it’s not regulation. You might call it best practices, but it’s not regulation. Regulation is only a legal term relative if it’s regulation to government, and we have regulations that govern this.

B. Ralston: Well, “regulation” implies, or certainly says, that the requirements are mandatory. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers urges companies “to assess the risk of seismic activity before drilling.”

Is such an assessment a requirement of the issuance of a permit to engage in hydraulic fracturing at a given well site? Is that a condition precedent? In other words, is it required before the permit is issued?

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: In answer to the member’s question, for disposal wells, there is an additional geology in the requirements before a permit can be issued. With regards to the fracking piece, we know our geology of each area, and we have rules and regulations for that. The individual geology of a well isn’t necessary in areas that we know the geology and we have the information — which we do, pretty much, for the areas where we’re doing the work.

B. Ralston: The lead author of the report that I cited, Hydraulic Fracturing and Seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Gail Atkinson — a professor, and considered an international expert on induced seismicity, at the department of earth sciences, Western University in London — is of the view that voluntary requirements in advance of drilling are not satisfactory and is proposing that the industry consider a test or some kind of demonstration and, given the conclusions of this report, that there be permission granted only in advance where there is some proof of that.

The minister is saying that the individual well conditions are known to the Oil and Gas Commission. Given that, it seems, though, as though the dramatic increase in seismicity took the commission by surprise.

Given that that disclosure process and advanced knowledge that the commission purports to have seemed to take the commission by surprise, is the minister confident that the Oil and Gas Commission’s present practice will lead to safe practices that might result in induced seismicity, given that the last significant event was 4.6?

These are significant seismic events, not the kind of low-level events that are associated with blasting or other operations. I just want the minister to respond to the concern of Professor Atkinson that voluntary guidelines are not enough and also the concern that the Oil and Gas Commission, despite its claim of knowledge of the geological conditions, seems to have been taken by surprise by these events.

Hon. R. Coleman: We were the first to actually take the leadership role in the detection and mitigation and to do seismicity, so it didn’t come as a surprise to us. We were the first ones to get to work on this. That’s why we have…. In gas development in North America and globally, we’re considered to be world leaders.

Our studies in 2012 and 2014 which, as I said earlier, are available on line led to enhancement of seismic monitoring, both by the company and by us, and the deployment of different arrays with regards to that in the northeast and stricter requirements around hydraulic fracturing, as well as regulations that shut down industry operations if seismic activity reaches a certain threshold.

[1415]

We actually have regulations out there that require certain behaviour by the company. It’s not voluntary; it’s regulatory. We follow through on that. We actually monitor this.

I’m just giving a quick summary of a couple of things I read in the report, because I just received it to have a look at it. Some of the comments in there actually don’t even refer necessarily to activities that took place in British Columbia but in another jurisdiction next door to us, which may not have the same geological or other rules.

As far as this piece is concerned, the magnitudes are very low level, both in the Horn River Basin and in the Montney. The one exception was the one the member started out the conversation on, and we immediately reacted to it because we had in place the ability to do so.
[ Page 12953 ]
We had put the regulation and rules in place to make sure that if this type of event happened, we would have to have a mitigation plan. Nothing would start up again until such time that it was approved by the commission and we had an analysis of the activity.

B. Ralston: Given that the minister says that the commission has anticipated this level of seismic activity, can the minister say what the magnitudes are that the commission anticipates may occur in the future? Are they above 5.0 on the Richter scale? What is the range that the commission…? Obviously, since it’s aware of it, knows about it and has plans to mitigate it, what level of seismic activity is the commission, in its study and its knowledge, anticipating in the future?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I know the member opposite is trying to get me to say there are going to be bigger earthquakes as a result of hydraulic fracturing in British Columbia. I wouldn’t say that because it would be completely untrue.

We had a 4.6. It could have been a couple of factors with regards to that, on the one particular one that the member brought up. There are thousands that are done, and if there’s any seismic activity measured, it’s usually between 1 and 2 — very, very low level, below surface, deep in the earth that is really about the injection of the water or of the fluids to do the frack.

The one that was unusual was basically mitigated as soon as the pressure of the injection was reduced. It immediately changed the outcomes, and that was done immediately before the operation going back. When it went back into operation, at a reduced pressure inward, there was no other activity.

B. Ralston: I’m not trying to get the minister to say anything. Far be it for me to do that. The minister is quite capable of answering questions for himself, as he continues to do.

What this report says, and what these leading scientists say in a just published report…. I’ll quote the conclusion again. I gather that this is well known by the Oil and Gas Commission, given that the minister says that they know that. The conclusion is, from the study: “As oil and gas activities continue, and an increasingly large crustal volume is affected by increased pore pressures, we expect that more earthquakes will occur, at least in some areas, and their maximum magnitudes may exceed the values observed to date.” That’s the conclusion of an acknowledged global leader on induced seismicity in this activity.

That’s what the scientists say. I don’t know whether that’s accurate or not, but that’s what the scientists said. I’m quoting from the report. I’m interested in the minister’s reaction to that and whether the Oil and Gas Commission agrees with that, given their knowledge, which the minister claims they have, and their understanding of what may occur when fracking takes place.

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think this report doesn’t necessarily make somebody an international expert because they comment and analyze statistical information that’s provided to them by a body that has collected it because they’re ahead of the curve and watching their seismicity. It does make some interesting comments about oil and gas activity in non-developing countries with higher populations, which doesn’t actually apply here, because there’s very little population, if any, in the area where the work is being done in British Columbia.

I’m comfortable with the work that we’ve done, given the 2012 and 2014 reports that I’ve mentioned earlier and I’ve mentioned a couple of times, and the fact that we’ve stepped up with additional regulation with regards to hydraulic fracturing and have protocols in place with regards to any seismicity.

I mean, the reality is that even on the one seismic event on August 17, 2015, the reaction time, the shutdown rate and the recommission rate, working with NRCan and other factors, actually showed how well the system is geared to make sure that we can monitor, deal with and, quite frankly, mitigate these situations if and when they may occur.

B. Ralston: In another report, John Clague, who’s a Simon Fraser University earthquake expert, says that the regulations regarding induced seismicity are not as strict in Alberta, where companies must report at tremors greater than 2.0 magnitude and invoke a response plan. Now, I know the minister said something different in his response, so I just wanted to clarify as to whether that statement was accurate or not.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: That in Alberta regulations are stricter. Companies must report all tremors greater than 2.0 magnitude and invoke a response plan.

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, we went to regulation, and Alberta is basically still at guidelines. But we do work on harmonization and sharing best practices between the two jurisdictions and will continue to do so. Basically, the activity goes across our borders. Geology is not necessarily the same everywhere. But throughout, in both areas of B.C. and Alberta and probably, I guess, to a lesser degree, Saskatchewan, as they move to find gas in that particular province….

We work with the Alberta regulator on a regular basis to make sure that we’re all on top of these concerns. I think that, quite frankly…. We have the regulation in place. We have the mitigation measures in place. We have the meas-
[ Page 12954 ]
urements of the seismic arrays around so that we can monitor this stuff when drilling is going on so we make sure we are on top of it and able to mitigate it very quickly.

B. Ralston: Just changing topics, but an Oil and Gas Commission question. In a recent report, the Saskatchewan government was lobbying the federal government to spend money to clean up abandoned oil and gas wells.

[1425]

The rationale for that from the Premier of Saskatchewan was that this move of fast-tracking remediation of non-producing wells would stimulate a service sector hard hit by low commodity prices, similar to a program put forward by the Conservative government in 2009, aimed at helping the oil and gas industry through the recession.

I know that when I went on the website, there is a report from the orphan site reclamation fund. The most recent report was the 2014-15 report. In the news report, it appears that the response of the Oil and Gas Commission and the ministry was that B.C. had sufficient measures in place and was not pursuing the same initiative of federal support for this. When asked to comment on the proposed initiative by Saskatchewan, the person cited as spokesperson, Sandra Steilo, said, “B.C. already has measures in place to remediate…oil and gas well sites,” citing the orphan site reclamation fund.

Can the minister comment on that? I’m somewhat familiar with the process. It has been the subject of reports by the Auditor General — particularly the new standard for, I gather, assessing the future cost of reclamation. There’s a new Public Sector Accounting Board standard that requires a better and more precise assessment, and those numbers may grow for the orphan site.

Can the minister explain whether the report is accurate? And if so, why has B.C. taken this position?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, for a couple reasons. First of all, the province of Saskatchewan and its stuff with regards to orphan wells. It’s probably been probably operating differently than we have. I’ll just give the member a quick update on this, and then that will probably answer his questions with regards to why we wouldn’t go after infrastructure money from the federal government. It’s something we already have funded. Saskatchewan may want to do some stuff because it creates activity, because of people that aren’t working.

The orphan site reclamation fund is an industry-funded program that addresses the costs of environmental reclamation for wells, pipelines and facilities for which an owner cannot be identified or who is insolvent. The fund ensures taxpayers and, in some cases, landowners are not liable for environmental reclamation costs.

The orphan site reclamation fund manages, currently, conducting decommissioning, assessment and restoration work at a total of 33 unrestored active orphan sites, eight of which are near what we call certification of restoration. So when the work is done, the restoration certificate is only issued at that point in time.

There are no new orphan site designations in 2015-2016, and the fund receives approximately $1.1 million in levies for the fiscal year and has sufficient capacity to address its total liability. During the 2015-16 fiscal, the orphan site reclamation fund spent $1.2 million on orphan site decommissioning and restoration work. At the end of the fiscal year, the orphan fund balance consisted of $4.4 million in current assets with an estimated liability of up to a maximum of $7.5 million for future restorations of designated sites, some of which could come into the system later.

Basically, the operations B.C. requires by law…. Operators are required to deactivate projects such as well sites, pipelines and facilities and restore the associated land. Operators are also required to remove unused equipment from an oil and gas site in a timely manner, and if the commission inspectors determine this is not happening, the operators may be issued a compliance order as the first step of the enforcement process.

The commission’s regulatory framework ensures timely reclamation to ensure land is returned to a productive state. Development footprints are managed, and potential liabilities are limited.

[1430]

The final step — whether it be an orphan well or just a well that is being decommissioned — in restoring the site is for the operator to achieve a certificate of restoration. That certificate confirms a site was restored in accordance with the current standards and requirements and any known contamination issues or hazards were mitigated.

So there’s a parallel, obviously, if you’re a company. The “orphan site” really goes after issues in which there might be some insolvency or an owner can’t be identified. The rest of the industry have a process and their certificates of restoration for sites that they would decommission, where they would have to reach standards on the mitigation of stuff under the environmental rules.

B. Ralston: I understand the distinction between orphan sites and those where there is an existing letter of credit or some financial capacity of the firm to pay for the decommissioning and cleanup of the site.

The minister mentioned a sum of $7.5 million. Is that the net present value of the most recent estimate of the province’s liability for orphan sites — not the ones where there’s capacity in the private sector to clean it up, but those where the province exclusively will be responsible for the cleanup at some point?

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s pretty well based on…. Basically, we know what liabilities may exist over the next few years and the work that we’re doing on the sites we have.
[ Page 12955 ]

We have 4-point-some million dollars in there. We think the maximum liability will be around $7 million over the next three years. We will bring in another $3.3 million into this fund so that we know that the fund has enough to cover what we know our projection will be with regard to expenditures relative to orphan sites over the next few years.

B. Ralston: I understand, particularly in relation to mine reclamation, that there’s a discussion at the Public Accounts Committee that there is a new Public Sector Accounting Board standard for estimating future liability. In the past, if there wasn’t a reliable estimate, the province wasn’t obliged to list it as a liability.

I’m wondering how recently this calculation of $7.5 million was made. Did it take into account the new Public Sector Accounting Board standard, which, I understand — I may be incorrect — applies to orphan sites in the oil and gas sector, as well as to those in mining?

Hon. R. Coleman: The new standard would apply, obviously, with regard to any environmental liability.

The board met and reviewed the active management sites. Those are in a backlog that are going to be taken a few times, based on current expenditures and basically taking a look at what might come in. Based on historical perspectives, we think they’ve achieved what that new policy would effect. But this decision on this fiscal year was done a couple of months ago at a board meeting, based on the information we have about orphan sites, the current activity that we have and what we’ve been used to having with regard to it.

[1435]

Given the fact that we have a reduction in drilling activity and a reduction in the number of players that are active in the oil and gas field, we feel we’ve well put the dollars around it that would make this thing continue to be successful. If there were a need for additional levies with companies or with industry because there was an impact or an increase to these, we would go back and level it. It’s an industry fund. It’s not supposed to be at the expense of the taxpayer.

B. Ralston: Just to make sure that I’m being understood, I’m speaking of orphan sites where the liability would be owned by the province and not by private industry. Just to summarize, the minister said the new Public Sector Accounting Board standard does apply, but I gather there was a board meeting several months ago. I’m not sure what month. I didn’t get a chance to review the minutes myself.

Is the minister then saying that although the Public Sector Accounting Board standard applies, the board has not yet determined how that might affect the future liability? Its implications are, I would expect, that liability might well increase. If that’s the case, when will the board make that decision?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don’t know where the member can draw the parallel that the liability is going to increase. The experience in and around orphan sites, the liability that comes back to us…. We have an industry fund. At the end of the reclamation, whether they be an orphan well that was identified as somebody we can’t find the owner of, or activity, or as insolvent…. That’s the work that this fund does: decommissioning, assessment and restoration work.

So they’re actually completing the work to take off the liability. Only then, whether it be a company site or whether it be a site that’s in the orphan reclamation fund, it still needs a certification of restoration with regards to it. So our inspectors treat it the same as one where a company has decided to close down a drill site or something like that. They have to meet the same time to get their certificate of restoration. So do the orphan sites that may have come back into our piece of liability.

The fund is not meant to take any responsibility away from an active company that has…. Well, it’s their responsibility to get the certificate of restoration when they decommission. This is for historical stuff in oil and gas. It goes back, in some cases, decades, where there are some orphan sites that we’ve determined we want to go out and fix and deal with. That’s what this fund was put up in place for.

Knowing the numbers of sites we have, knowing the activity that we have, what the number of unrestored active sites are — we’re keeping inventory here — that are near, which can get the certificate of restoration…. We’re in a pretty good budgeting projection piece. Going into any fiscal plan, the Oil and Gas Commission, like any other Crown corporation, would have to do their projections with regards to this. Obviously, if it was determined by a new assessment tool that that changed that liability, we would deal with that liability immediately. We look at any of the changes. But at this time, given the new standards the member’s mentioned and given the work that’s been done here, it looks like the two of them match up.

B. Ralston: The minister, in his answers, talked about both sides of the equation. I’m speaking specifically of orphan sites, where the liability is owned solely by the province. The reason I say the possibility of increase in liability is the effect that the recalculation using the new standard had upon abandoned minesites.

In the past, where the calculation had not been made, it was not required to be added. The new standard saw an increase in the actual liability of the province. I’m sure the Minister of Finance and Ministry of Finance would be pleased to hear that liability has fallen, but what I’m gathering from the minister is that the board has not considered the application of the new standard specifically to the existing inventory of abandoned sites. Is that correct?

[1440]

Hon. R. Coleman: There’s a big difference here, hon. Member, in that we actually know the numbers. We know where they are. We know what it takes to deal with an orphan site and how many dollars it is. We have set up a fund to do that.

It’s a lot different than the extension of liability you could get out of an old minesite that’s 100 years old, where there is liability — whether it be what we used to call slag and those sort of things — with regards to those minesites. Completely different. I know that that’s what the report was getting towards, whereas in our case, in the oil and gas side…. First of all, we’re not 100 years old, but we also know every orphan well site.

What we do is…. Obviously, we want to get to the certificate of restoration. We pursue any bonds that may have been out there. We try and pursue any liability back to any company it was ever affiliated with, but at the same time, because some of these are older, that is not possible. So then, as we’re doing the work, we have a fund that’s industry-funded and that meets up to the liability we projected, because we do know the numbers. We do know the size of the footprint of these. It’s a lot different than an old open-pit mine or something like that — a completely different extension of liabilities. We actually know what the costs are and what the cleanup is and what we need to do, so that’s why we’re pretty confident with the numbers.

B. Ralston: I want to now turn to a different topic. The minister has said, and I think the Premier has repeated this as well…. Speaking of B.C.’s natural gas resources, they’ve estimated — and I’m reading from the website — “2,900 trillion cubic feet of gas in place.” The calculation — according to this report from the website, just obtained yesterday — is that based on the amount of natural gas they’re able to recover, and increased activity, B.C. has over 150 years worth of natural gas supply.

Can the minister explain how that calculation was made?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, that’s only based on about 20 percent recovery of the known reserve of gas we have in British Columbia, the 150 years. What we basically have in B.C.: the Liard, the conventional basin, the Horn River, the Montney, the Cordova, the Jean Marie and the Deep Basin.

[1445]

We have about 3,418 trillion cubic feet of gas. If we were recovering 20 percent of that, that would be enough gas for 577 trillion cubic feet, which would easily handle supplying a number of natural gas and North American projects for 150 years quite easily. We know that the resource has significant hydrocarbon values and value economically and technically recoverable. Obviously, over the years, this technology came…. This is based on today’s technology of extraction and the depth and where we know the gas is — on the recovery of about 20 percent, to get to the 150 years.

Anecdotally, Progress Energy, with Petronas, has been drilling just their leases in the area of the Montney to supply an LNG plant in Prince Rupert. They now have enough gas for the life of that project already proven, and they still have 60 percent of the field that they could drill in addition to what they’ve already done. Taking those two combinations alone, it would be equivalent to the amount of natural gas that is in the country of Malaysia, I’m told. That’s just one piece of the Montney. So no question that there is a significant resource here.

Now, the way that’s done…. I’ll run the member through it. The data produced by resource assessments…. Although the resource assessment utilizes a subsource of that, the methodology is more conceptualized. It extrapolates into areas with little or no well content. We, for instance, know what the depth and pressure of, let’s say, a more remote basin like the Liard is. We can extrapolate across the geology what the gas is there, but that’s a field that will obviously be developed if natural gas becomes a continuing commodity in North America. The Montney and the Doig formations, on their potential alone, were released in 2006, and that influenced the entire direction and scope, just of the land sales, with regards to the burgeoning shale gas activity.

The way that the most recent resource assessment covered the different basins…. The assessment was produced in partnership with the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, the National Energy Board of Canada and the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It uses their data and resources information from the drilling and activity in the exploration wells that have been done across the northeast of the province. That resource assessment increased the province’s marketable natural gas resources by 167 trillion cubic feet in March of 2016, after that analysis.

B. Ralston: The minister has read a long statement there, so I’m going ask a series of questions about it.

I understand that there is a clear distinction drawn between the terms “reserves….” They are confirmed by the presence of natural gas, confirmed by drilling or close to drilled wells, and are considered recoverable with current technology and economic conditions. That’s one measure. It’s reserves, and that is referenced in the Oil and Gas Commission statistics. The broader measure, and the minister made oblique reference to it here in talking about the Liard, is that a “resource” is much less certain, as they are probabilistic estimates based on broad extrapolation, with limited drilling.

The number that’s on the website appears to not draw a distinction. I gather, even though I checked the website yesterday, that the 2,900 trillion cubic feet is inaccurate. It’s now 3,400 trillion feet. It’s the broader measure — that is, it’s not confirmed by drilling, and it’s based on extrapolations and some probabilities of finding gas in certain locations rather than confirmed by drilling.
[ Page 12957 ]

Does the minister accept that distinction that’s used widely in the industry?

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: You have your resource potential, which is measured across your field. You’ve done test wells and geology, and you do an extrapolation — which is the number that the member mentioned, the 3,418 trillion cubic feet — which is, basically, taking all the basins, the geology, the information.

Now, we do have test wells that have been done in these areas. We have had activity in the Horn, so we’re probably more aware of the volumes in the Horn necessarily — and proven out and such out of the Liard. Some of the results in the Liard are very good. They’re actually subject to confidentially with regards to it because the companies that have drilled it, obviously, have some market interest in what happens up there.

The marketable resource that we have is the 577 trillion cubic feet, which has been proven out by actual drilling and activity in areas where we know the substrate and the activity in the gas. Then in addition to that, you have actual volumes that could actually move, which is about 51 trillion cubic feet of hydrocarbons, which would be more than enough to take care of a couple of LNG plants for 30 to 50 years.

The resource we would anticipate getting to — because this has been our experience as we drill out the basins — will be the 577 trillion cubic feet, and that’s at 20 percent recovery. It’s actually less than 20 percent recovery in the total field. When we say the 150 years, we’re referring to that, not to the total of the 3,418 trillion cubic feet, which would be gas for, obviously, multiples of that — probably about six times. You’d probably be talking about 600 to 700 years, depending on how much gas you’re able to export and move.

It is, and people will tell you worldwide, that British Columbia has one of the biggest and best world-class resources of natural gas on the planet. We’ve been very prudent and conservative in thinking that we would be able to get 20 percent of that with today’s technology, but obviously technologies change over time. More extraction processes could be improved and those sorts of things. But that’s where that is.

The member’s description that the first part is what we think the resource is — that’s based on extrapolation work that we’ve done in experimental drilling and stuff in reserves. That data is put in. What we know is the marketable resource itself is the 577, because we have proven activity that’s taken place in those. We know what we need to have for the natural gas, which means we have plenty for a number of natural gas plants.

Obviously, if a number more came, we have so much gas that we would be at this, like I say, 150 years, easily, on the gas that we have.

B. Ralston: As the minister will know, there was a report issued by Mr. Hughes. I think the minister made a number of — well, I wouldn’t say positive — comments about that report, but Mr. Hughes did base his estimate of reserves upon Oil and Gas Commission data and National Energy Board data.

I just want to make sure, because the minister seems to move between some of these terms, that the 3,400 trillion cubic feet is a measurement of resources rather than reserves. In other words, it’s a more uncertain and probabilistic measure of potential gas that might be extracted in the future.

Although the website says 2,900 trillion cubic feet, the minister now says that that is a figure that’s been revised upward. The website obviously hasn’t kept pace. It’s 3,400. That is the broadest number and is not confirmed by drilling. It’s what is called “resources” rather than “reserves.” Is that right?

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: That would be correct. You take your data. You have active drilling in some areas. You have other test wells that are being done by companies. That information and data is used, and it’s shared with and worked over with the National Energy Board of Canada and a resource assessment of our major gas plays, to obtain the accurate estimate of, basically, the ultimate gas potential, which is the number of the 3,418 trillion cubic feet.

Obviously, that is so much gas that you’re going to have to be, for probably 100 or 200 years, supplying most of the continent of China with gas, if you could extract that much of it. Then you look at what your extractable experience is with the marketable resource, which is the gas that you would get if you were extracting it.

Given the fact that we have a couple of very active basins, which are moving the largest volume of marketable resource, then we extrapolate that out on the basis of recovery of the total trillion cubic feet. What you do is you try and do an assessment on the original amount of gas you have and then what the marketable resource is you have available, which is the second 577 number.

I will check for the member on the website, because the latest report, which was very recent, with regards to this, which was only on March 16…. The additional gas determination, from our experiences in the Liard, raised the calculation on some of the cubic feet. So I would think that those would be added in and put into the number that would be on the website.

B. Ralston: The number I have is from the port of the jobs plan, Trade and Invest B.C., B.C. natural gas. It says:

“B.C.’s natural gas resources are estimated at over 2,900 trillion cubic feet of gas-in-place. To put it in perspective, each year industry extracts about four trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Based on the amount…industry is able to
[ Page 12958 ]
recover and increased activity, British Columbia has over 150 years’ worth of natural gas supply.”

In the past, that number, the 2,900 trillion, was referred to as marketable shale gas reserves. Now I sense that the minister no longer is using that language and that that description was erroneous. Does the minister confirm that?

Hon. R. Coleman: We refer to it as gas-in-place resource, and the marketable resource is the 577 trillion, which is easily over the 150-year piece. What we will do is contact the other ministry with regards to what it said and correct both the language and the numbers.

B. Ralston: According to the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, proven raw gas reserves in British Columbia were just 42.3 TCF at the year-end of 2013. What is the present number, according to the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, of proven raw gas reserves in B.C.? That’s a number taken from their website.

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s 51.0 trillion cubic feet.

B. Ralston: So can the minister explain the difference between 51.0 trillion cubic feet and 577 trillion cubic feet? Is one, which I’m going to suggest, proven reserves, and the other resources that are more probabilistic and not confirmed?

[1500]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, just so the member knows, we know that the gas is there and that it’s in the shale formation. We know that gas is there because of the work we’ve done and the drilling we’ve done.

You have your resource potential, which is 3,418 trillion cubic feet. Then you have the marketable resource, which is basically that it is recoverable using existing technology, which is calculated using a recovery factor, which I mentioned earlier. Then you have what is referred to as reserves, which is basically gas that companies have proven out and put on their books as reserve. We use that information because they use that as a bankable commodity with regards to their particular product. That’s the 51 trillion cubic feet of gas.

That’s how you actually calculate the basins and calculate the marketable resource, the reserves and the potential — the potential being your larger number. That takes in large basins that you know exist but you haven’t gone into the marketable resource amount of work yet on the recoverable factor using the existing technology. The reserves is stuff that’s drilled out and could flow or is flowing from the gas fields and is a known commodity of reserves that are sitting there today that are being moved.

For instance, a company could have a large piece of the Montney basin. They could have drilled out, let’s say, 10, 20 trillion cubic feet of gas and know very well that they’ve got another 50 to 60 or 70 trillion cubic feet, which they will drill and bring to the market as the market grows for the use of that particular gas.

They don’t book that as a reserve with regards to their books. They only book the gas that they’ve drilled out that they would be able to move into the marketplace. But they know what their marketable resource and reserve are as well, and they will move that gas as the market demand picks up by drilling more wells to extract more gas.

B. Ralston: The minister, I think, gave a lot of information there, and some of it I’d like to unpack slightly. The raw gas reserves at 51 trillion cubic feet, then, is the number that appears to have increased slightly from the 42.3. Is the minister saying that the 577 trillion cubic feet number is the total marketable resource? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, based on the known reserve, the known amount of gas and a recovery rate with today’s technology at 20 percent, it would go up if you increased your recovery rate to 30 because, obviously…. We’ve seen some new technologies that are going to bring in higher recovery rates for the gas. We prudently look at about 20 percent of recovery, even though in some cases we’re actually seeing recoveries as high as 30 percent. That’s basically that, for the member.

Hon. Chair, if you don’t mind, I’d like to take about a ten-minute break.

The Chair: I call a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

B. Ralston: Just some final questions on this topic. The public statements of the ministry and the minister have equated the 2,900 trillion cubic feet with a 150-year supply. The minister has revised that upward to 3,400 trillion cubic feet but has qualified that by saying that the estimated resource, based on an estimated 20 percent recovery rate, would be 577 trillion feet.

Does the 577 trillion feet, that revised figure, if I could put it that way, represent a 150-year supply? It seems not, because if the 2,900 represented a 150-year supply, obviously this is a substantially smaller number, approximately 1/5 of that. So the estimate of a 150-year supply would have to be revised — divided by five — down to a 30-year supply. Does the minister agree with that?

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I don’t. The 577 trillion cubic feet is the 150-year supply. That would be if we were recovering all of our gas at 3,418 trillion cubic feet. We would have about a 600- or 700-year…. Well, it would
[ Page 12959 ]
actually be six times 150, so a 900-year supply of gas. The 577 is the 150-year supply.

B. Ralston: Okay. Well, clearly the minister is going to stick with that number. I thank him for that, and we’ll probably continue that debate elsewhere.

Given the export permits that have been granted, can the minister give an estimate of the number of wells that would need to be drilled by 2040?

Mr. Hughes, in his report…. I think this debate that we’ve just had demonstrates the accuracy of what he has said in terms of his analysis of Oil and Gas Commission numbers and National Energy Board numbers. His estimate is that an extraordinary 37,800 to 43,700 new wells would need to be drilled by 2040 — more than doubling to nearly tripling the number of wells drilled since 1954 in northeast B.C. — in order to extract the gas for which permits have been granted.

Does the minister agree with that?

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, the drill-out period would be extensive. Just to maybe help the member, the equivalent projection for wells would be about 24,000 to 25,000 wells over the period of years it would be required.

Now, let me clarify what a well is for the member. One of the misconceptions about a well is under conventional drilling versus directional drilling. What we do is we do pads. A pad is about five hectares in size, and that pad is the equivalent of drilling 20 wells.

If you were doing conventional drilling, you would need…. For instance, to drill out 25,000 conventional wells, you’d use about 30,000 to 40,000 hectares of land. Whereas on the pads, you use about 6,000 hectares of land because the pad and the drilling take place…. It’s directional, under the ground.

The actual wells — we now refer to them as pads because it’s the equivalence of…. The frack and the activity under the ground isn’t an individual drill site across the land base. It’s done from a pad. So each pad is the equivalent of what people would think of conventionally as being 20 wells.

B. Ralston: I’m familiar with pads, having toured a few times when I’ve visited up in the northeast. So I’m familiar with the technology and the typical drilling arrangement.

The Auditor General issued a report on managing cumulative effects. One of the directions was for the Oil and Gas Commission — I think the deputy of the Oil and Gas Commission — to participate in devising a framework. Obviously, the prospective drilling over this period of time of that number of wells, however they’re described…. The cumulative effect on water and on the land base generally would require some long-term management.

I’m wondering what steps the Oil and Gas Commission has taken to implement the recommendations of the Auditor General, in conjunction with FLNRO and other resource ministries, in managing long-term cumulative effects of this major impact upon the landscape and communities in the northeast.

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: A couple of areas. First of all, as wells get built out and others go out, as per our earlier discussion, companies would be reclaiming land around wells going forward as well as if, basically, they came to end of life.

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

Area-based analysis was developed by the commission, first of all, at the start of this, to identify environmental and social values associated with B.C.’s unconventional gas basins. It also identified trends and resource development across all sectors to inform decisions on oil and gas application while minimizing the industry’s footprint and protecting ecological and social values. It also assists in regulating quality-of-life values, such as dust, noise and traffic, by way of enhanced planning for projects in a geographic area.

Our data shows that 2.03 percent of the land in all of northeast B.C. is used for oil and gas activity, so it’s 2 percent of the land base. The province, subsequent to the Auditor General, is working closely with the industry, stakeholders and First Nations to ensure the cumulative effects of development are assessed and managed effectively.

Cumulative effects are likely impacts on our reviewable industrial projects combined with impacts from prior development, existing activities and reasonably foreseeable future development. They are routinely assessed as part of the environmental assessment process. Both direct project effects and cumulative effects, if any, are assessed for significance in an environmental assessment of a gas facility or pipeline.

The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission considers cumulative effects through its area-based analysis initiative. The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is co-leading the cumulative effects work with the Ministry of Environment in the development of a cumulative effects assessment framework for B.C.

Once the framework is in place, cumulative effects analysis will be a regular part of natural resource decision-making for all levels of authorizations and cumulative effects assessments results will be available to proponents through the new resource sector on-line services delivered by the natural resource permitting project.

Basically, the lead is what we call FLNRO, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and MOE, which is Ministry of Environment. We feed into that
[ Page 12960 ]
cumulative effects with our information, our activity information, etc.

B. Ralston: For those who may wish to follow the degree to which the Oil and Gas Commission is participating in this and helping to develop this framework, where would they find that information? I appreciate that the process is a beginning one and will not be fully implemented for several years, but the minister has indicated the Oil and Gas Commission is participating in that. So if someone wanted to look at where, find out where, the Oil and Gas Commission has reported on its consideration of these important principles, where would they find those?

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s in the file cabinet, third drawer down to the left, at the far end of the room. I’m kidding. A little bit of glibness once in awhile….

It’s actually on our website under “Area-based analysis.” It’s actually on the OGC’s website.

B. Ralston: I just want to change the topic. The Premier and, I believe, the minister have said publicly that LNG exports will have a beneficial effect on global climate effects because the import of B.C. LNG into the Chinese market will reduce overall GHG emissions.

[1535]

Now, Matt Horne, who is a member of the climate leadership team and associate B.C. director of the Pembina Institute, has said he disagrees with that. In a letter that was submitted to one of the regulators, he says:

“B.C. LNG exports do not help reduce end-use GHG emissions.”

He goes on to say this. This is more about the upstream than the operation of the plants.

“While there is ongoing uncertainty about the true magnitude of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, the balance of the evidence currently indicates that LNG from North America is, on average, less GHG emissions–intensive than coal for generating electricity, as long as effective policies to limit methane are in place. I also think that such arguments convey a misplaced confidence that B.C.-supplied LNG will replace coal. LNG from B.C., or any exporter, also competes with other sources of natural gas to improve energy efficiency and new supplies of renewable energy. The increased availability of LNG could just as easily delay a wind energy instrument as it can accelerate a coal-fired power shutdown.”

He goes on to say:

“The primary determinant of global GHG reductions in Asia is climate policy in Asia. If strong climate policy is in place, the use of natural gas would fit in with a broader energy mix which is conducive to limiting warming to 2 degrees. Given that the world is on track for 2.7 degrees, if all current commitments are met, adequate climate change policies are not in place.

“A recent study by five teams using state-of-the-art integrated assessment models came to a similar conclusion. They showed that the increased use of natural gas is not a substitute for climate change mitigation policy: ‘market-driven increases in global supply of unconventional natural gas do not discernibly reduce the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions or climate forcing.’ Similarly, Davis and Shearer wrote: ‘…without new climate policies, abundant supplies of natural gas will have little impact on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.’”

Clearly, this is a person that has been selected by the Premier’s office to advise the Premier on climate change policies. I think most people know him. He is well informed, significant and very familiar with all the scientific literature on this.

Does the minister have a comment? It appears to directly contradict what both he and the Premier have been saying about the impact of B.C. LNG were it to be exported to China.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have a variety of approaches to answer the question.

First of all, sitting in significant boardrooms and offices with both government officials and major leaders within China in the last number of years with regards to the state of the Chinese air…. Having been to Beijing, one can’t see more than a block or two. One knows there is something amok as far as the air in China is concerned.

They believe, in China, that replacing coal with natural gas would have a significant impact in the reduction of their smog and their GHGs in their country. They’ve done some work on that as far as looking at it, and they feel pretty strongly about it.

At the same time, I’ve sat down with environmental groups and made the argument in discussions with them about the fact that replacing coal with LNG must have some positive impact on the GHGs of the world when you consider the largest industrial country in the world is burning coal and continuing to build, at a rapid pace, coal-fired plants which will provide electricity within their country. They want to move off coal into a cleaner-burning fuel, like natural gas.

The challenge with Pembina’s suggestion around Pacific NorthWest LNG’s particular potential emissions is…. We’ve had different discussions with folks from here, one on one. You can say that it could be misleading or incorrect or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that when they made their comment, they didn’t take into account measures we’re taking to make B.C. LNG the cleanest in the world. Our emissions have been lower than any other LNG plants in the world.

[1540]

In addition to that, we’ve already had the discussion, as the member knows, about the upstream with regards to electrification and reducing fugitive methane emissions, which we’ve already started to do. They don’t take that into account either.

We’re reducing the methane emissions. We’re reducing the fugitive emissions. We’re changing gauges and things as we go forward to reduce any of those emissions with regards to the methane side. Electrification would dramatically reduce the GHG number.

For all sides of this House, that should be a good-news story in the fact that not only would you have the lowest footprint of any LNG in the world, because of how you’ve
[ Page 12961 ]
done it with your reducing of your emissions in the upstream, but also the cleanest plants in the world.

It certainly has additional benefit in just the actual arrival of an LNG tanker from some other part of the world. Quite frankly, when ours arrives, it’ll have the lowest footprint of GHGs — to begin with, before it even gets in the ship, and then it can go into a country and actually reduce its emissions with regards to its own electrification by replacing coal.

The interesting thing about this is I’ve had…. I’ve been to a number of conferences and stuff, and I’ve heard significant people in and around the environment say how important it is that we move countries like China and others off of coal onto natural gas, if possible, because of how it will reduce the GHGs. You hear that story. The only question we ever have on that because….

Really, our impact on the GHGs of the world as a country is very low, by population and size of the country, compared to the rest of the world. But we do believe, if we have a resource that’s significant enough to reduce emissions in another country, somebody should give us credit for that reduction, somewhere along the line, as far recognizing what natural gas can do to reduce emissions in other countries, particularly since the air of the world doesn’t stop moving around.

For example, the natural gas from one large LNG plant in B.C. exported to Asia can provide enough energy to actually replace 43 coal-fired power plants with cleaner burning natural gas.

B. Ralston: Another view is expressed again by Mr. Hughes — David Hughes, the same person that I referred to earlier. In an interview, he was asked the following question. I’m going to give the minister the full answer just for his comments, because it is a contrary view. The question is:

“One argument is we are not being fair to the people in China who are suffering from coal production and that liquefied natural gas from here will save them from that.

“Answer: ‘On a full-cycle emissions basis, the planet would be better off if China built state-of-the-art coal plants rather than burning B.C. LNG for at least the next 50 years. It is true that the burner tip gas produces about half the CO₂ of coal. But you have to consider full-cycle emissions from the wellhead to the burner tip for gas. The hydraulic fracturing process and the supply chain — pipelines, processing plants — emit considerable amounts of methane, which is 73 times as potent as CO₂ on a 20-year time frame and 25 times as potent on a 100-year time frame, because methane leaves the atmosphere more quickly than CO₂. Plus, about 20 percent of the gas must be burned to provide power for the liquefaction and shipping process.

“‘If you compare full-cycle emissions from B.C. LNG burned in China to a state-of-the-art Chinese coal plant, which runs at 46 percent efficiency compared to 33 percent for an old coal plant, B.C. LNG is 27 percent worse than burning coal over a 20-year time frame and 7 percent better on a 100-year time frame. So you’d need to wait more than 50 years until you break even, while suffering from the effects of increased greenhouse gases in the meantime.’”

Clearly, that’s a contrarian view. I’m wondering if the minister has any comment on that.

Hon. R. Coleman: It’s one view, hon. Member. There are probably a number of other views out there that would be contrary to that.

[1545]

When people write these things, oftentimes they don’t know what we’re doing with regards to fugitive emissions, methane, how we’re changing things — that our methane emissions footprint is dramatically dropping compared to what he would be speaking about today. The electrification piece on the GHG has a significant impact, the fact that we’re driving our emissions on our plants substantially lower than any other LNG plant in the world.

If he’s using what the emissions might be out of Qatar versus what they would be here, it would skew his thoughts and his numbers with regards to the entire full in-line value of this.

There is mining and shipping with regards to coal. There’s drilling and shipping with regards to gas. The liquefaction process liquefies it, reduces it in size and sends it around the world. Coal gets shipped around the world as well.

There are, obviously, differing opinions on this. We believe that with the lowest emissions of any plants in the world, with how we electrify the system with regards to the upstream, how we pursue what we’ve already started to do with reduction of methane and fugitive gases, we are way ahead of the curve where some of these people’s analysis was even six months ago.

Even as we came through the climate action leadership group that went out and did some research and came back with a summary for government, which has now led to the cabinet committee on climate leadership, there was a recognition there that resource-intensive industries had to be understood with regards to their GHG footprint because of the benefits they could bring to the world with regards to commodities and those things. They actually said that in the report.

We’re trying to be as far ahead of the curve here as possible, making sure that not only are our plants the cleanest in the world but our upstream is the cleanest in the world, our emissions are reduced better than anybody else in the world, so that we can make the argument that, in actual fact, if you really, truly want the cleanest LNG in the world, there’s only one place to get it.

B. Ralston: Clearly, I didn’t expect the minister to agree with Mr. Hughes. Mr. Horne is, I suppose, closer to the government in the sense that he was on a climate action committee. His view is that LNG from B.C. is not a global climate solution.

Clearly, the minister, as part of his duties and certainly by his disposition, is a fierce advocate for the LNG industry. I think everyone recognizes that. But is the minister,
[ Page 12962 ]
based on advice from staff, prepared to acknowledge that, in the long run, LNG may not be the elixir, in terms of environmental solutions, that he claims it is?

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think as you go through this with different people that have opinions — and they are definitely opinions around it — there are a couple of things you can point to.

For instance, the United States didn’t sign on to the Kyoto accord but actually did one of the largest reductions in emissions by any country in the world. How did they do that? They converted a lot of electricity to natural gas versus coal. The issues in China are not just about GHG. It’s also about quality of life and air quality, and coal is definitely not a solution for them. That’s why they want to move to gas.

In addition to that, there’s always an evolution. Back in the days of Standard Oil — which went on to become Exxon Mobil, etc., as a corporation over the decades — way back at the turn of the century, they used to throw a product away because they were trying to get to kerosene. The oil was basically a by-product they didn’t have a use for, which became the next thing as far as power and gas and what have you.

Obviously, if there’s one thing for sure, we’ve always said that natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel in the world, on the planet. It is a good transition fuel to finding other forms of technology for power long-term for the citizens of the world.

When I was just recently overseas in Japan, there was significant concern with regards to nuclear in the country — because of the experience from an earthquake — which at one time was really seen by some folks to be the long-term solution, from an absolute GHG footprint. But there are other issues in and around it.

I guess pointing to British Columbia and trying to get a sense of whether China is serious with regards to natural gas in B.C., SINOC Nexen has a project of 24 million tonnes they’re working under, called Aurora LNG, in Prince Rupert. PetroChina, which is another major utility in China, is a partner in the LNG Canada project in Kitimat. Sinopec, which is also a huge utility in China with regard to electricity and stuff, is a partner in the Pacific NorthWest LNG project. So they’re all here.

Just last week Guangzhou Gas — which is a power utility in Guangzhou, Guangdong province — signed a letter of understanding to buy 1.5 million tonnes of LNG from Woodfibre if the project were to get its FID and move forward.

There’s a lot of activity from China. I’ve been to China. I’ve met with Chinese companies coming through here on a pretty regular basis. They are looking to try and find solutions for their country, and they really think natural gas is a big piece of that.

B. Ralston: In the Climate Leadership Team: Recommendations in October, there’s a reference to methane emissions. The minister has referenced methane emissions, and in the excerpt that I quoted from Mr. Hughes, he pointed out the specifically deleterious effects of methane as opposed to other greenhouse gases.

I’m wondering if the minister could set out…. He’s mentioned several times that there are efforts underway to reduce methane emissions, not so much in the plant but in the upstream. That appears to be the concern, whether it’s in the extraction process or it’s in the pipeline process. Can the minister explain what specific programs or regulations are now in place to reduce methane emission? He has touched on it several times.

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: A very strong set of regulations with regards to methane and venting and flaring, as a matter of fact. We implemented the venting and flaring regulations four years ahead of schedule with regards to that, on the methane. This did come out of a climate action group that did do the report for government. One of the first and early movers will be methane with regards to reducing that.

We have some significant and substantial proposals that have come forward to the committee, which are being processed now. I’m not in a position to announce what they are, but I can tell the member that it is one of the early movers with regards to climate leadership that we’ve put on the table for some long-term solutions to dramatically reduce methane and emissions with regards to natural gas development in British Columbia.

There’s no methane, necessarily, at a plant, because the gas is usually hand-extracted before it gets to the plant when it comes down the pipeline. But we have some substantial and significant things that we think we can accomplish with regards to that.

We will obviously process them through the proper government process, through the committee, and those recommendations and decisions that we would expect to have in the not too distant future will be made public.

B. Ralston: I think the minister has partially answered my next question. In the climate leadership team report, October 31, 2015, recommendation 15, the recommendation is:

“Reduce fugitive and vented methane emissions by (a) establishing a goal of 40 percent reduction for fugitive and vented methane within five years; (b) requiring industry through regulation to implement leak detection and repair, LDAR, programs in line with best practices in North America; and (c) developing best practices for methane reduction, including transparent reporting, through a collaborative initiative involving the provincial government, industry and other stakeholders with expertise in this area, in a manner similar to Colorado and Pennsylvania and in alignment with Canada and other provincial jurisdictions in this regard.”
[ Page 12963 ]

The minister said those recommendations are being considered. Is that what he said? I appreciate that this would be a matter of a policy going forward to cabinet. Is that what he’s saying?

[1600]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we considered those things very seriously when they came out of the report. That’s why we started the work to do things in addition to what we’re already doing with regards to vent flows, gas migration and potential leaking in abandoned wells, which we’re already doing. We’re also working through how we can go even a step further, and that’s the work that will be coming through to the committee, which is already in its first draft.

We have several initiatives in addition to that to quantify and prevent surface case vent flows and gas migration. We have things like infrared measurements that we can do. Any surface casing flow and migration…. The environment must be repaired immediately. It’s those types of things that we’re already doing, which even, in some cases, weren’t recognized by some of the folks that we’re talking about this with, in regards to climate leadership. But we have some things that go much further to try to achieve the goal that the member read out from the report.

B. Ralston: The minister may be relieved to know — or maybe not, since he might be enjoying this process — that I’m getting near the end of my questions. But I do want to move to another topic.

Moody’s Investors Service, which is the same service that we hear about sometimes from the Minister of Finance in terms of assessing the credit rating of the province, has an investor service, which is another arm of the same company, I understand. In a report dated March 3, 2016, it spoke, in a very pessimistic way — I am sure, contrary to the outlook of the minister — on the future of LNG projects and contrasts that with the construction of new liquefaction facilities in the U.S. gulf.

As the minister will know, Sabine Pass is now open in Louisiana and delivering, by freighter through the Panama Canal, to China. That’s already underway. There are other projects in the Louisiana Gulf that are coming on.

Can the minister explain or perhaps respond to the outlook of Moody’s Investors Service that the prospects for…? These are not political statements. These are economic evaluations based on the price of natural gas and some calculation of its future price and the growing supply, whether it’s supply from Iran coming on or even supplies from the U.S. Gulf Coast, which have come on now and are in production, and given the well-established Australian long-term contracts and Qatar and all the other major producers, not to mention new suppliers such as Papua New Guinea.

Given the state of the market, what sustains the minister in his belief that these projects will go forward?

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it takes way too much energy to be a pessimist. I always look at the glass as being half-full versus half-empty. But there are a number of aspects, hon. Member, which give me certain pieces of comfort with it.

When Moody’s was here, I met with them with regards to natural gas and pointed out to them some things that had been happening here that they may not be aware of. For instance, there’s been $19.5 billion invested by various companies in British Columbia in both the upstream and the downstream pieces of natural gas in British Columbia, including an additional $2.9 billion that has been invested in gas plants, with significant cap ex to move the gas down pipelines to plants.

My optimism goes from a number of things. First of all, I’ve sat with major investors in most of the countries and companies that are looking to do business here and gone through their details, their concerns, their risks and their ideas.

I’ll give you a couple of examples. One is Lake Charles, which is probably one of our significant competitors for the LNG Canada piece, which is a property that was picked up in the BG purchase by Shell. Competitively, we have some challenges with that. They have some other competitive challenges as well. First of all, they have to go through a lot longer shipping place, through the Panama Canal, which could affect the certainty of supply and getting the gas to the customer on time.

The Strait of Hormuz is a big concern for a number of the people that are buying natural gas globally in different countries. Any activity there that would cause any type of international strife could affect their supply.

If you look at British Columbia’s west coast — and you look at Japan, China and our other customers in Asia — we are a direct route, with a lot shorter shipping period and with no impediments, whether it be a canal or straits or whatever, with regards to shipping our gas. That, in their minds, is a benefit from the standpoint of the value of total certainty of the supply.

The second thing they’ll bring up is: “We like the fact that you have the gas, that it’s proven out and there’s no uncertainty with whether, if the plant was built, there’d be enough gas to run the plant.” That actually happened in one area of the world where a plant was built. It turned out the gas hadn’t been proven out correctly, and it could only supply 75 percent of the volume of the gas to make 100 percent of the manufacturing possible.

We also have another advantage that’s been brought up to me, and that is our climate. We’re cooler. The ambient temperature is more steady and stable in the northern part of British Columbia than most areas of the world where LNG is made. A lot hotter countries use a lot more
[ Page 12964 ]
energy to make the natural gas, simply because it’s a matter of refrigerating it down to minus 161 degrees to turn it into a liquid. It’s easier to do that when your climate is already cooler and your gas is cooler. That’s actually been identified as a significant advantage for British Columbia by a number of very senior people in oil and gas in the world.

In addition to that, if you’re doing business in the United States, you could be doing business or trying to buy your gas from multiple stakeholders — multiple landowners who have gas and the rights to gas in multiple acreages all over an area — to try and, basically, bring your gas into some kind of an assembly to make sure you have enough gas to move or you’ve actually got your price. In British Columbia, you can come in and enter into a long-term lease arrangement or buy a lease. Your cost is relative to the royalty that’s charged, but you have the stability of knowing that you’re dealing with one effective landowner with regards to the gas.

In addition to that, because of all of the certainty that has been accomplished by First Nations…. The concern of uncertainty around that has also gone away with regards to, particularly, the Pacific NorthWest project because the First Nations have all signed on.

When I put all that together and recognize that there are also…. Whether it be studies that I’ve read with regards to markets in five years, ten years, 15 years out or then further out, on what the supply and demand is going to be and what the potential world production is going to be, we’re not going to fill the entire world production that’s going to be and the increase in the marketplace. We would like a piece of that market. We think that we can be competitive in that piece of the marketplace.

There are challenges around a number of other projects, whether it be in Papua New Guinea or anywhere else, with regards to political issues, with regards to strife and with regards to whether an asset could be invested in there and then get nationalized by a new government. All of those things are measurements companies bring into their total equation when they make their final investment decision.

[1610]

How is B.C. viewed in places like Japan and China? British Columbia has performed at a level exactly as we said we would with regards to the competitiveness, the taxation, the royalty curves, the project development agreements and those sorts of things. We’re seen as a stable environment simply because of our triple-A credit rating and Canada’s stability, basically, in governments. It’s a pretty stable country. That all comes into an equation about….

If we’re making an investment that’s going to be for 50 or 60 years or more, we want to be able to have the long-term stability. We know that this investment and its return on investment are over a long-term period of time. We need to know we have the resource — that we can move it, we can liquefy it, we can ship it safely. Now can we provide stability and certainty to our customers.

Given that, plus the players who are here — who are legitimately, elsewhere in the country, also trying to do business and looking at opportunities — we think that we have some competitive issues on our side of the ledger like others have on their side of the ledger. I guess the proof would be in the pudding.

If we had the CEAA certificate tomorrow, I think probably in 60 days we’d know whether we had an FID and whether a project would go in British Columbia. That would answer all questions with regards to somebody going to come here and build and how they’re going to do in the market. Can they compete in the market? If the second project, which is scheduled to have its FID in December, were to also make that decision, I think that proves it out again.

There’s no question, as the member knows…. I think we’ve talked about this before. When some of these conversations, not just here but even in…. There are a couple of projects that have been put on the shelf in Australia because of price and costs. We’re sitting here with the understanding that the world changed pretty dramatically when oil dropped from $100 a barrel down to where it is today. That affected two things. It affected capital availability for some companies, on their cap ex, to be able to leverage some projects worldwide. A number of projects actually got put on the shelf — a lot of oil projects, particularly.

There was a good side and a bad side to that. The bad side was that that affected the price of natural gas that could be delivered to some countries in the short term — probably not, with market growth, going to stay down there forever. On the flip side of that, also, there is an opportunity there because the cost of construction equipment, pipe, all of those things also dropped dramatically. A number of projects that were going to take up space in that and labour in that weren’t going ahead, particularly in the petroleum sector.

That meant that when Petronas, for instance, went out and repriced their project when they were hoping to get a CEAA certificate last summer, they got significant savings in the cost of the delivery of both the plant and the pipeline, which actually drove the viability of their project to a different level because of the savings they could find on construction and materials.

It’s all a balance. I believe we’re going to be successful. I know the member, fairly, has characterized me as an optimist, and I will stay that way. Given what I know, all the folks I’ve dealt with, all the work that’s been done, I don’t think B.C. could be any better positioned to be successful in this. We need the one permit from the federal government in order to see if this one project can go ahead, and there are some other processes that are outside our control.

We wouldn’t be in negotiations on project development agreements with two other proponents at this point
[ Page 12965 ]
in time if there wasn’t a legitimate interest in the business, I believe, in B.C. I also don’t believe they would have spent literally billions of dollars in prepping sites, planning pipeline routes, identifying locations and designing gas plants — and, in the case of one company, doing $2 billion worth of drilling a year for the last four to five years in northeastern British Columbia — which has created a lot of jobs and kept a lot of people working.

From my perspective, it’s keep the eye on the ball, knowing full well there are lots of naysayers out there in all directions. It could distract me. I won’t be distracted. I will stay focused on what we have to do, and hopefully, we can bring it across the line.

B. Ralston: Well, thanks very much. That’s, I think, in many ways, a fair recitation of the advantages of potential B.C. LNG and I think, also, a recognition of the global challenges in the market.

[1615]

I guess my sense is…. For example, Sabine Pass is now in production. Their publicly disclosed price for production is $5.35 to $5.40 U.S. There’s about 2 bucks U.S. to get it to China, so their landed price in China is $7.50 U.S. per million Btu.

There’s no sense, in what I understand about the finances of the B.C. operations, that in the short term any British Columbia operation can compete with that price. Sabine is in production. The minister may say: “Well, they have different suppliers.” In fact, that’s probably an advantage in some ways because it means they get a market price for the gas they’re buying rather than being confined to a sole supplier in a long-term contract.

Given what Moody’s said…. Is it realistic, given those conditions, to expect a final investment decision in the short term? We’ve discussed the effective option that Petronas has. Given the rights that they will acquire upon a final investment decision, they don’t have to do anything and preserve the bundle of rights that they’ve acquired for at least ten years.

Is it realistic to expect that, in this present market…? As much as the minister may want the projects to go ahead and as much as the revenue for British Columbia would be welcome, is it realistic to adopt that position?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it is. Given what I know and some of the confidential discussions I’ve had with regards to market and price and gas and those sorts of things, yes, I think it is realistic.

There is one clarification I meant to make before we started up this afternoon — the question the member had about the ten years. It actually started when the PDA was signed last year. So they have nine years left now. It actually started then, not at construction or FID. That’s just a clarification that we clarified over lunch.

From my perspective, I think it is realistic, and it’s realistic given what people have invested and knowing that it’s going to take four to five years to build a plant. They’re projecting their markets out and prices based on that timeline, not on the timeline of what the price is in a particular snapshot of where the market is today, knowing that the commodity is probably going to change in price over the next three to five years.

B. Ralston: That concludes the questions that I have. I want to thank the minister and his staff who have graciously assisted.

With that, I’d welcome the vote.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’d also like to pass my thanks on to the member and to the other critics with regards to housing, with regards to these estimates. I always enjoy the estimates with this particular member, the member for Surrey-Whalley, because he does do his research and has very interesting questions which challenge all the thought. I think that’s a very important part of this process.

There are a couple of other votes that I also have to move. So I would say we move, first of all, Vote 37, and then I will move the other motions.

Vote 37: ministry operations, $24,218,000 — approved.

Vote 38: housing, $414,598,000 — approved.

The Chair: We’ll now recess for a few minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:18 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Sullivan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:31 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $387,157,000.

Hon. S. Anton: If I might, I will introduce the staff with me today: my deputy, Richard Fyfe; Shauna Brouwer, executive financial officer; David Hoadley, chief financial officer; and Jamie Deitch, who is our acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General. Other staff will be joining me as appropriate, depending on the topic.

I’ll just make some very brief introductory remarks. We are committed in Justice to transforming the justice sector, making it work better for all British Columbians. To me, working better is measured by looking at whether the changes we introduce lead to processes that are less complex, more affordable and lead to earlier resolution of disputes.

We’ve made meaningful progress aimed at making the justice system more responsive to citizens’ needs and improving its management. In fact, the improvements we
[ Page 12966 ]
are making recently attracted the praise of Lord Justice Briggs, who is spearheading justice reform in the U.K.

An example where we’ve seen greater collaboration and dialogue among the different elements of the justice and the public safety sector…. We’ve had productive and healthy engagement on a range of issues, including access to justice, mental health, family justice and domestic violence.

The ministry is continuing its efforts to ensure the justice system is fair, protects people, is sustainable and has the public’s confidence. Those are the four principles that come out of the Justice Summits which we have had.

A critical part of that for us is justice innovation and transformation. The ministry and this government have developed a tremendous track record of innovative and positive change, from tribunal transformation to expanding the number and role of justice access centres, from supporting and resourcing problem-solving courts to transforming legal aid services to deliver more meaningful services to British Columbians.

One of our newest priorities will be the opening of the civil resolution tribunal later this year. The CRT, Canada’s first on-line tribunal, will help citizens resolve common strata disputes and small claims outside the traditional courtroom.

We’re also working to consolidate tribunal expertise and services by supporting the integration of B.C.’s many tribunals into tribunal clusters. Through clustering, we will enable tribunal clusters to share staff, services and facilities as well as a common technology platform.

Our court administrative transformation suite, which is a computer systems project, means information can be entered, accessed and shared quickly and accurately inside the courtroom and among justice system participants.

In terms of legal aid, we are continuing to support legal aid services through an increase of $6 million over three years for innovation, to implement and evaluate five legal aid pilot projects to help low-income British Columbians resolve legal problems more quickly and efficiently.

We are committed to protecting those who are most vulnerable. We continue to take actions to address violence against women. We are supportive of the national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls, and we are sharing our experiences with the federal government from B.C.’s Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

[1635]

I’d like to take a moment to thank all the staff in the ministry for the work they do on behalf of all British Columbians. I can tell you that their dedication and public service is exemplary and very much appreciated.

With that said, I look forward to the member’s questions.

L. Krog: I’m going to start with something very basic, the December 12, 2015, letter from the Premier directed to the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice. I see that there are five matters mentioned in the mandate: “balance your ministerial budget” — that goes without saying; “continue and accelerate the work you have been spearheading to significantly transform justice in British Columbia”…. I’m wondering. What does the Attorney General understand item 2 to actually be?

Hon. S. Anton: Starting with the Justice Summits, which began several years ago…. The Justice Summits are a process whereby — I know that the member has attended them — all justice partners meet together on various topics and bring each individual justice partner’s expertise to the table. There are lawyers, judges, defence counsel, Crown counsel. There are community service providers, aboriginal representation. So when we think about these bigger issues, they can be done in collaboration with all of our partners in justice.

The propositions I mentioned a moment ago of public confidence, fairness, sustainability and…. Sorry, I forgot the fourth one here. Those propositions came from the Justice Summits and drive what we do in justice in British Columbia. Then from that, we have innovations through, for example, the civil resolution tribunal; the tribunal transformation; the court administration suite, which I mentioned a moment ago, which is very innovative technology in the courtrooms; and our legal aid pilot projects, to mention just a few.

L. Krog: I was hoping that the Attorney General might take advantage of this opportunity to brag about all the significant things, but I’ve only heard three substantive matters listed in response to the question. Candidly, $6 million for innovation at the Legal Services Society is spread over three years, as I recall, unless I’m mistaken. I see the Deputy Attorney General kindly nodding to confirm that that’s, in fact, an accurate statement.

When the Premier uses this rather glorious language — “continue and accelerate the work you have been spearheading to significantly transform justice in British Columbia” — I’m wondering if there are any other items that would match the language that the Premier has used in her letter.

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: I will talk about some of the innovations that legal aid is undertaking. We have provided legal aid $2 million a year for three years. The direction was to create innovative projects. So they have now implemented….

These are all pilots, and they will be assessed and, if appropriate, expanded in the future: expanded family duty counsel, where a full-time family duty counsel has been hired here at the Victoria Justice Access Centre to help self-represented litigants prepare for court; an expanded Family LawLINE, where eligible clients can call from
[ Page 12967 ]
anywhere in the province to assist clients in completing court documents and other preparation for family matters; family mediation referrals, referring eligible clients with family matters concerning property debt, spousal support or related issues to Mediate B.C. for up to six hours of free mediation; Parents Legal Centre at Robson Square, which facilitates earlier and more collaborative resolutions for child protection matters. I know this is a service that is very much appreciated. You can help a family, and the child does not need to go into protection because another suitable alternative is found. That’s a very good result.

An expanded criminal duty counsel. An expanded service has been launched for a year now in Port Coquitlam to provide more continuity of services and facilitate earlier resolution of less serious criminal matters. Those are the projects that are underway in legal services.

The member asked about other things that we’re doing in terms of innovation. We’ve got a court scheduling project, a Crown file ownership project. We’ve improved court timeliness and reduced court backlogs. The drinking and driving, which is a combination, really, between Public Safety and Attorney General, has reduced court cases by about 6,000 annually — the impaired driving cases, which are no longer going to court. They’re treated as drinking-and-driving matters — and with the immediate roadside prohibition program. The specialized courts framework and, as I said, legal services, justice, innovation and transformation projects.

L. Krog: I guess my point is that the projects that the Attorney General has talked about I would hardly describe as ones that would “significantly transform justice in British Columbia.” With great respect, the moneys designated legal aid are special one-time funding; no guarantee of ongoing funding. Indeed, as the Attorney General is well aware, the Legal Services Society budget is still not anything near where it was in raw dollar amounts in 2001, when this government came into office.

I do note, amongst the five items…. It is a fairly short letter that represents the mandate for the Minister of Justice. It also includes No. 5: “Review and make recommendations to cabinet on ways to better enforce interjurisdictional support orders.”

I’m just wondering: has that been a significant issue? Candidly, it’s not something that’s arising in MLAs offices that I’ve been made aware of. So I’d be curious to know: what’s the reason for that mandate? It represents one of the five things that’s being asked of the Attorney General this year, so I assume it must have some significance. Yet it doesn’t appear to be much of an issue on the political radar.

[1645]

Hon. S. Anton: This received some impetus from the Council of the Federation — so the Premiers across Canada — who want to help families who are caught between two different jurisdictions for the wide variety of reasons that that might have occurred. So if the payer is in one province, the recipient is in another province, and there’s an order, how do you enforce that order? That’s the interjurisdictional support order.

I’m glad the member is not having those people come into his office, because I’m hoping that that generally means that the system is working. The goal is to make the system work. We’re committed to working closely to enforce these orders. We now enforce support for over 3,300 families living outside of B.C. Other Canadian provinces and territories enforce support for over 4,300 families living in British Columbia.

Our enforcement program sends over $11 million to those families living outside of British Columbia, while other Canadian programs collectively send over $18 million to families in British Columbia. We passed legislative changes last fall to more efficiently process documents from other provinces for the collection of funds from assets or payers located in B.C. The changes cut red tape, help speed up enforcement actions and improve the lives of families and children.

We do have a robust service here in British Columbia through our family maintenance enforcement program and the related services to locate paying programs and their assets. We’re working with other provinces and territories to ensure that parents cannot avoid their obligations to families.

Just one more word on the family maintenance enforcement program. It’s a very effective program that helps families around British Columbia and, indeed, across the country and has collected, since its inception 25 years ago, over $3.2 billion for B.C. children and families.

L. Krog: The mandate says: “Review and make recommendations to cabinet on ways to better enforce interjurisdictional support orders.” I’ve heard a recitation of how effective the program has been, so I’m curious to know why this forms one of the five items in the mandate for this minister that obviously must have caught the attention or be important for government.

What is it that’s wrong with the existing system? In what ways is the Attorney General recommending that it be enhanced? Again, I’m asking. It’s item 5. It obviously has some importance. It obviously must have some political or policy importance. So what exactly is the problem, given that we’ve just heard the recitation of the good news? What’s the bad news, and what is the Attorney General going to do to fix it — if, in fact, there is a problem?

[1650]

Hon. S. Anton: The changes to the legislation were made last fall. What we have been doing since that time are two things. One is working with the Provincial Court
[ Page 12968 ]
to reduce processing times. The other is to work with the jurisdictions across the country to help applicants get their material ready for court. Thirdly, also, is to work with our colleagues across the country to show them what we’re doing in B.C., because our work on family maintenance enforcement here in British Columbia is amongst the leaders in the country.

We are able to work with other jurisdictions to let them know what we’re doing so that they can employ some of the same practices so as to help families — both in their jurisdictions and back and forth across the country — as needed.

L. Krog: I think I heard the Attorney General say that we’re really talking about something that appears to have been solved legislatively last fall, and now we’re simply implementing this. I haven’t heard anything in response to my question about what recommendations we would do to better enforce interjurisdictional support orders as if there were a problem.

So again, I’m just curious: only five items in the mandate this year. You know, these are public documents. This is where the Premier lets the people of British Columbia know how important all these things are, how significant they must be and how much the government is supposed to be doing on these issues.

It just strikes me as a bit odd that one of the five items is such an almost inconsequential item, with great respect. I appreciate the excellent work of the FMEP program and Mr. Beresford. I’m not sure whether he’s still running it or not, to be quite honest with you. He must be getting close to retirement. He and his crew have done an excellent job for many years, and I’m well familiar with their work. But again, I come back to the point that it doesn’t appear to be a problem or an issue.

Perhaps I can ask about one of the other mandate items, item 4, which is to “work with the federal government and other provinces and territories to further the use of civil resolution tribunals to resolve issues for British Columbians outside of a courtroom environment for non-criminal litigation and strata matters.”

I’m just curious to know: what sort of work would one be doing with the federal government and other provincial and territorial governments that would involve what, on the face of it to me, appears to be entirely something within the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia?

I mean, are we talking about trying to work out an interjurisdictional small claims arrangement, where you can get to sue in Alberta against someone in British Columbia? What exactly are we talking about in this rather interesting item 4 in the mandate?

[1655]

Hon. S. Anton: At the moment, I would say that this would be more described as informational. As the member knows, we’re working very hard on the civil resolution tribunal here in British Columbia. It is extremely innovative. The fact that it is tied in with the justice system is an important component of it and makes it unique in the world.

We have many jurisdictions who have met with us, who are coming here to look or who we are going to those jurisdictions to meet. When I say “we,” this is not myself so much, except at federal-provincial meetings. But my staff, including the tribunal chair, Shannon Salter, have met with the Alberta justice, have spoken to the Northern Ireland Royal Courts of Justice. We’ve met on several occasions with Ontario, including a briefing for their Deputy Attorney General and their assistant deputy ministers. The chair was invited to speak at the New South Wales Department of Justice’s Civil Justice Forum last year.

We had, of course, Lord Justice Michael Briggs here from the United Kingdom just last week, and a justice from Western Australia visited last year. So there are jurisdictions around the world who are extremely interested in the work that we’re doing.

We are interested in making sure that the rest of the country is well informed about what we’re doing. If there is ever a need or a thought for common platforms, it’s always better to be working off the same platform. We want to make sure that everyone knows what we’re doing, the kind of platform that we’re using, how we’re using it and where we’re expecting to take the project.

L. Krog: I will have more detailed questions to deal with the civil resolution tribunal later, but I come back to my point. This is the fourth of only five items in the mandate letter. It says to work with the federal government and other provinces and territories to further the use of the civil resolution tribunal, which we know, at this point, isn’t actually up and operating yet. It actually hasn’t heard a case, so to speak, or dealt with a dispute. So I’m very curious to try and understand.

When we talk about working with the federal government and other provinces to further the use, what exactly, precisely, are we talking about? Is anyone else using this system now — has implemented it, it’s actually up and operating — and we’re trying to learn from them? Is this just, with great respect, a series of meetings where others are looking at what we’ve proposed by way of legislation and not actually implemented in practice?

Hon. S. Anton: There is no question that British Columbia is the leader in this initiative. Not only are we the leader in Canada, but we are the leader around the world.

[1700]

We do view it as being our role to both reach out to others, to let them know what we’re doing, but also to receive their interest, which is widespread. So people come here, and we go there.
[ Page 12969 ]

To the list that I mentioned a moment ago, I will also add Saskatchewan. We’ll be meeting with Saskatchewan next week to let them know what we’re doing with regards to the tribunal. We’re ahead of the curve on this one. There’s nowhere else in the world that is doing a project of this nature — and, as I said, tied into the justice system in the way this one is.

L. Krog: Someone once told me that no one cares about the state of an MLA’s emotions, so I’m not going to express my frustration at the answers, which are not actually answering the questions I’m asking of the Attorney General.

What I’ve really heard her say is that we’ve had lots of meetings about a process that isn’t up and running yet, that isn’t operating. Notwithstanding, I said I wanted to ask many more specific questions later. At this point, how many people are actually working on the civil resolution tribunal project? How many people are actually employed, and what are they doing?

Hon. S. Anton: There is a chair. There are five in the branch who work closely with the project. There are another five who are CRT staff, the tribunal staff, plus there are a number of contractors who are working on both the software and what we would call the knowledge engineering. So there are writers, and there are people out there thinking about how the pieces of it fit together.

There are a number of people working under contract, and then there are permanent staff. As I said, seven plus the chair in total, permanent government staff, and then a number of contractors.

Interjection.

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: Sorry, I was wondering about the double use of the number there. Five in the branch plus the chair plus numerous contractors.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could condescend upon the particulars and advise how many contractors are involved.

Hon. S. Anton: We have a contract with PwC. They provide their contract staff to do a number of different pieces of work on it. So it may vary. It’s not a fixed number.

L. Krog: Well, continuing with my theme, my suspicion is that, frankly, although this may form one of the five mandated items, it’s not exactly what one would call a big deal. I suspect my local Dairy Queen probably has two or three times the staff to serve ice cream, for heaven’s sake, as is provided for to implement this wonderful new civil resolution tribunal that isn’t up and running yet.

Perhaps I can ask about item 3 of the mandate letter: “Work with the federal government as they implement their commitment to a national inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in Canada,” which is of great significance to most Canadians and has formed a lead story in the news for a very long time. Who is doing that, and what exactly is happening?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member may know, when I began in this position three years ago, one of the tasks that I had, which was an intense amount of work over the next two years, was the implementation of the work from the missing and murdered women inquiry from the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

There were a number of recommendations that came out of that inquiry, which led to very extensive changes in policing, in support for vulnerable women in missing-persons services, which are completely different now — it’s transformational in British Columbia — and also safety on highways and compensation for the children of the missing women.

With that knowledge, I have been more recently working with the federal government in terms of their request to us to provide input into what the federal inquiry should look like. We have been doing that. I’m involved in that project in a couple of ways. One is by informing and letting the federal inquiry know what we have done in British Columbia by submitting our own response to their questions to us as to what an inquiry might look like and prior, indeed, to submitting that response, talking to the families of missing and murdered women here in British Columbia.

The Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation had a family gathering in Prince George in January, which I attended. I attended the national round table in Winnipeg in February, I believe it was. Today in the rotunda, the member may have seen the quilt which was crafted by the families of the missing and murdered women following the Prince George round table and family gathering.

All of those pieces have worked together to form our British Columbia participation in how the federal inquiry will be built by the federal government. They’re undertaking that work right now. I actually did meet with the federal Justice Minister not very long ago. I don’t want to speak for the federal government, but I will say they seem fairly optimistic that before too much longer this year, the construct of the federal inquiry will be announced.

We will continue to participate in being involved in that. We are very keen for that inquiry to continue the kind of work that we did in British Columbia and, indeed, come up with its own recommendations and to hear from families, so that families will be heard from in the federal inquiry.

[1710]

I hope and they hope, I think, and intend that there should be very positive and helpful responses coming out of the inquiry on how to move forward and how to help vulnerable women and vulnerable communities across our country.

L. Krog: I suppose the question is: if we’re working with the federal government, what exactly does that mean in terms of a staff or a financial commitment in this year’s budget?

Hon. S. Anton: There is no line item. However, as I said, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation had his family gathering in Prince George. We had the quilt today. He and I both attended the national round table in Winnipeg. We have staff who assist me, who assist him. So there are some fairly significant resources out of our existing budgets and out of the existing work that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and I both do. I should add that the Solicitor General and the minister responsible for Public Safety is part of that work that we do as well.

Between us we, as I said, are very keen to support the federal inquiry and wish it success. We hope, as I think the federal government does…. The goal is that it be helpful to vulnerable aboriginal women in Canada.

L. Krog: Part of the mandate letter, in the penultimate paragraph, states as follows: “In addition, as discussed and approved by cabinet, our government is committed to ensuring British Columbia government services are easily accessed by our citizens and businesses. Minister Coralee Oakes will be leading this initiative on my behalf and over the following…months…will be reaching out to all ministries to assist in reducing unnecessary red tape and regulation.”

I’d be very curious to know what steps, if any, the ministry is taking to reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation. What exactly would that involve?

Hon. S. Anton: Our whole focus in Justice is on justice transformation and innovation and access to justice. That, in itself…. I don’t normally describe it as a red-tape initiative, but it is something that helps citizens. It helps them more easily navigate the justice system. It helps them more easily have access to justice.

Some of the specific examples that I’ll mention are the work that we have done on sworn statements. Instead of having to get a lot of things notarized that you used to have to get notarized, you can simply say that this is true.

The civil resolution tribunal. The front end of the civil resolution tribunal is guided pathways. The first part of the process, on the civil resolution tribunal, will be enabling you to understand your own issue and to understand the nature of the dispute that you may have, be it a strata dispute or a small claims dispute. It will help you learn about your own issue, which will help you move forward into mediation and eventually, if needed, into adjudication.

[1715]

The justice access centres and the family justice centres we have help people around British Columbia. They help them to not have to go to court because they can find alternate resolutions to their issues. Anything that can help a family with a mediation and not have to go through a court process…. We don’t usually describe it as red tape. But in fact, it is something that simplifies the law for people and simplifies processes for people. We are working with the Provincial Court to develop new family court rules coming out of the new Family Law Act.

I’m going back to the civil resolution tribunal for a moment. We are also, with that, looking at tribunal transformation and putting a number of our government tribunals onto that same platform that the civil resolution tribunal is on. All of those things make justice easier and more accessible for the citizens of British Columbia.

L. Krog: Arising out of the Attorney General’s answer, she talked about new Provincial Court family rules. I’m just curious to know, given that the act has been in force for some time now: what changes are contemplated around the family court rules, if any? Are we talking about the Provincial Court only and/or the Supreme Court?

Hon. S. Anton: To begin — of course, emphasizing that this is still under development — the member asks why we’re doing it at all. The reasons. They are being written and built to implement the principles of the Family Law Act. Those principles include facilitating mediation, encouraging assessment of your issue at the beginning of the process, to address your needs early, to reach consensual resolution if possible, and to only go to court if it is necessary to go to court.

In other words, if we can achieve early resolution through mediation and other means, then that is generally a positive for the families, and we have the court process kept for things that are more complex and more difficult and that can’t be resolved early through the ways that are being proposed.

L. Krog: My memory is not what it was, so I’ll look to the Attorney General to remind me of when exactly the new Family Law Act was brought into force. Why, given that that was the intended philosophy of it, are we only now looking at changing the rules — as opposed to having had the rules changed in conjunction with the bringing into force of the act? Again, if we can confirm when it was brought into force and why we’re doing this now.

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: The act was passed in November 2011 and fully came into force March 2013. There was a commitment, at that time, to do a full review of the rules. This is a very robust review. It engages judges, lawyers, staff and stakeholders in the community. It involves a study across other jurisdictions as to what they are doing, what their best practices are. It will involve an extensive public consultation.

It is a very robust process to make sure that we have all the expertise we can garner from across the justice sector. The goal is to have them in place by late 2017.

L. Krog: The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine. We’re now three years since the act was proclaimed — a little over three years — and we’re now getting around to fixing the rules, and we don’t expect to see them fixed until 2017. That will be, basically, four years after the implementation of the act, which was supposed to be so transformative in terms of its implications for the resolution of family law disputes in the province.

It strikes me that that’s a pretty slow process. If you’re operating under rules that don’t match the act, so to speak, you’re probably not getting access to justice in the way that the act envisioned.

I don’t want to spend too much time on dealing with rules here today. However, I guess the simple question is: why, if you brought in the new act, weren’t the new rules available at the same time? I can’t imagine why one wouldn’t have rules appropriate to the new legislation, which did represent a significant change from the previous Family Relations Act. I’m just curious to know: why are we doing this now as opposed to having had them in place and basically ready to go in conjunction with the act?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: I’ll start by answering one of the questions I was asked earlier about the number of staff on the civil resolution tribunal. PwC has 15 or 20 people working on it, and we have knowledge experts contracted, who might be around British Columbia, as a matter of fact, and there are seven knowledge experts. The reason I say they might be around British Columbia is because I met somebody from Duncan the other day who was one of our knowledge experts. They are, as I said, contracted to do that work.

In answer to the member’s question about the passing of the act that finally passed in 2013, the rules were changed, and then they were tweaked to reflect the language of the Family Law Act, but what is underway now is a complete review of the rules to take the themes of the act — such as early resolution, helping people resolve their own disputes — and completely review them. This is a robust process with an expansive consultation across the justice sector so that when these new rules come in, they will be new rules and they will be reflective of the principles in the Family Law Act.

L. Krog: I wonder: is the Attorney General satisfied that the new rules, which will come into force through regulation, will, in fact, not indeed also require, if they’re that much of a change, a legislative change to precede the implementation of new rules?

Hon. S. Anton: Never say never. That’s not necessarily part of the plan, but as the new rules are built, if legislative change is required, we would, of course, look at it at that time, but at the moment, there’s not a piece of that anticipated. As this work moves forward, it is possible.

L. Krog: Well, I think that it’s probably time to move off the mandate letter and move on to some very basic questions.

One of the things that I simply want to know is this. What’s the total budget this year, and what’s the percentage increase since last year? Has the division of these ministries, which used to be consolidated under one minister…? Have there been any significant costs associated with that division of the responsibilities for what is now the minister responsible for public safety and the Ministry of the Attorney General?

Hon. S. Anton: The overall budget for the ministry is $490.996 million, which is up $16.2 million, or 3.4 percent, from last year.

[1730]

That $16.2 million — $14½ million in additional funding for salary increases to Crown and legal counsel; a $670,000 increase to fund the Provincial Court judges and judicial justices compensation increases; and a $640,000 increase for the economic stability dividend coming from salary increases for unionized employee groups.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

The member asked whether there are extra costs as a result of dividing the two ministries. The answer is that there are no extra costs and, certainly, no extra budget lift as a result of the division. Indeed, the two ministries do continue to work very closely together — although they are separated, with two ministers — so much so that we have a common staff through the corporate management function, through corporate policy and through information management and information technology.

L. Krog: One further question that I should have asked on the mandate letter. Are there any line items in the budget to deal with any of the specific five mandated items?
[ Page 12972 ]

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is no.

L. Krog: I suspected that that might be the answer coming from the minister, which tells me, again, that the mandate letter is more public gloss than it is actually a specific mandate to do anything significant in terms of this ministry’s work and having regards to its importance in the functioning of a modern democracy.

Having said that, perhaps the minister could advise: what moneys are being spent by this ministry on advertising, and what type of advertising, if any?

Hon. S. Anton: There is no advertising budget. There is $141,000 for statutory ads, which are required to be placed from time to time.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister…. I realize this might be somewhat problematic, given the division of the ministries and the indication in her previous answer that some services are shared now with the Minister of Public Safety’s office, but let’s start with some nice basics. What’s the current number of full-time employees in this year’s budgetary year, and what was it a year ago?

Hon. S. Anton: As the member will know, we operate in a balanced-budget environment, and indeed are on our fourth balanced budget this year. As a minister, I have accountability to balance my budget to the bottom-line dollar figure.

[1735]

The number of FTEs throughout the year depends on many factors, including a staff mix through the year. Having said that, last year, in 2015-2016, we utilized 3,515 full-time-equivalents, and we are not anticipating a change this year.

L. Krog: I believe that earlier the Attorney General indicated that there was a lift in the budget that was mainly directed toward salaries and salary increases.

I wonder if the minister can confirm that all of those moneys, of the roughly $16 million she mentioned in her previous answer, are in fact going to salary increases, as opposed to any increase in staff, and/or simply to pay for anticipated increases and take into account reductions in staff, although the Attorney General has indicated that she’s not anticipating a reduction in staff in terms of full-time equivalents. I’d be interested in hearing her comments.

Hon. S. Anton: When I said there was no planned increase of FTEs, I always want to qualify things and be careful about saying, “Not now, not ever,” because it is always possible that there would be additions through the year. I can say there are not any planned right this minute, but there may be some changes, as the year goes on, that we will have to accommodate when the time comes.

The budget lift — I think this is what the member asked me — is to cover salary increases for Crown and legal counsel — who, as the member will know, are on a contract which does increase year over year. That contract does need to be funded. That’s what the main part of the base budget lift is for.

L. Krog: So I take it that there’s no budget lift for any others than Crown counsel. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: There is the economic stability dividend, which I mentioned a moment ago, for eligible unionized employee groups. That, also, is an increase.

L. Krog: With respect to the budget lift of the prosecution service’s line — I assume that’s what we’re talking about — my understanding is that that’s going up from $115 million to $126 million. Is this just for Crown increases, or does this take into account the reiteration of the guns and gangs strategy for Surrey, where we’re going to have to dedicated Crown involved? Perhaps if there’s a difference, the minister can explain it to me — or a connection as well.

[1740]

Hon. S. Anton: One should never say that we don’t plan any increases, because not a minute or two later, I will be contradicting myself on a statement like that.

There are indeed two more Crown and one support staff planned with the $23 million that was announced recently by the Premier and the Minister of Public Safety. That will result in an increase of $500,000 a year to Justice’s budget.

L. Krog: To come back to the announcement, the announcement talked about adding two ten-person teams to the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, B.C.’s integrated anti-gang organization. Those ten-member teams are going to consist of whom, and what are they going to be paid?

Hon. S. Anton: The CFSEU teams will be policing teams falling under Public Safety, so the member could put those questions more directly and more efficiently to the minister.

The team, in the whole equation, that relates to Justice is the two Crown and the one support staff that I mentioned a moment ago.

L. Krog: I take it, then, the $23 million announcement, when you cut it down to what is actually involved in the Ministry of Attorney General’s budget, is two Crown and a staff person.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, that’s correct.
[ Page 12973 ]

L. Krog: Of the $23 million that was jointly announced, then, how much of it is attributable to the Minister of Attorney General’s budget? It would follow from what the Attorney General has just told me, with two Crown and one staff person, that there obviously is a shifting of existing resources in order to support the ministry’s contribution to the $23 million. I’m curious to know what portion of it arises out of the Attorney General’s budget.

[1745]

Hon. S. Anton: The amount will be $1.5 million into Justice’s budget over three years.

L. Krog: Just so I can clarify. When this announcement is made and it includes moneys from the Attorney General’s ministry, of the $23 million…. I’m going to assume that now we’re talking that that’s over three years as well. The Attorney General will correct me if I’m wrong. It’s a $1½ million boost to the Attorney General’s budget only, which is the two Crown and the one staff person.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, that’s correct. This is for the Crown counsel who will work on priority files in Surrey involving offenders with ties to guns and gangs. It will enhance continuity of the cases as they proceed to trial and, of course, build the familiarity of the prosecutor with the case and lead, we hope and expect, to efficiencies and to knowledgability of these kinds of files.

L. Krog: As I understand the announcement, the dedicated Crown would involve offenders who have lower-level ties to guns and gangs. I take it the concept is it’s not the big fish we’re going after with this announcement of the additional prosecutors; it’s the smaller fish, before they get too deeply involved.

Hon. S. Anton: The Crown are to support the RCMP’s provincial targeted enforcement program in Surrey and the targets of that program. I think, again, those questions might be put to the Minister of Public Safety as to who those targets are.

L. Krog: Just to confirm a couple of things — and a nod will do for my purposes. The only participation by the Attorney General’s ministry in this whole process, this $23 million announcement, is essentially two dedicated Crown and one staff person. I see a nod from the Attorney General, saving a little time.

The third pillar, which is mentioned in the release, talks about focusing on a range of legislative solutions informed by the office of the crime reduction and gang outreach and the firearms task force in consultation with law enforcement. Perhaps the Attorney General could advise what, if anything, is happening with that and what participation her ministry has in it.

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: This is not generally expected to be legislation that is within the Attorney General Ministry. However, it is our legislative counsel who draft the legislation.

L. Krog: We’ve got two dedicated Crown counsel to deal with lower-level offenders tied to guns and gangs in Surrey, which I’m sure will give comfort to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who’s observing proceedings so carefully today. That hardly seems a dramatic commitment to reducing what is recognized by everyone as a serious issue.

Having said that, are there other dedicated Crown, working in other parts of the Lower Mainland, dealing specifically with guns and gangs?

Hon. S. Anton: In the criminal justice branch, there is an organized crime unit which works in the Crown law division. That unit is focused on guns and gang-related violence, and those prosecutors work very closely with CFSEU. As well, around British Columbia there are senior prosecutors who attend to these files and work closely with the police on guns and gangs files.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could tell us exactly how many Crown are specifically dedicated to this, though, as opposed to the senior Crown she just mentioned, who are presumed to be competent and able to handle all sorts of difficult cases? In other words, if we’re adding two now to deal with low-level guns and gang violence in Surrey, how many others, within the ministry, are specifically designated to deal with gangs?

Hon. S. Anton: I’ll get an answer to that question to the member in a moment.

L. Krog: Just out of general curiosity, then, how many Crown counsel in the province of British Columbia? And working in what areas? I’m asking the Attorney General to be quite descriptive, if possible. I’m not, obviously, talking about federal prosecutions. I’m talking strictly about those Crown counsel who work for the Ministry of Attorney General.

[1755]

Hon. S. Anton: We have about 473 Crown counsel. We have specialized units in organized crime, indictable appeals, commercial crime and proceeds, major cases. We have units which help with prosecution support — for example, on constitutional issues. We have general duty prosecutors. We have prosecutors dedicated to domestic violence cases. We have specialized prosecutors who work in workplace fatalities, occupational health and safety.

I will confirm with the member if there are ones who are missing from that list, but that is the majority of the prosecutors.
[ Page 12974 ]

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General — since I assume the figures are probably readily available — can tell me how many prosecutors work in each of those areas. In other words, now that you’ve given me this wonderful list, can you tell me how many prosecutors work in those individual areas?

Hon. S. Anton: I will have to get back to the member with that number.

L. Krog: Perhaps the Attorney General can answer this. It’s a smaller, simpler question. So we’ve added two Crown to deal with guns and gangs in Surrey. I’m curious to know, then: how many prosecutors are dedicated to dealing with gangs in the province? Or is that the way the ministry approaches the issue of gangs?

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: That is part of the breakdown which I will get for the member. I’m guessing we may be here tomorrow, and I will try and have that answer for him by tomorrow.

L. Krog: There are a couple of small items that I want to deal with, perhaps today, to get them out of the way.

This fall, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal issued a landmark decision that found the College of Veterinarians, formerly the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, engaged in systemic discrimination against South Asian veterinarians. That was a pretty significant ruling. It was a long time in coming. The college is now pursuing a judicial review.

My understanding is that the veterinarians are now left with one lawyer, because the Human Rights Clinic is no longer able to participate in judicial reviews. I’m wondering if the Attorney General can advise why — given the importance of this case, its significance — they are reduced to dealing with one lawyer only. Did the government’s finances have anything to do with that decision?

Hon. S. Anton: We have an agreement with CLAS, the Community Legal Assistance Society. They receive $1.348 million. Our service agreement with CLAS emphasizes prevention and early resolution services, so shifting our support away from litigation services — particularly away from judicial reviews and appellate litigation — and more towards multidisciplinary teams that call on lawyers only where they are essential. Their goal, as I said, is prevention and early resolution of human rights matters.

L. Krog: My understanding is that, essentially, the vets had two counsel on their team, a case that was vigorously defended by the College of Veterinarians, formerly the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association. They are now reduced to one because, as the Attorney General has indicated, the government is no longer prepared to fund.

[1805]

Given the importance of this case, its significance to a large number of British Columbians and, particularly the arguments, as I recall, around this case that the veterinarians who were discriminated against were, frankly, providing services at rates that were certainly more welcome by the public requiring those services, isn’t the Attorney General concerned that by doing this, the message is simply this: if you have enough money and you lose, just take it to appeal, because there’s not going to be any money to assist the person who has lost?

Isn’t that the message that’s being given by the government in this case? Doesn’t that concern the Attorney General, particularly on a matter that was of such public notoriety and of such public importance? Indeed, the success of the South Asian veterinarians in delivering these services was in fact a real benefit to the public, who received veterinarian services at probably lower rates than they would have received from the veterinarian community at large?

Hon. S. Anton: The member has made an observation about one case on appeal. There may be many more out there. One could also make an argument that they’re very interesting or important in one way or another. Cases are always important to the persons involved in them.

But in this case, there has been a policy choice made, and that is to use the available funding to help as many people as possible. Generally, now the funds help for human rights matters, with the goal of prevention and with the goal of early resolution and assistance at the Human Rights Tribunal if needed.

L. Krog: I don’t suppose the Attorney General is going to appreciate my characterization of the policy that she’s articulated here today. Essentially, what is being said is that when you have a big case and a major case involving widespread discrimination by a powerful organization, we’re not prepared to allow that, to support that case through the process, to establish the kind of jurisprudence that people who believe in human rights should be entitled to receive.

Essentially, what we’re saying is that this decision hurts the defence of human rights, the development of human rights jurisprudence, and we’re instead going to devote money to resolving problems where, indeed, there may not be even the significant disparity in power as was the case with the College of Veterinarians, the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association, versus the South Asian veterinarians.

[1810]

What we’re really saying is that the rights here, and the rights to enforce and rely on the Human Rights Commission, are essentially hollow. If you get a favour-
[ Page 12975 ]
able decision, at no small expense, then essentially…. When you’re up against it — I won’t use the term “appeal,” because, properly speaking, this is a judicial review — someone’s going to pursue a judicial review and therefore essentially stymy your access to justice when a decision has been made in your favour, as opposed to ensuring that if this process is going to be carried out by the body, the group, whoever, who has been found at fault…. As long as they’ve got enough money, they know they can carry it on further and essentially stymy the rights to justice of the South Asian veterinarians in this situation.

I’m curious to hear the Attorney General’s response to my comments. It is a significant and important issue. It was an important case, and this policy is essentially sending a message to the public that if you have a significant human rights issue, good luck with that, because if you’re up against it, you’re not going to get any funding to support you through that process.

Hon. S. Anton: Persons with human rights issues have issues that are extremely important to them. We do live in a world of limited resources, so how best to use your resources to help as many people as possible? Through the contract with CLAS, as I said earlier, it has been concluded that it is helpful to work with persons who have human rights issues, to work with them on early resolution of those issues, to help them as they appear in front of the Human Rights Tribunal. This does maximize the amount of people who can be assisted.

L. Krog: With great respect, a justice process that only is available and useful for the small cases and not the tough cases isn’t much of a system of justice. And in this case, this was a significant issue and a significant problem. Governments, we know, often intervene in cases. Attorneys General across this country have intervened in cases where the public interest was seen as being important and/or significant and in the public interest to do so.

One would have thought in this particular case, of all the times to change the policy, which is essentially what has happened here…. And the Attorney General will correct me if I’m incorrect in making that statement. To change the policy now in this case, a case of such significance, sends the message that I have said: that the small stuff may get dealt with, but when you’re really up against it and you’re involved in a tough fight in a serious human rights issue, then you know what? There’s a law for the rich, and there’s a law for the poor. That’s the message that’s being sent here.

I want to hear further from the Attorney General in light of what I’ve just said.

[1815]

Hon. S. Anton: A couple of things. First of all, I heartily disagree with the characterization of cases as being small cases. I think we can pretty much safely guarantee that cases that go before the Human Rights Tribunal…. They may be small to the member opposite, but they’re not small to the persons involved in them.

Secondly, the CLAS, the Community Legal Assistance Society, does have some flexibility. It can make decisions on a case-by-case basis as to taking ones on for judicial review, should they choose, but they have chosen, I gather, not to take this one on. One of the reasons may be, I’m informed, that the veterinarians do, in fact, have counsel. That may be a reason why CLAS did not choose to become involved in this one.

As I said earlier, they have a budget, and they use that budget in their discretion, pursuant to their agreement with us, and they use it to maximize the benefit that it will give to citizens of British Columbia.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development and for Housing and report progress on the Ministry of Justice and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We’ll adjourn at this point in time, and to the minister and to all members in the House, and especially staff, thank you for today. Have a great evening.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada