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)

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 40, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APOLOGY
FOR Komagata Maru INCIDENT

Hon. A. Virk: On May 23, 1914, the Komagata Maru entered Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet carrying some 376 passengers from India. Sadly, they were turned away and not allowed entry into Canada. What made this event more tragic was that upon their forced return to India, 19 passengers perished.

The Komagata Maru incident is not just a story of what happened in 1914; it is one chapter in a long struggle to create a Canada that resists racism and hatred. That story continues to incite those who believe in a Canada that accepts diversity and celebrates difference.

This House will recall, in 2008, the British Columbia Legislature made a formal apology to the South Asian community regarding the Komagata Maru incident. All the members will also recall that with the full support of all members of this House, we proclaimed May 28, 2014, in British Columbia as Komagata Maru Remembrance Day.

Today Prime Minister Trudeau and our federal counterparts made an apology in the Parliament of Canada. I’m proud to say that our Premier along with a delegation of British Columbians of South Asian descent are and were in witness to bear witness.

Cultural diversity, increased participation and engagement by all cultures are vitally important to maintaining a strong and vibrant social and economic future for British Columbia. Would everybody please join me in acknowledging that an acknowledgement of our history allows us to build a stronger future for all British Columbians.

H. Bains: Today, in fact, is a historic day for all of us as Canadians but particularly for the South Asian community. I say it’s a historic day because today in the Parliament of Canada the government has issued a long-awaited official apology for the Komagata Maru incident. For more than a century, the South Asian community has beared this injustice.

The Komagata Maru story is more than just an isolated incident. It reflected the deliberately exclusionary policies of the Canadian government of the day to keep out communities whom it deemed unfit to enter Canada. The justifications were embedded in racist views of suitability, which all supported the view that Canada should remain a white man’s country.

On the other hand, Komagata Maru became a catalyst for the South Asian community to work with other Canadians towards equal rights and for a better Canada — a Canada where South Asians finally regained the right to vote and where their contributions have helped to shape Canada into a multicultural, inclusive, more equal and more just Canada.

To make this a historic day, the credit belongs to individuals and organizations who refused to waver from their resolve to have this injustice acknowledged. I’d like to thank Harbhajan Gill from the Komagata Maru Heritage Foundation, Sahib Thind from Professor Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation, Khalsa Diwan Society of Ross Street and countless individuals for their efforts to right this wrong. I say thank you to all of you.

Again, for me personally, it is a privilege to stand in this House to acknowledge history in the making as the Canadian government finally officially apologizes in the Parliament for the Komagata Maru incident. The government finally realized how important it is for the South Asian community and for all Canadians to be able to put this behind us and give us closure for this unnecessary act which went on for so long.

[1340]

I would like this House to join me in embracing this very important day in history and to pledge, once again, to redouble our efforts to commit to build an even better Canada for our future generations than the Canada that we have inherited.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: As we all know, today is B.C. Beef Day, a great day in the legislative calendar for British Columbia. Today we have the privilege of having with us people from all across the industry, an industry that has a deep-rooted history in British Columbia and is part of our future, especially when it comes to continuing to increase the food security of our province.

In the gallery today, we have members from the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association — Lary Fossum, president; Brian McKersie, vice-president; David Haywood-Farmer, past president; Larry Garrett, Martin Rossmann, Grant Huffman, Kevin Boon, Elaine Stovin and Rick Mumford.

We also have with us, from the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association, Ken Fawcett, Gary Debruin, Connie Patterson, Lindy Gilson and Bob Miller.

And also, from the B.C. Association of Abattoirs, Dennis Gunter, Sandy Vanderbyl and Nova Woodbury.

Would the House please make all these distinguished guests feel very welcome.

J. Horgan: Last fall the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, the member for Surrey-Whalley and the mem-
[ Page 13240 ]
ber for Burnaby-Lougheed visited Seoul and other cities in Korea. In a reciprocal visit, we have in the gallery today an extraordinary group of legislators from the metropolitan area around Seoul, South Korea.

Seoul is the home of 26 million residents, nearly the population of Canada. It’s the world’s fourth-largest metropolitan GDP, surpassed only by Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles. The Seoul metropolitan government has a mayor, three vice-mayors and 110 city councillors. For those of us in the Victoria area, with 13 municipalities, we certainly defer to the 110 councillors in the city of Seoul.

We have here today with us from the delegation the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Kim Inho; the Minister of Sport and Culture, Mr. Moon Sangmo; the Minister of Environment and Urban Development, Mr. Jang Hungsoon and Mr. Han Myonghee. Also, the Minister of Social Development, Mr. Lee Shinhye, and the Minister of Infrastructure, Cho Sangho; the Ministers of Transportation, Woo Hyoungchan and Mr. Kim Sanghwan; and the Minister of Operations, Mr. Kim Kyungja.

Now, this is an operation, of course, of tremendous magnitude compared to what we’re doing here in the province of British Columbia. I want all members of this House, government and opposition, to give a very, very warm welcome to the delegation from Seoul, South Korea.

Hon. M. Bernier: It’s a real pleasure today to have in the House a group of very passionate moms who travelled here from Surrey, led by Cindy Dalglish. This is a great group of advocates for education, a great group of advocates for their children and for the community of Surrey. I had a great opportunity to meet with some of them earlier on today, talking about the opportunities that are coming to Surrey, about the great work that has taken place in Surrey over the years to help education.

But of course, it’s really important for myself to meet with passionate families and parents who get out advocating for their children. I think it’s really important that we do that all the time in this House, so I want to welcome them. I believe that for the majority of them, it’s their first time here in the House.

Welcome to the Legislature to all of the families from Surrey.

R. Fleming: I want to follow up on the introduction just made by the Minister of Education, as well, and welcome one carload of several carloads of parents from Surrey. I’m so pleased that they could finally get a meeting with the minister this afternoon. I understand they were pleased that that could finally be scheduled as well.

I’ll introduce just three of them — wonderful, passionate parents Cindy Dalglish, Novie Padasakas and Maria Myers. These parents are working very, very hard in their region in Surrey with other parents to address the issue of chronic overcrowding of Surrey schools.

As the minister said, for many of them, this will be their first visit to the Legislative Assembly, so I’d ask members on all sides of the House to make these guests most welcome here today.

[1345]

P. Pimm: I know we’re not supposed to do this when we have a group in the House, but I have a very special person visiting here today. She’s with the breeders and feeders from Dawson Creek. Connie Patterson and her family were my billet parents when I played junior hockey in Dawson Creek many years ago. The Patterson family and their Auction Mart have been a huge part of the backbone of the cattle industry in the Peace country in the province.

Please help me welcome Connie Patterson to the precinct today.

K. Conroy: I take a great deal of pleasure in introducing a former MLA back to the House. David Zirnhelt was an MLA from 1991 to 2001. He is a rancher from the Cariboo, actually located in Beaver Valley near Williams Lake.

He’s here today promoting a program at TRU called applied sustainable ranching, which can almost be an oxymoron in the ranching community. But I’m so glad he’s doing it, because it’s desperately needed. I hope that we can all support a program like what he’s supporting today.

Could you all please join me in making him very welcome.

Hon. M. Morris: I’m pleased to introduce three guests to the House today: Gordon Bliss, a local Prince George builder and the new president of the B.C. homebuilders association; Neil Moody, the CEO of the homebuilders association, who hails from Burnaby; and Ron Rapp, representing the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, who comes here from Coquitlam.

I ask that the House give them a warm welcome, please.

M. Karagianis: This is not necessarily an introduction, but someone who’s an avid viewer of question period watching today served as a councillor in Esquimalt for several terms and then became the mayor for two terms while I was a city councillor. It’s Mr. Ray Rice. It’s his birthday today, and I’d love to the House to offer him a happy birthday. I know he’ll be thrilled as he watches the proceedings today.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today Barrie Nicholls, who is a recent graduate from UVic in the political science program. He recently won an award for the best concept paper at the Model United Nations in New York. He’s also the son of Elizabeth Nicholls, who is one of the many hard-
[ Page 13241 ]
working folks in the Ministry of Transportation. She’s a manager in the partnership division.

I ask that the House please make Barrie feel welcome.

S. Hammell: I’d also like to introduce several parents from Surrey who are in the gallery today. They are Lori Palka, Amanda Smith-Weston and a good friend of mine, Christy Peterson. They are here to voice their support for the students of Surrey. Would the House again make them welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a very special introduction to make today. It’ll take me a moment to read through it, so I hope that the members will listen intently.

Joining us in the gallery today for the first time — indeed, for the first time in the Legislature precinct for all but one — are members of the ministry’s Youth Advisory Council. I had the honour of having lunch with them today and hearing from them about their ideas about things we can do differently in the ministry.

I’d like very much to welcome Ruby Barclay. She’s just completed her second year of her child and youth care degree at Vancouver Island University. Raven McCallum is completing her year with government’s aboriginal internship program. This young Haida woman is also an officer and a reservist with the Royal Canadian Army Cadets. She is completing a degree in native Indian teacher education at UBC. Bryant Doradea is a terrific young man and a prolific writer of poetry and rap music.

Ashley Frerichs is entering her fourth year of child and youth care at the University of Victoria. Sara-Ann Poirier is attending Vancouver Island University as well, to complete her child and youth care degree. She’s also an artist and budding film director. Guy Bonneau is working right now. He’s got an incredible passion for youth and just for people. I’ve had an opportunity to speak with Guy on a number of occasions now. He’s a terrific person and a feature at many slam poetry nights.

[1350]

Lastly but not least, Kymberlee Stogan, hailing from Musqueam Nation. Kymberlee is the coordinator of the youth council. In its first year, she has done an absolutely incredible job of coordinating the council so that they can provide absolutely critical and real feedback for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Accompanying them today is Cory Heavener, the director of child welfare. Please make them all welcome.

M. Mark: A couple of weeks ago, I had an art poster contest in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant about the importance of voting. A number of the students in the nine elementary schools submitted their posters, and I’m very pleased to welcome my guest Jade in the House, with her mother, Lisa. They’re from Grandview Elementary School. She’s ten years old. She’s from the Tsimshian nation.

Her poster…. I want to share a few words about why it’s important. She says it’s important for the environment; equal rights; the next generation; aboriginal rights; creative, positive change; our rights; and a better future. Would the House join me in welcoming Jade and her mother, Lisa.

Hon. T. Lake: My very favourite constituent in Kamloops–North Thompson is having a birthday today. Dina Sim is turning 90 years old. Everyone in Kamloops knows Dina. She’s been married for nearly seven decades to Alex Sim, who is one of the most decorated veterans in British Columbia, being a veteran of the Second World War and the Korean War. But everyone who knows Alex and Dina knows that Dina should be getting all the medals for putting up with Alex for so long.

I know that she will be celebrated this weekend. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to be there, but I wanted to let the House know that Dina is a perfectly wonderful lady and deserves every medal that anyone could ever give her for living with Alex for most of her 90 years. Would we please wish her a very happy birthday.

L. Popham: It’s my pleasure to introduce Dr. Rob Sealey to the chamber today. Dr. Sealey has been a GP in greater Victoria for over 25 years. Many of you may recognize his voice, because he was also part of the famous Wise Quacks team on radio.

Dr. Sealey is also the leading advocate and educator on the topic of medical cannabis in Canada. After 25 years of seeing patients, he has hundreds and hundreds of patients that adore him, and so do I. Please welcome him to the chamber.

S. Hamilton: I’d just like to take this opportunity to welcome two people to the Legislature today. First of all, a former Delta police officer, Hugh Davies, now the manager of the property compliance and enforcement department — they’re the guys who are going to get you if you’re caught watering your lawn when you’re not supposed to be — and the assistant manager of that department, Kaare Coupar. They’re here to have a few meetings and discuss some mutual interests. I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.

H. Bains: Part of the parents’ delegation that is here today…. Most of them are from my neighbourhood. I will introduce three of them: Jenna Parker, Angela Skillen and Erica Campbell. They are part of a delegation that has such a passion to improve education for our children in the Surrey schools, and they’re here to talk to the minister to fix the overcrowding of schools. Please help me to thank them for their passion and extend them a warm welcome.

K. Corrigan: I am very pleased to welcome into the precinct today over 230 students from Moscrop
[ Page 13242 ]
Secondary School. Moscrop is a dual-track French immersion and English high school, a fabulous school in Burnaby in my riding. I want to particularly welcome, as well, Dale Lintott, who is a teacher who organized it. Several other teachers and parents are here as well. I hope that the House will make them all very welcome.

[1355]

G. Kyllo: I’m very pleased to introduce a group of guests with us today from the Millar College of the Bible. I must say I’m feeling a little bit blessed today to have them joining us here in the House. We have Steve Janz, who’s a director; and Mr. Phil Ruten, president, joined by his lovely wife, Esther. We also have Trevor Kiriaka, who’s the academic dean; and David Ruten, the campus registrar.

The Millar College of the Bible has been operating in the province of Saskatchewan since 1944 and more recently has been operating in my riding of Shuswap, in Sunnybrae, with the Sunnybrae Bible Camp facility. Anyhow, would the House please make them feel very welcome.

C. Trevena: I hope the House will make welcome Lesley Fox. She’s the executive director of the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. A number of opposition members will be having meetings with her this afternoon.

C. James: I have a few guests in the gallery today. I want to introduce them all individually, because one is a group of students from UVic’s political science CityStudio Victoria class. This is the first-ever field school in public policy in our area. With them today is their professor, Dr. Sarah Wiebe. Also from the city of Victoria is Kerri Moore, who is the manager of strategic relations and business development. I’d ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

N. Simons: Le conseiller municipal de Powell River, Russell Brewer, a reçu le Cornouiller d’or, un prix francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. Le prix est décerné par la Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. Il célèbre le travail d’un fonctionnaire s’étant “distingué en matière de francophonie.” Franco-Manitobain d’origine, Russell Brewer réside a Powell River depuis 1998. Il est le président de la Société Métis de Powell River et a aussi été celui du Club Bon Accueil.

[Russell Brewer is a Powell River city councillor who was awarded the Golden Dogwood by the B.C. Francophone Federation for his unparalleled contribution to the French community of British Columbia. Born and raised in St. Boniface, Manitoba, he moved to Powell River in 1998, where in addition to being a city councillor, he’s the president of the Powell River Métis Association, the former president of the French club and le Club Bon Accueil.]

[French text and translation provided by N. Simons.]

As well, he’s a hard-working public servant in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. On behalf of all residents of the Sunshine Coast and this House, congratulations and our thanks for the hard work you do.

B. Ralston: I wanted to introduce three more members of the delegation from Surrey, advocates for public education — Jess Dhillon, Jennifer Doerksen and Erin Jones. Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Weaver: There are two guests with us today from my riding. Scott Alexander is a history and social studies teacher at Oak Bay High School. An avid scholar of Canadian governance, he recently attended the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy, a week of discussion and learning in our nation’s capital.

In addition, 2016 marks the second consecutive year in which one of Mr. Alexander’s students will be entering the page program in Ottawa, for which selection is highly competitive.

I’d also like to welcome Chris Wright. As of yesterday, Chris has finished his second-year exams as a student of the Island medical program, a UBC Faculty of Medicine program run in collaboration with the University of Victoria. Chris is a graduate of UVic and Oak Bay High, my alma mater, as well, and a former student of Mr. Alexander’s. Chris will be taking a placement this summer in Trail, and I wish him well. Would the House please make both Scott and Chris feel very welcome.

J. Shin: It really is the relationships that we develop and cultivate in and out of British Columbia that I think really empower us to champion together the initiatives that matter for the people we serve. So I join with all the members of the House, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, in welcoming the Seoul council once more. [Korean was spoken.]

Of course, I would be very remiss if I didn’t introduce Michael Chang, who has been to the House a number of times with these delegations, and I never took the opportunity to introduce him. I would like to finally welcome him and, of course, say thank you for all the work that you have done. Would the House please join me in making all of them feel very, very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: First, I’d like to introduce the remaining three British Columbians that have not been formally introduced today.

[1400]

There is a group of young people who for the past four months have toiled diligently. They are the interns that have worked with the government caucus. They have spent time within the public service. They have worked in a variety of capacities with the caucus. They have spent,
[ Page 13243 ]
, and will again spend, some time in constituencies with members. Both sides of the House benefit from the contributions of the interns.

These are very talented young people. I’d like to introduce them and thank them, at the same time: Jamie Cook and Megan Parisotto, who were working in communications; Alex Dauncey-Elwood, Heather Clifford and Mikayla Roberts, who have been working in research.

They are passionate, enthusiastic and have brought a refreshing energy. I have a feeling, as we frequently say when describing and thanking the interns that work with us, that we may yet see some of these young people again in a different capacity and maybe in one of these chairs.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M237 — PREVENTION OF
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (MINK FARMS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

L. Popham presented a bill intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016.

L. Popham: I move that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

L. Popham: Mink bred for their pelts on B.C. farms should be protected by provincial animal cruelty laws. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016, amends the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to include the recommended best practices contained in the code of practice for the care and handling of farmed mink as recommended by the National Farm Animal Care Council.

This code was developed by Agriculture Canada with the collaboration of producers, government departments, animal welfare agencies, veterinarians and scientists. Scientific research findings are the basis for these standards. This code addresses animal health and welfare concerns, namely accommodation, food and water, care and supervision, health care, hygiene and sanitation, transportation of live mink and euthanasia.

I’m happy to support the work that’s being done by industry to improve the standards of care for farm animals. Bringing forward this legislation is acknowledgment of that good work.

I move that it be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M237, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mink Farms) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. BEEF DAY AND RANCHING INDUSTRY

D. Barnett: Well, I think I can speak for many of us here when I say that was one incredible meal. We have just enjoyed one of the many highlights of the spring session, B.C. Beef Day.

Taking place on the back lawn of the Legislature, B.C. Beef Day recognizes and celebrates the strong partnership between the province, the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association, the B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders, B.C. Association of Abattoirs and the B.C. Breeder and Feeder Association.

I urge British Columbians to support a sector that provides our province with safe, high-quality and great-tasting 100 percent B.C. beef. It’s the best you’ll find anywhere in the world.

We need young ranchers, young business people and young leaders for continued success in the sector. The strong partnership between the B.C. government and the industry will ensure we reach our goal.

I am very proud that Williams Lake is the home of the first and only applied sustainable ranching certificate program in B.C., delivered through Thompson Rivers University. Students are gaining the expertise to build and sustain ranching operations in any region of the province, along with ecosystem management. Ranchers are great stewards of the land and also pay close attention to quality and humane animal care at every stage of production.

In 2014, the B.C. cattle industry generated more than $279 million in farm cash receipts. This is an increase of nearly 54 percent from the previous year. The sector employs thousands of British Columbians, and we will continue to work with them to develop it.

Buy local, and join in the celebration of our cattle ranching industry and B.C. beef.

[1405]

DELEGATION FROM SEOUL

B. Ralston: The Metropolitan Government of Seoul is the official title of the municipal government of that city. Seoul, Korea’s capital for over 600 years, is now a city with one of the largest metropolitan populations in the world — 25.6 million people. Seoul is known as a rising global city whose rapid growth has propelled it to its current status as the world’s fourth-largest metropolitan economy, with a GDP of $1.1 trillion in 2014, following only Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles.

Seoul became the capital of a sovereign nation in 1945 with Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule. The
[ Page 13244 ]
early years were traumatic. The Korean War, which broke out in 1950, reduced the city to rubble. After the war, Seoul began to transform into the huge, vast, modern metropolis that it is today.

The so-called miracle on the Han River — the Han being the river that flows through Seoul — brought economic growth, industrialization, democratization and modern public administration to the metropolitan region of Seoul at dizzying speed.

The Metropolitan Government has one mayor, three vice-mayors and 110 city councillors. As the capital city, it is more centralized than most cities and administers a wide range of services.

The member for Burnaby-Lougheed, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and I visited the council in November 2015 and are pleased to welcome the delegation from the council here today. Warm and cordial relations with the members of the government of Seoul will enhance our future relations.

On behalf of all members of the House, I’m pleased to welcome such an important delegation from the Metropolitan Government of Seoul here to British Columbia.

B.C. JADE DAY AND
DESIGN OF BLACK ROD

R. Lee: May 28 is officially proclaimed the third annual B.C. Jade Day in the province of British Columbia. Jade has been our official provincial gemstone since 1968, and approximately 800 to 1,000 tonnes of B.C.-produced jade are exported to global markets annually.

Jade is important to B.C.’s history, culture and, naturally, our economy. Jade is well-incorporated into our ceremonial traditions here in the Legislative Assembly. For example, the Black Rod is the ceremonial staff that is used when the monarch or the Lieutenant-Governor is present in the Legislative Assembly. The Black Rod was created in 2012 to celebrate the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The midsection of the Black Rod features carving in B.C. jade done by Tsimshian artist and elder Clifford Bolton, one of the last hereditary chief jade carvers in B.C. Clifford talked to First Nations elders throughout the province before he decided on the message he wanted to convey with his carving. The carving depicts a man, a woman and a child. The man and women are patriarch and matriarch of British Columbia, while the child symbolizes hope for the future.

The man and women are joined by two eagle feathers, which are sacred symbols of power. A carved cedar rope symbolizes unity and the intertwining of the diverse cultures of British Columbia. This beautiful jade carving is at the heart of the Black Rod and signifies the reconciliation of B.C.’s First Nations people with the Crown. Sadly, Clifford passed away shortly after his carving was completed. However, his gift will remain with all British Columbians.

On B.C. Jade Day, let us remember the significance of this gemstone to the culture and history of our province, especially to the First Nations of British Columbia.

COMMUNITY GARDEN PROJECT BY
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA STUDENTS

C. James: By growing community from the ground up, a vacant lot on Yates Street here in Victoria will soon come to life as a community garden. It’s part of CityStudio Victoria and its learning-in-action approach for students from the University of Victoria this spring.

Students get course credit by working on practical neighbourhood opportunities together with their classmates, community members and the city of Victoria staff. “Growing Community from the Ground Up” is an intensive three-week course where students work in partnership with the Downtown Residents Association and the Greater Victoria Placemaking Network.

During the three-week course, students will learn about planning, public engagement, placemaking and policy. They’ll examine real challenges that arise and work at addressing them. They’ll learn about ways to build community, to manage urban ecosystems and to mobilize citizens.

[1410]

UVic students will develop a plan for the Yates Street site, and they’ll present their ideas to city staff. They’ll design and deliver a public engagement event and will be evaluated on their contributions.

Building on the success of CityStudio Vancouver, CityStudio Victoria looks at innovative ways cities are co-created. An empty storefront at 742 Johnson recently became the new home of CityStudio Victoria. This classroom space is also being used by Camosun College and Royal Roads.

To see the vacant lot on Yates Street become a community garden and to have the neighbourhood engaged in that planning is a wonderful example of true public policy in action. Congratulations to UVic, the city of Victoria, all the people who put this initiative together and those who contributed their time to participate. It’s a fabulous way to learn and share and to bring the community together to grow something exciting from the ground up.

CRAFT BREWERIES AND
ALE TRAIL INITIATIVE

L. Reimer: I’d like to rise today to highlight a growing industry in my constituency of Port Moody–Coquitlam and in the province. Several weeks ago it was announced that Port Moody’s brewery row will be added to the B.C. Ale Trail initiative, which is a provincewide program aimed at highlighting our province’s craft breweries as a world-class tourism destination.
[ Page 13245 ]

The program will develop local Ale Trail tours for participating regions, as well as videos, on-line promotional tools and a web-based marketing platform to showcase the craft beer scene and surrounding businesses and attractions. These new breweries that are opening up all across the province generate jobs, foster innovation and drive tourism to record levels.

When thirsty British Columbians and tourists reach for a pint, they are increasingly reaching for one brewed right here at home. Port Moody is home to a number of outstanding craft breweries, such as Yellow Dog Brewing, Moody Ales, Twin Sails Brewing and the most recent, Parkside Brewery.

Last Thursday I had the pleasure to attend a fundraiser for the Rotary Club of Port Moody called the Search for the Perfect Pint, where many of these beers were tasted. Over 500 people attended. Several months ago I attended another craft beer festival in Coquitlam. Again, it was so well attended that the organizer, John Gerum, had to add an extra evening.

I applaud my Port Moody brewery row for teaming together to contribute funds towards the B.C. Ale Trail initiative, which encourages craft beer aficionados to arrive thirsty and leave inspired. I’m incredibly proud to see these breweries putting British Columbia on the map as a world-class destination for craft beer. The growth and success of this great industry is a testament to the fact that the spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well here in British Columbia.

CEDAR ROOT GALLERY

M. Mark: It is my privilege to shine a light on a small business in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that has been in operation since the 1990s. The Cedar Root Gallery is located at the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre. It is a Haida-owned and northwest coast–operated retail store. In fact, it is the only indigenous-owned and -operated retail store in Vancouver, and it’s truly a family affair.

The Bell sisters and their 83-year-old matriarch mother, Mona, are from the village of Masset in Haida Gwaii. Tamara Bell is an artist, film-maker and executive producer of over ten television programs on the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. Nadia Bell is a law student graduate from the University of Toronto.

Cedar Root Gallery supports over 100 indigenous artists. The gallery also works with the Native Education College’s aboriginal tourism program by offering practicum positions for graduating students.

The gallery serves 10,000 customers per year. Some of their celebrity customers include Murray Porter, Sandy Scofield, Steven Seagal and Adam Beach. You can purchase such items as Haida bath salts, soaps, sprays and Haida shell jewelry created by Mona and Tamara Bell, along with scarves, ties, purses, blankets and carved silver and gold jewelry from local First Nations, along with those very fashionable sunglasses.

Tamara and Nadia’s primary focus is to foster and support respectful relationships with northwest coast artists who create authentic and affordable products for the community to enjoy. Steeped in tradition and infused with contemporary gift items, Cedar Root Gallery has something for everyone.

I would encourage you to stop by the gallery, visit Mount Pleasant on your way home or to downtown. You’ll be amazed with the selection that this small grassroots business has to offer.

[1415]

Oral Questions

COURT CASE ON
VIOLATION OF ELECTION ACT

J. Horgan: It was an interesting day in the Vancouver courthouse on Main Street. Mainland Communications, a numbered company operated by one Mark Robertson, the director of field operations for the B.C. Liberal Party, and Brian Bonney, the political operative hired by the Premier, pled guilty to violating the Election Act.

Now, this may be inconsequential to others who are facing serious charges at B.C. Liberal HQ, but I think for most British Columbians it’s quite disconcerting to have political operatives violating the fundamental act that governs fair and free elections here in British Columbia.

In fact, it was the special prosecutor, Mr. Butcher, who was making his case with respect to the importance of fair elections in the courtroom, and he spoke at some length about the imperative for the public to have confidence and faith in our elections when they happen. But what troubled me the most…. When he was wrapping up his presentation to the judge with respect to Mainland’s failure to disclose, he said it was part of “a broader scheme, not an inadvertent error.”

My question is to the Attorney General. Can she inform the House and British Columbians what the broader scheme might have been?

Hon. S. Anton: When there are allegations made against government, a special prosecutor is appointed. That special prosecutor works closely with police, to give police advice during the course of an investigation. That happened in this case. The special prosecutor approved charges, as referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, and laid charges, as we heard yesterday.

As to what the special prosecutor was referring to as to these facts behind those charges, as to the allegations in those charges, that is a matter for the police investigation, as I said — helped with legal advice by the special prosecutor and, in the end, the laying of charges by the special prosecutor.
[ Page 13246 ]

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Charges were laid against Mr. Bonney for breach of trust — very serious charges. Charges of breach of trust have already been laid against the head of the B.C. Liberal Party in another jurisdiction. Charges have been laid against George Gretes, who formerly worked for the Minister of Transportation, for misleading an officer of the Legislature. But the Mainland Communications issue is closed. They pled guilty, and they have been sanctioned for their efforts.

What I don’t understand — and I think what British Columbians would like to know — was the reference that the special prosecutor made before the judge that this was a broader scheme, not an inadvertent error. That speaks to something far deeper and far more sinister.

I would argue that perhaps all members of this House and certainly all British Columbians would want to know — before we go to the polls again — just what the special prosecutor was referring to.

Hon. S. Anton: As the member well knows, there is a matter before the courts. I don’t know if the Leader of the Opposition is hoping that I should comment on that, but that matter is before the courts. It is with the courts. It is not for this chamber to debate the matter, to discuss the matter. We leave it to the court.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: The matter of Mainland Communications is no longer before the courts. It’s been acted upon, and a guilty plea was entered, accepted, and a fine has been rendered. So this is not before the courts; it was before the courts.

I can appreciate the confusion with the Attorney General and all members of the B.C. Liberal party at this point in time. It’s tough to keep track without a scorecard of just who’s charged with what, in what court, in what jurisdiction.

But with respect to Mainland yesterday — case closed, guilty as charged. Liberal operatives still employed by the B.C. Liberal Party — guilty of violating the Election Act. Former aide hired by the Premier — guilty of violating the Election Act, through their company Mainland Communications.

Now, the breach of trust charge which the minister referred to…. Of course, if you read the Criminal Code it reads as follows: “Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

[1420]

That’s a serious charge which is before the courts. But we had the assertion yesterday from the special prosecutor, with respect to a court case that has now concluded, that it was not an inadvertent error but, in fact, part of a broader scheme.

I would ask you, hon. Speaker, through to the Attorney General…. As we wind down this sitting of the Legislature, can she give an assurance to the people of British Columbia that they will have a full rendering of what that broader scheme is before we go to the polls again next year?

Hon. S. Anton: The statement which the member is referring to was made, I assume, by the special prosecutor yesterday. There is a matter still in the hands of the special prosecutor. I will not be commenting on that.

INVESTIGATION INTO MULTICULTURAL
OUTREACH STRATEGY

C. James: Yesterday I asked the Attorney General whether government staff cooperated fully with the special prosecutor’s investigation. Her reply was that this “is not a matter that I have knowledge of” — because the investigation was conducted by the RCMP. Could the Attorney General tell the House why she failed to issue any specific instructions to government staff to tell them to cooperate fully with this investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: The investigation is done by the police. The work that they do is confidential to them. It’s not a matter that is discussed. What I can say…. It is my expectation that every member of government would cooperate fully with any investigation and with any questions that might be raised by the police.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: The Attorney General says the matter was solely in the hands of the RCMP. If that’s the case, I’d like to ask this of the Attorney General: has she or her staff received any communications from the RCMP or the special prosecutor with respect to government’s cooperation in this investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: Let me outline the lines of communication. The special prosecutor is appointed. He works with the RCMP. His reporting relationship is to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, the head of the criminal justice branch. That is the reporting relationship. The communications of that do not come to myself. They remain with the criminal justice branch.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL COSTS IN
BREACH-OF-TRUST COURT CASE

L. Krog: Yesterday we asked the Attorney General whether taxpayers were paying for Mr. Bonney’s legal
[ Page 13247 ]
bills. The Attorney General said she did not know. She’s had 24 hours to consult with her staff. Can she now tell the House whether taxpayers are, indeed, paying for Mr. Bonney’s legal bills?

Hon. S. Anton: Twenty-four hours, 48 hours, a week, two weeks — the policy does not change. The policy is that indemnities are granted and approved by senior staff. They are not a political matter. They are a matter of privacy to the indemnity holder, and they are approved by staff. We don’t want politicians deciding who should get an indemnity.

I think there are members on the other side of the House who are familiar with this process. It has not changed in the last 24 hours. It’s a matter of privacy for the holder of the indemnity. What I will say, in a general way, is: if you’re charged with a criminal offence and you receive an indemnity and you are found guilty, then you will be obliged to repay the indemnity. That is the policy.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, that may have been the policy, but Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, $6 million of taxpayers’ money later, found that it wasn’t quite the policy, was it?

Just to assist the Attorney General, let me read to her what the government indemnity policy actually says: “An employee is eligible for coverage as a party in a proceeding only if the employee’s involvement in the proceeding arises from conduct that occurred in the performance of employment.”

[1425]

I’ll remind the Attorney General. Even the deeply flawed Dyble-Henderson report concluded that while serving as communications director for the member for Richmond-Steveston, Mr. Bonney did more work for the B.C. Liberal Party than he did for the taxpayers. Can the Attorney General explain how government would even consider picking up Mr. Bonney’s legal fees in these circumstances?

Hon. S. Anton: I will try again. This is a process independent of government. Any indemnity process is a process independent of government. These matters are not brought to the political arm of government. They remain with senior staff. That is the general policy. Any indemnity granted is a matter of personal privacy to the recipient of the indemnity. That’s how the system works.

HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION
FOR TRANSGENDER PERSONS

S. Chandra Herbert: The federal government just introduced legislation to explicitly protect transgender Canadians in the Canadian human rights code — an explicit protection, I might add, that is not written into the B.C. human rights code. The federal Liberals, New Democrats, Green, Bloc and even Conservative members support explicit protection in the Human Rights Act.

Conservative leader Rona Ambrose said: “I do think the specific recognition and codification in law is important. I know that it means a lot.”

Does the B.C. Liberal Minister of Justice believe that the Prime Minister, the parties, every party’s members who say they support this legislation and will vote in support of it are wrong? Should there not be explicit protection written into the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Hon. S. Anton: We always, of course, follow with interest what the federal government does. But what I can say to transgendered persons and, indeed, to all of British Columbians is that transgendered persons are protected under the British Columbia human rights code.

I speak to transgendered people. I know a number of transgendered people. I acknowledge that they face challenges. There are two, in particular, that I would observe. One is that they do face challenges in society, and I thank the organizations like the Trans Alliance and others who raise awareness of those challenges.

The second challenge they face is that fostered by persons such as the member for Vancouver–West End when he suggests that the only way your rights can be protected is if you have a good lawyer. That is complete rubbish. Transgendered persons’ rights are protected under our human rights code of British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SCHOOLS IN SURREY

R. Fleming: Surrey schools are bursting at the seams from overcrowded conditions. I visited Katzie Elementary School — built for 500 students, already stuffed with over 900 students. It’s a school where students sat in desks in a makeshift hallway classroom until the fire marshal shut it down.

I’ve met with parents, some of whom are here with us today, whose sons and daughters attend high schools built for 1,200 with over 2,100 students in them. An entire generation of parents and kids in Surrey has seen school overcrowding get worse, not better, under this government.

My question to the minister is this. When will he and his government do more than just take the income and the property and the sales taxes from growth and from hard-working families in Surrey and start building more schools in Surrey neighbourhoods where these families live?

Hon. M. Bernier: Since 2001, we’ve invested $337 million in Surrey on 55 projects and 12 site acquisitions, creating 8,500 new seats. The member opposite also knows that we recently announced Clayton North secondary,
[ Page 13248 ]
which is going to increase another 1,870 seats to Surrey, with that and other projects in the last year.

[1430]

One of the things that we do is continually work with the school districts to make sure that we look at the opportunities, to make sure that when they bring forward their objectives, we work with them. This is what I met with the parents today to talk about — how that great relationship is going to meet the needs of the Surrey school district. It is also going to materialize into future projects that this government, because of our strong economy, is going to be able to announce.

Madame Speaker: Member for Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Education talks about the few new schools that his government has built. The problem that he needs to understand is that these schools, on opening day, are already over capacity, with dozens of portables on site. If Surrey parents had a new school for every time his government promised to build one, things might be different.

But here’s the record of this government. In 2002….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: They don’t want to hear the record. Here is the record.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

R. Fleming: In 2002, the then Education Minister, now the Premier, brought in a school capital freeze that halted school construction in Surrey, British Columbia. From 2006-12, the Ministry of Education actually refused to approve any district annual capital facility plans. That’s why thousands of Surrey parents can’t send their kids to their local school, even though it might be right across the street from their house. They have to drive miles from home because it’s the only school space that’s open, and it’s likely to be a portable.

The problem for Surrey families is only going to get worse next year. So my question again to the minister is this. When will he and his government finally get a school capital plan together that involves more than the Premier, a TV camera and another empty funding promise for Surrey families?

Hon. M. Bernier: I’m going to correct the member opposite. When you look back at the 1990s, we had over 300 portables. We’re down to under 300 now — 280 portables. It’s because of the investments we’re making.

I need to correct the member opposite because, obviously, he thinks he can just say whatever he wants without any of the facts. So let me correct the member opposite. I’ll give you some examples: 2010, Woodward Hill elementary, $15 million; 2011, Adams Road Elementary, $12 million; 2013, Sunnyside Elementary, $15 million. The list goes on and on.

I could look in my binder to find the list of what the NDP did in the ’90s. Unfortunately, all my pieces of paper have something on them. I don’t have a blank piece of paper with me.

B. Ralston: The biggest school district in the province and one of the shortest lists from the Minister of Education.

The Minister of Finance has said that his solution to the housing problem in the Lower Mainland is to increase supply. However, overcrowding in Surrey schools has become so serious that the Surrey school board felt it had no choice but to vote in favour of a motion requesting that the city place a moratorium on development in three of the fastest-growing neighbourhoods in Surrey. The motion, passed unanimously by the board, called on the city to halt development in the Clayton, Grandview–South Surrey and Newton areas until the school board receives more capital funding from the province to build additional schools.

To the Minister of Education, when will he realize that he cannot increase supply by building houses without building schools for children who will live in those houses?

Hon. M. Bernier: One of the things we talked about is that Surrey is a booming municipality. We have 6,500 more students coming to the province of British Columbia because of the strong economy that we have here in B.C. — the amount of people that are coming to B.C. for opportunities, for jobs. Because of that, because of our strong economy, that’s why we’re able to make these investments that I was talking about.

[1435]

If the NDP were in power, we would not be able to do the investments that we’re able to make. And since he actually…. The member opposite wants me to go on, and thank you for the opportunity. Why don’t we talk about Katzie Elementary School, $15 million in 2014; Panorama Ridge, $10 million; Clayton North, $55 million? These are all investments that we’re able to make in the province of British Columbia because of the strong economy we have. And because of that, we’re going to be making more investments and more announcements in Surrey to help the families, the students of British Columbia, specifically in Surrey.
[ Page 13249 ]

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, 7,000 students in portables in Surrey — there are more students in portables in Surrey than there are students in 35 of B.C.’s school districts, including the minister’s district of Peace River. The Surrey school district is forced to service these portable classrooms by taking $4 million a year from their operating funds — operating money designated for the classroom, operating money that could be used to hire as many as 45 teachers.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Will he tell this House why, in his world, it is okay for 7,000 students to spend year after year in portables in Surrey?

Hon. M. Bernier: You know, this is why we want to continue making investments in Surrey. We’re going to continue to be doing that because of our strong economy. But I just want to remind the members opposite, specifically those few that are from the Surrey area…. I’m going to quote Mayor Hepner. “This is not a new challenge. In fact, right now we are dealing with way less portables than we had in the 1990s, quite frankly, by almost 100.”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. M. Bernier: It sounds like I almost have to repeat that one, Madame Speaker. They weren’t paying attention here. So 100 less portables in Surrey.

If the members opposite were also listening at the very onset, with all of the investments that we’ve made, we’ve added 8,500 seats to Surrey. We’re going to continue to make those investments. I’ve mentioned that to the members opposite. I assume that — just assuming here — when we make those announcements in the recent future, they’re going to be elbowing their way to the front to be in the picture.

H. Bains: With the answers that we have heard today again from this minister, these parents will be leaving these chambers again knowing how out of touch this minister is from reality. Just prior to 2013, the Premier and the Minister of Education came to Surrey, did a big photo op about plans to address overcrowding in Surrey schools. It was another political announcement, another election promise that was never honoured. That’s why four years later we’re talking about the same problem right here.

These parents made a long journey from Surrey today so that they could finally meet with the minister face to face and could ask him to address the serious overcrowding in Surrey schools. My question to the minister is this. Why won’t he commit to these parents here today to finally address the overcrowding in Surrey schools and, for once, put children’s education ahead of your politics?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

[1440]

Hon. M. Bernier: I take exception to that comment, because I put education before everything. The way I’m able to do that, to make these investments in the province of British Columbia, is the strong economy that we have. If the members opposite would stop saying no to every single economic project, we would be able to materialize more money coming to this province for those investments.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. M. Bernier: I was very fortunate to meet with some of the parents from Surrey earlier, and I hope the parents realize, after that meeting, that we’re committed to making further investments. We’ve made amazing investments over the years.

One of the things I hope I left them with was the fact that they realize how education is important to myself, important to this government, and most importantly, we’re going to continue to make investments in Surrey, where it’s muchly needed.

DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER FROM
MOUNT POLLEY MINE INTO QUESNEL LAKE

G. Heyman: Recently the Environment Minister authorized Mount Polley Mining Corp. to discharge untreated mine effluent into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake. Iron and zinc discharge levels were also allowed to exceed the mine’s permit specifications.

In 2014, area residents were badly let down by this government’s failure to properly monitor mine conditions, and they say the lake still hasn’t recovered from the 2014 tailings breach that dumped 25 million cubic metres of tailings and wastewater.

This government and this Environment Minister have once again turned their backs on Cariboo residents.

Why did the minister allow the mine to release untreated wastewater instead of maintaining adequate water treatment facilities?

Hon. M. Polak: The very first thing I want to do is point out that not only are ministry statutory decision–makers making decisions around the permitting and management of the mine, but they are doing so together around a principals table with First Nations from the Soda Creek Indian Band, the Williams Lake Indian Band and members from the broader community.

That’s important because this disaster impacted all of those communities, and we made a commitment to ensure that we would be working together with them when it came to these important decisions.
[ Page 13250 ]

When it comes to this bypass of the water treatment facility, I can advise the member that this is not water that exceeds the water quality guidelines that are laid out in the permit. In fact, it is water that has resided in Springer Pit long enough for settling to occur. It is an important decision in terms of protecting the safety and health of the water in the area because of the risk when a freshet occurs and the need to manage water such that it doesn’t migrate down below the surface and into groundwater.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on supplemental.

G. Heyman: Once again, the minister is saying that dilution is the solution, but that is cold comfort to residents of the area who have communicated with this government about their concern about untreated wastewater.

Last year Mount Polley Mining requested and received a treated-water discharge permit for levels that the ministry knew were 25 percent higher than the capacity of the water treatment unit — 25 percent higher. And now, with the minister’s blessing, excess untreated water will spew more waste into Hazeltine Creek and Quesnel Lake, which is still recovering from the 2014 breach.

A second water treatment unit — which should have been built in the first place to handle permitted wastewater level — would cost $2 million. But instead of investing in the treatment unit, the mine’s owners donated almost $1 million to the Premier’s Liberal Party.

My question is to the Environment Minister. Why won’t the Environment Minister require the mine to properly treat the wastewater that it is discharging into Quesnel Lake?

[1445]

Hon. M. Polak: Decisions with respect to permits of this nature are made by professional civil servants — in this case, together in consultation around a principals table that involves the leadership from the Soda Creek Indian Band, the Williams Lake Indian Band and members from the broader community.

The suggestion — from someone who at a certain point in his career, I believe, headed a public sector union organization — that those decision-makers would be influenced by a political donation, I find particularly offensive.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Martin: I have the honour to present a report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Martin: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Martin: I would like to make some brief comments. Millar College of the Bible is seeking authority to grant degrees in theology in British Columbia in support of the operation of a Bible college in Salmon Arm.

The bill provides the college with the ability to grant degrees, diplomas and certificates in theology. The bill also provides provisions relating to the College of the Bible as registered as an extraprovincial society under the Society Act.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills met considering the proposed private bill and asked questions of the solicitor of the association. I am pleased to note the recommendation for this private bill to proceed was unanimously supported by the committee.

L. Krog: As vice-Chair of the committee, I just want to extend my gratitude, as well, to all the members of the committee on both sides, including the member for Delta South.

It was an interesting educational experience for all of us to deal with this particular kind of proposal. We discovered, much to our edification, that this is the only way these institutions can, in fact, receive this kind of accreditation.

I want to express my thanks for the excellent presentation from ministry staff and the time taken by the member for Shuswap to assist in its passage as well.

Madame Speaker: Thank you very much to both of you.

The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I seek leave to present petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

G. Holman: I want to present a petition today — “Raise the rates; leave our bus pass alone” — signed by over 400 constituents of mine in North Saanich, to bring back the $45-per-year bus pass for people with disabilities and eliminate the new $52-per-month bus pass fee.

M. Mungall: I also rise to present a petition. I have here 1,772 signatures calling on the government to end the bus pass clawback, making today’s presentation roughly around 2,100 signatures calling on this govern-
[ Page 13251 ]
ment to finally do the right thing and end this bus pass clawback.

J. Darcy: My petition, signed by people from across British Columbia, calls on the B.C. government to pay for insulin pumps for people over the age of 25 for those patients for whom it is considered medically necessary. The signatories to the petition indicate that Alberta and Ontario have no restriction on insulin pump coverage and that having a financial restriction, in fact, means that this denies medically necessary care to those who can’t afford to pay.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee of Supply, to begin with, in this chamber — continued estimates of the Ministry of Finance. And in Section A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Social Development.

[1450]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:52 p.m.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $178,497,000 (continued).

D. Eby: The minister has been in the media and in this place defending the inaction of this government around the inflows of international speculative capital into our residential housing market that are making housing unaffordable. Unfortunately, during question period, we don’t really get a chance to go through in detail exactly why it is that we continue to ask the government to take action. I’d like to take the opportunity to go through a few of the reasons why.

I’m going to start off with an open proposal made by 28 economists from the Vancouver School of Economics — these are professors at UBC — two SFU professors in urban economics and 15 Sauder School of Business economists who say that they think we should be taxing the international money coming into our housing market. They say that doing so could “provide significant benefits to Lower Mainland communities” and that their proposal is “a feasible and economically meaningful response to the rising tide of global financial flows into B.C. residential real estate.”

There’s the Conference Board of Canada’s report released yesterday or today. The days blur together.

“It seems clear to us that outflows of wealth from China have at least some influence on the greater Vancouver housing market. In previous research on this issue, standard tests find significant correlations between China’s real GDP growth and three important market yardsticks — namely, existing home sales, existing home price growth and total housing starts.

“By contrast, local employment growth is significantly correlated to none of these, and the five-year mortgage rate related only to resale variables. This could mean that a substantial portion of greater Vancouver real estate purchasers do not need local jobs to buy a home and that many do not need a mortgage to buy a new home. The broad statistical conclusions we reached in 2013 remain valid.”

Then they say: “This leads to the question about what can be done.” They offer two potential solutions. One is to place restrictions on non-residents’ ability to buy homes. At the same time, housing supply could be boosted.

[1455]

You’ll note that the Conference Board of Canada doesn’t say: “Do nothing.” They say there are a couple of options available, both of which, they seem to be suggesting, should be approached.

Then CIBC:

“There is a clear sense of urgency among many Chinese residents to send money out of the country, given the risk of a large-scale devaluation of the yuan. But the main focus of those real estate agents” — these are international agents that focus on Vancouver — “was on QDII2, qualified domestic individual investor 2, a pilot program that…allows individuals with net financial assets of at least 1 million yuan to invest up to 50 percent of those assets in foreign markets.”

They talk about how, with the 20 percent depreciation of the loonie relative to the Chinese currency, “Toronto and Vancouver look very attractive.” Accordingly, the consensus among these international real estate agents was that “the next few years will see even more foreign money entering Canadian real estate markets.”

Then the CIBC deputy chief economist says that while we wait for better data, “we can start dealing with the speculative aspect of foreign investment” through regulation and taxation.

Royal Bank of Canada chief economist Craig Wright: “Whenever you get to these high values in housing, you’re vulnerable to shock. The shock one worries about most in housing is interest rates, to some degree, but…employment.” That’s under the headline: “Housing in Vancouver, Toronto ‘dangerously unaffordable’ says Royal Bank of Canada.”

Business in Vancouver. Jock Finlayson, vice-president, chief policy officer for the Business Council of B.C.:

“How do you grow a global-scale company in Metro Vancouver if your employees, particularly your employees in the age where they start families, can’t afford to live here?

“Looking ahead, I am fearful of a hollowing out of corporate Vancouver.

“Vancouver has the highest income inequality.

“That has to do with the structure of employment…. There’s a segment of the population that is very affluent, many of whom aren’t even working, and that’s, obviously, driving up housing costs.

“This disequilibrium between median household income and the cost of living, particularly the cost of housing, is the single biggest problem we have in the region.”
[ Page 13252 ]

That’s Jock Finlayson from the Business Council of B.C.

How is this being covered in the business press? Canadian Business magazine headline: “How Vancouver’s runaway real estate became a national problem.”

“What is unique about Vancouver’s real estate bubble is the unwillingness of the authorities to do anything about it. Governments in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are all trying to slow the rush of international capital into housing markets….

“The remarkable thing about all the reporting and analysis of the Vancouver housing market…is its consistency. Everyone comments on how authorities such as CMHC are only now starting to gather data on the extent to which international buyers are responsible for price escalation, an inexcusable example of bureaucratic inertia and old-fashioned Canadian complacency. Writers and commentators present entirely logical arguments for why a tax or a regulation aimed at levelling the playing field between regular homebuyers and the world’s ultra-rich would be an entirely reasonable response to what is clearly an unusual situation.”

Everyone from academics — a group of 45 economists from both leading schools, universities in British Columbia — to bank economists, deputy chief, chief economist, the business press, the lead economists for the Business Council of B.C. are all calling not for collecting data and doing nothing but for government involvement in this file. They’re open, as am I — if the minister brings a proposal forward, I’d be glad to have a look at it — to different approaches to dealing with this problem, but not one of them is saying do nothing.

Can the minister please explain why his answer is, “Let’s watch and see what happens,” instead of actually taking action on this problem?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: he is certainly correct about one thing. This is a far better forum than question period necessarily is to have an exchange of ideas and, perhaps, to canvass the approaches that he would advocate or that the government would advocate and intends to follow.

I’ll take advantage of his question, then, to offer some thoughts. I guess I must begin by observing that I disagree pointedly and profoundly with the observation or the assertion that the government is or has done nothing.

[1500]

Now, the member may disagree with what the government has done. The member may believe that it will not have an effect or the effect that he is seeking. I’m hoping, during the course of the exchange, that I will be able to discern in clearer terms what effect the member is seeking by virtue of government intervention into the marketplace.

I don’t say that to be mischievous or meddlesome, because I think it’s a fundamentally important question. What is it that the member believes should be the objective of further government intervention into this matter? Is it to drive the cost of homes down from where they are today, which is clearly elevated, clearly heightened from what it was a month, a year, three years ago? Is that the objective?

Is it to halt the rise in housing costs? I think that, too, is an area that it is legitimate to explore in terms of the conversation we’re going to have. But to suggest that nothing has been done in the face, for example, of the single largest change in property taxation policy that is now in effect and flowed immediately from the budget is, I think, inaccurate — and that’s, I guess, the kindest term I would use.

I mentioned in the brief exchange we had the other day in question period that as a result of that change about 25 families, individuals, per day now buy a new home for which they don’t pay property transfer tax. That transaction has immediately become more affordable to the tune of upwards of $13,000, depending on where that home is priced.

We can track this and do, obviously, through the returns that are provided. It’s over 2,200 families that have benefited from that single change. We are also able to track the numbers of families who have entered the market in the last four months as first-time homebuyers. How are we able to do that? Because, of course, on the property taxation documentation, in order to qualify for the exception, they self-identify.

So 50 families per day are entering the housing market in British Columbia. This number applies across British Columbia to over 7,000 families, individuals, purchasing a home for the first time between January and May. The assertion that it is impossible for people and families to enter the housing market flies in the face of the hard data that we actually have in that respect.

We have other data that is of assistance in considering some of the ideas that have been advanced, and if I have, at some point, conveyed anything other than interest in those ideas, then I regret that, because every idea is worthy of consideration. I confess to having views of my own. Some of that is informed by data that perhaps others do not examine or haven’t studied.

For example, when we talk about the notion of a speculation tax, or some people call it a flipping tax…. Better be careful how you say that, I guess. There’s more than one flipping tax. But I think members know what I’m referring to: a speculation tax or a tax on flipping real estate.

We actually have sound data on the number of transactions that that would apply to, because we are able to track through, again, the property transfer tax return exercise when a transfer in ownership takes place within a year or within two years, and we’re able to estimate on that basis.

[1505]

As people have advanced these ideas, what I have suggested is that we be clear on the objective. In the case of the speculation tax, at any of the rates that have been suggested, the amounts involved would be very modest — very modest indeed.

I also gather from the ideas, in the form that they have been presented, that this additional tax would be
[ Page 13253 ]
imposed on folks who are transferred — whose employment changes, and they are forced to relocate within the stipulated period — or who, because their family circumstances change, are forced to relocate. These are people who would find themselves captured by a new instrument of taxation because of how it has been defined and how it would be applied.

The alternative is to create exemptions, and that is very possible. But for each exemption that is created, the number of transactions that would be captured by the measure shrinks even further. Again, what I have not heard, in the course of the discussion that has taken place, is the intended consequence of a taxation instrument like that. The suggestion that it would….

It seems clear from the evidence, in the jurisdictions where it has been tried, that it does nothing to reduce the cost of housing — nothing. If that is the objective, then perhaps it bears emphasizing that the experience in those jurisdictions runs counter to what people are purporting to be the objective here.

The member has referenced, in his initial remarks, some of the studies. Ironically, in the most recent one, the Conference Board report for the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, he went to precisely the same page that I did and the quotation around the questions of what is to be done.

There is another recurring theme in all of these studies. And these are, I think, thoughtful individuals who are presenting their analysis of the issue, their analysis of the market. The author, Mr. Tal, of the CIBC report — I must say that in his report I was intrigued by the methodology — said: “In order to get a better understanding of the market, I attended a dinner with over 20 real estate brokers and agents who deal exclusively with foreign buyers…. I asked many questions, and after a few bottles of wine, I got some answers.”

I’m not criticizing the methodology; I might want to participate in it, in fact. But he does make the point. On the basis of his dinner and conversation, he concludes that flipping is not the main motivation. He again acknowledges — and this is a theme that is consistent in virtually all of the reports and papers and suggestions: “We do not have all the information we need, and we have to accelerate the process of collecting that information.”

He does, in fairness, offer the suggestion that the member referred to — about how, even though flipping is not the main motivation, he is drawn to the notion of a tax on foreigners who invest and later sell. He is certainly entitled to that view.

What I have tried to offer — and where I think the member does…. It would be fair for him to suggest he encounters hesitancy on my part. It is to take a step of this order of importance in the absence of some firm data. Because the anecdotal information runs the gamut, in terms of the influence that foreign capital is having — and foreign investment. To what degree is that foreign investment actually investment by Canadian citizens or permanent residents?

[1510]

I do think it is legitimate, before taking a step of that magnitude, to be able to point to some data that says: “Here we are acting on the strength of this factual information, which points out that X percentage of the market, X percentage of the purchases are deriving from this source in these circumstances.” I think that is a responsible position to take. It is not to diminish in any way the challenge that exists, particularly in and around Vancouver, in terms of the opportunity that people have to access housing.

I think today we see a good example of the two dimensions to this issue. We got the report from the Conference Board for the board of trade and another report, that I suspect the member will get around to mentioning, from the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which speaks to another dimension of the housing issue.

We talk about affordability of housing, and then there’s the question of affordable housing, which tends to involve, in many instances, those in the lower income streams having the opportunity to access housing, co-op housing and rental housing. That presents yet another series of challenges.

There does, on balance, hon. Chair — and then I’ll let the member have at me again — seem to be two broad schools of thought about how to deal with this. One says that in the tension that clearly exists right now and is playing out in the way we see in terms of elevating property and housing prices…. It is to take steps that would reduce demand. Some jurisdictions have done that. That’s one approach.

The other, which the member will know I have tended to favour, is for us collectively to take steps that would increase the supply and provide a broader range of options to those wishing to get into the housing market.

Ultimately, in a complex market, the answer may be a combination of the two. In taking that step, I think it behooves us to at least be in a position, in defending that step, that hybrid approach of taxation and supply, to be able to say we made that decision on the basis of hard data. As the member knows, we are now in the process of, in a concerted way, collecting that data.

I’ll stop there and let him continue.

D. Eby: The minister has said a lot in 15 minutes. Here’s what I think the two schools of thought are. One is that there’s a problem, and one is that everything’s fine. I think I know where the minister falls. Despite his various objections…. I think I can overcome the objections about…. If you tax the money that’s coming into the real estate market from people who are not paying their worldwide tax in British Columbia, either it’s a problem or it isn’t.

If you tax it and there’s no issue there — you don’t generate any revenue from it, you don’t affect the hous-
[ Page 13254 ]
ing market, there’s no consequence, and it just sits there — it’s a useless tax. But if you do put the tax in place and there is international speculation in our housing market — if there is money coming into our housing market from people who don’t pay their worldwide tax here; and it is a problem — then you generate revenue from the tax that you can put into affordable housing initiatives.

I’m trying to find the downside of the proposal put forward by the 45 professors of economics — the 45 PhDs in economics that brought this proposal forward. I’m trying to find the downside, why the minister will not act, because it has the dual effect of gathering, without debate, the data about how many people are buying real estate in the Lower Mainland but are not paying their worldwide tax in British Columbia. I think that’s really the key point.

[1515]

It’s not: are you a permanent resident, or are you citizen? Are you from here, or you from there? Is your family originally from…? Who cares, right? Are you paying your worldwide tax in British Columbia? If you are, have at ’er. If you’re not, you’ve got to contribute. You’ve got to pitch in.

I think the core issue here is whether or not the minister recognizes that there’s a problem. Let me point to a study on it. It is, unfortunately, dated, because it’s based on 2011 census data. But according to Statistics Canada, 25,000 households in Vancouver are paying more on housing than they have in income. That’s 10 percent of the households.

Let me give you an example of a few of the neighbourhoods we’ve got here. Dissemination area 59150581, Arbutus Ridge, between Arbutus and Macdonald streets: the median dwelling value, $1.98 million; the median income from all sources declared for tax purposes, $19,993; average house price, $2 million; average income for tax purposes, $20,000.

South Granville: average dwelling value, $1.8 million; average income for tax purposes in British Columbia, $13,572.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Coal Harbour area, around the Fairmont Pacific Rim: 62 percent of households say they have lower income than their shelter costs. The average income in that area is $14,293. The median is just $943 a year for the people who own properties there.

Now, the minister might stand up and say: “Oh, there are a lot of retirees. Maybe they’re living on their savings.” In greater Toronto, the rate of people declaring lower income than their shelter cost is 5.9 percent. In Montreal, it’s 5 percent. In Victoria, it’s 5.4 percent. In Vancouver, it’s 10 percent. It’s double.

We’ve got a lot of people buying really expensive property that aren’t paying worldwide tax in British Columbia. I think this is maybe the core of the concern, and that is certainly the core of what the proposal that came forward from those 45 economics professors deals with. It doesn’t matter — citizenship, permanent resident, whatever. Are you pitching in?

The question to the minister: has he studied this phenomenon? Does he have better stats than I do about income declared by British Columbians — worldwide income declared on their income tax forms — as compared to the value of the property that they’re purchasing and that they own in British Columbia? Can he share additional information beyond the dated information that’s available through the 2011 census data?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member asked a specific question about data, and I should say this. I’ll say it on the record. He anticipated, correctly, that I would. Yes, there is a phenomenon in a market like Vancouver. It has long been the case where there are individuals who are asset-rich and in income, much poorer, fixed-income seniors being a classic example of that. We are an older society in British Columbia. Not the oldest — the Maritimes are demographically older than us. But we are an older society, so that is a phenomenon with which we are not unfamiliar.

[1520]

The member seems intent on wanting to characterize this as a case of a government and/or a minister who doesn’t believe there is an issue and doesn’t believe there is a problem and a challenge. That is categorically not the case.

I clearly understand that in a particular part of British Columbia, there is an issue. When you see the proportion of listings to sales, it is clear that that is presenting upward pressure and causing issues. But the data that the member does not have and that I do not have at the moment is that which entitles us to say that the market is being influenced to this degree, to X degree, by the influx of true foreign capital and foreign purchases and speculative foreign purchases.

We got — ironically, not from Vancouver but from the Victoria Real Estate Board…. I think the member would agree the pressure that we see in Vancouver is having a ripple effect elsewhere. It certainly seems to be the indication here in Victoria.

The Victoria Real Estate Board does apparently track the origin of buyers. I’m told it is a self-reporting mechanism, so it doesn’t account for 100 percent of transactions. But of those where there is a self-report…. For 1,700 transactions in greater Victoria in the first quarter of the year, the Victoria Real Estate Board reported that the vast majority of Victoria buyers are from within the local Victoria marketplace — 73 percent from Victoria, compared to 70½ percent last year; 8 percent from the Lower Mainland, compared to 7½ percent last year; 4 percent from Alberta, which, oddly enough, is down from 5½ percent last year; and 1 percent from the U.S., which is roughly comparable to last year.
[ Page 13255 ]

Those numbers, to the degree that they are accurate, would lead one to suggest that the market in Victoria — in the capital region, at least — is not being influenced by the phenomenon of vast sums of true foreign capital investment in the marketplace. So it is not a case of wanting to ignore or deny that there are issues that accrue from rapidly escalating property values.

The reports that the member has referred to, by the way — some of them, at least, and certainly the one for the Conference Board — go to great lengths to point out that this is a symptom of a very strong economy, of a whole range of other advantages that have developed here in British Columbia and on the west coast and that are attracting people to our jurisdiction.

It doesn’t diminish the importance of the challenge or our need to respond to it. It does, I would suggest, make it incumbent upon us to take steps that do not put in jeopardy the value that British Columbians have accrued in the most important asset most people will ever own and to do so in a way that does not put at risk the enviable record of economic growth that we have established for ourselves — leading the country, in fact, in that respect. So there are some additional thoughts for the member.

I should say, finally, that there is a series of ideas. The member has referred to one that involves the imposition of an added tax on every property in the jurisdiction that would be covered and then an application process for exemptions based on certain criteria.

[1525]

The member is an advocate of that approach to utilizing that instrument of taxation, of increasing everyone’s taxes and then asking them to apply, on the basis of a set of certain criteria, for an exemption from that tax increase. I’m not sure that is the best approach to take with respect to affordability, but the member is clearly quite taken with the approach.

D. Eby: I’m going to leave the ridiculous political suggestion aside that we would be collecting additional taxes from every British Columbian and then refunding them through the income…. That is the most inefficient, ridiculous implementation of a private member’s bill we’ve put forward that I could possibly imagine. It is comments like that and it is the attitude of this minister towards a serious issue that prevent us from making progress on it.

I want to hear that minister stand up and tell British Columbians on the record whether he thinks it’s a problem that people who are not paying their worldwide taxes in British Columbia are buying property. Here’s why I want to ask that question. It’s because the people who work hard and pay their taxes here to support the social systems that make this place a wonderful place to live are wondering why they can’t afford to buy property on the wages they earn.

There is a very reasonable belief, backed up by the Conference Board of Canada, CIBC and 45 economics professors, that it is flows of capital from people who are not paying their worldwide tax in British Columbia that are driving this housing market, at least in part.

Will the minister stand up and say, “Yes, I agree that this is a problem,” that people who are not paying their worldwide tax in B.C. are buying housing in the situation of a deflated loonie, with money that’s earned in a jurisdiction where they don’t have to pay the same level of taxes, and competing with people who are paying their taxes, building the schools, building the parks, building the communities that make it an enviable place to live? Does he think that’s a problem? Does he think they should have to pitch in like everybody else?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that for decades, governments of various political stripes — with varying degrees of success, I might add — have sought out people and encouraged them to come to this province and to this country and to make investments in a broad range of economic endeavours, including in the real estate sector. That is not a policy, an approach to economics, that is unique to this government or a government of any political stripe.

The member, in response to a circumstance that has arisen, that is of concern — it is of concern particularly in one part of British Columbia — is suggesting that the government should adopt a significant change in policy relating to how we tax those who come to British Columbia and make investments. And there may well be merit. But he seems genuinely offended that I would respond to that by saying: “Before we take that step, let us clearly understand the degree to which that is influencing market behavior.” There is nothing I can say, apparently, that is going to change his mind that that represents a responsible approach to this.

I say this not to be argumentative, but for him, this conversation apparently revolves exclusively around taxation policy and the question of curtailing demand — in this case, international demand. He is far less concerned than I am about other steps we can take to increase — and significantly increase — the supply of housing that would be available to domestic purchasers.

[1530]

To the extent that that is a piece of this puzzle, or a piece of this equation, that the member does not believe is important, then he and I will simply disagree on that point.

D. Eby: Where is the supply that the minister is talking about? Where is the initiative to create affordable housing in Metro Vancouver? Where is that housing that I can tell people about who are making the decision — young people — of whether or not to stay in Metro Vancouver and invest their time and energy instead of moving somewhere else? Where is it? Where is that initiative?

I’d love to hear the minister’s suggestion about workforce housing. I’d love to hear the ways he’s going to build
[ Page 13256 ]
additional rental housing for people who are out working in greater Vancouver. I’d love to hear that.

I haven’t heard word one. So to be scolded for failing to support supply from the same minister that brings forward not a single initiative to build affordable housing…. He says that by providing relief for first-time homebuyers from the property transfer tax he’s somehow helping the situation for those families. They are in bidding wars with ten or 15 other families for housing. If he wants to increase supply — wonderful news. Tell me how he is doing that.

But just as important is this question of the difference between investment — constructive, productive investment in building multiple-family housing or in business or in mining or in forestry or in agriculture or in manufacturing in British Columbia — and investing or rent-seeking, as the term that economists use, where you park your money in residential housing.

If this minister is standing up and saying that he’s encouraging international “investors,” speculators, to park their money in the number one luxury real estate market in the world — which is Vancouver, by the way, more than Sydney, more than Hong Kong, more than London or Manhattan — then I think he should say that on the record. Is he encouraging international speculators to park their money in greater Metro Vancouver housing? He should be really clear about that. Then we can draw a very clean line as opposed to smearing everything together and saying: “Oh, you’re opposed to investment and business. You’re opposed to investment in construction.”

No, no. We’re talking about existing residential housing. Is he encouraging international speculators to park their money in housing?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t think, in the course of these discussions over the years with the member and others, I have endeavoured to put words in the member’s mouth or in the mouths of his colleagues. I’ll ask that he extend the same courtesy to me.

He has said that he would be supportive of efforts to address the supply of housing. I will take that as a minor victory in these proceedings. He then says and signals again: “Ah, but I see no evidence of that.”

He chooses, apparently purposefully, to ignore the single largest investment in social and affordable housing contained within the budget — $355 million. Now, for the member to say, “It’s not enough. I want more. I think there should be more” — I accept that. I accept that form of criticism. But to dismiss as inconsequential, and to describe as empty, hollow and nonexistent the largest investment ever, I think is disingenuous on a magnificent scale.

To dismiss as inconsequential a step that is designed to encourage the construction of more homes — not by providing funding to the developers themselves, or the builders, but to the people who purchase those homes, to the tune of up to $13,000…. To dismiss that — well, I’ve already said the member and I disagree.

What more can we do? I believe, and I’m endeavouring to verify this, that in the Metro Vancouver region of British Columbia, there are proposals for thousands of new housing units — thousands — and they languish in planning departments, awaiting approval.

[1535]

There is important work to be done by planning departments. I understand that. But when that work takes three, four or five years, it delays the construction and availability of those homes to those who would want to purchase them and are able to purchase them.

I wonder — I don’t have this information — what the impact would be at a time when there are only 2,000 housing units on the market if, in the span of a number of months, we could double or triple that. The private sector wishes to build them. The proposals are there. We can augment that at the social and affordable housing today with social and supportive housing. We have already made a sizeable commitment on that front.

But I didn’t enter into this discussion wanting to poke anyone in the eye. I think there is a difference of opinion. I regret that the member continues to feel that there is inaction. It may not be the approach that he is most comfortable with. I regret that he doesn’t want the government to wait to verify empirically what the impact of this investment is on the marketplace. I mean, I disagree with that approach, but I understand it. I understand that’s the approach.

I understand this. I understand that he represents a part of British Columbia where this problem has revealed itself most acutely, and I respect that. The housing landscape of Vancouver is changing. I think that is true. I think there is trauma associated with that. I think there is a role for government through that transition. I accept all of that. But I regret that the member continues to believe that I do not see this as important or urgent. Most assuredly, I do.

D. Eby: I have a regret too, which is that we’re out of time, because there are so many things that the minister said that deserve response. I just wanted to read into the record some questions that were passed on to me by community members that the minister is welcome to respond to in writing.

“How, in your opinion, does our housing market experience differ from Sidney, Singapore, Hong Kong and Auckland, where these governments find it prudent to restrict international speculation in their housing market, but we don’t?”

“How do you expect to attract tech jobs when young people can’t afford to live near their work?” “What incentives — tax or otherwise — will the minister put in place to encourage housing developments, including rental, that are actually affordable to Metro Vancouver’s workforce?”
[ Page 13257 ]

“Based on record personal debt levels and negative discretionary income for young people, what percentage of mortgage holders in B.C. would be in financial distress if interest rates decreased 1 percent?” “What share of GDP growth in B.C. is directly attributable to residential real estate?”

“What report stats has the government commissioned on the impact of high real estate prices on non–real estate local businesses in the CRD and Metro Vancouver areas?” “On the minister’s new forms, is he requiring disclosure of citizenship residency of all directors of companies that buy real estate in B.C.?”

“What share of the benefit of the property transfer tax cut does the minister actually believe goes to buyers versus sellers in a market with limited supply and very significant international demand?” “How is the minister working with CRA to identify tax evaders in relation to the real estate market? How many reports to CRA? How many requests to CRA for information?”

I thank the minister’s staff very much for all their assistance to him during this process, and I pass the minister on to my colleague, who I understand is waiting in the little House for him.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:39 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1540]

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

Madame Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

Hon. M. de Jong: Forthwith. For the information of members, the estimates for the Ministry of Finance will continue momentarily in the Douglas Fir Room. And in this chamber, I call debate on Private Bill 401.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — MILLAR COLLEGE
OF THE BIBLE ACT

G. Kyllo: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

G. Kyllo: This private bill will give Millar College of the Bible the authority to grant degrees in theology in British Columbia in support of the operation of the Bible college located in the area of Salmon Arm. The bill provides the college with the ability to grant degrees, diplomas and certificates in theology. The bill also includes provisions relating to the management of personal information.

The Millar College of the Bible is registered as an extra-provincial society under the Societies Act.

By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Millar College of the Bible Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL Pr401 — MILLAR COLLEGE
OF THE BIBLE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr401; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

L. Krog: I just feel it incumbent upon someone in the opposition to stand up and explain. The reason this process is undertaken is because this is such an unusual approach, and the fact that the opposition won’t be asking questions during committee stage of the bill is simply to confirm that this particular bill has already received significant scrutiny in the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

In the circumstances, staff of the ministry of post-secondary education appeared and provided advice to the committee, so there will be no opposition to this bill.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

G. Kyllo: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — MILLAR COLLEGE
OF THE BIBLE ACT

Bill Pr401, Millar College of the Bible Act, reported complete without amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. T. Lake: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, Millar College of the Bible Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 23, intituled the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND
MISCONDUCT POLICY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:48 p.m.

On section 1.

K. Corrigan: I’m actually just wondering if perhaps the minister wants to do some introductions of staff first. I’ll just take my seat.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Joining me are the assistant deputy minister, Claire Avison, and Mary Shaw.

K. Corrigan: When we were in second reading stage of this bill…. The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act requires that public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia create sexual violence and misconduct policies and some procedures around that. When we were discussing that, I went into a great deal of depth, which I won’t do now, but certainly expressed real concerns about the level of sexual violence that occurs on our campuses in British Columbia and across Canada. We’re certainly not unique in British Columbia.

We’ve had some pretty high-profile cases, as well, of sexual assaults and sexual violence at our campuses in our colleges and universities, so we are certainly going to support this bill, but I do have some concerns that I will express through committee stage. This, for the vast viewing audience, is a chance for me, as the opposition spokesperson for Advanced Education, to ask questions on a section-by-section basis in a fair amount of depth — to ask the minister, who will, with the assistance of his staff, be able to answer a lot of the questions I have.

[1550]

I want to just thank the great number of people that provided me advice and expressed interest in and had concerns or — certainly, in many cases — supported this piece of legislation. I particularly thank the many student groups that I contacted and that talked to me about it — organizations like the UBC Alma Mater Society, the student society of my alma mater, Kathleen Simpson, and Ashley Bentley of the Sexual Assault Support Centre at UBC, Glynnis Kirchmeier and Randy Singh, the UVic Student Society and, certainly, Simka Marshall and others from the Canadian Federation of Students.

I spoke to a lot of organizations — faculty organizations, as well — and administrators about this because it is such an important bill.

The first question that I want to ask the minister is: what consultation happened in advance of the framing of this bill?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite requests information on the consultation process. In the development of this piece of legislation, all of our post-secondary public institutions and their student associations were contacted and sent a link to the appropriate materials. We requested their feedback, and we received feedback from a substantial number of them.

K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear. Was that consultation and that request for feedback provided to those student groups and institutions prior to the bill being tabled in this House, or was that after the bill was tabled?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The consultations occurred between the time of the tabling of the private member’s bill by the member from Oak Bay. The date I have on that…. I don’t have that date, actually — and before the government bill was developed by legislative counsel.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns…. I don’t want to mislead. The student groups that I’ve spoken with that represent, umbrella organizations that represent, thousands and thousands of students across British Columbia at many institutions are very pleased about this legislation and supportive of it. But one of the things that they express a concern about is that they had hoped that this legislation would be part of a much larger dialogue about sexualized violence across society.

The reason I’m asking about the consultation that happened is that many of the student groups and others talked about the process that happened in Ontario, whereby a sexual violence plan with funding of around
[ Page 13259 ]
$41 million was put in place prior to the piece of legislation requiring sexual violence policies in post-secondary institutions. It was coupled with fairly comprehensive legislation in a whole range of other areas.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain why that work — looking at a plan, figuring out how to fund that plan and figuring out how to unroll a plan that was comprehensive and resourced — did not happen in British Columbia.

[1555]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The genesis of this bill was that across Canada, in recent years, there have been highly visible and prominently reported episodes of totally unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour and events in places including Dalhousie University, the University of Ottawa, Lakehead University, Brandon University and some of our institutions here in British Columbia.

Now, given the rising profile of this issue…. We know that these acts have been inappropriately performed for decades, but it has become a social movement to recognize the importance of these and to deal with it. So in light of that emerging social consensus that this had to be dealt with, a number of student bodies and other groups made their positions clear earlier this year.

Some of our institutions have been working on sexual misconduct and violence policies since the middle of 2015. More recently, events at UBC led to a fully fledged process to develop their own internal policy on this issue. That report is to come out in June.

In the midst of that atmosphere of increasing concern and recognition of the fact of this problem and the need for institutions to have a framework to deal with it, the private member from Oak Bay raised this issue in his private act, which mirrored the Ontario act. He then came into contact with ministry staff and with me, and we sorted out the best approach to come out with a bill that would reflect the British Columbia statutory framework and to be an effective tool for requiring our public post-secondary institutions to rise to the occasion and produce these policies in a very timely fashion.

That is the genesis of this. That is why, roughly two months to the day after the introduction of the private member’s bill, we find ourselves here on the edge of passing legislation which will bring to fruition this requirement that our public post-secondary institutions deal with this issue in a forthright manner and come up with a policy framework to protect the safety and the interests of students and others who find themselves subject to these dreadful acts in the campus environment, and potentially beyond the campus environment, so that we can move into this new era with a much more fulsome recognition of the state of the problem and the need to deal with the problem.

Now, I’m sure the question will arise, but I will presuppose the question that our private institutions, of which there are roughly 200 or 300, will also be required to develop a policy framework related to this. But we are in consultation with that sector to sort out exactly what that will look like, because they are truly diverse in character — from residential universities that are private, with thousands of students, down to tiny little schools, such as flight schools with a couple of students. So we have to be sensitive to their geography, to their resources and to their student profiles so that we can come up with something that’s actually workable, rather than an unworkable framework which proves to be honoured in the breach because it’s simply not pragmatic.

However, for our public post-secondary institutions, we expect to have a fairly comprehensive framework for this, and we’ll be working with them to come up with best practices in this space which can be adopted by all of our 25 public post-secondary institutions around the province as the baseline from which they must not divert. When they adjust those policies for their particular circumstances, whether they’re in Dawson Creek or downtown Burnaby, they will then have moved beyond those best practices into highly specific practices and policies for their own institution.

K. Corrigan: Well, there are those that say that what happened was that the government got scooped by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and then rushed into action. And that’s fine. It doesn’t matter, because the result is that we have a piece of legislation that is supportable.

[1600]

But if that is the case, then I go back to my earlier concern that in Ontario, there was a lot of preparatory work and a $41 million action plan that’s based on “the advice and input from diverse communities” — I’m quoting from Hansard — “advocates, professionals and front-line workers who support survivors, from the courageous survivors themselves and so many others.”

That action plan — which is called It’s Never Okay, and it is Ontario’s sexual violence and harassment action plan — preceded any legislation. It was part of a comprehensive plan and package of legislation which provided protection in the workplace against sexual violence and harassment.

By amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it provided for a similar act to this one, requiring a sexual violence policy at post-secondary institutions — both public and private, and we’ll get back to that. It removed the limitation period for all civil proceedings based on sexual assault and, in certain cases, sexual misconduct or assault. It amended the Residential Tenancy Act. The overall…. There are six acts, altogether, to ensure safer workplaces, safer homes, safer campuses and strong legal protections for survivors.

So while I am supportive of this act, I am concerned that it was put together rather hastily in response to the
[ Page 13260 ]
fact that there was a private member’s bill and that the groundwork, which so many people have called for in a whole variety of areas, has not been done and that we have one stand-alone act. Really, what we need to have is a comprehensive plan and legislative approach that will really change the culture and the protections against sexual violence in British Columbia.

I recall an act last year called the Private Training Act, which I had similar concerns about. There was a lot of concern from the industry to do with the framework for private training institutions, English language schools and so on — a regulatory framework. There was a rush to legislate there, and now we’re finding that all of the meat of that regulatory framework is in the regulations, and it’s creating a bit of chaos because the regulations haven’t been brought in.

I’m concerned in a similar way with this act. One, it is not comprehensive enough, does not cover the whole gamut. Secondly, again, so much is left to regulation, so we don’t really know what the guts of the act are going to be, although I have some concerns about the specific limitations. I’m wondering if the minister has any comment on that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite may remember that our Limitation Act was changed to provide no limitation for sexual assault civil claims about 20 years ago, and so that aspect of the Ontario legislation has been dealt with long ago.

Sexual harassment and other sexual improprieties are broadly addressed in the human rights code in British Columbia. This act, as I said, was designed to move in a fairly expeditious way to recognize the widespread public sentiment about this — including student sentiment — that things had reached the point in British Columbia where the universities and colleges were not in a position to respond in a substantive way to these issues, and certainly not in a consistent way.

So we in the ministry, and thinking in terms of the Legislature, thought that this would be an opportune time to step into this space to take advantage of the efforts being made at UBC and to be able to impose or require the policy framework all around the province so that whether a student is at Thompson Rivers University in Williams Lake or at College of the Rockies in Cranbrook or at the UBC Point Grey campus with 54,000 other students, those students would all have the assurance that they were going to be protected by a policy at the university or college which was responsive to their needs and reflected the current environment and the current standards in this field. That is what is being developed by the universities and colleges right now.

[1605]

The member queries whether there should have been wider effort and more funding to develop this process. That is, in fact, happening at the universities and colleges, and we will take advantage of that to make it uniform across the universities and colleges.

This is actually, I would suggest, a very efficient way in which to gather the best practices from our various institutions, promulgate them amongst all the institutions and bring this into effect in a timely fashion. We’ve received numerous positive remarks from student activists and sexual-violence-activist bodies saying that this is timely and effective and that they are pleased to see that we’re moving ahead so expeditiously.

If we had engaged in the widespread consultations that the member opposite suggests, including issues such as workplace harassment, this would have taken years. Instead, we’re getting this done in two months.

K. Corrigan: The minister is correct that it did take many, many months, if not years, in Ontario. The belief was that it was appropriate to have a comprehensive look at society and at legislation to see how, as an action plan for the whole province, they could amend a series of acts and come up with a comprehensive plan.

Now, the minister just mentioned that the resources essentially are already there in the post-secondary institutions. I guess this is an appropriate time, then, to ask: are any extra resources going to be provided to post-secondary institutions so that they can develop and implement a sexual violence policy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The ministry staff, including the two very able staff people here with me today, are involved in a process that is, essentially, a network across our 25 public post-secondary institutions. The heavy lifting is being done by UBC at this point. It’s, by far, our largest institution and has, by far, the biggest budget. And they have internal legal resources and other resources that are not so widely available in the other institutions.

That could be considered the first draft of a provincewide policy that would reflect best practices, but we are waiting for UBC to bring that policy into play in June, and that will be circulated for comment from, obviously, the various student bodies, the student activist bodies, the civil society activist groups. And there will be ample opportunity for consultation around that UBC policy.

We will, of course, be watching that with great interest, because our goal, as I said earlier, is to take that policy and meld it with the policies that are already in place at a couple of other institutions, come up with the very best practices amongst those institutions and then say to all of our institutions: “These are the proposed best practices. You are autonomous academic bodies, but this would be highly desirable if you were to amend this to suit your local circumstances.”

One can consider, perhaps, that in Dawson Creek there may not be a tertiary care hospital that is available for appropriate forensic services for a young woman who’s been the subject of a violent sexual assault. That student may
[ Page 13261 ]
have to be flown to Prince George for those services. I don’t know. Each institution is going to have to take into account their local resources and their local circumstances and adjust the content of the policy accordingly.

Similarly, policing resources are very different in this province. We think of the University of Victoria in Saanich, which would be in connection with the Saanich police. UBC, of course, has a very independent RCMP detachment that deals with allegations of crime there. Then in Burnaby, it’s a different RCMP detachment, etc. The institutions have to adjust the policy to match their local policing environment and to match their local medical and health-related resources and services.

Then, of course, they take into account something that is very, very important, which is their local civil society activist body resources. In metropolitan Vancouver, there will be, as the member knows very well, a number of very capable resources that are, largely, focused on women’s health and women escaping violence. Those are very capable bodies which can be called upon and relied upon for not only advice but also for services in dire circumstances.

[1610]

Those may be helpful to institutions with access to them, but that is not going to be available in Fort St. John. So the institutions are going to have to adjust to local resources and circumstances. We look forward to providing them with the baseline best practices and seeing their response in terms of modifying those best practices to suit local circumstances so that the ministry can be satisfied that they have met the expectations here.

The reporting structure is to the board of governors, in keeping with the legislation reflecting our universities, but at the same time, we in the ministry will be keeping a close eye on these developments to make sure that the institutions are meeting the reasonable expectations of the ministry as they take the best-practices approach, modify it to local circumstances and come up with an up-to-date, effective and clearly transparent and useful policy.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think the minister’s answer is a good illustration of the concern that I and many other people in the province have about what having this stand-alone legislation without other supports and investments and legislative changes — what the concerns are. Essentially, what it seems to me the minister is saying is that the sexual assault policies on campuses are going to be framed according to what local resources they have instead of saying: “We as a province are going to tackle this issue of sexual violence in a comprehensive way, and we’re going to provide the resources.”

The minister talked, for example, about how the policing and health resources are different in different communities, and therefore, a small community like the communities that Northwest Community College, for example, serves might not have the same kinds of health resources — things like rape kits, which is not just a physical kit but the capacity for communities to professionally and appropriately respond to a rape, a sexual assault, in a community.

The minister seems to be saying that these policies are going to be put together, recognizing that they can do a better job in some communities than they can in others and that the policy will reflect the resources, as opposed to the resources being put in at the front end to ensure that students, female and male, in every campus across the province are appropriately protected with a policy and resources to support the policy and the processes there to back it up.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the title of the act described exactly what this act seeks to accomplish, the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, and this is so that the institutions will have a framework for response. It does not and cannot oblige the institutions to provide secondary- or tertiary-level health care. That’s in the bailiwick of the Minister of Health. It cannot oblige the institutions to provide policing. They do not do policing anywhere in Canada.

In some places in the United States, of course, we see a proliferation of small police forces. Some universities have their own dedicated police force, which is not something we would encourage in Canada because the standard of policing and the quality of policing is generally significantly better in Canada than it is in those tiny American forces.

This does not contemplate creating or dictating or mandating medical and policing resources. What this does is provide a policy framework within which the administrative processes of the institution have to be responsive to the health and safety needs of the student.

The student may elect — or the victim, I should say, because it could be someone beyond the student if it’s a staff member…. The victim could make the informed choice not to contact the police. That is their right as a citizen of this country.

[1615]

In those circumstances, the institution has to respond sensitively to that environment where the student has made a conscious decision not to engage the authorities at the policing level. Similarly, the student may elect, perhaps with or even against advice, not to pursue medical care where it might actually be timely to do so. Once again, that’s the student’s or the victim’s right as an adult in this country to elect not to seek that kind of care.

If one takes that theoretical scenario of the victim who has — either through the passage of time or through a short-term, conscious, informed decision — come to the conclusion that they will not be engaging medical or policing resources, then it’s left for the institution to engage in a process of dealing with the circumstances, for example, in the situation where there is a known perpetrator and
[ Page 13262 ]
this is a concern for the safety of the student in terms of their academic life.

Do they continue to live in the same residence? Do they attend the same classes? Are they exposed to each other in an ongoing fashion, in a fashion which does not engage the police? These are the kinds of questions that we have to address in a policy that is designed to be timely and responsive to the needs of the victim, whether they’re a student or otherwise.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The Chair: Member.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair. One hon. Chair from Burnaby to another hon. Chair from Burnaby. I think you’re both honourable.

I want to read from a couple of letters and responses that have been directed at either me or the minister. The letter from the University of Victoria Students Society, signed by Kenya Rogers, who is very supportive of the legislation, says:

“In closing, we’d like to again reiterate the importance of this work, and we hope this is the first step to engaging the province in a much wider dialogue on how we can shift our culture here in B.C. to one of consent. We hope that the province will begin an action plan or task force on sexualized violence framed after the work done in Ontario.

“The intention of this would be to bring together government, students, first-line responders and administration to develop a holistic approach to sexualized violence in this province. We know that these things do not happen in isolation. They are ideas and attitudes that are learned and affirmed throughout society. This is a great first step, but we hope to see an even more robust approach in the future that carefully analyzes K-to-12 curriculum, workplace policies and more.”

In addition, from the Sexual Assault Support Centre at UBC, some of the questions that they had…. That’s asking for a wider approach. The Sexual Assault Support Centre — they point out that while it is important that institutions respond appropriately to sexual violence on campus, they need to have educational programs, policies and protocols. They think any legislation needs to recognize that this takes time, research, staff and resources and that every community is very different. The minister has referred to that.

They are very concerned about the financial impact. “Sexual violence,” they say, “is a complex issue and affects people in a myriad of ways. To be very financially impactful, is the province prepared to offer resources and support to post-secondary campuses if they require it?” So, again, a sense that there needs to be a wider approach and resources.

Again, to the minister: the second quote was from the Sexual Assault Support Centre at the AMS at UBC. They’ve got more resources than most campuses. If they are saying that there need to be resources, does that not concern the minister — that there should be resources, provincial resources, put into supporting this policy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite raises some important points. I think we can reflect that legislation sometimes leads social change.

[1620]

More often, it reflects social change that is initiated by some pioneers and then recognized on a societal-wide basis to be meritorious and then is, in fact, imposed more widely upon society through legislation.

This field of sexual violence is a matter of iterative development in our society. It was 25 years ago that the Supreme Court of Canada embarked on a decade-long process of clarifying the law of consent and sexual assault, dealing with circumstances such as drunkenness. This resulted in a number of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada through the 1990s that is now the law of the land.

In this circumstance, we are now in a world where the statutory environment has reflected, both with this legislation and the Criminal Code amendments, a more progressive and thoughtful and nuanced view of human relations. At the same time, we see what I can only describe as significant backsliding in popular culture. Whether it’s the lyrics of pop songs or the depiction of, particularly, women in the public media and, of course, the noxious material on the Internet, this is, in fact, going in the opposite direction.

We find ourselves in an environment where, as the Ministry of Advanced Education, we recognize the need for this iterative change, as suggested by activists such as Kenya Rogers at the University of Victoria, and we have acknowledged the need for that change by bringing in this legislation.

Of course, our funding for these efforts flows almost entirely — the vast majority of our funding flows — to institutions. They then decide how to utilize that funding. As we know, at the University of British Columbia there has been a fairly major effort, involving significant legal and other consultative resources, to put together their draft sexual violence protocol. That, as I say, will be refined in June after the next draft, and we expect it to be more widely adjusted into best practices, which are applicable throughout the province.

We can only commend the activists for leading the way on these items. Ms. Rogers has been in my office and has been in the office of the member from Oak Bay, essentially to, first of all, thank us for the progress being made, but that came after she had made some fairly particular and clear points of the need for change.

That was accepted through the legislative processes that this House has as its central purpose, and now we have Ms. Rogers and others saying: “Thank you for proceeding in this fashion. It’s timely. It’s effective. And we look forward to the leadership that you’re showing in this space.”

In fact, we didn’t lead the process. Societal activists led the process. The merit of their work was acknowledged,
[ Page 13263 ]
and we now seek to promulgate it throughout society. That is, obviously, the role of the Legislature. It’s how legislative and social change happens. At the same time, we find ourselves unable or certainly limited in our ability, as any legislature, to regulate popular culture.

This kind of backsliding that we’ve seen in the standards of behaviour in public media is very disturbing, and we have a very limited ability to regulate that. That’s largely federal jurisdiction. Even they have trouble regulating it. What we’re left with are these progressive, thoughtful, effective, iterative manoeuvres to improve the policy framework.

But it is, at the end of the day, impossible to control the attitudes of humans. They will form their own opinions, and we, as a society writ large, are obliged, I think — certainly in my mind, having three young children — to encourage improving standards of behaviour and improving standards of recognition of the pernicious aspects of popular culture. Rather than endorsing or supporting or laughing at them and saying, “Oh, isn’t that cute or risqué or rogue or fun,” to instead criticize it and say: “This is not acceptable.” That’s where we have to engage civil society in this whole process.

Attitudes cannot be legislated; policies can, and that’s what we’re doing with this act.

K. Corrigan: That is exactly why — when you talk about the widespread attitudes and the culture and the issues that we face and the number of sexual assaults that there are not only on campuses but across society — we do need to have a comprehensive approach and why I’ve expressed concerns and the students have expressed concerns about this, hoping this is a first step as opposed to a quick response, perhaps, to a bill that was brought forward as a private member’s bill.

[1625]

I want to talk about some specifics. I guess we could get to section 1, the definitions, now. The minister spoke a few minutes ago about private institutions. I’m just wondering. I’d like to ask a couple more questions about that.

The Ontario legislation requires that there be sexual violence policies at private institutions, and the original private member’s bill required that there be sexual violence policies at private institutions. This bill defines post-secondary institutions to which the bill is applicable as institutions established under the College and Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act, the Thompson Rivers University Act and the University Act. I wonder if the minister could explain, perhaps, again why it is that private institutions were not included in this piece of legislation.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I alluded to this earlier, and the member correctly brings it up again. The statutory framework in Ontario for post-secondary institutions is very different from what it is in British Columbia. The private institutions here are subject to a new act, the Private Training Act, which the member opposite is well familiar with, and the regulations to that act are still in development.

The Ontario act saw fit to include private institutions in the definition section so as to pull them into the statute, whereas we have the ability under the Private Training Act to deal with the private institutions in a much crisper fashion through regulations to the Private Training Act.

This all goes to legislative counsel, and they, of course, in the most lawyer-like fashion, cannot tolerate redundancy in statutes. So their advice was that it should be dealt with for the private institutions through the Private Training Act and not in this act, because it would create redundancy between the two of them. Taking their advice, Bill 23 is limited to the public post-secondary institutions, leaving the private institutions to be dealt with through regulation under the Private Training Act.

It’s also, I think, notable that the colleges in this province differ from the colleges in Ontario in that ours are effectively instruments of government that are used to administer curriculum and to provide training and qualifications. Our universities, in contrast, are highly autonomous under our legislation, and so this particular act could not, I don’t think, be perceived as intruding upon their freedom under the University Act. Nonetheless, it has to dovetail with the existing University Act and the acts listed in section 1.

K. Corrigan: I’ve got a few questions about this. Is the minister saying that it was not possible for one of two things to happen — either that this act explicitly included private post-secondary institutions as one option or, two, that the Private Training Act, as an alternative, was amended explicitly, not by regulation but by amendment to the act, to require that there be sexual violence policies at those institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The point is one that requires a bit of elaboration. The Private Training Act does contain the authority to pass the regulations that the member alludes to, to bring the requirement for sexual violence and sexual misconduct policies into play in private institutions. Those regulations are still being developed in consultation with the private education sector.

Of course, one can anticipate that the private education sector may say, well, they’d prefer to have less imposed on them rather than more, but we retain the authority to impose the regulations upon them whether they like it or not. For much of this space, that is exactly what will be happening.

[1630]

The contrast, of course, is with the public post-secondaries, which are directly or indirectly an instrument of government. Since we send them large amounts of money each year, we have the ability to influence their re-
[ Page 13264 ]
sponsiveness. Having the act in place makes it very clear what the expectations are of our public post-secondary institutions so that they know what the expectations are, in black and white. There is nothing left to be vague. Therefore, they can move ahead in an expeditious fashion and deal with this issue urgently, rather than letting it wander into a policy wonderland where people talk at length without coming to any conclusions.

The overall framework, of course, is that this act will require our public post-secondary institutions to come up with appropriate policies to deal with these issues within a year. We expect them within months rather than within the year because of the levers I mentioned earlier to oblige them to perform.

Secondarily, the regulations under the Private Training Act are expected in the same time frame. So before the end of this year we should be in a very good place to have policies in place in both the private sector and in the public sector.

K. Corrigan: A few more questions on that.

The minister talked about having…. The public institutions are publicly funded to some degree. Around half of their funding now, in many cases, comes from taxpayers. But a lot of money goes into student loans, as well, which are publicly funded at private institutions. There certainly is public investment in private institutions.

I think there is an interest in having the same protections for students who are attending private colleges and other institutions, private career-training institutions. I think there’s a real interest in having that protection. So a couple of things on that.

Why does the minister talk about doing it through regulation when it comes to private institutions when it is worthy of being an act for public institutions? Why regulation? Why not put it right in the Private Training Act?

I guess, secondly, the minister talked about timing and the coverage of some. Is the minister contemplating that the private training institutions that are covered by the Private Training Act…? Then there’s a whole issue of some of the language schools that decide not to become designated. But is the minister saying that only some will be covered, or is the minister contemplating that all private training institutions will be required to have a sexual violence policy at some point?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To address the two questions. First of all, the latter question about whether all private institutions would be engaged in this space. We are sorting out the scope of this, given that we have hundreds of private training institutions. As I say, some of them are as small as flight schools of two or three students who are non-residential and who may be even middle-aged adults. Others, as we all know, are large residential institutions with thousands of students where, clearly, they need to have a sexual violence and misconduct policy in place.

Part of the policy development around the regulations anticipates that. In our public sphere, the public institutions, we will require all of them to have a best-practices-or-better approach in play within a year and, certainly, we hope before the end of this year.

In terms of the privates, it is not one size fits all because of the huge range of the nature of those institutions, all of which are required to be registered under the Private Training Act. We are in the process of sorting out what will be appropriate in that sphere at the current time.

To the member’s first question of why not just put this in the Private Training Act, that would require us to come back into the House to go through the entire legislative development process. Again, legislative counsel tell us: “You’ve already got the power to do this under the Private Training Act, so why don’t you just go ahead and do it with regulations.”

We think that is a faster, more effective approach and will bring this into effect this year rather than at some future point when we could get back to amend the Private Training Act to anticipate this.

[1635]

K. Corrigan: Did the minister consult with private universities and colleges? I’m going to throw one out there because I’m concerned.

I understand the concern about some very small training schools. When you have a piece of legislation that is applying to all the public post-secondary institutions and you have a large institution, for example, like Trinity Western University that is not going to, at this point, have a policy and has thousands of students, I’m wondering….

In that case, for example, did the minister consult with Trinity Western University, one of the largest of the privates? If so, what kind of feedback was there? Was there a concern? Does the minister expect that there will be a requirement for a sexual violence policy at Trinity Western University before the end of the year?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member raised a valid point. We cannot assume that the administrators of the larger residential private training institutions are watching us here on television or that they, in fact, have received a copy of the bill.

Nonetheless, part of our relationship with them is that the ministerial staff have notified them at the regulatory meetings we have with them that the degree-granting institutions should be fully aware of this and that we’ll be talking to them in the near future. This is going to move fairly quickly, and we anticipate regulations that will come into play. Clearly, if they are a large residential institution, they need to get ready.

We can anticipate that they are, perhaps, at this very moment, reviewing what they can find on the Internet from UBC and the other institutions across Canada who have put these policies together, knowing that they will
[ Page 13265 ]
be required to have them in their foreseeable future.

As the member has alluded to, this may not apply to the two-person flight school, but it most certainly does apply to a large residential institution.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the points that the minister has made and the assurance that there’ll be a requirement for sexual violence policies at, certainly, the larger private post-secondary institutions.

I am going to, nevertheless, move an amendment to amend this bill in section 1 by essentially adding a whole list of private institutions as part of the definition of “post-secondary institution.” I will read it into the record.

[1640]

I move to amend:

[SECTION 1 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

1 In this Act:

“post-secondary institution” means an institution established or continued under one of the following Acts:

(a) the College and Institute Act;

(b) the Royal Roads University Act;

(c) the Thompson Rivers University Act;

(d) the University Act;

(e) The Private Career Training Institutions Act;

(f) The Canadian Pentecostal Seminary Act;

(g) The Carey Hall Act;

(h) The College of Applied Biology Act;

(i) The Christ for the Nations Bible College Act;

(j) The Columbia Bible College Act;

(k) The Life Bible College Act;

(l) The Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act;

(m) The Northwest Baptist Theological College Act;

(n) The Okanagan Bible College Act;

(o) The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act;

(p) The Pacific Life Bible College Act;

(q) The Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act;

(r) The Prince George College Act;

(s) The Regent College Act;

(t) The Sea to Sky University Act;

(u) The St. Andrew’s Hall Act;

(v) The Seminary of Christ the King Act;

(w) The St. Mark’s College Act;

(x) The Summit Pacific College Act;

(y) The Trinity Western University Act;

(z) The Vancouver Bible Institute Enabling Act;

(a.1) The Vancouver School of Theology Act;

(a.2) The World Trade University Canada Establishment Act;]

On the amendment.

K. Corrigan: It’s essentially adding the requirement that there be a sexual violence policy for private career training and universities, as listed.

I’m moving this amendment because although I do understand that there is a desire by government to include private universities and so on, it doesn’t appear that that coverage is…. It’s not going to be in legislation; it’s going to be in regulation at some point in the future. It won’t necessarily apply to all of them on the list. I think it’s important to include all of them so that this legislation applies to both public and private post-secondary institutions.

A. Weaver: The amendment before us, essentially, is adding in the definition of “university.” That was in the original private member’s bill that I brought forward, which did include all of these private institutions.

Now, I obviously at the time supported that and tried to include this in a broad manner across all post-secondary institutions. I brought this forward in this manner earlier on and had discussions with the minister and ministerial staff with respect to the inclusion of private institutions.

I take it from these discussions and the further explorations that we’ve had today that, in fact, there is every intent that the minister and government will actually move this forward to these private institutions but that, at this juncture, they wanted to do it through a regulatory environment as opposed to through the legislation.

Now, it is critical, in my view, that such legislation be extended to private institutions. I was willing, in discussions with the minister prior to the introduction of Bill 23, to take at face value the language that we discussed with respect to regulations and accepted them and so will not support this amendment in light of the conversations that have happened today and the discussion that earlier happened when it was taken out in the first instance.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Briefly, in response, I think we have the glitch with this approach epitomized today, where this House, less than an hour ago, passed the legislation for a new Bible college, Millar Bible College — which would not appear on this list until the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act appeared downstream, which then would include the Miller Bible College into the amended list proposed by the member opposite.

The counterpoint is that it’s much more effective and timely to just do it in regulation through the Private Training Act.

Amendment negatived on division.

K. Corrigan: It was a very vehement aye that I heard from the other side, as well, the first time. Member by member, we make progress.

On this section, again, I just want to get clarification from the minister. The intention of the minister is to, by the end of the year, ensure there are regulations that will apply to private post-secondary institutions requiring them to have similar sexual violence policies, as in this legislation. Is that correct?

[1645]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I can only say that the act provides for a one-year window for our public institutions to
[ Page 13266 ]
put these policies in place. We hope and expect that they will have them done well before then. That will, of course, in the process, disclose best practices, which would then be available to all of the private institutions for their perusal and for their adjustment and amendment to match their circumstances.

So we would be fairly direct with the private institutions that it’s high time that they just got on with this and amended the best practices to suit their circumstances. I am very optimistic that that can be done by the end of the year. Nonetheless, the obligation would appear to be similar for the publics and the privates to do it within one year. But with the regulatory levers we have, I would expect it to be significantly sooner than that.

K. Corrigan: I’m sorry if I am not quite getting this. I know this takes some time to have a framework and so on. But we do have legislation that is going to require public institutions to have a sexual violence policy. I’m not talking about when it is implemented or when it’s completed for the privates. But is the minister assuring this House that before the end of the year there will be regulations requiring private institutions to have a sexual violence policy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Barring unforeseen circumstances or some kind of legal challenge or who knows what, the goal is to have this done by the end of the year with the private institutions. The Private Training Act regulations have been in development for close to a year now. We expect them to be in place this fall. The goal would be to simply fold the sexual violence misconduct policy requirement into the existing batch of regulations.

One learns in this business, of course, that things get complicated before they get simple. My priority would be to have these done by the end of the year. I cannot guarantee that, because of the eventualities I have just mentioned, but that’s certainly the goal.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister can tell me…. The minister was talking earlier, I think, about some institutions not being aware of this act and so on. Has the minister had discussions with any private post-secondary institutions about the fact that there will be regulations? And when the minister mentions “barring the possibility of lawsuits….” Has the minister received any kind of negative feedback, or have there been any discussions with private institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is alluding to the circumstances that actually do prevail — that the ministry staff are in regular contact with our private institutions, and the flag has been put up. They have been notified of this. That may not have sunk in with the tiny flight-training school that this is going to be real until they see the act in place. So notification is out there.

In terms of the movement of the institutions, some of them are already making efforts in this direction, in anticipation of the regulations coming into place. Others will wait and see what the best practices framework looks like this summer before they make steps in that direction.

The essence of this is that they, as a community of 200 or 300 private training institutions, are aware of this situation, but whether every one of them is taking steps or it has fully sunk into their consciousness, I cannot say at this point. But ministry staff are in contact with them on this point.

K. Corrigan: Has the minister or staff received any negative feedback from any institutions suggesting that they’re not comfortable or would oppose the requirement that there be a sexual violence policy at their institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: No.

[1650]

K. Corrigan: That’s good to know.

I want to go on to the second definition under section 1. The definition says: “‘Sexual misconduct’ includes the following….” In other words, it defines the acts that will need to be covered under this policy:

“‘Sexual misconduct’ includes the following: (a) sexual assault; (b) sexual exploitation; (c) sexual harassment; (d) stalking; (e) indecent exposure; (f) voyeurism; (g) 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 and with the intent to distress the person in the photograph or video” — and, then, attempts and threats with regard to those earlier elements of the definition.

I’m wondering why the minister chose to frame this as sexual misconduct. The Ontario act frames this as sexual violence. The bill is called Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, and yet the title, I believe — I could be wrong — is the only place in the act that talks about sexual violence.

I’ve heard from a number of different organizations that they believe that use of the word “sexual misconduct,” in some ways does not represent what those various elements are. To call it misconduct, in some way degrades it a bit or lowers the meaning a little bit.

I’m wondering why the title describes sexual violence and misconduct, whereas in the definition throughout and the description, these acts, including sexual assault, are called misconduct.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This will be a fairly extended answer. The described acts here are largely summaries of what are found in the Criminal Code of Canada. Of course, the Criminal Code, being federal legislation and out of the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia…. That is a matter for federal legislation to deal with, the criminal aspects of this, and the exact description of the acts, which become the focus of the
[ Page 13267 ]
criminal offence. It is far beyond our jurisdiction to start describing offences.

We describe here activities or categories of activities which are proscribed by society — first of all, by the Criminal Code of Canada but also by the prospect of civil litigation. These are activities which are the subject of censure and of potential illegal activity, either civil or criminal.

That is not what this act is about. It is not designed to create offences. It is not designed to create new causes of action. It’s designed to encompass a level of activity or a variety of activities which we, as a society, disdain and proscribe and try to suppress and, in fact, apply criminal sanctions to. What the universities and colleges have to do is come up with the policy to deal with these alleged acts and the consequences of them to the victim.

The act as a whole does not define the victims. It leaves that open-ended, because it could be anyone associated with the university or college campus or even off campus. It does provide a description of students, but it does not restrict the individuals to the student body.

Secondly, as I said, it does not create offences or causes of action. What it does is list a series of activities which the universities and colleges need to be prepared to deal with when it comes up on their horizon in the non-criminal, non-medical environment so that they can call upon those resources, through the police and the medical care system, and then deal with the sequelae of those activities as they affect the student or the victim, whether they be a student or not.

[1655]

The misconduct title is designed to capture these activities, essentially, from the lowest level upward. If we look at subsections (h) and (i), they talk about “the attempt to commit an act of sexual misconduct” or “the threat to commit an act of sexual misconduct.” This could be something as simple as a muttered utterance in an elevator, which doesn’t fit any characterization of violence per se. The premise here is to capture a wide scope of activity in this definition.

If it had been characterized as sexual violence, then, to the casual reader, this would have been limited to actual physical contact with the individual. The member opposite knows well the definition of assault being “touching without consent.”

This goes far beyond touching to engage threats, to engage voyeurism, to engage stalking — none of which involve contact. They do not fall under the category of assault, which is dealt with in these definitions under (a). The characterization of the title of sexual misconduct is designed to capture a wide scope of activities which are proscribed by our society and which the universities and colleges have to be prepared to deal with.

Now, the member from Oak Bay, in our consultations about this issue, pointed out that from his perspective, having had a doctorate in mathematics, this could be “X” or “beta” or “apple juice.” It’s simply a definition which captures all the things listed underneath it. It’s in the nature of a variable rather than in the nature of an exact descriptor. Because it’s not an exact descriptor, it has to be very broad and all-encompassing in nature, and that was the intent here. It met with the approval of our legislative drafting council, and that is why it is the way it is.

K. Corrigan: I agree that it’s just a term, but if it’s just a term and it doesn’t mean anything, you could just say “sexual play” or “sexual happiness” or whatever you want to call it. You could make it something very positive, as opposed to something negative like “sexual violence.” There’s all number of sexual behaviour. I mean, you could call it anything that you wanted, but the reality is, I think, the term does matter, because it what it connotes and the approach and the language that the government is choosing to use.

In Ontario, all of that spectrum, that variety of behaviours that are listed, the elements that are covered, are in the Ontario act. Yet the Ontario act says this: “‘Sexual violence’ means any sexual act or act targeting a person’s sexuality, gender identity or gender expression, whether the act is physical or psychological in nature, that is committed, threatened or attempted against a person without the person’s consent, and includes sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, voyeurism and sexual exploitation.”

Although it’s framed a little bit differently, it is virtually an identical list. Yet Ontario has chosen — I believe, rightly, correctly — to characterize these acts, which will be subject to the policy that needs to be established, as sexual violence. I think that that’s the correct term. I don’t know if the minister wants to say any more about that.

Certainly, I have another concern that I want to express within that definition. One of the elements of sexual misconduct is the one that I read last. It talks about “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” — so, essentially, sending or distributing explicit photographs or videos — “without the consent of the person in the photograph or video…”

Here’s the part that concerns me:”…and with the intent to distress the person in the photograph or video.” In other words, to be characterized as sexual misconduct and, therefore, inappropriate under the new policy, there has to be an intent to distress a person.

[1700]

The very fact that somebody has distributed a sexually explicit photograph or video without their consent is not enough to qualify as sexual misconduct. I’m wondering why those words, which require an “intent to distress” that person, are included in the definition?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is an interesting point the member raises. The key, I think, here, is to note that at
[ Page 13268 ]
the top of that definition, it states “‘sexual misconduct’ includes.” This is not an exclusive list. It is capable of expansion. We leave that to the institutions to determine, in the first instance, whether or not there will be an expanded list.

That is the first parameter of this, which I think addresses the question. Only the most dramatic and societally prohibited acts are listed here. There may be others. Of course, as our society evolves new ways of contacting people, whether it be through social media or otherwise, this will evolve. This is a 2016 definition which may be obsolete by 2030. We don’t know, and we’ll find out.

The second aspect of this is that subsection (g), which the member read out, does state that it requires “the intent to distress the person in the photograph,” and this was, again, developed with the advice of legislative counsel. One can readily imagine the silly residence party where a male takes a picture of another male exposing his buttocks and sends that around to the people on the floor of the residence. That would, subject to the member’s change, entrain them into the process of being accused of sexual misconduct and being subject to an entire university process which could lead to their expulsion. And, of course, this would travel with them for the rest of their lives. The accusation would be very difficult to remove from the Internet.

The intent provision is designed to preclude that kind of innocent mischief, which may be silly and may be adolescent and may be inappropriate; but a good number of people in this House have actually done these kinds of things in the past, and we consider ourselves to be upright citizens. I note the hon. Chair, of course, has never done anything like this.

The possibility of causing lasting harm to a truly innocent individual is contemplated in this section. I think the concern the member has about this is that it does provide…. The definition — that it includes the following but is not an exclusive list — anticipates the concern the member had.

I must also note that this does not mirror the language in the Criminal Code, which is much more specific around issues of recklessness and other matters that deal with the nature of a criminal offence. This is not designed to define a criminal offence or even a civil offence subject to litigation. This is designed to capture those activities which should be truly prohibited, banned and proscribed on our campuses and to anticipate that others may be defined by the institutions themselves in this expansive definition.

On that point, I’m going to ask that we take a five-minute break.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:03 p.m. to 5:11 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The Chair: Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: Still the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. Thank you, hon. Chair — from my neighbouring community.

I wanted to go back to the discussion that we were having just before we broke. It concerns me that the minister describes as somewhat innocent an act of somebody distributing, via the Internet or some other way, a sexually explicit photograph that has been taken without the consent of the person in the photograph, whether or not they intend to distress them.

I’m wondering if the minister would reconsider those words. I’m just not sure whether that is an innocent act. It concerns me, so I’m wondering if the minister has any more to say about that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the underlying point is that there is a range of behaviour that is anticipated in the description. The requirement, for the purposes of this subsection, that the distribution be with intent to distress captures a very serious matter, a very serious offence, that is contemplated in the Criminal Code in section 162.1.

Of course, this is not designed to mirror or create offences in the Criminal Code. At the same time, this subsection (g) describes a fairly dire offence which has plagued our society in recent years, which is commonly known as revenge porn.

This is something that must be proscribed. It must be dealt with. It will often arise, I suspect, on university campuses because of the nature of the student body at our campuses. This is designed to recognize the gravity of that situation, to explicitly state that that offence must be dealt with by our universities and colleges.

As I said earlier, the inclusive definition provided for in the first few words of this definition does permit and allow for broader concerns to be brought into the policies. It’s just that this one is designed to highlight that particularly grievous and offensive act of revenge porn, which must be dealt with in our society.

[1715]

K. Corrigan: Well, that’s not quite what the minister said earlier.

I want to talk about section 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code. It seems to me that the bar for establishing sexual misconduct in this bill is actually higher than the bar, the test, for establishing criminal conduct. Section 162.1(1) says: “Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty (a) of an indict-
[ Page 13269 ]
able offence…,” punishable for up to five years, “or (b) of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”

The criminal section doesn’t require that there be an intent to distress. So it’s harder to have something defined as sexual misconduct for the purposes of the policy than it is to establish a criminal offence. The recklessness does not go to the issue of whether or not there is an intent to distress. There does not need to be an intent to distress under the Criminal Code.

Why would the bar be higher for establishing a sexual violence policy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member raises an important point. Of course, the Criminal Code of Canada is built around the two elements of criminal law, the actus reus — that is the activity that is the subject of the criminal offence which is being prosecuted — and the mens rea aspect, which requires intent, “the guilty mind” being the literal translation.

That is subject to numerous qualifiers and a lengthy history of hundreds of years of criminal prosecutions and developments in the Criminal Code. We are not able to deal with criminal offences under the Criminal Code and under section 91(15) of the Constitution Act of Canada because that is exclusively federal jurisdiction.

This particular definition is not designed to capture a criminal offence as described in the Criminal Code of Canada. That is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. This, instead, is designed to make clear that an individual associated with the university or college who is engaged in the activity commonly known as revenge porn will be subject to the policy and that the institutions must develop a policy around that.

If the individual is prosecuted federally for the Criminal Code offence, that is an entirely separate phenomenon. If an individual subject to this heinous act were to report it to the police, that’s the channel it would go down. Crown counsel would be involved. Evidence would be collected. The prosecution would probably occur under section 162.1 of the Criminal Code, with which the university or college would have nothing to do. They may be asked for evidence off their servers or some other form of passive involvement. The active involvement would be from Crown counsel and the police.

This section would then come into play in that the perpetrator would be subject to the university policy, which must address both the perpetrator and the victim. The perpetrator may be dealt with through academic disciplinary measures, leading up to things as dramatic as expulsion. Of course, that is a taint the individual would carry for the rest of their life, even if they were acquitted of the criminal offence.

Similarly, the victim has to be addressed in terms of what the university or college would do to remove this material from its servers and to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the health and safety of the individual. Those, as I say, may be of an administrative nature, and they may involve separation of the alleged perpetrator and the victim for a lengthy period of time, possibly up to and including their entire tenure at the university or college.

This is the baseline set of acts that the college or university policy must address. It is not the exclusive or comprehensive list because this is designed to be a list capable of expansion. It is designed to demonstrate the ones which must be included in the policy and not the complete list, which could be included in the policy.

K. Corrigan: A few things on that. First of all, the Criminal Code offence. When we’re talking about what the mens rea is, what the guilty mind is, the intention, that only goes to whether or not they intended to distribute, transmit or whatever without consent.

[1720]

In the criminal offence, it doesn’t require an intent to distress the person. So nothing that the minister has said convinces me that the bar has not been set higher under this act, as opposed to having somebody being guilty of the criminal act. I don’t understand that.

The other thing that the minister has said is that is that this is not an exhaustive list. It is an exhaustive list. It is what is defined under this act as being misconduct. It is — in my case, I think it should be violence — what’s defined as being misconduct. It’s very specific. It’s a very specific and exhaustive list. It says these are the things that constitute sexual misconduct.

The rest of the act all deals with how you deal with sexual misconduct as dealt with in section 1. This is not something where you can say you can just add onto it later. You can’t even add onto it — it doesn’t look like it to me — through any kind of regulation, because it’s set out in the definitions in the act.

If the minister could explain why, in any way, the things that constitute sexual misconduct that are therefore going to get dealt with by the sexual violence and misconduct policies that universities and other post-secondary institutions need to put in place…. If the minister could explain how it would include anything else other than what is on that list, I’d like that to be explained to me.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not to belabour the point, but the definition says “‘sexual misconduct’ includes the following.” To use a metaphor, that could say, “aircraft includes the following: jets and helicopters,” but it also could provide that aircraft, in commonsensical use, would include turboprops and piston-engine aircraft.

This is designed to oblige the institutions that are captured by it, all of our colleges and universities and institutes that are publicly funded, to develop policies that include those listed acts. It does not in any way limit them to those acts. As I said earlier, as our society evolves
[ Page 13270 ]
and people find different ways to do awful things to each other, I expect this list will shift and change.

This construction contemplates that. Universities and colleges can include further activities such as, perhaps, hazing, which isn’t listed here and which could be of a sexual nature. We have not contemplated every conceivable act that could be inappropriate. We have not parsed through the Criminal Code to find matching activities to what are the actus reus offences in the code.

This is not in any way intended to be an actual, comprehensive list. If the list said, as the member perhaps misstated, that sexual conduct “constitutes the following” or “is limited to the following” or “is defined by the following,” that would limit the list. This list is not limited. It simply states that sexual misconduct includes the following things, and, of course, perhaps there could be others. That is up to the institutions to come to their own conclusions.

K. Corrigan: I wasn’t saying — or certainly didn’t intend to say, didn’t mean — that institutions would be limited in their discretion as to what they covered in their sexual misconduct policy. What I was saying is that the things that are required to be dealt with in the sexual misconduct policy are very clear under the act. It is an exhaustive list under the act. These are the things that you have to have a misconduct policy for.

Whether an individual institution decides they want to widen that, I agree that it’s possible for them to do that. But all they are required to have a policy for is for those things that are listed in the act.

[1725]

Given that, I move an amendment under section 1 by deleting the word “misconduct” and replacing it with “violence,” as I have given to the Clerk.

[SECTION 1 by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

“sexual misconduct violence” includes the following:

(a) sexual assault;

(b) sexual exploitation;

(c) sexual harassment;

(d) stalking;

(e) indecent exposure;

(f) voyeurism;

(g) 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 and with the intent to distress the person in the photograph or video;]

On the amendment.

K. Corrigan: Changing the term “sexual misconduct” to “sexual violence” and including the things that are in the present act but taking out under section (g) the words “and with the intent to distress the person in the photograph or video.”

There is enough there that if the minister wants to…. I don’t think I need to explain any further the reasons that I want to have those two changes.

A. Weaver: I want to support the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake with respect to the second aspect of that amendment, removing the words. This, obviously, was something that didn’t cross my mind as we worked earlier with the ministry.

With respect to the sexual misconduct, sexual violence, I obviously have sympathies for that amendment as well, because that was the original language in the original private member’s bill. Together, collectively, I will support — I think it’s important to put this as a matter of record — the member’s amendments.

Amendment negatived on division.

K. Corrigan: I just want to ask a question, just a wording question. Noting the time, I guess I better move forward and this act can get past section 1.

The way this is worded, as opposed to the Ontario act…. What it says, essentially, is that because you have the “attempt” as part of the acts that are included — describing sexual misconduct as including “the attempt to commit an act of sexual misconduct” and “the threat to commit an act of sexual misconduct” — it defines those attempts and those threats as sexual misconduct in and of themselves, which I don’t have a problem with.

But really, what you end up with, then, is that you could potentially have the attempt to threaten that would qualify or the threat to attempt could qualify as an act of sexual misconduct. I’m not disagreeing that that maybe should be included. But I’m sure the minister and staff understand what I’m saying. So the threat to attempt to send a photograph intended to distress a person could end up being an act of sexual misconduct. Is that what was intended?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, the member raises a valid point in that this “attempt” language is designed to capture the intention to engage in the activities which are described in (a) through (g). That is our goal — to capture that. One can imagine on university campuses, with large numbers of young people who sometimes have a bit too much to drink, that these things can come to light which are equally subject to disapprobation or disapproval or subject to penalties.

We want to capture that here by not trivializing the elevator conversation and actually acknowledge that it is a problem. That’s what these last two subsections (h) and (i) accomplish.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask quickly about, as well, the fact that there’s no explicit mention — this was raised to me by a few individuals — of domestic violence. There’s the feeling that where somebody has been dating somebody else on a campus, there is a concern that this will not be covered.

[1730]

My reading of it is that any sexual assault or exploitation and so on, whether it’s a partner or not, would be covered. Because of this concern that some have had, has there been any thought that there should be some kind of explicit explanation that this would apply even in the case of people who are dating or in a domestic situation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, the member raises a valid point. That consideration and others went into the decision to describe the acts which are subject to the policy, not the individuals or the location and, in fact, not the time frame.

The scenario that I believe the member is contemplating, where perhaps two students who are in a domestic relationship, living in the same household, are involved in these kinds of acts, sadly and unfortunately, they would still be captured by the policy at the institution, because the policy is not limited by location, time or person.

K. Corrigan: Just a final question on this section. “Student” is defined as: in relation to a post-secondary institution, a person who is enrolled at that post-secondary institution. That would include full-time students, part-time students, anybody who is enrolled in any course at a post-secondary institution. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Correct.

A. Weaver: I just have one question to add to the thorough line of questioning from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. It’s with respect to the interpretation of sexual misconduct. I believe my understanding of this is correct, but I’m hoping the minister would be able to put this on record.

When it discusses “sexual misconduct,” in the definition, and it says that it includes the following, may I assume that the definition under the policies would include both physical and psychological impacts? That is, we often talk about physical impacts, but there are, of course, long-term psychological impacts as well. I’m assuming that this definition is meant to capture both of these aspects.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, the member raises a valid point. The lawyers in the room will appreciate that this is designed to capture the acts in question, not the consequences or sequelae or damages arising from them. That is an open-ended field in terms of the consequences, which could, as the member points out, be psychological and often are psychological or social only and do not involve physical aspects.

Nonetheless, those are compensable in civil law. They are also certainly addressed here in that the sanctioned activities are the acts described under sexual misconduct and others that the universities and colleges decide to address.

The consequences are not really relevant here, because they could be anywhere from minimal to catastrophic. We do not describe the degree of consequence which would trigger the sanctions under this legislation because we do not, in any way, want to trivialize the consequences. In fact, it is the act that is to be sanctioned and the subject of policy. It is not to be triggered by the gravity of the consequences.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

K. Corrigan: Section 2 establishes that post-secondary institutions “must establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy that (a) addresses sexual misconduct, including sexual misconduct prevention and responses to sexual misconduct,” and then talks about some procedures.

One of my questions…. I have a number of questions on this section. It sets out procedures for the following: “making a complaint of sexual misconduct involving a student.” I’m assuming that that means that whether the student is…. The triggering thing for this is that the student either is a victim or a perpetrator. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Yes.

K. Corrigan: That was pretty straightforward.

[1735]

A student needs to be involved. I’m wondering what the thinking was by the minister about not including other members of campus communities, such as support staff, faculty and so on. So a little bit on that, please.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member again raises a valid point. Subsection 2(1)(c) provides that “any other matter prescribed by regulation” could be entrained in this requirement for a policy.

Now, the premise here was to act promptly to protect the interests of students, who are the ones who are most vulnerable in these situations, and of course, to capture, as the member has pointed out, students as both perpetrators and victims. The prospect of involving academic staff or non-academic staff — that is, support staff — at these institutions is certainly contemplated here. We expect the policies of the universities will address that. But that does entrain the whole process of the labour relations and the collective agreements that manage those relationships between the universities and colleges and their academic and non-academic staff.

Rather than embark upon a potentially very convoluted and very complicated relationship between this act and the labour law surrounding universities and colleges, the premise was to start with the most vulnerable potential victims — that is, students — and to make sure that
[ Page 13272 ]
the policies most certainly address that and then to engage in a conversation with the universities about their relationships with their faculty and staff and how they might be involved in this policy.

Clearly, the primary audience to be protected is students, and it may well be that that expands over time. The universities and the colleges have actually started to contemplate that. There was recent coverage — which the member, I’m sure, saw — about UBC contemplating following Harvard and a couple of other institutions which have, essentially, barred all contact between students and faculty in any kind of romantic relationship. This, of course, is fraught with complexity, because they could both be 28 years old and have known each other since they were children, but their academic status could entrain them into a whole process that could be very nasty for both of them unexpectedly.

Rather than embark on that path, we wanted to promptly address the vulnerable audience for this legislation, which is the student population. The rest, we anticipate, will be dealt with in due time.

K. Corrigan: Does this act apply to acts of sexual misconduct that take place off-campus, as well as on the campuses?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is, again, a very valid point. The act is conspicuously silent on location. That is because some of the recent events that have occurred have been serious allegations of misconduct off-campus, which normally would lead to police complaints in the jurisdiction off-campus.

In the most notable one recently, the venue for the misconduct was in the city of Vancouver, which would entrain the Vancouver police department, not the RCMP on the university campus. Nonetheless, it fell to the university to go through the academic disciplinary process that was centred around sexual misconduct which had happened off-campus.

So this act is intentionally silent as to location because we, at this stage, think it should not be material to the policies that are developed. They have to contemplate it happening anywhere, whether it’s a field trip to Costa Rica or on a university campus.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, then, what this means. The minister’s answer seems to indicate that where there is sexual misconduct at a conference or athletic event or something off-campus, it would be included. But because it’s not in the act, the minister is not saying, then, that this is being left to individual institutions to determine locations. What the minister is saying…. The fact that it does not talk about location means that in any location where there is a sexual misconduct, this act would apply. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think I can anticipate the member’s concern in that if a university or college came up with a policy that restricted it to the four walls of the campus and said that was good enough, what would happen then? Well, they would then be passing it on to their board of governors, as required in section 6. The member opposite can be assured that we would be most concerned about that policy, because it would fail to address the realities of student life.

[1740]

These things happen in the power relationships between individuals with academic affiliations in all kinds of locations. As I mentioned, the field trip to Costa Rica is perhaps the most hazardous location for this kind of thing. When those individuals return to Canada and return to the campus, we want to make sure that the appropriate, academic-based disciplinary policies are applied, regardless of the location of the alleged act.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that, but when the minister talks about how the policy would then be submitted to the board of governors and that would not be good and the ministry would frown upon that, that doesn’t exactly answer the question. Does this act preclude institutions creating a policy that does not apply off campus?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: If that eventuality arose, it certainly would be capable of being addressed under section 7, in terms of regulations. We would anticipate that our relationship, both financial and on a collegial basis, with our 25 institutions is strong enough that that would not arise. If it did, we would intend to deal with it in regulation fairly promptly.

K. Corrigan: Because we don’t have too much more time to deal with this act, I’m not going to suggest that we have an amendment on this, but I’ve got to get it on the record that it concerns me.

What the minister is saying is that (1) he would frown upon that, (2) that he doesn’t think that a board of governors would pass a policy that only applied to the campus, and (3) that it could be cured by further regulations. So what the minister essentially is saying is that the act, as it stands, does not necessarily preclude a policy that would apply only within the four walls, as he put it. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current operating environment is that universities and colleges do have the capacity to deal with academic misconduct, which is a broad category including the kinds of acts that are dealt with here, off campus as well as on campus.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
[ Page 13273 ]
]

The goal here is to make it crystal-clear and absolutely explicit that these kinds of acts, and potentially others, must be dealt with in policy at the university or college so that there is no ambiguity about interpretation of a 20- or 30- or 100-year-old policy which could be seen to have loopholes for a particular perpetrator.

On the contrary, this is designed to engage those 25 institutions in coming up with very clear policies at the best-practice standard which contemplate the kinds of things that occur in today’s environment, which would have been unknown 20 or 30 or 50 years ago. The fact that it does not state in the act — and of course, there are no regulations at this point — that this is not geographically limited is, in fact, contemplated with the existing policies, which are not geographically limited. We would expect this policy to also not be geographically limited.

The contrary situation — if it were geographically limited — would lead to an absurd situation where a perpetrator could get away with something across the street from the campus but not back on the campus or, for that matter, walking onto the sidewalk to touch someone rather than doing it on the driveway to the university. That, of course, would be intolerable.

K. Corrigan: I absolutely agree with the minister that that would be intolerable. But what I seem to be hearing is that under this act, as it’s now worded…. Without explicitly including a section that says that it applies on or off campus, by doing that, it seems to me that under this act it is possible. It probably won’t happen, but it is possible that an institution would limit the application and therefore, possibly, its liability to the campus itself.

[1745]

That does concern me. As I said, with the time that we have — we’re in our second-to-last day, and we don’t have much more time on this bill — I’m not going to propose an amendment, but I think it’s important for the future, even, because there may be litigation on exactly this point. It very much concerns me, because I think it should have explicitly included a provision that says that this would apply to off-campus activities as well.

One of the other concerns that I have…. One of the things that was brought up, I think, by the University of Victoria, is that we need to have a holistic approach centring on survivors and so on. I don’t see anything in this section, or in the other sections that deal with surveys and so on, about a comprehensive approach that deals with what the supports are going to be and what the requirements are and so on.

I’m wondering what is expected by the minister, in terms of regulation and in terms of filling out the requirements in terms of having a policy.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This legislation arises out of the rather broad social movement that we have witnessed to make sure that the universities and colleges have a victim-focused policy approach that is responsive to their needs, that protects their health and safety and addresses the ongoing concerns that arise from the acts enumerated here.

Section 2(1)(a) requires that the institutions establish a policy to address “sexual misconduct, including sexual misconduct prevention,” which is, of course, desirable “and responses to sexual misconduct” — obviously, by the institution. That encompasses the concern that is first and foremost here — that the victim’s interest be protected and that they be dealt with in a sensitive and responsive fashion.

Then subsection (b), of course, enumerates the more specific items, (i) and (ii) of the documentation of these concerns, and (iii) “responding to a complaint of sexual misconduct involving a student.” That is the core of this act. That is the functional section of the act, section 2(1), which drives the policy-making process at each of the institutions so that they can meet the requirements of the statute.

K. Corrigan: The minister has referred to this as the heart of the act, and I agree in some way.

I have some questions about data collection. I could ask them in section 2, or I could ask them in section 5, but this might be the right time. Later in the act, there is a requirement that there be surveys for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of the sexual misconduct policy. But there is nothing in the act, including in the heart of the act in section 2, that requires that there be data collection of the number of incidents, the types of incidents, location and so on and so forth.

There is nothing in the act that requires data collection, and that is a real concern for me as well as many people who have contacted me. I’m wondering why there is no requirement for data collection as opposed to having a survey, which asks questions of people about what they think as opposed to a requirement that there be hard data about the number of incidents and so on.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member raises a valid point. Both the University Act and the College and Institute Act provide that that kind of data must be disclosed to the ministry, essentially, on request.

The issue that is more a societal one is what we are all concerned about — the broadly held perception that reporting of these incidents is very low. This whole process is designed to provide an environment for the victims where they feel confident and comfortable in reporting these incidents so that there can be proper data collection at the universities and colleges and so the ministry can be aware of these events.

[1750]

Whether that will lead to some kind of publication of the level of reporting of incidents at various institutions is not clear at this point. Of course, one doesn’t want to
[ Page 13274 ]
contemplate a high level of reporting at one institution, as opposed to a very low level of reporting in another, and have the first institution be considered to be one where these episodes are rampant, whereas, in fact, the instance is the same at the two institutions.

We are starting down a policy pathway now where our first task is to support the students so that they are prepared to come forward, and then that may well expand to other parts of the university community, faculty and staff. Once we have some clarification of the level of this activity in a supportive and safe environment, we will then be able to contemplate exactly how to move ahead in terms of prevention. Until we have an appropriate level of data, it’s very difficult to know where to put the emphasis. Is it walking in the dark? Is it drunken parties in residence? Is it field trips? We simply don’t know.

K. Corrigan: I’m a little bit confused. The minister has just said that when we have an appropriate level of data…. But the act doesn’t require that there be any data collected at all. And I really don’t understand why it would be that the very act of collecting data…. It doesn’t reveal the identity of the individuals involved. But simply collecting the data so that we have some baseline information as to the magnitude of the problem and what then can be done about that problem…. I do not understand why this legislation would not explicitly require that data be gathered so that we have some idea.

I mean, a survey, which is a good thing…. A survey that asks people questions about their information about what they think about something is very different than collecting the data.

One of the concerns that I have, and this is raised by several individuals, is the possibility of or the suggestion that, in the past, institutions that have tried to cover up incidents for a variety of reasons, cover up incidents of sexual misconduct or sexual violence because there is an incentive for post-secondary institutions to not report or collect data because there’s the issue of liability, and then there’s also the reputation. And I think this is particularly concerning as we have more and more international students.

My concern is whether or not data is not being gathered…. If data was going to be gathered, then that data could point out that an institution has had a number of incidents. I understand about the issue of one being more compliant than another and perhaps reporting better or there being better processes that bring students forward — a more complete policy and supports — that then make it look like there are more incidents at that campus or that institution.

But to me, that is not reason to say: “Well, we’re just going to ignore collecting the information and not require institutions to include that.” I’m just wondering if the minister has any more to say about that. I think that when you talk about the heart of it, I think the heart of it is keeping track and then improving as a result of keeping track of the types of incidents. The police wouldn’t do that.

I’m just wondering why, particularly when the minister has acknowledged that some victims, men or women, do not end up going to the police, would it not be — recognizing that — absolutely critical that data be gathered about the number and types of incidents at our institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There’s a twofold answer to this. First of all, the authority to require disclosure of data from our institutions does exist under the University Act and the College and Institute Act, and so to avoid redundancy, this statute does not address that directly.

[1755]

However, one must recognize that if that comprehensive query went out, it would be understood that the reports back would be incomplete because of the reticence of students to report these kinds of incidents because of the real and/or perceived treatment they have received in the past.

This act is designed to create a policy framework in which students and others will be much more comfortable bringing to the light of the institution the fact that these events have occurred, whether or not they are reported to the police or to medical authorities. That will increase the available information.

Then the surveys — the member points out in section 5 — will also take it from the student’s perspective of: are they feeling the effect of this policy? Are they seeing results? Do they feel encouraged to report these kinds of episodes? Do they think that the prevention activities undertaken by the universities and colleges have been effective? Are things improving?

This is a twofold approach to that. The first is to encourage safe and secure reporting. The second is to get feedback on perceptions as well as episodes of these unfortunate events.

K. Corrigan: Frankly, I don’t buy the minister’s explanation on this. I think that this is because the minister doesn’t want to have the data. Frankly, I don’t believe the explanation that the minister has given — that this is simply to make it more comfortable for individuals.

I think that it is because it could be uncomfortable for the minister and for the government to have data collected that might reflect badly on an institution. Perhaps there’s been feedback, and maybe that’s the question that I’ll ask the minister.

Has the minister consulted with institutions on this particular issue, whether there should be data collection? If so, what kind of feedback did the minister get from institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Though this has been a very congenial exchange and a very constructive one to this point,
[ Page 13275 ]
, I have to reject the member’s premise out of hand. The rather pernicious concept that we would seek to suppress information about our institutions at the expense of our students is totally unacceptable, and I reject it out of hand.

Our goal with this legislation is to oblige institutions to provide a supportive environment where students are comfortable bringing forth the circumstances they have been victims of so that they can be dealt with in a sensitive and thoughtful way and be supported through their academic journey.

That will, of course, result in a higher level of reporting of these kinds of incidents, and we welcome that. That is an improvement in the functioning of our society. That is a more protective environment for our students so that they can thrive and prosper and proceed with a happy life, having avoided these kinds of nasty events during their training.

The fact that the member opposite is suggesting that there might be some ulterior motive to try to avoid data collection, I reject absolutely and out of hand. I invite her to withdraw that inference.

K. Corrigan: If the Chair directs me to withdraw the fact that I consider that it could be uncomfortable for the government, I will follow the Chair’s direction. But my guess is that I won’t be getting that direction.

I do have that concern. The minister just said: “Because students feel comfortable, we will get a higher level of students reporting.” How in heaven will you know whether you have a higher level of students reporting if you’re not keeping any data about it?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At the risk of being repetitive, I’ve said at least four times already that the ministry has the authority — under the legislation provided in the University Act and the College and Institute Act — to require that reporting at any time. Clearly, in today’s environment, that reporting will be contemplated in the near future as we assess the effectiveness of this legislation.

That is why we’ve provided for the survey in section 5 of the act, which, needless to say, will be public, because the students are entitled to know what their peers have to say about the institution. If we don’t do it, Maclean’s magazine will do it. We would rather to be ahead of the tide, because our goal is to have good public policy, not to follow passively.

K. Corrigan: Well, we will agree to disagree on that one.

[1800]

I want to also reflect a concern that I and others have had about the legislation in that it is pretty bare bones. I do understand that there is what I think the minister has described as an iterative process for these best practices and so on. I also recognize that there is some desire to have flexibility from institution to institution, reflecting the circumstances of that institution.

I am concerned, as I said earlier, about there being too much flexibility, because I think that could affect the standards of the policy, depending on the size and the resources of the institution. Given that the minister has not provided any resources to support institutions, I’ve expressed concerns about that.

I do wonder why, even though this can come later in regulation, there’s not some kind of assurance within the legislation itself about individuals’ rights to privacy and due process and equality for both the accused and victims and so on — sort of a set of guiding principles in there. I understand that there is a document of guidelines that is being developed, but did the minister not think that it would be worthwhile putting some of those basic principles of fairness and what is expected of the policy within the legislation itself?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member refers to what I’ll broadly categorize as procedural safeguards. Once again, we cannot and do not seek to replicate the criminal law of Canada in this regard. That’s an enormous body of statutory and common law. In the administrative law framework and the employment law and academic law framework, those procedural safeguards are part and parcel of what universities and colleges do every day.

There’s a well-developed body of law around administrative process in universities and colleges, which we do not want to replicate here and, in fact, would be redundant. The concerns the member raises are largely dealt with in the common law, and to some extent, they’re dealt with in the University Act and in our privacy legislation.

To avoid redundancy, they’re not included here because it would simply create confusion, as there would be overlap between statutes and some unfortunate efforts to try and interpret one statute in one direction and the other in a different direction. Rather than doing that, it’s incumbent upon us to provide legislation which is coherent as a body of the whole statutory package, rather than trying to make every statute address every issue, which would simply lead to chaos.

K. Corrigan: We certainly don’t want chaos at our post-secondary institutions. I do understand that. The minister has talked about redundancy a couple of times, but the very fact that there is an act that we are considering, requiring a policy to be put in place…. I mean, presumably, if that’s the minister’s answer — that there’s redundancy, and there’s already the ability to require a whole range of things…. If you want to take that to the extreme, there doesn’t need to be an act at all.

In other words, through policy and through requirements, the ministry could require post-secondary institutions to establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy without having an act at all. Is that correct?
[ Page 13276 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, our western parliamentary tradition contemplates exactly the question the member raises. In Britain, there is no written constitution. It’s a matter of common law. In Canada, the decision has been made to, first of all, elaborate the 1867 British North America Act, which was then rewritten in 1982 as the Constitution Act and continues to have permutations which are largely a matter of common law and interpreted by the courts — in particular, the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is always the option in a common-law world under the British parliamentary tradition to say: “We don’t need a statute. We’ll just develop the policy through the common law and through regulation as we need it.”

[1805]

This recognizes the current state of social awareness of this issue and is designed to give a big boost to efforts to bring these issues out into the open, to encourage students by saying: “There is a law that requires the policy at our universities and colleges. Your interests will be protected, and the universities and colleges are required to protect your interests because there is a statute called the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act.”

Certainly, our feedback from the student bodies and the civil society advocacy bodies has been extremely supportive of taking this approach, because it puts it on the table. It’s no longer happening in the shadows. Students and others are entitled to the protection of the law, and they will now get it.

K. Corrigan: I agree. I think it is good to put it on the table, to be explicit. The point that I was making is that it is really a determination by government about how much is explicit and how much is done by policy — how much is explicitly done by legislation and then the following regulations, and how much of it is done by policy.

My point is that it is possible. If the issue is that you want to get it on the table — and I agree with this and support the bill — then it is also possible to be clear in the legislation and to put on the table more robust assurances that certain things will be included in the policy and that there will be certain standards and supports and so on.

This goes back to the issue of what kinds of supports there are going to be. That, I suppose, would not be in legislation, but this is pretty bare bones from my perspective and doesn’t provide assurances of certain things being involved. So once again, we have a piece of legislation where much of the actual work is going to be determined later by regulation or not at all.

I don’t think that I have any more questions about section 2.

A. Weaver: I have one question. Through no fault of my own, in my university days, I did not go into the field of law, although I did want to, so I don’t understand a lot of the legal context of this. So I’m going to ask a question that perhaps the minister could expand upon with respect to this requirement for policy.

There have been some very disturbing incidents at a number of post-secondary institutions, and both of these…. In these cases, at the different institutions, the same problem arose. What the problem is, is that there were incidents of sexualized violence in student dormitories.

The university’s response, in two separate universities, was to attempt to evict the students involved as the perpetrators. And in both universities’ cases, there were claims that…. Lawyers were arguing that, if you evict my client, we will sue accordingly.

My question to the minister is: do we need to have changes to the rental tenancy act at some point to deal with these types of issues, or could the policies within the universities under the present legal framework allow them to have policies that would evict students were they to be found not guilty but found to be in violation of the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Act policy at a particular institution?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: For reasons that are historical happenstance, rather than to address this particular issue, the Residential Tenancy Act does not apply to student residences. That is a rather tepid answer to the important question that the member raises.

Once again, the act is designed to address and encompass a number of proscribed activities. The location is irrelevant. That is anticipated, contemplated, to be irrelevant. So if it happens in an apartment off campus or in a residence on campus — or, as I said, on a field trip to Costa Rica — the act will still apply.

When the involved individuals return to the campus, they will be subject to the university policy, which will largely be related to protection of the interests of the victim in terms of health and safety and what I will call separation rather than segregation from the alleged perpetrator, so that the mental health and well-being of the victim can be protected in a safe environment.

[1810]

That may contemplate changes in the residential status of an individual. One can contemplate a very small institution with residential facilities — there are a few in this province — and that would then be incumbent upon the institution, within its policy, to provide for academic accommodation to protect the interests of the victim.

One can contemplate that that could require the perpetrator to be removed from the residential facility and perhaps even removed from the campus, if it’s a close, tight-knit campus, so that the victim is no longer exposed to daily contact, visual or otherwise, with the alleged perpetrator.

The episodes the member refers to I believe happened in other jurisdictions, and our law contemplates this scenario inadvertently, through the Residential Tenancy Act not applying to university residences.
[ Page 13277 ]

Nonetheless, the point the member makes is if an alleged perpetrator engages legal counsel and threatens or implies or sends demand letters, that must be contemplated by the institutions that will be captured by this act. They must be prepared to deal with that. They are not to be timid in the face of an alleged perpetrator who’s retained counsel. That would essentially defeat the purpose of the act.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

K. Corrigan: Section 2 required that a post-secondary institution establish and implement a sexual misconduct policy. Section 3 then says there must be a review at least every three years.

I don’t have much time left, so maybe I’ll just go forward to another section right now.

The Chair: Member, any questions on section 3 before you move on?

K. Corrigan: Well, it’s related. It’s between section 3 and section 8. It’s a combination of the two sections. Section 3 requires that there be a review. Section 8 requires that if a post-secondary institution already has a misconduct policy, then they are considered to have one. Then they would review it three years later. So does that mean that you don’t have to consult?

Actually, that’s section 4. I’m okay on section 3. How’s that?

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

K. Corrigan: Section 4 requires that there be a consultation with students and other prescribed persons when it’s establishing the sexual misconduct policy. My first question about that is: why is it not more clear about who should be consulted with? It says students, but what is contemplated in terms of other consultations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the first iteration of this, as we’ve said earlier, is that students must be the focus of this legislation and the focus of the policies. They are the ones most vulnerable and the ones most worthy in need of protection.

Section 4 contemplates that students must be consulted. This, of course, is new, because academic institution policy in the past has tended to be done without students on the premise that they’re the ones who need to be policed, and their behavior is always subject to sanction. So why talk to them? They’ll just put in the policies and think about the students afterwards.

More recently, students have been involved in policy development, but this is designed to put students front and centre. Obviously, the classes of prescribed persons could include not just actual persons, in terms of members of the faculty or members of the academic staff. Persons could include societies, such as a student association and the various civil society advocacy organizations. So this is designed to keep the door open to, eventually, wider consultations as these policies are developed so that we can get a true societal cross-section of what will work best in these circumstances.

K. Corrigan: It was this section that I wanted to read together with section 8. An institution’s going to be required, before they establish a sexual misconduct policy — its first one — to consult with students and other prescribed persons.

[1815]

But if an institution already has a sexual assault policy, section 8 then says that’s deemed to be the sexual misconduct policy for the purposes of this act. Does that mean, then, that institutions that already have a compliant policy, in essence, won’t be required to consult with students for another three years, when they review their policy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I anticipate we’ll spend the rest of the day on this, so we’ll settle in accordingly.

Section 4, of course, requires consultation with the student body. Section 3 requires the review of the policy, and then, as the member correctly notes, section 8 provides a transitional provision.

Currently BCIT has a policy in this regard, and so that will be, perhaps, deemed to be in place in 2016. The requirement for the policy in section 11 will take place in 2017. So the BCIT policy under section 8(2) would then be subject to a review in 2019 because the three-year start date would be in 2016, not in 2017. Of course, if BCIT has developed this without the level of consultation required in the new act, then we would expect that BCIT would contemplate, act fairly quickly and probably revise their policy earlier than the required date of 2019.

At the same time, we know that UBC is well down the path of developing its policy, and they have had truly massive consultation with their student body about this, because the goal is to anticipate the spread of the law. They have seen the bill in place for the last two months. So the institutions are well ahead of us in this regard, in terms of engaging the students and consultations leading to development of their policies.

As I said, the only one that would be subject to potential revision because of the changes in the act is the existing policy at BCIT.

K. Corrigan: I think I’m okay on that section.
[ Page 13278 ]

A. Weaver: I had a quick addition to section 4, not an amendment, but I’m hoping that the minister would agree. I’m doing this solely to get it as a matter of record that the intent and spirit of this consultation process was also intended to recognize that, in fact, indigenous women may have specific and unique issues that need to be represented in a consultative process.

The reason why I raise this is, as I’m sure the institutions across British Columbia study through Hansard and see what the interpretations were meant to be, that consultation here is also meant to include the specific and unique needs of indigenous women. This is some feedback we got from the Native Students Union at the University of Victoria, which is one of the bigger indigenous student unions on campuses in British Columbia.

Can the minister possibly confirm that this was the intent of this particular section?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member raises an interesting point and an important one in that the definition of students would, of course, encompass aboriginal female students. But in the event that that did not happen, for reasons that are hard to contemplate, the regulations could be passed to specifically define that.

Now, given the changing approach and standards and mores in our society right now, it’s hard to contemplate that that would not happen voluntarily by our institutions. I can actually comment that of our 25 public post-secondary institutions, I’m about to go to the 25th of them to open their aboriginal gathering place. The role of indigenous women in our society is now widely recognized as a factor that has been ignored for the last century — well, certainly the 20th century — and it’s high time that we dealt with these things. I would be deeply surprised if our institutions didn’t address that squarely, right up front.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

[1820]

K. Corrigan: This section gives the minister the power to conduct surveys for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of institutions’ sexual misconduct policy. I’ve asked a number of questions about data earlier, so I’m not going to go through that again.

I just wanted to ask why it is that the information that is in surveys…. Why is there not a requirement that that information — aggregated, obviously, not individual…? The results of the surveys are not going to be required to be made public. Is it the intention, whether or not it’s in the legislation, for the results of surveys…? Is it the intention of the minister to require that those survey results be made public?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The existing provisions that the ministry operates under currently provide for an annual accountability report from each institution, which is made public. Of course, this section is designed to engage the student body squarely. They are asked what they feel to be the state of affairs on their campus and in the conduct of their institution on and off campus so that the institution has feedback, from the student body particularly, as to the effectiveness of the policy they’ve put in place.

Now, it may be that in early stages, there’ll be discrepancies between the survey data which requires an investigation as to why there’s a range of responses. It could be that they’re non-residential versus residential. It could be the age profile of the institution. It could be the disciplines that they study in.

Initially, one can contemplate that this will not provide homogenous data across all 25 institutions. Nonetheless, once those qualifiers and discrepancies have been sorted out or some reasoning found behind them, one can contemplate that these would be part of the annual accountability report from each institution.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think that it would be comforting to students — particularly students, although others could be surveyed…. And the section contemplates that. I think students would appreciate knowing that the results of the surveys that they undertake are necessarily going to be made public, again, not in an individual but in some kind of aggregated way. I guess I won’t ask any more questions about that, because the minister has made it clear that that’s not a requirement, but I think it’s unfortunate that that wasn’t included. I have no more questions about that section.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

K. Corrigan: This section deals with consequential amendments. Section 9 significantly changes the provisions that relate to immunity from legal proceedings. I’m wondering why it’s called a consequential amendment. It looks to me like this is simply a change to the provision related to immunity from proceedings for colleges and institutes, as opposed to a consequential amendment. Perhaps the minister can explain that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Section 64 of the College and Institute Act currently provides for protection of a board member or a person acting under the act. They are protected from personal liability for acts done in good faith or omitted in good faith in the performance of their duties. Now, what this would do is extend that immunity from litigation under the College and Institute Act.

One can note that there is no reference there to the University Act. This is specifically dealing with the
[ Page 13279 ]
College and Institute Act to clearly identify that the immunity from litigation that already exists for the activities under the College and Institute Act is, in fact, applied here, as well, so that there is no ambiguity in the scope of that exemption from litigation.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND
MISCONDUCT POLICY ACT

Bill 23, Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 24.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — PROFITS OF CRIMINAL
NOTORIETY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 6:27 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Farnworth: This section of the act is around definitions and applications. I have an amendment I want to move on this particular section.

[To amend as follows:

SECTION 1,

In the proposed definition of “designated crime” by adding the following paragraph

(c.1) an indictable offence under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (Canada) for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years or more’;]

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: The reason I’m putting forward this amendment…. I know much of the legislation is based on legislation that is existing in other provinces. I’ve talked to the minister about this. This particular amendment is in the existing legislation that the province of Alberta has.

What it does is it strengthens the section in making it clear that while much of the focus has been on crimes committed here in Canada, and we want to make sure that people don’t profit from them, I think we need to recognize that given the nature of the world we live in today, the fact is that there are individuals who’ve gone outside this country, have gone to other regions of the world and engaged in crimes that have resulted in death of people in the Middle East, for example, the destruction of cultural heritage — UNESCO sites, for example — and then those individuals return here to this country.

[1830]

I want to make sure that we close shut any loophole for individuals who are engaged in that kind of criminal activity. They do not have the ability to profit. That’s why I think including this wording, which is included in the Alberta legislation, would help strengthen that in the definitions.

I would ask for the minister’s consideration.

Hon. M. Morris: I’d just like to introduce my staff here. We have Anita Nadziejko, a senior policy adviser, on my right here, and Julie Williams, legal counsel, on my left.

I thank the member opposite for his effort and intent to strengthen the language of the bill. He proposes to specifically add offences under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act to the definition of “designated crime.” I also share the view that no person convicted under the federal statute of war crimes and crimes against humanity should be able to profit from recounting their crimes.

While drafting Bill 24, we have thoroughly considered examples of this kind of legislation in five Canadian provinces, and we’ve been guided by the model legislation developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The bill was drafted in a way which permits future additions of offences to the definition of designated crime.

Specifically, the regulation-making powers under section 29(a) permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe as an offence an act or omission that is an offence under any federal or provincial statute.

The bill, as drafted, already permits prescribing additional offences by regulation in the future. This will provide the opportunity and time to seek the appropriate legal advice and fully consider the impacts of any proposed changes, including any possible unintended consequences, as well, to that.

I’m not dismissing the spirit of the member’s proposal. I understand where you’re coming from, Member. I’m hesitant to lend support to the amendment before us. I share the view that people convicted of war crimes
[ Page 13280 ]
and crimes against humanity must not profit from their crimes. However, I will not be accepting the amendment right now.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister’s explanation. Obviously, I’m disappointed, but I accept that.

The question I have, then, for the minister is on the amendment, if he could just clarify for me. He stated that the regulatory powers that the legislation will give the minister, in terms of being able to deal with situations as they arise…. The way I interpret what the minister is saying is that if there is an issue that arises which deals with the situation that the amendment I am proposing would impact…. If it becomes clear that for whatever reason or if there’s a problem arising in terms of individuals returning to this country — in particular, to British Columbia — who’ve been engaged in these kinds of either war crimes where someone has been killed or the destruction of cultural property or cultural heritage, the minister would certainly be more than willing to use the regulatory power conferred upon the minister in this legislation to be able to deal with such an issue. And if the legal advice that comes back to the minister, through the adoption of the legislation, is that government should address this particular issue, then will the government, in fact, do that?

Hon. M. Morris: Yes, that’s correct.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

[1835]

M. Farnworth: This section applies an exemption for law enforcement contracts. Could the minister just explain how this section will work? Exactly what that means — an exemption for law enforcement contracts?

Hon. M. Morris: This allows government or law enforcement agencies to recount crimes for law enforcement purposes, crime prevention or in support of victims’ programs. For example, the police may enter into a contract with an accused person and pay for his or her recounting of the crime to secure a conviction — so the re-enactment of a crime so that the police can use that in the conviction process.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate that. Just a question that comes to mind, in fact, from the response to that. Would this also apply, for example…? You see those shows on television where they recount a crime and it’s the police that are doing it.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Yeah, Crime Stoppers, for example. That’s more of a public service one. Then there are others that are slightly more sensational. How would this apply to that?

Hon. M. Morris: It applies if it’s done by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only.

M. Farnworth: So it would not apply, for example, to the making of a TV show. It’s specifically for a law enforcement agency in terms of, in essence, helping to solve a crime.

Hon. M. Morris: If it’s done by law enforcement or government in support of law enforcement purposes, in support of crime prevention purposes or in support of victim services programs.

A. Weaver: Just a clarification, if I may. Let us suppose that the show Cops comes to Vancouver and wants to do an episode following the Vancouver police. You know: “Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?” That show.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Some others in this Legislature have actually watched it as well.

Does this mean that such shows could not be filmed in British Columbia because the profits from those crimes…? That’s what they’re doing. They’re following the police and developing profits from not only recounting but showing the crimes, often minor crimes. Does that mean that we could not have such a show in Vancouver?

I think this is what the member for Port Coquitlam was trying to tease out. It struck a chord with me, seeing as I’ve watched this show. I’m wondering if the minister could comment on this.

Hon. M. Morris: It’s the criminal — as long as the criminal’s not profiting from this. Anybody can write a story, anybody can make a movie, anybody can make any kind of a documentary they want as long as it’s not connected to the criminal who perpetrated this and as long as there’s no contract with him and he’s making money as a result of that.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Farnworth: If the minister could briefly explain how section 4 would work, I’d appreciate that.
[ Page 13281 ]

Hon. M. Morris: It’s a core provision of the act intended to counter the publication or recounting of crimes for profit, as it requires immediate notice to the minister as soon as the contract is entered into — so within seven days. The requirement applies to all contracts entered prior to this act coming into force and after January 1, 2001, but could go back further in time by way of regulation. The notice is required within 60 days from the act coming into force.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

[1840]

A. Weaver: I was wondering if the minister might be able to provide some example of what a “consideration other than money” might look like, for clarification purposes.

Hon. M. Morris: Exchanging property, exchanging favours, perhaps giving a family member a job — there are a number of things that would fall under that category.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

M. Farnworth: Section 11, I think, deals with an area of considerable interest, and that is around crime memorabilia. For example, in the States right now, we have just seen what, certainly, most people in this country would find offensive. That is the auctioning off of a gun that was used to kill someone in a very controversial state in the U.S. I’d like to know how this situation would apply to that.

I’d like the minister to explain how this would work, for example, with memorabilia that…. If it passes into the hands of a family member — like an immediate family member, for example — how would this section cover that? If the minister could clarify that for me, I’d appreciate that.

Hon. M. Morris: If the criminal — the perpetrator, the individual that committed the crime — had turned the gun over to a son, for example, and the son sells the gun, but he sells it for far in excess of the actual value of the gun because it was used in this crime, then government can apply to get the money back that was over and above the actual value of that particular gun.

M. Farnworth: That would apply to things such as…. Well, again, we’ve seen cases in the States of works of art that have been done by some pretty heinous individuals, if the minister could comment on those examples. How would it apply to books, or anything like that, any manuscripts that a relative…? It would cover that as well, is my understanding. If the minister can clarify that, that would be great.

Hon. M. Morris: This covers memorabilia — so any items such as clothing, photographs or any of those other kinds of issues. Yup.

A. Weaver: To expand upon that…. The member for Port Coquitlam was raising the issue of memorabilia. Let us suppose, hypothetically, that a very famous hockey player were to commit a heinous crime, and then suddenly that hockey player’s hockey card increased in value. Could the government actually seek moneys for the increase in value associated with the notoriety of the criminal and the attributed value that that has brought to the piece of memorabilia that existed prior to the offence being made?

[1845]

Hon. M. Morris: No, it wouldn’t apply. A famous hockey player could have 1,000 cards out there owned by individuals unknown to that person who perpetrated the crime, so it wouldn’t apply. It only would apply if the individual himself was profiting in some way by the individual selling those cards and the money being returned to the criminal himself.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

M. Farnworth: On this, the questions, basically, I will ask will apply to literally the whole section. The key issue I want the minister to address here is that the money that is made — or that the government may claw back or brings back — goes into a trust fund. That trust fund is only for victims of crime. It is not…. The government cannot and will not be able to take that money and put it into general revenue or put it into some other area of government programming. What it can be used for is specific and is for victims of crime.

Hon. M. Morris: That’s correct, yes.

M. Farnworth: And there will be annual reporting of what goes in and what gets paid out?

Hon. M. Morris: Yes, it will be reported as per the usual government requirements for reporting.

M. Farnworth: Which, I take it, would obviously be on an annual basis, then. I see the minister nodding. Thank you.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.
[ Page 13282 ]

On section 16.

Hon. M. Morris: I move that the amendment to subsection 16(4), standing in my name on the orders of the day, be passed.

[SECTION 16 (4), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(4) Net recovered proceeds that relate to a crime memorabilia order may be paid out under subsection (1) only during the period that

(a) starts on the date on which the conviction referred to in subsection (1) is finally determined, and

(b) subject to subsection (5), ends 2 years after the later of

(i) the start date referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, and

(ii) the date on which the Minister of Finance received the amount under the crime memorabilia order.

(a) starts on the later of

(i) the date on which the Minister of Finance received the amount under the crime memorabilia order, and

(ii) the date on which the conviction referred to in subsection (1) is finally determined, and

(b) subject to subsection (5), ends 2 years after the applicable start date described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

[1850]

M. Farnworth: One final question on this. I know the minister has indicated that there would be regulation-making authority. Can the minister give us an indication of the timeline of any additional regulations? Is it going to be: “Wait to see how the legislation works”? Or is he anticipating some regulations that will need to come into effect? If so, what’s the expected timeline on that?

Hon. M. Morris: The bill was drafted to function without regulation. When the regulation is needed, then we can look at it at that time.

Sections 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Morris: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 24 — PROFITS OF CRIMINAL
NOTORIETY ACT

Bill 24, Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — PROFITS OF CRIMINAL
NOTORIETY ACT

Bill 24, Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,739,239,000 (continued).

[1455]

M. Mungall: Before I get to my questions, I just reflected on some of the exchange that happened yesterday, particularly towards the end of the day. The minister made a comment around wanting me to ask her questions on a particular topic: namely, the single-parent employment initiative. For the people who were watching and who are again watching today, I just want to make it plain that for our democracy to remain strong and stable, we need to have strong mechanisms of accountability.

In our system, we have an official opposition who does that. It’s the official opposition who drives the agenda for accountability. We do not ask questions at the request of a minister. We ask questions that we have identified are of importance to people around the province to ensure that accountability of a ministry is held.

When we have an issue like the bus pass clawback, which has seen over 100,000 people cry out for the government to change their direction, to share with government the fact that they weren’t consulted on this particular policy direction and so on, it is incumbent on those of us in opposition, regardless of which party, to ask the questions that are asked of us from the public and to drill down and get to the very root and as much detail as we can on any particular issue.

I just wanted to state that for the record and move on to my questions around the employment program of B.C. I’ve been talking with some of the operators around the province, and it’s come to my attention on numerous occasions that the integrated case management computer system repeatedly poses a problem for not just the income assistance side of the ministry but also the employment program of B.C.

There’s a variety of ways in which this is happening, but I’ll specifically speak to an issue that’s been called the double-billing issue. What that is, is that the ministry has been conducting an audit of billing that’s occurred under ICM and have found instances where double-billing occurred. This double-billing didn’t occur because of some nefarious activity or anything like that. Merely, it is happening because of problems with ICM — yet again, another set of problems with ICM.

It’s not just ICM. What workers are giving feedback to their executive directors and their executive directors are giving feedback to the province on is that there are also unclear guidelines in this document entitled Eligibility quick guide for billing 3.4.10. So very specific. A very specific document that provides a guideline for billing.

What ends up happening now that this audit has found the double billing is that the government is clawing back money from Work B.C. Centres who’ve already spent those dollars from previous fiscal years, saying that they were double-billing. Anything that had a double bill, they’re clawing back that money from past fiscal years.

Many of the clients who receive services are people with disabilities, marginalized populations, and ultimately, they will be impacted by this clawback. Their front-line service will be impacted because those dollars, again, are from previous years. They’re going to affect the current year’s budgets, which is going to mean less services on the front line. That’s what I’m being told by the Work B.C. Centres.

In going forward, Work B.C. Centre contractors are asking that the government recognize that the fault for this situation is government’s and shift focus from taking money back, especially considering previous years’ cuts, and focus more on working with them to prevent this situation from happening again. Will the government be taking that approach?

[1500]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I think I would like to start out with just acknowledging the opening remarks from the member opposite because, for the record, I too believe in good democracy. I respect the process that occurs here in the House and in the chamber, in these legislative buildings. I hold it in very high, high regard.

I think I’d like just to take a moment to provide the member opposite with the opportunity to reconcile a statement that she made yesterday. That was in regards to the bus pass program, as we had a very lengthy discussion yesterday in reference to the bus pass.

Yesterday the member opposite said very adamantly: “I have never said to anybody that the bus pass program is cancelled.” She also said in her comments yesterday: “What we see here is a cancellation of a transportation subsidy.”

I guess what I’m trying to go with is that I’m really having difficulties with that statement being made so strongly and so adamantly, because on February 18, in question period, the hon. member from the opposition said: “They’ve cancelled the bus pass program that people around this province relied on.” That’s a quote from Hansard that the member opposite made.

Again on February 18, the member opposite said: “This cancellation has been confirmed by groups like Inclusion B.C.” Yet again, on that same day: “The fact of the matter is that the $45-a-year bus pass has been cancelled.”

The member opposite claims that she has not said…. Very adamantly, yesterday, she said that she has never said that to anyone. But in fact, we have it on record in Hansard.

[1505]

Yesterday she so strongly denied it. I urge her to have this opportunity now to correct the record, to acknowledge that in fact the government has not cancelled the bus pass program. It is still available to our clients. Everyone around this province will receive a transportation allowance to fulfil their transportation needs.

It is in fact the truth, that everyone is now on an equal playing field. Everyone will be receiving the same amount across the board no matter where they live; 45,000 people
[ Page 13284 ]
who were not receiving a transportation allowance are now going to be receiving it.

I will give the member opposite, after I respond to her other question, to perhaps take that opportunity to correct the record, to set the record straight. As she mentioned in her comments, she feels that the details are important, and this detail is important to me.

In regards to the EPBC program and the question that she asked, the double-billing absolutely did happen. EPBC, in 2014, went to a new financial model. That new financial model was clearly communicated to the contractors that we work with. They were told not to double-bill with the system. There was a quality assurance review that was done. We found that there was $1.4 million that had been duplicated during that time of the transition into the new financial model.

We went back and told the contractors that that money had been duplicated. It was double-billing. I believe, and I think the taxpayers of British Columbia believe, that people and the taxpayers should only pay for a service once, only being paid one time to those contractors. I believe it’s good contract management to ensure that we are not double-billing. We notified the contractors, notified those who had double-billed, so that we could recoup that money.

In fact, it wasn’t a glitch with ICM. In fact, the contractors were the ones who were entering the information into the system, knowingly double-billing. We have, since then, modified ICM to prevent the ability for any double-billing to happen, so that no longer occurs.

I think it’s important to know that the payments were made to the contractors. It wasn’t actually out of any of the services that are delivered to the clients that we serve around British Columbia. As of date, all those financials, the $1.4 million, have been paid back. It was part of the 2015-2016 budget.

M. Mungall: I think the minister should be very ashamed at what she’s actually insinuating in her previous comments. She knows full well the context of my questions to her and the comments I made. To try and pull them out of that context and insinuate that I am lying…. I deserve an apology for that. That is absolutely inappropriate. It’s unparliamentary, and frankly, it shows that she does not have a respect for this institution and the rules that are here.

Now, to respond….

The Chair: Member, I just remind you to use parliamentary language, please.

M. Mungall: I have been. I didn’t call anybody…. In fact, I’m recognizing what I am effectively being called, despite the word not being used in this place. But thank you for the reminder, hon. Chair.

The first point is when I said a transportation subsidy had been cancelled. I was specifically talking about the specialized transportation subsidy. The minister ought to know that, especially if she actually did review Hansard.

Secondly, on February 18, the entire province was trying to figure out what this government did in the budget. We believed that a program had been cancelled. We were corrected at that time, and we went out and we told people the correction. The minister ought to know that, and to make the suggestion that she just did, hon. Chair — I deserve an apology for that.

On to my next question. The ministry is clearly clawing back money from Work B.C. centres. They, and I, would like to know where that money is going to go, if it’s going to go back into employment programs.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, the money will be going back into employment programs.

[1510]

M. Mungall: The minister wasn’t here, but she might recall that the provincial government used to fund the employment programs by about $89 million. That was around five years ago, if I recall correctly. I know that I was here.

The budget is now $29 million. That’s essentially a $60 million cut. Five years later, that cut, along with the new contract model in ICM, has impacted service delivery, no doubt. One of the ways that we saw that was an organization here in Victoria, PEERS, had to close down its employment services because they just could not keep up with the new funding model as well as the cuts that took place.

I’m just wondering if there have been any other specialized programs serving marginalized populations that have been closed. If so, which ones?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: None of the contracts have been closed down for specialized populations. There is one program called PEERS that was actually subcontracted out, and for whatever reason, the contract was terminated. I can’t speak to that. That was between the contractor and the subcontractor.

That being said, I would note that the original contractor is still required to provide those services to all British Columbians. They choose how they would deliver that service.

M. Mungall: Considering that PEERS has closed down its service for employment supports…. They work primarily with women and men and transgendered people who are currently in the sex trade or were in the sex trade and seeking to find other, alternative means of income. The minister says that those services are still in existence — just not with PEERS. Can she reassure all of us where those services are now being delivered from?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Through the EPBC offices here in Victoria, the contractor, we believe, is GT Hiring. They would be required to deliver those services.

[1515]

M. Mungall: I appreciate that they’re required to deliver those services, but are they? Has the minister conducted any type of monitoring, any type of evaluation that they’re meeting their contract obligations? If they are, what kind of venue are they doing that?

Again, we’re dealing with one of the most marginalized populations in British Columbia — women, men and transgendered people in the sex trade. If they want to get out of it, I think we have every obligation to make sure that they have the services needed to do so.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, the contract is being monitored by staff on a regular basis.

M. Mungall: That being the case, then, I would like the minister just to finish answering my question, which is: if it’s being monitored, are those services continuing to be delivered? And where are they being delivered? The venue is also very important so that this group of people could actually access the services.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: GT Hiring is contracting out to Bridges Society. That would be the venue.

M. Mungall: That is what I was looking for.

The minister will be well aware that one of the ministry’s goals is to increase employment for people with disabilities. I think that’s a fantastic goal. But getting there — actually getting there — is, of course, the issue. You can say a lot of things, as often happens with this government, but the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding often runs dry. So I want to be sure that if that is the government’s goal, the steps and resources needed to meet it are in place.

I understand from the service plans that government’s goal for increasing the percentage of PWD clients in employment still hasn’t gone above 16 percent. I’m just wondering if the government is setting aside a particular amount in its funding for EPBC and Work B.C. Centres to specifically support people with disabilities gaining employment.

[1520]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite asked about EPBC programs and helping assist those with disabilities to receive the services. Of course, they are served through our centres, just the same as anyone else. Money isn’t typically set aside. If they come in to receive services, those services are delivered to them.

That being said, we’ve implemented a number of initiatives to help support the goal that we have in Accessibility 2024. Part of that was declaring September as Disability Employment Month. We’ve also enhanced access to information services and supports at local Work B.C. Employment Services Centres.

We are providing community employment partnership projects that are focused towards work experience to help improve employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities — I believe even the Chair has had some of those results in his own community — ensuring that there is improved transition from the public post-secondary system to work for graduates with disabilities by leveraging Work B.C. employment services and collaborating with public post-secondary institutes in B.C. with the Ministry of Advanced Education.

We have designed technology at work to support individuals that need extra supports in the sense of assistive technology to overcome any disability-related barriers that are facing them in the workplace. We have also been working very diligently with our presidents group to champion and enhance employment opportunities and improve consumer experience for people with disabilities around British Columbia, especially in the private sector.

We’ve been working very closely with the Ministry of Education and the local school districts, who are truly the leaders in the area, connecting youth with disabilities to the employment opportunities — to understand the programs that are available to them and ways to expand those opportunities into other school districts as well.

There’s plenty of work going on. We’ve served approximately 70,000 people with disabilities in our Work B.C. centres since the program launch, and we’ve spent $169 million since the program launch.

I think it would be important to note, as well, CLBC, Community Living B.C. I know we canvassed that the other day, in the first day of estimates. They now have an employment focus, as well, for people with disabilities, and we are seeing positive results.

[1525]

The annualized earning exemptions that we changed in our ministry with our policy reforms…. We are now seeing people with disabilities earning more and claiming more. The average earnings declared monthly have gone from $485 in 2013-14 to $561 on a monthly average.

That being said, in 2013, there was approximately $79 million that was claimed in earning exemptions for people with disabilities. That number has significantly gone up, to over $91 million, almost $92 million. The work we have been doing has been making benefits for people across this province.

M. Mungall: Going back to a question I had yesterday…. I was hoping that the minister would be able to provide me with the numbers today. I asked yesterday, in terms of EI benefits, how much…? What is the total dollar amount that is being clawed back from people’s disability cheques?

I am wondering if that is actually the source of the external recoveries that are listed in our blue estimates coiled book, where we have $4 million associated with external recoveries for disability assistance — if that is EI there, or if it is EI and something else, or so on. The minister said that it was merely the federal government. I’m
[ Page 13286 ]
looking specifically for if she is able to give me that total that I was asking for yesterday and if the external recoveries listed in our blue book are — essentially, what that is.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The $4 million is the CPP. We’re still working on the EI numbers that the member asked for yesterday. We, in fact, don’t recover that money from the federal government. It’s more of a flow-through, so it is a very complex number, but we will still endeavour to get that to the member opposite.

M. Mungall: Unfortunately, our time here is going to come to a close, but until we’re booted out, maybe I’ll keep asking some of the questions that I had put aside yesterday.

One of the things that had been brought to my attention, and I want to just get a confirmation from the minister, is that women — or any family member, but as we know, it’s mostly women — who flee abuse are able to seek government assistance and income assistance. Now, we know that before one can receive government assistance, they have to complete a five-week work search. I’m just wondering if women fleeing domestic violence are also required to complete that five-week work search.

[1530]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: To the member opposite’s question regarding women fleeing abuse, they are actually exempted. It is considered a critical crisis, and they are exempted from seeking work — or that five-week work search.

With that, I believe our time is up. It has been very worthwhile, I believe, from both sides. I won’t want to speak for the member opposite.

I hope that people have got a better understanding, a better picture of my ministry and what we do and how we serve the many British Columbians around this province, with the efforts that we are making to constantly improve service, refine policies, create more opportunities and break down barriers to ensure that those opportunities are there for people to take part in our growing economy, take part in their communities, be in an inclusive environment and be welcomed into their communities.

It is something that I take great pride in, and I know the 2,000 staff members that work in the ministry each and every day work very hard and diligently. I’d like to take that opportunity to finally give them a shout-out and a great deal of thanks for the efforts that they make every day to serve the clients. I’d also like to take a moment to thank the staff that has helped me over the last few days with the questions from the member opposite. I look forward to doing this again another day. Thank you.

Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,739,239,000 — approved.

The Chair: The committee will now recess. It is expected to resume shortly with the Ministry of Finance. We’ll stop for about a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:31 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $178,497,000 (continued).

D. Routley: Thanks to the minister and the many staff and public servants who have accompanied him. I’d like to thank many of them for their contributions to the Special Committee to Review FIPPA, which recently submitted its report to the Legislature which was accepted and adopted.

In starting out, I’d like to congratulate or celebrate the excellence of our public service, the great people who reside in the many professions represented here. The people of B.C. deserve to know the excellence that resides in our public service, and our public servants deserve to have that recognized by British Columbians.

While we’re critical of government and government will be defensive of their record, there’s no intention to implicate the professionalism, integrity or quality of public service in any of the questions that I might ask. I sincerely thank them for their devotion to public service.

The first question I’d like to ask the minister is related to proactive disclosure. I’d like to ask the minister if he’s familiar with the recommendation from the recent report addressing proactive disclosure.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m appreciative of the member’s comments about those upon whom we in the public rely. David Curtis is here joining us today. Brad Williams, Sharon Plater and Tara Richards are also here. All are directly involved in this work. As the member knows, it’s something of a shift from when he engaged in this exercise last year in terms of where within government responsibility for this work now lies.

The short answer to the member’s question is: with respect to the committee report, yes, in general terms, I am familiar with the recommendation.

D. Routley: I guess my question ought to have been more specific. The recommendation that was brought to this House by the special committee, or the select standing committee, was different in many ways from the announcement that the minister made, I think, two or three days before that report was submitted.

The minister’s version of proactive disclosure has been described by many advocates in this field as be-
[ Page 13287 ]
ing not proactive disclosure but reactive disclosure — in fact, reacting to an FOI request by posting it on line. The claimed purpose of that is to give people information as to the progress of FOI requests as they move through the system.

The criticism has been roundly delivered by journalists, by the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, by Black Press yesterday, I believe, making a complaint to the OIPC about this step that the minister has taken. The problem is that it is very discouraging to FOI requesters, particularly those in the media. Because of this posting, it declares to their competition what requests they’re making.

[1550]

What I understand to be a more faithful expression of the principle of proactive disclosure would be for information, all information not otherwise exempted by FOI law, to be released proactively and without an FOI request. Is that not the minister’s understanding of proactive disclosure? The information is released proactively on a schedule, and prescribed data sets are routinely and proactively disclosed. This version that the minister has brought has been criticized by many as being destructive to the interests of journalists.

Hon. M. de Jong: A lot wrapped into that submission. I’ll try to deal with it in part, and then the member can dissect what I’ve said and have at me again on various aspects of it.

The first thing the member said, which I found helpful, was reminding the committee that the steps that were announced did predate by a couple of days, I think, the report. I want to assure the member and members of that committee that there is work that has been initiated to review the contents of that report. We see this process very much as a work in progress and have found the recommendations additionally helpful and will inform our next steps in this process.

It might also be helpful for me to relate to the member and the committee some underlying principles that I have endeavoured, with the help of able staff and officials, to incorporate into guiding this work. The notion that…. For example, there are bodies of information that are regularly requested by sometimes not just one person but a variety of agencies that rather than require that on an ongoing basis, we simply release on a regular basis, that information.

What are examples of that? The member knows some, because I took the example of what MLAs now do on a proactive basis in terms of releasing expenditures and receipts. That has been extended to ministers and ministers’ offices, again on a proactive basis. No one has to ask.

I should say this to the member and put it on the record. My test for this and the effectiveness and the validity of this approach is that the material that is released proactively must equate and include all of the information that would be included if the material were requested through the FOI process. That is, if there is an inconsistency there, it defeats the purpose of the exercise.

We have sought to begin the process of proactively releasing contractual information — contracts that the Crown enters into and that Crown agencies enter into. We’ve begun with directly awarded contracts, but I want to assure the member that the intention is to extend that through to other contracts as well.

The principle there is the same one that governs deliberations around MLA expenses and ministers’ expenses. If it involves the expenditure of public dollars, then the public deserves to know. If the public deserves to know, then why make them wait for a specific request? Why not simply post it so that it is available for all to see?

There is one dimension to this that I think…. I hope the member will correct me if I’m wrong. I think, in his question, he has chosen to direct my attention to one component of this. I’m hopeful that he, on balance, finds the steps that we’ve announced and have undertaken to be positive and to be a step in the right direction. I am hopeful. He, hopefully, will indicate that to the committee.

[1555]

I think his comments relate to one specific aspect of this. That is the pre-emptive disclosure of a listing of active FOI requests. I think he’s indicating that that is so.

To be fair, in offering a very positive review of the steps the government has taken, the commissioner herself — with whom we worked closely in the lead-up to the announcement, by the way — indicated she had some questions and concerns.

I think the member has alluded to a couple of them as they relate to the media. I think these are practical matters. The desire of a journalist, for example, to protect a story is one. That has revealed itself in other ways.

I’ll say one final thing, and then I’m sure the member wants to pursue his questions. I will share with the member, in making the decision, what influenced that decision on my part.

One of the tests I wanted to apply, and asked, was: if something is FOI’d and if something is being FOI’d on a regular basis, then shouldn’t government proactively release it and preclude the need for the FOI request in the first place? The list that the member has expressed legitimate concern around is FOI’d on a regular basis. People ask for it on an ongoing basis. Pursuant to policy, once it has been released to the recipient, it is posted.

From that point of view, the material that is being released proactively, the information that’s being released proactively, is information that is requested through the FOI process on a regular basis. For that reason, it occurred to me that as with these other areas — ministers’ calendars, MLA expenses, contracts — it fell into that category of information that is asked for on a regular basis, that we are obliged to release when it is asked for and, therefore, should do on a regular basis.
[ Page 13288 ]

As I said, without diminishing the nature of the concern that others, some in the media, have expressed, doing this adds pressure to the government. It becomes abundantly clear, on a regular basis, how the government is performing, how the branch is performing, with respect to meeting deadlines.

That will be a challenge. I mean, that is, it has been a challenge, and we have to work through that challenge. I thought, in addition to the other tests that are applied, that identifying and putting that challenge in the front window was a way to put some pressure on us to improve performance. Those were all considerations.

I think the member has begun to highlight some of the counter-arguments or some of the areas where people have expressed concern. I’m interested to hear them. But it does relate, I think, to that one particular area.

D. Routley: Yes, it does relate to that particular area, and I have other questions around proactive disclosure generally. Obviously, proactive disclosure should save the government considerable resources by not having to repeatedly search out and package the same information to numerous applicants time and time again. That is the correct principle of proactive disclosure, as I understand it.

The problem is the minister’s change mirrors the change that was made at B.C. Ferries several years ago. In the investigation carried out by the OIPC, the commissioner took issue with the notion of identifying individuals or identifying even the subject of an FOI. How does that possibly equate with proactive disclosure?

[1600]

The commissioner said, “The purpose of identifying the individual applicant is not clear and may not be permitted under section 33 of FIPPA,” which is a privacy protection section dealing with the publication of personal information. She goes on to say: “While the type of applicant may be of interest for statistical purposes, it is not essential that either the name or type of applicant be included in a disclosure log.”

She says that this type of disclosure may, in fact, be entirely counter to the…. Her words are: “The simultaneous disclosure practice…frustrates the purposes of FIPPA. This is because it may deter individuals, particularly journalists, from making access requests. Public bodies become less, not more, accountable when journalists and others are deterred from making access requests.”

So if you’re a journalist and I’m a journalist, we’re in competition. We both look on the website, and I can see what you’re working on. That seems an unfair disadvantage to the person who makes the request and has to pay for the request. That’s the issue.

I’d like the minister to justify why that should be posted, particularly given these comments from the commissioner.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not going to try and justify it, because I think there’s a subtle but important distinction in terms of my recollection of…. The member read out, I think, the appropriate passage. I won’t be cute with the member or the committee. I have spoken with the commissioner about this particular issue. The commissioner expressed the concern that focused on one aspect of this process, which is the simultaneous release, publicly, of the material that has been requested.

For the purpose of our illustration, the member is the journalist. He has made the request. The material is gathered. It is provided to him in his capacity as a journalist and, at the very same time, posted for all the world to see.

In those circumstances, I agree with the member. The journalist says: “Well, I have done all the legwork on this. I’ve asked the appropriate questions. I’ve got the material. I am endeavouring to write a story, and suddenly, the material that I have sourced is available for one and all to see.”

It was for that reason that with respect to the release of material, now there is, I believe, a 72-hour delay. When material has been requested and is provided, there is a 72-hour delay before that material is posted and available to members of the public.

I realize this is a forum where the member asks me questions, but I am interested in whether or not the member believes that 72 hours is sufficient.

I have — I will tell the member and the committee — heard from members of the media who believe a week would be more helpful or appropriate. Some have said two weeks. Most do not quarrel with the notion of the material being in the public domain eventually, but they have made the point that the member has made, which is that I lose a competitive advantage if, at the same time I receive the material, everyone else does as well.

I think there is merit to the point that the member has made. I have had those conversations, and I am interested, through this exercise, to know if the member has a view on that.

D. Routley: I suppose, if the minister is asking me that question, I would respond by saying that I support the commissioner’s recommendation, which, I believe, was a two-week period. But we’re hearing from weekly papers, as I’m sure the minister has. His own community is served by Black Press papers that are issued weekly, and a 72-hour delay on the publication of the material doesn’t help a weekly, certainly not a monthly publication. So that is part of the problem.

[1605]

The other specific aspect of the problem is identifying who has made the request. Identifying who has made the request can certainly put a chill on….

The principal objection I have to this model is that it’s been, I think correctly, characterized as reactive disclosure, that it only makes this broad disclosure reacting to a request. I think the more faithful representation of proactive disclosure would be to move, governmentwide, towards proactive disclosure of all documents not spe-
[ Page 13289 ]
cifically exempted under the exemptions, under FIPPA. Does the minister agree with that vision of it?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not sure I quite understand. And if I do, I probably don’t entirely agree.

The objective here is to do precisely what the member and the committee are suggesting, which is to take documentation that there is a regular public interest in and forgo the need for these requests and post…. And I mean broad swaths of information. I don’t have any qualms telling the member and the committee that contracts that governments enter into — all contracts that governments enter into that involve the expenditure of public money — should, I think, be available without the need for a request. We are working to develop a mechanism to do that. So yes, across the broad suite of governmental activities, I think that is important.

Ironically in this case, the progress report of FOI requests is a bank of information, a document, if you will, that is requested on a regular basis. We are obliged to present it, which means, just to follow through on the process…. There is a request that comes in. It is compiled and sent to the person who requested it and 72 hours later is available to the public. Given the interest that has existed, it occurs to me that it makes sense to find a way to proactively release that information but to do so in a way that doesn’t compromise the interests of one very important group, the fifth estate.

I think there can be a way to take account of that very practical dilemma that the member has highlighted. To not do that, I would suggest, represents an exception to the notion of proactive disclosure because this is information that people ask for on a regular basis and have an interest in. I am hopeful that through the work of the committee, the exchange here and discussions with the commissioner, we can arrive at a mechanism for doing this that takes account of the unique challenges facing those engaged in the journalistic trade.

D. Routley: One other aspect of proactive disclosure which was recommended, a part of the recommendation from the committee, was the strengthening of section 25, which is the section that requires the head of a body to release information that’s in the public interest. The committee recommends strengthening that section to remove the requirement of temporal urgency. We’ve also looked at the Supreme Court definition of “public interest.” They establish it in a court case entitled Grant v. Torstar. It’s a specific and comprehensive definition of public interest.

[1610]

As the section reads now, it in fact operates as a disincentive to the head of a public body to release information that’s in the public interest because it is so vague in defining public interest and temporal urgency — in other words, unless I let somebody know immediately the dam at this mine will fail, and there will be a disaster. If I release that information proactively — it’s in the public interest — I may save environmental damage, but I may put my career at risk. The loose interpretation of section 25 could penalize the head of a public body for doing that.

There was a strong emphasis on the need to strengthen section 25 and be more specific about the definition of public interest in a way that favours the disclosure of information rather than the discouragement of that.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I hope he’ll take a measure of comfort from my response.

The recommendation has certainly registered within government and has triggered, already, a series of trainings with officials who are engaged and for whom these questions are relevant. That’s the first thing.

With respect to a specific interpretation or an amendment to clarify the purpose of the operation of the section, that’s something we’re also looking at. I’m not in a position to definitively say to the member we have landed here or here. It strikes me that there is…. This is a classic case of trying to find balance between the legitimate purposes for which the section exists and considering circumstances where public safety officials will be concerned about inciting public panic.

One can think of health circumstances in which there is some information known, but it’s not a complete set of information, and the premature release of information to the public might lead to concerns that public safety officials aren’t in a position to respond to. A myriad of different circumstances.

I think the objective behind the section is genuine and laudable. The recommendation is, I think, a thoughtful one. Some training has already taken place to ensure that officials understand what the obligations and what the purpose behind the section are. Beyond that, the recommendation is under active consideration for other changes that might be necessary or might be required.

[1615]

D. Routley: I’ll confirm that there’s relief or comfort, but the measure is small. Unfortunately, most of what the minister has described is already exempted by other sections of FIPPA that protect the individuals or communities from harm from the release of information and, in fact, would be absolutely counter to the basic principle of section 25.

Perhaps the minister would consider examining this Grant v. Torstar Supreme Court of Canada decision that now forms the basis of the definition of “public interest” in the Supreme Court and, perhaps, consider adopting that description for British Columbia.

In terms of the release of information, the basic difference I have with what the minister is proposing and what the committee and successive commissioners have recommended is that….

We make those recommendations for two reasons: first of all, to increase the effectiveness of the freedom-
[ Page 13290 ]
of-information process and access to government, accountability, democratic process — all of that; but also, on the other hand, to save government considerable sums of money and save government the application of scarce human resources to FOI in the first place.

The basic principle would be that information is routinely and proactively disclosed. The focus of the minister’s change seems to be that once a request is made, there will be a reactive public disclosure of that information. In fact, what we’re recommending is disclosure of the maximum amount of information possible under the act, without the necessity of a freedom-of-information request, on a regular, scheduled basis.

I wonder if the minister agrees with that principle. If he does, then I have some questions around the practicalities of it.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member’s question — I’ll repeat it, so if I get it wrong, you can correct me at some point — was whether or not I agreed with the fundamental principle around proactive disclosure — that where possible, the government should preclude the need for a request under the FOI rules and simply post, on a regular and predictable basis, information that the public can then source without the need for any kind of request application consideration.

If that is the question, then I say, unreservedly, yes. I agree with that proposition and am endeavouring, to the best of my ability, to lead in that direction.

[1620]

I will say this, then, in addition, with respect to the steps we announced last week. We are adding to the 3,500 data sets that already exist that fall into that category — 3,500 sets of government data and information that are proactively posted. We are adding areas that I believe, based on history and convention, are of specific interest to people: summaries of gaming grants paid to community organizations to be released; monthly summaries of directly awarded contracts; calendars for ministers, deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers; actual receipts for ministers’ travel expenses and travel expense summaries; and then, finally, the summary of active FOI requests.

That is but one component. We’ve had a conversation about the member’s concern around that one component. We had, I think, a bit of an exchange about how we might be able to address that concern, and I am open to considering that.

But the principle that I have enunciated, and that I think the member is advancing for the committee around the proactive release of documents, isn’t just something that I am an advocate for and supportive of. It is something that we are engaged in and trying to expand, candidly, to try and, on a proactive basis, capture more and more of the ample data and information that is contained within government.

D. Routley: I’d like to move on to the time limits and the accountability measures the minister offered — the posting of progress of FOI requests as an accountability measure.

Most of the submissions the committee received which referenced accountability issues recommended several things. The adoption of increased penalties — the committee recommended increasing the penalty for non-compliance or for breaching the law from $5,000 to $10,000. We recommended the consideration that fees be waived if time limits are not adhered to. Does the minister agree with those recommendations?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m going to deal with the second question first, because I want to check some material before I get to the first part.

The fee question is an interesting one because, candidly, I did not realize until I assumed responsibility for the area just how little is actually collected. It is, I believe, about $60,000. So this clearly is not a budgetary matter. The system does not depend on the collection of those fees to function.

Now, I say this. It is not without cost. British Columbians, the member may have heard me say, have a voracious appetite for information — which is a good thing. They use this tool far more than Canadians in other provinces. I think that’s a good thing too. But it does cost money, and the member will know that, in the last budget, $3 million was added to assist us in the endeavours that we are now discussing within the committee.

[1625]

So on the surface, there is a compelling argument to be made: why do you complicate it? Why even collect any fees? When I heard the amount, I must confess that, through a bias that I rapidly acquired….

I am told this and will share with the member and the committee. When requests arise, sometimes they are very general. Because the fee schedule, which I don’t think has changed since it was established…. I’m told that when a request is made that is very general in nature, one of the conversations that can take place between an applicant and an official is to say: “Look, if you can narrow your…. If we search all of that documentation, it’s going to involve 20 hours of work, and here’s the rate for that. But if you can be a little more specific, that’ll help us get the stuff more quickly, and it may preclude the need for any fees because it won’t take….” So to that extent, I suppose having some modest fee can be helpful.

The suggestion from the committee about the waiving of fees as it relates to meeting deadlines, on the one hand, appeals to me from the point of view of creating an incentive for the timely release of information. On the other hand, I worry a little bit that it may create an incentive for people to move to those larger, more general requests that are more difficult to fit within the time period.
[ Page 13291 ]

I guess the answer on this one is that I’m actively entertaining and have turned my mind to this question of fees, even to the extent not just of rebating them in certain circumstances but maybe even eliminating them. I am also mindful of the role they have played in the past in helping to focus a request. That’s my candid take on the question of fees.

Then, if I might, with the member’s indulgence, just consult on some material in the first part of his question.

[1630]

I think on the question of fees, the most direct answer I can give the member is that of all the various areas we’ve canvassed, as the member can tell, in most of them I’ve actually tried to turn my mind specifically to some options. I haven’t really done that on the question of fees. It doesn’t offend me, the notion of looking at them and, where it might be appropriate, adjusting them upward. I just honestly haven’t really thought about it that much.

D. Routley: I have very little time. The minister, as House Leader, will know that it’s a peril to do estimates at the end of the session. The pressure on time is much more acute than it is in the first few weeks. That said, I would appreciate being able to submit some written questions that I won’t be able to get to here.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

The next question I would like to ask is related to the subsidiary corporations of public bodies. It’s been a recommendation for some time from committees that subsidiary corporations — land development corporations subsidiary to universities, for example, and business corporations of school districts — essentially any subsidiary corporation controlled by government…. There are several different definitions of what that might be. A 50 percent plus one ownership stake in that corporation or the appointment of directors of the corporation by the government could qualify the corporation to come under the scope of FIPPA.

It’s been a recommendation from a couple of commissioners, a couple of reports now. A previous minister from Prince George had agreed, when she was Education Minister, that that was an appropriate step and a gap in the legislation.

Has the minister considered it? Will he be moving to bring subsidiaries under the scope?

Hon. M. de Jong: Short answer is yes. It is something that we are examining, that I am seized of.

The member may have heard me reminding myself of a conversation we had not so long ago in terms of that the principle is one I am entirely comfortable with. The question that will need to be fleshed out, in terms of the requisite statutory amendments that the member will be scrutinizing very closely, for good reason, is: what’s the definition?

For that, the variables and criteria will be the degree to which…. What constitutes a subsidiary agency, a subsidiary corporation? The degree to which a government agency has control over the appointment of directors would be, I think, a relevant factor and the source of funding, whether it’s from government.

[1635]

In the meantime, and I realize this is not a…. While that work is undertaken, the point that I can make is that in any circumstances where there is a flow of information between government and that organization, that subsidiary organization, that information is accessible via the central agency of government.

I realize that that is not entirely satisfactory, that it allows for a glimpse and access to an element of what is taking place, but not to everything. So the idea, the notion of extending the umbrella more broadly, is something that I see wisdom in. The work that will be undertaken, which the member will have a keen interest in, is where the definition comes down as it relates to what constitutes a subsidiary corporation.

D. Routley: Thank you for the fulsome answer. The next area I’d like to briefly touch is the notion of creating a duty to document — stand-alone legislation that would, for one thing, empower a commissioner to investigate whether or not that duty has been maintained. It might contain penalties for offending this duty to document. It would allow the oversight of the destruction of documents for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and create an availability of deleted electronic documents for access requests.

This is something that has also been recommended repeatedly by successive commissioners and review committees, something that could restore some confidence in British Columbians that documents are being produced in the manner that they would expect and, indeed, that government would expect of business and social agencies with which it does business. Has the minister considered this, and what stage is he at in that consideration?

The Chair: Member, I’m going to rule that that question is out of order, because you are asking a question concerning legislation and the advisability of legislation. According to our standing orders, that is not an appropriate question.

Hon. M. de Jong: Of course, we always respect the rulings of the Chair. I believe I am in a position to address the member’s issue through the concept of duty to document, if you and the committee would give me a moment.

[1640]

I don’t think my answer is terribly long. I now, on several occasions, have indicated a measure of comfort and support for the…. I wasn’t definitive last week. I wanted to, in this instance, wait for confirmation from the com-
[ Page 13292 ]
mittee — though candidly, I was not surprised by the recommendation around pursuing a statutory duty to document. I think there is merit in the member’s question. There is merit, and I have asked that the work begin around developing a legislative construct for that. I won’t suggest to the member that there is a bill shelf-ready to go. There is not. But the work has begun to get to that stage.

I can’t tell the member or the committee definitively or offer a definitive description of what a sanction or penalty mechanism might look like. I think there is generally merit in the idea that when you create an obligation or a duty of this sort, it helps if there is some prospect of sanction for not abiding. How that would reveal itself in this case…. We probably don’t want to go too far down the road, because, again, we’re in the early stages of examining what that would look like.

D. Routley: I appreciate the willingness to address that, and although the question has been ruled inappropriate, I found the answer to be appropriate.

One of the issues that faces government when government considers proactive disclosure or duty to document is documentation and the archiving process, the creation of documents.

One of the more enlightening presentations we received as a committee was from Laura Miller, who referred to modernizing archiving. She used the example of personal information fields in various documents that government produces not being consistent, so there is a much higher onus or burden on resources of government in order to extract personal information to anonymize documents so that they can be released.

If government were to consider modernizing archiving and a more standardized creation of forms, the process would save even more money and time and be much more efficient. Has the minister considered those steps?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the idea of the concept and the approach have merit. Happily, we find ourselves today in a position where the legislative tools around which we can begin to build those processes exist. The Document Disposal Act was 80 years old and dated from another time, when the means by which records were created…. The digital world clearly did not exist. We now have a statutory construct that, through the office of the chief records officer, is in a position to do precisely that and more in terms of facilitating, expediting an archival process.

There are clearly unsatisfactory circumstances today when there are boxes and boxes and boxes of stuff that are languishing and for which…. Ultimately, some will be archived; a lot will not.

[1645]

To find a way to expedite that and facilitate it will, at the end of the day, serve the interests of government, the body government. It will serve the interests of citizens, both financially and historically, in the sense that some of this material, as mundane as it is…. Some of it does have historical relevance and, in some cases, may have legal relevance in terms of what is there. There’s an old adage. If you can’t find it, it doesn’t really exist.

I think that we now have a better tool, a better statutory construct, around which to pursue the ideas that the member has advanced.

D. Routley: By the minister’s definition, then, my phone didn’t exist all day yesterday because I couldn’t find it.

One of the recommendations that came from the committee addressed one of the chief complaints or criticisms of B.C.’s performance in satisfaction of freedom-of-information requests. That was the change several years ago from time limits of 30 calendar days to 30 working days, which essentially added 40 percent to the length of time permitted for a freedom-of-information request to be satisfied. This is inconsistent with every other province in the country — all of them observing 30-calendar-day limits. This has been, I think, a valid criticism from journalists and from others who use the system.

Is the government considering moving back to 30 calendar days?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m going to be really direct on this one. I hope I have in other instances, but in this case…. I’ve seen the recommendation. I understand why it is there. I’m not going to hide from the present stats. We’re not performing at a level, in terms of timeliness of response, that I would like and that officials would like.

There’s a certain temptation, I suppose, politically, to say: “Let’s make the change and cheer that.” Before we do that…. It’s a tighter timeline. I’d like us to get the timeliness of our response up to 90 percent from where it is now. Otherwise, it seems to me a bit of a hollow gesture. Let’s try and improve the timeliness under the existing timeline and then turn our minds to whether or not we should tighten that up.

D. Routley: I haven’t spent a lot of time dealing with privacy issues. I’ve mainly focused on freedom of information.

One significant recommendation from the commissioner’s reports has been a request that there be mandatory breach notification. As things currently stand, there’s no such requirement. Does the minister consider that mandatory breach notification would be positive?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll take advantage of the moment to quickly reassert my support for something else the commissioner — I expect the member himself supports this — has said about the principle of privacy protection.

[1650]

It is incumbent upon us in government to assign the same measure of importance and establish the same safe-
[ Page 13293 ]
guards around private information as we do fiscally. A whole series of….

She makes the point, I think very validly, that incidents of money going missing from government…. There may be questions about the wisdom of how it’s spent, but the issue of money going missing is very rare. If it happens, there is a whole process that kicks in. Her point, which I agree with, is that we should adopt and ensure that similar safeguards exist and that processes and a similar culture and mentality exist around privacy information.

I have not spoken to the commissioner about this specifically, but I’m advised that her particular concern is less about core government — within which there are some very strict policies that are in place to govern notification — but tends to have more to do with the other agencies, multiple agencies, which would be bound by this.

My sense is that in trying to craft a statutory instrument, the challenge is to create something that, on the one hand, imposes a discernible and meaningful obligation but, on the other hand, is not so complex that a very small organization finds itself overwhelmed by the obligation. That is the work that is taking place now.

But the advice I have is that on this issue, the commissioner’s focus and concern has tended to be outside of core government, with these other agencies.

D. Routley: I agree, and that is her focus — has been her focus. The commissioner also indicates, in the report, that she believed that it’s a scalable model that could be applied to smaller organizations, and then the complexity and scale of that requirement could be adjusted for different levels of activity and size of organization.

Another area of concern was around the issue of data sovereignty. Currently, personal information about British Columbians must be stored in British Columbia, and there has been considerable division over whether that is in the public interest or not. We’ve heard that many organizations find it difficult to access the most up-to-date, cutting-edge IT services, particularly in health care, because those services are cloud-based and, therefore, not stored in Canada.

We also heard that there’s been a cloud storage development in Canada that would prevent access from outside of Canada. I don’t know if the minister is aware — I wasn’t aware before hearing from a presenter at a conference sponsored by the OIPC — but when personal information goes into the United States, we make an assumption that there would be some kind of protection. In fact, the Bill of Rights in the United States has a much less specific and robust privacy protection element than does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.

That would be a problem in itself — the balance between less protection in the United States versus more in Canada. But the real concern that I have, having learned this, is that the Bill of Rights does not apply to Canadians’ information that’s stored in the United States. We’re non-resident aliens, so the Bill of Rights does not apply. At the same time, our Charter rights are surrendered because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect the search of information outside the borders of Canada.

[1655]

Essentially, any information about Canadians, but specifically British Columbians, that is stored in the United States would be open to access by police agencies, by anyone who has access, without notification or protection. This seems to me to be something worthy of consideration. I wonder if the minister agrees that the data sovereignty provisions should remain intact.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member. It would seem, happily in this case, that there is an alignment of the views and interests between the committee and the government. I think the committee recommended retention of the sovereignty requirements.

It would appear that the technology information sector is evolving to where some of the immediate problems that we were confronted by are being alleviated by companies moving cloud capacity. I am desperately out of my depth when we get into this conversation, but they have begun to import cloud capacity within the country. There are, I’m told, still areas where, within the confines of the legislative protection, some work might be able to be done to address specific practical challenges.

But the overall principle that the member is speaking to and the view I think he has expressed about the advisability of retaining data sovereignty requirements, is one that he has expressed, the committee has expressed and the government is inclined to follow.

D. Routley: I think that will end the questions that I have for now. I’ll submit written questions later. I’ve really been resisting this, but I’ll submit them by letter, rather than email. I couldn’t resist.

I’d like to thank the minister and particularly his staff for their help and wish them well.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I’ll certainly receive his questions.

I know our time is short, but if I don’t grab five minutes or two minutes to get across the hallway, we’re going to have a less comfortable time than I’m sure I’m going to have.

The Chair: We’ll take a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:59 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re resuming the estimates for the Minister of Finance.
[ Page 13294 ]

A. Dix: I have some questions with respect to the comptroller general, as I think were discussed with the minister. In particular, project No. 026115, the pharmaceutical services division investigation.

Just for starters, to put it in context, this was an investigation undertaken by the comptroller general at the direction of the government at the beginning of October of 2012.

[1705]

It overlapped with Health Ministry investigations, with an investigation by the McNeil report, and of course we now have an Ombudsperson’s investigation.

The minister will know that the issues contained in this report, and the questions raised that gave impetus to the comptroller general’s review, also resulted in the wrongful dismissal of health researchers. That’s an issue that has been much debated in this House over time.

I want to start…. This report is, of course, both not public and public. The minister will know this. The report in a redacted form, which I have, is what I’ll be referring to in this discussion. There’s no unredacted form that I have.

The redacted form that I have has a number of conclusions about the challenges that the comptroller general faced in producing the report. Understand that the researchers in question, in particular, had been smeared, we know now — the minister will know this because it was his last day as Minister of Health, leading over to his first day as Minister of Finance — with the taint of an RCMP investigation.

In fact, the ministry and others had concluded agreements with those researchers, in the period that the comptroller general was looking at this, which essentially exonerated them. I can read out those letters of exoneration, those press releases, for Dr. Maclure, Mr. Mattson, Mr. Hart and others if the minister wishes.

I guess the first question I have for the minister is…. The comptroller general’s report was launched with terms of reference in October 2012 and concluded on or around June 23, 2015. That is a long time while people’s reputations had been effectively smeared.

I wanted to ask the minister: does he think that that’s an exceptionally long time for such an investigation? Why did that report, under his ministry, take so long?

Interjection.

A. Dix: The question is: do you think that that’s a long time for such a report? It seems to me that that was a long time for the report. The existence of the report and the investigation, I remind the minister, was used to oppose freedom-of-information requests about it and so on. It was a long time, especially when people’s reputations were on the line.

What it says in the redacted report, just to further clarify. The authors of the report repeatedly refer — both in those documents and in their communications with the RCMP, which are now available under FOI — to the lack of resources they had. In other words, the government launched a report about a significant issue and didn’t provide it — it appears from the authors of the report — with adequate resources.

I’m asking the minister whether he thinks, given the relative urgency for the reputations involved, whether a report that took two years and nine months to complete didn’t take a little bit too long, given that public inquiries and royal commissions have taken less time than that.

[1710]

Hon. M. de Jong: Because we’re short of time, I’ll keep the hyperbole to a minimum.

I think the member asked two questions. One: is it a long period of time? Two years and nine months is a long period of time — period.

The second question was: was is it too long? For that, the member has seen me consult with the comptroller general, who alerts me to the nature of the work that was taking place as it related to contracting practices — the extent of the work, the complexity of the work — which contributed, I’m advised, to the length of time. Two years and nine months is a long period of time.

A. Dix: I guess the other question is why it took so long.

The minister will know that the original terms of reference — which were leaked in 2014 to Mr. Palmer of the Sun — said that the ministry and the government would be “conducting interviews of ministry staff, relevant contractors and other public sector officials.”

I’m just quoting from the report that’s available to me, which is, let’s acknowledge, a small portion of the report. That small portion of the report says — and this is the comptroller general speaking, or the office: “The team was not able to perform the engagement as originally planned.” It still took two years and nine months. “The IU did not have the capacity to staff the engagement.” It still took two years, nine months.

“All the individuals originally assigned to the engagement, with the exception of the project lead, either retired or left the ministry. The investigative unit team frequently encountered other challenges, which stressed the team’s already limited resources.” The report, nonetheless, says that the results are sufficient, reliable and relevant evidence.

I want to ask the minister, first of all, why nobody involved was interviewed. This report…. Remember, the comptroller general referred to the Ministry of Health investigation, which most of its work is based on — the same as a gong show. That’s what the comptroller general said about the Ministry of Health, right? The Ministry of Health has its own views, as you can imagine.

But my question is: does the minister believe…? Given all those statements made by the people in question and
[ Page 13295 ]
the fact that nobody, including people who had settled, was even asked about these allegations…. They didn’t ask the people who were being targeted here. They didn’t bother to ask them about it in two years and nine months. Does he think that’s adequate?

Why was it that this investigation, which was a prominent investigation…? It has been called the biggest human resources scandal in government’s recent history. In any event, it’s the biggest that I can remember in my somewhat lengthy involvement in provincial politics — 25 years, right? Why weren’t those resources provided?

[1715]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to confirm — I know that the member knows this, but I will put it on the record, nonetheless, for those who might be following — that the project itself, of course, is initiated internally within the office of the comptroller general. It’s not something that’s directed from outside. That was the case here. The terms of reference are crafted by the office of the comptroller general and approved accordingly.

The question that I think the member has focused on is around how the audit, the review, was conducted. The decision not to engage directly with some of the individuals that the member has referenced — I’m advised by the comptroller general that two reasons, really, account for that.

One is the question of compellability. They were, as the member knows, at the point this work was taking place, no longer employees of government. That’s obviously a matter that continues to be reviewed.

The second point that the comptroller general advises me is that insofar as they were examining…. The focus of their review was an examination of contracting practices as opposed to a review or an investigation of individuals and individual conduct. What they were looking at was contracting practices within the Health Ministry. That also would have influenced the decision about whether or not to consult with, engage directly, the individuals.

A. Dix: Just specifically, Mr. John Dyble, former Deputy Minister of Health and Deputy Minister to the Premier; Mr. Graham Whitmarsh, former Deputy Minister of Health; Mr. Stephen Brown, current Deputy Minister of Health and former ADM responsible for many of the areas in question in the review; Ms. Barbara Walman; Ms. Elaine McKnight; Bob Nakagawa; or Lindsay Kislock — were any of them interviewed formally by the comptroller general?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is a specific question. I don’t want to speculate. I’ll have to get the information for the member.

A. Dix: I think that my understanding from the report, however, is that the investigators chose to limit much of their effort to email. The minister referred, by the way, to people who were no longer working for government. But of course, a number have been reinstated, as he will know.

[1720]

The issues in the report were significant with respect to interviews. Regardless of whether the terms of reference were drafted by the minister, the comptroller general or the Archbishop of Canterbury, they weren’t followed. People weren’t interviewed. Contrary findings were found against them, and they weren’t asked about them.

The people in charge of contracts, who signed off on the contracts at the senior level, including deputies and assistant deputies, didn’t appear to have been interviewed. This was a decision that was in their mandate, and they decided not to proceed with it. They speak about this, in fact. What they say is: “Typically, the collection of evidence during an investigation includes interviewing key persons to assist the investigation team in confirming or refuting allegations or complaints.” That didn’t happen here.

People offered to be interviewed, and they were turned down. I’ll be getting to that in a second, but I just want to be very specific about the code of conduct that’s put forward by chartered accountants on this question. It suggests — and I’m just reading from it, at 201: “Unless limited or restricted in writing by the terms of the engagement, it is recommended that the registrant first communicate any proposed criticism to the other professional involved so that any eventual criticism takes into account all the available information. This is a step dictated by considerations both of professional courtesy and simple prudence.”

Well, the people, as we know, because we read the Vancouver Sun…. We’re talking about contracting practices. Individuals were dealt with here, right? They were given no opportunity to respond. They weren’t asked questions. Conclusions were drawn without asking them, their supervisors, the people in charge, the people who signed off for contracts. Those are in the code of conduct. This is what the people in charge of the investigation say. They acknowledge that interviewing key persons is key. There were two years and nine months, and no one bothered to do it.

I want to be very specific about why I asked, for example, about Mr. Nakagawa, who the minister will know because he served as Minister of Health. He’s a very distinguished public servant, who’s currently serving B.C. in another capacity in a self-governing body, right? Mr. Nakagawa, though, in his role with pharmaceutical services, was a key player here.

My question specifically is: did he offer to respond to questions, and why wasn’t his offer taken up? Why wasn’t he ever asked anything about this, by anyone in the comptroller general’s office, when the issue, in part, was about contracting in his section?

[1725]

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. Questions about who was interviewed, who was consulted as part of the preparation of the report. My intention would be to provide the member with a list so he doesn’t have to speculate and we don’t have to have the conversation in code. The advice I have received is that I am only able to do that by firstly securing the consent of the people whose names appear on that list. I can undertake to do that but, obviously, won’t be in position to do so this afternoon.

A. Dix: Specifically, though, I think the minister will agree, and presumably the comptroller general will agree, that there were specific findings in the report. Just to put this in context, people were exonerated in the sense that the Minister of Finance signed cheques for hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle court cases that the government could not possibly win. They didn’t want to do that in open court.

[1730]

While this is going on, they have an investigation. Oh, there’s the McNeil review — two months of research, 34 interviews — where the most senior people in government point fingers at one another as to who was responsible.

She couldn’t determine who was responsible for the decision. Why? Because the most senior public servants in the government pointed fingers at one another. She couldn’t determine who was responsible, which seems incredible but is reflective of what we see in a lot of investigations these days.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

That’s what happened. In this case, there’s an investigation, under all this scrutiny and all these circumstances, involving the comptroller general, with a finding of facts. The comptroller general has…. In their code of conduct, in the accountants code of conduct, it says that you should actually ask people if you’re going to bring findings against them. Then they don’t bother. In two years and nine months, they don’t bother.

Does the minister not think…? I think we can both agree that the people who were the subjects of this investigation were not consulted about its findings. I think I can say that for sure. Does he think that that’s adequate, that that’s acceptable — that the government does this bait-and-switch with people? They agree with them, send out press releases that exonerate them, and then they continue to do this. They don’t even have the decency to ask them when they make allegations in a further report. How do you deal with a government like that — that, on the one hand, does one thing and then does another?

I’m asking the minister whether he thinks, given the terms of reference, which they didn’t follow, given the accountants code of conduct, which they, in this case…. It’s not exclusive. I understand that there are options and that they chose not to follow it in this case, for reasons that they actually delineate in the report. They produced a report that then was subsequently leaked by the senior ranks of the government. We don’t know by who — the senior ranks of the government. It was all leaked out.

Does he think that this is acceptable — to produce such a report without talking to the people at all, or their supervisors, it appears, who you’re making the allegations about? Does he think that’s in any way acceptable under these circumstances?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two matters. One is ancillary to what the member has said, but I do feel obliged to put it on the record.

The member has expressed his concern, outrage, anxiety about the manner in which the report from the office of the comptroller general found its way into the public domain by a leak. I share that concern. He’s gone further, though, to surmise and conclude that it was the product of a government action or a deliberate step by a representative of the government.

[1735]

There is an investigation underway, and I am not in a position to either agree with the member or provide him with an answer to how that document found its way, as it did, into the public domain. I feel obliged to put that on the record.

Where I think there is a difference of views. I canvassed this, again with the comptroller general and staff. The member has posed the question, not unreasonably, in a circumstance where an individual is the subject of an investigation and a review: how could these things happen or not happen? The advice, again from the comptroller general, is that this was not an investigation of an individual or individuals. It was an audit of a process for the awarding of contracts that was generated by concerns that had been expressed to the office of the comptroller general.

A. Dix: So, just flatly…. Obviously, people’s interests were in question here — people who, by the way, had been exonerated in other processes, right? The government could have made its case in court. It chose not to. Instead it operated, in every way, in this case…. Leaking to the newspaper about an RCMP investigation that didn’t exist. A press release on the first day, when these firings were announced, about an RCMP investigation that didn’t exist, right? That’s the way they conducted themselves at the beginning. I would say that doesn’t meet any standard of conduct in human resources matters that I know of.

Now we have this circumstance where the comptroller general is doing a review that takes two years and nine months, and he doesn’t even ask to talk to the people involved. I mean, the minister talks about processes. How many such investigations…? I mean, the comptroller
[ Page 13297 ]
general and others in government intervened with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that basic contracts weren’t revealed because this investigation was going on. People’s interests were in play, including people who had been reinstated into government, and they weren’t even asked about this? Does the minister agree with me that it is outrageous?

I’m not blanket criticizing the comptroller general. I think the comptroller general does extraordinarily valuable work. I’m not doing that. But I think, in this case, this is not the right way to behave, not the right way to conduct an investigation. They didn’t provide it with adequate resources. They say so in the document. Then they didn’t even bother to investigate the people whose direct interests were involved and whose actions they were questioning. They didn’t bother to ask them even after the government, in a corporate sense, had exonerated them, reinstated them and paid them cash money. Does he think that’s acceptable?

[1740]

Hon. M. de Jong: The question he posits is around the circumstances in which it is appropriate or a prerequisite or absolutely necessary to engage with certain individuals. The advice, again, from the comptroller general is that in circumstances where the purpose behind the exercise and the intention is to lead to a point where there is going to be the assignment of blame, individual blame, and cast individual judgment around the conduct of individuals, then it is entirely appropriate and a prerequisite to have the benefit of and provide those individuals with that opportunity.

That was not the purpose of this exercise. The purpose of the exercise was to examine contractual processes within the Ministry of Health. That is the distinction upon which the comptroller general describes the decisions that were made around the process of the investigation itself.

A. Dix: I just want to be very specific, then, with the minister about two points. I mean, I’m just quoting from the report that’s available. “The unit did not have the capacity to staff the engagement. All the individuals originally assigned to the engagement either retired or left the ministry. The IU team frequently encountered other challenges, which stretched the team’s already limited resources.” That’s what they said.

They told the police, because even though it wasn’t involving individuals; it was involving individuals, you know? “It’s difficult to keep the file moving due to staffing.” I mean, the minister is the Minister of Finance. The comptroller general is the comptroller general. The deputy minister is the deputy minister. This was a significant matter, and they didn’t have the resources to deal with it. They say that in the report.

[1745]

So question 1: is that acceptable? Question 2: how can it be acceptable when you’re making contrary findings against people? And there is no question about that. Given the code of conduct of accountants and given just basic fairness, is it conceivable that you wouldn’t raise this issue, that you wouldn’t share it?

Remember, the individuals involved haven’t seen a full copy of this report to this day. They’ve been negatively affected, effectively smeared again, which seems to be an odd tactic here. How it happens, I don’t know, but that’s what happened.

In fairness to the reporters in question, who had the document leaked to them, they presented — I think as best they could, given that no one talked to them — a fairly balanced assessment. Vaughn Palmer said: “It doesn’t build much confidence in me to have an investigation team come out after almost three years after the fact and say there may be something to these allegations, never having talked to the poor people who were at the center of this, who were fired, and then reinstated, over this set of allegations.”

Those are the two questions. Why weren’t there adequate resources? Why was the comptroller general’s staff complaining to the police, complaining in the report, about a lack of resources in this serious matter? Why, in two years and nine months, couldn’t they interview the people who they were making, presumably, negative findings about? Doesn’t that go outside…? Forget about the accountants code. Forget about due process. Isn’t that just the decent thing to do?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has asked two questions, the first one relating again to the question of resources.

I’ll say this. At the end of the day, ensuring that departments have the resources they require to conduct their work, fulfil their mandates — ultimately, the responsibility for that lies with the minister. That’s clear.

I’m advised in this case, again by the comptroller general, that the specific challenge related to the expertise of the individuals involved. They had brought in some specialized personnel for this, the contractual nature of this work. They lost those people, or most of those people, and didn’t have ready access to the individuals with a similar level of expertise.

The second part of the member’s question, again, relates to the question of who was interviewed — more particularly, who wasn’t interviewed.

[1750]

I’m not in a position to really stray from the answer that I provided the member earlier, that the view of the comptroller general and his staff was that this was not an investigation relating to individualized conduct for which there would be findings against individuals. It was an investigation of contractual processes that the office was examining and providing recommendations and findings around.
[ Page 13298 ]

A. Dix: Has the minister read the report, and does he agree with the view that there were no findings against individuals?

Hon. M. de Jong: The purpose for which, as I’ve said, the review was undertaken was to examine contracting purposes. I am also advised that as a result of the findings and recommendations, changes have been made.

The member’s more specific question, though, relates to the conclusion a reasonable person would come to upon reading the report and whether a reasonable person would draw negative conclusions or inferences about individuals named in the report. I think that is true.

A. Dix: And did you read it?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yeah.

A. Dix: So the minister read the report. I wanted to ask the minister about a finding of the report. This is the Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative report. It’s referred to on page 39 of the redacted report as vague. The results and the work being done were vague and undefined. I think they’re the terms used. I don’t want to…. It talked about “vague deliverables.” This is the report now.

The minister will know, because he’s been here a while, that the Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative was initiated by the former Premier, Mr. Campbell. He had some very personal reasons for wanting to do that, I think — launching that. What it did was it made drugs that had been rejected by PharmaCare for coverage available for Alzheimer’s patients as long as, essentially, there was a research project associated with that. It was an interesting and, I think, imaginative initiative by the government at that time.

The Alzheimer’s drug therapy initiative was that review. They conducted a report. I asked the Minister of Health about it the other day, and he said: “We did spend $2.78 million on ADTI research” They spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70 million on the drugs, and they’re continuing to do so.

“The projected savings as a result of the change in coverage” — as a result of the report, he said — “is between $4 million and $5 million a year. So I would say, yes, it is good value for money. We will see those changes accrue to the PharmaCare division, which, again, can be used potentially to expand some other programs.”

[1755]

It was a very thorough report that people can find and read. This is what the Ministry of Finance calls vague — a report dictated by the former Premier, dictated by government policy, brought into force. It was delayed by the Health firing scandal. This is what they call vague. I’m wondering if the minister would choose to defend those conclusions.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is certainly entitled to form his own opinions about the degree to which an opinion expressed by the comptroller general and the offices of the comptroller general is consistent with his views or is an opinion that he shares.

I’m not today in a position to render that opinion with respect to that report or any other that might have been reviewed by the office in the process of finalizing this report. I think I would be cautious to do so in light of the statutory powers that the comptroller general possesses, but the member is certainly free to offer his view and his opinion.

A. Dix: Well, I guess, here’s the point, if I may, of this process. It’s that you have a process that has been consistently found to be inadequate. The original Ministry of Health process that took place — alas, when the minister was Minister of Health — has been called by the comptroller general’s office a gong show, on the record. Except these were real lives at stake, and those lives had real consequences. People were smeared in this way.

People who had independent opinions about this weren’t asked. They conducted, seemingly, an investigation by email. They drew conclusions about the value of work, which the Minister of Health, his own government, the Deputy Minister of Health and many others think is excellent and outstanding and important work that’s saving millions of dollars a year.

The government — and the Minister of Finance sort of theoretically signs these cheques — comes to an agreement with a group of individuals. Then they absolutely break faith, with this kind of conduct, right?

[1800]

They draw conclusions about the value of the work without asking anyone who might know the value of the work. They draw conclusions about the people without asking them. I think it’s fair to say that most reasonable people would think that that’s completely unacceptable, that that’s not the way we should behave.

The minister can say: “Oh, we didn’t leak it.” I know he’s not happy with it being leaked. I accept that. I’m sure the comptroller general isn’t happy with it being leaked. I would say again that the reporters in question, I think, did their best to be fair and balanced. But it’s kind of a strange process when no one can talk, when the government didn’t even share the report with the people involved. They can’t comment on it, right? The government can’t comment on it.

So we have the circumstance where they produced a fairly balanced coverage of a report, but it still has serious implications for people. The idea that you could produce such a report, under any circumstances, with the idea that it wouldn’t come out on this issue is, I think, absurd.

There was an obligation for a degree of balance and fairness that did not exist here, meaning when you’re drawing conclusions like this, I think you have an obliga-
[ Page 13299 ]
tion to ask people. There are terms of reference that they were going to ask people. There are codes of conduct that they should ask people. They should have asked people. They should have asked the people in question — and the senior officials of government who had responsibility here, including names….

I can go down the list of deputy ministers involved in this case, and the minister knows it, knows what those names are. Those people were not asked either. That doesn’t sound to me like a fair process, an appropriate process, and that’s what occurred here. I just find it, on the face of it, completely unacceptable.

Now, it’s almost six o’clock, and we’ve agreed that estimates will end at six o’clock. So I’ll leave it to the minister to make his motion.

I would say this in conclusion. I think people have been terribly treated here. The idea that you can treat people terribly, acknowledge you treated them terribly and then treat them terribly again is not on. I don’t find it acceptable, and frankly — although I know the minister is trying here — I don’t find the responses he’s given today acceptable at all.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member, who has again ably and passionately presented his views and concerns on a chapter that he and others have repeatedly described as dark from the perspective of individuals and of human resource relations. It is why, after all, the Ombudsperson is conducting a review.

I’ve never tried to minimize the impact. Perhaps, emerging out of the work of the Ombudsperson, there will be a more definitive statement around the circumstances and the chronology of the event and maybe a more definitive and helpful recommendation around the coordination of processes, reviews and investigations that, it seems to me, were intersecting and crossing one another, not just chronologically but in terms of their purposes.

I am respectful of the passionate interest that the member has displayed over time and the questions that he has put with respect to one small but important dimension to what has taken place. That is the work undertaken by the office of the comptroller general with respect to one component of what took place.

With that, hon. Chair, and with thanks to the member, his colleagues and other members of the committee, I would move Vote 23.

Vote 23: ministry operations, $178,497,000 — approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I see the Opposition House Leader here. By convention, we have tended to deal with all of the votes at this point — and the votes for the various officers.

[1805]

Vote 24: gaming policy and enforcement branch, $19,876,000 — approved.

Vote 25: B.C. Public Service Agency, $50,861,000 — approved.

Vote 26: benefits, $1,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND DEBT

Vote 45: management of public funds and debt, $1,168,125,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 46: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $450,000,000 — approved.

Vote 47: capital funding, $1,303,378,000 — approved.

Vote 48: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 49: allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 50: tax transfers, $1,039,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $69,565,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $17,097,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $701,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $9,385,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $5,964,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,054,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $7,117,000 — approved.
[ Page 13300 ]

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $3,428,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $8,830,000 — approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report completion of the resolutions of Vote 41 of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, Votes 23 through 26 and Votes 45 through 50 of the Ministry of Finance, Vote 1 of the Legislative Assembly and Votes 2 through 9 of the Officers of the Legislature, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:10 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