2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016 (continued)

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

A. Weaver

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act

Hon. A. Wilkinson

K. Corrigan

L. Reimer

M. Karagianis

J. Tegart

A. Weaver

M. Elmore

D. Bing

H. Bains

D. McRae

M. Mungall

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Bill 24 — Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act

Hon. M. Morris

A. Weaver

D. Plecas

M. Farnworth

D. Barnett

Hon. M. Morris

Bill 25 — Miscellaneous Statutes (General) Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. A. Wilkinson

A. Weaver

M. Farnworth

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Natural Gas Development (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. R. Coleman

Estimates: Ministry of Justice

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

[ Page 12911 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: Here in the main chamber of the assembly,

Section B, I call continued committee stage of Bill 21, and in

Section A, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, Deputy Premier and Minister Responsible for Housing.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

section 4 (continued) .

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

G. Heyman: In

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

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

[1340]

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

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

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Heyman:

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

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

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

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

[1345]

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

[ Page 12912 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Weaver: I was coming to…. On

section 5(b), where it says: “by adding the following paragraph.”

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

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

[1350]

Hon. M. Polak: First, the provision exists already. There is already a provision under the Environmental Management Act that is similar. Under

section 138: “(

s) exempting any operation, activity, industry, waste or works or any class of persons, operations, activities, industries, wastes or works from any or all of the provisions of this Act or the regulations in circumstances and on conditions that the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribes.”

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

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

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

[1355]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12913 ]

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

[1400]

The inclusion in the

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

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

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

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

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

G. Heyman:

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

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

[1405]

Hon. M. Polak: The way the numbers were arrived at. In

section 21, we drew from the existing scheme under the Environmental Management Act for similar types of offences. In the case of

section 22, it really didn’t fit as well, so we drew from a related statute, the Integrated Pest Management Act, that better reflected similar types of offences.

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

whereas the responsibility to pay for cleanup would still remain.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:08 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

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

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

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: The chamber will recess for five minutes.

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

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND

MISCONDUCT POLICY ACT

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

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

The bill is the result of government working with the sector — that is, our post-secondary institutions — to

[ Page 12914 ]

address the issue of sexual violence and misconduct on our campuses. The bill also fulfils a commitment made by the Premier, who said that government would work promptly with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who joins us today, to pass legislation as soon as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

These are very different institutions and very different environments, so their policies will have to be tailored to their local circumstances and their local resources.

[1415]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome a grade 5 class that we have from Corpus Christi School. We’ve got 40 in

[ Page 12915 ]

total — 32 students and eight adults — accompanied by two teachers: Ms. Perrotta and Mrs. DeLuca, the grade 5 teacher and teaching assistant. As well, we have parents Mr. Castro, Mrs. De Jesus, Mr. Demalanta, Mr. Apostol, Mrs. Madaloso and Mr. Young.

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Continued

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

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

[1420]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1425]

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

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

[ Page 12916 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1430]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to talk just for a minute about some of the things that need to be taken into account and that I have

[ Page 12917 ]

concerns about. There needs to be a very clear reporting, investigative and adjudicative function at universities.

[1435]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1440]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s one concern. We’ll talk about this more when we get to committee stage. The act applies to post-secondary institutions, and post-secondary institutions are defined as essentially public institutions, institutions established under the College and Institute Act — so that would be essentially colleges, and so on — Royal Roads University

[ Page 12918 ]

Act, Thompson Rivers University Act and the University Act, which essentially covers all the universities. We’re talking about the public post-secondary institutes, colleges and universities in this province.

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

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

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

[1450]

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

[ Page 12919 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

Debate Continued

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

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

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

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

The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act will make public post-secondary campuses in British Columbia safer and more responsive to the needs of victims of sexual violence and misconduct. The act will require public post-secondary institutions to have poli-

[ Page 12920 ]

cies that address sexual misconduct and sets out procedures on complaint reporting and institutional response. Having clear and specific policies in place enables public universities, colleges and institutes to respond quickly and appropriately when an incident occurs. It will ensure that the health and safety of students are protected and appropriate procedures are initiated.

Sexual misconduct is defined within the bill to include a wide range of actions, from the threat to commit

an act of sexual misconduct through to sexual exploitation and sexual assault. Once established, policies will need to be reviewed, with student consultation, at least once every three years or as directed by the minister.

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1505]

[ Page 12921 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1510]

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

Now, I know that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake talked about the Ontario legislation. I want to talk about that for just a moment because

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

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

I did hear the minister say there was going to be consultation or a consultation process is underway, and I

[ Page 12922 ]

think that’s essential in this. When the Ontario act, the policy, was brought in, there was immediately a wide-ranging consultation process. Several months were undertaken to consult with local groups before putting finalized policies in place for each and every school and campus.

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

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

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

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

There are 14 pages, as I’ve mentioned, in this legislation, so it’s very comprehensive. It spells out very, very clearly

definitions, points of contact, promises of support and academic accommodations, and it lays out responsibilities for staff.

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ontario legislation has a very interesting appendix. They have three pages of an appendix which very specif-

[ Page 12923 ]

ically deals with myths and misconceptions about sexual assault and talks very directly about rape and the context of rape within sexual violence.

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, we aspire to that, and we put in place pieces of legislation like Bill 23 to chip away at a small piece of it

[ Page 12924 ]

and try and legislate good behaviour, but as these young people very clearly knew, they want to sit and have a discussion about: what is consent? When does no mean no?

[1525]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1530]

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

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

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

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

The opportunity to develop policy and to invite others to be a part of that development is critical around the conversation of this subject. I hope that, in the develop-

[ Page 12925 ]

ment process, it will be inclusive, and people will feel they had the right to say what needed to be said and to have input into processes that will work well for our students.

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

In addition, there has been a comment made that the words “sexual violence,” under the

definitions, was changed to “sexual misconduct.” In the original version, it had “sexual violence.” I recognize that for some people, that might be troubling. What, to me, was very important is that the words “sexual violence” still appear in the title. Under the

definitions, it is a definition meaning sexual misconduct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, there is a difference. The exposure to the Internet and exposure to the type of behavior that is highly graphic, highly offensive to many — to most, to all — that in more cases than not demonstrates a very

[ Page 12926 ]

unhealthy relationship between a man and a woman or between two people of the same gender.

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve had cases come to me of international students who felt lost that the institutions had not looked after them, and they don’t know where to go. They don’t know what the services are, and they were hoping to get some support — and, in some cases, didn’t. The litany of stories that we got from across British Columbia was overwhelming. It was not only across British Columbia; they started coming in from across Canada. This is an issue that’s not exclusive to one university, not exclusive to one college.

It’s pervasive across North America, and it says that there is something very wrong in our society — something very wrong when this sort of behavior can actually go on, on campuses and a lid be put over it.

[1545]

One of the themes that came up at the town hall we had last week — it was actually quite an interesting theme — was that there was a concern expressed by more than one individual that the growth of the concern on campuses about the suppression, the perceived suppression, of actions on sexual policies came in lockstep with the corporatization of some our university and post-secondary institutions — perhaps less of an issue to some of the smaller institutions, but more of an issue to some of the bigger ones.

Universities must and need to be perceived as safe places for students, not only local but across the world — safe places for those students to learn, to innovate, to be creative and to contribute to research and understanding of everything around us.

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

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

[ Page 12927 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The code of conduct within the BCIT also states:

“Each student will be responsible and accountable for his or her conduct from the time of application for admission or enrolment through the actual awarding of a credential.

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

[ Page 12928 ]

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

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

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

[1555]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, another problem. This is with respect to

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

[1600]

It said: “As written, this introduces political decision-making, the infrequent discretion of the Minister of Education, into what should be an annual fact-inves-

[ Page 12929 ]

tigation process which allows standardized comparison across all institutions of higher learning in British Columbia.” It’s an important point. I’d be delighted to share some of this feedback with the minister or at committee stage where we can actually flesh out where these concerns are coming from.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[R. Lee in the chair.]

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

[1605]

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

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

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

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

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

The other important aspect to consider, in terms of a comprehensive vision on bringing to an end sexual violence anywhere in our society, is that we need to, at the same time, challenge all forms of oppression and recog-

[ Page 12930 ]

nize their connection to sexual violence. Certainly, the compounding issues, realities and dynamics around racism, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, transphobia — these all contribute and can compound and multiply the vulnerability of individuals, of students, of citizens to being attacked.

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

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

[1610]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1615]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12931 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the stakeholders we consulted with include: the Research Universities Council of British Columbia, which is the sector association for UBC, SFU, UVic, UNBC, Royal Roads and TRU; the Association of Institutes and Universities, which includes four teaching universities — the University of the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island University, Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Emily Carr University of Art and Design; three institutes — British Columbia Institute of Technology, the Justice Institute of B.C. and the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology; B.C.

Colleges, which represents the colleges across the province; and the student associations. I want to thank all of these organizations for their input.

[1620]

“Sexual misconduct” is defined within the bill to include a wide range of actions, from the threat to commit

an act of sexual misconduct through to sexual exploitation and sexual assault. This bill specifies a wide range of acts to be addressed in the required policies. This includes but is not limited to sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking and voyeurism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those stories that those young women tell the world, the victims of sexual assault — the impact left on them is

[ Page 12932 ]

permanent. I think it’s about time that we start to think about these things very, very seriously and take some real steps.

When you look at what’s going on in universities and colleges, you wonder. These are the institutions where we send our youngsters to get the skills and knowledge tha