Budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Advanced Education were held on March 7. I took the opportunity to ask the Minister about the status of government’s review of progress made at British Columbia postsecondary institutions towards the implementation of sexualized violence & misconduct policies.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange. As you will see from the response, government has established a working group comprising of students, institution staff and a community organization resource was convened in December 2018.

The working group reviewed the feedback received and provided input to the development of a draft action plan for the minister’s consideration. Review of institution policies was an area considered by the working group.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the answer. My final area for canvassing is with respect to the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act that was brought in under the previous government. Under the act, the minister can direct a post-secondary institution to conduct a survey or to review its sexual misconduct policy in order to determine its effectiveness.

We’re aware that a survey was actually done on the effectiveness of this legislation and post-secondary policies. So my question is…. I’ve a number of questions here. Are there plans for a more substantial review of these policies in the future, and if yes, what is the timeline for that?

Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member opposite for the question. I first want to acknowledge his advocacy. I want to acknowledge the former government’s efforts to put a law into place. I want to acknowledge that these steps will lead, hopefully, to better safety and outcomes for people.

Most of the institutions formalized their policies in 2017, and the legislation requires institutions to review their policies every three years, whether the minister directs it or not. Most institutions will be undertaking reviews prior to May 2020. These reviews are required to include student consultation. Institutions are responsible for the review of their policies in determining what amendments or additions may be needed to best meet the needs of their students and campuses.

Further to the survey that was undertaken by the ministry as part of an outreach engagement campaign in the winter of 2017-2018 after we formed government, a working group comprised of students, institution staff and a community organization resource was convened in December 2018.

The working group reviewed the feedback received and provided input to the development of a draft action plan for the minister’s consideration. Review of institution policies was an area considered by the working group. We will be working closely with the institutions over the next several months to further explore next steps.

I can assure the member opposite that recommendations are being drafted as we speak. I’m anxiously awaiting what the students and the working group has had to say. We as a government are committed to moving forward to ensure that we address student safety on campus.

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

A. Weaver: I must note the hour, hon. Chair. I would suggest that, perhaps, it is appropriate for the minister to note said hour, and I’ll take my place and allow it.

The Chair: Go ahead with your question. Just that this will likely be the last question.

A. Weaver: I will make a comment. I appreciate the answer from the minister. Of course, different institutions have a different capacity to actually introduce and enable these sexualized violence and misconduct policies. Some institutions have been more successful than others.

We have also undertaken an attempt to receive feedback from various institutions across the province, particularly of student groups. There is differing and varied implementation, and I certainly look forward to the recommendations coming forward from that group, because there is a lot of work that needs to be done.

Of course, as the minister will know, institutions do not want sexualized violence issues to be public because institutions want to be branded safe institutions for their student body. There’s an inherent desire to keep this under the radar, so to speak, and one of the purposes of introducing the policy measures last time was to ensure that institutions grapple with the very real problem that’s ongoing. I look forward to the results.

In September, the ministry began an information campaign. This campaign featured posters that implied that rape culture is wrong. These posters, however, were not very informative. Students need information about the supports that are available to them.

I had a series of questions here. I can just toss them all out at the same time, because the minister should’ve received these in advance. Who did the ministry consult in the design of these posters? Will this information campaign be continuing next year? Will there be a substantive review of the effectiveness of this campaign? How will the ministry incorporate support resource information into the posts going forward?

Hon. M. Mark: Again, thank you for raising the important issue. If we’re talking about making systemic change, we have a law. The law led to policies. The policies, when I came on as minister, were found on some websites — if you had a password or not. I’m not trying to be critical, but I didn’t think it was good enough to have policies on a website that means nothing to students.

We wanted to reach out to students who told me as minister, when I visited all of the campuses, that this was a serious issue. And it’s one that takes great courage for people to come forward to say: “I’ve been a victim.”

Regardless of who you are, I’m not telling you what the face is. That was the point of the campaign. The campaign was: we don’t know what that face is, and let’s not generalize. Let’s not stereotype that it’s a guy or girl.

Part of the idea of Tinder…. I’m not familiar with Tinder; I’m married, for those of you watching at home. Tinder — you know, swipe right, swipe left. That was the idea. The idea was to try to capture a younger audience. I’m not 22. I’m not going to university anymore, where we know that young people are on their phones. And we wanted a campaign that was going to be somewhat provocative.

I heard from students, who said: “Hey, we weren’t really expecting this from the minister.” It was a step and a strategy that we’re doing. We have a working group that is giving us as a ministry a lot of suggestions and recommendations and advice on what we should do to address this very, very serious issue. But when it comes time for the campaign…. The campaign was timed to meet the highest points of risk, the first two weeks of school. We launched the campaign again in January, with the highest points of risk in school.

I can’t answer your question about whether or not we will relaunch the same campaign. I’m taking direction advice from the students who have taken their time to tell me how we should address this systemic issue. There will be more to come, but that was, in essence, the premise of how we came up with the campaign. Was it enough? We wanted a campaign that could speak for itself. Part of it was to get people talking.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report completion of the resolution of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, report progress on the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training and ask leave to sit again.