British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, March 3, 2015

20150303pm-Hansard-v20n11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, March 3, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 20, Number 11

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 3, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 6297 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 6297 Bill 7 — Private Training Act Hon. A. Wilkinson K. Corrigan B. Ralston R. Fleming M. Mungall H. Bains J. Kwan Hon. A.

Wilkinson Bill 12 — Federal Port Development Act Hon. R. Coleman B. Ralston A. Weaver On the amendment A. Weaver B. Ralston V . Huntington Hon. R. Coleman On the main motion V . Huntington On the amendment V . Huntington M. Farnworth On the main motion Hon. R. Coleman Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 6324 Bill 4 — Chartered Professional Accountants Act Hon. A. Wilkinson K.

Corrigan Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 6336 Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued) S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak N. Macdonald N. Simons K. Conroy B. Routley D. Donaldson M. Farnworth G. Holman L. Popham V . Huntington G. Heyman

TUESDAY , MARCH 3, 2015 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members D. Routley: I’ d like the House to help me welcome Ian and Barbara Simpson. Th ey’re business people from the town of Chemainus in my riding. Th ey are wonder- ful people who operate a business called the Silver Mine, where they sell silver jewelry and copper jewelry craft ed by First Nations artists. Th ey are a wonderful couple. Ian was a paramedic, and Barbara has been in the food industry all of her life. They’re wonderful citizens of Chemainus.

I hope the House can help me welcome them to the B.C. Legislature. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, there’s a special young man in my life who actually believes he was born here in Victoria in the Legislature. He turns 11 today. Happy birthday, Will. Orders of the Day Hon. T. Stone: In

Section A, I call the continuing esti- mates of the Ministry of Environment. Here in the main chamber of the assembly,

Section B, I call second reading of Bill 7, intituled the Private Training Act. Second Reading of Bills BILL 7 — PRIV ATE TRAINING ACT Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that Bill 7, the Private Training Act, now be read a second time. Th is bill is the result of a core review decision to im- prove the governance and regulation of the private train- ing sector here in British Columbia. [D. Horne in the chair.] Th e legislation will replace the Private Career Training Institutions Act. It will dissolve the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which currently regulates the sector.

It will bring the authorities and functions of the agency into the Ministry of Advanced Education. Government fi rst announced this intention on April 17, 2014, and consulted with private training institutions, sector representatives and other stakeholders about the proposed changes. Th eir feedback helped to shape the new model for a private career-training sector. [1335] Th is legislation will create higher-quality standards for the sector and higher educational quality for students. It will broaden enforcement mechanisms and provide bet- ter student protection.

It will also streamline approval processes and create a risk-based approach that protects the public interest. It will also reduce the regulatory bu- rden on private institutions that can off er consistently high-quality programs and that have a history of strong compliance. Th e legislation establishes two pathways to authoriza- tion for institutions. Th e two pathways are registration and designation.

Institutions receiving designation, by meeting higher standards of quality, will be entitled to three things: student fi nancial assistance designation, educational quality assurance designation and hosting students on study visas under the federal international student program. Th e second category, institutions in the registration category, must meet education standards. Students of both registered and designated institutions will have tuition protection. Th e student training com- pletion fund, established under the current act, is con- tinued.

Institutions at greater risk of closure may have to provide security in addition to contributing to the tuition protection fund. An administrative penalty framework is a new aspect of the legislation. Th is enables the registrar to impose monetary penalties for contravention of the act require- ments. Th is enforcement measure will promote compli- ance with the act. Government changed the governance model for pri- vate institutions in 2004 to allow industry to regulate itself.

Th e landscape of post-secondary education has changed since then, with a greater need for students and individuals to have job-ready skills for the future. Th e post-secondary sector today is more complex and much more international. Th ese institutions complement the 25 public universities, colleges and institutes in the province, and this legislation will establish higher-quality standards for the sector. Th is will lead to a higher quality of education for students at those institutions. Th at high- er quality creates greater confi dence in the sector, both nationally and internationally. K.

Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and speak about Bill 7, the Private Training Act. Th is bill is welcome in many ways, although I have some concerns about it. But it’s certainly welcome. It par- tially corrects a legacy of over a decade of problems in private career training as a result of the decision by gov- ernment, by the Liberals, in 2003 that it was basically go- ing to allow self-regulation of the industry. It privatized and allowed self-regulation and decided there would be self-regulation of private career-training institutions.

It’s interesting to hear that the minister has just said that the intention of this bill is to…. It’s going to result in a more integrated and eff ective regulation of private ca- 6297

British Columbia Debates6298 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 reer-training institutions, the elimination of overlapping processes and a reduced regulatory burden on the sec- tor. It says regulations made under the new legislation…. Regulations are going to get rid of red tape, essentially. It is so ironic. Here is what the same government said in 2003 when it brought in the Private Career Training Institutions Agency — which was the privatization, es- sentially, of the regulation of private training schools. What they said at the time…. We spoke about it, and we were very concerned about self-regulation.

We were very concerned about government devolving responsibility for regulation of private training schools. Th e now Minister of Jobs said at the time: “Th is bill, I am pleased to say, will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sec- tor to take greater responsibility for their actions. ” Th at was the intention. [1340] Lorne Mayencourt said: “We’ll reduce the regulatory burden for the private training sector.

It will also reduce red tape for private training institutions and allow them to reinvest their time and money into the expansion of their businesses. ” Randy Hawes said the same kind of thing and railed about us on this side of the House always wanting gov- ernment to do everything. He said: “Th is is going to be a great thing. It’s to just get government out of the way. ” Well, we have had 12 years, almost 12 years now, of government getting out of the way, and the legacy is a mess.

Th e legacy has been a mess of schools where stu- dents have been getting ripped off , where agents have ripped off students, where the good name…. The most important thing is our good name and the high-quality assurance that students from around the world have had, that when they come to a British Columbia school in post-secondary and in K to 12, they are going to get the highest quality of education and that they don’t have to worry about it. Unfortunately, that reputation has taken a real hit.

We had a lot of really bad apples, really bad schools appar- ently taking advantage, or at least not being monitored and watched by this government, under this self-regu- lation. Th e fact that we have the government now essentially bringing private career training back in and suggesting that what it’s going to do is to eliminate overlapping processes and reduce regulatory burden is pretty ironic, given that that was the claim that was made when they introduced the whole scheme in the fi rst place.

It’s kind of funny that you reduce red tape by getting rid of regu- lation, and then you reduce it again by bringing bodies back into government. I want to say, also, that I have to give credit to my col- leagues from Nelson-Creston and Victoria–Swan Lake. Both of them, twice in the last several years, introduced private member’s bills and tried to persuade this House…. Certainly, those of us on this side of the House were per- suaded.

We tried to persuade members on the other side of the House that it would be a good idea to bring monitoring, regulation and oversight of these private career-training institutions back into government. Unfortunately, until now the wisdom of that was not acknowledged, and un- fortunately, both of those bills were not accepted by this House. It’s unfortunate, because I believe that the member for Victoria–Swan Lake brought his bill in as far back as 2007. Th e member for Nelson-Creston brought the bill in while she was Advanced Education spokesperson sev- eral years ago.

It’s too bad that this had to happen, that there was this deregulation. And it’s too bad that government took so long and did not accept our suggestion that there need- ed to be better monitoring, oversight and regulation. We could have avoided the many, many students whose view of British Columbia was tainted and who oft en lost thou- sands and thousands of dollars. When we get to the committee stage, I have a lot of really specifi c questions.

One of my problems with this bill, though, is that so much of it is left to be determined by regulation, so much so that I had to make requests of ministry staff to try to understand some of the major por- tions of the bill simply because we don’t know what’s go- ing to happen. I have a real concern when that happens. [1345] I know it’s been mentioned on this side of the House before, but we really do not know exactly what it is that we are being asked to support in many cases. When we get to committee stage, I’ll go through some of those very specifi c sections.

It’s very diffi cult to know exactly what oversight is go- ing to look like. Essentially, I don’t think it’s been decided yet. I’m not sure, one, why we would have the bill come forward without those things being decided. Th en two, I guess my concern about it is that it’s very diffi cult for us to appropriately and fully debate a bill like this when we don’t know what the regulation and what the oversight is going to look like. I fi nd that disappointing and disconcerting, to the point that it wasn’t even clear to me, from looking at the bill, whether or not language schools were included.

It was possible, reading the bill, that they were. Given that, for example, it said that any other type of institution could be brought in under the act, that could potentially, I guess, include language schools. I’m assured that that is not the case. But there is a new regulatory scheme for language schools, in a sense. Th at is something that has concerned some people. I appreciate that it’s always a balancing act. Essentially, some of the language schools are small businesses. Some of them are very, very large multinational businesses.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6299 I t’ s trying to fi nd that balance between the appropriate amount of regulation and, on the other hand, not so con- trolling a small business, particularly the small business- es, to the point that it’s impossible for them to operate. Th ere are some concerns about the language schools. What’s happening with the language schools, in my understanding, is that the language schools are not auto- matically covered by the act. What is going to happen to them is that they will….

If they want to practice it, if they want to have the benefi ts of being able to have students, for example, get visas — which many, many students will obviously need…. If they want to be able to be able to operate and have students come from other countries…. Virtually all the students that are going to the private language schools, all of them, are coming from other countries, so they’re going to need visas. Th ey’re going to need, therefore, to get the EQA designation, which is the education qual- ity assurance. Now, this is causing some problems for some schools, as is my understanding.

I’ve been hearing from some of the faculties and owners of some smaller schools, who are saying that that is too onerous. What that essentially does is it brings the schools under the regulation and the umbrella of the act. We have called for that. We understand that it can be problematic for some schools, but we have called for that. One of the reasons — certainly what I’ve heard from some of those that are involved with the language schools — is that this is an area where there is real potential for abuse. And there has been abuse.

One of the problems — and I’m not sure; again, I’ll have to check; when we’re in committee stage, I’m going to ask questions about that — is determining the level of payment that goes into a fund, basically an insurance fund, for students who are in these schools. Th e level of payments, to my understanding, do not include money that is paid to agents as administrative fees. Th ey’re huge funds. Th ey add up to hundreds of mil- lions of dollars a year. Y ou’re talking about, I believe, in the range of over $1 billion a year. It is an industry that is worth more than $1 billion a year.

It is largely the agents, the ones that are bringing the students, who are the ones that oft en get the money. Th ey’re the ones that the stu- dents pay, both for the tuition for these private language schools, which are six to nine months that the students sometime go — usually longer term…. [1350] Th ey’re paying the agents the whole amount. Th ere’s a real potential for, and there have been, signifi cant abuses as a result of the fact that those agents are receiving the money. Th e school itself….

Y ou may not be able to get the school, and the agents usually are in the home coun- try of the students that are coming. I’m not sure that this legislation is going to address that issue. I don’t believe it is. I know that in the consultations that government had, and also in my consultations with some of those language schools, they had a real concern about whether or not there would be control and mon- itoring and any way to get at the agents who are the ones that are bringing the students.

I want to go back to talk a little bit about some of the problems that have happened and why I think it’s good — at least a partial step, apart from some concerns about the legislation — to have this legislation. We will likely be supporting it overall. But I do want to say that the rec- ognition, the acknowledgment that this was not working and that it should be fi xed should have happened years and years ago. Unfortunately we got to the point…. In January 2007, for example, we had China warning students.

January 9, 2007 — a story saying: “China is warning students who want to study abroad to avoid private post-secondary schools in Canada because it says shady operators are ripping off hundreds of international students every year. Th e warning was issued late last year” — that would have been late 2006 — “by the Chinese Education Ministry, a spokes- man for the Chinese consulate in Vancouver said….

Its impact will be felt mainly in B.C. and Ontario because those two provinces have the most private schools catering to international students. ” Education consul Jianhui Xia said in an interview: “We want to protect our Chinese students from being cheated. ” What an embarrassing assessment to have had back in 2007. Th at was eight years ago, and unfortunately it has taken eight more years of these kinds of incidents before the government has fi nally moved to try to address some of the issues. In the meantime, how many thousands of stu- dents have been ripped off ?

Now, I’m not slagging, not criticizing those schools that provide a good service and are excellent and serve the students that come here well. But unfortunately, when you have a lax regulatory environment, you’re going to end up — especially when you’re talking about an indus- try that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars — having those bad apples.

It doesn’t take too many incidents, and unfortunately there were quite a few, before the reputation gets around and you have, not an individual disgruntled in China — although that would be important as well — but you actually have the Chinese Education Ministry making a pronouncement that Chinese students should think very seriously about going to study in Canada because they might get ripped off by Canadian language or train- ing schools. I think it’s really unfortunate that that’s the history of it. We had another one, certainly, that the member for Nelson-Creston was very involved in.

She pointed out that B.C. at that time, in 2012, was the only province that allows the private post-secondary industry to self-regu- late. I hadn’t been aware of that, actually, until I read that. Th at was three years ago. It was the only one. [1355]

British Columbia Debates6300 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 She was raising the issue of a traditional medicine college that ended up…. Th e students, some of whom had gone there for years…. Stephen Harvey was men- tioned in this story. He spent seven years in school and over $50,000 to earn his doctor of acupuncture and trad- itional Chinese medicine certifi cates from the Shanghai Traditional Chinese Medicine College — in my com- munity of Burnaby, unfortunately. But when he applied for his licence to practice his trade, he was denied, and his education, he was told, was worthless.

Seven years and $50,000 because of a lack of adequate oversight in a system that this government put in place and refused to fi x. Th at’s one person losing $50,000, and there were many others. It is unfortunate that we have that long history. We have another example from 2006. Th is goes back such a long time. It’s so disappointing that this was al- lowed to go on for as long as it has. It certainly is an ad- mission by this government that it failed, that it failed students. It failed international students and failed many students from here as well.

It failed all of us because we’re concerned about the image of our province. It’s certainly an admission that there was a failure in this scheme, and I really don’t know why it took so long to fi nally fi x it — or to some degree fi x it. We had another example.

Th is is a story from October of 2006. “B.C. ’s University Professors Call for Suspension of Lansbridge University Operations. ” Th at was another B.C. school associated with Kingston College. “Th e or- ganization representing B.C. ’s public university pro- fessors today called for an immediate suspension of operations by Lansbridge University in response to the reports that Lansbridge’s owner, Dr.

Michael Lo, appears to have off ered degree programs illegally at another B.C. school he owns, Kingston College. ” Not only is our province as a whole tainted by those stories, or their reputation, but it gets very specifi cally to the term “university. ” Th at is part of what happened with the deregulation or the self-regulation. Part of the act, part of the Private Career Training Institutions Act, was the widening of the ability for private universities to fl ourish, and that’s partly because of the deregulation.

I think it’s important to remember that this is what members from the other side of the House crowed about at the time and said, you know that we were all on this side of the House wanting red tape, and that it was ri- diculous and it wasn’t necessary. It’s really unfortunate because it’s meant that many, many students have ended up losing their money or having a really bad taste. Ida Chong said: “I don’t understand. Th e NDP seem to forget that we should be putting students fi rst. ” Th at’s what she said about the bill.

She said: “We’ve strengthened consumer protection. ” I’m not sure why they thought that, but you know, it is consistent. It’s consistent with the atti- tude that we hear on the other side of the House repeat- edly — the suggestion that, somehow, red tape…. Th ey use the word “red tape” and say it’s bad when, in fact, red tape is regulation. Red tape is oversight. Red tape is making sure not only that we have the standards there, but also that we monitor, that we inspect, we do the things, we look aft er our environment. Th at is what red tape is. And that is what those on the other side of the House repeatedly….

We got it again in the throne speech this year. Th e throne speech said: “We’re going to cut red tape. We’re going to do it, and we’re so proud of ourselves. ” Ten years ago, over ten years ago, it was: “We are going to cut regu- lation by a third. ” Well, thank you very much.

When you cut regulation by a third just willy-nilly and say, “Okay, regulation in and of itself is bad” — you know, govern- ment is bad, regulation is bad — then what you end up with is situations like this. [1400] I do appreciate that government has fi nally appreci- ated that regulation is an important thing to do, that we do need to have oversight. We need to monitor. But un- fortunately, part of the problem is that the devil is in the details. As I said earlier, we don’t know what the details are.

We have many, many sections that say “to be deter- mined by regulation” — some very, very important ones that, unfortunately, really will determine what the mon- itoring scheme is going to be like, what the regulatory framework is going to look like. It’s really hard to know exactly what this is all going to look like. We’re going to have to vote on it, which is unfortunate, before we really know what it looks like. Th at’s certainly been a concern that’s been expressed by some of the stakeholders that I’ve talked to.

Th ey said: “Well, we don’t know for sure what we think because we’re not sure what it is that you’re talking about. ” So many of the details — more than details…. So much of the struc- ture is not in the bill itself. I also wanted to raise a couple of things that some in- dividuals raised with me. Th ey are concerned, as I said earlier, about the fact that agents…. Here’s a quote.

Here’s what one of the language schools, some of the teachers, said to me: “Currently there is little, if any, eff ective over- sight of agents and recruiters, a gap that leaves students vulnerable to misinformation and unprotected from questionable actions taken by agents or recruiters. ” It’s not clear to me that that issue is going to be ad- dressed. I mean, I think the fact that schools are being brought in and required to have the designation and the education quality assurance…. I’m not sure why it’s called designation now as opposed to accreditation.

I’m assured it means exactly the same thing, but for some reason, we now have designation as opposed to accredit- ation. Another comment was made. “ A necessary step in any reforms made to the oversight of private language training institutions is to have faculty included in the governance system. Faculty have an important and in-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6301 dependent perspective on how institutions and students work. ” Th at perspective was not refl ected in the PCTIA model, the Private Career Training Institutions Agency model, where government was eff ectively based on self- regulation. Th at is certainly one of the concerns of faculty, who oft en were caught in the middle. Th ey would be very well qualifi ed professionals in teaching at the private training institutions but were in no way represented in the over- sight and in the governance system. So it’s not clear to me, as it now stands.

I believe one of the things that is not clear that will be decided by regulation is: what is the oversight going to look like? Well, that’s a huge issue. We’ve seen that in the ap- prenticeship system. When you remove those that work directly with those being trained, either as apprentices or in a private training college or institution…. When you remove people like teachers or unions from the mix — and it’s entirely an employer or, in this case, owners; it’s private so entirely owners — then it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work.

Profi t motivation is fi ne, but when that’s the only voice that’s at the table, none of us are well served. We’re bet- ter served when we have a variety of voices at the table off ering a variety of perspectives and making sure that governance and oversight are balanced. Th ere’s concern…. I’m not sure about what the com- plaint process is going to look like.

Some of the most common complaints from students, certainly at the lan- guage schools, have to do with their homestay arrange- ment. [1405] Th is information that was given to me said: “T oo oft en the homestay arrangement is something controlled by either the recruiter agent, the institution or both. Th at leaves the student and their family vulnerable to less-than-agreed-to, acceptable homestay arrangements. Students also complain about the quality of the learning conditions, including crowded class- rooms or inferior conditions within the institution.

Again, the gap between what the recruiter agent promised and what the student receives is at the core of these complaints. ” I do believe that there will be an improvement to the complaints process. One of the things, one of the sub- stantive changes…. I think the main substantive change, in my understanding of the reading of the legislation, is that the complaints process will be longer. Th ere will be a longer period of time, and that’s good. It’s good news. It was six months, and it’s now increased from that, de- pending on the nature of the complaint, to a year or more. We appreciate that.

We think that that’s a good thing, and we thank the government for that change. If the complaint is about a homestay arrangement and the homestay arrangement is not something that will be governed or in any way managed under this new legis- lation, being brought back into government, then that problem will continue to exist. It’s not clear from the legislation that that will be addressed. I also have some concerns about the formulation of the student training completion fund — or the reforming of it. Th is, I think I mentioned before, is like an insurance policy, essentially.

It’s a fund to which all the schools pay into — the ones that were accredited. Now they’ll be called designated. In other words, they are guaranteeing that they’re of a higher quality and will have more over- sight and certainly a closer look at them before they get their designation. Th e student training completion fund is a fund which all the schools pay into, and they have to pay accord- ing to the size of their tuition. So if there is a complaint from a student or their family, if there’s a complaint….

For example, if the courses that were off ered in fact are not given, if they don’t deliver on those courses or there’s some other substantive problem with the school, then students can fi le a complaint. As I said, we’re pleased that the complaint period is longer. Certainly, I heard from stakeholders as well that this is a big improvement. Th ere’s a real concern that a lot of the students don’t speak the language, and the in- formation….

It’ll be interesting to see whether or not the information that is off ered about the complaints process is in the language of the students that are actually at- tending the schools. If they’re not, then that’s not help- ful. We’ll have to see about that as well, and I’ll certainly ask questions about what kind of compliance there needs to be and what kind of regulation there will be with re- gard to that. Another concern in terms of the completion fund — the insurance fund, essentially — is that….

Th ere are concerns under the old and also under the new act about whether or not the amount of money that is collected is the appropriate amount. I mentioned agents being very involved in the process. My understanding is that, both with the old act and now the new, tuition, the amount that is tuition, is the thing that drives the rate that has to be paid — the pre- mium, essentially — into the student training completion fund. But I’m not sure what kinds of controls there will be in the new act in order to ensure that what has happened in the past doesn’t happen in the future.

Th at is, the tu- ition itself might not be extremely high, but the payment to the agent is very, very high and, in some cases, could be as much as, or perhaps more, than the actual cost of the program. Now, that might be a bit of an extreme, but it’s signifi cant. [1410] Th e concern that’s raised about that is: how do you monitor that amount? And then: how do you take into account the fact that in some schools that agency fee is so high, yet it’s not refl ected in the premium that the lan- guage schools are paid?

Are those payments to the agents, which are a signifi cant part of what the students are pay- ing in order to come to school in British Columbia…? Are they collectible as well? I’ll have questions about that.

British Columbia Debates6302 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 One of the submissions that I saw said that having a process with regard to the student training completion fund…. “Having a process that’s easily accessed and can resolve matters in a timely fashion is probably the biggest challenge for the student training completion fund. Th e possibility exists that the process could take longer than an international student’s ability to access it, which could create a negative reputation for the province abroad. ” Again, we are concerned about the reputation of the province.

Th at adds to the concern about scam artists and so on, and our very good reputation. For years and years we have rightfully gained a stellar reputation in terms of post-secondary education around the world because of the quality of our public institutions. My concern is that the quality that we are now cashing in on, in a sense, the reputation of our public institutions, our universities, our colleges…. I would say to anybody around the world: “Come to our universities and colleges. ” Unfortunately, you know, we are not funding our col- leges and universities appropriately.

We are still doing a fabulous job, but they’re facing their own challenges. At least we have a long history of wonderful standards in our public universities and colleges and institutes.

It really is painful when you believe so much in a public education system and you believe that our reputation around the world is very, very good and then you see it challenged because this government made the decision that they were going to privatize and going to support privatiza- tion of training, including allowing organizations to use the word “university. ” Because of our stellar reputation, many students and their families assumed that this meant that if they came to any university in British Columbia, they were getting a top-notch education, assuming it was public.

Maybe they wouldn’t know the diff erence, but they assumed they were coming to a top-notch institution. Now that has been tainted to some degree. I think that we’re still doing a fabulous job. Unfortunately, because of this government’s determina- tion to privatize, to hand over regulation to the industry themselves and say: “Make sure you stay top notch. By the way, we recognize that your bottom line is the bot- tom line and not the reputation of this province…. ” By handing it over, we’ve taken a bit of a blow.

Perhaps this legislation will help bring us back a little bit and tighten things up and make it better. I certainly do have some of the concerns that I have mentioned previously. One of the solutions, and I don’t know whether it has ended up in the legislation, is that by….

Th is would be a faculty submission. “Given that homestay arrangements are important conditions for stu- dents, some form of insurance against problems arising from homestays should be considered. ” As mentioned earlier: “Where students give their tuition fees to their recruiter agents, the need to have those entities part of the fund is pressing. ” Finally: “Th e experience of having a self-regulatory regime has shown the fl aws in having a single stakeholder group control oversight of quality and standards. ” [1415] Th ere have been some improvements as a result of the changes to the federal government’s international student program, which set some federal standards for allowing students to come in.

Th at would be the federal part, the student visas. As a result of that, the Advanced Education Ministry determined that all institutions that wished to host international students on study permits must attain their education quality assurance designation. So there have already been some improvements, but it’s created some of these…. Because the standards were so lax under this government before, this has created some ripples within the industry and has created some problems and push-back.

It’ll be interesting when we get to the next stage, the committee stage, to ask some ques- tions about that and how that works. Just in summing up, we’re pleased to fi nally see that government has admitted failure, given up and admit- ted failure, in its 11-year, almost 12-year, foray into self- regulation by industry, which has, unfortunately, created a number of victims and perhaps injured our internation- al reputation for post-secondary education and educa- tion generally. We warned about it back in 2003.

Th e member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spent a good deal of time in the House saying the many, many concerns that she had about the fact that this scheme was coming in. We had many members from the other side telling us it was go- ing to be wonderful and that it was going to mean there was less red tape and that things were going to be more effi cient. Now we have a government, 12 years later, coming back and saying, I think, kind of an “oops, ” and saying that now that we’re going to bring it back in, there’s going to be much less tape and it’s going to be much more effi cient.

We agree in that regard that it will be better. I look for- ward to having a chance to get down to the detail of this bill. It is very unfortunate that so much of it is going to be decided later. How things are actually going to hap- pen is going to be decided later, because it’s going to be in regulation. We may not get to fi gure out exactly what the scheme is going to look like and whether those issues of compliance, those issues of homestays, the issues of agents, the penalty system, the compliance — whether or not that’s actually going to work.

We’ll ask some ques- tions about that when we get to committee stage. With that, we’re pleased to see that we have the act. Th ere are some parts that we have some real concerns about. Aft er 12 years, we’ d like to thank the government for listening to the people on this side of the House. B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 7, the Private Training Act. It is, I suppose, one of those exquisite ironies that

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6303 the minister guiding the bill through the House was the president of the B.C. Liberal Party in 2001 and, shortly aft er the government came to power, was selected as a deputy minister in that government. He’s very familiar with many of the ideological promises that were made in the campaign document of the B.C. Liberals, sweep- ing them into power in 2001. I really could only guff aw when I heard him say that the purpose of this piece of legislation taking the agency back into government was to reduce the regulatory bu- rden.

Everything’s changed but the language. Th e reality has changed. Th e reputation of the private regulation of post-secondary institutions was damaged. Th e govern- ment has fi nally admitted its mistake, although it’s done under the guise of saving some money. Y et the rhetoric is exactly the same. I suppose that’s an admirable consistency. But to say, aft er everything’s that happened, that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce the regulatory burden is exquisite irony in the extreme. [1420] Mr.

Lorne Mayencourt, who was an MLA at that point and now a Liberal staff er, said in his comments on the previous bill that set up PCTIA, the private regulator, that this “will also reduce red tape for private training insti- tutions and will allow them to reinvest their time and money into the expansion of their businesses. ” Randy Hawes, a former member here and now back as the mayor of Mission, I understand: “Th e changes being made and the things being recognized are that the private sector actually takes great pride in doing the job well. And they do do the job well.

Th ey do it best when government gets out of the way and allows them to do the job they want to and they’re supposed to do. People will choose, without a lot of safety net from the government, the pri- vate operators that off er the best service…the best abil- ity to stay in business because they off er quality service. ” Well, that was the theory.

Th e reality, unfortunately, for many students, either from abroad or from British Columbia, who enrolled in some of the private institu- tions — not all of them — was that the regulatory stan- dard was so loose that outright fraud and deception and theft of tuition fees was practised on vulnerable students. It came to the point where, as the member for Burnaby– Deer Lake has pointed out, the Chinese consulate, the People’s Republic of China consulate in Vancouver, was warning students in China not to come to British Columbia to enrol in these institutions.

Th e Indian con- sul general in Vancouver, similarly, was warning Indian students not to come to British Columbia because of the lack of regulation. When one considers some of the regulatory problems that one hears about in other countries, that certainly is, again, a rather long tumble in the reputation of British Columbia in this area. A reputation in this area is damag- ing not just to the individual operators and to those stu- dents who enrolled in those institutions, but it damages the whole sector.

Where these kinds of inquiries, through the blogosphere, become global inquiries, it can have a really damaging economic eff ect on the whole sector. Indeed, that’s what seemed to happen. Th e Chinese consul who was in charge of this discussion and repre- senting the consulate general said that he acknow- ledged that not all private institutions are disreputable, but China is not able to sort the good from the bad. In other words, the reputation resulted in caution, and the ability to make a decision about which one was good or which one was not was too diffi cult — hence, the blan- ket warning.

It strikes me as ironic, indeed, that that’s what took place. Th ere are other examples — Kingston College, an institution with very close connections to the B.C. Liberals. Certainly, Michael Lo, the proprietor, very close connections to the B.C. Liberals, operated an institu- tion which…. Th e Confederation of University Faculty Associations wrote and pointed out and informed, as best they could, other students about the problems with that institution.

Th e executive director, Robert Clift , in a news release back in October 2006, said: “ Although Kingston College has been shut down, and the results of the investigation published on the PCTIA website, the former Kingston students are in limbo. Th ey may be kicked out of the country when their visas expire, without their degrees, without tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and living expenses and without the two years of their lives lost to Michael Lo’s fraudulent educational empire. ” Th ere’s another example.

In my own riding, in Surrey- Whalley, during that period of time, aft er 2005 — I won’t mention the name of the institution; I think it’s happily disappeared — there were students who came to my of- fi ce. Th ey had paid their fees to a technical training insti- tution regulated by the board. What this institution did was to take a deposit and then help these students apply for a student loan and have the entire student loan, or the bulk of it, directed to the institution. [1425] Once that came through, then what they would do would be to tell them that for the course that they had, they were reducing the hours.

Th en, within a month or two, that course would be discontinued. Basically, the people were told, “Well, we’ll give you a refund of your tuition” — which never came. Th e whole scam was to get the people to make the application for the student loan and get the money to the institution without any inten- tion of delivering the service. Th at was an experience where I went to the local media. We did our best to get some justice for those students. Certainly there were many problems.

In fact, the gov- ernment commissioned a report on the Private Career Training Institutions Act, a review by John Watson, who was a former president of BCIT. Th at report came out on

British Columbia Debates6304 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 January 10, 2008. One of the things that he looked at…. He spoke with public institutions, and he spoke with the University Presidents Council of B.C. Th is is what the University Presidents Council said: “It now appears that deregulation, particularly in the context of ESL institu- tions, has facilitated a decline in quality control. Th is must be reversed. ” He had a number of other recommendations. One of the ones was that the governing body of the PCTIA, the governing board, have some public members.

In fact, he recommended a majority of public members, because the board was composed of representatives of the indus- try who seemed to be regulating — if one could use that term — in their own interest and not in the interest of the public or students or the international reputation of private institutions of British Columbia globally. Certainly, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake are drawing on some of the work that the previous critics have done.

The member for Nelson-Creston introduced a private member’s bill which sought to address many of the defi ciencies which only now are being addressed in the bill that’s now before the House and that we’re discussing. One omission, though, was that the previous Private Post-Secondary Education Commission did regulate language schools. What has now taken place in this act, despite recommendations by Mr. Watson as far back as 2008, and by, I think, some of those in the industry….

Certainly, it was included in the private member’s bill put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston to protect international students by bringing English-as-a-second- language or foreign-language schools under the author- ity of the act. Th is bill does not do that. I’ll be interested to hear from the minister, should he care to venture an opinion on this, why that decision was made, given that this appears to be an overdue result of a long and tortuous process of public criticism and re- examination of some of the ideological shibboleths of the B.C.

Liberals, forcing them to take this back into public control in order to better regulate and serve the public interest better — although the language, as I’ve noted, remains the same, of reducing the regulatory burden. Th e act, as I’ve said, I think is long overdue, will be wel- come and will enhance the public reputation of British Columbia’s many private institutions. Th at’s really what I wanted to say on this bill. I look forward to the…. Interjection. B. Ralston: Well, I hadn’t quite concluded. I did want to add one further comment. [1430] Th e reaction of the B.C.

Liberals over the years was, very understandably, defensive. I’m going to quote from Minister Coell, as he was then.

Despite the example of very high-profi le public failures of private institutions such as Kingston College and Lansbridge University be- longing to Vancouver businessman Michael Lo, Minister Coell, the responsible minister, said this when asked about it: “‘Th e government does not feel the fact that very few schools have had problems would justify returning to rigid, one-size-fi ts-all regulation. ’ Th e ministry will create a quality assurance program, according to an an- nouncement issued with the release of the report” — that was the report of Mr.

Watson — “but participation will be voluntary. ” Even then the government was reluctant to do the right thing, to introduce legislation like this and set out to cor- rect the problems that it created back in those ideologic- ally charged days post-2001, with which the minister will be very familiar. Having now, I think, concluded my remarks, I will turn over the role of speaking to one of my colleagues either on this side of the House or…. From the look of it, prob- ably not on that side of the House. R. Fleming: I’m pleased, I think, to be speaking to this bill this aft ernoon.

It’s been, to say the very least, a long time in coming. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Th e mistakes that were made by this government as far back as 2003 have been the subject of inquiries, in- vestigations. Th ey have been the subject of warnings by international consulates to residents. Th ey have been subjected to intense media scrutiny; an investigation by our own Auditor General, an independent offi cer of this House; opposition scrutiny; case fi les in the hundreds, if not thousands, by MLAs of all parties who had student complaints directly brought to them — because the ori- ginal legislation was so fl awed.

The legislation that goes back to 2003 was really a centrepiece of a package of bills that sought to deregulate government oversight across a whole range of areas and activities in British Columbia — even things like health and safety regimes in the workplace or in certain sectors like hospitality and restaurants. Th at’s how this govern- ment viewed student consumer protection. It was an im- pediment, it was red tape, it was “bad for business, ” and it needed to be gone. Th ey rushed into it headlong without any adequate consultation with the sector.

Th ey failed to anticipate many of the things that critics — both elected critics on this side of the House and those with expertise in post- secondary education policy — had to say before they introduced the bill at that time and aft er and during the debate. Of all of the mistakes that this government has made, I have to thank so many individuals, people who were

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6305 tasked by government to look into this problem, for their patience. And the opposition should be included in this, too, because the remedies were so obvious of what was missing, what had been removed and was proving to be a very costly mistake. Th ose remedies were obvious, and they were put be- fore this House in a private member’s bill, one of which was introduced by me as far back as 2007, one of which was introduced by the member for Nelson-Creston in 2012. Th ey were retabled aft er they would die on the or- der paper.

We had ample opportunities to debate in this very chamber how to fi x fl awed legislation and bring back oversight for the private career-training college sector and student consumer protections for students. [1435] We had ample opportunities, and it’s not until this day, this aft ernoon, that legislators have actually had an op- portunity to fi nally see the government introduce some- thing that, in a sense, in every sense, acknowledges that the 2003 bill that they introduced as some kind of fanfare centrepiece of a deregulatory regime of government — the dawning of a new era, as it was called — was a com- plete and utter failure.

Today government admits that what opposition said, what critics said, what people in the sector said, what post-secondary education leaders said — restore over- sight to the private career-training college sector — is being done. Now, I agree with our critic that this bill is light. Th ere’s very little in it. We will look with great anticipation to see whether what is hinted at in the legislation is, in fact, introduced later by regulation.

But I think it is a victory for a lot of people, who paid a very, very heavy price, to see government fi nally come full circle, admit failure, admit the hardships that they created and, in a sense, be won to a position where so many people had said before: “Enough is enough. ” British Columbia cannot be some kind of outlaw or Wild West jurisdiction where private career-training businesses have very little to comply with in law and are not overseen. B.C. will fi nally join other places where that is not the case. We’ve suff ered reputational damage.

I know the critic, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, has had a diffi cult time quantifying it. Anyone would. When you are the subject of international warnings from places like India, South Korea, Japan and China, directly through their embassies here on the west coast — and we’re talking about 55,000 to 75,000 international students from those countries I’ve just mentioned com- ing to Canada each year — warning students not to study at private career-training colleges in British Columbia be- cause of what was going on, you know that this jurisdic- tion has suff ered signifi cant reputational damage.

I hope that, from 12 years of this government turning a blind eye to it, we can recover some of the reputation that we’ve surely lost internationally by this bill — and by a number of other actions that should be taken as well. I want to go over how fl awed the original motivation was around getting rid of protections for students in pri- vate education, private post-secondary education, in B.C. Y ou know, it’s one thing for a government to have a positive motivation to reform something, to say that we can make something better.

I don’t think anybody would argue that the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission of B.C. was 100 percent perfect. But I think what we would argue, and it’s certainly being acknow- ledged just by the introduction of Bill 7, is that in many ways it got the fundamentals right. Th ose fundamentals were completely jettisoned.

I think the primary ones that I want to discuss this aft ernoon are around basic consumer protections that can and should be expected of a province like British Columbia, where students internationally are coming and paying tens of thousands of dollars — in fees, in homestay fees, in visa applications, in travel — to get here to study in a country that is seen as a good place around the world.

Canada and some other countries, like Australia, have been at the top of the destination list for Asia-Pacifi c students for some time because they’re assumed to be places where the rule of law is strong and where con- sumer rights are respected. What this legislation did….

I go back to the quote, just to show you how completely wrong government mem- bers were at the time, of excited Liberals in this House in 2003, when there were several hours of fanfare at the introduction of this bill. [1440] We had the then member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head saying: “Bill 52” — as it was — “is about strengthening consumer protection for students who are attending these private post-secondary institutions. What does the NDP have against protecting students? I don’t under- stand.

Th e NDP seem to forget that we should be putting students fi rst. ” Th at was characteristic of her remarks on what Bill 52 was all about. Interjection. R. Fleming: Y es, as I said, it was the previous member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I wish to say it again. And she’s the previous member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head because the voters have made her the previous member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. We had a fanfare and excitement from another previ- ous member, from the west end of Vancouver.

Th is bill will “provide consumer protection to students of regis- tered institutions, while reducing the regulatory burden for the private training sector. It will also reduce red tape for private training institutions. ” Wow, how excit- ing that is.

British Columbia Debates6306 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 In the rush to table this Bill 52, as it was called back then, none of the stakeholders in the sector were con- sulted. Nobody was asked their opinion about how to strengthen consumer protection in the bill, and if ever there was an Orwellian title to a bill, it was this.

What in fact happened in Bill 52, and has been the source of more than a decade of problems and consumer fraud that was legally accomplished in our province, is this: what was removed in the disbanding of the former commission was any ability to have a process for student complaints that should arise. Prior to Bill 52, colleges were required to post a bond for each student that registered — a holdback, if you will — so that that student was protected and so that the in- stitution had an incentive to meet the student’s expecta- tion of what was indeed promised to them, of what kind of courses they would receive.

Th at holdback was only given to the institution aft er it was…. It wasn’t an oner- ous percent. It was 1⁄5 or less of the value of the tuition fees. But that was disbanded. Th ere was a process under the former commission where, if an unsatisfi ed student — and it’s a small per- centage, as it should be — wished to make a complaint, they did so directly to the registrar of the commission, an independent body. Th ey didn’t go to the owner of the school to make the complaint, which would be, I think we can all agree, hopelessly biased. Th ey went to an in- dependent registrar.

That registrar would make a determination as to whether the student was, in fact, misled as a result of a false representation made by the institution. If the insti- tution was found to be guilty of that, to be guilty of — I think fraud is the strongest word I could use — misrepre- sentation of what was promised to the student and paid for with hard-earned money, tens of thousands of dollars, then the student had to be paid via the holdback fund in full — a full refund within 30 days of that complaint be- ing settled by the registrar. Th at is consumer protection. Th at’s what it looks like.

And that was exactly what Bill 52 zeroed in on and elim- inated. So for members on that side of the House, way back in 2003, to characterize a bill that systematically re- moved any avenue, any fund and any process that was in- dependent to hear and resolve student complaints…. Th e bill was fundamentally about getting rid of student con- sumer protections in the province of British Columbia, and that is, in fact, what it did.

Now, the sad thing and the predictable thing is that there was an immediate impact of moving towards this new deregulated model, where only industry had a seat around the table, this self-regulating model. Immediately hundreds of students who had problems with private col- leges began to make complaints. [1445] Th e problem was so bad within just a year of Bill 52 passing, in 2003, that the opposition became aware of a list of 15 private colleges that were being audited. What were they being audited for? I think this is of interest to taxpayers to be reminded of.

Th e 15 private colleges that were being investigated immediately aft er Bill 52 was passed were being audited for student loan irregularities by the Ministry of Advanced Education. Th ey had to look into abuse of the integrity of publicly provided student loan funds to students, because once there was nobody guarding the henhouse — or the fox was in charge in this case — some of the bad apples were encouraged to act very badly, which is what was predicted. Some of these institutions began to feel that they would never have their shoulder looked over.

Th eir de- cisions would never be second-guessed, and they would only have to be accountable to themselves because this government commission no longer existed. So what happened? Again, this is at a minority of col- leges, but the law has to anticipate the worst sorts of behaviours that could arise and prevent them from hap- pening, and it no longer did. What happened on the ground was that fi nancial ad- visers, if I can call them that — those people who had those titles at private career-training colleges — would take advantage of….

In one instance that was famous, which was called City Tech College, around ’05, ’06 they took advantage of literally hundreds of Mandarin- speaking students who came to Canada. Th is is why the Chinese Consulate issues a blanket warning against private colleges, around the world, about British Columbia. Th ese fi nancial advisers who worked for the private institution would sponsor the student, and then they would fi ll out the student loan form for them. Th e student loan form would never actually go through the student. It would go directly to the institution because it’s a self-regulating industry now.

As long as the appli- cation was made, and the fi nancial adviser said that they were working within the parameters, of which there were very few, this became legal. Th is became an incredible gravy train for those who would abuse the system and abuse innocent students coming from abroad to study in British Columbia. It hap- pened in hundreds if not thousands of cases. We had gov- ernment money, taxpayers’ money being funnelled into institutions, which the student never saw but became 100 percent responsible for repaying because their name was on the loan document.

We received documents here on the opposition side of the House where the internal ministry was so concerned that they did handwriting analysis of these doctored ap- plications for student loans and found systematic fraud. Y ou know, we’re talking about instances that happened in 2006, 2007. Today it’s 2015, and government is only getting around to doing something about this. Th is re- gime, by and large, still exists. Th at’s the culture that was created in the rush to so-called deregulation.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6307 What’s interesting is that at exactly the same time that B.C. was pursuing this, the Ontario government under then Premier Dalton McGuinty was looking at what British Columbia had created in the 1990s here. Th ey were looking at the commission model we had created, and they brought that into law. B.C. was out of step, had no internal validators say- ing you should do this — although they had a couple of colleges that were very high profi le donors to the B.C. Liberal Party, I should add, and I’m sure my colleagues will expand upon.

But there was nobody in the sector who was credible who recommended this. Th e clamour became so loud, the evidence of the fail- ure of Bill 52 became so apparent so quickly and per- sisted for so many years, that soon it was irresistible for this government to avoid launching an inquiry to do that. Th ey picked well in terms of a person who was independ- ent and credible to lead that inquiry. It was Mr. John Watson, who was a former president of BCIT. [1450] He did a thorough job. He did a good job, and he did it very quickly.

It was a report that was produced — and I’m trying to remember — I think within 90 days of as- signment. Th ere were at least 12 — if memory serves me correctly — strong, thoughtful, comprehensive recommendations brought by Mr. Watson. Government at the time, the minister, said they would act upon these wise recommendations immediately. Well, two years later only one recommendation, probably the most cosmetic recommendation of the bunch, had been acted upon. I’m not going to go through the Watson report — you’ll be pleased to hear, Mr. Speaker, and members opposite will be.

But I remember he himself at a press conference characterizing…. He was asked by a repor- ter: what’s the problem in British Columbia right now? He was being asked about language colleges as well as private career colleges in B.C. He said that the fundamental problem in B.C. is that the regulatory requirement for that sector consists of two things you need to call yourself a college in B.C. Y ou need a hundred bucks to go down to your municipal government to get a business licence, and you need your fi rst month’s rent. Th at is all you need in the province of British Columbia, post–Bill 52. And he was right.

Th at is all that was needed. A name, a hundred bucks and your fi rst month’s rent — and you’re licensed to print business. Y ou could go get taxpayers’ money by the heaps from student loans that were deemed available to you and your students. Th ey never even touched the student. Th ey went right into your school’s bank account. Th at’s what we had in place for year aft er year. We had complaints from hundreds and hundreds of students that amounted into the thousands.

When the minister was confronted with this ridiculous regime, even in the face of evidence that international consulates were mak- ing complaints to his government, his answer to students was: “Well, take it to civil court. ” And you know what? Because that’s all that was available, some students did go to civil court. Some students, aft er being ripped off for thousands of dollars, shelled out of their own pockets hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars or more, to be represented by a law- yer in a foreign country with a strange civil court process because that’s all there was.

Th e Better Business council couldn’t do a thing, the minister refused to do anything, and that’s what they did. Some of these students actual- ly had their visas expire, and they had to pursue a small claims court settlement even aft er they had returned home, coordinating through their lawyer in the province of British Columbia. Th at’s how badly these international students were treated by this government for the better part of a dec- ade in B.C. Th at’s what has to end.

I don’t know if Bill 7 is going to end this shameful period — where student consumer protections were completely stripped from the legal framework of what consumers can and should expect in the province of British Columbia — but it does allow, and it does admit, that the industry-led, deregulated model was a failure and that we are fi nally going to have a process for gov- ernment public oversight, as we should have, for students who account for what government calls a $1 billion in- dustry. It’s unbelievable that we haven’t for so long.

I look forward to the next stage of debate, where we can ask the minister and his staff questions about some of the abuses that went on, to get assurances that they will no longer be able to go on in our province. If they can’t give satisfactory answers, the opposition will look for opportunities to amend this bill to make it stronger, to make it what it was, in many cases, and to make sure that the abuses that went on in B.C. will no longer happen. M. Mungall: I really want to thank the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

Th is is an issue that’s been going on for ten years, and the member was able to dig back in his memory and pull forward many stories of what’s been going on for the last ten years around this issue in private post-secondary education and the lack of protec- tion for students and the lack of regulation that happened as a result of this government’s decision over ten years ago.

Being able to pull forward all that information and share it with all of us here in this House right now is a real tribute to his work when he previously had the fi le as critic for Advanced Education. [1455] I fi nd Bill 7 a step in the right direction. I’m pleased to see it fi nally come forward. I would have liked to have seen it come forward a long time ago. I would even have liked for this government to have debated — at least

British Columbia Debates6308 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 debated — my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake’s bill in 2007, or the bill that I put forward in 2011 that ad- dresses this and so much more of what’s not, but should be, in this bill. Th at’s because members on this side of the House saw a problem happening years ago. Th ey warned the gov- ernment. Th ey off ered ideas on how to solve the problem, which is interesting because I remember in January of this year, just before we all came back to the Legislature, that the Premier was in the news saying that the NDP has no ideas.

And here, her government is putting forward legislation that pulls directly from the ideas that we’ve put forward in this House. So I’m guessing that we certainly do have ideas. We actually have a lot of ideas. I had a good time that day tweeting about many of them and off ering them up to the Premier for her to use at her leisure. We would love to share them in the spirit of collaboration in this House. I’m glad that she at least took one — well, part of one.

Part of the problem with this bill is that it doesn’t address some of the key areas where we’ve seen students have a considerable number of complaints, where they’re not getting the protection that they need and that we should be establishing in this province so that we don’t see con- sulates from China or from India or from other parts of the world — from Korea — issuing complaints and warn- ings about studying here in British Columbia and, there- fore, weakening our system.

Indeed, I have spoken over the years to many pri- vate post-secondary operators — I have several in my constituency — and they all agree that we need better regulation because a few bad apples were ruining it for everybody else. So we start to see a step in the right dir- ection here with Bill 7. But we don’t see regulation of the English language learning schools, and of course, they number by the hundreds in B.C. Th ere is just no regulation of them whatsoever — no surprise.

We have seen hundreds of complaints, many of them coming directly to our com- munity offi ces and our constituencies, and there is noth- ing we can do for these students, nothing we can do except off er them a number for a lawyer. Th at’s not good enough. Th at’s not good enough for British Columbia. Th at’s not good enough for our post-secondary sector, and that’s not good enough for students.

I’m hoping that we can put forward some amendments and that the other members opposite will agree with those amendments and see them, in the spirit of collaboration, as strength- ening this bill for the betterment of the sector, for the betterment of students. Some of the responses to date, though, from this gov- ernment have been woefully inadequate. Which is…. Like I said, this bill is a step in the right direction, but again, it’s not fully where we need to be going. It’s not ad- equate.

A previous attempt in addressing the problems in private post-secondary, and some of the complaints that students were putting forward, was the EQA, the quality assurance brand that this government developed and at- tempted to market. It never fails that whenever there’s a problem that re- quires regulation of the private sector — of some of the people who have given large donations to the Liberal Party — that they come up with the answer of: “We’ll just do some marketing. We’ll just do some education. ” But what’s really needed is regulation. And it’s taken them how many years?

It’s taken them at least seven years since the EQA was established to recognize that that wasn’t good enough. Y ou can’t just market your way out of a problem. Y ou actually have a duty, a responsibility in this House to act, and I’m glad to see that they fi nally learned that, and they’re taking a step in the right direc- tion today.

It’s almost a little bit of a “Told you so” moment for us here on the NDP benches because we’ve been bringing these stories to the House repeatedly for over a decade. [1500] I remember working with students who were going to an institution that had the university title in its name run by Eminata. Eminata had donated over $15,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party.

Th ey probably appreciated when an e-mail was leaked out of a minister’s offi ce right into their hands, warning them of an investigation that a jour- nalist was covering on the way in which students were not being well treated and well respected by their institution, that there were problems at that institution. Th at example goes to show why it has taken the Liberals so long to get here, that it wasn’t just a matter of ideol- ogy way back when, in 2003.

It was how this government, over and over and over again, makes sure that they put their friends’ — their rich friends, their donors — inter- ests ahead of everything else, ahead of student protection, ahead of a strong post-secondary sector that sees a well- balanced private sector that’s well regulated, that many in that sector ask for those types of regulations. Th at is never acceptable. Like I said, I’m glad that the government has fi nally woken up to the realities that have been going on for over a decade, and they are fi nally attempting to truly remedy the problem, but they haven’t fully done so.

Like I said, I hope that they will respond, in the spirit of collaboration, favourably to some of the amendments that we’re going to put forward that will ultimately round out this piece of legislation and give British Columbia the regulations and students the protection that they need. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportun- ity to put my remarks on the record today, and I look for- ward to the remainder of the debate. H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand and speak on this piece of legislation. It’s a kind of déjà vu, going back many years when we debated this issue and the issue about the

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6309 students not being protected, students being taken for a ride. Th ey were asked to pay huge fees, and hardly any education, and no one listened to them. It was the New Democrats, on this side, that were bringing these issues to the attention of the minister of the day, but because, as the speaker before me said, the friends were on the other side of the Liberal Party, they simply ignored it and tried to shove it under the carpet. Now, here, this particular bill, Bill 7, I think clearly is an admission of failure by this government.

It would be nice if the minister would stand up in this House and maybe list all the victims that are left behind. Th ere’s a list of victims, not only the students but also, in some cases, the institutions as well, because of who ran this outfi t and organization. At that time, when we brought these issues to this House…. What we were told at that time….

Th e minister, Ida Chong, said: “What does the NDP have against pro- tecting students?” I mean, this would be the most laugh- able if anybody could read all the comments that were being made at that time and the issues that were brought to their attention from this side, by the NDP , our caucus members.

Th e reaction that came from the government side would be laughable if there weren’t so many victims left behind by this ill-conceived policy by this govern- ment to privatize everything that they could see, under the Ministry, at that time, for Deregulation. [1505] Y ou know, the regulations are in place for a reason. Of course, from time to time, you revisit them, but just to blanket statement and say that one-third of the regula- tions will be cut — the results are before us now.

Y ou’ve seen the results of that approach everywhere: health and safety at WorkSafe B.C., the students being victims, get- ting defrauded of their fees in this particular case. I’ll give you an example of how this government…. I sometimes question when they come up with these nice slogans. In 2003, when that bill was brought in, this is what the Minister of Labour now said at that time.

Th is is 2003: “Th is bill, I am pleased to say, will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again re- ducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions. ” Th at was then, 2003. Aft er a whole array of victims, this is what they’re saying today.

In 2014 it’s being said here: “Th is new approach will also result in more integrated and eff ective regulation of private career-training institutions, the elimination of overlapping processes and a reduced regulatory burden on the sector. ” Again, they said the same thing in 2003 that they’re saying today, so I sometimes question the sincerity be- hind these statements. Th ey said the same thing at that time. If they’re saying the same thing today, does that mean that there will be so many more victims before they really wake up and really pay real attention to how to protect these students?

I’ll give you some examples. I raised this issue with the then Minister of Advanced Education, Murray Coell, during estimates. We had a college in Surrey, Barkel College, and there were students from India and Pakistan, sometimes husbands and wives. Th ey had post-second- ary education, a highly skilled workforce. Th ese were people who had ambitions to upgrade their skills. Because of all of the websites that are listed out there, they decided that this was a college where they would upgrade their skills.

Th is government also allowed a pro- cess by which the students would go to the college and they’ d sign away the student loan part that they would be qualifying for from B.C. and the federal government to be sent directly to the college. Th e promise was made that they would deduct only the tuition fee portion, and the remainder would be returned back to them. Guess what. Th e students who qualifi ed for these stu- dent loans…. All the student loan money went to the college, and there was hardly any education. Th ey com- plained to the ministry. Nothing happened.

Th ere were some superfi cial investigations conducted. Nothing ac- tually substantive happened to protect these students. Y ou could see the writing on the wall. Th ese students will not get the education, their money is taken, it’s gone to the bank accounts of the college owners, and the stu- dents are going to be left holding the bag. Th at’s exactly what happened because of the lack of action by this gov- ernment. What happened? After all of the money was trans- ferred to the college, the student loans….

In some cases, I think it ranged from $8,000, if my memory serves me correctly, to $24,000, because there were husbands and wives as part of that group as well. And guess what. Th e college then declared bankruptcy. So here are the students who came to upgrade their skills. Th ey came to this country with new hope and opportunities to serve this country and contribute to- wards the economy and make their lives better as well. Th ey took what this government put together for them to upgrade their skills. It was a government-sanctioned process.

Th ey went through the process, went to this college and applied, as they were told, for these student loans. All of the student loans went to the college, and then the col- lege shut down and declared bankruptcy. When I raised this with the minister at that time, the minister said: “I’m aware of it now, and I’m calling the RCMP . ” [1510] Well, lo and behold, the college is gone. Th ere’s no rec- ord to be found. Later on the RCMP found they couldn’t get anywhere.

Th ose students, the new immigrants who came here with high hopes, are the people who would contribute to the economy and well-being of our country for years to come. Th is was their fi rst experience, thanks to this government. Th ey were left holding student loans

British Columbia Debates6310 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 to the tune of $8,000 to $24,000. Th at was their intro- duction to this government’s ill-conceived ideas and ill- conceived policies. Th ose students — they’re good citizens — paid their loans. Th ey’re working out there. I run into them every now and then, and I feel for them because this govern- ment let them down. I think it was an embarrassment for all of us, all of us as Canadians, that we allowed our sys- tem to get these new immigrants defrauded only because they wanted to upgrade their skills. Th at was their only fault.

Th ey wanted to upgrade their skills, as they are re- quired to do to move ahead in this country. So that’s the problem. Th at’s the students’ side of it. Th en what happened? It’s not that just the students were complaining. Th e government of China, through its con- sul general, and the government of India, through its consul general here in Vancouver, raised these red fl ags.

Here’s the headline in the Vancouver Sun , January 9, 2007. “China is warning students who want to study abroad to avoid private post-secondary schools in Canada because it says shady operators are ripping off hundreds of international students every year. ” Th at was the headline in the Vancouver Sun. Do you think that would have woken this government up? No, because their friends were running those colleges. Th e donors were running those colleges. So it’s, “I don’t see anything. I don’t hear anything. As long as the donations keep on coming, it’s okay with us, ” says the government.

Th at’s the attitude that they had. Y ou know what? In the meantime, the people who elected them to govern for them, to look aft er their in- terests, were left holding the bag. Th at’s the experience of these new Canadians to Canada. Th e consul general of India also had articles printed in Indian papers: beware if you want to go to B.C. I mean, how much damage it could cause to our repu- tation across the world — embarrassment caused all across the world. But as long as the donations keep on coming from their friends who are running these col- leges, it’s okay by this government. Th at’s the attitude.

Has anything changed? Not much has changed. We’ve seen examples of that now. Th e friends are hired to lobby on behalf of their friends to lobby them. Makes a lot of sense. Th e Liberals’ friends are hired to lobby Liberals to the Liberal government. It still goes on today, so noth- ing has changed. I think it makes me feel pretty embarrassed to be sitting in this House, because we are all considered that we are part of this whole system. But the fact of the matter is that we’ve been raising this issue — and not only just standing up and speaking about these issues.

Two of my colleagues, both of them previous critics for post-secondary educa- tion, brought in private members’ bills to bring it to their attention. Do you think they would then pay attention to it? No, they would not, because who is running the col- leges, on the other side, happen to be their friends. Let’s take a look. Th ey didn’t spare anybody. It’s not just the students. Th ere are so many victims out there. By the way, Barkel College — we’re talking about not just one or two or four or 15 students. We’re talking about 112 to 120 students and, like I said, in some cases husbands and wives.

Th ey were highly educated from their home coun- try, many of them from Pakistan and some from India. Th ey had their undergraduate, and many of them had postgraduate degrees as well. Th ey wanted to come and upgrade those skills. Th is was their fi rst experience with this government’s policy. Th ey’re left holding the bag for tens of thousands of dol- lars. [1515] Th en here was another side of it. Th ere was one col- lege called Royal Canadian Institute of Technology, RCIT.

Just because they decided that they didn’t want to go and kowtow to some of the rules that were in place or the way they wanted them to just go along with their policies, be- cause they wanted to do a good job, PCTIA found a way to shut them down. Here was an

article in Vancouver. Business in Vancouver printed this article: “PCTIA sought a Supreme Court in- junction on October 11 to freeze RCIT’s assets, claiming RCIT students had not completed programs within the time periods specifi ed in their contracts and that contract dates had been adjusted without the students’ knowledge. ” Th en, “In an interview with CKNW radio” — listen to this — “PCTIA CEO and registrar Karin Kirkpatrick conceded that RCIT had no student complaints or fi - nancial problems. ” But they shut them down.

Th is was a college that was generating something like $1.6 million and about $555,000 net profi t coming in. Th ey shut that college down. Michael Khan went to minister aft er minister, MLA aft er MLA, but no one would listen to him, the owner of the college. I guess he wasn’t a big enough donor to the B.C. Liberals, so they just ignored him. Th ey allowed his business to shut down, and they’re all in the courts right now. Th at’s the problem with this government. This government like to call themselves business- friendly.

Th is is how they kill businesses, and this is how students were getting ripped off right under their no- ses. With all the complaints, it’s not that they didn’t even know. Th ey knew, right from the beginning, what was going on in those colleges and how the students were getting ripped off . It’s not just the students.

Th e foreign governments are telling their students and telling their population: “Hey, don’t go to B.C., because students are getting ripped off in British Columbia. ” Y ou would think that the govern- ment would pay attention to those kinds of negative stor- ies coming out about our province outside of this country. Y ou’ d think that would wake them up. Not a chance, be- cause they want to protect their friends rather than do- ing the right job. Th at’s the problem.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6311 Right now, I think it’s probably a good bill, at the end of the day. Th ey woke up about ten years later, leaving be- hind a whole host of victims. For many of them, it took them years to recover. Like I said, they were new immigrants coming to this country, trying to make a living here, and they were get- ting ripped off . Can you imagine the life that they must have endured aft er that? Th at’s what happened under the watch of this government — because, to them, their friends are more important.

Friends, just the really rich friends — those are more important than the general public or the people that they should be serving. As a result of all of this, then, I say I’m happy that, fi nal- ly, the government is doing the right thing. But again, we will be looking at the details in committee stage. I never pass anything on this government. What you see on the surface usually isn’t what you get at the end. Interjection. H. Bains: Th e Minister of Health said: “Come on. ” I mean, how many examples do you want me to list, Mr. Minister? I’ d probably need two hours to list all of them.

I don’t think you would endure two hours of my speech, Mr. Speaker. Interjections. H. Bains: Don’t encourage me. [1520] Th e issue here is this government’s failure and, fi nally, an admission of their failure. Just for the benefi t of the Minister of Health, I want to read two statements. Th en I think the Minister of Health now will pay attention.

Th e member from Prince George, the current Minister for Labour, said in 2003, when that bill was around: “Th is bill, I am pleased to say, will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing govern- ment regulation and allowing the private post-second- ary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions. ” Th at was then. Now let’s move forward to 2014.

Th is is what’s being said: “Th is new approach will also result in more inte- grated and eff ective regulation of private career training by institutions, the elimination of overlapping process- es and a reduced regulatory burden on the sector. ” Two statements, same thing — 2003, now 2014. How do you trust them? I think the Minister of Health is satisfi ed with what I was saying, and that’s why he’s not chirping anymore. Th ose are my remarks, and I wanted to stand up and make those remarks because I was involved in dealing with many of those victims of this government’s policies.

So those are my remarks, and I will be really interested in what comes out at the committee stage. I’m sure our critic will be examining every

section of the bill line by line so that we know exactly what we are getting into and how the students, at the end of the day, are protected. Th at’s the bottom line. Th at’s what we want to fi nd out. Hopefully, we will see that in the bill. Hopefully, the students once again can see that fi nally…. It took them about ten years, but the government woke up and admit- ted their failure and their mistakes. J. Kwan: I rise to enter into debate on Bill 7, the Private Training Act.

As we’ve heard from the speakers before me, what this bill does, essentially, is to repeal and replace the Private Career Training Institutions Act by updating the framework for regulation for the various institutions that provide private training. It is interesting to me that we’re here standing in this House debating this bill, where the government intro- duced the bill to bring back some form of regulatory re- gime for the private institutions. Now, the argument, of course, from the government is that they’ve always had a regulatory regime.

But really, what happened is that back in 2004, about 11 years ago, we actually had regulatory measures for pri- vate institutions. In fact, back then we had the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which was a body that was controlled…. Before that we actually had the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which was an arm’s-length agency that ensured consumer protection. When I say consumer protection, that means students who are try- ing to access education through private institutions.

Th at commission also worked to ensure that there would be integrity and high standards of educational competence by these private institutions. Th at changed in 2004 when the current government actually eliminated that commission and replaced it with the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which is a body controlled by the industry representatives. In other words, gone was the arm’s-length element of people looking at both regulatory measures and standards in the interests of their students. Th ose measures were gone.

At the same time, when the government introduced the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, it also excused some certain schools, private schools, including language schools, to be regulated at all. [1525] I remember this debate. At that time there was grave concern from the community because in the backdrop of signifi cant cuts from the government in the public insti- tution sector — in advanced education and in education and elsewhere — came deregulation. Th e government of the day then said that this was im- portant because that was all part of the core review to elim- inate red tape.

Th en, of course, since that time — in spite of opposition concerns that were brought forward to the government’s attention in and outside of this House — the government proceeded with that measure, in any event.

British Columbia Debates6312 Tuesday, March 3, 2015 In that period, as we heard from a number of my col- leagues who spoke…. Th ey highlighted major problems and issues as a result of that, where students, basically, were cheated. Th ese were foreign students who came pri- marily to try to access an education, and they were cheat- ed of their money and their opportunities. And there were local people, too, who accessed that educational opportunity. Th ey, too, were cheated of that opportunity. In fact, the situation got so bad that I actually had con- versations with various folks in the community about this.

Th e consul general for China and the Ministry of Education branch of the consul general’s offi ce had so many complaints and had such grave concerns that they actually spoke up about this and basically urged students to not come and enrol in private institutions here. Now, imagine the implications of that and what that means for us, not just for the students individually but for the families who worked hard to raise the funds so that they could enhance their educational opportunities and, ultimately, their career opportunities.

But imagine that in the international framework — what that meant for us in terms of our reputation worldwide. China wasn’t the only consul general’s offi ce that raised the issue, as we heard from my colleague. As well, at that time — and I still remember this — the consul general for India also raised the same issue. It just garnered, I think, the kind of international attention that nobody wants. Y et that was the reality.

I know that in my offi ce at that time we had a litany of letters from people who wrote about this, who com- plained about it — how it basically shattered their dreams, how it caused undue problems for the families fi nancial- ly and otherwise. Th at was the legacy of the elimination of what was working, by the government — in the name of red tape. Now, the reintroduction of some of these measures through Bill 7, the Private Training Act…. Th e govern- ment will say: “ Oh no, this is only just a review of the process.

We’re not really admitting that we created all those problems 11 years ago. ” But the truth of the mat- ter is — and the evidence actually shows you — that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do: erase the prob- lems that were created by the government 11 years ago. Now, the issues that I want to bring up, which are cen- tral to standards and central to ensuring that there is arm’s-length protection for the students, were actually highlighted and brought to the government’s attention back in, I think, 2008, if memory serves me correctly, through the Watson report.

What the Watson report basically called for, aft er a string of complaints that sur- faced from the students that really sort of hit the public sphere, was for educational standards to be established and to ensure that is in place. One of the things that the Watson report called for was the appointment of the Private Career Training Institutions Agency’s board to represent the public’s in- terest and not the institution’s private interest. Th at’s what was part of the major problem.

When you have people who are from the industry who are only looking inward about the industry and not looking at the larger picture, you create problems where the public interest is forgotten. [1530] Th e Watson report actually highlighted that and said that’s exactly what needs to be in place — that you have an agency in place that’s arm’s length and that will ensure the public’s interest is protected. Th e Watson report also called for the government ap- pointing process to actually elect board members, as op- posed to appointments from the government.

Part of the problems that were highlighted was that these ap- pointments, interestingly, were some of the people who had the largest issues of violations. As it happens, they were also people who gave the government giant dona- tions as well. I mean, it’s interesting when you sort of look at those two facts together and then you wonder what’s wrong with that picture. Hence, the Watson report highlighted the need for an independent board, an arm’s-length board and that the industry members be elected to the board.

Th e Watson report also added, I think, a key element to the notion of arms-length regulation and interest, in terms of public interest. Th ey wanted actual represen- tation from students on the board, again, an important measure that should be in place in terms of ensuring, again, the arms-length nature of the board itself. It asks for representation from the aboriginal community, as well, in terms of ensuring that there is broad-based rep- resentation.

Th e Watson report calls for replacing the current sys- tem of registration and voluntary accreditation with a more vigorous and mandatory registration process that includes consideration of educational standards. So how about that — to actually put in measures that speak to educational standards when we’re talking about private institutions in the provision of education? One would think that standards are pretty important and one would think that you wouldn’t want to do away with that, but yet, that’s what the government did when they fi rst elim- inated the original commission.

Th e other thing that the Watson report highlighted and called for was the creation of a charter of student rights and responsibilities and a complaint system based on the charter. Th at is a very, very important piece to standards and also an important piece for the consumers. When you run into problems, what are the rights of the stu- dents that ought to be protected? How do you go about protecting it? If the complaint system is ineff ective, then what use is the complaint system? Th ose are, I think, critical pieces that, I hope, through regulation, Bill 7 — the Private Training Act — will ac- tually address.

One of the things at the time when there were so many problems that surfaced with the deregu-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 3, 2015 6313 lation of private institutions…. I recall that there were people who were asking the government for a list of the schools that should be made available for potential stu- dents so that they would know and be warned of what the issues are that they may encounter should they become a student of that institution. Th at was never done. Th at information was never provided.

Even if you were to make a list available to say, “Th ese are the active complaints from the student body around this institution, and here’s what they are and how they were resolved” and just put a record of it so that people are aware of it, that would have been a huge measure for providing information to students who may be very far away, who would not know, necessarily, what those issues might be with the various institutions — for them to access that information so that they can make an in- formed choice and to make an informed decision. Th at was never acted on.

I hope that there will be some measures in Bill 7 to deal with that, in terms of the creation of a charter of rights and responsibilities and a complaint system based on the charter, and information that people can access when they are making the decision on which school they embark on in terms of trying to develop their educational opportunities and career development.

Th e other issue that the Watson report brought for- ward is to strengthen the status and independence of the registrar and giving the person power to impose fi nes and penalties when institutions don’t comply. [1535] One of the issues that I know that surfaced with the elimination of the former commission was that there were folks who violated various rules, various regulations, and they just sort of carried on business as usual. Very little was done because it was self-regulating, and it was barely ever brought to the forefront.

Th e strength of a complaint process really does rely on the actions that need to be taken and will be taken aft er you identify violations of various rules and regulations. If there is no follow-up with respect to that, then what good is it? If you don’t have a measure of penalties and fi nes and so on, then eff ectively your rules and regulations are ineff ective. Th e Watson report actually called for the power to im- pose fi nes and penalties when institutions don’t comply. I do think that that’s an important measure.

I do hope that Bill 7, the Private Training Act, will put in some measure with respect to that. Th e Watson report also calls for a higher level of over- sight and control than other schools. I think that was in recognition of the vulnerability of students who are over- seas, who are foreign students coming over to embark on their educational ventures, and to ensure that level of protection is in place. I’m not sure whether or not the regulations will come forward with those kinds of measures that have been identifi ed by the Watson report, but I certainly hope so, in Bill 7.

And I certainly hope that some of those issues will be canvassed in committee stage when we get down to the clause-by-clause discussion. Th e thing that I’m wondering about too, which is curi- ous to me: how come it took so long for this to come about? Th is was done 11 years ago. Th e issue was back in 2004, and by 2008 the issue had escalated to such a mag- nitude that it drove the consuls general of both

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150303pm-Hansard-v20n11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150303pm Hansard v20n11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1156be8aaa390ca85d25c198b3626411714eb34f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).