British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 25, 2006

H0425am-08

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 25, 2006 Morning Sitting Volume 9, Number 8 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC SECOND SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ..........................................................................................................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Bill Bennett Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services .......................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts .........................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon. Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Hon.

Bill (L) ............................................................... East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, Dave (NDP)........................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................

Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)..............................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Kevin (L)..............................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay....................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson .....................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S.

Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .....................................................................Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 25, 2006 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 3955 Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 3955 Securities Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 20) Hon. W. Oppal L. Krog J.

Kwan Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 3967 Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology (continued) Hon. M. Coell G. Robertson

3955 TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 The House met at 10:03 a.m. Prayers. L. Mayencourt: Yesterday, in a very spirited mo- ment in debate, I characterized the opposition using an unparliamentary term. I'd ju st like to withdraw that, and I thank you very much. Introductions by Members Hon. L. Reid: Visiting the precincts today is Dr. Margaret Carr. She is here for some deliberations at the University of Victoria. Th ey are around early child- hood development. She's re presenting the University of Waikato in New Zealand, and they are doing ex- traordinary work in this area. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome. [1005] Orders of the Day Hon. C. Taylor: I call committee on Bill 20, and in

Section A, Douglas Fir Committee Room, it is contin- ued estimates on the Ministry of Advanced Education. Committee of the Whole House SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; S. Hawkins in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m. On

section 1. Hon. W. Oppal: I wish to acknowledge the pres- ence and the assistance of Allan Seckel, Deputy Attor- ney General, and Brian Dillon and Leigh-Anne Mercier from the Securities Commission. L. Krog: The act purports to harmonize the defini- tions of "director," "insider" and "officer" with other provinces. I'm just wondering: can the Attorney Gen- eral outline to the House whether it is an exact defini- tion? Are we talking similar

definitions, or how do we compare to other provinces in terms of this proposed

section and definition? Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, the definition is the exact definition. L. Krog: With respect to the changes around use of the term "insider," which is obviously important for investor confidence, I'm just wondering…. In light of the Attorney General's answer, it's consistent with provinces across Canada. Can the Attorney General tell us: are we on the cutting edge of it in terms of defining what an insider is? How does it compare to American legislation? Hon. W. Oppal: I would suggest we're at the cut- ting edge because it allows the commission to clarify who is caught within the definition.

In other words, the commission would have the authority and the discre- tion — to be exercised fairly of course — to determine who is an insider. L. Krog: I would have some concern if there is some discretion in the Securities Commission to define who in fact is an insider. Is that strictly for the purposes of the civil penalties, or are we talking about with respect to criminal penalties? I would suspect that our courts would have some difficulty with the concept of Securi- ties being able to define what was criminal behaviour, so to speak. [1010] Hon. W.

Oppal: These are not discretionary find- ings after the fact. These are matters that will be deter- mined in the future, so the conduct would be defined. L. Krog: I take it that conduct will be defined by regulation. Is that the intention? Hon. W. Oppal: By order. L. Krog: With respect to the other

definitions — "economic interest," "investment fund," "investment fund manager," "non-redeemable investment fund," etc. — again, will those sections as set out in the ex- planatory notes be entirely consistent with legislation across the country? In other words, are we truly going to be in a regime where the securities acts across Can- ada will share the exact same

definitions in these sec- tions? Hon. W. Oppal: The

definitions are by and large the same, except where it says "economic interest." In that case, other jurisdictions may come to this same conclusion by different means. L. Krog: Will our definition be more inclusive or exclusive? How will it compare to other

definitions? In other words, is it going to give a broader scope to the commission to attach to people or insiders, so to speak, or will it give a narrower scope? Hon. W. Oppal: It's the same scope for insider trad- ing. L. Krog: The act adds a number of

definitions. Is the Attorney General satisfied that all of the

definitions added will in fact increase investor confidence? In other words, are we doing something where the finan- cial community has said to the government: "Look, if you bring in these provisions, we are going to enhance investor confidence in Brit ish Columbia by the broad- ening of

definitions generally"?

3956 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 Hon. W. Oppal: The whole intent of the act is to increase investor protection and also to have harmoni- zation with other jurisdictions across Canada — with the exception of Ontario. They're not a part of the memorandum of understanding. They haven't signed onto it. J. Kwan: In the

definitions section, the term "de- faulting reporting issuers" is not defined — not in the old act — and it's not being added in the new act. Is there a reason why that is? What exactly does "default- ing reporting issuers" mean in the context of the Securi- ties Act? Hon. W. Oppal: T h e r e i s n o d e f i n i t i o n a s s u c h i n the act. The reason for that is to permit the province to harmonize its

definitions and regulations with other jurisdictions across the countr y that are signatories to the memorandum of understanding. The Chair: Attorney General, did you want to fin- ish your comments? [1015] Hon. W. Oppal: Thank you. That is done so that our obligations under the memorandum of understanding will be consistent with other provinces. J. Kwan: With other provinces, then, the terminol- ogy "defaulting reporting issuers" — what is the gen- eral understanding? Does that just mean to say compa- nies that have not filed thei r annual report…?

Does it, therefore, make that company a defaulting reporting issuer? Is that the understanding across the country, then, and is that the terminology in which it refers? Hon. W. Oppal: Those

definitions have not been defined. They will be, with consultation with other provinces. J. Kwan: Once they're defined, will there be a fur- ther amendment, then, to the Securities Act? Is that the intent? Hon. W. Oppal: Policy or rules. J. Kwan: Then it will be defined by OIC in some form or by some sort of government policy across all the jurisdictions? Hon. W. Oppal: The rules are established by the Securities Commission, not by OIC. J.

Kwan: It will be up to the Securities Commission to define what a defaulting reporting issuer is, and that work will be done across the country with those who have signed onto the passport model, I would assume. That means Ontario has opted out, so therefore, On- tario would not be part of the group that would be participating in defining this term. I guess my question is: if we don't know what the definition is as of yet, how will this act apply in its en- forcement in the meantime , and when will this act come into force? Hon. W. Oppal: Ontario will take

part in the dis- cussions. The rule, if and when formulated, would be published, and eventually the minister will approve the rule after public consultation. J. Kwan: Okay. The term will be defined by this national group of people participating, and that termi- nology would have to be brought back to the minister for approval. Then it would be approved by the minis- try either, I guess, by OIC or by some sort of govern- ment policy-procedural way, if I'm understanding this correctly.

I also heard the Attorney General say: "If and when the group comes forward with a definition…." In the meantime, before the definition comes forward, how will one understand what a defaulting reporting issuer would be, given that it is not defined in the act and given that the national group has not come forward with a definition as of yet? Hon. W. Oppal: The policy rule would not come into effect until it's been agreed upon and the pre- scribed procedure has been followed. [1020] J. Kwan: When this act, Bill 20, passes through this House….

Maybe the Attorney General can tell me: when will this act, then, come into force and effect? Hon. W. Oppal: The amendment would come into effect as a rule of policy when the rule is completed. J. Kwan: I'm not a lawyer, so I'm having some diffi- culty in understanding what the Attorney General just said. When the policy would come into effect…. Does that mean, then, that until the national group comes together to define what a defaulting reporting issuer is, this amendment would not ac tually come into effect until that takes place? Is that what the Attorney Gen- eral is saying to me in this House? Hon. W.

Oppal: The answer to that is yes. L. Krog: The Attorney General's answers to these questions have given me some concern. If the concept of the act is to ensure inve stor confidence and to, pre- sumably, define the roles and responsibilities of per- sons participating in companies in British Columbia, surely to God, then, the definition of what may consti- tute a defaulting reporting issuer is important. I mean, surely certainty is the basic principle of the law.

I guess I need to hear a little more from the Attorney General this morning as to how this is going to give certainty to the conduct of directors, officers and insiders in corpo- rations.

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3957 Hon. W. Oppal: T h e r u l e w i l l b e e n a c t e d , a n d i t ' l l provide a definition at that stage. The rule will be en- acted before it comes into effect. L. Krog: That obviously begs the next question, which is: what sort of a time line are we potentially talking about in terms of bringing about this brave new world of confidence in the Securities Commission and corporate behaviour? Hon. W.

Oppal: Because each of the provinces is looking at the new procedures, it is estimated that the time frame would be approximately a year and a half or maybe two years. J. Kwan: Are other provinces also bringing forward amendments to their own secu rities acts? The Attorney General anticipates that each of the provinces, with the exception of Ontario, would, at some point in time in the next year and a half, bring forth some sort of amendment to their act and th at within that year and a half, in that context, a definition for the defaulting re- porting issuers would be defined in that process as well. Hon. W.

Oppal: The goal is to have every province amend its legislation by the end of the year. Ontario will be working in a similar fashion. J. Kwan: I thought Ontario had opted out of this passport model. Have they changed their position al- ready so that, therefore, they are part of the passport model and they will be bringing forward legislation to reflect that? [1025] Hon. W. Oppal: Ontario did not sign onto the memorandum of understanding, so formally it's not a part of the process. However, they are taking

part in all of the discussions, and they've attended all of the meet- ings. In fact, there were meetings here in February of this year, and Ontario was represented. J. Kwan: With respect to all the other provinces, how many of them have legislation in place? Does the Attorney General know? Are we the first to introduce such legislation for amendment? Hon. W. Oppal: Alberta has introduced legislation. I think Alberta and British Columbia are further ahead than other provinces that have been signatories to the memorandum of understanding. L.

Krog: The act, as set out, proposes a change to the definition of "mutual fund" to make it inclusive and specific so that it conforms with the existing wording of the act. I'm just wondering: what's the purpose of changing it from an inclusive test to a specific test as opposed to giving some broader ability to the commis- sion to define what a mutual fund may be? Hon. W. Oppal: The

section essentially amends the definition of "mutual fund" to replace the word "in- cludes" with "means." Th e amendment is necessary because mutual fund will now be part of the new defi- nition of "investment fund," which uses "means." The amendment also harmonizes the definition of mutual fund with the definition in other provinces. There really is no practical change in the

interpretation of the term "mutual fund."

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. L. Krog:

Section 2 purports to repeal unnecessary provisions as rule and regulation powers allow these concepts to be addressed in subordinate legislation. I'm just wondering: if we are trying to harmonize and make the system more simple, why isn't this all con- tained within the Securities Act? In other words, what are we talking about in terms of subordinate legisla- tion? Hon. W. Oppal: These provisions will be moved to a national insider-reporting rule, and that's the reason. L. Krog: I'm not sure that I understand exactly what the Attorney General's response is in this regard. What would constitute subordinate legislation with respect to

section 2 and its repeal? Not wishing to deny my colleagues at the bar who practise in this area and make huge fortunes doing it, surely we should try and make law as simple and understandable as possible, and that generally would include keeping it all within one statute. So if I may repeat: what is subordinate legislation, and why not try and include it all in one statute if possible and, in particular, this statute? [S. Hammell in the chair.] Hon. W. Oppal: Having it in a rule will make it more conducive and easier to harmonize nationally. L.

Krog: Again, when the Attorney General talks about subordinate legislation, I simply need to under- stand: are we talking about subordinate legislation as in legislation that comes through this House, or are we talking about rules or some co ntract or treaty or what- ever? Hon. W. Oppal: We're talking here of rules. That's what we're talking about. [1030] J. Kwan: I am just trying to understand this a little bit myself.

Section 2, according to the explanatory notes "repeals unnecessary provisions as rule and regu- lation making powers allow these concepts to be ad- dressed in subordinate legislation." If you go back to the original act where

section 2(2) is being repealed — and

section 3, but we'll just stay at

3958 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006

section 2 for the moment —

section 2(2) reads: "If an issuer becomes an insider of a reporting issuer, every director or senior officer of the issuer is deemed to have been an insider of the reporting issuer for the previous 6 months or for the shorter period that the person was a director or senior officer of the issuer." Basically, it kind of outlines what an insider is in that context, in terms of where a violation might have taken place. If we take that definition out and there's going to be some sort of national definition so that we can harmonize it with everyone, when will we be able to see that national definition?

When would that come into force? Would that be another year and a half as well? All of this work in which we're now not defining terminologies and we're deleting clauses is subject to work that's yet to be done, and we don't know what that work looks like at this moment. Is that the essence of this bill before us? Hon. W. Oppal: We are estimating the time frame to be approximately a year and a half. J. Kwan: I'm a little bit confused about the time line here in terms of this debate. Why would it be the case that we actually have this amendment, the entire act for that matter, and more specifically,

section 2(2), be- fore us before we even know what the outcome is go- ing to be? We don't know what the outcome is going to be for another year and a half. If we repeal this now, what would actually apply in-between time, in the year and a half? Hon. W. Oppal: The present legislation will be in effect until the new act comes into effect. J. Kwan: What's the purpose of debating this bill and bringing passage to this bill a year and a half in advance of knowing what th e replacement is going to be? Why wouldn't we actually have the replacement and then talk about what se ctions should be repealed or not? Hon. W.

Oppal: The purpose of these amendments now is to lay the framework for a harmonized pro- gram, and it's better that we do this now and harmo- nize the legislation with other provinces so as to pro- tect investors who may invest in other provinces. They may be residents of British Columbia who may invest in Saskatchewan or Manitoba . The objective is to have those people comply with th e regulations in their own province. This has to be done in advance, because we're embarking on a nationally harmonized program. J.

Kwan: Yes, I understand that we're embarking on a national harmonized program and that we need all of the players to come together and to sort of be going down the same path. The issue that I have is this.

While there is agreement that we want to harmonize the pro- gram here with everyone else and it appears that all the other players have signed on — with the exception of Ontario, which technically has not signed on to the memorandum even though they're at the table — that work is underway and won't be completed for another year and a half. [1035] I understand that once that work is completed and we know what that work looks like, you're then com- ing forward to say: "Okay, we're now replacing the existing act by repealing the sections, changing the

definitions, and so on and so forth, because we have a replacement before us." I don't understand why, before we have that re- placement, we are doing this work now when we don't know what that replacement is. Debating this bill at this time without knowing what the replacement is — and passing various sections and amendments of this bill, but without bringing it into force for another year and a half — would not advance harmonization, nor delay harmonization versus if you were to do it at the time when you actually have the work completed be- fore you.

It's just perplexing to me in terms of, frankly, why this act is even before us. Wouldn't it be more helpful for members in this chambe r and for the public, as well, to see what the proposed changes are so that you can actually make that comparison? Then at that time, in a year and a half, the time line would be for every province who signed onto the memorandum to bring passage of the proposed changes at the same time. Wouldn't that be a better approach?

It just seems odd to me that we're debating legisla- tion for which we don't know what the replacement is, other than to know there is some work being done that will come to fruition in about a year and a half and that will harmonize, to a degree, measures related to the Securities Act. Hon. W. Oppal: It is common for regulations to follow

an act. In this case, for consultation purposes, because other provinces are involved, that suggested this perhaps is a most efficient way of doing this. We have to work with other provinces that are passing similar legislation. J. Kwan: I guess I'll have one final go at this, be- cause I have to say that the explanation that the Attor- ney General has provided is insufficient at best. The logic is such that to say this is the best way because the other provinces are doing it…. One begs the question why the other provinces are do ing it.

I wonder: in their own Legislature are they asking the same kinds of questions that we are today? It would seem to me that it would be better policy and a better approach to have the proposed legislation, the proposed changes, before this chamber so that we can talk in context of how those changes are going to be and as it applies. But we don't have that informa- tion. I dare say that the Attorney General doesn't even know what those changes might look like, because that work hasn't been done yet and won't be completed for another year and a half.

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3959 It just seems to me that this is a backward way of doing things — of bringing forward legislation, appeal- ing legislation, saying ther e would be replacement. Yet we don't know what that replacement is, other than to say there's some form of harmonization. It just doesn't make sense to me. It would make me wonder whether or not repeal- ing the legislation before us is the right thing. I have no certainty of saying that this is, in fact, the right thing to do without knowing what that replacement is and what that replacement looks like at this point.

Is the Attorney General concerned about that at all? [1040] Hon. W. Oppal: First, it takes time to get on a legis- lative agenda in each prov ince, but I don't anticipate any difficulties. There will be a consultation process in place. I think that's the best I can do to address the con- cern here.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. L. Krog: With respect to

section 3, if the Attorney General could just confirm my limited understanding of this section. I take it th at by substituting the term "issuer" as opposed to "repor ting issuer," the concept is to expand it to any issuer — is that correct? — and therefore broaden the definition and scope of applica- tion. Hon. W. Oppal: The

section is amended so it can relate to all issuers and not merely reporting issuers, so it expands the definition. L. Krog: Just so I'm clear: in terms of a non- reporting issuer, what would constitute a non- reporting issuer? Hon. W. Oppal: The act provides for exemptions for certain companies, and this definition would take into account the activities of those people who now have exemptions. L. Krog: What would constitute, again, a non- reporting issuer, if you will? What sorts of companies are we talking about? I mean, are we talking about privately held corporations? In other words, what are we talking about?

Illuminate me. Give me a legal les- son here this morning. I'm just a lowly, small-town lawyer from Nanaimo, and I need the Attorney Gen- eral's help. Hon. W. Oppal: An example has been given to me. A company that trades its shares over the counter in the United States is a company that would be subject to this legislation. L. Krog: To the Attorney General, who obviously bears the same depth — politely I say this — of igno- rance as I do in these very complex matters.

An over- the-counter trade, as defining a U.S. company, would only have application, I assume, if that company was then registered in British Columbia to do business in British Columbia. Is that what the Attorney General is driving at? Hon. W. Oppal: There must be some connection to the province. It may sell shares here. It may manage a company that trades here. There has to be some kind of connection to the province. [1045] L. Krog: Just so I understand, this would apply to a company, then, not extraprovincially registered or whatever, that's doing busine ss in British Columbia.

In other words, the Securities Commission would apply to that corporation that's actually carrying on some kind of business in British Columbia, issuing shares, even though it is not registered? Hon. W. Oppal: Yes.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. L. Krog: With respect to

section 4, this "empowers the commission" — as I understand the explanatory note — "to exempt a non-redeemable investment fund from regulatory requirements under the Act." I guess, given that the purpose of the act is to increase investor confidence, why would we want to give the commis- sion any power to exempt a non-redeemable invest- ment fund from regulation? Hon. W. Oppal: This

section gives power to the commission…. It parallels a current power for mutual funds and is necessary because of the addition of the term "non-redeemable investment fund" to the act. L. Krog: Will this provision, empowering the com- mission to exempt non-redeemable investment funds, in fact, bring us into line with other provinces? Are they coming into line with us? In other words, what's the practice across the coun try? What's the proposed practice, in light of the harmonization of the scheme? Hon. W.

Oppal: Yes, Alberta has a similar provi- sion, other provinces are contemplating a similar pro- vision, and the purpose here is to harmonize provi- sions similar to other provinces. J. Kwan: Could the Attorney General please advise: why is the non-redeemable investment fund being ex- empted under this

section of the act? I understand that the act before us, in the

definitions section, is amended by adding the terminolo gy "non-redeemable invest- ment fund," but why should non-redeemable invest- ment funds be exempted from regulatory require- ments?

3960 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 Hon. W. Oppal: The power would be exercised if it's not prejudicial to the public interest.

Section 4 approved. The Chair: Just for clarity, sections 2 and 3 have passed and are so ordered. On

section 5. L. Krog: On

section 5, this purports to expand "the power of the commission to make designations for regulatory purposes." Can the Attorney General ex- plain how that power will be expanded? And frankly, is it in the public interest to give so much authority to the Securities Commission to do this, as opposed to the Legislature of British Columbia?

I say this in the broadest context: that there is, with great respect, a growing trend — and I don't know if it applies across this country — in terms of legislation, to give enormous regulatory powers to cabinet instead of having the legislation come before the House to be scrutinized by members of the opposition and, there- fore, the public. It seems to me that this proposed sec- tion is the same kind of approach.

It's not a healthy approach; it's not a democratic approach. [1050] Frankly, I'm not sure it genuinely serves the public interest that it doesn't come back before this House, so if the Attorney can explain to me: what's the purpose of this? Is it simply to make it easier for the commission to operate out there on its own? Hon. W. Oppal: The harmonization process can only be achieved through regulation. L. Krog: Hon.

Chair, with great respect to the At- torney General, I don't think it's that difficult that the able offices of the respective Attorneys General across this country couldn't get th eir act together sufficiently to propose legislation — as opposed to regulation — that would, in fact, serve the same purpose in terms of defining it. What this

section says is: "If the commission con- siders it to be in the public interest, the commission may, for the purposes of this Act, order that a person is (

a) an insider, (

b) a mutual fund, (

c) a non-redeemable investment fund, or (

d) a reporting issuer." In essence, this

section passes over to the commis- sion — which is not, with great respect, directly re- sponsive to the public in the way that the government is — the power to make these

definitions, which one would normally expect to pass through the Legislature. I have no problem with ensu ring that investor confi- dence is increased in British Columbia, but I do have some difficulty with the concept that we appear to be abrogating our obligation to the public, passing it over to the commission and basically saying, much like with B.C. Ferries: "Well it's a private corporation. We're not responsible anymore." That appears to be what this particular

section is doing. Hon. W. Oppal: This allows for more flexibility, and if one examines closel y the old

section with the proposed new section, the powers are virtually the same. What really happens here — what the new sec- tion does — is that it repeals and replaces the old sec- tion and the commission's existing and new powers to designate persons as fitting within some key, defined classes of persons within the act. L. Krog: To the Attorney General: I come back to a point I made about earlier sections around

definitions. Surely, certainty in the law is important. As much as I well appreciate the government's and the state's inabil- ity, often, to catch the white-collar crime that goes on in our community — which is a far more profitable ven- ture than breaking into houses in downtown Nanaimo…. Appreciating that I want to encourage the government to catch as much white-collar crime as possible, nevertheless, surely, certainty in the law is important. I thought it was our job as legislators to make the law.

It wasn't the job of the Securities Commission to define what may amount to criminal behaviour in a sense, within the act, as opposed to giving the commis- sion rights for civil remedies, which would be available to all of us. Again, I come back to it. I ask the Attorney General: correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand this to say that the commission gets to define who's an in- sider, and we don't. Hon. W. Oppal: The definition will be in the rules, and this gives the commission power to deal with emerging situations. It shou ld be noted that frauds sometimes take place in a hurry.

Legislation cannot catch up to frauds that are taking place in the market- place, but the rules will be clearly defined so that peo- ple know what the prescribed conduct is. [1055] L. Krog: What this

section does is add — through (b), (

c) and (d) — the mutual fund, non-redeemable investment fund, reporting issuer, etc. That's a signifi- cant expansion of the existing section. That's my read- ing of it. Is that correct? Go ahead. Hon. W. Oppal: The power is there now. This merely expands the defini tion and the scope. The power is already there. J. Kwan: Let's just get the wording from the old Securities Act on record in terms of what we're amend- ing here. Here's what it says.

Section 3.2(1) reads: "If the commission considers it to be in the public interest, the commission may, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations, order that an issuer is a mutual fund." That's the old wording. We're amending that now to say: "If the commis- sion considers it to be in the public interest, the com-

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3961 mission may, for the purposes of this Act, order that a person is (

a) an insider, (

b) a mutual fund, (

c) a non- redeemable investment fund, or (

d) a reporting issuer." It increases the scope in three separate ways by adding three other categories to the commission's authority to define these categories. When the Attorney General says that the power has not been enhanced and it is just the scope, well, by en- hancing the scope, the reach of the commission is much broader. The question that my colleague the critic for the Attorney General had been asking centres around, if you will, the devolution of authority from govern- ment to the commission in the scope related to these three entities.

Therefore, the issue of accountability is a question, because the level of accountability on applying the sections of the act would be far greater if that level of accountability came from legislators. But we're trans- ferring that authority ov er to the commission. The commission, in essence, is like a private entity similar to the example which my critic colleague used, such as B.C. Ferries — a private entity. Much o f t h a t w o r k i s not subject to public scrutiny. Hence the concern on accountability, for the purposes of investor confidence, and information that needs to , I think, flow to the pub- lic.

From that point of view, my question is whether or not the Attorney General has any concerns around that — by increasing the scope of the commission. The At- torney General made a comment to say that well, we can't be creating legislation to catch up fast enough with the people who are de frauding the system. With the act, we're not talking ab out needing legislators to create legislation to catch up with people who are de- frauding the system.

We ar e talking about an enforce- ment tool that needs to be in place to ensure that those who are defrauding the syst em are indeed caught and are therefore accountable to the rules that apply. Wouldn't it be better that the authority and the en- forcement, if you will, of the people who might be deemed to be insiders, and so on, are retained by legis- lation without that authorit y being transferred to the commission? [1100] Hon. W. Oppal: The only expansion of powers or authority here deals with the definition of an insider. The other

definitions in sub (b ), (

c) and (

d) are there in the other sections of the act. They are essentially con- solidated. The only increase in powers is in the defini- tion of insider, and that's been expanded, as stated ear- lier. J. Kwan: I would venture to say that it's actually one of the most important

definitions — isn't it? In de- fining insider, the commissi on therefore has the au- thority to deem who is an insider. Around investment, if there's insider trading and so on, yes, the commission has a role to play. I would say that a bigger role and a larger accountability mechanism of that would be through the processes set out by the Legislature but not through the commission that has a greater accountabil- ity provision to define who is or is not an insider. Hon. W. Oppal: This provision is designed and intended to protect investors and not necessarily insid- ers.

It expands the definition of insiders so as to protect the investing public from the activities of insiders. That's the purpose of it. J. Kwan: Yes, I understand the purpose of it. The question is whether or no t the proposed change, the amendment that's before us , would achieve that goal. Maybe what I'm missing is this. Maybe the Attorney General can tell me and outline for this House: what process, then, would the commission go through to identify someone as an insider? What sort of process would the commission go through? Would there be public hearings? Would there be investigations and so on?

Maybe the Attorney Gen- eral can outline that for me so that I can get the confi- dence that, in fact, there's greater protection for inves- tors. Hon. W. Oppal: The general procedure is for the commission to allege that there has been unlawful in- sider activity. There would be an open process wherein a hearing is held, and it would be for the alleging party to prove that, in fact, the pe rson was an insider within the definition of the law. The Chair: Shall

section 5 pass? [1105] J. Kwan: Sorry. On

section 5, Madam Chair. My apologies. I didn't jump to my feet, because I thought the Attorney General was going to jump right back up. I think the chair caught him, and he didn't jump right back up. Just so that I understand this clearly. The commis- sion makes an allegation against someone as poten- tially an insider. There's a public hearing process that takes place, and then it's up to the commission to prove that the person is, in fact, an insider. That's the process which the Attorney General had outlined for the com- mission that orders that a person is an insider.

Maybe the Attorney General can tell me and this House…. The hearings that are held and that are public — who adjudicates these hearings? Hon. W. Oppal: Commissioners conduct the hear- ing, and during the course of that hearing, evidence is led by commission counsel. The party who is accused of unlawful insider activity may be represented by counsel. A hearing is held, and at the end of the day, based on the whole of the evidence, depending on the circumstances and the facts of each case, the commis- sion is entitled to make a finding. J. Kwan: In the system now, before the amend- ment….

That process that the Attorney General just outlined is the system now, isn't it?

3962 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 Hon. W. Oppal: That is the present system in place now. What this legislation does is expand the defini- tion of insider, and thereby the allegations that are al- leged would have a wider…. It would expand the defi- nitions so that any wrongdoings would perhaps be easier to prove — for want of a better expression — in that it expands the definition of insider in order to pro- tect the investing public. But it would still be up to commission counsel to prove that in fact and in law, there was improper conduct. J. Kwan: The definition sections talk about the in- sider and define what an in sider is. This

section adds the terminology — or the entity, if you will — of an insider to be a person that the commission can consider to be in the public interest to order is an insider. For- merly, that wasn't in place. The commission does not have the authority to order that a person is an insider. I guess where I'm having tr ouble here is this. If the process is such that the commission could allege some- one is an insider, the commission then goes to a public hearing process. The commission sits and adjudicates that process, and then the commission ultimately or- ders that that person is an insider.

Doesn't that seem like there's something wrong with that approach ver- sus before, when the commission didn't get to order that person was an insider? Someone else did. I don't know how that adds to public confidence in terms of protection for inve stors. I think it detracts from it — does it not? Hon. W. Oppal: What this provision does is permit the commission, in appropriate circumstances, to des- ignate that someone is an insider, based on the facts and the evidence that the commission has before it. [1110] J. Kwan: Okay, then. Under what circumstances would that apply? Hon. W.

Oppal: I would point out that there are a number of reasons for this expanded definition, if you will. One example is that a person could come before the commission and get an advanced ruling as to whether or not one is an insider. If a person has a query as to whether or not he or she is an insider, they could come before the commission and get an advanced rul- ing on that. J. Kwan: The Attorney General means to say, then….

Let's just say, for example, I came before the commission and said to the commission: "Will you make a decision on whether or not I'm an insider?" The commission will then fast-track that process to deter- mine and give me an answer on whether or not I'm an insider. That's what this

section of the act does? Hon. W. Oppal: There are several ways that a per- son who is concerned about hi s or her activities could approach this. A person could go before the commis- sion and lay out a set of circumstances and ask the commission for an advanced ruling as to whether or not he or she is an insider. That's one scenario. Another scenario is that the commission could allege by itself that someone is an insider. There are various scenarios. How the process is kicked into play will vary upon the circumstances of the case.

But at the end of the day, the commission has the power and the authority ba sed on the existing facts to make a finding as to whether or not someone is an insider or not. Sections 5 and 6 approved. On

section 7. L. Krog: I j u s t w a n t t o c o n f i r m . I t a k e i t t h a t t h e Administrative Tribunals Act applies now to the work of the commission. Is this just — how shall I say? — something to define it and enshrine what is practised, or is this in fact a change? Hon. W. Oppal: The

section repeals and replaces

section 4.1, so the relevant provisions of the new Ad- ministrative Tribunals Act apply to the commission. This amendment is necessary because

section 162 of the Administrative Tribunals Ac t amended the Securities Act, 2004, instead of the current act.

Section 7 approved. On

section 8. J. Kwan: Just a quick question on

section 8. The explanatory note says that it repeals an unnecessary provision.

Section 8 in the original act refers to

section 12, which is the B.C. Securities Commission Securities Policy Advisory Committee, which allows the minister to establish a B.C. Securi ties Commission Securities Policy Advisory Committee. Is it not necessary now because of the harmoniza- tion approach that's going forward, so there would then be one national advisory committee? Why is it unnecessary? [1115] Hon. W. Oppal: The commission intends to retain the present process, the advisory committee. There is a com- mittee now in place, and members are recruited through public notice and the application process.

So there is a committee in place now, and it will remain in place. J. Kwan: The advisory committee that's in place now…. Its members are recruited by the commission itself, and it has nothing to do with government or the minister. There are no appointed individuals on that commission? Is that why it's not necessary — because the commission is just doing its own advisory commit- tee work on its own? Hon. W. Oppal: The minister appoints an advisory committee. The 2004 Securities Act repealed the ap-

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3963 pointment provision because the detailed board re- sourcing and development office process for statutory appointments was too cumbersome and intrusive for a voluntary advisory committee. J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that the minister now does not appoint any individuals to the advisory committee? Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the present law is that yes, the minister does that. But if this passes, then the process will change. J. Kwan: Okay. That was my original question.

That is to say that what this amendment does is change the original act to say that the minister will no longer appoint an advisory committee. It eliminates that. Is the minister saying th at by eliminating this sec- tion of the act, the advisory body will be formed by the commission in the future an d that they could appoint anybody they want and the minister would have noth- ing to do with it? Well, let me just ask that first ques- tion, and then I'm going to ask my second question related to it. Hon. W. Oppal: The question is correct.

I haven't articulated it well, but the minister will have no role in it under the amendment. The commission will intend to retain, through a non-statutory appointment process, a broadly based advisory committee. It will be the com- mission, through a public process, to appoint a new committee…. J. Kwan: Will there be a national advisory body, through this harmonization process, that advises the respective commissions across the country? Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is no, at the pre- sent time, but there is dial ogue taking place as to whether or not there ought to be a national regulator.

If that happens sometime in the future, there no doubt will be some kind of national advisory committee or an advisory body, but that's pure speculation at this stage. [1120] J. Kwan: I guess I'll just raise this question related to that. Now we're moving into a situation where — in previous sections we talked about it — the commission will be given greater scope of authority in, for example, defining what an insider is and designating someone as an insider. Then on the ad visory body, the government will no longer have a role in making appointments of individuals to the advisory body of the commission.

All of that will be done by the commission. The advi- sory body will be chosen by the commission itself. So more and more we're moving into a situation where, pretty well, we're relying on the commission for a whole lot of things, separa te and apart from any in- volvement from government. I just want to flag that.

I'm not quite sure that is necessarily in the best in- terest of promoting public confidence — not to say that the commission itself is not doing good work, but of- tentimes one could anticipate the commission might well have a viewpoint that is not shared amongst oth- ers and sometimes with government. To have an advi- sory body where the government has a role in appoint- ing somebody to that body might be an important component in that, in broadening the diversity of opin- ions around the table, as opposed to relying just on one source in choosing that advisory body.

I just want to flag that for the Attorney General's consideration, because it seems to me that as we go through the act and the amendments related to the act, we're moving more in the direction of really giving greater authority to the co mmission and really putting a lot of the public trust in this matter on the commis- sion alone.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. L. Krog: Just so I can understand. Essentially, as I view it, this

section will permit the commission to spend moneys that it may recover through its work on its — how shall I say? — own operations as opposed to putting it in court and leaving it in court or, as I under- stand it, a disgorgement order — in other words, giv- ing an opportunity to investors to claim funds that have been paid into court. That's the way I understand this. Basically, this is sort of like the Escheat Act in a sense. If nobody claims it, steps forward, then it's going to flow into the commission to be used for its own pur- poses. Is that correct? Hon. W. Oppal: In the unlikely scenario that no one claims the money, the

section permits the commission to retain the money and to use any remaining money only for education. J. Kwan: The minister advises that the unclaimed money can only be used for education. Are there guidelines, if you will, that set out what constitutes education? Hon. W. Oppal: The money must be designated for use for education of investors. I assume from that that there would be discretion on the part of the commis- sion as to how they would educate members of the public on investing.

Section 9 approved. On

section 10. [1125] L. Krog: This section, as I understand it, is simply going to require the commission to notify the public when it gets moneys and ensure that in fact the public will have an opportunity within a three-year date to come forward and claim thos e funds, therefore avoid- ing the unlikely possibility the Attorney General re-

3964 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 ferred to in his previous answer that no one would step forward and actually ask for the dough. Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes. J. Kwan: What is the notification mechanism? Hon. W. Oppal: The government will regulate as to how the notice is to be given. J. Kwan: H a s t h e g o v e r n m e n t d o n e s o m e o f t h e work in terms of what that notification would look like, or is that work to be completed in the next year and a half? Is that a harmonized process across all jurisdic- tions in terms of the notification process across all of the provinces?

Hon. W. Oppal: There was a notice amendment done for the 2004 act, and it is proposed that those same provisions would be used. J. Kwan: W h a t t h e m i n i s t e r i s s a y i n g i s t h a t t h e notification process and re quirements would be based on what was in place in 2004, and so there are no new regulations coming forward. Given that we're moving in the direction of harmonization and given that other provinces are also expected, I would expect, to bring forward this kind of reporting mechanism, would the other jurisdictions be requ ired to undergo the same kind of notification mechanism?

Will there be, in other words, a nationalized notification approach? Hon. W. Oppal: I n t h a t s e n s e , t h i s p r o v i n c e i s ahead of other jurisdictions in that this is not a har- monization issue. This is something that the 2004 act contained, and so we've already moved in that area of notifying the public through the act. J. Kwan: The Attorney General just said something curious. He said that some things are harmonization issues and some things are not, and this is not one of them.

With respect to the debate in the bill, maybe as we go along, the Attorney General can identify for this House, so that we're clear, which of the issues are har- monization issues and which ones are not. A s I u n d e r s t o o d i t w h e n w e f i r s t d i s c u s s e d t h i s i n the

definitions section, the whole thrust of this amendment act was around harmonization, but it turns out only segments of it are around harmonization. Segments of it are now not part of the harmonization process. If the minister could clarify that for this House, that would be very helpful. Hon. W. Oppal: Well, there are three significant areas of the securities law that we're dealing with. One is to implement the passpor t system by harmonizing securities laws across the country and by protecting investors. Once these chan ges are implemented, the changes will facilitate easier access to markets within Canada.

That's the general philosophy and the intent of the act. [1130] L. Krog: So that I'm clear with respect to this sec- tion, the public is going to be notified, and it requires that a claim must be made to the Supreme Court. In an era of rising legal costs and studies by the Supreme Court around the issue of cost and the lack of access to justice, if I have a claim for $10,000 — as an investor — to hire counsel to make application to the Supreme Court, which is what I believe this

section contem- plates…. It seems a bit excessive, as opposed to allow- ing me to simply make my claim in Provincial Court. I'm wondering if the Attorney General has given any consideration to that sect ion, because often it's not a situation involving, with great respect, Jimmy Patti- son investing in a company. It's Mabel Schwartz in Williams Lake who has sunk $10,000 into something and for whom that represents a great deal of money, and a legal bill of half of that is just beyond her means. Hon. W.

Oppal: Usually when there are competing claims for moneys, as the member knows, the money is paid into court, and competing claims are then made. As far as legal assistance available to prospective claimants, that's an issue that the government is still working on. L. Krog: One of the concerns expressed by many is that we have a commission and the chair, as I under- stand it, or the president or the chief executive officer is making close to a half-million dollars a year.

I'm under the understanding — and the Attorney General, I'm sure, will correct me if I'm wrong — that there's cer- tainly no provision in this legislation to allow for a re- view of that salary. With great respect, people making that kind of money sometimes lose touch with the pub- lic and the small investors out there who don't live in that high stratosphere of economic security.

It seems to me that if the government has some intention, and I certainly ho pe it does, to lessen the legal cost to British Columbians who have already pre- sumably lost money — which is why there are these disgorgement orders made, etc. — surely it would be more effective to set up a system under the Securities Commission, a kind of administrative tribunal ap- proach, that would take this out of the Supreme Court and the necessary expenses that would flow from that.

In other words, if we've got ten people going after a fund and we're talking $200,000, the person who's got a million bucks is going to hire the best legal talent in downtown Vancouver. To come back to my mythical Mabel Schwartz in Williams Lake, I don't think she's going to be hiring Borden Ladner Gervais or whoever to pursue her claim. Essentia lly, you have shut her out of the process.

It seems to me that if you can't allow and rank some statutory provision to enable this to occur in Provincial Court, for competing interests to be dealt with in Pro- vincial Court or under an administrative process that would be far less onerous th an the requirements of appearing in Supreme Court…. That would be a far more effective way of assisting the public and giving

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3965 the public confidence that if they do suffer a loss or if they are victimized, they will actually have a genuine remedy that is within their financial grasp, as opposed to simply the commission's tossing it into Supreme Court and saying good-bye and good luck. [1135] I'm wondering if the Attorney General can com- ment on what I've just had to say with respect to this

section and whether or not the Attorney General is giving serious consideratio n to putting into place a more user-friendly public system that does not involve the necessity, with great respect to my profession, of always having to hire lawyers to pursue what may be fairly paltry sums when you compare them to the legal costs of succeeding in making a claim. Hon. W. Oppal: The Securities Commission, of course, doesn't have the necessary expertise to deal with competing claims. Therefore, the money has to be paid into court.

If it's beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court sma ll claims division, then it goes into the Supreme Court. Once it goes into the Su- preme Court, if there's only one claimant, then the so- lution ought to be easy. The one claimant gets the money. However, the complications arise where there are competing claims and where there may be a large amount of money. The issue raised by the member is a valid one. Does that necessitate every claimant having to go and retain expensive counsel? The only answer I would have to that query is this.

It is the obligation of judges in the Supreme Court to assist un represented litigants. That happens — not on a fairly regular basis, but not on an irregular basis — where judges do assist unrepresented litigants. I might add that the court registry staff and the people in the court services branch assist unrepre- sented litigants in gaining access to the courts. L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney Gen- eral's comments, we have a bankruptcy system in this country that doesn't require hearings in the formal sense. If I'm a creditor, I make a claim in the bankrupt's estate.

The trustee reviews the claims and basically comes to a decision on whether or not the claims are valid. I share in the pot of mo ney that's available, such as it is — subject to secured creditors, preferred credi- tors and the priorities as set out therein. In these circumstances it's not even going to be as complex a system in terms of secured creditors, be- cause that's not likely to arise, based on my under- standing of the legislation.

I suppose there may be somebody around, but arguab ly it would be a fairly simple adjudicative process that could be handled — if I can use the term in the kindest way — in a bureau- cratic, administrative process as opposed to in a formal court process, thereby giving the public more access to obtain moneys that have been wrongfully taken from them, so to speak.

With great respect to the Attorney General, I don't think it's any answer to sa y: "The Supreme Court will help you out from time to time." I think the suggestion that you have a simpler process, a more people- friendly process, would be far more effective and would enhance the confidence of the public in the work of the Securities Commission — and investor confidence generally — knowing that if they are vic- timized, they are not going to have to spend a great deal more money than they potentially invested simply to make recovery.

Surely we have enough talent in a province of four million-plus people that we can set up that kind of process. I would like to hear the Attorney General ex- plain why the system as proposed under

section 15 should be implemented when , with great respect, a simpler system could be put in place. [1140] Hon. W. Oppal: There's no doubt that other statu- tory bodies from time to time do assist the courts in making findings and assisting courts. The registrar's office is an example of that. Referees are often ap- pointed by courts and can help determine difficult is- sues of fact in law. There is a working group that is working towards a more stream lined form of justice so that access can be achieved.

I would invite the member and others to assist in determining whether or not there can be another process that can be brought into play in ensuring that justice is achieved amongst com- peting claims in the Supreme Court. L. Krog: As much as I'm flattered by his suggestion that I assist the government in this, to use those lines from Milton, On His Blindness , "Thousands at his bid- ding speed, and post o'er land and ocean without rest" — not on the opposition side, underfunded as we are in terms of research and communications.

I'm certainly willing to provide my advice to the Attorney, but it seems to me that it is the government's obligation to ensure that a system is put in place. They have the tal- ent available to do that. With respect to the proces s, again, I appreciate the Attorney General's comments around the court's staff assisting. But we're not talking about making a small claim for the fact that Joe didn't connect the pipes properly when he came to plumb your house.

We're talking about making claims under a fairly complex piece of legislation that the Attorney General will ap- preciate as complex — and the public as complex. To suggest that the court staff should be providing legal advice or assistance is no real answer — and the suggestion that the court can make appointments. Nevertheless, you have to get through that door. You have to get into a courtroom. You have to understand the process to get there, and with great respect, that is not an easy process.

That is how roughly 10,000 British Columbians make their living as counsel, acting on behalf of people to get them access to justice. Again, I just strongly su ggest to the Attorney Gen- eral — i f h e i s c o n c e r n e d a b o u t a c c e s s t o j u s t i c e , a s I firmly believe he is — that he consider some other sys- tem, particularly because this is a

section dealing with people who have already been victimized.

3966 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I wasn't suggesting that the court staff or anybody give legal advice to prospective claimants. What I was suggesting was that court regis- try staff assist people in the documentary process of filing claims. The difficulty here is a constitutional one, in that only

section 96 judges — federally appointed judges — are entitled to deal with claims of $25,000 or more, so that brings you into the Supreme Court. It is only when the money is $25,000 or more that the Su- preme Court assumes jurisdiction. The province has limited jurisdiction to deal with moneys that are in excess of that amount, insofar as appointing tribunals or courts to deal with those mat- ters. As the member knows, the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court small claims division is $25,000. Anything over and above that takes you into the Su- preme Court. L.

Krog: I don't want to get into too protracted an exchange with the Attorney here this morning, but candidly, the last time I checked, this Legislature could increase the monetary jurisdiction in the Su- preme Court. Indeed, it may even be possible to do it by regulation. Surely it's not that difficult a proposi- tion for a government that can bring forward this lovely, lengthy piece of legislation involving the Secu- rities Act to make the legislative changes necessary to accommodate the suggestions I've made in the House this morning. [1145] Hon. W.

Oppal: We're really into a constitutional grey area here, and I'm not so sure…. We might be, with the greatest of respect, getting far afield as to what the intent of this

section is. In any event, the most I can say here is that this mechanism, in our view, provides an effective means by which a disgorgement order can be made by a court. It provides for the payment out of moneys to innocent victims, investors who were wronged. In the government's view, this is an effective way of doing it.

Section 10 approved. On

section 11. L. Krog: As I understand the provisions of

section 11, it's simply going to repeal

section 34(2) and

section 37, as they are unnecessary. These powers will now be addressed in subordinate legislation or by policy.

Section 34(2) reads in its present form: "An applica- tion for registration or for renewal or reinstatement of registration or for an amendment to registration must be made to the executive director in the required form and must be accompanied by the prescribed fee." I g u e s s I n e e d t o k n o w : w h a t i n f a c t i s t h e p r o p o s a l t o replace that existing provision? Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 34(2) is really unnecessary because there is a similar requirement in a national rule that addresses the same issue. L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, the existing legislation will continue in place until this new national rules sys- tem, which will not in fact face legislative scrutiny, comes into being. Is that correct? Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the national rule is already in place. I can say that

section 37, which is a part of this amendment, is unnecessary because it's an administra- tive issue, and it can be addressed in a policy state- ment. Sections 11 and 12 approved. On

section 13. Interjections. L. Krog: I'm so delighted to hear from members of the House on occasion during this scintillating debate. I'm sure they've been inspired. With respect to

section 13, can the Attorney General explain the purpose of the provision relating to

section 13? Hon. W. Oppal: I think the vociferous response may have been militated by the member and myself putting everybody to sleep in here. This

section repeals and replaces

section 41 to re- quire the commission to accept a surrender of registra- tion unless it is prejudicial to the public interest. It re- moves the requirement for the commission to be satis- fied that the financial obligation of the registrant to its clients has been discharged. That is only one factor that the commission should consider in determining if the surrender is prejudicial to the public interest. This new

section permits the commission to impose conditions or restrictions on a registration where a per- son applies to surrender registration. The power has been added in order to assist the winding up of a busi- ness of a registrant. [1150]

Section 13 approved. On

section 14. L. Krog: We're talking about a significant portion of the act that's disappearing under

section 14. I'm won- dering: can the Attorney General explain why these provisions are no longer necessary? My comment on this is that it appears to suggest that, once again, we're goin g back to this subordinate legislation which, as I understand it, is not really legis- lation. It's just the rules. Can the Attorney General comment on that? Hon. W. Oppal: A national registration and pro- spective exemptions rule in cludes many of the exemp- tions. What this amendment does is facilitate the pass- port system by helping to ensure that a registration exemption is available across the country and not just

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3967 in some provinces. Exemptions not included in the national rule will be moved to a local exemptions rule if necessary. Sections 14 and 15 approved. On

section 16. L. Krog:

Section 16, as proposed, repeals the exist- ing 54(2) — substitutes this subs ection. I'm just won- dering if the Attorney General can advise: is this, in his view, an improvement? Does it narrow the scope? Does it widen the scope? In fact, what will be the actual legal effect of this section? Does it represent an im- provement in terms of ensuri ng that guilty parties are in fact caught? Hon. W. Oppal: The current

section has some in- herent weaknesses in that it only addresses lying about being registered, but many other types of misleading conduct or misleading statements can be made in order to induce an investor to invest. What this

section does — the repeal and the replacement here — is prohibit a person from making a false or misleading statement about something that a reasonable investor would con- sider important in deciding whether or not to enter into or maintain an advising rela tionship. It takes into con- sideration where something a reasonable investor ought to be apprised of and wasn't told. That's basi- cally what it is. It expands the definition of improper conduct. L. Krog: Noting the hour, I think it might be rea- sonable to move that the committee rise, report pro- gress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having re- ported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:08 a.m. On Vote 11: ministry operations, $1,981,707,000 (continued). Hon. M. Coell: I'd first like to introduce the staff that are with me this morning. I have Deputy Minister Moura Quayle; Ruth Wittenberg, assistant deputy min- ister; Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister; and Heather Brazier, director of post-secondary finance.

At the conclusion of debate yesterday I committed to a number of items for the members across the floor. The first one was information on the criteria that pri- vate post-secondary institutions must meet for their students to be eligible for government financial assis- tance. I have those policies and procedures, and I'll give that to the members across for their information. The other one was…. The opposition had requested some information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Staff have let me know that that is well underway.

The delay is because it in- volves the Private Career Tr aining Institution Agency as well as the ministry. So we're coordinating that, and it should be resolved soon. The other issue that we had some discussion on was the reallocations of spaces within institutions. What we did is in cooperation with institutions ask them how many spaces that they felt they would need in addition or how many spaces they were willing to give up if they couldn't fill them. So it's a very small number; it's 72 reallocations out of almost 4,400 new spaces this year.

I'll just give a breakdown. [1010] The College of the Rockies will receive 69 new seats, but they gave up 30. The College of New Cale- donia has 67 new seats. They gave up 20. Northern Lights will get 45, and they gave up ten. North Island will get 45. They gave up seven. Northwest Commu- nity College will get 51. They gave up five. That's a total of 72 reallocations.

The recipients of those are Emily Carr, which will receive an additional 20, bringing it to 54; the Justice Institute will receive 20, bringing its total to 20; BCIT will receive an extra 15, bringing its total to 163; UCFV will receive an additional ten, bringing its total to 405;

3968 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 and NVIT aboriginal programs will receive seven, bringing their total to 15, which totals 72. We did that with the agr eement of all of the institu- tions, and we'll probably cont inue to do that over the next four years as well. Ever y year we'll reassess as to which could develop more programs and which are not able to develop the ones that they were allocated. If that is helpful, I'll sit down, and we'll continue debate. G. Robertson: Thank you very much to the minister and staff for providing the information so promptly, and the updates.

It's much appreciated. I'd like to start this morning by circling back and finishing off some questions on student financial assis- tance, scholarships and bursaries. I had asked the min- ister questions around the total envelope for student financial assistance funding and a question regarding that funding appearing to be static. There were some clarifications regarding the interest rate calculations. The nugget that I was tryi ng to get at there was per- student funding related to student financial assistance.

Though the number of stud ents that are receiving funding may be increasing, it appears that per-student funding, based on the numb ers as they've been trans- lated to me, continues to drop somewhat here, adjust- ing for inflation, interest rates and increased numbers of students qualifying. My concern — and I think it's a broadly shared concern — is that there is no carefully articulated vision here for per-student funding increas- ing in conjunction with the increasing costs of attend- ing school and living expenses associated with that.

Can the minister clarify per-student funding and whether there is a commitment by the ministry to en- sure that per-student funding is increasing by the rate of inflation, at least? Hon. M. Coell: That information is available to me. It will take a few minutes. If the member wishes to go on with other questions, I'll come back to that with a full answer. G. Robertson: That would be fine. I'll ask some- thing beyond that that's a little more specific. It's a question about the occupation-specific loan remission programs.

I've noticed that in the information provided by the ministry to the pu blic, these are continually identified as student financial assistance programs, when by all intents and pu rposes, occupation-specific loan remission programs are very targeted and are essentially recruiting programs to get students into specific occupational training , not to alleviate financial barriers for students. Can the minister clarify that distinction between a recruiting program and a pr ogram that's designed to alleviate financial barriers? Hon. M. Coell: I think it's really a bit of both.

I think what we're attempting to do is influence the deci- sion after graduation as to where they would go and practise their new profession. The initial program tar- geted doctors, nurses, midwives and pharmacists. [1015] There are parts of the prov ince where there is a lack of those professions, so what we're doing is basically saying to someone: "We're going to forgive your loans if you will practise your new profession in an area of the province that needs yo u right now." I think that while it is obviously an assistance in reducing debt, there's a benefit to the province as well. G.

Robertson: This does end up tying back into my first question about the over all vision of the ministry for student financial assistance. If you look at occupa- tion-specific recruiting programs and the student fi- nancial assistance that's labelled for those programs, they don't appear to be spec ifically targeting students who have financial barriers. Again, it ends up being an offset to the overall allocation to students in terms of per-student funding. When the minister has gathered the information regarding per-student funding, I'd be interested in hearing the mi nister's overarching vision here.

I think there are a lot of questions about: where is the line going to be drawn, what is the ministry com- mitted to in terms of ensuring that student debt doesn't run away and continue to accelerate on students, and how does per-student funding play a role in that? Hon. M. Coell: It's a good question, and I think the best way I can answer it is to show what the increase is. In 2005-2006 the budget was $136.44 million. This year, in 2006-2007, it's $158.383 million. That's a 16-percent increase, or almost a $22 million increase, so the budget is increasing.

I think one of the overarching principles for government is that family income should not ham- per a person's ability to get a higher education. We see that increase as helping. I think one of the other things that…. In capping the tuition at 2 percent, that, with the increase, makes it more accessible for students to achieve an education, whether it's at the college or university college or uni- versity. So that's the increa se. I think that is good pro- gress in a 16-percent increase in that budget. G.

Robertson: Appreciating the 16-percent in- crease, one needs to keep in mind the cost-of-living and inflationary increases and, I think most alarmingly, the tuition increases that took place over that period of time in relation to the increase in student financial as- sistance. I think the tuition increase far outstripped that when it was in most cases calculated at an average 100- percent increase across B.C. Again, it brings up the question of how we are do- ing per student. Is the minist ry tracking this?

Is this a focus of the ministry, to ensure that per-student fund- ing with student financial assistance is a priority? [1020] Hon. M. Coell: I just wanted to touch…. I'm still waiting to get some of that information for the mem- ber. There are a number of things that the B.C. student assistance program offers over and above the ability to

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3969 get loans and loan forgiveness. I mean, we have the Canada student loans; the Canada study grant for stu- dents with dependents; B.C. student loan; the Cana- dian Millennium Scholarship and the provincial funds in the form of loan reduction; the millennium access bursary; the Canada access grant for students from low-income families and the Canada access grant for students with permanent disabilities; and the Canada study grant for female doctoral students.

There's a whole range of programs that , in many instances, are cost-shared with the federal government, and that's the same with all provinces and B.C. I think, too, that in many instances there are a number of programs that people can access at different stages through their degrees or programs. We want to continually look at that, the debt associated with that, whether it's the gross amount of debt that people are having or the number of students having to access debt.

Staff do watch that on a regular basis, and a lot of that is why capping the tuition fee at the rate of infla- tion, or 2 percent, and th en having a 16-percent in- crease in funds available takes care of the increase in students. It also takes care of the increased cost, as the mem- ber mentioned — the living expenses, whether you run a car or rent an apartment or house. That varies throughout the province to o. You can track that as to…. Students in the north have different costs than some of them on the Island and Victoria and Vancou- ver and the bigger centres. It's something we watch closely.

We want to make sure that people don't have huge debts at the end of their univ ersity or college careers. Again, as we were talking about yesterday, 50 percent of students actually graduate with no debt. It's impor- tant that the people who need to borrow some money have access to money, and that's why the increase of 16 percent in this budget. G. Robertson: Shifting a little to the repayment side of the equation on the student assistance program, there's been some talk lately of people musing on the concept of income-based repayment plans.

I'm curious if the ministry is doing any work or research on this kind of a repayment plan. Hon. M. Coell: We did, and I think we touched on it yesterday, have a look at the British and Australian models. With a number of aspects of our program, we felt it had some drawbacks. With the loan forgiveness and a number of other added benefits to our programs, we felt there wasn't a need to change at this point. G. Robertson: So it's safe to say, at this point, that income-based repayment plans are not in the works or are not being looked at by the ministry.

That is reassur- ing to hear, noting a lot of controversy around those schemes in other jurisdictions. [1025] Shifting a little here to scholarships and bursaries, the minister was good enough to provide some de- tailed information flowing out of last year's estimates related to the scholarships and bursaries that exist in the province. I do note that there is a dearth of scholar- ships and bursaries available to graduate students.

I'm curious if there are programs that are being considered right now or opportunities that the ministry is pursu- ing to create scholarships and bursaries for graduate spaces or for graduate students. Hon. M. Coell: I'll elaborate a little bit for the member. We have three scholarships: the Premier's Excellence Awards, the Queen Elizabeth scholarship and the Irving K. Barber scholarship foundation, which were all undergraduate schol arship programs. They've all been increased, and the Irving K. Barber one is a new one this year. The Prem ier's awards went from $5,000 to $15,000.

Those are undergraduate sch olarships. Historically in B.C., the universities ha ve done the post-graduate scholarships and continue to do that. They differ from university to university. We don't foresee us changing that course in moving into doing scholarships for mas- ters and doctorates, but the un iversities do a very good job of that and have done for decades in British Co- lumbia. G. Robertson: I do note in the information that the minister provided that the I r v i n g K . B a r b e r s c h o l a r - ships are at no cost to the ministry.

They are funded outside of the public sphere, which is fantastic, but that contribution is made by the Barber family. The Premier's Excellence Awards and Queen Elizabeth II scholarships I have here totalling only $140,000 of provincial funding, which, compared to the cost of graduate studies in B.C., seems like a drop in the bucket, if not the ocean. Given that there are concerns…. The minister stated yesterday the ministry is recognizing the need to create graduate spaces and fund them more robustly with institutions.

With the need, as well, for merit-based funding, the merit-based scholarship appears to be something that would come hand in hand with that funding, given that the prov ince has to this point al- most solely relied upon institutions and private fund- ing to support graduate stud ents. Is there no effort being made within the ministry to look at merit-based scholarships to accompany increased graduate spaces? Hon. M. Coell: Firstly, the scholarship programs within the ministry and within government are quite extensive. I'll just go through a few of them, and talk about graduate student strategies as well.

The world scholarship is $424,000, Queen Elizabeth is $75,000, the Premier's Excellence is $250,000, the Passport to Education is $12 million, provincial and school district scholarships are $5.63 million, which is a total of $18.486 million. And then bursaries. We have $50,000 for mid- wifery; student society emer gency aid, $100,000; part- time student assistance is $210,000; disabled student grants, $600,000; health care scholarships are $950,000;

3970 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 the B.C. permanent disabilities benefit is $2 million; the nurse education bursaries are $2 million; and the ABE student assistance bursaries are $3.7 million, totalling $9.6 million. [1030] Loan forgiveness was $1.2 million. The B.C. loan reduction program alone last year was $30.8 million. Debt reduction and repayment was $6 million, and in- terest relief was $4 million. In total, you're looking at almost $60 million worth of scholarships, bursaries and loan forgiveness last year alone. That's quite substantial.

The scholarships that we'r e looking at for a grad strategy would be scholarshi ps that would attract peo- ple to British Columbia. We're also looking at seats, and we talked yesterday about upgrading some of the 25,000 to graduate-level seats and internships as well. I think one of the things that British Columbia has done quite well over the last few years is the founda- tions. When you look at ea ch one of those foundations — whether it's the Michael Smith Foundation or Ge- nome B.C. — the number of graduate students that they support and attract….

The other one is the Leading Edge chairs through- out the province, and that was $52 million. In each one of those chairs there are lots of graduate students that are attracted to be around th ose chairs and have access to funds as well. There's a number of different ways of funding graduate-level spots, but we are looking — as we were saying yesterday — at upgrading some of those. With that, there wo uld obviously be a scholar- ship to attract increased seats and internships as well. G.

Robertson: The information provided by the minister last February 2 in the letter specifically on B.C. student assistance progra ms, scholarships and bur- saries…. I'll just quote one piece of it: "In fiscal year 2004-2005, 56,540 students received negotiated British Columbia student loans; 338 students received provin- cial scholarships, and 562 students received bursaries." I was shocked when I saw the numbers, just com- paring the numbers of over 56,000 students receiving student debt and 900 receiving scholarships and bur- saries from the province, which is 1½ percent of the loan recipients.

I'm not clear if the information is refer- ring to a very narrow wind ow of the scholarships and bursaries. Purely taking the information that was sent over by the minister, it looks like a shockingly low number of students being supported by scholarships and bursaries in comparison to the number of students who are receiving and negotiating debt loans. Can the minister clarify that? Hon. M. Coell: I guess there are always two ways of looking at this — sort of like a glass half empty or a glass half full.

In fact, 28,000 students last year received loan reductions from the ot her end of completing and then having it come off, rather than at the beginning. That totalled $67 million. I guess it depends on how you look at whether that one is considered a bursary…. In any event, it's money savings to the students who have finished their di plomas or degrees. Again, that was 28,000 students who received money back — totalling $67 million, but at the other end, rather than at the beginning. G. Robertson: The concern there is that not enough students are given a green li ght at the front end.

It's fantastic that there is loan reduction available and that many students managed to qualify for it. The question is: how many students, because there wasn't anything available at the front end…? In this case only 900 stu- dents had anything at the front end to ease their way in and reduce their financial burden going in. How many students opted out — which we talked about in detail yesterday? A question now, specific to provincial scholarships and bursaries that are target ed for vocational or train- ing programs: is there anything that the minister can tell me about those? [1035] Hon. M.

Coell: As I mentioned earlier, the Passport to Education was $12 million. What that is, is credits that can be used at post-s econdary institutions. That continues. There's a number of additions that I think could take place with regard to the Passport to Educa- tion, but I believe it is working well at this point. G. Robertson: The Passport to Education, which is high school–oriented scholarship credits, funding cred- its…. Those are, right now, the only vehicles for scholar- shipping or financially supporting vocational and training programs? Is that the only program that's available? Hon. M.

Coell: The Passport to Education, or the $12 million, is credits earned in high school that can be used for college, career trai ning or university. It's a program that's been in place for a number of years and seems to be well used by students in high school. G. Robertson: As a business person — or maybe I'm a former business person now — I would encour- age the ministry to consider targeting some scholar- ships or bursaries specifical ly around vocational and training.

Given the skills sh ortage, the shortages that many businesses around th e province are grappling with right now, creating more incentives to ensure that students pursue vocational training or trades training, I think, is really critical at this point — to get them into the college system and ensure that we have all of those skills continuing on into the future for the benefit of our economy and our communities. My last question relates back to per-student debt.

I'm just curious if the responses to the questions I asked earlier this morning on per-student debt will be forth- coming on paper, or if that is going to be while we sit here today. Hon. M. Coell: Staff back at our offices are working on that, and I'll give it to the member as soon as it's received.

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3971 G. Robertson: That sounds great. The question now is abou t funding for adult basic education. I have some questions directly related to those people on income assistance and their ability to pursue education.

The college-based programs for training poor people on soci al assistance used to bene- fit from a budget of about $4 million — which was in the institute-based training budget — a n d , f r o m m y findings, used to serve about 20,000 people, which seems like a fairly modest budget to try and move a large number of people into the workforce who need a specific quality of educat ion and training. That IBT program was only taking people who, at the time, were phase three on social assistance — had multiple barri- ers to work.

I'm curious if the ministry is working on anything right now to replace what was the IBT budget — whether there is anything in the works to help people who are on income assistance to pursue post-secondary education and training. [1040] Hon. M. Coell: This is an issue that crosses a num- ber of ministries — Employment and Assistance, Edu- cation and Advanced Education. I can give a little bit of history. When we made chan ges in income assistance, we looked at a number of studies that showed the longer someone stayed on income assistance, the harder it was to get them off.

It was also found that to get employed would keep you off the longest time. So the caseload has been reduced quite dramatically in the past five years in British Columbia. Now what we're finding is that the people on in- come assistance may have different needs, so within this ministry and within Employment and Investment we're also looking at what the needs of that particular group of people are. It may be, as well as a job, literacy skills. So we're looking at that. One of the things that I think is very important for people who leave income a ssistance is that they're really….

Even at $8 and $9 an hour, you're looking at probably double the amount of money than you would be on income assistance. If we can get someone into the workforce and stabilized, it's much better for them as an individual and their family for them to be able to go back part-time — even at night — to start work on liter- acy skills and then to get back into adult basic education. There are a number of things that we are looking at with that reduced caseload, so I appreciate the com- ments of the member. G.

Robertson: I'm encouraged to hear that there's some action on this, given the startling statistics in terms of the number of peop le who have been on in- come assistance for more than two years. The statistics that I have: 145,000 people on income assistance, 35 percent of those in the expe cted-to-work category, and almost a third of those have been on income assistance for over two years. I mean, obviously — and the minister acknow- ledged this — these people require a different quality of training.

Literacy is cert ainly a factor in that, which I'm hearing a lot about in the Select Standing Commit- tee on Education, which is hearing a lot of the chal- lenges in terms of literacy and funding for literacy, particularly to help people in this predicament. Coming back to this ministry's policy related to it. The regulation that's in place, as I understand, is that unless you have a recognized disability, students can't be on social assistance. Right now there's a clear line that's being drawn there. Is that policy being revisited? Hon. M. Coell: Sorry to ask.

Could the member just clarify which policy it is that he's asking about? G. Robertson: The regulations that I believe were implemented in 2002, which stated that students can- not be on social or income assistance. They basically excluded anyone on income assistance from qualifying as a student — financial assistance. Hon. M. Coell: That regulation would be in Em- ployment and Assistance. I'm not aware there are any changes coming to that. I can tell you that what we were attempting to do was move people into employ- ment, and that was successful.

I think that when you look now at the caseload of Employment and Assistance, there are people with higher barriers, and a lot of that is literacy. That's the piece that we're looking at. Through the select standing committee, I'm sure the member is getting those com- ments that we have a number of people who can't find employment because of the literacy barrier. That's something that this ministry will be looking at. [1045] G. Robertson: In addition to that, I guess there are…. It's interesting that Employment and Income Assistance — that ministry — is the lead on this.

I urge the Minister of Advanced Education, given that there's a great deal of this education that can and does take place at colleges here in B.C…. Given that enrolment, in some cases, over the last years has declined or is flat , in a number of cases there are opportunities at numbers of schools to encourage more people to get involved. In particular, these people in the expected-to-work category, who need a different quality of training, would certainly benefit from free adult-based basic education, which is no longer avail- able other than for high school completion.

For specific training programs, it would be a great advantage to be making that available. Is the cost of adult basic education being consid- ered by the ministry as part of this? Are you looking at coming back to free adult basic education? Hon. M. Coell: A person can attend PSE w hile on income assistance if it's an evening class. It would still be free. So there are ways, as I mentioned. W h a t w e w a n t e d t o d o w a s m o v e p e o p l e i n t o t h e workforce. At the same time, once they were stabilized, they could take adult basic education in an evening

3972 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 course, which would be free. As I mentioned, it is something we're looking at with the people with per- sistent multiple barriers on income assistance to see whether they need greater assistance with literacy training. I do have some of the numbers of those receiving awards that the member asked for. This is combined federal and provincial and includes both loans and grants. In 2004-2005 the average award was $8,786, and in 2005-2006 — and this is primarily due to the increase in the federal lending limits — the average award would be $9,695.

Those are the numbers, and I thank staff who were able to put those together quickly for us. G. Robertson: Just a question on those numbers specifically. Do those awards relate specifically to stu- dent financial assistance an d to BCSAP? Or are they specific to scholarships and bursaries? Hon. M. Coell: It's the combined federal-provincial, which includes both loans and grants. G.

Robertson: Is it possible to break those numbers out and to know the availa ble student financial assis- tance component of that versus what's being provided federally — in other words, to isolate the ministry's funding for student financial assistance per student? Hon. M. Coell: Yes, it is, but it's something that would take a bit of time to do. I will commit to doing that and getting it to you. G. Robertson: Thanks to the minister and his wor- thy staff. Just one final point on ad ult basic education.

I note that attending post-secondary education for training on income assistance is possible, but the limitations in terms of when you can attend and what you can be covered for — whether it's a high school diploma or training programs — end up being quite a complex realm to navigate. People on income assistance have enough challenges navigating at this point to find their way into the workforce, mu c h l e s s t o p u r s u e e d u c a - tional opportunities. [1050] I would like to see this ministry playing a really strong role in ensuring that those people have access, have support.

I'll note that in the past there was sup- port for transportation, for child care. There was addi- tional support for housing and counselling support to help find the placements. That whole continuum of support for people facing ch allenges to pursue educa- tion, coming from income assistance, needs to be in place for it to be a really meaningful effort. I encourage the minister to play a lead role along with the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Just moving on, I think we've pretty much can- vassed student financial assistance and various tenta- cles of that arena.

I'd like to ask a few questions related to ancillary fees at all our institutions. At this point I've heard continually from stud ents concerns around the mandatory fees that are charged to students, in addi- tion to tuition, for the use of facilities — for example, libraries, student services, athletics, technology ser- vices. Despite the fact that these programs are essential to the quality of an education, students are charged fees above and beyond tuition fees. I think we'd all agree that use of the library, use of technology, use of sports facilities are an expectation and a part of student life.

The fact that they're charged above and beyond tuition fees is puzzling. It creates further financial barriers that at this point do not ap- pear to be regulated by the ministry. I'll pull up one example. Students at College of New Caledonia next year will be charged a $5-per- course fee for access to computer equipment that was previously free to use. No doubt, some of this stems from challenges that our institutions are having with their funding and their ability to deliver programs with that funding.

My question is: will the ministry budget include ancillary fees for student services in the ministry's pol- icy of capping tuition fees — the increase in tuition fees to the rate of inflation? Will ancillary fees be tied di- rectly to that, or will they continue to be unregulated and at the whim of the institutions? Hon. M. Coell: I, too, have been monitoring the issue closely since it was drawn to my attention by the Canadian Federation of Students in January. I can say that one institution actually had a reduction in these fees. Ten have had no change.

Six were below the 2- percent cap, and we had six increases above 2 percent that we're looking into. The spirit is that increa ses should be within that cap. We're going to be communicating with the system and monitoring the spirit and the letter of the cap, which is 2 percent, or inflation. The one that you mentioned at CNC. The fee actu- ally replaces a previous fee that was difficult to admin- istrate. It's not a new fee; it replaces one that was dis- continued. We'll continue to monitor the situation. G.

Robertson: I'm glad to hear that the minister and his ministry are paying attention to this and to having more details on where we're dealing with fees above 2 percent. I guess my question is: how solid is the commitment? Is there a commitment that these ancillary fees will be a part of the 2-percent cap and that institutions need to abide by that? Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's my understanding of the agreement. [1055] G. Robertson: That's good to hear. I think students will be reassured to hear that is part of the commit- ment. A question, maybe more broadly again.

I know we've talked about this at length in the past, specific to the throne speech promise from over a year ago on

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3973 legislating a tuition cap. Obviously, the ancillary fees…. There's a connection here and then being part of that 2-percent rate-of-inflation cap. Is there ongoing discussion about legislating that tuition cap? Hon. M. Coell . As long as we have cooperation from the system partners, I'm not anticipating any leg- islation. I want to make sure that we build a relation- ship that is cooperative and one that works for both us and the institution.

During the year we added $30 mil- lion to the university budget and $10 million to the college budget to cover off their need for greater infla- tion than 2 percent. I think that works. In the past when we had a freeze, there wasn't money put into the institutions, and that caused some serious problems. In the agreement we have with them, they keep their tuitions to the rate of inflation or around 2 percent, and we continue to add that money to their budgets on a yearly basis. G. Robertson: I'll take th

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0425am-08
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0425am 08
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2f8928655fbe4dccd452f257e43bd27f06cec9ae

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