2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bll

74)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Community Charter Transitional

Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003

(Bill 76)

Hon. T.

Nebbeling

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Abbotsford Hospital project

R. Hawes

Nanaimo-Vancouver passenger ferry

service

M. Hunter

Health care services in Kootenay area

Suffredine

Oral Questions

Income assistance regulations and

access to benefits

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

Imposition of sales tax on Georgia

Straight

J. MacPhail

Hon. S.

Hagen

Government response to B.C. Rail

employee proposals

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. Reid

Rehabilitation of grazing lands

W. Cobb

Hon. M. de

Jong

Water quality in Golden

W. McMahon

Hon. C.

Hansen

U.S. softwood lumber duty

T. Bhullar

Hon. M. de

Jong

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Provincial Revenue, memorandum on application of sales tax act to newspapers

Second Reading of Bills

Private Career Training Institutions

Act (Bill 52) (continued)

Mayencourt

K. Stewart

H. Bloy

D. Hayer

S. Orr

S. Brice

R. Lee

Brenzinger

R. Hawes

B. Locke

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt

J. MacPhail

Suffredine

J. Bray

I. Chong

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48)

Hon. J. van

Dongen

J. MacPhail

J. Les

[ Page 7297 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2003

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Today in the gallery visiting from Westbank, British Columbia, I

have Pauline and David Knowles from my riding of Okanagan-Westside. David is a

director for Westside in the Central Okanagan regional district and does a great

job. Visiting with them is David's brother and his wife from Leeds, England:

Hugh and Janet Knowles. Would all the members in this House please make them

welcome to British Columbia.

Hayer: On behalf of the member for Surrey-White Rock, it gives me great

pleasure to introduce 115 grade 9 students visiting from Semiahmoo Secondary

School. Joining them are their teachers, Mr. Gordon Masi and Ms. Susan Ignatzi,

as well as several parent-volunteers who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to accompany these students. Would the House make them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I have the pleasure to welcome to the gallery today my sister, Diane

Read, who is a new resident to Kamloops. She's accompanied by her husband, Bob

Read, who recently retired as a district manager for the Ministry of Forests

from the Fort Nelson area. Bob is here to, I think, join a number of other

retirees and active members of the B.C. public service at the long-service

awards. He'll be receiving his 35-year pin, I believe, from the Minister of

Forests tonight. I would like everyone to please make them welcome.

Brice: In the gallery today there are a number of local CAs, and everyone in

this House knows how valuable these particular folks are. This South Island team

of CAs works well together. Their latest piece of work was assisting us in the

Juno Beach recognition ceremony. I would like the House to please welcome Val

Terry, Linda Morton, Mike Demers, Debbie MacLean and Sharon Klein.

Krueger: We have a very special guest indeed in the precinct today. B.C., as

you know, experienced a tremendous out-migration of young people during the last

decade, and this has led to declining enrolment in our school system and other

pied piper–type problems. Well, this government and all who work for it are

turning that around, doing all we can to turn the tide, and we've seen the

fruits of that many times in this very building.

I don't

actually know the name of our guest. I don't even know this special person's

gender, but a very special guest is with us indeed. Our caucus managing

director, Sarah Bonner, told me she didn't know how to convey this news, so I

said I'd think of a plan. Sarah Bonner is expecting a baby, folks, and if it's a

boy, Kevin is a very good name. Would you all join me in congratulating the

Bonners and welcoming this news.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MOTOR DEALER AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. R.

Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill

intituled Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move Bill 74 be introduced and read for a first time now.

I'm

pleased to introduce Bill 74, Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003. The motor dealer

legislation is being modernized through the Motor Dealer Amendment Act. This

provision will enable the creation of a delegated authority to be responsible

for administering the rules and regulations governing the motor dealer industry

in British Columbia.

[1410]

The

proposed amendment is aimed at maintaining high levels of consumer protection

while stimulating a competitive market environment for the motor dealer

industry. It does three things. First, it provides for the delegated authority

for the Motor Dealer Council, with the chair being Bob Stewart, former chief

constable, city of Vancouver; and the vice-chair, George Morfitt, former auditor

general of British Columbia. Second, it provides for new regulation-making

powers that will enhance industry professionalism. Third, it increases penalty

amounts for violations so they reflect the current value of motor vehicle

transactions.

Mr.

Speaker, I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion

approved.

Deputy

Speaker: On the second motion, please.

Motion

approved.

Bill 74

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMUNITY CHARTER

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS,

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND

OTHER AMENDMENTS ACT, 2003

Hon. T.

Nebbeling presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments

and Other Amendments Act, 2003.

[ Page 7298 ]

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I would ask that Bill 76 be read for the first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to present the Community Charter

Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act,

2003. Last spring we passed the most empowering piece of legislation ever

introduced for local government in Canada, the Community Charter. It came at the

longstanding request of local governments, and it sets the foundation for a

whole new relationship between municipalities and the province of British

Columbia.

Typically,

when we introduce a piece of legislation such as the charter, we tack on to the

end of the legislation transitional provisions and consequential amendments, but

because of the magnitude of amendments required in relationship to the charter,

we introduced those provisions as a separate stand-alone bill, Bill 67. Today we

are replacing Bill 67 with Bill 76. Time has allowed us to refine Bill 67, and

this new bill reflects those refinements and helps us clearly and effectively

implement the Community Charter.

The

majority of Bill 76 provisions are minor technical updates, which are part of

the process required to carry through the intent of the Community Charter. This

bill ensures a smooth transition for municipalities from the Local Government

Act while maintaining the integrity of the local government system.

I move that

the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and

Other Amendments Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 76

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ABBOTSFORD HOSPITAL PROJECT

Hawes: Through a decade of empty promise after empty promise to construct a

new hospital in Abbotsford, the former NDP administration never put one nickel

into a capital budget for this facility. Meanwhile, MSA Hospital has been

crumbling, and it can't meet the needs of the Fraser Valley residents that rely

on it for acute care.

The good

news is that in our first budget, this administration included $210 million in

the capital budget for this much-needed new facility. The even better news is

that we are no longer building just a hospital; we're now building a health

campus. In addition to the community and regional hospital facilities, the

Abbotsford campus will include a state-of-the-art cancer centre that will serve

as a vital research and medical training facility, as well as offer treatment

programs.

[1415]

recognition of the tremendous growth projected for the Fraser Valley, the

project has been expanded by 10 percent — to a 55,000-metre facility —

housing a much-expanded emergency centre, advanced disease control and isolation

rooms, an expanded ICU and CCU segregated capability, and video conferencing

capability in the ORs that will allow for immediate consultation with the top

surgeons around the world. Perhaps the most important thing is that it's the

first time a cancer centre and a hospital have been built together from the

ground up, thus opening the door to all kinds of new, exciting possibilities.

This ultra

state-of-the-art complex will be a magnet to attract key specialists from around

the globe. With the expanded plans, the overall project is now estimated to cost

$300 million. This publicly operated facility will be constructed as a P3. I

want to stress for my constituents that this will be a publicly operated

facility. The private partner will supply some support services, but the medical

services will all be operated under the Fraser health authority.

This

carefully planned, well-managed and very transparent process will result in the

most functional state-of-the-art centre anywhere in the country, and it's

something we can all be proud of. I'll take the punishment the Whip will lay out

for me for going over my two minutes, because this is such good news for my

constituents.

NANAIMO-VANCOUVER

PASSENGER FERRY SERVICE

Hunter: At 7:15 this morning a new era of opportunity was launched in

Nanaimo. It was at that time that the inaugural sailing of a new private sector

high-speed passenger ferry service left Nanaimo's harbour for downtown

Vancouver. This new service, operated by HarbourLynx ferries, has been awaited

by the people of Nanaimo and the mid-Island region for many, many months.

It affords

new choices and competition with existing transportation services that will

flexibility in the lives of the many people who have chosen the mid-Island

lifestyle but who must still visit the lower mainland for business or for

recreation. I expect there will be many more such people relocating to Nanaimo

in the coming years as this new service becomes established. The new HarbourLynx

service reflects a growing confidence in the economic policies of this

government and a strong investor interest in Nanaimo.

I want to

thank the board of directors of the Nanaimo Port Authority for the vision they

have shown in assisting HarbourLynx in its new venture. Most of all, I want to

say thank you to the investors

[ Page 7299 ]

and to the board of directors of HarbourLynx, who have weathered some

considerable difficulties to getting to today's launch. I want to say thanks to

those people for their confidence in my community and in our province.

I wish the

company and the company's employees a successful future.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

IN KOOTENAY AREA

Suffredine: Recent reports by the provincial media suggesting Kootenay Lake

District Hospital in Nelson is unsafe must be clarified. There have been a

number of changes to services in the Kootenays that have improved services to

the region. It is important that people understand those changes.

Moving

complex surgery to Trail now means a team of four surgeons is available to

provide services 24-7 for the entire region. Before, surgeons were split between

Trail and Nelson, which meant 24-7 surgical coverage was not assured — not in

Nelson, Trail or anywhere else in the region. Some patients had to be

transferred to Vancouver, Kelowna or even further for urgent surgery. Now people

in the region, including Nelson, have guaranteed access to surgical services

24-7. I understand why people in Nelson are concerned that those services are

focused in Trail, but the bottom line is that the system is safer than it was

before for everyone in the region. Kootenay Lake Hospital is open as a

full-service, level 1 community hospital that provides high-quality care.

Over $2

million in improvements are planned for Nelson in the near future. We have 24-7

emergency services, with monitored beds for heart patients. According to one of

our most respected doctors, emergency is the best it has ever been, due to the

highly qualified staff who currently man it. Contrary to the news reports, we

have a radiologist and a pediatrician as well as family practice, internal

medicine, ophthalmology, oncology, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology and

neurology. There's still a lot of work to be done, but we do have a good

hospital in Nelson that provides quality care. I can say this with confidence,

because I know personally many of the doctors and nurses who work there. They're

great, caring people.

Patients

tell me regularly about the great care they receive at Kootenay Lake Hospital. I

also know, because on August 26 my first grandson was born at the Kootenay Lake

Hospital, and he and his mother received the best of care.

[1420]

Oral Questions

INCOME ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS

AND ACCESS TO BENEFITS

J. Kwan:

Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources was ashamed to say how many British

Columbians will be kicked off of income assistance when the two-year limit kicks

in next April, even though he has that information. But right now people are

coming to our office — some of the poorest, most vulnerable citizens in our

society — because they can't get assistance as a result of the two-year

financial independence test. That's the new measure that this government brought

in last year. Can the minister tell us how many British Columbians are being

denied assistance right now as a result of this new requirement?

Hon. M.

Coell: Just for the member, in the past year British Columbia has created

93,000 jobs. We have 10,000 jobs in my ministry available for people with income

assistance. There are jobs available for people on income assistance in this

province.

We're

working every day to make sure that people who are employable get the jobs that

they need, unlike the previous government for whom success on welfare was more

people. Success for us is helping people get into jobs.

Deputy

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental

question.

J. Kwan:

The minister knows the answer to my question, but he insists on hiding it from

the public. Let me read from an internal ministerial briefing note that was

obtained by the CBC on a two-year financial independence test: "It is

estimated that an average of blank applicants per month will be denied income

assistance because they have not been financially independent for two

years." Will the minister continue to hide behind his rhetoric, or will he

fill in the blank?

Hon. M.

Coell: What the opposition doesn't understand is that there are jobs out

there for people who are employable. If someone isn't employable, they happen to

be able to get income assistance. But if you're employable, we want you to work.

We've gone out of this area and found 10,000 jobs for people all throughout the

province, so maybe the…

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: …socialist NDP doesn't understand that people want to work in this

province. Maybe they don't understand that people want to be successful in this

province. Maybe they'd like to return to the years when the member was a

minister and there were 400,000 people in British Columbia on income assistance.

One in ten people under that former government was on income assistance. Is that

helping people? I don't think so. I think helping people is finding employment.

The best

social safety net a British Columbian can have is a job. But I don't think the

member understands that, because she was quite happy at one in ten British

Columbians on welfare, six out of ten British Columbia

[ Page 7300 ]

single parents on welfare. That was success for her government. Well, success

for British Columbians today is employment. My ministry is spending $300

million…

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please. Members of the opposition, would you please come to

order.

Hon. M.

Coell: …on job placement and job training programs, and I think the

caseload moving down and people moving into employment must be somewhat

reassuring, even to a couple of NDPers.

J. Kwan:

Let's talk about those 10,000 jobs. This minister is very proud of these

supposed 10,000 jobs available to income assistance. Just wait. What he doesn't

tell you is that….

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Continue.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

What the minister doesn't tell people is that if you're denied assistance in the

first place, you don't qualify for those jobs. Many of the British Columbians

who are being denied assistance make their living on the margins of society.

They can't prove to the ministry that they have been financially independent for

two years. As a result, they can't get assistance, and they have no access to

job training and placement programs. They are caught in a horrible catch-22.

The

minister likes to pretend everything is rosy and everyone is finding a job, but

he knows it's not true. People are being denied assistance and left with no

support. The minister has been told by the officials how many people are being

cut off. Will he come clean?

It's a

simple question. Will he come clean and tell this House how many people are

being cut off income assistance now?

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Let's listen to the answer.

Hon. M.

Coell: I remember the days when there was a government in this province

where people were losing tens of thousands of jobs in the forest industry and

the mining industry. People were leaving this province because of mismanagement.

This government has created 93,000 jobs since we were elected. There are

opportunities out there that there weren't under the previous government. There

are opportunities for young people in this province like there weren't for a

decade. In the pit of despair with the NDP in government, there was no hope for

young people in this province. There is today.

IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX

ON GEORGIA STRAIGHT

MacPhail: To the Premier, a matter he has been briefed on: the Georgia

Straight newspaper has accused the government of political interference in a

decision to charge them $1 million in taxes for technical reasons. This is a

very serious allegation, a very serious accusation, and the government's

decision threatens the financial viability of a B.C. media institution. Will the

Premier agree to ask for an independent assessment of how this decision was

arrived at to determine whether political pressure was brought to bear?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Provincial auditors make their assessments as provided for in the

sales tax legislation and according to detailed policies. To keep the system

free of political interference, I am not involved in the audit process and

neither is the minister. However, for fairness to taxpayers, the legislation

provides for an appeal process. Where the taxpayer disagrees with the results of

an audit, an appeal may be made to the minister within 90 days, and the minister

personally reviews all the appeals. The sales tax legislation ensures and

establishes that the taxpayer information is confidential. Therefore, it would

be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of the audit or the appeal.

Deputy

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition with a supplemental — on a new matter.

MacPhail: I'm sorry?

Deputy

Speaker: On a new matter.

MacPhail: No, it's the same matter.

The

accusation being levelled against this government is the first of its kind. It's

an accusation of political interference. It's not about the audit; it's not

about ministers hiding behind public officials. I would have thought that the

minister speaking, I gather, for the Provincial Revenue minister would have

jumped at the chance to clear up this serious allegation.

It's a

simple matter. Will the Premier, or whoever is in charge over there, simply ask

for an independent assessment of how this decision was made so that British

Columbians can determine whether these first-ever charges of political

interference are true?

Hon. S.

Hagen: As I outlined on behalf of the Minister of Provincial Revenue, the

legislation does provide for an appeal process, and where the taxpayer disagrees

with the results of an audit, an appeal may be made to the minister within 90

days.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

B.C. RAIL EMPLOYEE PROPOSALS

Nettleton: I have been informed that the Minister of Transportation did not

respond to a proposal from the B.C. Rail workers sent to the Ministry of

Transpor-

[ Page 7301 ]

tation on June 26 of this year, nor did the minister afford the B.C. Rail

workers the courtesy of acknowledging their letter of proposal. The workers'

proposal offered the government a three-year wage freeze, no participation in

the bonus plan and the establishment of an employee-management joint committee

to facilitate the return of a third-party passenger rail service.

[1430]

This

proposal would have saved B.C. Rail some $150 million that could have been used

to build the infrastructure needed to keep B.C. Rail profitable. I can assure

the minister that the employees are approaching this with a great deal of

flexibility, are looking at it with a view to cost saving and are willing to

discuss achieving greater efficiency and the goal of running an efficient

railway that continues to bring in profits for the people of this province. This

dialogue is something that rail-line communities want to see occur. It would

help restore public confidence in the process and, indeed, in the government

itself.

question, then, to the minister is: with reference to the workers' proposal, why

are you refusing to meet with the workers at B.C. Rail who are offering this

government over $150 million in savings and, now, further flexibility? Will she

place a six-month moratorium on this sale in order to listen to what the workers

at B.C. Rail have to offer?

Hon. J.

Reid: Our goal is, as the member suggested, a viable, long-term rail service

for the people of British Columbia. Our goal is a renewed investment in the rail

service. Our goal is a strong railway for a strong north for a strong province.

That is our objective, and that's what we're going to achieve.

With regard

to working with the workers of B.C. Rail, B.C. Rail has continued to work with

their employees and will continue to work with their employees and continue to

listen to their employees with regard to proposals. That process is ongoing.

REHABILITATION OF GRAZING LANDS

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Forests. We all know that over the summer,

fires across the province had a devastating affect on the forest resources.

Another additional consequence of this disaster was the loss of grazing lands,

yet another blow to the valuable cattle industry. While recent measures

announced by the Premier have helped, more can be done. Ranchers need to know

that grazing lands will be replenished by the time they turn their herds out

next spring.

As an issue

that is vital to the economic health of the Cariboo region, will the Minister of

Forests act with all urgency to help our ranchers and develop a reseeding plan

for grazing lands damaged by the fires?

Hon. M.

de Jong: A timely question. Just an hour ago, in fact, I got a letter from

the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. It's a tough time for them, with BSE at a time

when they can't sell their cattle south of the border and trouble feeding them

because of the fire season.

We are

deferring the obligation to pay for the grazing permits until next year. The

Premier made that announcement. Where possible, we're looking to extend the

actual grazing season to help with the feeding of the cattle. I'm happy to tell

the member and will be communicating to the Cattlemen's Association that we're

going to do what we can to expand the reseeding program as part of our overall

rehabilitation project. As well, as part of that program, we'll look at the

other damage that's been suffered by things like fencing and corrals.

WATER QUALITY IN GOLDEN

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Late last month,

the interior health authority issued a boil-water advisory to the town of Golden

when bacterial contamination of the community's water system was discovered.

Interior health acted swiftly to alert the community of the health risk and is

in the process of testing the water quality. Residents of Golden, however, are

anxious to have the boil-advisory lifted. Can the minister explain what steps

are being taken to ensure water quality for Golden?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As the member indicated, there was a boil-water advisory in place on

September 25 as a result of test results that came back showing elevated

contamination. We have one of the strongest regimes for drinking water

protection in Canada. Our obligation with the Ministry of Health Services,

through the health authorities, is to make sure it is regularly tested and

monitored and, if there is any compromise to the water system, that the

appropriate action is taken. In this case, it was the boil-water advisory.

The

interior health authority is certainly working with the community to make sure

there is a safe period of time, after which the boil-water advisory will be

lifted but only once there is 100 percent certainty that human health is being

protected.

[1435]

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER DUTY

Bhullar: My question is for the Minister of Forests. Could the minister

provide a status report to this House on the softwood issue and the

countervailing duty imposed by the United States?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Probably the most significant development of late was just over two

weeks ago when the NAFTA binational panel issued its order that was exceedingly

favourable to the Canadian position, and that particularly, specifically, was

the finding that the commerce department in the U.S. had not made out a case for

not just actual injury but even threat of injury. I think it's fair to say that

has changed the complexion of this. The ball is squarely in the U.S. court right

now. I'm happy that the Premier will be travelling to Wash-

[ Page 7302 ]

ington in the next couple of weeks to pursue with the Americans directly

whether they are actually serious about getting a deal. If they are serious,

they will issue the policy bulletin that has been some time in the making, and

if they are serious they will now sit down and engage in reasoned, reasonable

negotiations aimed at arriving at a negotiated interim solution. If not, our

option is to pursue the NAFTA and WTO panels to their logical conclusion.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S.

Hagen: I seek leave to table a memorandum.

Leave

granted.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I wish to table a memorandum from the Deputy Minister, Ministry of

Provincial Revenue, that outlines the application of the sales tax act to

newspapers, which also states that there have been no changes in either policy

or legislation with respect to newspapers since April of 2000. It also lays out

the general audit and assessment policy.

Orders of the Day

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm still reeling from the opposition leader's earlier comment on

my shortcomings. [Laughter.]

I call for

continued debate on Bill 52.

Second Reading of Bills

PRIVATE CAREER TRAINING

INSTITUTIONS ACT

(continued)

Mayencourt: I'm here to speak in favour of Bill 52. I am speaking in favour

of it because this bill will provide consumer protection to students of

registered institutions, while reducing the regulatory burden for the private

training sector. It will also reduce red tape for private training institutions

and will allow them to reinvest their time and money into the expansion of their

businesses. Growth in this sector of the economy will expand access and the

range of quality learning choices for students in British Columbia.

Before I

get into my reasons for why I want to support Bill 52, I want to go back to some

comments that were made by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant a few

moments ago, before we took our recess. I'm doing that because I want everybody

here in this Legislature and I want people in this province to know that I think

we have the finest Minister of Advanced Education since 1991 sitting in this

chamber. I stand beside her, the Premier stands behind her, the Solicitor

General stands behind her, and the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services stands behind her. We all stand behind her because she's done a darned

good job for the people of British Columbia. She's put students first in

advanced education, and she is making a difference for students in British

Columbia.

The first

point the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made…

Interjection.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, please.

[1440]

Mayencourt: …was that the Liberal government is privatizing education like

it's privatizing everything else. The facts are, as was stated in the Monday

Magazine

article that Ms. Kwan so fondly referenced….

Interjection.

Mayencourt: Oh, I'm very sorry. Counterpoint. As stated in the Monday

Magazine

article that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who is

named in this article, so fondly referenced, there have been private

institutions in B.C. for at least 100 years, including the dark decade of the

NDP's reign.

In fact,

even in her comments in the Legislature today she acknowledged that there are

currently 1,100 private post-secondary education institutions. What is that

about? You had ten years to be in power. You were ten years in power, and you

left the place just the way it was. You had 1,100 private institutions. If you

thought they were so evil, why didn't you get rid of them when you were in

power?

Second

point. According to Monday Magazine , private institutions in British

Columbia are already underregulated and taking advantage of students. Further

deregulating the system would only make it worse. The issues that arise from

that

article indicate that the problems arise from the mandate of PPSEC. The

Social Credit government wrote this legislation, and the NDP proclaimed it into

law in 1991. This is the very body that we are proposing to change with this

legislation. We don't think it works.

When

accrediting institutions, PPSEC's focus is primarily on administrative

considerations — job descriptions of administrators, numbers of staff, a lot

of paperwork. The new accreditation system focuses less on administration and

far more on program quality, where we think it should be — serving students.

It will pay closer attention to how current a program's curriculum is, whether

it fills a market need and leaves graduates with job opportunities, and whether

they have the space and capacity to offer the program. We feel this is a

tremendous improvement over the former system.

Then the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant makes the point: how can organizations

focused on

[ Page 7303 ]

making a profit guarantee quality of education? Well, this seems to be their

mantra. Anybody that's making money in this province, that's employing

educators, that's delivering private education is somehow evil. In fact, private

post-secondary institutions succeed and thrive on one thing — their

reputation. Where does that reputation come from? It comes from quality. As with

any business, a private educational institution relies on its reputation to

succeed and keep its doors open.

The purpose

of this bill is to replace and repeal the Private Post-Secondary Education Act

in order to implement the core services review recommendations concerning the

Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, PPSEC. Through our core services

review — which included consulting with private post-secondary institutions,

students and people in this province — we discovered that there is more we can

be doing and that PPSEC is not as effective as it could be, and in some cases

it's too broad in its legislation and regulations.

How do we

compare with other provinces? Other Canadian provinces show examples of how it

is possible to reduce government regulation in the private post-secondary sector

while encouraging this industry, a growing industry, to assume greater

responsibility for its actions. This bill will allow us to do the same.

What were

the specific recommendations of the core services review? The core services

review recommended replacing PPSEC with a self-regulating, cost recovery board

composed of industry representatives. It recommended narrowing the scope of the

registration requirements to include only those institutions offering

career-related training and further narrowing the scope of registration to

include only those programs that exceed a minimum threshold for program length

and cost.

One very

important part of this bill is that it will provide key changes in the area of

tuition protection. Instead of requiring institutions to post bonds, cash or

letters of credit to protect the tuition fees of private post-secondary

students, these students will be covered by the student training completion

fund. This fund is important for a number of reasons. It will improve the level

of consumer protection available to these students, and it will also replace the

current financial security requirements for private career training

institutions.

[1445]

This bill

has been suggested not only by core services review but also by students.

Students had an active role in making suggestions as we went through this

process. They had the opportunity to provide feedback on PPSEC and the proposed

private training model in the discussion paper, which was posted on the website.

That's

really the beauty of it all. This bill will benefit both students and private

institutions. How can this be? The training completion fund will also replace

the current financial security requirements for private career training

institutions. Many institutions have found the current financial security

requirements burdensome, and the sector has been asking for changes for years.

This government believes in creating solutions for students for putting them

first.

Institutions

will also benefit by this bill. The new agency will have the authority to make

bylaws concerning their administrative requirements, with the provision that the

minister may require the agency to amend or repeal the bylaws. This will provide

the agency with the flexibility to determine appropriate administrative

requirements for registered and accredited institutions and to modify these

requirements as necessary. If it's necessary, and the institution doesn't want

to do it, the minister can step in.

conclusion, there are many other facets of this bill that I see as beneficial to

everyone involved. This bill benefits students, by providing consumer

protection, and private training institutions, by decreasing regulatory burdens

and red tape. We need to see growth in this sector of the economy, as it will

lead to an increase in the range of quality learning choices for students in

British Columbia.

I have a

number of these private post-secondary education centres in my riding, and I am

very proud that almost the very first visit I had with the Minister of Advanced

Education was her coming to my riding to meet with private post-secondary

educators about this very problem. It was the first thing that was brought to my

attention as an MLA. It's the first thing for which that minister came to my

riding, sat down with me around a table and discussed these issues with

educators who were confounded by PPSEC's administrative rules and bureaucracy.

I am proud

that this bill has come forward. I am proud that we are ending the insanity that

some of those institutions have had to deal with. I am glad and proud that this

minister has, from that very first meeting just after we came to office,

dedicated herself to solving that problem for the people who sat around that

table. I support this bill wholeheartedly, and I hope my other colleagues will

join me in that.

Stewart: I, too, stand in support of Bill 52, Private Career Training

Institutions Act, and also in support of the Minister of Advanced Education and

her determination to ensure the protection of the students in the province of

British Columbia. It's very important to provide students, who go out and invest

their money, time and their future in an organization, with the skills they are

going to need in their future lives. This act, in conjunction with the student

training completion fund, will ensure that their resources and time will not be

wasted.

It was

interesting. I had two duties this morning. One was, of course, to read Bill 52,

and by the fact that I was in the House, my other duty was to listen to the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It appears that she didn't do her first

duty, which would have been to read the act, because if she had, she would have

found out that the act accomplishes many of the issues for which she was

criticizing the minister — primarily, protection of students.

[ Page 7304 ]

When I go

through this act, I see a number of things. Under

section 3, objects of agency:

"…to provide consumer protection to the students and prospective students

of registered institutions…." That certainly would help alleviate some of

the issues that were discussed earlier. Again, "a person must not provide

or offer to provide career training unless the person is a registered

institution." Further to that, as we go along, it discusses that a person

who does so will be committing a criminal act or an offence.

[1450]

As I go

through this, I see nothing but protection. In my view, one of the roles of

government is protection. Regulation, of course, is another strong role. The

role of government isn't to provide the service that's required by every British

Columbian for every moment of their time. But as a government I think we are

carrying an obligation to ensure that as those acts are carried out throughout

this province by, in many cases, private organizations, we have a responsibility

to ensure the protection of, in this case, those students. So it's easy for me,

when I actually go through and read the bill, to support it.

Again, as

we look back at some of the cases that have happened in the past…. I look to

some of the newspaper articles I've seen in the past, some of the news clips

where there are students all of a sudden showing up somewhere where the doors

are closed, wondering where their tuition went. The high quality of education

they paid for doesn't exist. Here, there will be a fund that ensures those

students will have access to completing that education or to returning the funds

that they've paid for such education.

In closing,

I'd just like to say that I am fully supportive of Bill 52. I wish all the other

members of the House would take the time to read it, because I'm sure they then

would be supportive also.

H. Bloy:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. But first of all, from

my colleague beside me, there was…. The speaker from Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant earlier today was talking about a bill that I'm sure she didn't read

either, because she just doesn't get it. She doesn't understand what the

Minister of Advanced Education is doing for the students of British Columbia.

This is a

bill that was passed earlier, which will allow more student spaces for students

in British Columbia, and I believe that is the goal of this government. It's

what they wanted to do. That member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant does not

understand and continued to attack the bill, but she was in part of the

government for ten years where they didn't have any increases in students. They

actually reduced the funding to advanced education over ten years.

We as a

government have increased the funding to advanced education. We have allowed the

universities to set their own tuition fees, which — can you believe it? —

has allowed them to hire more professors, and there's more classroom space. I

just wanted to say again how much I support the Minister of Advanced Education

on Bill 35.

I stand

here today also to talk about Bill 52, Private Career Training Institutions Act.

I would like to announce my support for this act. You know, I support it for

many reasons, but the fact that it'll provide consumer protection for students

is number one, as well as establish a standard of quality that must be met by

all the private institutions.

The private

institutions are accredited institutions. They've all gone through a process.

The bill will allow for both appointed and elected members of the board. The

board will have the opportunity to establish its own practices and procedures.

These practices and procedures will be maintained in a complete and accurate

recordkeeping, but they will be doing it for their industry, for their training.

It's not one size fits all; it's specific to their training needs.

All of

these bylaws will be and must be made available to the public at any time. The

bill will allow for the establishment of a student training completion fund.

Money paid into this fund will be held in trust by the agency. This money must

be accounted for separately from other moneys of the agency, and these funds

will not be subject to any process of seizure or attachment by any creditor or

agency. They will further protect the student enrolment tuition fees, and the

moneys can only be invested as per the Trustee Act of British Columbia.

Registered

institutions will make payments to the fund through the board at times and in

amounts required by regulation. Prior to a student beginning a career training

program, the registered institution must collect from the student and pay to the

fund, through the board, the prescribed training completion fee for the program.

The board may authorize payments to be made from the fund for refunding a

portion of the tuition fees a student has paid to a registered institution that

ceases to operate so that the refund compensates the students for the

uncompleted portion of the program.

Also, on

request of the student, a refund could be calculated to pay another registered

institution that agrees to allow the student to complete the program at that

registered institution. This will further ensure that our students have the

maximum opportunity to complete all of their required instructions, no matter

what registered institution they happen to be attending.

[1455]

A claim

against the fund must comply with the regulations and be filed with the board

within one year after the institution to which the claim relates ceases to

operate. The board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims against

the fund. The board may prorate payments among claimants if the fund is

insufficient to pay all the claims. This is where the students are protected,

and this is where our Minister of Advanced Education is allowing for the

expansion of trade schools. There are many expansions.

I would

like to read a press release that was sent out on October 8 of this year, and it

was from myself. It says: "Burquitlam MLA Harry Bloy said Burnaby piping

trades apprentices can learn their skills at their own

[ Page 7305 ]

pace, thanks to a provincewide initiative to improve access to certified

industry trades education. In most cases, industrial trade schools require

students to commit to fixed core schedules which may not be suited to their

learning needs."

It means

that there will now be so much more flexibility with the addition of more

private training facilities, and students will be able to take the trades and

the educational part of their program when they can take it — when their trade

may be slow, possibly in the winter months. So there will be a lot of

flexibility. Core studies are often set in stone, and trainees have no option

but to learn at the same pace as the rest of the class. I think this takes away

from opportunities for students to perfect the skills they would like to spend

more time working on.

I believe

the government has responded to these issues by partnering with a number of

industrial trade schools to develop flexible, certified training programs which

will allow students to learn at their own pace. One of the schools, Burnaby's

Pacific Vocational College, has received $131,000 to develop a pilot project for

self-paced level 1 certification training for the piping trades — plumbing,

gas-fitting, steam-fitting and sprinkler-fitting.

Because of

the actions of our Minister of Advanced Education, there are now many more

opportunities in British Columbia for students to learn the trades and to get

the education they require for the future. I'd like to stand here and offer my

support for Bill 52.

Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to rise again to address this

House on another education matter, Bill 52, relating to private career training

institutions.

This act is

another that is very worthy of support by this House, as was Bill 35 to which so

many of us spoke in favour of this morning. It will assist students throughout

this province to gain a better education while at the same time protecting those

students who are buying the services of private educational institutions.

We have all

heard of stories in which students have found private education institutions

failing, of lost tuition and lost training, which forced students back to square

one. It has cost them time that can never be recovered, and it has cost them

lost opportunity. This bill will protect those students from failure of private

learning institutions. It will ensure there is in place a student training

completion fund. This fund will ensure that if for any reason a private

institution fails its student body, there is the ability for those students to

switch to another institution or at least receive a refund of their tuition

payments. This is good news for students. It brings a feeling of security to

them, knowing that after they do their part, the government has required the

institution to do their part.

As we all

know, it is difficult enough for many students to struggle with post-secondary

education and perhaps juggle a part-time job while they study, without having to

worry that their classes may collapse partway through the educational program.

This bill may not prevent the institution from, for whatever reason, going

under, but it will protect the vulnerable student, and that is good news for our

students.

[1500]

As the

minister said this morning in moving this bill, these private institutions are a

very important part of the post-secondary education system in our province. This

bill will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again

reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to

take greater responsibility for their actions. I want to assure this House that

while this bill does add a regulatory requirement that protects students, it

still ends up with a net reduction in the regulatory burden placed on private

education institutions.

I want the

House to know that this bill will take into consideration the interests of both

students and business, and that is good news for both. Everybody involved has

been asking for this legislation. I'm very happy to say that this government has

not only listened to what they had to say, but with this bill they're actually

taking action on what they had to say. That is why I want to make this brief

statement in support of this bill and to urge all others in this House to

support Bill 52.

S. Orr:

I'm speaking in support of Bill 52. I speak in support of this bill because it's

building the space and the capacity of post-secondary education in private

career training institutions.

I listened

to the debate on this bill this morning with keen interest. The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spent a good part of her ramble on the argument: how

can organizations focused on making profit guarantee quality education? How

could people in the private sector possibly do something right?

Well, let's

deal with that first. Post-secondary institutions succeed and thrive on one

thing and one thing only: their reputation. Where does that reputation come

from? Well, quality. As with any business, a private educational institute

relies on its reputation to succeed and keep its doors open. If an organization

has a poor-quality product, it will not attain a good reputation. If its product

and reputation are poor, that organization will not survive. It is in the best

interest — in fact, it's in the sole interest — of a private institution to

maintain quality of programs. Otherwise they will just go out of business

because unlike private institutions, they receive no government funding and must

sustain themselves. And they do go out of business. That has happened because

they did not have the quality. The institutions have a vested interest in

meeting the needs of students. In addition, those private institutions wanting

to be designated for student financial assistance purposes must be accredited

and must meet quality standards.

Now, moving

along from that, let me respond to some of the comments made by the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant when she singled out the private institution

Sprott-Shaw College. This is a college in Victoria

[ Page 7306 ]

that has a good reputation and has been here a long time. Let's talk about

that organization that's 100 years old and now has 21 schools. For the record,

as of August 1, 2003, Sprott-Shaw Community College was the only multi-campus

organization to go through the rigorous accreditation process and receive 24

commendations for the excellence of their operations and zero requirements.

[1505]

It is also

interesting to note that this process was the identical process used for many

years in accrediting private training institutions. Sprott-Shaw Community

College was the first private proprietary institution in Canada to be accredited

by the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of B.C. to train nurses for

employment. It is interesting to note that out of their 34 graduating students,

all 34 passed the nursing exam. When the second group of students wrote the

test, it is also interesting to note that the aggregate passing rate for the 561

Canadian students who wrote the test at the same time — that's the passing

rate — as reported by the College of Licensed Practical Nurses was only 73

percent. Another point is that their internally developed practical nurse

curriculum is the actual curriculum that is used at many of the public colleges

throughout the province.

It was also

of interest to note that the member used Mr. Brazier as an example. Now, the

member was right when she said Mr. Brazier was dissatisfied with what he

received at Sprott-Shaw College. What she failed to put on the record was this.

Mr. Brazier, who was signed up for a webmaster program, was a WCB-sponsored

student. He was dissatisfied. He was refunded his tuition…. He wasn't; it was

refunded back to WCB, as they were the sponsoring program. Then they put him

through another program. That was a fact that was just missed out. I think

that's a very big fact.

Another

example that came out came from a former employee. She mentioned Kim

Lichtensteiger when she talked about: "…Sprott-Shaw would not be ordering

any new textbooks to supply its courses for three years, something" —

this is Ms. Lichtensteiger — "she thought makes it hard to tell students

they are getting the latest information, especially in rapidly changing fields

like technology and computer software."

Well, this

is a little confusing, because in fact the students purchase their own books.

The school does not supply the books. The students purchase their books. The

books are reviewed every three years, but in high technology they are reviewed

every year.

I feel it

was extremely important — after some of the comments that were made this

morning about this college, which actually does do a very good job — to get on

the record what was actually stated and what is actual fact.

What I

would like to just say to close is that I really want to thank the minister. She

recognizes — and she has worked very hard at this — the importance of these

institutions. These institutions are good institutions. They are there to build

capacity. They gives spaces to many, many students. This act accomplishes the

protection of the students.

This is

what we are all here for. We are here for students and access to post-secondary

education.

Brice: I am pleased to stand and, as well, speak to this bill this

afternoon, as I am pleased to stand and speak about any of the legislation that

has been brought to this House by the Minister of Advanced Education. This

minister has, with thoroughness and passion, taken on the task of looking to see

how she can get access to post-secondary education for all students in British

Columbia.

Our

Minister of Advanced Education recognizes that a student can be anyone from 18

years of age to probably 60. This Minister of Advanced Education realizes that a

student who may at one point access a public institution in this province may at

some other time in their education be accessing a private facility in this

province.

This is not

a piece of legislation which stands apart and separate from all of the other

very integral, well-thought-out, well-established policies and legislation that

the Minister of Advanced Education has brought into this Legislature for this

House to consider. The minister has been a champion for students in this

province.

[1510]

The

minister has increased the public post-secondary system by 3,154

full-time-equivalent student spaces for '03-04, and that's on top of the 2,700

spaces in the previous year. This minister has added 825 new seats in computer

science and electrical and computer engineering; more than 1,800 new seats for

nursing students; and has committed to adding 124 new spaces for medical

students, doubling the current number of graduates to a total of 228. This is

part of the ongoing plan of this minister to meet the needs of all students in

this province, regardless of when they have to access the service. Many of them

will take one or two years, perhaps when they're younger, perhaps at a public

institution. Then, as they go about their life, they will find they need

specific skills to go out into the marketplace and to find a facility,

oftentimes a private facility, which can meet their very specific needs — so

greater opportunities to access post-secondary education.

In the

public system this minister — the minister who is bringing Bill 52 to us —

in previous opportunities, exercises, has increased funding to institutions by a

total of $12 million in '03-04, which was due to prudent fiscal management, in

addition to the $32 million added last year, along with a $10 million one-time

funding boost due to ministry administrative cost savings.

This

minister has established a $45 million leading-edge endowment fund, and that was

fulfilling a promise to create a cost-sharing program to establish 20 leadership

chairs in the fields of medical, social, environmental and technical research.

This minister has the confidence in British Columbians to establish at the

universities very professional and well-backgrounded

[ Page 7307 ]

individuals to run these institutions and boards, and this minister returned

to those boards the authority to establish at their own institutions just what

level of tuition fees students should be paying.

This

minister recognized that in the years leading up to her assuming that role, the

freeze on tuition fees had put a freeze on growth. It had put a freeze on

innovation, and it had put a freeze on opportunities for students. This Minister

of Advanced Education lifted that freeze — that freeze on innovation, on

growth, on the ability of institutions to set their own tuition rates. Despite

the fact that some institutions have had to address those years of underfunding

due to that false freeze on education, the university fees in British Columbia

are still lower than Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and

Saskatchewan. This is all within the ministry's mandate of increasing

opportunities for future students in British Columbia.

This is the

background in the public institutions, and now Bill 52 comes forward to provide

yet another very important part of the package for post-secondary education.

Many

students will avail themselves of private institution training. They'll do it,

never knowing that Bill 52 exists. It won't be front and centre in their

day-to-day lives. Hopefully, they will go, they will ascertain what their needs

are, they will search the marketplace, they will find institutions that meet

their needs, they will enrol, they will take the courses, they will succeed, and

then they will move on with their careers. They will never know that a bill such

as Bill 52 is being debated in the Legislature such as it is today. Bill 52 will

provide a protection for them which, hopefully, they will never have to access.

This bill,

of course, replaces the PPSEC with a private career training institution agency,

with this agency much more in tune with today's marketplace — less hidebound

concern about parts of administration which didn't deal with students' needs. It

once again brings B.C. into line with what is going on in other provinces.

[1515]

It will

focus on registering those institutions providing training beyond specified

time-and-cost thresholds. Obviously, the institutions that want their students

to be able to take advantage of student loans are going to have to be registered

and meet the criteria that are established by this agency.

You know,

the consumer protection aspect of Bill 52 cannot be understated. In my previous

life as executive director of the Better Business Bureau, some of the saddest

cases for me were when I would go and be met by students who had paid a good

deal of money, had started courses and then arrived at their school to a sign

that said "Closed." Those students felt desperate. Not only had many

of them taken out loans to get that far, some of them had made incredible

commitments within their own families to allow them to get some more training,

and then the institution closed. For a variety of reasons these things happen.

The

consumer protection that is in Bill 52 mirrors the very successful legislation

that is in place for people who travel within British Columbia, which is that

everybody who may some day have to access that support pays something for the

service. This is truly user-pay. The students will have to pay. This will be

identified in regulation, just to what extent they must pay. It will be an

insurance which, of course, they hope they never have to trigger.

I am

delighted to stand here and support Bill 52, because Bill 52 is just one of the

important pieces of legislation which this minister is bringing to this House in

order to have a complete package of post-secondary education opportunities,

private and public, available to all students throughout British Columbia. This

bill that is brought to us for consideration deserves unanimous support in this

House. I'm delighted to stand here and support it.

R. Lee:

I would like to stand to speak in support of the bill. The bill is named Private

Career Training Institutions Act.

This bill

actually will create more choices for students, for consumers. Despite a lot of

efforts in this province to increase the number of seats in post-secondary

institutes, the demand is still there — very high. For the past two years, we

can see that there were almost 6,000 seats created for the post-secondary

institutes. That's a tremendous increase in two years. It is about 3.7 percent.

If you look

at the number of students that graduated in 2001-02, the number only increased

by about 600 to 700. In terms of the population of graduates — about 39,000

— the increase in the number of student graduates was only 0.18 percent,

compared to the number of seats available in that year, over two years — an

average of 1.8 percent. You get ten times the number of seats increased as

compared to the number of students graduating from grade 12.

Despite all

that, there are also professional seat vacancies available in post-secondary

institutes. For example, we have 1,800 new seats for nursing students. Those are

students who are interested in pursuing a career in nursing. We understand that

over, say, the past few years, we've had a shortage of nurses in our society, in

our institutes. That kind of increase of, for example, 1,800 seats for nursing

students is a very positive element to increase the number of professionals in

our future.

[1520]

understand that in many institutes, including some private institutes, they have

new programs for professional students and for nursing students. Some of those

students will be coming from private institutes.

It's a very

positive development for the students in this province, as well as for the

nursing and the medical fields. At UBC, we understand that there will be a lot

of development on the new Life Sciences Centre in cooperation with UNBC and UBC.

Those kinds of training institutes are important to train future professions.

I also was

very pleased to see that in terms of research and development, there is $45

million allocated

[ Page 7308 ]

for leading-edge and endowment funds. That kind of support for research and

development is very important. Over the past few years, the total allocation

committed for research and development and technology development is about $900

million — since June 2001. That kind of commitment by this government will go

a long way in creating new areas of innovation and research in this province.

As I said,

despite this kind of investment in our education system, there is still quite a

lot of demand for our post-secondary institutes. The bill introduced today will

actually protect the students going into private career training. That kind of

protection will increase the money available in case some of the institutes

fail. In the old system, the institutes put up some kind of bond that would

protect the students if they cannot complete the program. But for this new kind

of model, all the students, when they are entering the institute, will also help

to contribute to a completion fund. That fund will be available for students who

cannot complete their studies in case the institute they attend failed, but the

institutes have to be registered under this kind of a model.

So for the

consumers, it's very clear. If they want consumer protection, they will go to

the institutes, register under this act, under this kind of model. Before, over

1,000 of our institutes were registered under PPSEC. Some of those institutes

may not deliver good programs, so they fail. Under this registration procedure,

the consumer will be really clear. They will see that if the registration is

completed for certain institutes, they will have the protection. They can

complete their studies in due course. They are independent of the success, or

not, of the institute they are attending.

These kinds

of registration programs are important for consumer protection. In my community,

there is also some concern on the registration of ESL language institutes. Under

this act, those language institutes can also register. It would be a bonus for

them if they can register under this act so that the students coming to their

institute will know that they are under that kind of protection too. I can

imagine in the future many of those institutes, the language institutes, will

voluntarily register under this act. This is not a major concern, I believe.

I would

like to offer my support to this act, and I will be very pleased to see this act

come into action.

[1525]

Brenzinger: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 52, the Private Career

Training Institutions Act. I want to thank the Minister of Advanced Education

for this bill, which will provide more access, choice and security to students

in British Columbia. Here's how this bill will enable us to do this.

To start

with, this act reduces the regulatory burden on private training institutions

and recognizes the important role that these institutions play in post-secondary

education in this province. As there is an ever-increasing demand for student

spaces and a need for more skilled workers in B.C., it is important that we

acknowledge the role that private training institutions play in filling that

void.

The Private

Career Training Institutions Act will repeal and replace the Private

Post-Secondary Education Act. This will accommodate recommendations from the

core services review concerning the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission,

also known as PPSEC. In addition, the review of the Private Post-Secondary

Education Act found that current legislation and regulations were too broad,

especially when compared to other Canadian jurisdictions, including the

provinces of Alberta and Ontario.

This new

legislation is intended to bring British Columbia in line with the other

provinces by reducing government regulation of the private post-secondary sector

while encouraging industry to assume greater responsibility for its actions.

This new model for regulating these private post-secondary institutions is

consistent with government's new-era commitment to reduce bureaucracy. Reducing

the regulatory burden for private training institutions will allow them to

reinvest time and money into expansion of their business. Growth in this sector

of the economy will expand the range of quality learning choices and spaces for

students in British Columbia.

The

Ministry of Advanced Education consulted with the private post-secondary

stakeholders and obtained advice to help the ministry draft the Private Career

Training Institutions Act. The consultation process included the creation of an

industry-based advisory committee in the spring of 2002 and the development and

release of a discussion paper in the fall of 2002 that discussed the proposed

mandate, governance and funding arrangements for the new private training model.

I am proud

to say that this ministry always includes students in consultations. Students

provided feedback on PPSEC and the proposed private training model in the

discussion paper. Education is no different from business. It is too difficult

for young people to attend post-secondary institutions. It results in fewer

educated, qualified graduates to contribute to the British Columbia workforce.

We need a skilled workforce to continue the growth of our economy.

This act

directly impacts my community in Surrey, which is one of the fastest-growing

communities in Canada. A recently released Statistics Canada report showed that

54 percent of people living in the lower mainland, including the Surrey area,

immigrated there. This is evident in my hometown of Surrey. The large immigrant

population in Surrey and elsewhere has created a huge demand for resources that

courses. The act speaks directly to the private institutions that are offering

these services. Not only does this act put the needs of students first, it also

helps to stimulate growth in this sector.

While

private institutions will not be required to register with the new agency, they

are encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis. This is consistent with other

jurisdictions across Canada that could be considered

[ Page 7309 ]

competitors for the international ESL student market. These private

institutions will play an even greater role as they obtain approval to grant

degrees. Earlier this year the Degree Authorization Act was passed, authorizing

both private and public post-secondary institutions to grant degrees.

[1530]

I am also

excited about this legislation because it will protect students' interests

through tuition protection and will enable private training institutions to

continue offering educational choices. This is an important part of our

commitment to students.

There have

been situations in the past where students at private sector schools have

borrowed money to upgrade their education, only to be crushed when they learn

the school has closed because of financial difficulty. Those students not only

lost their money, but their hopes and dreams were crushed when their dreams of

an improved life were crushed. This act will make sure that doesn't happen

again.

Plus, this

act will ensure that the people of my riding are able to take advantage of

programs that will help them to learn a new language and enter the workforce. I

commend the Minister of Advanced Education for putting through this Bill 52, and

I am happy to support it.

Hawes: Like my colleagues before me, I'm pleased to stand today and also

support this bill. My colleague from Saanich South spoke earlier about the

advances the minister has made in developing new seats in universities across

this province — wonderful strides over the last two years.

What I like

particularly about this bill is that this is the career training part of the

education piece. This is not about university post-secondary degrees; this is

about career training. I know — and I know many others in this House know —

from experience partly, that in every high school in this province there's a

fairly substantial number of students who are never going on to university. In

my riding it's a very, very significant number. It's well over 80 percent of our

students who are not going to go on to university training. Yet for years,

career training and careers such as plumbers, electricians and cosmetologists,

etc., have been denigrated as being something inferior. As a result, we are

facing a massive, massive skills shortage in this province, and it's coming

soon.

Trained

tradespeople are going to be in a huge, huge deficit — and very shortly, as we

have an aging workforce of accredited tradespeople. These people are not being

trained in our public institutions. As we advance the number of seats in the

publicly funded institutions, and as we look at the budget constraints all of us

have to live under and this government is struggling under, it's not possible

for us to open publicly funded institutions to provide enough skilled people to

fill the need we're going to face very shortly.

When the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke this morning about the evils of the

private sector being involved in education, surely she couldn't have been

implying that somehow the public purse be opened wide enough to open publicly

funded career training institutions all over this province to meet the needs

we're going to face here within the next few years. Actually, when I think about

it, she probably did mean we should do that, because the members from that side

of the House don't seem to get it.

They don't

seem to understand that people have to live within budgets. It's something that

every one of us faces in our life. Unless we happen to be born into one of the

silver-spoon families with multimillions that don't care — and that's very few

of us — all of us live within budgets. Governments are absolutely no different

— from our side of the House, anyway.

[1535]

Clearly,

for the last ten years the government of the day, the NDP, did not understand

what living within a budget meant. From the member's remarks this morning, it's

pretty clear that the lessons that should have been learned over the last ten

years haven't hit home with her. She continues to talk about the evils of the

private sector in education and how they have to be curtailed. Somehow making a

profit would mean putting students behind your ability to make a profit, and

somehow students would suffer greatly. She doesn't seem to understand that the

marketplace sorts all of this out, that private sector training institutions

that do an inferior job actually wind up going out of business and don't survive

because they develop a poor reputation.

I'm really

pleased this minister recognizes the coming skills shortage, and this goes a

great deal towards addressing that by removing a lot of the encumbrances and the

red tape and the costs of running private educational institutes. We need those

institutes to spring up in greater numbers to provide the kind of training that

is going to be necessary for all of the trades we're now seeing are going to be

in great shortage.

Last spring

there was a graduation ceremony in my riding at the Riverside Centre. The

Riverside Centre is a skills and technical training school that was opened by

school district 75. It's a publicly funded training institution, but it was

opened basically without any extra funding coming from government. It operates

very much like a private training institute would. The school board has had to

work this off the back of the desk and try to beg, borrow and steal enough money

to get this institution open. They're trying to run it just exactly the way a

private institution would.

I want to

talk for a minute about that institution, about the Riverside Centre and what it

does, because it so much fits with what this bill is going to allow to happen.

The Mission school board recognized there are all kinds of kids who can be seen

early in their high school career, grade 10 maybe, who are in jeopardy of

dropping out, who aren't fitting the educational curriculum at all and for whom

the educational system, as it's laid out, has no relevance. These are kids who

aren't lacking intelligence but who are unable to really cope with the

curriculum as it's stipulated, so they wind up dropping out. This is happening

in cities all across this province, and all of us know that.

[ Page 7310 ]

recognition of that and in recognition, too, that the kids that have dropped out

of school are often the kids that you find on the street, they're often kids

that fill the homeless rolls. In fact, when you go down and look in Vancouver or

other places where there are squats, quite often numbers of the people there

will be kids who dropped out of school at an early age, because for them

education wasn't relevant.

The Mission

school board, through Riverside Centre, has reached out to a bunch of those

dropouts and tried to reconnect them to an educational program that will not

just give them their Dogwood diploma — their grade 12, which is a prerequisite

of graduating from Riverside Centre — but give them technical training. It's a

preapprenticeship program with pretty much a guarantee of employment for these

kids. I can tell you that they offer cosmetology. They offer cooking classes and

mechanics. They have a carpentry course that's a certificate program which will

offer framing, window and door-hanging certificates, which are all part of the

certificate program that will lead to full journeyman status as you get enough

certificates. You can at some point go for the Red Seal program, which is a full

tradesman designation.

[1540]

I can tell

you that we attended the graduation ceremony for a bunch of students that came

out of Riverside Centre last year, and we made a tour of the school. After the

ceremony a mother of a student came to me in the hallway of the school where the

graduation ceremony took place. The way she was walking, to be honest with you,

I thought she was going to come up and lay a pretty heavy complaint, but instead

she said: "My son just received a certificate for hanging doors and

windows. He's a mentally challenged boy who can't read and really has had no

hope of employment in a meaningful way until this program came along. And now he

has the certificate to hang doors and windows. He's very proficient at it. He's

very proud of what he's got, and he's going to go out in the workforce."

He may

never go further in the certificate program. He may never become — and

probably never will — a journeyman carpenter, but because of the changes the

minister has made and because of the implementation of the certificate program,

this young lad has a piece of paper that gives him a designation he can take for

the rest of his life. He has a skill that's documented and certified that he can

sell, and he very proudly is doing that. His mother is absolutely thrilled.

That's the

kind of innovative change that the minister's putting in place and that she

recognizes is important as we move on in developing a post-secondary education

system in this province. She's well aware that a huge percentage of our kids

aren't going to university. They're not going to be doctors, and thankfully,

they're not going to be lawyers. I see a number of them in the House here, and

they would probably say the same thing. But they are going to be tradespeople,

and they are going to provide services in a service industry that requires some

skills training, and they're now going to get it much easier through this bill.

I believe

there is going to be a huge number of new accredited private training

facilities, career training facilities, that are going to open because of this

bill. The previous system run through PPSEC was very regulatory with far too

much red tape and was expensive for the career training institution. Frankly, it

offered the kind of things that the member from the other side of the House

really liked. That's: "Let's have the government be Big Brother to

everyone. Let's not have anyone responsible for any decisions they make in their

life. Let's make the taxpayer provide the safety net for everybody's decision on

everything. At the same time, let's employ a whole bunch of people to operate

that safety net, and we'll get the money from these rich people working in

private industry" — who of course have all left and gone to Alberta.

That's the

way it was operating before. The changes being made and the things being

recognized are that the private sector actually takes huge pride in doing the

job well — and they do do the job well. They do it best when government

gets out of the way and allows them to do the job they want to do and they're

supposed to do. People will choose, without a lot of safety net from the

government, the private operators that offer the best service, that have the

best ability to stay in business because they offer quality service. People,

without a safety net, will again learn you need to do a little research, and you

need to protect yourself a little bit. Government isn't going to help you with

all of your decisions and make them very easy.

This bill

says that if you're going to school less than 40 hours a week and your tuition

fees are less than a thousand dollars, you're not going to be offered protection

if the organization you've paid your tuition to happens to fold or go broke or

something happens. You'll still have recourse through the small debts court

system, but you're not going to have Big Brother there holding your hand.

Frankly, if you're going to take the kind of course that is less than a thousand

dollars, you should research who you're paying the money to. You should know the

school that's offering the course. As the member for Saanich South said — she

was the former director of the Better Business Bureau on the Island here —

maybe you should check with organizations like that and make sure that who

you're doing business with is reputable.

If it's

over a thousand dollars and you're going more than 40 hours, you will be offered

protection. There will be a fund so that if the educational institution stops

offering the service or financially collapses or for any reason suspends your

education in the course you've paid for, you will either get transferred to

another organization offering the same course or get your money back. There are

protections here.

[1545]

The biggest

thing…. I spoke about this when we spoke on the previous bill that this

minister brought forward this morning, Bill 37. That was a small bill with I

think a very, very large symbolic meaning. In this bill there's some very large

symbolic meaning as well.

[ Page 7311 ]

Just to

reiterate a little bit of what I said this morning on the previous bill, we have

committed to a deregulation process in this province that's unprecedented, and

we've gone a long, long way down the road to achieving the objectives that we've

set out. This bill helps accomplish that. This bill removes a considerable

amount of regulation that has been put in front of these private educational

institutions.

The

relevance of that is that business, free enterprise, is noticing what's

happening. As they notice what's happening here in this province, they begin to

put their money back here — money that has left this province. The two members

opposite frequently like to refer to us as being in tenth place economically in

this province. The fact is that their policies took us to tenth place, last

place in the country, and to turn around that ship does take a little bit of

time.

I know that

a huge amount of investment is today waiting at our borders, wanting to know we

are not going to see in this province a return to that socialist, left-wing,

anti-business type of thinking. So they want to see what's going to happen on

May 17, 2005, when the new election comes up. What a wonderful opportunity for

the people of this province to show the private sector, the investment

community, that we have confidence in them; that we welcome their investment in

this province; that we want job creation in this province; that we have a

government that understands what business needs; that business, free enterprise

business, is the job engine and that it's not government; that we're going to

get out of taxpayers' pockets to the greatest extent possible; and that our

target is to be the lowest taxed in the country.

What an

opportunity for the people of this province in May of 2005 to tell business:

"We support that kind of thinking, and we absolutely reject the policies

that were there for the last ten years under the NDP." I believe the people

of this province are going to take that opportunity. I think the people of this

province are going to look at legislation like this, understand it, understand

the comments made by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and how those

comments really are typical of that old way of thinking — that government

should look after everyone.

I think

that the people of this province want the kinds of changes that we see coming in

this bill. I believe that our kids, our youth all across this province, the

majority of our youth who are not going on to UBC or the University of Northern

British Columbia or UVic, the kids that are now going to be looking to go to a

trade school, that are going to look for a career opportunity — whether it be

in plumbing or electrical or perhaps a legal secretary type of position….

These are the kids who are going to benefit from this legislation.

[1550]

Just

briefly, I do also want to say that this legislation doesn't completely supplant

what's happening in the public education sector either. I'll give an example: a

legal secretary course. I know that you can take a legal secretary course at the

University College of the Fraser Valley, a publicly funded institution. You can

also take that same course through one of the private career corporations in the

Fraser Valley or in Vancouver, and the difference is the time you want to spend

going to the course. If you want to take it in the public sector, the cost is

somewhat less, but the time is about double. I can't remember exactly what the

dates are, but it's something like two years in the private sector and four

years if you're going to the university college. It may be one year versus two

years, but it's a significant time difference. There's a decision now, a choice

students would have: pay a little more and go private — and get your

certification a bit earlier and get out in the workforce earlier — or pay a

little less and go in the public system. It takes a bit longer. There are some

other courses in it that, while they're great courses, perhaps are not as

directly beneficial towards the specific job you're looking for.

The choices

are still going to be there. This doesn't supplant the public education system

in any way, but it certainly enhances the educational opportunities that we need

and that are going to happen in the private sector. There simply isn't enough

money in our coffers. There isn't enough money in government to open public

education institutes and supply all of the training opportunities we need and

still have enough money to supply our health needs and all our other needs in

this province.

I find it

so interesting to listen to those two members opposite as they jump from topic

to topic. Every single thing they talk about is about: why have you taken money

out of something? Why aren't you putting more money into something? All of this

really enforces my belief that they have absolutely no connection with the real

world when it comes to fiscal responsibility. These are people who were on a

wild spending spree and, if they were still in power, would have continued to be

on a wild spending spree and in listening to them — if, God forbid, they ever,

ever regained a position of power — would be straight back on that wild

spending spree. It would be at the expense of my kids and my grandchildren, and

yours. I don't think we can allow that to happen.

I've

rambled on a little bit about this bill. It is a piece of good news, and it is

very symbolic of the direction in which this government wants to take this

province. I think it's very symbolic of the philosophy that we on this side of

the House want to take this province down. We are embracing a philosophy of free

enterprise.

Mr.

Speaker, if you look around the world, if you look across this country at what's

happened in those places that have truly embraced socialism, you see economic

havoc, you see ruination, and what you really see is the destruction of the

public institutions that all of us have depended on. When Ontario was under the

NDP administration, they drove themselves into such horrendous debt that their

bond ratings were threatened. In fact, their public institutions were

threatened.

I really

marvel at the commonsense revolution. Mike Harris's government was elected and

did exactly what they said they were going to do, and the public

[ Page 7312 ]

was actually very appreciative of that and showed it in a subsequent

election. It's remarkable to me that when there was a change in leadership in

Ontario and when, in an attempt to woo the voter, that government tried to buy

votes by going back on a bit of a spending spree, they were repudiated by the

people. The people understand that you can't spend more money than you have.

I also note

with interest that the bond spread we enjoy as a province is now better than the

bond spread of the province of Ontario, because we have much, much better

control of our finances; we have much, much better control of our budget; and we

are moving to a balanced budget. So I know, in looking at what's happening in

just our credit reputation around the world, we are moving in the right

direction.

[1555]

Going back

to this bill, it does echo the philosophy of our government, and I'm extremely

proud of our minister for bringing it forward. I'm extremely proud of the way

our minister has related to the youth of this province as she's visited city

after city, including my own, and I'm really proud of the way she reacted when

she saw the Riverside Centre in my own community and the kind of innovation

they've brought to the education system.

I know that

in her mind, as she brings a bill like this forward, she sees Riverside

Centre–type institutions springing up in all corners of this province —

operated through the private sector, offering wonderful opportunities to our

youth and allowing the kids who aren't going on to university to have pride in

what they're doing, to have a job in British Columbia that pays real money and

allows them to become taxpaying voting citizens of this province.

With that,

I'm proud to support this bill, and I'll let others speak.

Locke: I, too, rise in this House in support of Bill 52, the Private Career

Training Institutions Act. I must commend the Minister of Advanced Education for

the incredible job she has done. I listened to the member for Burnaby North talk

about the numbers and the increases in the student body and in the province. I

want to talk about just 200 of those students — 200 students that were going

to Tech B.C. at one time, 200 students whose career paths were at risk because

the previous government thought of a great idea. They thought of this

university; they just didn't think they had to fund it. The problem that was

left for these students was…. They had engaged in their university education;

they had their hopes and dreams in front of them. They had a whole lifetime of

planning that was virtually put in limbo because there was no effective and

efficient management of their career paths.

This

minister made sure that those students were protected. Not only would no other

university in the province accept their credentials from Tech B.C., but they had

an investment that they would never be able to capitalize on. This minister

ensured that their futures were secured. She conducted a number of different

interviews with other universities and came up with the Simon Fraser University

option, which we in Surrey are very thankful for and very proud of. I can tell

you that without her dedication to students and to education, especially

post-secondary, it wouldn't happen for those students. So I applaud her and

thank her for that.

I want to

tell you, too, about problems we've had in Surrey with the previous

administration and their idea of post-secondary education. There was a field in

Cloverdale, in Surrey, that remained vacant. It was just a field with nothing

going on there. But we were supposed to look at that field and dream of a

Kwantlen University College campus there. There was, again, no plan, no

management, no foresight, no projections for dollars. We were just supposed to

dream. Well, unfortunately, there is no reality to the dream that the previous

government had. Again, this Minister of Advanced Education made sure the dream

could be a reality. She worked very hard to ensure that there were actual, real

dollars that were going to go into that project. That was pretty important.

I can talk

to you, too, about a hairdressing student that graduated from high school in our

community. It was her dream to go to a private institution. They did a great

job. That student now has a certificate and has a very good career path for her.

[1600]

Surrey is a

rapidly growing community with a very young demographic. Our young students are

looking to new and innovative career opportunities. Today middle-aged and older

students are also looking to new opportunities and upgrading their old skills.

While our public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia are second to

none, often it's the private post-secondary institutions that offer a unique

option for many students who want to increase their skill sets.

We are in a

very fast-paced world, with ever-growing changes in our workforce. Businesses

are looking for new and well-trained people to fill a myriad of specialized

jobs. We're in changing times, with changing technologies that put significant

demands on both employers and employees. Keeping up with that rapid change is

challenging.

I remember

an old résumé of mine from the seventies. Not one of those skill sets that I

used in 1970 would I use today. I doubt that most people in the office workforce

that I was in use any of those technologies today. I mean, we think of things

like telex and switchboards and typewriters. None of those pieces of equipment

are used. Today's office workplace is completely different, and it's not just

the office workplace that's changed. All workplaces have changed.

This new

bill will encourage private post-secondary institutions to reinvest and expand

their businesses by being part of a large pooled resource. It will help

businesses develop job-specific courses to be taught, and it will help train

people for new and exciting careers.

This bill

will also protect students, and that's probably one of the most important parts

of the bill. In Surrey we've experienced the closing of private institutions

with no notice to students. This is an extremely

[ Page 7313 ]

difficult time for students, many of whom had all their money invested in

their education. Students are generally living on a shoestring, and this bill

will ensure that their investment, their future, is protected. It will ensure

that through the accreditation process, the taxpayer-funded student financial

assistance plan will protect them.

There are

many innovative programs that can be attributed to private sector post-secondary

education, and I commend this minister for opening those doors for students, for

business and for these new businesses to flourish.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: It's a great pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak in

favour of the second reading of Bill 52, the Private Career Training

Institutions Act. I originally hadn't intended to speak to this bill this

afternoon, because I thought its clauses and what it brought to British Columbia

were self-explanatory and everyone would certainly be in agreement with it. But

some of the comments mentioned earlier today upset me somewhat. As the member

for Surrey-Whalley mentioned, it does affect a number of her constituents. It

affects a number of mine as well, so I would like to make a few points this

afternoon.

I believe

this is good public policy. It's good legislation, because it responds to

students' needs and it responds to industry's needs. It really does cut

overregulation, and it allows the growth of new courses for students in British

Columbia. It establishes a private career training institution agency, which

will be a self-regulatory board made up of training institutions and one member

appointed by the minister.

[1605]

As was

mentioned by previous speakers, it really is an attempt by the government to get

out of the way of overregulation. We have over 1,100 institutions now regulated

by government — certainly the highest in Canada. We want to bring ourselves

into conformity with other provinces of Canada.

In terms of

that agency, it's now going to be funded by the members of that agency rather

than the taxpayers of British Columbia, which certainly should be the case in

terms of private business.

Registration

will only now be necessary for those institutions that provide career-related

training that goes on for a longer period of time and has a higher cost

threshold than in the past — career-related training programs that exceed 40

hours of instruction and at least $1,000 in tuition payments by the students.

There are a lot of very short-term courses, low-cost courses, courses that

aren't related to career training that certainly do not require that regulation.

The one

that interests me particularly was responding to students, because it sets up a

student training completion fund. We can all remember those — often through

the media and particularly on television in the late eighties and early nineties

— students coming to their classes at a private institution and finding that

they've had to close their doors. Well, this legislation constructs better

consumer protection for private post-secondary students. This fund will enable

students either to continue their studies, which I'm sure most of them would

rather do — finish off the courses they've enrolled for — or at least to get

a tuition fee refund. They get that particular choice.

Over the

last decade or so, I've had a lot of immigrants coming to Canada, settling in my

constituency, looking for resources, looking for additional training. This

regulation will certainly protect them as newcomers to our country. They will be

covered in terms of completing their courses or at least getting a tuition

refund.

There's

also an exciting part of it that allows private ESL institutions to voluntarily

register within the program as well, which again will assure the students.

Just a

final point is the accreditation for private institutions, which will be worked

out between the government and the regulatory agency. I think that's critical,

because for those who are accredited, the students will be eligible for student

financial aid. There's this balance between accreditation and student financial

assistance. Obviously, the student but particularly the government, as a

guarantor, is interested to make sure that money is going to students who are

taking a properly accredited course.

conclusion, I'm very, very pleased that this legislation has been introduced,

pleased to speak to it at second reading. I know it's been called for, for a

number of years, and I know that many of my constituents will be relieved when

this bill is passed as

an act.

MacPhail: Well, here we are on a bill that pales in comparison in its

importance to forestry legislation that not one government caucus member even

stood up and asked one question about yesterday — not one question.

Communities around this province are dying because of the chaos in the forest

industry. Where was the Minister of Labour when his community was being thrown

into chaos by forestry legislation? Where were all the members from the

northwest whose communities are dying because of the chaos in the forestry

sector? Well, they were nowhere — not one question asked.

Here we

are. My gosh, government caucus members, executive council members, standing up

and touting the wonders of privatized education. Does the term "ragging the

puck" ring a bell with anybody over here? Have they become so embedded in

the Vancouver Canucks lottery giveaway that they now feel they actually have to

demonstrate on the floor the skills of ragging the puck, skating? Is that what

they're doing?

[1610]

It's

unbelievable how this government is afraid to actually debate real issues in

this Legislature, like forestry legislation, and yet hour after hour the

executive council stands up and joins in the debate.

Well, I

must say, I wasn't going to join in the debate until I heard one of the most

abhorent statements from a government caucus member to date. It was from the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission. I've listened to government caucus member

after government caucus

[ Page 7314 ]

member avoid the real responsibilities in this Legislature all week. Today is

no different.

Maybe they

felt like they had to rag the puck today to give that great team who escaped to

Calgary some rest from all that hard work they did over there. Oh, it was hard

work. I mean, the results for British Columbia were astounding. I'm sure we'll

figure out one day what the heck it was they did do there. I'm sure we'll figure

out what that photo op cost British Columbians, and I'm sure we'll figure out

why the people who were left behind couldn't answer a single question that was

asked of them. Maybe that's what the government benches are doing here today:

ragging the puck so those poor people can get a nap.

The member

for Maple Ridge–Mission said an offensive…. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure

that probably isn't parliamentary. He said a statement that rejected the

well-being and the values and the interests of tens of thousands of British

Columbians in this province, and I can't let it go by. My colleague the member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did an admirable job of pointing out the issues

this government needs to address with this Legislature. It seems to have

offended the entire government caucus. My gosh, their skins are thin. I guess

they don't like to have a challenge to anything.

I guess

they think their legislation is perfect. I guess that's why we had a second

Community Charter introduced today — because they're so good at drafting

legislation. I guess that's why we've had nine forestry bills introduced, half

of which now have undone the work the first half of the forestry bills

introduced tried to achieve. The government better realize that they're not

perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, at getting legislation right. In

fact, I would say, in my 12 years, they've gotten it wrong more often than any

other government I've ever seen and had to undo and correct their errors.

One of the

points my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raised was the

concern that students who enter into programs with private institutions who were

not registered will lose their tuition assurance. That will especially be

prevalent in the language training sector, an area that will greatly affect the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's constituents and mine as well — and

many more. The Richmond MLAs will be greatly affected by that. The Tri-Cities

MLAs' constituents will be very much affected by that. Furthermore, programs

that have tuitions of less than $1,000 or less than 40 hours won't be protected

either.

[1615]

What does

the member for Maple Ridge–Mission do? Instead of standing up and maybe

saying, "Well, that's a point the minister needs to address," or

"Wait for the minister to address it," what does he do? He attacks

British Columbians. He stands up and attacks those who, as he said, "should

do their homework." I couldn't believe it, actually, when I heard that

member attack British Columbians who may be caught out by a weakness in this

government's legislation. He stood there, and he said: "Shame on them. They

should do their homework and make sure they get into programs that are

covered." By the way, I'm doing a pretty good imitation of the way he

addressed the Legislature as well. He told the House, this Legislature, that it

wasn't the government's responsibility if those people get rolled over by

business. He said they should make better choices.

I guess the

constituents of Maple Ridge–Mission now know where they shouldn't go for help.

I guess they know that if they get caught by the weaknesses in this legislation,

the door will be slammed in their faces by their MLA — because they should

have made better choices, and they should have done their homework.

Well, Mr.

Speaker, I say, through you to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission: has he ever

actually sat down and talked to a single mom on welfare, who's trying to upgrade

her life and raising a family at the same time? Has he ever talked to a Canadian

bucks and only has 40 hours' time to invest in his or her upgrading? Has he ever

talked to anyone like that and known the struggles those people face and the

greater challenges they will now face in terms of upgrading their skills?

How about

the people that are going to be booted off welfare — the tens of thousands of

people who have been booted off welfare or are about to be booted off welfare?

The Minister of Human Resources makes up the number of jobs that this government

has created. He just made it up. He had a big hole poked in that balloon just a

few moments ago, in how he made up statistics. In fact, he didn't actually

accurately tell the House what's going on in the job creation record of this

government. How about those people? How about the people who aren't eligible for

training by this government because of the tightening up, the cutting of

welfare, the mean-spirited approach this government is taking to the people with

the least resources in this province?

This is

another tightening up. This is another one saying that if you're of a certain

socioeconomic class in this province, where all you can afford is $500, $600,

$700 or $950 in tuition and you only have 40 hours to invest, we're cutting you

loose too — the same way we're cutting the poorest on welfare. We're cutting

you loose too, because we want to make sure our big rich friends are looked

after with those big tax cuts.

The member

for Maple Ridge–Mission attacks those very people who are at the lowest end of

the socioeconomic ladder. He insulted — yes, Mr. Speaker, he insulted — the

hard-working, genuine, honest British Columbians who are trying, with every

ounce of energy they have, to better themselves and their families. They live in

my constituency, they live in the constituency of the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I expect they live in the constituency of the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission as well.

What about

has been cut

[ Page 7315 ]

by this government, as well, in the college system? What about all the people

we need to participate in our economy? What about all those single moms who are

just trying to give their kids a better life?

[1620]

What the

member for Maple Ridge–Mission said was: "Do your homework. Don't come

crying to government if you don't make a good choice." Isn't that nice?

We've heard other jurisdictions and other extreme governments telling people,

"Don't come crying to government; make better choices in your life,"

and they're not the kinds of governments that British Columbians want to

represent them. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission isn't the kind of member

that British Columbians voted for as well.

I submit

that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission should be ashamed of himself, and I

hope the Minister of Advanced Education in her closing comments distinguishes

herself, removes herself, distances herself from the comments of the member for

Maple Ridge–Mission.

Suffredine: I rise to speak in support of the bill. I'm reminded by the

rather loud wailings that we just heard in defence of her partner, in the

comments from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant….

Interjections.

Suffredine: Well, yeah, and it reminds me…. Will Rogers, years ago, was a

philosopher who used to be on U.S. radio nationally, and he once told a story on

the radio. He said: "After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so

good that he began to roar. And he continued roaring until a hunter heard him,

found him and shot him." Will Rogers said: "The moral of the story is

when you're full of bull, the first thing to do is shut up."

This

morning I heard a critique of an enactment by a member who, in my view, didn't

have the experience to be critiquing that enactment. The bill before the House

makes the rules simpler for people taking what are relatively minor professional

courses in their career development. Some of them can lead to greater and

greater skills, but the private courses that are available out there are legion.

What the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant seemed to overlook, in my view, is that

training and experience can't be and aren't only learned through public

institutions. I know in her background, from reading her résumé, that she

learned through a public institution. Public institutions do provide very

valuable training, excellent training. I took two university degrees. But there

are also many people who learn skills you can't learn in a university and that

sometimes you can't even learn in a public institution.

grandfather was a butcher. He didn't learn that by going to a school. There are

people who work in our woods — logging, running heavy equipment. There are

pilots who are private and commercial pilots. Very few of them go to public

institutions. It used to be that you could be a teacher in a public school or

high school and learn that training from practical experience. It even used to

be that you could get to be a lawyer by clerking to a lawyer for a number of

years. To suggest that everyone who takes a course needs to be protected from

start to finish is simply wrong. The critique that in smaller courses, the

protection is still absolutely necessary and that people who offer courses can't

be in any way trusted to be reputable or can't be licensed in a way that will

give reasonable protection to the public is also wrong.

For about

ten years I was a director of a small private institution called the Nelson

University Centre. That was made up of volunteers who taught classes, received a

very small bit of compensation from tuitions for teaching great courses in

history, in literature. These were people retired from universities that in

their careers were professors. They enjoyed continuing to work on a part-time

basis, and they offered excellent education at Nelson to people who wanted to

expand their horizons and take courses at nights and on the weekends.

[1625]

The Private

Post-Secondary Education Commission was the most bureaucratic and unworkable

organization that could possibly have been dreamed up by someone having a

nightmare. It cost the Nelson University Centre — a bunch of volunteers —

$750 a year to register their courses. I saw the kind of forms they were given

to fill out. They were 20- and 30-page questionnaires of meaningless questions

that, when you saw them, you wondered why anyone would even ask.

The net

result of it all was not that they were assessing the value of any of the

courses. The only decision they came to at the end of this entire process was:

"You're now registered if you pay us $750." It took months to get

through this process. That wasn't working for students. That isn't doing what

this bill is designed to do, which is to recognize that people can get valuable

education for their careers outside of public institutions.

I can give

the House a small example of someone out there who actually made the same

complaint to me. Just a few months ago I went and toured. At Salmo there's a

little place called the Kootenay Stone Centre. Maybe many people here haven't

even been to Salmo, but there's a lady at Salmo named Iris Lamb, whom I've known

for about 25 years and who is a remarkable person.

When I

first knew of her, she had separated from her spouse at the time and needed a

home. So Iris, being an ingenious person, actually bought a house and physically

moved it herself onto a lot that she wanted to occupy. That was remarkable for

anyone to do. She did it by herself, and she's showed the same kind of ingenuity

in all the 25 years I've known her.

She now has

a thriving little stone business at Salmo. She exports stone to other provinces

and to the U.S., but she also teaches stonemasonry. She has a two-

[ Page 7316 ]

week course in stonemasonry. It's probably the only stonemason's course in

North America.

She

complains, as well, about the regulatory bureaucracy of having to pay money just

to be registered — not to be certified, because nobody knows how good or bad a

course it is, and they don't try to be. Just to be registered to teach a

two-week course in stonemasonry, she has to pay fairly substantial sums of

money.

This is a

course where people actually do come. When I went toured it, they had people

from all over North America who come and learn to do this. After they're done,

they're their own little businessmen. They can go out and be contractors and do

decorative stonework. I saw them practising putting stone on the walls. It's a

great example of the kind of course and the kind of ingenuity that we should be

encouraging. The former bit of legislation did nothing but discourage that sort

of thing.

When I look

at the bill before us and then I see the critique of it, because the opposition

is always focused on how they can say what's wrong with this…. They need to

view it from the perspective of a working person — maybe a person who wants to

learn to, say, frame a house. I've got a nephew who, when he graduated from high

school, didn't think he was university material and didn't know what to do with

himself, and who went and learned to framed houses. He's now fully occupied —

as a matter of fact, I think more than fully occupied — most summers. He does

nothing but frame house after house out of one course that's outside of an

institution.

We should

be — and we are, through this bill — encouraging more of that, not less. I

congratulate the minister for her foresight in putting this forward.

[1630]

J. Bray:

I, too, am pleased to rise and support Bill 52. I am very excited about this

bill for a number of reasons. Certainly, I have a lot of positives, as the

member for Nelson-Creston alluded, to point out in Bill 52.

But I have

to, again, rise in some shock at the comments that we get from both the members

of the opposition. It's interesting. Earlier the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant made this interesting comment. In talking about Bill 52 she said:

"It fits perfectly with everything else that this government is

doing." Now, that is a statement that I can agree with, and I agree with

that statement because it does fit with everything else we're doing.

This is one

of the things the members of the opposition simply don't get: we have a plan.

Each ministry has a plan. In fact, each ministry has a three-year plan. It's on

the website, it's made public, it's part of our budget process, and then we

execute that plan. I actually think that when she says it fits perfectly with

everything else this government is doing, she's actually acknowledging that this

government and each of our ministers put forth a plan, look out over three

years, plan for changes, consult on those changes and then execute.

The members

of the opposition always were great artists with respect to announcements. They

announced all sorts of wonderful things. The problem with the former

administration was their inability to execute any of it. That's why we have the

economy we do. We're trying to undo their lack of execution — great on

announcements; very, very weak on execution.

Many of my

constituents do go on the website and take a look at the service plans. They'll

go take a look at the Ministry of Advanced Education's website and their service

plan. What they see is a series of strategic goals, strategic objectives and the

measurements by which we and the public, in real time, can determine whether or

not the government is succeeding on those objectives. It really does shock the

opposition when we actually execute our plan and we're successful, because

that's not something they ever recognized when they were in government.

There's

another theme I'd like to pick up on as well. The members of the opposition talk

about us having our sort of stream of consciousness that's similar in all the

things we do, and the sky is falling, but there is a very clear theme in this

first week of the fall sitting that's coming through from the members of the

opposition. I spoke about this yesterday when we were discussing the

Environmental Management Act. It is the opposition's almost complete contempt

for the people who employ and the people who pay the taxes in this province.

Private

institutions have been in this province for 100 years. Again, just like other

industries in this province, private institutions don't come from another

planet. They're not another species. They are owned and operated and staffed by

British Columbians. When the members of the opposition suggest that private

institutions are out to get the public, and all they're there to do is try and

rip off the public, and all they're trying to do is do shoddy courses so they

can make their profit, they're actually insulting British Columbians — British

Columbians who are risking their capital, who are pursuing their dream, who are

employing other British Columbians and providing a valuable service to our young

people and to people who are looking to upgrade their skills or perhaps are

recovering from an economic setback and are looking to retrain.

Private

institutions have been around for a century, and it's British Columbians who are

doing that work. I can tell the members opposite that if I were watching this

debate right now and I were on a coffee break at Sprott-Shaw or one of the other

private institutions, I'd be so insulted at the fact that the opposition was

accusing those employees, those people, of actually trying to do something

dubious, trying to pull the wool over students' eyes. I mean, it really is

insulting.

[1635]

There's no

question. In our society there are always a handful of people that try to break

rules, that try to do things unscrupulously — absolutely. That's the case no

matter how much regulation you have, no matter

[ Page 7317 ]

how much law you have. That occurs in our society. The difference is that the

opposition feels that the only people who can't make mistakes are government,

and therefore government should do everything. I guess government should be

selling blue jeans, because any private entrepreneur who tries to sell blue

jeans must be doing it for their own self-interest, and they are not interested

in protecting the consumer, not interested in helping their community because

they're private. It really does gall me when the opposition members simply

assume that because it's a private college or private training institute, it is

ergo bad, and government must completely oversee it; otherwise, we're all going

to fall victim.

The other

thing, of course, that is shocking about those statements is that Bill 52 in

fact is about enhancing protection for students. It's about enhancing

compliance. It's about ensuring that we are looking after students and their

interests. So not only is it an insult to private industry — which is a theme

that they want to bring forward again and again and again, which is really

insulting British Co