1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10067 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill PR401). Mr. Mercier

Introduction and first reading –– 10067

An Act to Protect Owners of Manufactured Homes, 1990 (Bill M216).

Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10068

Housing Initiative Fund Act, 1990 (Bill M217). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10068

An Act to Provide Lower Cost Financing for First-Time Home-Buyers

(Bill M218). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10068

Oral Questions

Gifts to hospital board members. Mr. Clark –– 10069

Surgery waiting-lists. Mr. Perry 10069

Road blockages by independent truckers. Mr. Serwa –– 10070

Psychiatric program at Nanaimo General Hospital. Ms. Pullinger –– 10071

Residences for the mentally ill. Ms. Smallwood –– 10071

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 32). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 10071

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 39). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 10076

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 10076

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet)

Mr. Rose –– 10077

Mr. Barnes –– 10078

Ms. A. Hagen –– 10079

Ms. Marzari –– 10081

Mr. Sihota –– 10083

Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 5). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Parker)

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 10085

Mr. Blencoe –– 10086

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 10086

Electorial Districts Act (Bill 3). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 10086

Mrs. Boone –– 10086

Mr. Blencoe –– 10086

Mr. Vant –– 10087

Mr. Sihota –– 10088

Mr. Chalmers –– 10089

Mr. Rabbitt –– 10090

Ms. Smallwood –– 10090

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10090

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 10091

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 10). Second reading.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 10091

Mr. Blencoe –– 10091

Hon. L. Hanson –– 10091

Sustainable Environment Fund Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

Ms. Edwards –– 10091

Ms. Cull –– 10093

Mr. Clark –– 10095

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I and other members of the Legislative Assembly had the

pleasure of joining you at lunch today with a very prominent visitor,

His Excellency Ernst Andres, Ambassador of Switzerland who is currently

visiting Victoria. Accompanying his Excellency is the consul general of

Switzerland, Mr. Max Inhelder.

We had some interesting

discussions. It is particularly relevant at this time when our national

leaders are debating heavy issues surrounding Confederation. It is

interesting to meet a representative of a country that has existed for

hundreds of years yet includes three separate and distinct cultures and

four languages. Maybe if the House will forgive me, I'll point out the

importance of maintaining a tax structure that allows rewards, and I

understand that Switzerland has a top rate of 40 percent. Would you

please help me welcome our distinguished visitors.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It is my pleasure today to introduce the consul-general of the

Philippines, Ms. Eufronia Recaido, who has visited with His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor this morning and will be having meetings with me

and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). I

would like the House to make our special guest very welcome.

MR. BLENCOE :

In the galleries today are approximately 30 to 40 owners of

manufactured homes in British Columbia. There are too many to introduce

by name, but suffice to say that they are here to hear the debates and

concerns facing them. They are representing the United Mobile Home

Owners' Association of British Columbia and the Active Mobile Home

Owners' Association of British Columbia. Would the House please make

them all welcome today.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Visiting the

precincts this morning and this afternoon and having deliberations in

Victoria yesterday, today and tomorrow, are the Premier's Advisory

Council for Persons with Disabilities, under the chairmanship of Paul

Thiele. I wonder if the House would please make them welcome.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

In the precincts today is Chief Roger Jimrnie from the Kluskus band

west of Quesnel, whose homeland is along the Blackwater area.

Accompanying him is a band member, Archie Chantyman, and they are also

accompanied by their adviser, Bill Horswill. They are making

presentations to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and also

to the Conference on Canada's Timber Resources put on by Forestry

Canada. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : For the Ministry of Social Services and Housing,

we have 13 supervisors of administrative services from region A — that's

Vancouver, Richmond and Delta — visiting the Legislature today. I would ask you

to please make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE :

Visiting in the gallery today are Reg and Louise Armstrong of Mill

Creek Village in Coquitlam. Would the House join me in making them

welcome.

HON. MRS, JOHNSTON : In the gallery this

afternoon are two gentlemen who are very much involved in the

progressive development taking place in the province, and I would ask

the House to please join me in welcoming Richard Ott, president of

Phillips Barratt Kaiser Engineering Ltd., and John Akerley, who is the

vice-president of PBK.

MR. PERRY : I would simply

like, on behalf of the opposition, to second the welcome to the

Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. Although I

can't see them, I assume they're behind me. We look forward very much

to the results of their deliberations and particularly to periodic

publication of their reports.

MS. PULLINGER : Visiting the legislative buildings today are a group of students — a grade 11 social studies class from Ladysmith Secondary School — their

teacher, Mr. Annis, and several other adults. On behalf of the first

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and myself, I would ask the House to

make them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We also have

two other guests with us this afternoon representing the Vancouver

Stock Exchange. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Dave Laundy and

Martha Silver.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr. Mercier presented a bill a bill intituled Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990.

MR. MERCIER :

Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Stock Exchange has a long history of serving

the capital markets of British Columbia, the west and North America.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange has devoted considerable time and effort

on self-regulatory matters to enhance the performance of its members

and improve its service to the investing public.

These

efforts are all the more important as the VSE strives to fill a

significant role in the capital markets of the world. Substantially all

the people involved in the conduct of the business of the VSE share

this global view, and of recent years have dedicated themselves to the

operational and regulatory changes necessary to fulfil those high

aspirations.

This bill is presented to enable the stock exchange to, among other things, ensure that the exchange has

[ Page 10068 ]

jurisdiction

to investigate and discipline persons who have allegedly committed

infractions of exchange bylaws and rules, but who have since left the

industry and ceased to be registered, to standardize the wording of the

act in this regard and to empower the exchange to compel the attendance

of witnesses and the production of documents for regulatory purposes.

This

bill will enable the enforcement of disciplinary measures of the stock

exchange over their members for the greater protection of the public,

and will improve the self-regulation and self-discipline procedures for

application to those who would operate outside the regulations.

closing, it should be noted that the government recognizes the

Vancouver Stock Exchange status, operating under its private act, the

Vancouver Stock Exchange Act of 1907, and consents to this application.

Bill

PR401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

AN ACT TO PROTECT OWNERS

OF MANUFACTURED HOMES, 1990

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled

An Act to Protect Owners of Manufactured Homes, 1990.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to the extensive legislative package that

we are putting before this Legislature to deal with the housing crisis

in the province. The purpose of this bill is to address the dominant

concerns expressed by representatives of 155,000 British Columbians who

live in manufactured homes in their representations to the Mobile Home

Task Force. The key issues were excessive rent increases and fear of

eviction.

This bill does three things. It provides that

actual park owner operating costs may be passed through to the

residents of the park in the form of fair rent increases; it provides

that the costs of any park improvements and major repairs may be passed

through to the residents, with payments amortized over five years and

divided equally among all the homeowners in the park; and it provides

safeguards for manufactured-home owners when the park is proposed for

redevelopment.

All municipal or regional district approvals

must be obtained before eviction notices can be issued. The notice

period is extended from six months to one year, and the developer must

pay reasonable moving expenses up to $10,000 per pad, plus $100 for

each month of residency, up to $3,000, in compensation for the stress

and inconvenience of moving.

Bill M216 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.

HOUSING INITIATIVES FUND ACT, 1990

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled Housing Initiatives Fund Act, 1990.

MR. BLENCOE :

Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to our legislative package of

setting the agenda for housing in the province. The purpose of this

bill is to establish a $5 million housing initiative fund. This fund is

to be used for approved pilot projects that explore new avenues for

dealing with the housing needs of British Columbians.

Under

this bill, developers and community groups would need to demonstrate

that they are putting in resources of their own. The fund is flexible

enough to allow a range of things to be done. Some of the proposals

that might be submitted are alternative methods of cooperative home

ownership, to improve on the present federal program, and alternative

methods of delivering affordable individual home ownership.

Habitat

for Humanity has been building homes on the United States eastern

seaboard for several years. A Victoria

chapter is now organizing the

same kind of program. This fund could be used to contribute on

project-by-project experiment site proposals. Habitat minimizes capital

costs by using as much volunteer labour and donated materials as

possible. Interest-free financing comes from church or community

groups, and mortgage payments are plowed back into building more homes.

[2:15]

There are ways of dealing with homelessness in our society in which

the homeless, community groups, the private sector and government can

work in partnership.

Bill M217 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.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE LOWER COST

FINANCING FOR FIRST-TIME HOME-BUYERS

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled

An Act to Provide Lower Cost Financing for First-Time Homebuyers.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide substantial lower-than-market second mortgages — up to $40,000 —

for first-time home buyers of modestly priced homes. The interest rate

would be linked to the rate at which the provincial government was able

to borrow money— currently at 11.75 to 12.5 percent. Modestly priced

homes are defined as 10 percent below the average selling price of

homes listed with a multiple listing service for the region and sold in

the previous six months. The local financial institution would process

the whole transaction for the homebuyer and minimize the impact on the

taxpayer.

I am concerned by the enormous levels of debt that young people are required to carry in an increas-

[ Page

10069 ]

ingly service-oriented economy to get into a home

of their own. Skyrocketing interest rates mean that what is prudent and

possibly affordable today may not be affordable at renewal time. For

these reasons, it would be a condition of the second-mortgage financing

that the lending institution would agree to participate in the

provincial debtor assistance program if the lender got into

difficulties.

It is not enough just to get young people

into homes of their own. We must do our best to help them stay there.

We are going to be tabling more legislation to help young British

Columbians get into their first home.

Bill M218 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.

Oral Questions

GIFTS TO HOSPITAL BOARD MEMBERS

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health. Could the minister

advise the House what the policy is with respect to

government-appointed hospital board members accepting gifts and/or

services from suppliers of hospital equipment?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, those kinds of policies are normally dealt with by the

individual hospital boards, but I would suggest it would be

inappropriate for members of boards to accept gifts if they're

conditional upon any purchase relationships.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In 1986, in relation to a major purchase,

two board members of the Greater Victoria Hospital Society, Frances

Gooday and Susan Brice, together with three VGH staff members, accepted

a one-week, all-expenses-paid trip to Germany from Siemens Electric.

Does the minister think that this is appropriate for board members?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, we have had many questions and criticisms in this House

concerning the actions of boards. The members opposite don't understand

that boards are autonomous. They do account to the public for their

actions.

I'm aware of the circumstance the member is

referring to. This decision was made public some time ago, shortly

after the decision to visit the Siemens' operation. It was made long

after a contract was entered into by the company. So, Mr. Speaker, that

answers the question in terms of that issue.

MR. CLARK : A supplementary. The minister said the boards are autonomous.

The boards are appointed by the provincial government. This is public money

we're dealing with for the purchase of equipment for hospitals paid for

by the provincial taxpayers.

The

minister knows that subsequent to this trip, major purchases were made

from Siemens Electric, including an MRI unit at the Victoria

hospital — $3.2 million for one piece of equipment.

Can

the minister assure the House that all tendering procedures took place;

that an independent advisory committee recommended the purchase of

Siemens' equipment, rather than what appears to be the case; that

Siemens Electric bought and paid for their purchases from the

provincial government in ways other than the normal tendering procedure?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, the other side is wont to mix up issues. The issue that I

was referring to, in terms of the Siemens' purchase, was substantially

different than any other MRI equipment. The MRI equipment was purchased

by the province— 100 percent funding. It has nothing to do with the

hospital board. It's regional referral equipment, which means that it

is treated as such in terms of funding. The other aspects of the

Siemens contracts were entered into much before the trip the member's

referring to.

SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Health. The minister has previously

assured the public that everything possible is being done to deal with

long hospital waiting-lists for heart surgery. Yet Vancouver General

Hospital has recently cut by 15 percent the number of heart operations

it performs. And last week a 53-year-old woman on the waiting-list died

after an inordinate wait for urgent surgery. How can the minister

reconcile growing waiting-lists and continued nursing-staff shortages

with his public reassurances that everything possible is being done to

address the problem of heart-surgery waiting-lists in the province?

MR. SPEAKER :

Before I recognize the minister.... If the member would choose to

review that question when he has a chance to read the Blues, he'd find

that the way the question is phrased is well beyond the bounds of

normal questions. But the minister may wish to answer.

HON. J. JANSEN :

I was going to spend the next 15 minutes talking about the initiatives

the government has taken in terms of dealing with waiting-lists. But

specifically regarding the open-heart waiting-list, that's an issue

that is of concern to us. As a result, as the member is fully aware, we

have instituted what is called the provincial registry to manage the

waiting list more effectively, and put in place a provincial advisory

committee on cardiac care. What this has shown to us is that two

surgeons in the province....

MR. HARCOURT : It's getting bigger not smaller.

HON. J. JANSEN : Two surgeons — if the Leader of the Opposition is listening — have almost 50 percent of the wait-listed patients for open-heart surgery in

[ Page 10070 ]

the province of British Columbia. We are putting in place a very aggressive plan of action to deal with this problem.

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN : The Leader of the Opposition is here now — we haven't seen him for quite a while — and

maybe he has a question he'd like to ask as well. We are putting in

place additional funding to enable 700 additional cases to be dealt

with this year; and through the number of initiatives we are taking, we

will be addressing this problem very aggressively.

I find

most unfortunate the unfortunate circumstance referred to by the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey in that the patient was dealt with, and

there were some complex medical reasons why her surgery was not

successful. I regret that he is using it as an occasion for his

politics.

MR. PERRY : Supplementary, please. The

facts in that case are remarkably simple. The reason the woman did not

receive her surgery in a timely fashion was that the operating-room was

closed on a Saturday. Will the minister explain how his integrated list

management system worked on that Saturday?

HON. J. JANSEN :

I don't intend to get into the details of the case that the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey is referring to, but I can tell you

this: when the patient was classified as emergent by the physician

responsible, she had care as soon as possible and an operation as soon

as possible after that — within 24 hours.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, the medical facts in the case are that by the time the

operation was performed, it was too late to help that patient. On April

26 the minister promised to provide me a copy of the Dr. Keon report on

the problem of the hospital waiting-list for open-heart surgery. I have

reminded him of that promise, and he has failed to provide me with that

report. Has the minister now decided to make this report public so that

the people of British Columbia can judge for themselves what the

reasons are for the failure of the health care system to meet the needs

of British Columbians?

HON. J. JANSEN : Again I

regret that the member has let his professional competence be

overshadowed by his political beliefs and hasn't informed himself about

the issue he is referring to, the unfortunate circumstance of the death

of Mrs. Sallis.

I have indicated to the member, and I would

be pleased to send the member.... Obviously the mailing system isn't

very effective. Either that or he doesn't open his mail, because he's

around trying to stuff his pockets with government money in terms of

the Medical Plan. But in any event, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I must ask the minister if he was imputing an improper

motive by the member. If you were doing so, would you please withdraw.

HON. J. JANSEN : I certainly was not, Mr. Speaker. That would be the last thing I would want to do.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, I would ask you to take your place. Is there a point of order that a member wishes to raise?

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, I find that remark remarkably offensive. I would challenge

the minister to repeat it outside the House and explain what he means

by it — immediately.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. That is also not a point of order, but the minister has advised that he is not imputing an improper motive.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, following your advice, the minister has already said he

didn't impute any motive. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition the

same question when he hollered "cover-up" across the floor. It's

unparliamentary, and I would ask him to withdraw the remark.

MR. LOVICK : He wasn't recognized.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : No, because he's never here.

MR. SPEAKER : I would ask the Minister of Health to continue.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the problem that was brought to the

attention of the House in terms of open-heart surgery. I had indicated

that we are addressing it through the Provincial Advisory Committee on

Cardiac Care. As the member is aware, the Roy al Columbian will be

coming on stream in October, which will enable 300 additional

procedures to be done. We will then be increasing the throughput at the

Royal Jubilee Hospital by 100, and later on this year we will increase

that by another hundred. We are doing a number of things that would

enable us to be more efficient in terms of the wait-list management

problem. Mr. Speaker, I hope that he now understands the initiatives

the government is taking in this regard.

ROAD BLOCKAGES BY

INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS

MR. SERWA :

My question is directed to the Solicitor-General, and it involves the

road blockages that have been taking place throughout the province by

the independent truckers. Would the minister please advise the House

what steps he has taken to ensure that law and order prevail on our

public highways and public places?

[ Page

10071 ]

MR. SPEAKER : I'm going to allow the question, but I'll ask

the minister to be brief, because when a member asks a question that

would allow the question period to be totally talked out by a minister,

it's far too broad a question. Members of the government back bench

have been particularly out of order in the business of answering

questions that sound like reciting the encyclopedia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, I would only assure the members that the RCMP are doing

what they do best, and that's keeping the highways of British Columbia

open and running.

[2:30]

MR. SERWA :

A supplementary question. Numerous phone calls from my constituents

indicate some question as to the ability of the RCMP to maintain law

and order on the highways of the province, in view of the action. I

would like the minister's comments on that.

PSYCHIATRIC PROGRAM AT

NANAIMO GENERAL HOSPITAL

MS. PULLINGER :

I have a question for the Minister of Health. Despite months of

negotiations and appeals, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital has

been forced to eliminate its entire out-patient psychiatric program

because of continued insufficient funding by this government. How does

the minister reconcile these cuts with his ministry's supposed

commitment to improved, community-based mental health services?

HON. J. JANSEN :

I'm not aware of the details of that. It hasn't been communicated by

the hospital. I appreciate that the member has some interest in Nanaimo

Hospital. This is news to me, and I'll certainly take the question on

notice and have a look at it.

RESIDENCES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is it the minister's

policy that mentally ill patients in Surrey are forced to live in rooms

above a rough hotel like the Turf?

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Speaker, I can't comment. I don't know what the rooms are like or where the hotel is located. What I can tell you — as the member for Nanaimo just recently talked about —

is that we have a mental health plan which has received worldwide

attention. The World Health Organization has commended it as a

yardstick for other jurisdictions to look at.

Obviously a very important component of that is the housing initiative. I've

had an opportunity to visit quite a number of facilities throughout the province

and, in Vancouver, and am aware of some of the deficiencies in some of these

housing units. That is why we have taken a very strong leadership role in dealing

with some of these matters. The mental health plan will be part of that initiative.

MR. D'ARCY :

Point of order. I didn't interrupt question period because of the time

factor, but during the exchange between the Minister of Health and the

second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister of Health used

language and phraseology which the member found offensive.

has been the practice in the House since I have been here that when a

member says words or phrases which another member finds offensive,

those words are withdrawn. I personally do not find it acceptable to

simply have the Minister of Health say: "Oh, I wasn't imputing false

motives." If that were the case, any member of this House could get up

and say anything, no matter how outrageous, about members opposite and

simply sidestep the issue by saying: "I wasn't imputing motives."

Particularly

since the remarks which the member found offensive really had nothing

to do with the Minister of Health's answer, I would very much feel, as

a member of the House, that our interests as a chamber would be served

if the minister simply withdrew the remarks which the member for Point

Grey found offensive.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

Parliamentary practice in this particular House has changed over the

years, but it's tradition that where remarks have been made, the test

we use is that members should ask themselves whether they would be

offended if the same remarks were used about them. Using that as a test

and in order to facilitate the ease of what will obviously be a testy

afternoon, I would ask the Minister of Health to stand and just

withdraw any unparliamentary remark.

HON. J. JANSEN :

It's unfortunate that the member took offence to that comment. What I

meant was that he was busy drawing payment from MSP, and as a member of

the Legislative Assembly maybe he was too busy to avail himself of the

facts relating to certain cases.

MR. SPEAKER : I thank the minister for his clarification, but now I must ask the minister to simply withdraw.

HON. J. JANSEN : I withdraw my comments, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 10072 ]

section 24.

MR. CLARK :

section 24, 1 was asking why non-deposit-taking trust companies

would have a different liquidity test than trust companies that are

retail institutions.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The simple

answer is that if you are not taking deposits, there's no need for that

liquidity ruling. That's why the distinction is made between

deposit-taking institutions and non-deposit-taking trust companies.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the minister. I didn't quite hear your answer

because of the buzz that was going on. The other member has asked me to

inquire on his behalf. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to

repeat the answer, so that I can make a note of it. I'm sorry, I just

didn't hear that because of the noise on this side.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I understand it, the question related to why there is a distinction

between deposit-taking trust companies and all other trust companies.

The distinction is required because you need the liquidity issue

addressed only in the case of deposit-taking trust companies.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

MR. CLARK :

This is a large section, and it deals with the statutory minimum

capital base. I wonder if the minister has at his disposal how many

financial institutions currently adhere to the capital-base rules It

seems to me that many of them are — or have been — out of

compliance. Does this, in fact, make it a stronger test? Is a larger

capital base required to conduct business, and will that be rigorously

applied?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : At the moment, the

issue primarily relates to credit unions. There are about 20 under

supervision as a consequence of our concern.

MR. CLARK :

That's more to the point. There are roughly 20 credit unions that are

under supervision for not having adequate capital reserves, the

minister says. That sounds about right. This

section of the bill seems

to make the capital requirements more onerous than in the past.

Therefore, is it likely that more credit unions will be required to

come under supervision as a result of the passage of this bill?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : It is intended to increase the capital requirements over a period of time —

in the order of five to eight years. As the hon. member knows, credit

unions are currently doing very well. We are very pleased with the

dramatic improvement in the system as a consequence of the current

strong economic activity. It probably will take five to eight years to

get to where we want to be.

MR. CLARK : I certainly

understand the answer, but I don't see it in the bill. In other words,

if we're passing a bill, I don't see a phase-in period and all that.

The

problem I have is that we have certain capital requirements now, which

in some cases haven't been adhered to. The government has now put them

under supervision. To strengthen those capital requirements, however

desirable — to put them in legislation — surely they have to be

enforced. Of course, this has been part of the problem in the western

provinces, In North America, over the last little while. Recession,

political pressure and the problems of actually enforcing legislation

at the time the violation happens are very difficult questions for

politicians to deal with and have caused some problems.

are bringing in legislation to strengthen the capital requirements,

which I certainly agree with. But I have some concern that they won't

be met, and that seems to be the problem. If we don't enforce these

regulations rigorously.... A phase-in period is fine; I don't have any

problem with that. But at some point— and there should be some allusion to that in the bill or somewhere —

there is a period when "we hope to get to where we want to be," to use

the minister's terms. And at that point the rules are applied

rigorously and aggressively so we don't run into problems of inadequate

capital reserves.

My great concern about strengthening the capital requirements is that we're not there now with the old requirements — here we are strengthening them —

and it could lead to some problems down the road. I wonder if the

Minister has thought about that. If there is a five- or eight-year

period when this would be phased in, how would that be applied in this

bill? Is it possible for the government to phase it in? I'm sure it's

possible, but I don't see in the bill a phase-in period of five to

eight years. Perhaps I haven't read it thoroughly enough.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : That level of detail will be provided in the regulations.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

MR. CLARK : I wonder if the minister could just clarify the prohibition against unauthorized trust business — why we need an amendment to that effect. I recall an amendment to that effect last year.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The language in this one parallels the language in the FIA which establishes a prohibition — who am I speaking to? He asked the question and then disappeared, did he? — against unauthorized deposit business. So it's really an initiative to bring conformity into the wording.

MR. SIHOTA : Our debate leader may have disappeared, but we are still interested in asking some questions of the minister.

[ Page

10073 ]

I am not too sure what would amount to an unauthorized trust

business. Can the minister give me an example of what the

section

contemplates there when it talks about an unauthorized trust business?

[2:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Clearly the government doesn't want to see anyone purport to be a trust

company, so they have to be authorized by the appropriate authority. I

am not quite sure what the member is trying to get at here.

MR. SIHOTA :

You may have answered my question there. I take it what you are saying

under this

section is that if you want to engage in this activity, you

have to be authorized under the statute to be able to do it. If you are

authorized, you can proceed. If you are not, then you can't. That's

really all you're trying to do then? Fine.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the minister be kind enough to explain to us what the purpose of this

section is?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The old

section 75 establishes a prohibition against any person

carrying on insurance business unless they are exempted from the

prohibition. This will be changed to delete the unnecessary words in

paragraph (a), to add an exemption from the prohibition for insurance

agents and insurance adjusters carrying on insurance business only in

that capacity, to correct an incorrect cross-reference, and to provide

an exemption from the prohibition for credit unions and central credit

unions carrying on insurance business as permitted under the Credit

Union Act.

MR. SIHOTA : So I take it that prior to

this

section there was an error. Credit unions could engage in

insurance business, but for some reason this act prohibited them, and

you are just doing some housecleaning. Is that understanding correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Basically that's correct. The member might remember that we

grandfathered existing credit unions who had been in that business, so

they are allowed to remain in it.

Section 27 passed.

section 28.

MR. SIHOTA : I don't know what a patronage allocation Is, but it

creates all sorts of images in my mind. Again, if the minister could be kind

enough to explain to the House what the intent of

section 28 is....

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the words "patronage allocation"

excited the interest of the hon. member. It basically refers to mutual

insurance holders who receive payments back from the corporation in

which they have their insurance under the mutual system. In any event,

this

section amends previous sections to add that ability basically for

mutual insurance clients.

Section 28 approved.

section 29.

MR. SIHOTA : Again, could the minister quickly indicate to us what the intent of that

section is?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This really recasts some of the sections in consistent language.

Nothing has changed in this from the original act, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 29 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MR. SIHOTA : Can the minister explain the intention behind

section 33?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The old

section 93(1) enables the superintendent to prohibit an insurer

from using a form of contract or advertisement that is misleading or

deceptive. However, the intent of that

section was to regulate

contracts in advertising used by all financial institutions, not just

insurers. This amendment clarifies that the superintendent can prohibit

the use of misleading or deceptive forms of contract or advertising by

any financial institution.

MR. SIHOTA : That raises

two thoughts. The first, I guess, is that if you use the Principal

Trust situation as an example -the minister and I are both somewhat

familiar with it — would this provision prohibit someone in that

kind of activity from falsely suggesting that the contract is in some

way covered by the provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance

Corporation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The old Investment Contract Act did not contain such a provision.

MR. SIHOTA : So I take it that this provision would fill that gap. Or am I wrong on that?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, all these sections have the effect of improving

legislation, and this

section is typical of the others. They all deal

with changes that were deemed prudent. But I think I have answered the

member's question.

MR. SIHOTA : I remember that in the Principal Trust situation, people had brought to our attention — and it was raised subsequently in the House — the fact that people advertise on their doors as if to suggest that all their activities are covered by deposit

[ Page 10074 ]

insurance

when only some of them are. Could the minister explain why that

scenario was not attended to In this legislation or in this section?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I believe that the issue the member is referring to relates to the

inference that Canada deposit insurance is available to the

institution. That issue received considerable discussion between

ourselves and Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation officials. It is

indeed a chronic problem and one that the federal authorities are aware

of. We certainly have transmitted that message.

MR. SIHOTA : So you're saying that it's simply a federal matter, and the province believes that it has no jurisdiction to enter into it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

No, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to mislead the House here. It's just

that my belief is that the member, in talking about the Principal Trust

issue, is referring to the question of deceptive advertising on the

doors of Principal Group companies, which implied that all the

companies domiciled in that office had CDIC coverage when in fact they

didn't. On that issue, we have had extensive discussions with the

federal government. It is clearly a federal institution and one that

they themselves control.

MR. SIHOTA : I think that

this is a good provision, because this protection ought to be available

and this scrutiny ought to be in place to ensure that financial

institutions are monitored and that the information they provide to

potential borrowers is not in any way deceptive or misleading. It has

been unfortunate that we have had situations in the past in which

information has not been particularly clear, and consequently people

have entered into agreements with financial institutions with the

expectation that a particular state of affairs is in place. Things are

fine so long as the company remains solvent, but once it becomes

insolvent, these concerns are raised.

Section 33 purports to deal with what I think is a concern out there in the public eye. Hopefully the superintendent — with greater vigour than perhaps has been the case —

will consider the form of contract and be a little more vigorous in

terms of determining whether contracts violate the provisions of the

act. If they are misleading or deceptive, certainly action should be

taken. So I think that's a welcome section.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

MR. CLARK :

This provides financial institution directors with any costs, expenses

and charges pertaining to their duties.... If they get sued, their

defence of that action can be paid for by the financial institution. In

the case of a credit union, if some credit union director is sued for

whatever reason, the costs associated with that can be paid for by the

credit union, provided it's in the course of their duties. Is that

correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Provided they've acted honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the financial institution.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

MR. CLARK :

I just wonder If the minister could explain "may require prescribed

financial information." It seems to me that that's appropriate. I just

wonder if the minister has an explanation as to why it's not "will"

require. It seems to me it should be a requirement.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

One of the difficulties is that we don't know in advance what kind of

data might be relevant to any particular examination by the

superintendent, so clearly it's our intention to be able to capture

whatever data might be relevant to any particular issue at the moment.

This will do that.

MR. CLARK : This doesn't deal with routine matters; this is an extraordinary matter with respect to some investigation. Is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

That's correct, Mr. Chairman. It could relate to things at the moment

unseen, but it could also include regulatory reports prepared by other

jurisdictions, that we become aware of.

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

MR. CLARK :

I just wonder what the significance of this is. This just deals with

authority delegated from the Financial Institutions Commission to the

superintendent. Previously the powers vested in the commission did not

give them power to delegate, and this allows that delegation. Is this

correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Yes.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

MR. CLARK :

I am just curious about this provision which allows credit unions, upon

approval with the superintendent, to exceed the limits established by

regulation on commercial loans. I don't really have any objection to

some kind of flexibility, but it seems to me that if you're going to

have regulations established pursuant to rather detailed legislation to

protect people, it's odd to allow the superintendent to waive that with

respect to credit unions. I wonder if the minister could just give me

some comments on that.

[ Page

10075 ]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : Oh, it's a sunset

provision. Is it to deal with any loans which may be at variance with

the regulations now and to allow them to phase those out? Is that the

purpose of it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Basically, Mr.

Chairman, we believe that the strict prohibition against making

commercial loans, unless approved by the regulator, is paternalistic

and inconsistent with the thesis of the regulatory scheme, which is

self-management and responsibility. We wanted to have a phase-out

period so that the credit union movement could become accustomed to

this new situation, so we envisioned a two-year phase-out period.

During the two-year period, as credit unions demonstrate their

commercial lending skills, they would be released from their

requirement individually.

[3:00]

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

MR. CLARK : An area of interest to me — and one of the few concerns that I have —

is the rule that extraprovincial corporations in British Columbia are

not governed by legislation in British Columbia. I wonder if the

minister could clarify what this attempts to do with respect to

regulating extraprovincial corporations, to which it refers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Basically, Mr. Chairman, with this amendment we wanted to make sure

that extraprovincial corporations had to comply with all sections of

the Financial Institutions Act that have general application. We felt

that it was prudent to make that clarification.

MR. CLARK : What does not apply —

or is that too difficult a question to answer? For example, do the

capital reserve requirements referred to in the act apply to

extraprovincial corporations or not?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK :

I appreciate that. I guess the Financial Institutions Commission will

rely on the home jurisdiction to file the appropriate reports with

respect to how they're complying with regulations in that regime. Is

that how this bill is enforced?

I appreciate that the minister is striving, as are many others, for harmonization

of this kind of legislation across Canada, which will make this a lot easier.

But in the absence of that harmonization, is the Financial Institutions Commission

apprised of the various rules in different provinces? An extraprovincial corporation

with its headquarters in, say, Alberta may have different capital requirements.

Would we then be in a position to scrutinize it and penalize, or to deal with

any problems that might arise with respect to the different rules that are now

cast in British Columbia and elsewhere?

What does not apply to extraprovincial corporations operating in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, the memorandum of agreement that we spearheaded between

the western provinces imposes a requirement that we must be advised if

there are concerns in the home jurisdiction. But our powers are not

limited to that. We have the authority to proceed unilaterally against

an extraprovincial company if we so choose. With this early-warning

mechanism that we have in place, it should be possible for us to

monitor very well the operation of extraprovincial companies— certainly much better than prior to the memorandum being negotiated.

MR. CLARK :

I appreciate that. Could the minister advise the House who's culpable?

In other words, if there's a problem with an extraprovincial

corporation operating in British Columbia, is it the province or the

home jurisdiction that bears the responsibility for that, given these

rules?

It seems to me that if you've been advised of a

problem and you take no action in British Columbia.... This is

reminiscent of the Principal affair. Does that make the provincial

government responsible in any way for any problems that that

corporation might have and any suffering that it may cause investors in

British Columbia? Given that you do have this memorandum of

understanding and you do have notification, it seems to me that that

puts the province in the position of being responsible for deciding how

to apply our rules to that corporation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Clearly it's difficult to deal with a hypothetical situation.

Presumably, were events to unravel to that extent, it would be the

subject of a court case, and the facts at the time would determine the

outcome.

May I just point out for the record, and for the

hon. member's attention, that this is not typical of the Principal

Group. The evidence in that situation is clearly the reverse. It was

the province of B.C. that led the requirement to visit that entire

situation. I think the record is clear in that respect.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman' we'll have this debate in the estimates; I won't debate

it here. Clearly the province also allowed the selling of investment

certificates during a time when the province knew that they were not

conforming to the legislation of the day. Nothing in this act prevents

that from happening again, it seems to me. If the government knows of a

fact and chooses not to act on it, the government will then be— as in the Principal Trust affair — held responsible to a certain extent, depending on the facts of the day.

I'm prepared to pass the remaining sections of this bill. Essentially they seem to be consequential amendments.

Sections 46 to 76 inclusive approved.

[ Page 10076 ]

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 32, Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 39.

TAXATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, I had some discussion with the minister around the

philosophy of the property purchase tax in his estimates, so I won't do

that here. I'm prepared to proceed to

section 8.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. CLARK :

I remember discussing the question of railway rights-of-way, I think,

with respect to taxation. I wonder if the minister could just explain

to me the rolling-stock controversy addressed in these amendments. I'll

just give you my assumption, and you can tell me if it's correct. The

Social Service Tax Act becomes quite complex when you get into

interprovincial jurisdiction. Therefore there must be some formula to

work out the percentage of business conducted in British Columbia in

order to collect the tax. I just wonder whether that's the case here,

and if this has to do with railway rolling-stock which moves

interprovincially. This is the formula arrived at and agreed to, I

presume, by other provinces with respect to that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Yes.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. CLARK : We're moving kind of quickly, so I thought I'd ask the minister to explain

section 14, if he could.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I brought the House down with my in-depth discussion of this at second

reading, so I'm surprised that the hon. member wants to repeat it. This

amendment corrects an inequity by allowing a refund where a purchaser

of contract to improve real property is incorrectly charged tax on the

full amount of the contract. Do you remember that fascinating

elucidation?

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 39, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 20.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 2, in the proposed

section 4(l)(z.94)(ii), by deleting

"conveyance" and substituting "tangible personal property".]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK : Whenever there are amendments, I would appreciate it if the minister could inform me of their purpose — seeing as I didn't catch this one in Orders of the Day .

I know the minister is looking for it. If the minister could explain, for the House, the purpose of the amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN : The amendment does appear on the order paper, hon. member.

MR. CLARK :

Yes, and I apologize to the House for not reviewing it before. I

thought I'd ask the minister to explain why such a small amendment is

required. Was something missed in drafting? What is the purpose of the

amendment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : This amendment merely

establishes that lease payments under a sale leaseback transaction are

exempt from tax, provided the applicable tax has been paid. It really

qualifies as a housekeeping amendment.

[3:15]

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

[ Page

10077 ]

section 3.

MR. CLARK : This is a rather unusual

little amendment, and I thought I'd ask for clarification. It says that

electricity used as a source of energy does not qualify for the

exemption from tax given to tangible personal property. I'm just

curious as to who was using electricity or energy and trying to declare

a tax exemption on it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : This

arises from a court decision, Mr. Chairman. It really deals with the

electrolytic process where an electric current is passed through

substances whose composition is changed as a result. A 1985 court

action established that electricity used in this manner qualifies for

the exemption. We wanted to clarify that.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 20, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 20, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 24, Private Post-Secondary Education Act.

MR. PETERSON : May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON : It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House

26 grade 7 students from Credo Christian Elementary School accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. John Roukema, and other adults. Would the House please join me

in making them very welcome to our precincts.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY

EDUCATION ACT

(continued)

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order, it might have slipped the government House

Leader's mind, but I think we agreed that the University of Northern

British Columbia Act might precede Bill 24 because of its interest. The

minister agreed to that. Would that be satisfactory? He has to leave

early.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The minister wishes that we do them in this order.

MR. ROSE : I told everybody here something else, that's all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Are we proceeding with second reading of Bill 24?

MR. ROSE : I move debate be adjourned on this particular bill and ask....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE : Do you want me to adjourn the debate? I get it. You're asking me to proceed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : If you want to, you can take your place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : This is all very unparliamentary.

MR. ROSE :

Since you asked, and we're going to insist on going on with this, I

suppose I will. I don't know whether this will be the world's greatest

speech that I've ever made, but....

It looks to me that

what we're concerned about here is a kind of a self-policing mechanism

for private-enterprise, entrepreneurial schools. It's a system much

more appropriate to our neighbours to the south, who seem to have a

much stronger ideological bent for that sort of thing than we have

here. This party is not all that pleased with the proposal. Whether or

not the businessmen who own these schools.... I imagine, like anything

else, they vary from excellent to mediocre to rotten, and some are

merely fronts to raise money from unsuspecting immigrants. We have seen

examples of the collapse of those schools and things that are not,

educationally, particularly sound. We're concerned about this.

We're

not dealing here with the College of Physicians, the Law Society or the

college of engineers. We're dealing with a group of people who are

essentially self-policing businessmen, and we wonder whether or not

this is a satisfactory way to organize, legislate and control, if you

like, the activities of people who are in the education business for

profit. That is a major concern of ours, and I don't think we should

try and hide it. Somehow, through some kind of commission- I know this

calls for a particular commission nominated. by the industry

itself —

[ Page 10078 ]

we've

got to make certain that the consumer is protected. We're not satisfied

that he is, under this set of circumstances. That bothers us as well.

don't think it's the Canadian way. If you don't have enough inspectors

or enforcement people, then it's possible to get away with murder and

not provide the public with the educational services they require and

in fact demand.

I had an occasion a few years ago when my

daughter attended a craft school with a promise of a job thereafter. I

think she made a very nice candle while she was there, after two or

three months. The job she was offered was an opportunity to go and sell

some of these craft materials to the public if she opened a store. That

was really a matter of false pretences. She was a young woman and was

quite taken in by this outfit. I don't know if your commission would

protect us from what I would regard as fraudulent activities of that

nature. That's another concern with us.

What we have to

guard against is the kind of deceptive advertising that some of these

mills get away with. If it's self-policing owners of diploma mills,

then I'm not convinced the self-policing will be particularly effective.

could get into all kinds of other things. Do we have the commissioner

investigate the financial stability of these groups? Are we likely to

run into a situation in which people pay fees and then the educational

goods are not delivered? There's something else that worries us a bit.

Another thing that bothers us somewhat is something that happened a while back

— I think two or three years ago — where the lobbyist for the independent schools

became an employee of the Ministry of Education. In other words, the lobbyist

for independent schools became the inspector of independent schools. I think

there was an innate conflict of interest in that regard. On the other hand I

suppose it could be argued: who would know more about them? Therefore he would

be a good catch. I don't buy that We're worried about similar things

happening.

I suppose this is a question more appropriate for committee stage. We have Trinity Western, for instance — now a university, but a privately endowed one. Would that be investigated as well? Would that come under this umbrella?

had a private bill here a few years ago. I think the minister might

have been on that committee at the time. Trinity Western promised to do

a certain number of things if they were able to grant degrees. Further,

they came back and said: "We're under the umbrella of Simon Fraser, and

we would like to do more than just grant undergraduate degrees. We

would like to go into the graduate field." I don't know if anybody ever

checked to see if they did those things as they moved along. Would this

commission be charged with that responsibility? Would it have the

manpower— if you like, the firepower — to do that effectively? We don't know that either.

Those

are some of the things that bother us. These people may be

self-serving; they may not be. But it seems to me that in all instances

where we try to protect the public, we get people in it such as the

ombudsman or the auditor-general, who have no interest in it so there's

no conflict. They are capable people, but they are appointed from

outside, and they are insulated from being influenced by their own

special interests. We all have our biases; we're not talking about that

at the moment.

Anyway, I feel the government's job is to

advocate for students. It's the government's job to protect the public

here. It isn't a private commission of some sort appointed from the

industry. It's not a licensing body. The government should be an

advocate for students, not a licensing body for some sort of

educational flimflam that may be foisted on the public.

Those

are among the principal concerns. I don't know what kind of outfits

we've got. Somebody said there are 400 of them in British Columbia— 473

or something like that. I don't know whether they are diploma mills or

what they are or what their fee

schedule is. There is all that consumer

protection; I think it is important.

Somebody else

mentioned that you've got mandatory regulations but you've got

voluntary accreditation. That seems to be upside-down as well. We're

not very happy about this. What kind of diploma mills are going to be

operating? We have no idea as we move into this sort of American-style

entrepreneurial education. Are we going to have the Majestic Technical

College of Medical Truss Builders? Are we going to have the Hirsute

Barber and Hairdressing School, or the Hong Kong Language and Culture

Academy, or the Autoharp and Kazoo Conservatory for Advanced Folk

Music? We don't know what we're going to get. We could get all kinds of

exotic, interesting educational institutions, and there doesn't seem to

be any limit to their number.

We want to make sure they are serving an educational purpose, that they are on the up-and-up — not fraudulent — that people get value for their money, and that the educational fare is nutritious and fulfilling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Minister of Social Services and Housing seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

On behalf of the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) and myself, it

is with great pleasure that I introduce Miss D. Ash, a teacher, and 25

of her students from Durieu Elementary School in Mission. They are

grade 6 and 7 students. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues who have expressed some concern

about the situation respecting the post-secondary private schools and

the way they are managed. This proposal will perhaps remove them even

further from public responsibility— that is, responsiveness to the people

[ Page

10079 ]

they serve — so there are some questions with respect to this commission that will be set up.

Will

it be accountable? Will it be in a conflict-of-interest situation,

perhaps? I understand they will be the bearers of the financial

responsibilities for monitoring the activities of these private schools.

I haven't had a great deal of personal experience as far as the schools are concerned, but I do recall....

Beg pardon?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You haven't had much experience with the bill either.

MR. BARNES :

Well, I've had enough. I listened to the member for Burnaby North (Mr.

Jones) speak on the bill about a week or two ago, and he did an

excellent job of critiquing the bill. He went into great detail about

the number of these schools that exist. I was amazed that there are

hundreds. How many is it? Three or four hundred?

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Four hundred and sixty five.

MR. BARNES :

Four hundred and sixty-five private institutions. Well, I would

certainly shut.... You don't have to shut them down; they close

themselves down when business isn't good, and that's the problem.

haven't had that many experiences with them, but I had an experience

with one particular institution last year. Here is a letter that I

wrote to the former Minister of Consumer Services at the time. I'm not

sure what the Minister actually did, but I think he did call for an

investigation. This was January 18, 1988. In fact, it was longer ago

than I thought; it was almost a year and a half ago., I said:

"Over the weekend past I received a most disturbing telephone

call from a student who has been attending a privately operated training school

at 1901, 4330 Kingsway, called Success Unlimited Institute. If the information

I received is correct — and the evidence indicates it is — the management at

Success Unlimited Institute gave students and staff the day off on Friday, January

15, 1988, presumably to allow time to vacate the premises undetected. A suspicious

instructor queried management's motives and subsequent investigation discovered

the school was closing."

This

is the kind of thing that we certainly don't want to continue. This

particular story turned out not too bad, because the minister

responded, intervened and had to scramble to find alternative courses

so that these students would not lose the funds they had invested, plus

get their credits or diplomas to seek employment as they had intended.

But the government had to rescue that situation.

I would hope this legislation is going to improve the situation. I would like

the minister to explain how that's going to be done, because it's private.

It seems as though you're removing it a step further from the government's

purview, and this is an example where privatization has to be regulated in the

interests of the public or the consumer.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES :

Well, I hope it works. We know what your intentions are. I'm not

suggesting your motive is to weaken the situation, but sometimes

inadvertently that's exactly what happens, because this is education

for profit. These operators are not necessarily committed to the best

interests of the student at all cost. Cost is the bottom line. If they

can afford to, they will give them the best they can, but profit is the

main motive; that's the purpose of business.

When you get

business and education mixed, there are always some concerns about

quality and the protection of the consumers of that product.

Nonetheless, I would just caution the minister, and I would like to go

on record as saying that ideally, when people go for an education, we

should be concerned that the first responsibility of whoever is

providing the service is that they be accredited, that the quality be

there, that the very best instruction possible be made available and

that the costs involved be sufficient to ensure a commitment and some

guarantee that the program will be provided and will be consistent and

that students are not caught unawares by scams and get-rich-quick

operators.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will hope that the

minister will address in his windup.... Actually, a few more people are

going to speak, but as far as I'm concerned, I'll be listening to the

minister address in his windup remarks some of the concerns that have

been expressed on this side of the House.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I am very pleased to enter into this debate on Bill 24 this afternoon

about privatizing private training institutes. When I first came to the

Legislature and had responsibility for a segment of the Advanced

Education minister's responsibilities— namely, job training — I was

singularly appalled by the record of this government in the management

and regulation of these 450 private training schools, with thousands of

students registered in them. The minister notes that there are now 460.

Mr.

Speaker, just to put it on the record again, this government has been

dealing with the private education institutions with two

full-time-equivalent employees— one to anchor an office and the other

to have everything to do with the registration and regulation of the

schools. And who has been unprotected by this laissez-faire attitude of

government? The students of these schools.

Let's make it

clear that students who attend private training institutions have their

attendance in most instances supported by student loans which pay their

fees, fees which are no bargain in their absolute cost and— quite often we found —

no bargain either in the training and education that students have

received. So the record of this government's dealing with private

training institutions in the interests of

[ Page 10080 ]

job training for the students who have attended them or who plan to attend them has been abysmal.

The

second thing I want to point out is that there are certain traditions

in this country on what we do for profit, and I think there are two

areas where most of us believe that government - and through

government, those who offer services - should operate largely In a

non-profit arena. We should ensure that the services delivered are

excellent, that the people who provide the services are well trained

and well paid and that those in receipt of the services can therefore

be assured that the quality is of a standard that we can all recognize

as being in our best interests.

The two fields where I

think there is a very strong perspective that government should

continue to be very extensively involved are education and health. But

indeed, in the field of education for job training, the government has

chosen, instead of providing for these services within its institutions

— which are mandated by government to colleges and universities and other training mechanisms — to have these services developed in the private sector.

Now

we have a bill intended to provide some changes and some protection for

the students attending these institutes. It is certainly an improvement

on the very bad record of this government to date, but is it an

improvement that we should applaud and support?

I have some

real concerns about this legislation, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the

government is now moving to divest itself entirely of any

responsibility for private training institutes. And as I've noted

earlier, there are a very large number of them. I believe that British

Columbia has the largest number of any province in the country, which

again tells us something about this government's commitment and agenda

on making affordable education available to students. It is proposing a

piece of legislation that only in a limited way provides for the

protection of students. It continues to require that schools be

registered, and it may in fact provide some slight improvements around

the regulation of these schools, but there is no requirement for

schools to be accredited. There is no requirement, therefore, for these

schools to have standards that are recognized and can be known not only

to students but to the public at large.

There is some

protection for students around the schools defaulting and their tuition

therefore being refundable. It's a very modest improvement when I think

of the number of students I have talked to over the last three years

who have enrolled in private training institutions and who have had no

protection whatsoever.

There are excellent private training

institutes. They do a good job for the students they serve. However,

the cost of education under private training institutions is high. Many

students are paying something in the order of $3,000, $4,000, $5,000,

even $6,000 for what we would consider to be a semester— four, five, or six months of training.

These

schools are marketed in ways often that present unrealistic

expectations to students about what will be available to them after

they have finished with that training. Many of the people at these

schools are students who are already financially disadvantaged by lack

of education, lack of training— students who have a long way to go before they can move into the job market.

What

we are dealing with in this legislation is the broad picture of how we

are going to providing good training for students in the province and

of how we are going to do that in a way that protects the interests of

students.

Over a number of estimates in this House this

year I have raised with the Minister of Advanced Education, Training

and Technology and with the Minister of Social Services and Housing

some of the challenges that we have in respect to providing appropriate

training for women— women who need upgrading, bridge training and

specific skill training. Many of these women are going to be served by

these private training institutions because of the government's failure

to provide space and opportunity for them within our colleges and BCIT

and other public institutions.

In my discussions in other

estimates, Mr. Speaker, I have noted that in many instances we need for

these students a very special quality of training that takes them from

where they are in terms of the life skills that they need, upgrading in

some of their academic qualifications and specific skill training. In

most Instances these institutes— indeed even our public institutions — and other training opportunities are not adequate for students.

we are asking these students to use these institutes to borrow very

large sums of money under the student loan fund to try to achieve the

kind of success that they so desperately want to become a part of the

economic mainstream.

[3:45]

In turning these institutes over to a new set of regulations that

does not require accreditation and that does not have government

involved in the planning and coordination of the services offered in

these schools, we are just continuing the abandonment of many students

whom we need to provide for much better if they are to be a part of the

mainstream of our economy through the educational opportunities

available to them.

Although this particular legislation

does provide at least some improvements in the protection of students,

they are too little, too late— and based on a faulty premise that is

related to this government's thrust towards privatization. If we can

foist onto individuals the responsibility for paying the full cost of

their education, then that is in fact the initiative that this

government has taken.

Therefore this legislation moves us

backward rather than forward. It creates more problems than it solves.

It does not provide the kind of protection that students are going to

need for them to be fully aware and fully in tune with what these

institutes are able to offer. It is out of the mainstream of our public

[ Page

10081 ]

institutions and therefore provides us with yet more problems around bridging and upgrading and all of those issues.

puts students who attend these institutes at a disadvantage. In fact

their fees may very well go up, because instead of government taking

some responsibility for regulation and accreditation, that cost is

going to be borne by the private institutes themselves. Those

institutes will presumably be raising their fees to cover those costs.

Once again the student will pay by not necessarily having an institute

whose educational offerings have any kind of scrutiny by those who

would be concerned about the standards of teachers, the standards of

equipment, the standards of curriculum. There will be some basic

regulation, but nothing more is required unless the school decides that

it would seek accreditation. This kind of laissez-faire privatization

in the field of education is a retrograde step.

It's

interesting that this minister is moving in that direction at the same

time the Minister of Education, in funding and regulating and dealing

with curriculum that's offered in our private K-to-12 schools, is

seeking much more accountability, much closer integration with

standards that we all accept.

This minister is moving us at

odds with that thrust, even within the public system. All too often,

Mr. Speaker, we find this government looking to the United States for

models that we know have failed, that have not served students. That is

what I fear will be the case in respect to this legislation.

will mean a loss of accountability through government quality control.

Without an arm's-length relationship in terms of regulation of these

schools, without requirements for their accreditation, without there

being some kind of stipulations around fees, these schools can charge

the limit.

We, the taxpayers, will subsidize them through

student loans. Students will continue to have a less-than-adequate

educational opportunity, because government will use these schools as

the escape valve for its own failure to provide for educational

opportunity within our college, institute and university systems. We

will be going backwards, rather than forwards.

It's

regrettable that for the first time that we are looking at any kind of

genuine regulation of the private institutes, we are looking at moves

that I don't believe, in the long term, are going to be in the best

interests of very often our most needy and disadvantaged students as

they seek to be in the mainstream and get the training that they need

for participation in our economy.

I have institutes in my own riding that provide an excellent service for students,

and I want to make it clear how much I value that approach. It is an approach

that tells us what can be available within the private institutes. Many of these

institutes are operated on a non-profit basis. Some of them work with our school

district in terms of the programs they offer. They offer programs that are very

often bridging and upgrading, as well as specific skill-training programs. But

I believe those are still too much the exception rather than the rule. There's

too much opportunity here for franchising a whole range of programs that will

cost students a great deal of money, that will not guarantee a quality of education,

and that allows the government to wash its hands of its responsibility to regulate

and accredit these institutions under its own aegis. That's a retrograde

step that I very much regret.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, in the "Enabling Learners" document, "Year 2000: A

Framework for Learning, " "Options Within the Graduation Program" reads

as follows:

"There will be several options within the graduation program

from which students may choose. The options will provide choices in the areas

of career programs, general liberal arts programs, and programs designed specifically

to prepare students for admission to post-graduation studies at other institutions,

including universities.

"Because

the selection of an option will affect students' plans after

graduation, school staff and parents have a vital role to play in

assisting students to make wise choices...."

The streams

which are recommended include humanities, sciences, fine arts and

practical arts. Practical arts include physical education, technology

education, business education and home economics. That is the area

which I'd like to focus my attention on.

Why am I talking

about K-to-12 programs in debate on a bill which has to do with

post-graduation? Well; I'll tell you. When the Minister of Education

outlined his post-Sullivan plans for the education system, a certain

concept arose called the grade 10 leaving certificate.

When

my community and my constituency got wind of the grade 10 leaving

certificate, and when they saw the documentation which suggested.... An

actual funnel was drawn to show intake of students into kindergarten.

As they proceeded through the high-school system, their numbers were

gradually whittled down, and when one got to grade 10, one could see

the graphic dramatically narrow so that the catchment of students who

had come in at kindergarten took on the shape of a funnel. By the time

students reached grade 12, they were down to a fraction of what they

formerly represented in terms of students graduating from our schools.

Why do I connect that with this? Mr. Speaker, at that point in time, two years ago, people in this province — parents, students, administrators —

started to understand that there might be a move afoot here to

basically start to encourage our high school students to graduate from

the practical arts in grade 10 and move to private institutions. There

is nothing in this bill before us today to suggest that this scenario

is not a real one, that this is not a cog in a larger machine which

will basically attempt to privatize practical arts or vocational

training from grade 10 onwards, to basically push into the private

sector— the unorganized, the unsupervised, the unaccredited and sometimes the unlicensed private

[ Page 10082 ]

sector — our kids, our students, unprotected from the vagaries of private schooling for the practical arts.

Rationalizations, programs and plans at BCIT would suggest that scenario as the vocational training — formerly once a proud part of BCIT —

is being pushed out to community colleges that cannot afford to take

them in. Community colleges, faced with cutbacks in federal training

programs and provincial training dollars, are also faced with having to

make hard choices as to whether they're going to become university

colleges or continue to upgrade and maintain the quality of their

community college programs in the trades and vocations. I'd suggest

that this is indeed one piece in the middle of a much larger puzzle

which is going to continue the disruption, the downgrading and the

devaluing of our whole vocational training system in this province.

colleague from New Westminster has said the students will pay. Yes,

they will. They'll be paying through the nose for private schooling, in

what was formerly public schooling, to get vocational training More

importantly, Mr. Speaker, it will be society that pays as our young

people from the ages of 16 on, who are interested in going into

vocational trades, are going to be seeking their training from private

schools. Now how are we going to pay? Those students will be

approaching those private schools which will, according to this bill,

be self-monitoring, self-licensing, self-accrediting and responsible to

— whom? — themselves.

We've known that we have had 400

to 450 private schools in this province, and we know that after this

bill goes through, there are going to be a great many more. I have some

private schools and private businesses in my own constituency that

teach computer technology. I think they are reasonably good operations

and that they have some credibility. They have good people who have

started them and worked at them. My major concern is that these

organizations, under this bill, do not have a firm, solid

accountability to us the government; and we, in turn, are losing our

thread of accountability with parents, communities and students.

Ultimately we will pay, as students leave grade 10 to go into a private

system for their training, to be turned out into the community into

low-paying jobs from institutions whose diplomas and certificates will

not be recognized - perhaps not even in our own province, let alone

across the country. Their credits will not be transferable into other

provinces or into the United States. We are not guaranteeing ourselves

a very vibrant future for our trades and for our so-called practical

arts.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I have to

note again that I would guess that far more than 50 percent of the

young students who will be going into these colleges will be women. I

must say once again that it will be young women who are put onto a

market which will be devalued, in which their work will continue to be

devalued and in which their efforts, certificates and diplomas will not

carry weight.

[4:00]

How do you rectify it? What do you do when you have a bad situation?

You take a look around at what we do with other organizations when it

comes to licensing and accrediting. Many professional organizations we

deal with daily in this House....

Mr. Speaker, I'm having

difficulty here. I have a very good train of thought, and I'm really

trying to develop it here. I'm finding it difficult to pursue it when

I'm facing backs on the other side of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Order, please, members. There appears to be some excessive noise in the

House at this point. Please hold it down. Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. MARZARI :

Yes, Mr. Minister, I'm trying to develop a train of thought for you so

that you can see that there are some positive ways to actually do it.

do find it difficult when I find myself unheard and invisible in this

House. I will proceed with a couple of recommendations. What I like to

do in my speeches and my addresses is provide some concrete, positive

alternatives, so the routes that you've chosen may not necessarily take

us to the depths of the sea.

What might be done? I have

spoken to the principal of the school in Nelson and assured him that I

think the CIC program is an excellent program and has done an excellent

job. However, Nelson did have a university at one point, which was

closed down, and that is why we have a private college there now.

What

we have to do is invest, not create a council so that private schools

become self-monitoring, self-accrediting, self-credentialing and

self-licensing. We have to invest in our students' vocational and

clerical post-secondary education, whether that comes at the grade 11

level or the grade 13 level, if you will. If we are going to go the

private route, we need to ensure that the route is accountable, that it

has ceilings on the tuitions to be paid and that we have proper access

for all students - male and female - to properly coordinated programs

that flow naturally from good, solid programs developed in the K-to-12

system that precede them.

If we are going to insist on going the route of privatization — supposedly to cut back on our own costs in the education system — we must ensure that the public sector and government take as much...

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI : Listen up here, Mr. Minister.

...concern

about what kind of programs are being offered and what criteria must be

met for a decent program. I don't see that anywhere in the bill. I

don't see this commission being instructed or having the threads of

accountability back to government.

Considering that we

spend days and weeks in here debating the finest nuances of the

professional engineering act, the Dentists Act or the Physiotherapists

Act and considering that we spend day after day deliberating over the

tiniest pieces to adjust who is eligible to become an engineer or to

remain a physio-

[ Page

10083 ]

therapist, does it not seem incumbent upon us in government to ensure that private schools — which are already flourishing, but will continue to grow — have similar public attention paid to their act, to their licences and to how they operate?

Our

capacity and competence to date has not been all that great with an

office of two taking care of 400 private institutions. I daresay that

doubling that to four and having a commission of 15 or 16 is not going

to do that much better in the future.

As I said, Mr.

Minister, unless you take this more seriously, people in my community

and around the province are going to see through this and see it as a

piece of privatization which ultimately takes our students into a void.

Students who leave in grade 10 or grade 12 will step off the edge of

the elevator into a void.

We have a higher responsibility

to those students. I think we should start thinking now about how we

want to meet the needs they'll have as they graduate, whenever that may

be.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to get in on this debate for a few minutes and offer some thoughts.

see the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is anxious to leave the

chamber and do other things. I noticed he was sitting here earlier on

in the minister's chair.

I was going to talk about a training centre in my riding.

But I see the member for Yale-Lillooet has his microphone up and is ready to jump on his usual point of order.

Dealing with this bill, I want to talk about some matters that relate to my riding.

Before I do that, I can't help but wonder what the member for Yale-Lillooet is doing in this House — not engaged in this debate — and whether he's even looking after the concerns of people in his riding. I noticed the other day....

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Order! Come on now, this is an education act.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : Do you have a point of order?

MR. RABBITT :

On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is making

allegations against me as a member of this assembly which are not

fitting and are strictly out of order. I would ask that the Chair call

him to order and that we get back to the debate and the business of

this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to stick to Bill 24, which is before us in the debate.

MR. SIHOTA : In response to that point of order, I see that the.... I'll

deal with the bill just to make the members happy.

he wants to rise on a point of order, I would be very happy to talk

about what I was reading the other day about Woodcorp of Duncan coming

in and taking some 45,000 cubic metres of wood, I believe it was, out

of his seat and sending it to Duncan.

We have in his area the highest level of unemployment in British Columbia, and he has done nothing about addressing....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Please speak to Bill 24, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA : Sorry. If I may continue, I was going to talk about....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

No, I'm not against the value-added program. I'm just wondering how it

was that the chairman of the Social Credit caucus got scooped by the

reluctant Social Credit member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who

got all these jobs created in his riding. But this member for

Yale-Lillooet never looked after the people in his riding, and he's

having timber going from his riding to Duncan.

At any event, if I may speak....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. The member for Yale-Lillooet rises on a point of order.

MR. RABBITT :

I regret to have to rise to my feet again, but if the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues with this personal attack, I will

continue rising and asking the Speaker to call him to order and make

him speak with relevancy to the bill.

It seems whenever

this member enters the House, the House lowers in level of debate. I

think it's unparliamentary, and I would ask you again to keep this

member in order or throw him out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : On

the point of order, I would agree with the member who raised the point

of order. I again ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, when he

resumes debate, to stay relevant to Bill 24.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to talk about a situation in my riding which has just come up

recently, and it in many ways indicates quite clearly what is wrong

with the legislation that is before the House. The legislation that is

before the House totally vacates the field of any responsibility for

looking after the interests of students who enrol in these private

institutions.

We saw in the greater Victoria area some time

ago concerns that constituents of mine raised with respect to Western

Media. One would have thought that the government would have moved in

and made sure now that legislative enactments were in place so that

students would not be ripped off by unscrupulous so-called educators

coming into the community.

Instead, the government, by

virtue of this legislation, has chosen to distance itself even further

from monitoring the activities of unscrupulous training

[ Page 10084 ]

institutions

setting up in communities, taking advantage of students and deciding

afterwards not to honour their commitment as an institution to the

students.

Let me give the minister a very simple example of

something that happened in my riding just this week. There was an

institution that set up in Esquimalt called the Easy Way Training

School. This institution purported to provide students with all sorts

of business training skills: word processing, typing and those basic

business skills that many of these institutions purport to provide.

Constituents

of mine took several of the courses: a WordPerfect course, which was

supposed to be finished in a short period of time; other courses which

ranged anywhere between two to ten weeks in duration. One of my

constituents actually managed to complete the course about two weeks

ago; other constituents of mine enrolled in the courses and never got

to the first session; others received instruction for one or two weeks.

All of a sudden, this institution — the Easy Way Training School —

decided to close its doors. The constituent of mine who had been

promised a certificate to warrant the fact that she had completed one

of the courses enrolled in has yet to receive her certificate. She was

ripped off by the training centre, which has now vanished, despite, of

course, all the usual promises to courier the appropriate certificates

to my constituent on a number of occasions.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : No, I'll get to the Better Business Bureau and the comments to the Better Business Bureau in a few minutes.

had other constituents who had put in a fair bit of money. I was just

talking to one woman this afternoon who had put in about a hundred

dollars— which to her is a lot of money — to enrol in a course of

instruction. She's an individual of modest means; she doesn't have a

lot of money and had saved a hundred dollars to get into a course. She

paid her money with the expectation that she was going to get the

necessary training that was promised to her, and she was ripped off.

The centre took her money, closed down and left.

Another constituent who put in a little bit more — about $150 —

had gone through two weeks of training. Again, the same state of

affairs: she gets halfway through her course, she's ripped off, and the

operators of that enterprise, if I can put it that way, leave.

They

all contacted the Better Business Bureau, which indicated that they had

received a number of complaints from other students. Because they had

little or no power to act in this type of situation, they suggested

that the MLA be contacted.

When my office received

complaints from constituents, we made inquiries to the ministry and

were told that this group was not licensed by the Advanced Education

minister to operate and that they had not met the appropriate

criterion. Despite that, they continued to operate; despite that, they

set up their courses; despite that, they took in money from students;

despite that, they ripped students off.

[4:15]

We have a situation here where the Better Business Bureau can't do

anything, and then when we turn to the ministry, it says that the

marketplace dictates— buyer beware — and that it's up to the student to

decide whether or not the program is appropriately accredited, whether

or not the institution is solvent and whether or not it can offer the

types of programs it represents that it has when it says: "Yes, this is

what we provide." This case is so terrible that even the Esquimalt

municipality, which, of course, had to issue a business licence to this

operation to set up.... They never got paid, as the cheque payable to

them for the licence to operate bounced.

I think this is my

point. Every student I've talked to in the last few days has said the

same thing: there ought to be a law; the government ought to be able to

prevent this type of scam from occurring; the government ought to be

able to ensure that companies that set up and purport to offer this

type of course of instruction are able to deliver on their promise.

Well, again that wasn't the case. And more importantly, there was no

law in place to make sure that these people either provided the courses

of instruction or were booted out of the province. Instead, what they

did was just rip off the students, take their money and not provide the

course or the certificates.

My constituents asked: "Well,

what is this government going to do about it?" If the bureaucrats that

I've talked to say "buyer beware," surely the government will recognize

that there's a need for legislative action to make sure that this type

of ripoff activity doesn't continue; that this type of

misrepresentation isn't commonplace in society. We've seen it all too

often here in greater Victoria.

When I looked at Bill 24,

which is supposed to deal with this kind of situation, I thought: okay,

fair enough; these people were injured, taken advantage of, ripped off;

finally we should have a system through this legislation to prevent

that type of abuse from occurring. Then I looked carefully at the

legislation, and it gives blessing to that type of ripoff activity.

Rather than saying that we as a society ought to make sure that

institutions don't rip off individuals, the government has introduced

legislation here that sanctions that type of ripoff activity, and it

vacates the field of responsibility of making sure that there is some

scrutiny of these organizations, that there is some accreditation, and

that there is some meaningful ability on their part to provide the

course of instruction that they tell the students they can offer.

Now

we're left with a situation where we in British Columbia are the only

jurisdiction in Canada that has divested itself of the responsibility

for education in this regard, for monitoring and regulating the

industries and for making sure there's a standard of delivery and

ethical conduct on the part of those operators.

My constituents — because, you know, this ought not to be a partisan debate — are disappointed to see

[ Page

10085 ]

that the provincial government has chosen not to

regulate in the field, not to accept their responsibility, not to show

some leadership and not to guarantee consumer protection. Instead, this

Minister of Advanced Education would rather not engage in debate, and

he just talks to other members, walks around and cavorts with his

Social Credit colleagues while I'm talking. In that process he shows a

lot of disrespect for those constituents on whose behalf I speak. In

British Columbia we will have the only government in this nation that

is not prepared to regulate.

Now I listen to the Social

Credit member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) talk about respect. He

supports this bill which vacates the field. What is he going to say to

his constituents, like mine, when they show up at the constituency

office and say: "Hey look, I've just been ripped off by somebody"? What

are you going to say, Mr. Minister? Are you going to say that we passed

a law that allowed it to happen and sanctioned that kind of ripoff? Let

the jungle of the marketplace prevail; buyer beware.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. I would just like to ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to address the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA :

I will, and I would hope that the member from Langley will break ranks

with his caucus and see the need to assure that there is protection for

consumers of this service. I want to say, with some regret, on behalf

of those constituents of mine who have contacted me this week.... I

want to say with some disappointment that the government has first of

all not chosen to assist them through the operations of the ministry in

their direct problem. Having failed in that regard by arguing that the

buyer should beware, it has now introduced legislation which will allow

this type of unscrupulous activity to continue. I know that I don't

support that type of enshrinement of ripoff activity, and I know that

those constituents of mine who have been adversely affected by Easy Way

Training School are going to be as disappointed as I am in seeing that

this has occurred.

I was going to conclude my remarks, but

I see the member for Yale-Lillooet is ready to go at it again. I'm sure

he doesn't want to talk about how those small forest operations in his

riding have lost 45,000 cubic metres of wood to the Cowichan area, and

how he failed to protect the interests of workers in the highest

unemployment area in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I call second reading of Bill 5.

CROWN LANDS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown Lands draws authority to administer

Crown land from the Land Act. This is a comprehensive piece of

legislation with broad statutory powers. From time to time it's

necessary to make amendments to bring legislation in line with

day-to-day practice within the ministry or to correct certain

deficiencies within the act.

The amendments are part of my

ministry's continuing efforts to streamline the administration in order

to improve service to the public and reduce unnecessary delays. Most of

the amendments deal with general matters, but there are two specific

Land Act amendments and an amendment to the Land Surveyors Act that I

would like to bring to your attention.

When the Ministry of

Crown Lands was given responsibility for the surveys and resource

mapping branch of the Ministry of Environment, a significant

responsibility was transferred with that branch, The responsibility for

establishing place names for geographical features throughout the

province has been carried out by the toponymy unit of the surveys and

resource mapping branch.

In the past, the designated

authority resided with the director of the branch in his capacity as

British Columbia representative to the Canadian Permanent Committee on

Geographical Names. The amendment to the Land Act will establish the

statutory authority for geographical place names in British Columbia

with this Minister of Crown Lands.

In response to

recommendations from the ombudsman's office, my ministry conducted a

thorough review of its appeal procedures. An amendment was requested to

improve legislation to address the need for a more complete process for

hearing applicants' disputes regarding Land Act dispositions. The

amendment permits the Minister of Crown Lands to appoint an independent

third party to conduct a hearing where there is an objection to an

application for the disposition of Crown land. This change will ensure

access to a fair and impartial hearing, and dispel any existing

concerns regarding my minister's appeal process.

As with

many other professions, the Minister of Crown Lands has the statutory

authority for governing the province's land surveyors. This authority

is derived from the Land Surveyors Act, and grants certain powers to

the Corporation of Land Surveyors of the Province of British Columbia.

In the past, the corporation established mandatory fee schedules for

all B.C. land surveyors. This practice was successfully challenged in

the courts last year. In light of the court's decision, an amendment to

the act removes the mandatory nature of the fee

schedule and replaces

it with suggested guidelines for professional survey fees.

Other

amendments to the act are of a housekeeping nature, aimed at bringing

statutory requirements in line with current practices of other

professions today. The proposed amendments to both pieces of

[ Page 10086 ]

existing

legislation reflect my ministry's policy to effectively administer

Crown land and the profession of land surveyors in a manner that

reflects our concerns for service and stewardship of a major Crown

resource.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Speaker, as far as we're

concerned, I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in

this legislation. If we do have any major discussion in debate, I think

we will take our time in committee. We're quite prepared to let second

reading go at this stage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The minister closes debate on second reading.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

5, Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and

referred to a committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 3.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on first reading, this bill

will complete the process of electoral boundary reform that commenced when the

government asked the Hon. Judge Fisher to make recommendations for reform of

electoral boundaries and the elimination of two-member ridings.

Subsequent

to Judge Fisher's report, the Select Standing Committee on Labour,

Justice and Intergovernmental Relations unanimously recommended the

names and the boundary descriptions of the 75 new electoral districts.

This was done by October 31, 1989.

I want to commend most

highly the members of the select standing committee who laboured. long

and hard in a non-partisan way to produce their unanimous report.

Subsequently, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council was pleased to enact a

regulation establishing the 75 new ridings, together with their names

and legal descriptions. This was done on January 24, 1990.

This

bill honours a commitment of the government to incorporate these

changes into legislation at the present session of the Legislature.

This bill not only establishes the names of the 75 new electoral

districts; it also establishes the boundaries for them It repeals the

electoral boundaries regulation effective the day after the bill

receives royal assent.

Section 4 of the bill is a

consequential amendment deleting a reference in the Election Act to the

Constitution Act, and replacing it with the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Act. The effect of

section 5 is to bring into force certain

amendments of the Constitution Act to provide for the 75 new districts.

As I've already referred, the bill will come into force on the day the

thirty-fourth parliament is dissolved.

[4:30]

The commencement provisions of this bill are somewhat intricate. For

that reason I arranged for members of the House on the opposite side,

designated by their House leader, to meet with the legislative counsel

for briefing. I understand that all are satisfied that the effect of

the bill is to bring the new electoral boundaries and their names into

force on the dissolution of the thirty-fourth parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that we see the introduction of this

bill, and with pleasure that we see the second reading of this bill go

through quite quickly.

We on the New Democratic side have

been calling for fair electoral boundaries for some time and a process

to bring them about, and although this legislation does not necessarily

give everybody exactly what they want— and there are a few little sections that people are not that happy with —

I think that all of us are convinced and satisfied that the process was

fair, that Judge Fisher, who did this report, did so on an unbiased

basis and that all the boundaries were drawn strictly in accordance

with his guideline, which was to create fair electoral boundaries based

on population size, with a discrepancy for some northern ridings.

Therefore,

as I stated, although we're not always satisfied that the boundaries

are necessarily the best around, I don't think any of us can quibble

that they are not fair and not done with the utmost integrity.

It's

important that British Columbia have this process in and that we have a

process whereby boundaries are reviewed on a regular basis, taking into

consideration population increases so that boundaries may be changed or

reviewed accordingly, thereby giving people just representation.

think that the committee that sat on this should be commended for the

work it did. Both sides of the House worked on this together. Therefore

we on this side look forward to the passage of this bill.

MR. BLENCOE : I don't want to delay the passing of this bill, but I would like to put on record — and my colleague from Prince George may have said some of the same things —

that this is indeed a historical moment in this Legislature and in

British Columbia. We have gone through an exhaustive process to review

and come up with what I think are considered fair electoral boundaries.

We've had much input, discussion and sometimes heart-rendingly

difficult decisions by a number of our colleagues in this Legislature,

but I think we came to the conclusion that the recommendations of the

learned judge were excellent. Now British Columbia moves to a whole

different system.

As a member from a dual riding, a two-member riding — which is a strange animal that still exists in British Columbia; I think we're the only province still

[ Page

10087 ]

retaining that system — I'd like to say that it's

also history passing by. Two-member ridings will disappear under this

legislation; we'll have one member, one riding. It has also been a bone

of contention. There was a feeling that some people who lived in a

riding represented by two MLAs had two votes,

whereas some had only one

vote.

I just want to put on the record that we are pleased

that this bill is before us. It has been a long time in coming. I think

it's a major move to have fair boundaries, and I think the citizens

will know when they see the boundaries that divide up this province

that there has been a great effort to build them on population base,

geographic recognition, urban areas and trying to be on neighbourhood

issues, and that those conflicts have been difficult to attain in some

circumstances.

I think we've come up with a good piece of legislation. All those involved — I wasn't as involved as some of my colleagues were —

should be congratulated on the process. Now we look forward to the test

of this legislation, if you will, in the upcoming election, whenever

that may be.

MR. VANT : I certainly agree with the

principle of Bill 3, the Electoral Districts Act. Like the two previous

speakers, I certainly favour single-member constituencies and the idea

of fair, equitable distribution throughout the province in the 75 new

constituencies. It is certainly commendable. Personally, from having

been a member in a dual-member riding, I certainly favour the

establishment of single-member constituencies.

However,

with all due respect to the judge, in the Cariboo electoral district I

would have to say that where Judge Fisher put the line creating the new

constituencies of Cariboo North and Cariboo South is nothing other than

absurd. I say this in all sincerity, because in the judge's initial

report he said that he wanted to strike a balance in population

equality, But he also mentioned the realities of geography and the

sense of community in British Columbia. In other words, he did give

weight to things other than population.

If I might, I would

refer to the original order-incouncil which gave Judge Fisher his

mandate. This, of course, was triggered by the cabinet in this

order-incouncil back on April 9, 1987. The

schedule attached to that

order-in-council says: "...the principle of the electoral quota; that

is to say, the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the

Province, as ascertained by the most recent population figures

published by Statistics Canada pursuant to the Statistics Act, by the

total number of Members of the Legislative Assembly...." By dividing

the total population figure by 75, the electoral quota was arrived at.

That's fair enough. But it also mentioned historical and regional

claims for representation as another major factor to be considered by

the judge.

Also, in subsection (

c) it says: "...special geographic considerations,

to such regions or the size or shape thereof...." It goes on to say:

"...special community interests of the inhabitants of particular regions;

and (

e) the need for a balance of community interests."

am very concerned that Bill 3, in particular

schedule 2 as it applies

to Cariboo North and Cariboo South, gives much too much weight to the

electoral quota; that is, much too much weight to population balance.

There is absolutely no respect for history, for community interest, for

the geography, or I might even say for the British parliamentary

tradition, because there are many other factors justifying giving

somewhat greater weight in some circumstances to the rural vote.

Indeed, our own Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which passed this

Legislature just last year, said that under special circumstances one

could go beyond the plus or minus 25 percent of the electoral quota.

There are certain special interests of rural residents —

residents of areas such as the one that I am proud to represent, the

Cariboo. We have unique special interests when it comes to the

environment, to conservation; we have transportation challenges; and of

course we have an abundance of resources which contribute to the

well-being of the whole province. Also, of course, in my part of the

province we have difficulties at times in communications with our

people scattered in rural areas. In the Cariboo constituencies only

one-third of our total population live in incorporated municipalities.

Two-thirds of the 62,000 people that I currently represent live in the

rural, unincorporated areas. Many of the urban members of this House

take for granted having cellular phones in their vehicles. We still

don't have the cellular network up in the interior. We do have

communication obstacles to overcome,

Certainly rural

members have a much wider range of problems with which they are

required to deal. In fact, a member from my part of the country has to

deal with just about every ministry of government in order to serve

constituents. Also we have a lack of access to some media in rural

areas — media which the urban members enjoy or often perhaps feel the discomfort of.

is on this basis that, very respectfully, Mr. Minister, I am going to

ask you to consider an amendment to

section 2 of Bill 3, which refers

to the boundaries of electoral districts—

schedule 2, specifically the

section that refers to Cariboo North and to Cariboo South. I would ask

that I be allowed to work with some of your staff so that when Bill 3

comes to committee you might very carefully consider an appropriate

amendment. This amendment would serve to have the boundary between

Cariboo North proceed from approximately the Marguerite ferry landing

to a point on the map northeast of Quesnel Forks and Likely.

In this way — speaking to the principle of this bill, without getting into too many specifics —

many communities like Big Lake, Miocene, Beaver Valley, Likely,

Horsefly, 150 Mile House, Wildwood, Pine Valley, all these communities

which have historically and traditionally related to Williams Lake,

would end up being in the same constituency as the city of

[ Page 10088 ]

Williams

Lake, because that is where people do all of their banking and most of

their shopping. It would be a shame if the residents of these areas....

Indeed, parts of the area are actually south and somewhat east of the

city. It would save them from having to make a trip all the way up to

Quesnel to see their MLA. The proposed bill would see them having to

relate to the member for Cariboo North.

I respectfully end

my remarks by requesting the minister to consider the appropriate

amendment when we go into the next reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a number of comments on this

legislation. I'm out of breath, because I was told at the last second

that I was supposed to be the debate leader for this in the absence of

the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). Accordingly I want to

make a number of comments.

[4:45]

First of all, on the process by which this legislation came to the

House, I think it's important to note that the legislation came about

through a process which I think many of us endorse. A legislative

committee reviewed the official report, and that report....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, if the member says the Premier said so, that's fine. It may well be that the Premier said so.

The

point, however, is that the process was a good one. I see that several

members of the legislative committee are present in the chamber —

albeit not all sitting in their seats. I know that members of our

caucus have said, as did the House Leader at the time, that the work of

the chairperson of the Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations

Committee, which took a look at this issue.... He should be

congratulated for his work on the matter. The member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who participated in the subcommittee that

looked at this issue, should also be congratulated for his work in

terms of trying to make sure that there was a piece of legislation and

a process that was unanimous and endorsed by all members of the House

and of the committee. Those two members in particular should be

commended for their work in seeing that happen. It really wouldn't have

happened, in my view, had it not been for those efforts.

can tell you that it was one of the matters I've dealt with over the

last three and half years which to my mind was of sufficient import to

be involved in. It was kind of nice to be involved in a process that at

the end of the day worked as well as it did.

I must also

say for the record that we on this side of the House would also like to

commend His Honour Judge Fisher for the work he did in going around the

province and taking into account the representations and the positions

of a variety of community groups from throughout British Columbia.

Again, he did a very commendable job. In my view, at the end of the

day, His Honour came up with the set of boundaries which were eminently

fair and balanced towards all of the appropriate interests which should

be there: geographical interests, demographic interests and population

figures. So I think Judge Fisher should be commended for his work and

his efforts for British Columbia.

It's not an easy job for

a judge to do: taking into account all the concerns of the different

political parties that make representations; those of aldermen,

municipal representatives, regional officials and the like who attend;

and those of the average citizen, who takes a lot of care about, and

some concern with, electoral boundaries in British Columbia. Needless

to say, it is a very difficult and somewhat divisive issue in society.

To ask a judge, with counsel, to attend to the matter and to draft a

set of guidelines is asking him to engage in a relatively onerous task.

Again it is, to my mind, incredible that they were able to come up with

a report that gained the blessing of all members of the Legislature. So

my applause goes to His Honour Judge Fisher for his handling of this

matter.

In many ways this bill puts an end to the concern

expressed in this House prior to my arrival and that of those who

served on the committee. There were comments about gerrymandering and

little fingers in electoral maps. Every effort was made by Judge Fisher

and those on the committee to make sure that those types of accusations

would not carry the day when the whole thing was proposed. I think it

puts an end to that type of history Let it be said, in fairness to this

House, that never again should we have to face those types of

accusations and that type of comment. Let's hope those days are behind

us as well. I have every confidence that those days are behind us,

because as part and parcel of this legislation there is a process in

place that allows for review of legislation every ten years and makes

sure there is an independent trier of fact — if I can put it that way —

that takes a look at electoral boundaries and makes the appropriate

adjustments. That type of independent process is a process I endorse.

regret that my colleague the first member for Victoria is not here,

because he is one of those people In the House who for years have

fought for that type of independent process to be in place. On his

behalf, let me also say that we welcome the type of change that will

make sure our electoral boundaries in British Columbia remain fair.

There

are all sorts of other things that come to mind in terms of electoral

fairness, and some of those aren't dealt with in the legislation.

Perhaps there are other forms of legislation that should be in place to

make sure those concerns are attended to.

I must say with

regret that, in the overall review of the Election Act, a decision was

made to eliminate the

section 80 provision which allowed British

Columbians who weren't enumerated on election day to come to the

polling station and exercise their franchise by swearing to the fact

that they resided in a particular area. I think the people ought to

have that right. We have, enshrined in our Charter of Ri