British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, March 10, 2015 (40th Parliament, 4th Session) (20150310pm-Hansard-v21n7) (20150310pm Hansard v21n7)

20150310pm-Hansard-v21n7

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 21, Number 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 6587 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 6587 Bill 8 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015 (continued) Hon. M. Polak S. Chandra Herbert A.

Weaver Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................................................... 6590 Bill 8 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015 Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 6590 Bill 7 — Private Training Act Hon. A. Wilkinson K. Corrigan S. Chandra Herbert A. Weaver V . Huntington S.

Fraser Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 6622 Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (continued) J. Kwan Hon. Michelle Stilwell M. Mungall S. Hammell V . Huntington

TUESDAY , MARCH 10, 2015 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Madame Speaker: Introductions by members. Perhaps one from the Chair. Today marks the fi nal workday of a longtime employee of the Legislative Assembly. Aft er 38 years with the Legislative Library, Linda Jackson will be retiring from a career which began with the government documents division, and later the technical services de- partment.

On behalf of all members, I’ d like to wish Linda all the best in her retirement and to thank her for her many years of service to the Legislative Assembly. I would ask the members to join with me in wishing her well. Orders of the Day Hon. T. Lake: In this House I call committee stage, continuing, on Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015, and in the small House, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continued estimates for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 1:34 p.m. On

section 3 (continued). Hon. M. Polak: In the break time, we were able to gather some additional information that the member would be interested in, I’m sure — was asking about in some cases. [1335] In terms of park staff visits, we’re told that Bodega Ridge Park sees three to four times per see and Denman Island Park, three to four times per year. We haven’t spoken about it yet, but E.C. Manning Park…. Th ey are working within Manning Park on a daily basis in the sum- mer season between May 1 and September 30. Th en over the winter season it’s one to two days per week.

Octopus Islands Marine Park — it’s typically once per year. It’s sometimes twice. Small Inlet Marine Park — same thing. West Arm Park — again, park staff visit approximately once per week over the summer season and then one to two days over the winter season, October to April. S. Chandra Herbert: Th ank you to the minister and her staff for that answer. It’s helpful to get a sense of how busily traffi cked these parks are and how oft en they get protection or visits to support the protection of them and their unique features. I wanted to ask…. Apologies to the minister if it’s a surprise.

I was speaking to the member for Boundary- Similkameen, and we both were wondering if the minis- ter might pronounce the names of the new parks in the Okanagan, certainly Haynes Point and Okanagan Falls. We might as well start here, since we’ll be asking con- stituents and people who visit the parks from here on out to recognize the names that the Osoyoos Indian Band have determined are the most appropriate. We might as well begin that practice here, as a name is powerful. Hon. M. Polak: I’ll do my best, and I apologize to the First Nations for what will probably be not nearly a great job.

With respect to the new name for Haynes Point Park, it’ll be Sẁiẁs. With respect to the name of Okanagan Falls Park, it will be Sx̌ ʷǝx̌ ʷnitkʷ. S. Chandra Herbert: I think I heard Sẁiẁs and Sx̌ ʷǝx̌ ʷnitkʷ. Certainly, next time I’m in Osoyoos, I will speak to a native speaker and ask them to correct my pronunciation. Anyway, we’ll try, and I think that’s what we have to do. Th ank you to the minister for taking that request. May those names be said with pride for many generations to come for those parks. I wanted to follow up around Omineca Park. It says it’s being moved to

schedule D from this bill. I’m just won- dering what the thinking is around that. Hon. M. Polak: Th is fi xes an error when the park was fi rst established. Th ere are existing uses that involve the continuation of three range tenures that were in eff ect at the time of the establishment of the park. As such, the park should have been created under

schedule D and, instead, was created under

schedule C, which would not allow for the continuation of those range tenures. So it’s correcting an error from the time when the park was fi rst created. S. Chandra Herbert: Th ank you for that. To return to naming again, I had one more question. I wondered: is there a formal process that the ministry has set up to accept requests? I know we’ve had a couple of changes now in park names to refl ect local First Nations heritage and occupation and, I guess, previous history and continued history on these places. 6587

British Columbia Debates6588 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Is there a formal process, or is it kind of ad hoc, based on when parks are being reformatted? How is that being approached? I’m sure there will be more interest. I know in my own backyard, in Stanley Park, there’s interest in potentially giving the name Whoi Whoi or Xwayxway back to Lumbermen’s Arch. Now, that’s a municipal park. It’s not in the ambit of this Legislature, but I’m just curious. [1340] Hon. M. Polak: We do have an overall naming policy that guides us. Th e initiation of changes to names can happen in any number of ways.

It can happen because of the request of a First Nation, a local government. It can happen as a result of treaty or other agreements with First Nations. In some cases governments, past and present, have pursued changes to names that were viewed as of- fensive. It really could be initiated in any number of ways, but we do have a naming policy that we could certainly share with the member if he’s interested. A. Weaver: I have a number of questions dotted throughout this bill at committee stage. I can summar- ize them, really, along one line. It goes along the line as follows.

Th e math actually doesn’t add up when you compare the park areas in this bill relative to the previous bill. Th e reason why…. Th at may seem moot, but there will be people — students in universities, others — spending hours trying to under- stand why the numbers changed. I believe this to be true: that the mapping techniques have improved with time. Now we have better certain- ty as to actually how much land is in these parks. Th ere are two in

section 3 that I was hoping to get on the rec- ord so that those future students who wonder what hap- pened actually can see in Hansard where and why the changes occurred. Th at’s with respect to Strathcona Park, which looks like it’s adding 2,820 hectares, and West Arm Park, which looks like it’s adding 880 hectares, when you compare the areas in this bill relative to the areas that were in the previous bill. Would the minister be able to clarify the extent to which these number changes are because of the more updated mapping techniques? Hon. M.

Polak: I’ll deal with Strathcona Park, and then, given the interest in the mathematics involved, I’ll attempt to give a quick rundown of how the math works. My staff apparently have also spent hours fi guring out the math. I wouldn’t ordinarily just read straight from the notes, but in the case of the Strathcona issue, I am going to, just because it is important to be accurate here. Th e stated area for Strathcona Park in the bill is 248,669 hectares. Th e area stated in the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act at this time is 245,849 hectares.

Of course, that makes it appear that a net total of 2,820 hectares are being added to the park, but that’s not the case. To describe the boundaries of the park, the Ministry of Environment is using an official plan — mapped boundaries, rather than the current metes and bounds description. It’s an improved and more accurate measur- ing technique, and it is what accounts for the diff erence. [1345] Despite the apparent substantial increase in the overall area fi gure, no land is actually being added to the park. Th e diff erence is simply with respect to improved meas- uring and mapping techniques.

Th is will be in Hansard, so you don’t have to take the notes down yourself. I’ll see if I can get this right. Megin River, plus four hectares as a result of mapping. Bodega Ridge, plus 147 hectares as a result of additions, another 17 hectares as a result of mapping. Carmanah Walbran, minus 85 hectares, as a result of mapping. Octopus Islands, plus 86 hectares as a result of additions and plus 15 hectares as a result of mapping, for a total of 101 hectares. Small Inlet Park, plus 84 hectares as a re- sult of additions, plus 68 hectares as a result of mapping, for a total of plus 152.

Strathcona we’ve spoken about. West Arm Park, plus 1,219 hectares as a result of additions, minus 339 hec- tares as a result of mapping, for a total of 880 hectares. Denman Island, plus two hectares as a result of addi- tions. Manning is plus 3.2 as a result of additions and then minus two hectares that is going to highways, for a net positive of 1.2 hectares. A. Weaver: On behalf of generations of students at uni- versities to come, I wish to thank the minister for provid- ing that clarifi cation. I have one other question, which I’ll save for

section 4. Hon. M. Polak: Now, in my defence, I didn’t do the math. I was only reading it. Small Inlet Park — I’ll just correct the record. It was plus 84 hectares as a result of additions plus 82 hectares as a result of mapping, for a total of 168. For all the math students at home, I hope they’re satisfi ed.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister explain what’s happening in Cariboo River Park? I understand it’s a housekeeping amendment, but it would be helpful. Hon. M. Polak: It’s correcting a typographical error in subsection 4(a), where the letter “s” is missing at the end of “metre” — at the request of leg. counsel. S. Chandra Herbert: Going from “metre” to “metres. ” Amazing, the things that we do in this place.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6589 I wonder. Manning Park — I understand that the argu- ment is that this is going to increase safety because of a couple of bridges but that the land being taken out of the park for the road will be replaced from a former right-of- way or a right-of-way that’s in the park. Can the minister explain how this decision came about? How soon is this change to occur? Hon. M. Polak: Transportation, from time to time, does make requests for boundary amendments. Ordinarily, they are required to go through the full and complete boundary amendment process.

However, in the case of issues of health and safety we do operate under a more expedited process. [1350] It’s very similar. Of course, we try to advance those more quickly, and there are some diff erent considera- tions. Th e reason that there is a boundary adjustment is because under the Park Act we would not be able to al- low the work that would be needed in order to replace the three bridges on Highway 3. S.

Chandra Herbert: In a previous world, as a park commissioner in Vancouver, I tried to bring in an amend- ment to legislation, bring in a policy that if we were going to take land out of a park, we needed to replace it with land. So I was happy to see that because of these chan- ges, the ministry is actually going to be bringing in three hectares to replace, I believe, the two hectares that will be removed. It is an improvement. I’m curious if the minister can provide a bit of the backstory on the right-of-way that is now going to be added to the park. Was it ever developed? Was it just a notional right-of-way?

Why wasn’t it in the park to begin with if it wasn’t developed? Th e Chair: As the minister prepares the answer, with leave, I’ll recognize a former member and minister in the gallery, Blair Lekstrom. May the House make him welcome. Hon. M. Polak: Th e area is an unused right-of-way along the Skagit River. I’m advised that it contains high conservation values, including old-growth forest and ri- parian plant communities. S. Chandra Herbert: Is it generally the policy that if the government has to remove land, they try and replace it with other good parkland or to become parkland? Hon. M.

Polak: It’s not a hard-and-fast policy, but we indeed try to do that whenever government is in need of an amendment like that. We also strongly encourage and very oft en are successful…. We try to encourage pro- ponents to do the same thing if someone is…. Th ere was one some years ago involving Mount Robson Provincial Park. We try very hard, and oft en are successful to en- courage proponents to make that same gesture — that if they are removing land from a park, they add some land back in, in exchange. S.

Chandra Herbert: Is there a cost to this addition, the three hectares that was a right-of-way, or was that just within government? Hon. M. Polak: It’s Crown land owned by the Ministry of Transportation — so no cost. S. Chandra Herbert: Th e minister said this was ex- pedited because of safety issues. I know there’s been some ongoing highway work through Manning Park. Has any of this work begun, or are we waiting until this passes so then the ministry can start work? I’m just not sure. I’ve noticed some bridges and some work running up to bridges being done. Some clarity would be helpful. Hon. M.

Polak: Th ey’re waiting for this to be passed. Under the Park Act, they can’t engage in activities like that. Even the preparation for the work would be con- sidered too impactful. S. Chandra Herbert: Th ank you for that. Was this a surprise — I’m just curious — in terms of the public pro- cess? Th is was expedited, I know, in another park. Th ere was a discussion around a road going on, but there is a community consultation side to it. Is it measured in de- gree of risk, that this would be very dangerous unless we moved quickly on this?

How is that decision determined versus, say, doing a fuller consultation, as in other parks? Hon. M. Polak: Just to be clear, although the process was expedited, the Ministry of Transportation did con- duct consultation with the local communities involved and also with the First Nations. [1355] In terms of the assessment as to health and safety risks, that’s something where our parks staff would take the advice of the engineers and experts at the Ministry of Transportation. S. Chandra Herbert: So then the ministry would make a request that this is an urgent issue and needs to be addressed right away? Hon. M.

Polak: Th at’s correct. Similarly, the member may recall in a previous session an amendment that was made to a park boundary in order to allow for a First Nation to be able to access drinking water. A. Weaver: On this same theme, of attempting to get the numbers down pat for future generations of students scratching their heads. When looking at Wells Gray Park,

British Columbia Debates6590 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 it looks like it’s adding 16,562 hectares to that which existed in the previous bill. My suspicion is that this is again because of updated mapping and techniques. I was wondering if the minister might be able to confi rm where that 16,562 hectares came from. Hon. M. Polak: Th e member is correct. It’s the same situation as Strathcona. Th e area of the park is corrected from 524,990 hectares to 541,516 hectares, a diff erence in the positive of 16,526 hectares — again as a result of improved measuring and mapping. A. Weaver: I had a dyslexic moment there.

I said 16,562. I did mean 16,526, as the minister pointed out. Again, on behalf of generations of future students, thank you for that answer. Final question on this is trying to understand some- thing that’s going on in Omineca Park. According to the original legislation, Omineca Park contained 132,296 hectares. Th e amendment in

section 4 of this bill main- tains that the park will be the same size. However, on the B.C. Parks website it says Omineca Park contains 133,369 hectares. My question, then, is if the minister could clarify if there will be any changes to the boundaries of Omineca Park as a result of the legislation. Or is it again the fact that the B.C. Parks website is either updated or not up- dated relative to the numbers that are in this bill here? It may be an unfair question in that the minister may not have access to the B.C. Parks website.

Clarifi cation some time later would be suffi cient — again, for generations of future students who may be asking the same question. Hon. M. Polak: Fortunately for us and all British Columbians, the legislation takes precedence over what may incorrectly be framed on our website. Staff will cer- tainly look into that and update it. I am told that it is the website that is in error. No lands are being removed or deleted from Omineca Park.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that this is a rescis- sion of an order-in-council for Megin River Ecological Reserve. Just curious how many ecological reserves in this province are still just through an order-in-council rather than a schedule, as is happening here. [1400] Hon. M. Polak: I will try not to overcomplicate this. Th ere’s no change made with respect to whether they are put in place under order-in-council. All ecological reserves except for one are on schedules. Th e diff erence between

schedule A and

schedule B is how they are described. As we spoke of before, we’re trying to move them all to

schedule A. All of the ecological reserves in

schedule B are described by referencing their original order-in- council rather than in

schedule A, which would be the commonsense way of doing it. In

schedule A they would be described in mapping terms. Y ou would say, “Th ey exist at this longitude and latitude, and here are the boundaries, ” and they would be described. In the case of

schedule B, it’s just not a modern-day, accurate way of describing the location and area of the reserve, so gradually, over time, we will be attempting to move all of them into

schedule A. Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 2:02 p.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Report and Th ird Reading of Bills BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 7, Private Training Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 7 — PRIV ATE TRAINING ACT Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:05 p.m. Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to introduce the staff mem- bers present: Claire Avison, Assistant Deputy Minister of Ministry of Advanced Education; Christine Massey, Assistant Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development; and Monica Lust, registrar and CEO of the Private Career Training Institutions Agency. On

section 1.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6591 K. Corrigan: I’ve heard many, many concerns about this bill over the past several days. One of the problems that we have in dealing with it in committee stage is what I’m hearing repeatedly — that it’s not about what was in the bill but what is missing from the bill. I guess I’ll start with some questions. One of the par- ticular issues…. It was raised by a lot of the language schools in British Columbia and also by private train- ing schools and their organizations, such as B.C.

Career Colleges, which represents at least 30 colleges in the prov- ince and, I believe, close to half the students that are study- ing in the province in private post-secondary schools. Th e Vancouver Island Private Accredited Colleges or- ganization is 20 accredited colleges representing some very well-known and long-term organizations like Pacifi c Design Academy, Aveda Institute, Sprott-Shaw, West Coast Adventure College, Academy of Excellence — 40 years in business. Th ere’s a whole range of schools that have some real concerns.

One of the initial concerns that they have is they’re not sure what the purpose of the legislation is. It’s not clear what the goals and purposes are. Th e comparison that I’ve received with regard to starting right with the defi n- itions — but it would be an overall comment — is that there are no purposes in the beginning. I would compare it, for example, with what has been pointed out to me, the Manitoba legislation, which says clearly at the beginning what the objects and purposes are of the legislation. Th at seems to be missing.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain why it is that the purposes and goals are not included in this legislation. Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think it’s fairly well understood in this province for at least a decade now that purpose clauses in legislation have been eschewed. Th ey haven’t been utilized because the sense is that they serve no ac- tual purpose in the legislation and, if anything, tend to muddy the waters. Th e history that brings this about, of course….

I be- lieve the member opposite is aware that in 2003 the body that we will call, I suspect, frequently in this exchange PCTIA, Private Career Training Institutions Agency, was created. Over the 12-year period that it operated in a self-regulated industry model, a number of issues arose. [1410] Th e conclusion was that it would be better to have this managed within the Ministry of Advanced Education, as a government regulator. Th e vehicle to bring that about is the new Private Training Act, which I suspect we will refer to many times as the PTA. K.

Corrigan: Th e old act did refer to consumer protec- tion, quality assurant objects, and bylaws that could set quality standards. What I’ve heard…. Perhaps the min- ister could just respond to that general concern. I know that many of the people that have been talking to me over the last days have also, I’m sure, contacted the minister. Th eir concern is they really don’t know exactly what the focus and goal of the legislation are. Perhaps the minister can explain what those goals and aims are and what the minister has been telling those stakehold- ers, who have a real concern.

What is he saying to them when they express their concerns about the lack of clar- ity in terms of what the goals and intentions are of this legislation? Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise behind this legislation is in the title of

part 3 of the legislation: “Consumer Protection. ” Th is, of course, refers fi rst and foremost to the students who are enrolled in these organ- izations. Th e goal is to ensure that they receive the educa- tion they anticipated and bargained for and that their end of the contract is satisfi ed by the institution that delivers to them the product in an appropriate form and quality over an appropriate time course. If that does not happen, the student has recourse to other sources of protection. K.

Corrigan: When we were dealing last week with the unifi cation in Bill 4, which unifi ed the various profes- sional accountants, one of the questions that I fi rst asked the minister was about what consultation took place. I’m wondering if the minister could explain what consulta- tion took place with regard to this act. Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m pleased to advise that the assistant deputy minister visited more than 40 of these schools during consultations.

More in-depth consulta- tions took place in May and June of 2014 and included detailed discussions with sector associations, including two full days with the member organizations and the predecessor, PCTIA. So 63 private training institutions and former PCTIA board members were included in that process. Th ere was a full day of consultations with language schools. [1415] The second phase of consultations was held in November and December of 2014, with in-person ses- sions at fi ve locations around the province, with 176 sector representatives participating. Th e ministry also received 70 written submissions.

In addition to that, there were sector-specifi c consul- tations with fl ight-training institutions and theological institutions due to their unique circumstances. K. Corrigan: I had heard about that, and I think gov- ernment always has to be given credit when there is con- sultation like that. It was done, and I’ve heard that from many sources. One of the quotes in the introduction, when Bill 7 was introduced, was from Jeremy Sabell, president of the B.C. Career Colleges Association, which I mentioned earlier.

British Columbia Debates6592 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Th e quote is from the government press release. It says that Jeremy Sabell said: “Extensive consultations with pri- vate career-training institutions are helping to shape the future of private training in the province. We look for- ward to changes being brought in by government that will make the sector stronger and that will support our ability to continue preparing students for their future careers. ” I would like to read what I received yesterday from the same Jeremy Sabell, president of the B.C. Career Colleges Association.

He said: “Th is legislation has nothing to do with the consultations. Th e association does not support the bill as written. Th ere is no reason to be rushed, and we are more than happy to continue until legislation that is better craft ed can be brought in. ” Th at’s the person who was quoted about consultation in the press release by the government.

I’m wondering what response, with regard to this act and the framing of this act, the minister has with regard to the fact that the person who they quoted feels that this has been rushed, it has nothing to do with the consultations, and it is not supportable as written. Hon. A. Wilkinson: The reference to Mr. Jeremy Sabell is timely because he is one of the 12 members of the advisory committee that assisted the ministry in put- ting together this legislation. Th e overall view of this, of course, is found in that same news release of February 11, 2015. Th ere’s the quote from Mr.

Sabell followed by the statement that the “Private Training Act will create high- er quality standards for the sector and broader enforce- ment mechanisms to better protect students. It will also introduce a risk-based approach that protects the public interest while reducing the regulatory requirements for private institutions off ering high-quality programs and with a history of strong compliance. ” Th e essence of this, and in a response sent to Mr.

Sabell, is that the overall priority here is protection of students, and part and parcel of that is to have a progressively light- er regulatory hand on well-run institutions with a good track record and to focus the energies of this new body on the newcomers and also on those whose compliance and performance records are not as admirable as the long-term players with a lower-risk profi le. K. Corrigan: As the minister said, Mr. Sabell was — and, I think, continues to be — one of the members of that advisory committee, representing probably the lar- gest organization with regard to private training.

His comment, aft er being quoted in the government press release, is that the association does not support the bill as written; there’s no reason to be rushed. I guess the question to the minister…. With these kinds of warnings that I know the minister has received, why was it decided that we would bring Bill 7 to the Legislature at this time, to go through second reading, and now we’re heading into committee stage reading? [1420] Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Th is legislation, of course, will provide the necessary legislative framework for a fairly wide-ranging set of regulations that will be developed in concert with the sector. Mr. Sabell, of course, is on our advisory body helping to craft those regulations so that the sector can be appropriately managed with, as I say, a gradation of scrutiny from a fairly extensive review of the newcomers and a very limited regulatory hand on those who are well established and have a good track record.

Th e more specifi c details of how that will be rolled out in a functional sense will, of course, be in the regulations. K. Corrigan: I’m just going to ask maybe one or two more questions, and then my colleague from Vancouver– West End has got a couple of specifi c questions with re- gard to some of his constituents. It wasn’t just that organization, the B.C. Career Colleges Association, that has continuing concern. Richard Tachell of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that he would be happy for us to raise the fact that the CFIB has concerns.

Th eir members have concerns, and they’ve have asked the minister to press pause — as he said — and the minister did not do that. In addition, Mr. Tachell confi rmed what the minister just told us, that “the real meat is in the regulations. ” Th ose were the words that were used by Mr. Tachell. So we have another organization that’s expressing real concern about how quickly this has been done and how there are too many questions. I guess I would raise a more general concern that has peripherally been raised by the comments by Mr. Tachell and the response from the min- ister.

If it is true that the real meat is in the regulations…. How can we have a meaningful debate in the Legislature if we don’t really know what it is that’s being proposed, because the real meat is in the regulations? Hon. A. Wilkinson: I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Truscott and the other representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on March 6, which I believe was last Th ursday. Mr.

Truscott re- ported out to his membership, and I’m going to quote from his news item that he sent to the members. “Th e minister assured us the government is not looking at cre- ating a duplicate process to the registration process and will review the accreditation program’s reputable indus- try groups to determine if those groups meet the criteria set out by the Ministry of Advanced Education. ” Th at is true, and that is the approach we are taking. Secondly, he went on to say: “Many of the details be- hind this bill are still to be developed.

Th ey have off ered to conduct a seminar for those businesses that are inter- ested in fi nding out more about the new bill and also to discuss the regulations that are to be developed. ” Th at is also true.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6593 We believe that the updated encounter with Mr. Truscott from CFIB was in fact a positive engagement. Of course, before one develops regulations, one has to have legislation. We’re in somewhat of a chicken-and-egg position here, in that we have to pass the legislation be- fore developing the regulations, which will be developed in concert with the sector. K. Corrigan: Well, that conversation that we had with the CFIB was today, so that is, as of today, a concern. I just wanted to point that out. S. Chandra Herbert: Th is bill seems to be rushed.

Given that consultation was long, you would think that a bill would be able to be introduced and have wide- spread support. Language schools in my constituency certainly have great concerns — and not just in my constituency but across Vancouver. Th ey say that because of the challenges with PCTIA, they’ve lived with regulatory uncertainty for nearly three years, which has led in many cases to people going to Australia to get schooling. Th ey thought this consultation would lead to something that would work better for them.

But according to EF International Language Schools, Tamwood International College and VanWest College, the government still has it wrong. [1425] Th eir concerns are many but could really be drawn out in three ways. One, they believe that this legislation will continue to leave international language students in B.C. unprotected. Two, it will create unnecessary costs for their school. Th ree, it will create unnecessary bureau- cracy.

They want a level playing field, and they want all schools to be accredited so that a fl y-by-night operation, as they say, can’t set up down the street — with much low- er fees because they’re not accredited, don’t work hard to meet the international standards, siphon business away and then disappear. According to them, in their read of this bill, this bill does nothing to stop that from happening. Th ere is, in their view, no added consumer protection. On the con- trary, they say, the door is now wide open for the fl y-by- night institutions to operate without any control.

I’m curious as to why this legislation, through the def- initions and through the clauses, is not meeting their needs. Why does the minister think that they’re speak- ing out so strongly against this bill if, he says, it reduces bureaucracy and better protects students? Th at’s not their reading of this bill. If the minister could address their concerns directly, they would appreciate it, as would I, as they provide many good jobs in my constituency. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Of course, this is the chronic di- lemma of government and of our society in general — to ensure that quality and standards are met without impos- ing undue compliance costs. In any legislative regime it’s desirable to have an expedited process for those with an established record and to reward good behaviour and good performance by reducing the regulatory burden. Th at’s exactly what this legislation anticipates.

Th ere’s also another factor that’s a bit more specifi c to language schools, in that those that seek visa approval through the federal government, through Canada immi- gration services, require a designation status, which they have to acquire through the necessary regulatory process that we are outlining here. Th ere are some costs of compliance, but as I say, there is an intent to work on a regulatory regime which will import some of the standards from the industry itself in terms of language training so that we are not asking them to replicate or duplicate work that’s already been done.

Th ose who are already in the category of what are now called accredited institutions will readily transform into designated-institution status, have the status they need with the federal government to be a conduit for student visas and carry on business as usual. Inevitably, there are some compliance costs with this. As I say, we seek to minimize those for the reliable, good actors. S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll just read from the letter that I’ve received from EF International Language Schools. Th ere are also the same concerns from Tamwood and VanWest College.

Th ey say: “We understand the need for consumer protection from fl y- by-night schools. In fact, as accredited schools, we are in full support of legislation to minimize the possibility of a fl y-by-night operation opening its doors. Initially, that is why we supported such legislation. “Unfortunately, the proposed legislation does little to ensure that.

In fact, the proposed legislation makes it more diffi cult for all of the accredited institutions that are already Languages Canada members to operate, although they already adhere to quality as- surance standards. “Th e proposed legislation does not hinder subpar institutions from operating. It only stops those institutions from accepting long-term students on student visas.

Short-term students would still be able to be recruited by fl y-by-night institutions, which can still open and operate and accept students on a visitor visa. ” Th e legislation does not benefi t institutions that were in support of it initially, because other schools without quality assurance mechanisms will continue to open and operate. In fact, those schools will likely succeed, because they will not be regulated and can, therefore, operate at a reduced cost. Th us there’s no added consumer protec- tion.

On the contrary, the door is now wide open for the fl y-by-night institutions to operate without any control. Can the minister respond to that concern? It’s a legit- imate one, I think. I had thought this would be included in such legislation, as did they. Hon. A. Wilkinson: I had the benefi t of meeting with Languages Canada representatives fi rst thing this mor- ning and heard their concerns. [1430]

British Columbia Debates6594 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Th e challenge here is that, of course, we are not a gov- ernment that is interested in providing a heavy hand of regulation at high compliance cost for someone who is teaching Spanish in their basement once a week to a friend for $20 an hour. Th at is not a fi eld that requires or attracts our regulatory interest. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the good- quality institutions with strong track records that are currently accredited and have the appropriate seals of ap- proval on their websites.

Th ose are obviously attractive to students in other countries who might be coming here to study English and, for that matter, to students, locally and elsewhere, who study languages other than English.

Th e challenge, of course, is to fi nd the balance between those two ends of the teeter-totter in terms of the high- quality schools and not regulating them excessively and catching those in the middle that are newcomers or in need of a regulatory hand to ensure quality and protec- tion of students while also not laying a regulatory burden on tiny operations that are operating a benign language class in someone’s living room. K. Corrigan: Since my colleague has mentioned the language schools and a meeting with Languages Canada — and I believe that was Mr.

Gonzalo Peralta, who came from Ottawa, I believe, to meet with the minister…. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Languages Canada, which is an umbrella organization representing language schools all across the country, is very concerned about this legislation. One school has been quoted or noted. Th eir concerns have been noted. But maybe at this point I will mention the concerns that Mr. Peralta has. My fi rst thing will be a quote just from him, an e-mail. He said I could quote him on anything that I wanted.

He said: “To be honest…. ” I was asking him about a clause-by-clause analysis on exactly which clauses should be changed. He said: “ A clause-by-clause analysis would not accomplish much, as the bill, the way it stands now, misses the mark so much for B.C. ’s accredited language programs. ” Th e minister refers to the suggestion or says that this is a balancing act. Unfortunately, I have heard nobody….

Not one stakeholder has contacted me to say that the ministry is on the right track with this legislation, and I have been contacted by dozens of organizations repre- senting, in some cases, dozens more organizations that say that this is the wrong track, that this bill is fatally fl awed and should not pass through this House.

I’m wondering if the minister would like to respond, perhaps, to some of the specifi c things, apart from the overall condemnation of the bill as it now exists — the comment that the organization makes that Bill 7, the Private Training Act, does not address the needs of the B.C. private language education sector. It will harm the sector, international and domestic students, and B.C.

Th e new regulations, which the minister referred to, which came into operation and in eff ect on June 1, 2014, require that provinces and territories provide CIC with a list of designated institutions which are approved by the province. Th e language schools say…. Languages Canada says that B.C. ’s accredited language institutions want legislation and want it now. It doesn’t want a delay, but unfortunately…. Th ey want this regulatory framework, but they say this is so fl awed that we need to delay. I’m wondering if the minister has any further com- ment on the position of Languages Canada. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Mr. Peralta was actually at the meeting with me fi rst thing this morning. His concerns were heard and elaborated, and we are in the process of working with him on developing a regulatory regime. He is actually on the advisory panel for the development of the regulations. I’m sorry. I stand corrected. A representative of Languages Canada is on the advisory panel helping to develop the regulations. [1435] We’ll be working closely with Languages Canada to sort out the appropriate balance in the regime.

As I men- tioned earlier, it is a fairly long teeter-totter from the living-room Spanish class to the well-established and accredited organization that operates courses eligible for international student visas. We will fi nd the balance in that regime with the assistance of the sector. K. Corrigan: Now we know that two of the eight people — is it eight people on the advisory board? — have said: “Please stop. Th is is fatal. ” Th ese are the people that are advising, that the minister says the ministry is relying on. Two of those people so far — I haven’t talked to the other six — have said….

Th ey’re representing large constituencies, both of them — one with 30 language schools and another one with Languages Canada, which is a very large organization representing language schools across the country. Two have said: “Please stop. ” I’m not sure why the minister believes that we should just hold on and wait for the regulations. It raises, again, my real concern. Essentially, what the minister is ac- knowledging is that we have a piece of legislation that you really can’t understand what it’s about or what it’s going to do and that everything is going to be in the regulations.

I don’t believe that that’s appropriate for legislation that’s before the House. Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just a small point. Th e advisory committee actually has 12 members, and I’m sure the member is pleased to know that it’s somewhat larger than the eight that she suggested. But I think the act speaks

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6595 for itself, in terms of the

section titles. It is a regime de- signed to provide for certifi ed institutions, to provide for consumer protection of students, an enforcement regime, then an appeal and review process and the usual admin- istrative regime. Th is is legislation that provides a framework for a regu- latory regime. Th is is actually fairly standard format for legislation of this sort. Perhaps a section-by-section re- view might reveal some defi ciencies, but we’ll look for- ward to that. K.

Corrigan: One of the comments by Languages Canada is similar to what my colleague referenced ear- lier, with regard to one of the language schools in his constituency: “Th e proposed legislation leaves a gaping hole in the net by con- tinuing to allow anyone to open and run language programs. For too many years B.C. has allowed fl y-by-night operators to off er ser- vices that do not include mechanisms to protect students’ interests in the Languages Canada quality assurance scheme. It is diffi cult to understand why the proposed legislation ignores student protec- tion.

All language programs in B.C. should be accredited under a recognized scheme and should off er tuition protection measures. ” I guess my question to the minister is: does the min- ister acknowledge that this act, the Private Training Act, will allow anyone to open and run language schools and that this is a huge gap or a gaping hole in the net? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course we have recognized that a language school, like any other, seeks to sell itself on quality and on the reputation that it has built.

Th is act provides the mechanism for the currently accredit- ed schools to turn themselves into designated schools, which is essentially a very similar term, and to adopt some of the criteria used by Languages Canada for that designation. Th at will continue to allow them access to the feder- al student visa programs, which most of them seek, be- cause, to be blunt, that’s where the big part of the market is. It’s an opportunity for them to re-establish their cred- ibility and to demonstrate their commitment to quality by becoming designated, and that, of course, is provided for in the act. [1440] A.

Weaver: I, too, share the concerns of the previous members speaking to this with respect to private lan- guage education. In reading through the defi nitions, I have some trouble with the defi nitions of “career training institution” and “career training program. ” My question to the minister is: does the minister see career training to mean and include private internation- al language education schools, which are not actually providing career training but, rather, language educa- tion for foreigners? I’ll follow that up with a quick ques- tion aft er that. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: On reviewing those defi nitions of “career training institution” and “career training program, ” those defi nitions are directed at the “program of instruc- tion” defi nition above — “(

a) enhancing the student’s em- ployability in a career occupation, or (

b) improving the student’s ability to carry out a career occupation. ” Th at is not specifi cally addressing the language skill issue, which is captured in

section 5 of the act. It pro- vides that “an institution that is not required to hold a certifi cate may apply in accordance with this Division for a registration certifi cate or” — what they seek for fed- eral approval for student visas — “a designation certifi - cate. ” Th ey cannot get the federal visa status without the designation certifi cate. A.

Weaver: To give a personal story that might help where I’m coming from with respect to my concern over what, I would argue, is the absence of refl ection upon some of the value-added that private language schools are bringing to our province, one of my constituents is the owner of Stewart College here in Victoria. It’s a fully ac- credited — voluntarily so — private language school here that has 175 host families in the greater Victoria region. The opportunities that this school brings for inter- national students are profound.

Th ere are 175 host fam- ilies, who generate income from the students staying with them. Th e tourism sector in Victoria benefi ts from these students coming to our region. Th ese students spend money. A third of their money is on tuition; two-thirds of their money is on other things. Th e international language education is more than just tuition, which is my concern with respect to this bill as we move forward with these defi nitions and how they play out for private language education. Th is school pro- vides a substantial economic boost to the greater Victoria area, and it is but one.

Th ere are many, many other such schools in the province of British Columbia. My concern is that while it’s laudable and I applaud the eff orts to actually protect students from perhaps fl y- by-night organizations, my real worry is that the baby is going to be thrown out with the bathwater in doing this. So my question to the minister is this.

Is it possible, in light of the fact that we’ll almost certainly be discuss- ing this bill for the rest of the day and perhaps much of tomorrow, to refl ect upon the defi nitions, to recognize that perhaps something specifi c should be added into the defi nitions to deal with private language schools or exempt private language schools from the present bill so that more time could be put in to refl ect how these non- career-training institutions will be better regulated under legislation that actually refl ects the value-added that they provide to our economy? [1445] Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Th e member, of course, alludes to this balance I referred to earlier between those that

British Columbia Debates6596 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 seek to improve their quality of profi le, enhance their credibility, improve their marketability and appeal to the international student market and thereby be looking for a federal student visa designation, which requires them to be compliant with the act and be designated institutions. Th at introduces a certain compliance obligation, which will be limited over time, for those who are compliant and have a good track record.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, we look to have a light regulatory and compliance burden placed on those small institutions that perhaps are doing some less sophisticated training in a smaller venue. Th e organization that the member refers to, having 175 homestay families in British Columbia…. One would suspect that they are in the former category of the high- quality institution with the big reputation and a history of performance. Th at, of course, applies not only to the training in language but also to the selection and man- agement of those homestay relationships.

I think the overview is that the organization the mem- ber refers to has very little to be concerned about with this legislation, because if they are big enough to be desig- nated now, they will carry on in a very similar fashion under the legislation as they did formerly. K. Corrigan: I would like to continue on in the same vein, asking more questions about language providers. We could ask under the defi nitions, or we could ask under

section 5. I suppose we could ask under

section 2. But it’s all about the full scheme, so I appreciate that the minister is answering these questions under the def- initions section, which is as good a time as any, I believe. Languages Canada says, with regard to this point that this might not be the right place to put language schools…. Among other things, it says: “Language providers are not degree-granting or career-training institutions and do not off er diplomas or certifi cates in specifi c trades or professions. We’re solely language education providers.

Th e government is insisting that all schools who want to remain on the ISP designation list meet PTA ’s legislation of contributing to a student completion fund. “Th is may be a necessary and important function for career- training institutions, but this is not for Languages Canada mem- bers who must provide refunds back to their students.

Th rough a special fund, Languages Canada ensures that students can com- plete their language learning goals without disruption. ” To the minister: did the minister look closely at and consider that argument that Languages Canada makes — that they, essentially, with their members, have 100 per- cent compliance, and not one student has ever ended up being not made whole when it is a Languages Canada member? What are the minister’s comments on that? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th e position taken by Languages Canada is understood.

I have heard it directly from them at least twice about their capacity, which they have de- veloped amongst their members, for continuation of a language course in the event that school A ceases to func- tion, whether it’s due to illness or insolvency or some- thing else — that school B or school C, or both, will pick up their students and complete their course for them. Th is has, I gather, historically been done on a without- charge basis so that schools B and C would not be com- pensated for this. In fact, it’s been rare that it has occurred.

I’m not actually aware of any specifi c examples where that service has been called upon. But in this regime we have encouraged Languages Canada to continue with that plan, and the regime that will apply to designated schools will require participa- tion and a tuition protection fund. But the premise will be, of course, that if schools B and C are the ones to con- tinue that program, then they would be reimbursed for continuation of the program that failed under school A.

Also, if any or all of schools A, B and C are already ac- credited, then they would acquire the designation status without undue diffi culty and their costs and compliance burden would decrease over time — in fact, quite quickly. This seems to be a regime where it’s a variant on what Languages Canada already does, and given that Languages Canada has not, to my knowledge, called upon that service from their members — that mutual coverage service — this may actually be a theoretical concern, rather than a real one. [1450] K.

Corrigan: Th e Languages Canada member schools say — it’s my understanding — that the students are re- funded and absorbed by other Languages Canada mem- ber schools through the LC student fund. Th is system is 100 percent successful and does not cost members anything. I’m learning as we go along here. Could the minis- ter please explain why it is that other schools under the Languages Canada framework would be out of pocket? My understanding is that the other schools are fi ne with this and that there is a student fund which compensates them. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Th e information I have is that Languages Canada, with the best of intentions and with the best of bona fi des, has collected a fund of $200,000 for all of Canada to provide for this kind of contingency. Th e fact of the matter is we have 50,000 language students in British Columbia alone. So the existing fi nancing vehicle for the Languages Canada teach-out program is pretty sparse at $4 per head, even if that were British Columbia alone, when, in fact, it’s all of Canada. It’s probably some- thing well under $1 per head.

Nonetheless, if Languages Canada takes the view that they would do the teach-out of a failed program at no charge, one can anticipate that would be fi ne with a hand- ful of students. But if suddenly there are 3,000 or 4,000 students, then it becomes more of a challenge to do it for free. Under the new regime, a designated school would

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6597 be part of the tuition protection fund and would be able to call upon it. Schools B and C that I referred to earlier would, in fact, be compensated for their teach-out work. K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister could then tell me whether any students in Canada…. Languages Canada has been operating for a long time now. Are there cases in the past — and there may be — where the Languages Canada schools did not make students whole — or whether it’s other schools that are the problem? Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Th e information I’ve gathered is that Languages Canada is a trade organization, basically. It’s a collection of the schools that decide to work together. Th ey have developed this teach-out program. We under- stand there has never been a payout to these schools for the teach-out because the incidence of this problem is low. Th e idea that they might make their own students whole fi nancially or by teach-out is truly their business. Th at’s not something that we have been involved in. We don’t have their data sets. We aren’t privy to what their practice has been apart from their own reports to us.

Under the new regime, under the act, these schools, if they have attained designated status, will be required to participate in the tuition protection fund. Th eir pre- miums to join that fund will decline over time in re- sponse to good performance. Th e premise, of course, is very similar. Languages Canada collected this fund of $200,000 for all of Canada, which one would presume to be a rather shallow fund, given the potential exposure.

What will be happening here instead is that government will collect a fund and make it available for reimbursement to the schools in the event that schools B and C do want to be compensated for the teach-out. Again, government has the obligation to be ready for a substantial failure — not two or three but 2,000 or 3,000 students. K. Corrigan: Is it not true that being a Languages Canada member is suffi cient in other provinces to meet the requirement for eligibility on the federal designated in- stitution list? In other words, this approach is not the ap- proach that other provinces have taken.

Other provinces seem to recognize that an organization like Languages Canada understands the specialized nature of this sector. [1455] Hon. A. Wilkinson: I suppose it’s a source of pride that British Columbia and Ontario are the two largest providers of language training for students. Th at partly goes without saying because of the size of Ontario, being about 45 percent of the Canadian population, and British Columbia’s extraordinarily fi ne people, skills, landscape and way of life.

Ontario, interestingly, does not accept the Languages Canada designation as the necessary step for their ap- proval for federal visa eligibility. Under this new regime, both British Columbia and Ontario, which account for the lion’s share of language students from abroad, would not accept the Languages Canada designation as equiva- lent to the provincial designation for federal visa purposes. K. Corrigan: It’s been a couple of years that the new requirements have been in place.

Th ey actually became operational in June 2014, requiring that provinces and territories provide Citizenship and Immigration Canada with a list of designated institutions. Is it not true that the number of students that are coming to B.C. has been fall- ing since the introduction of these regulations? Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that our internal data set shows that the number of students on international visas attending language schools is stable. We don’t have access to the detailed data sets of Languages Canada. Th ey have presented a slightly diff erent scenario.

I’m sure that will be sorted out in the ongoing consultations about the regulations so that we can have an optimized regime to make sure that students are getting a safe and high-quality training experience here in Canada without fi nancial risk or exposure to insolvency or failure, while the language schools themselves are operating in a fl ex- ible and robust regulatory regime that protects both sides of the equation. K. Corrigan: I just want to make it very clear that the members on this side of the House have repeatedly raised issues with private training schools and language schools.

We are not in any way suggesting that there should not be legislation and that there should not be regulation. Unfortunately, the concerns raised by so many in the sector — in the private training school sector, the career colleges as well as in the languages sector — have been so widespread that it is diffi cult to support this legisla- tion because it is being described as rushed, not properly thought through. Languages Canada has 65 members in the B.C. chap- ter — 52 private and 13 public. It includes public insti- tutions. So we’re talking….

It may be described as an industry organization, but it is both industry and public institutions. It represents a good chunk of the students who come over. Th eir concern is that the regulatory re- gime that is existing and that will be carried on under the Private Training Act is, in fact, going to punish and is…. Th ey believe that the number of students coming to B.C. is coming down and is decreasing. I wanted to ask. One of the requirements of the new legislation….

Also, over the last couple of years, there has been a requirement that — in order to get the federal designation, in order to get a student visa — somebody be accredited or designated. [1500]

British Columbia Debates6598 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 How many schools in British Columbia have applied for designation under either the old act or the new act? How many language schools have applied? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Although I don’t want to encour- age it, I suspect we’ll be here beyond the end of today’s session. As I don’t have that number here with staff , we’ll provide that to the member as soon as possible and cer- tainly before we sit again. K. Corrigan: Well, my understanding is that schools were told that they needed to apply. Th ere was a dead- line.

I don’t have it right in front of me, but I believe it was within the next couple of months. Certainly, with regard to the Languages Canada school, nobody has applied. Nobody has. Of those 65 members from the B.C. chap- ter, not one. Th ey’re all very concerned about the regime — both under PCTIA, the previous regime, and what will be continuing under the Private Training Act. So does that sound about right — zero? Does that sound approximately correct? Hon. A.

Wilkinson: I’m informed that the arrange- ment with the federal government is that the languages schools have until December 31 of 2015 to apply to stay on the international student program for visas. Th e dead- line for them to give notice that they will be applying is the end of this month. It’s a bit like fi ling one’s tax return. Th ere isn’t a rush of early applicants. Th ere have been three applicants so far, and more are expected by the end of March. K. Corrigan: I appreciate the minister reminding me of the date for the original notice to get in.

It is my understanding from speaking to Languages Canada that there is a real concern. We’ll wait to see, under this new act, whether Languages Canada members in fact apply, because they are so concerned. [1505] One of the issues that was mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver–West End was the fact that what seems to be missing in this bill…. It’s partly to do with other agreements that are referenced in the bill or triggered. One of the concerns is that it only applies to students who are studying for six months or more.

Th at is a real concern because many, many schools have terms that are less than six months. So this bill is going to do abso- lutely nothing to protect against those language schools that have terms that are less than six months, where you don’t need to get a visa. Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th e language schools that do want the federal student visa eligibility do need to acquire the designated status. Th ey will be regulated under this act, and those that do not seek to obtain federal student visa eligibility will not be regulated under this act. V . Huntington: I’m just wondering if the minister could respond.

Given the extent of the controversy with regard to the language school issue attached to this bill, is there anything in this legislation that would prevent him from stepping back on the language issue and dealing with other aspects attached to the bill that he’s intending and that the bill we all support addresses? With this level of controversy, I don’t understand why there’s a neces- sity to move forward with the language aspect attached to it at this time. Perhaps the minister could address that. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: If I understand the member’s question correctly, it’s: what is the need for this legisla- tion at this point, given the issues that have been raised in the chamber today? We have come to the conclusion that there is a need for a Private Training Act which will cover career colleges and will apply to those language schools that seek federal government eligibility for student visas. Th at needs to proceed, and that’s what we plan to do. A.

Weaver: I’ d like to build on an answer that the minister gave me with respect to my question regarding the defi nitions of “career training” and “career training program” and his referring of me to

section 5, which we will discuss later, of course. The question I have is…. My understanding, first off, is that the British Columbia government has entered into and signed a memorandum of understanding with Citizenship and Immigration Canada with respect to visa requirements and tracking those who are given a visa to come to an eligible institution. First off , may I ask if that is a cor- rect understanding? Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Th ere is an agreement between the provinces writ large and Citizenship and Immigration Canada as to the standard that will be applied at the prov- incial level to those language schools that seek to have eligibility for student visas. A. Weaver: Coming back to the point raised by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, visa requirements are diff erent depending on which country you come from. Y ou may come from Taiwan, for example, and not need a visa to go and study in a school. Y ou may come from an- other country and require a visa.

Y ou may be on a visitor’s permit and, as such, be allowed to study up to six months. [1510] Coming back to the reason why I’m seeking clarifi - cation with respect to the defi nition of “career training program, ” these private language schools provide critic- al training — not so much career training but language training — for international students wanting to better their skills in English. Th e concern here is that, as the minister pointed out, by not having a specifi c defi nition for “private language education, ” if someone is directed to

section 5….

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6599 It says: “ An institution that is not required to hold a certifi cate may apply in accordance with this Division for a registration certifi cate. ” Th is is making the whole private language sector in some sense voluntary. Now, a student could get a visa to come and train at a voluntar- ily registered private language institute. Th ey could be with that institute for, say, two weeks and then move to a non-registered private language school. Now, the reality here is that this does nothing to pro- tect the students from fl y-by-night organizations.

All it’s doing is protecting the students at entry point to a regis- tered school, but they can immediately move to another school. I would argue that, in so doing, the MOU that the British Columbia government has, along with other prov- inces, signed with Citizen and Immigration Canada can- not actually be enforced because the government will have no control as to where a student actually ends up having their private language education, because it’s only at the entry point that the visa requirement is there.

What this does, without specifi cally defi ning private language schools in the defi nitions and treating them separately, is it gives a loophole and actually penalizes those who actually want to voluntarily register and who, in doing so, must then put aside moneys to protect stu- dents — which I agree with in general. It’s a good idea to protect students. But the students will come in…. Th ose institutions that have spent the money to regis- ter voluntarily and put money aside — as per this legisla- tion — can be the entry point for a student, but they don’t have to be the fi nal point for a student.

Th ey could be a transition point for a student. Th is is why it’s so critical, I would argue, to put in the defi nitions and treat separ- ately private language schools — not through voluntary regulation under

section 5. My question, then, back to the minister again, another time, is: is it possible for the minister to reconsider, over the course of the night, the potential for adding an ex- clusion or adding in a diff erent defi nition for private lan- guage schools that does not treat them as a throwaway into

section 5, along with schools like massage therapy and other things as well? Hon. A. Wilkinson: To address the member’s con- cern, as I understand it, the federal student visas are school-specifi c. So if the student arrives at school X and decides aft er two weeks they would rather go skiing or perhaps go to a cheaper school or something of the sort, their visa becomes void. Th at is the mechanism by which this regime is managed in concert with the fed- eral government. A. Weaver: Will that remain the same if this bill were to pass or not? Is that something that’s occurring now or has been in the past?

Will it continue to be so in the future? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, working with the federal government, we anticipate continuity, but we cannot tell them what to do with their legislative regime or their visa regime. But the status quo is expected to continue into the future in terms of that federal-provincial agree- ment because, as I say, it’s not just with British Columbia. If I can answer the quantitative question from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake that she raised earli- er, there are 124 language schools on the federal immi- grant student program….

Sorry, there are 124 language schools on the provincial list that are eligible for federal student visas. [1515] I’m being corrected repeatedly here, because the note is not very clear. Th ere are 124 schools on the ISP list with the federal government giving them visa eligibility, and 59 of them are language schools. S. Fraser: I’m pleased to be able to enter this debate on a bill that’s raising some concerns in my constituency. Th is is from a member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Alberni–Pacifi c Rim.

I’m just going to quote from her letter to me about this bill. “Th e bill includes no purpose statement, carte blanche abil- ity to close institutions without rebuttal or response to allegations, and no option to exercise our rights to use the courts on any and all decisions. ” I’ll stop right there. Can the minister please address these concerns? Hon. A. Wilkinson: I would draw the member’s attention to the CFIB notice that was put out about Bill 7 to their members about their March 6 meeting with me.

It states, in the words of Richard Truscott, the vice- president for B.C. and Alberta: “In response to our ques- tions about control of the registrar, the minister pointed out there is an appeal mechanism to the commissioner. Th e specifi c rules that guide the commissioner in the ap- peals process will be set out in the regulations which will be developed aft er the law has passed. ” In response to the concern about the lack of a pur- poses section, there has not been a purposes

section in any British Columbia statute that I know of for at least ten years. S. Fraser: All right. But on the issues of “carte blanche ability to close institutions without rebuttal or response to allegations” and no option to exercise rights in the courts, is this accurate? Is this how the bill is actually in- tended to work? Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I conveyed to the delegation from CFIB last week, that perception is wrong. S. Fraser: Well, there seems to be some confl ict here on fact. The member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business goes on to say:

British Columbia Debates6600 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 “No amount of concern and opposition from the sector is being noted by the government. Th ey are insistent that the sector is in cooperation on this legislation. Th is could not be further from the truth. Sector administrators and school owners are considering leaving their jobs and closing their businesses if this legislation passes. “We see this as a strangling legislation that puts the onus on the sector to take all blame, warranted or not, and leaves its employees vulnerable to charges that do not have to be upheld in the court.

Th is is not a democratic process allowing freedom of speech and the rights given under the constitution of this country. ” Th ese are strong words. It seems that she is alleging that indeed her organization does not agree with or sup- port this legislation — and very clearly so. Hon. A. Wilkinson: It might be worthwhile for the person who wrote to the member opposite to be back in contact with Mr. Truscott at CFIB, because his note to me — or at least to his members following the meet- ing with me — addresses those concerns squarely.

It’s a bit perplexing when the correspondence starts talking about freedom of speech, which really isn’t entailed here in any way. A. Weaver: Coming back to my…. I know I’m be- labouring this point, but as you can see from the numer- ous members here, there’s some profound concern about the application of this legislation to private language schools in particular, in light of the fact that they’re not mentioned specifi cally in the bill, in the defi nitions in particular — what we’re discussing right now.

My understanding is that in fact Citizenship and Immigration Canada does not yet track students upon entry into Canada. Th ey are planning to do so, my under- standing is, this year. However, my understanding is that they will be relying on the designate school, upon receipt, to actually provide information to CIC with respect to the date of entry and date of leaving Canada. [1520] Now, my understanding there is that, again, there is nothing to stop a person coming to Canada, to a desig- nated school, and two days later moving to another school. Th at person is lost in the system.

Th at person can attend another school with a valid visa that could be shown. It seems to me that unless we treat all such private language schools as requiring registration, then they’ll be lost. Th is actually might encourage those to actually come with a visa for an accredited registered language institu- tion and then move to some quick, fl y-by-night organiza- tion. Th ey head back to their country aft er they get their training, but there’s no record of them. Th is bill does not protect the student.

It actually penal- izes the private language institution that must put aside money, etc., and spend the cost of registering. But that fl y-by-night organization, which is not required to regis- ter, is not really tracked, and hence, the student is not tracked in the system. Back to the minister again.

Will the minister consid- er protecting our vibrant, solid, well-established private language school industry in British Columbia, catering to a very large market in the Asia-Pacifi c, by ensuring that all private language schools are required to register, or failing that, putting in a specifi c defi nition here to ex- clude private language schools from this act until such time as consultation on that particular sector can occur in greater detail? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th ere seem to be a number of issues there, which I’ll try to unravel.

First of all, the majority if not all of these designated language schools that provide the eligibility for a student visa require pay- ment in advance. So presumably, the student then ar- rives in Canada. Th ey may not arrive directly in British Columbia. Th ey may take a few weeks to get here. Th ey then show up for their course, and they have paid in ad- vance. Th ey will then engage in their course. If they decide to quit the course, that is a federal issue, that they have then violated the terms of their visa. We do not engage in immigration enforcement issues in this government.

Th at is exclusively federal jurisdiction. If that student, as the model suggests, were to quit the school that they had paid tuition to aft er a few days — which is hard to comprehend why they would do that — and go to another school, they would lose the tuition they’ d paid to school A, pay tuition again at school B and face deportation for violating the terms of their visa. Th at paradigm seems to be fl awed. I think the member’s question is more specifically directed at the defi nition

section of the act. Our goal with this act is to capture those institutions that do lead to eli- gibility for federal student visas so that the federal regime will be invoked, and we will protect the reputation of our schools and our programs by not allowing them access to federal student visas unless they are designated and have met the designation criteria here in British Columbia. A. Weaver: Not to be argumentative, but as I pointed out earlier, in fact, you don’t have to have a student visa from many countries to actually study in this country, Taiwan being an example.

Y ou can come here from Taiwan and study. Y ou only need a student visa, in my understand- ing, in most cases if it’s for longer than six months. Th is does not protect those institutions that have spent a lot of time building their credibility, their reputation, putting British Columbia on the map as a go-to place for private language instruction from the fl y-by-night or- ganizations that don’t have to register. Th ose accredited schools, those registered schools, have extra burden put on them, and those not-registered schools get to benefi t from the reputation put on them.

Again, to the minister, will he consider putting in a defi nition to specifi cally defi ne private language schools in British Columbia?

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6601 Hon. A. Wilkinson: We seem to be dealing with apples and oranges here, mixed metaphors. If a student comes from the European Union, anywhere in the European Union, to a language school in British Columbia, they don’t need a visa. Th ey have a lengthy stay period. Th ey can go skiing. Th ey can pick apples in the Okanagan. Th ey can go to language school for a while.

Th ey will have paid their tuition to the language school up front. [1525] It begs the question: why would they go to language school A, change their mind aft er three or four days, as the member suggests, go to language school B and pay twice for the same product when they can come and go from Canada as they please? A. Weaver: In fact, I was pointing in this case, in the last question, with respect to people who didn’t need a visa. Th ey could come from Taiwan, say, and go to school B that is non-registered. Th ey’re not protected.

Th ey don’t require a visa because they’re not here for an extended period of time. Th ey can just enter the language school. My question to the minister: why would the minister not want to regulate all private language schools instead of only those certain components of them that volun- tarily choose to register? Th is is not protecting students, international foreign language students, because students from some countries can come to B.C. and register into a language school without a visa. It can happen today. Some of the schools that they’re going to are going to be protected.

Th ey’ll be protected because they’re regis- tered. Others won’t be. Th ose that are not registered, by and large, probably don’t have the same reputation — not in its entirety — as those who have spent the time and money to build that reputation. Th ey’re benefi ting from the established reputation of our vibrant private language education sector in B.C.

My question to the minister: why does the minister not want to protect all international students and only just those coming specifi cally on a student visa — as op- posed to visitors, or from those countries that don’t re- quire a student visa to actually attend private language schools here in British Columbia? Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Th e working premise here is fi nd- ing the balance between a light regulatory burden on schools that do not require government intervention — the living-room classes in Spanish or in English, for that matter, that are conducted informally, that require no regulation that we’re aware of — and the other alterna- tive, on the other end of the spectrum: schools that seek the endorsement of the state, schools that seek to have on their website and in their materials the demonstration that they have met federal student visa qualifi cations and thereby, as a prerequisite, have met the standards to be designated provincially.

Th ose are major selling points for any school. In order to have those criteria applied to them and be eligible under those terms, the schools need to meet some regulatory standards because they’re asking for the endorsement of the state, both federal and provincial. Th at is what this regime does. K. Corrigan: But what we’ve heard from the Languages Canada schools is that the reality is that that is what is happening already. Th e concerns that the member has raised are concerns that are happening already, events that are happening already, and this bill does not fi x that.

Th e minister seems to acknowledge that. I wanted to also note that the minister said there were 59 language schools in British Columbia. It looks like al- most all of them, if my numbers are correct, are members of Languages Canada, which is the organization which is raising concerns. I could be wrong on that, but it sounded like that was the case. I wanted to just mention another general concern that I have with this bill. I’m doing all of this under “Defi nitions, ” but they are general concerns. Th ey’re dir- ectly relevant to the bill.

Tomorrow the Ombudsperson is going to be releas- ing a report which appears to be from the press release on exactly the issues that are being raised, the longtime issues and concerns with respect to private training and language training schools in British Columbia. Certainly, when we were in second reading, I and many other members raised some of the horror stories that have happened because this government brought in PCTIA, the regime that did not work and which was supposed to decrease red tape.

Now, apparently, we’re bringing in a regime that’s supposed to decrease red tape again, which is an admission of failure and doesn’t actually make any sense, because we twice in a row have red tape being cut. [1530] My concern is that we now have a report coming out tomorrow from the Ombudsperson on this very sub- ject, on private training schools and language schools in British Columbia.

My question to the minister is: given that we have a re- port coming out now, why is it that government would not have delayed this legislation and let all of the public see what was in that report prior to the legislation pass- ing? My understanding is that now that it’s been intro- duced, we won’t be able to see the legislation before it either passes or doesn’t pass. I think that’s very unfortu- nate. Th e timing’s unfortunate. Certainly, if we could get a look at the report, it would inform debate, which I think is good for everybody.

I’m wondering about why the debate has been timed in such a way that the Ombudsperson’s report, which presumably will point to many, many concerns from stu- dents, is going to be coming out aft er debate of this bill.

British Columbia Debates6602 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 Hon. A. Wilkinson: I had the pleasure of meeting with the Ombudsperson a couple of weeks ago. Th e priority was to get a new regime in place to deal with management of private colleges, and particularly private career colleges, so that it could be moved out of the PCTIA regime back into government. Th at’s exactly what we’re doing here. Just to clarify an issue that the member referred to — of going from a regulatory, light-touch regime under PCTIA to one that she talks about reducing the regula- tory burden under the new PTA regime.

In fact, as I’ve said many times now, an institution that seeks to be designated will have to go through a regulatory regime, will have to pass through thresholds, will have to contrib- ute to the tuition protection fund. Th en aft er they’ve es- tablished their bona fi des and a track record of reliability, their regulatory and fi nancial burden will be reduced so that they can operate as they should — as a strong, re- liable member of our educational business community. K. Corrigan: Well, I just do want to point out….

I don’t think I have the press release associated with this bill in front of me, but I do believe that the press release said that red tape was once again going to be cut. We know that government has talked repeatedly about red tape being cut and that this was going to save money, that it’s going to be more effi cient and so on. My point was simply: that’s exactly, exactly what gov- ernment said when it brought in PCTIA, the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, in the fi rst place. It said exactly the same thing.

It said that the purpose of this is it will “bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions. ” So it’s been said twice. Th e point is that bringing it in and getting rid of it — government has said they’re both good moves. A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order.

In light of the issue that was brought to us momentar- ily ago by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, that the Ombudsperson’s report is being released tomorrow, it be- hooves this chamber and MLAs within to hear the results of this report — this report that’s been in the works for quite some time — prior to debating this bill. We checked with the Clerk’s offi ce earlier today to see whether or not such a point of order would be in order — to actually raise it. Obviously, I can’t determine what the result is.

But we have not as a House, as a chamber, got the information before us that we as a chamber need in order to debate and discuss the merits of this bill further. Th at will be available to us in this chamber tomorrow, aft er the Ombudsperson’s report is released. [1535] Th ere is no reason for us to be debating this in com- mittee today. Th e reason this is happening today, I don’t know. We have several weeks to go in the sitting of the Legislature. We can debate this and examine this more closely in committee stage once we have the information provided to us by the Ombudsman’s report.

With that, I leave it to your fi ne judgment, hon. Chair. Th e Chair: Member, the point of order is not accept- able. It doesn’t qualify under the usage of the standing orders. K. Corrigan: I think that I have, in a general way, ex- pressed the great concerns that I have and that Languages Canada and its 65 public and private institution members have expressed about this bill. Also the 30 or so mem- bers that are represented by the B.C. Career Colleges Association and the 20 or so members that are repre- sented by the Vancouver Island Private Accredited Colleges — all very concerned.

All have said that they do not believe that this bill solves the problems that are supposed to be solved in terms of protecting students, making sure we have a vi- brant but predictable, safe and attractive private train- ing industry. Th ey don’t believe that the problems are being solved. Th ey believe that this bill is not a good bill — some of whom sit on the minister’s advisory council. Th at’s a general comment. But with that, I would like to start actually asking more specifi c questions about the provisions of the bill itself. Since we’re on

part 1, defi nitions, the defi nition of, for example, “compliance standards. ” It says it means “stan- dards respecting education, administration and fi nances prescribed by regulation. ” Th is is one of the fi rst sections. I mean, there are many of them.

How is it possible that we can have a debate about whether or not the regime that is being put in place, the framework, is appropriate if we don’t know what the compliance standards are going to be? “Simply trust us that we’re going to put in standards. ” Neither we, asking questions on behalf of the pub- lic, nor the very language schools and private training schools that are going to be subject to those standards…. None of us can actually know what those standards are going to be. I’m very concerned about that, and I’m won- dering about why it is that we have no idea what the stan- dards are going to be. Hon.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, the compliance stan- dards are to be prescribed in regulation, and that’s to be developed in concert with the industry members, the 12-member advisory panel. One can well understand that the education of the minister of a fi nancial regime will need to change over time. We don’t want to come back into this House to change legislation every time some new on-line vehicle is developed so that these courses can be delivered in various ways. Regulations are a far more fl exible and sensible way to

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 10, 2015 6603 manage these issues. As I say, they’re to be developed in concert with the sector so that we can have a fl exible re- gime that will be responsive over time. K. Corrigan: I certainly understand and appreciate the minister’s response. But the industry itself has said that it’s uncomfortable with legislation that is so vague and so wide open that they have absolutely no idea what is planned. To say, “We pass the legislation fi rst. Trust us.

We’re going to fi gure out everything else, the meat” is the way the minister himself described what is going to hap- pen later, and the industry itself is not satisfi ed with that. I’m wondering if the minister has a comment on that. [1540] Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, in an industry that’s as dynamic and as variable as this one, to attempt to record the entire regime of their practices in a statute would lead to something as big as the Income Tax Act, and it would be completely infl exible.

Th e only viable approach to this is to develop enabling legislation and then to develop the regulations in concert with the industry, which is what we’re doing. K. Corrigan: I want to go to another defi nition: “‘ca- reer training institution’ means an institution that pro- vides or intends to provide a career training program. ” Just for clarifi cation, because of the earlier discussion that we’ve had about language schools, my understand- ing is that career-training institutions and career-training programs, as defi ned by this act, do not include language schools. Hon. A. Wilkinson: As mentioned earlier,

section 5 of the act does actually capture language schools which seek designation either for their reputational enhance- ment, which would be an extraordinarily strong selling tool in this marketplace, or for the federal student visa eligibility program. K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, and I do recognize that

section 5 does provide that institutions may apply under that

section to get a designation certifi cate or to get a designation certifi cate if they want to have those provi- sions apply to them. My question, though, is…. Just to be clear: apart from

section 5, by defi nition, language schools are not includ- ed in the defi nition of “career training institution” or “ca- reer training program. ” It does not…. Unless someone voluntarily seeks a designation, they would not be in- cluded under this act. Is that correct? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th e member’s premise is correct in that language schools seeking designation are cap- tured by the regulatory regime. One that does not seek designation is not. K. Corrigan: Th is is just for my own understanding.

Th ere will be many, many other types of programs that will be captured because, by defi nition, they fall under “career training institution” or “career training program” or “career-related program of instruction. ” Is that is cor- rect? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, the member’s premise is correct — that a large array of career-training institutions will be captured.

Th e operative defi nition here is “career training program” because that is part of the defi nition of “career training institution. ” These career-training programs are obviously the ones designed to provide skills to the student that sug- gest that they will have increased their marketability in the workforce. K. Corrigan: I appreciate that. I wanted to ask about the defi nition about the use of the new term “designation certifi cate. ” Some of the lan- guage schools — a fair number of the language schools, I believe…. Perhaps they’re umbrella organizations, but I’m not sure about that.

But certainly what has been raised, and also by training schools, is that they are con- cerned about the change of the term from “accreditation” to “designation. ” I’m wondering if the minister could explain what that means in terms of the changes and whether or not it’s just a term that is being changed or whether everything else is the same. [1545] Hon. A.

Wilkinson: It’s interesting how we’re all ex- posed to the world of media, which is heavily saturated by American activity. “ Accreditation” is a term that’s used for Canadian hospitals but is not used in any other con- text in the Ministry of Advanced Education. In fact, it’s not widely used in Canada for other purposes.

Th is not being in any way related to hospitals, the con- clusion was it’s time to get a proper term that describes what we’re doing rather than adopting an American term which can be full of cultural overtones. “Designation” was chosen as the appropriate term to demonstrate that the institution is compliant with the regime. K. Corrigan: Do not Languages Canada schools de- scribe their members who have gone through the process that they require…? Do they not call them accredited schools? I’m not sure of this. I’m just asking the question. Hon. A.

Wilkinson: Of course, the term “accredit- ation” is available to use by private sector organizations and trade organizations as they please. What we’re talk- ing about here is the role of government in providing that seal of credibility which attaches to the term. As I say, we elected to use the term “designation” rather than “ac-

British Columbia Debates6604 Tuesday, March 10, 2015 creditation. ” It’s a fairly arbitrary choice. “ Accreditation, ” as I say, has become laden with American infl uences as to exactly what it means. K. Corrigan: I’m a little surprised at that. I would have thought that the term “accreditation, ” which was a term that at some point, at least, was used for universities and colleges and for talking about being accredited institu- tions, accredited programs…. I thought that was a term that rather than being laden with problems was, in fact, a term that would make one think the standards were a little bit higher.

I would have thought of accreditation as perhaps be- ing something that was a little bit more desirable a term and that would provide more comfort to a student com- ing and to say: “Oh, this is an accredited institution. ” Th at gives me more comfort than designation, which is a much more nebulous kind of term. Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th is is actually not a term that’s used for British Columbia public institutions. It’s only when they apply for American accreditation for sports or other purposes. It’s not used in professional schools in Canada. It’s not used in our university system.

It’s not used by the ministry in any other context. It is a some- what arbitrary choice of term, but as I say, “designation” was selected because it does not carry the social baggage that “accreditation” does. K. Corrigan: It wouldn’t have been my natural inter- pretation of the word. Did the minister or ministry staff , then, receive any kind of feedback, positive or negative, about changing that term from “accreditation” to “designation”? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th e choice of term was not part of consultation with the sector. K. Corrigan: I just want to get it clear, then.

Th e min- ister is saying that the term “designation” was chosen, and the change from the longstanding term that was in the act for the last decade, at least, I guess was because it was seen as a negative connotation? Is that what the minister is saying? Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s rare that I can say the member is wrong, but on this occasion she is. Th ere is nothing positive or negative about this term.

It’s simply a term that is deemed to be useful for ministry purposes to establish it as a British Columbia term that is not laden with cultural overlay in the kinds of accredit- ations that are generated by numerous organizations in the United States. I might note that “accreditation” is not a term that’s used in Europe. It’s a heavily American term. [1550] K.

Corrigan: Was there any thought that keeping the term “accreditation” would suggest that there was a greater level of oversight and process associated with somebody achieving that accreditation, that it would be too high a standard because it was associated with American universities or other institutions? Has that got anything to do…? I’m just trying to understand why the term was changed. Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again — perhaps I’m not making myself clear — the choice was somewhat arbi- trary.

It was elected to move away from the term “ac- credited” because it is a term that is widely used in American institutions of varying quality, from the very best to rather poor. So rather than confuse the picture by adopting that American term, the premise was to develop a specifi c term for these uses, and that is “designation. ” K. Corrigan: Again, we could deal with this later, but some of the questions that I’ve had with respect to this act talk about which types of institutions would fall under- neath the act and which ones don’t. Th at would be: what is a career training program?

What is a career training institution? Th e question that I was asked to ask is: why are yoga schools subject to the regulatory regime, but Pilates and martial arts schools, for example, are not? Hon. A. Wilkinson: Th e thi

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150310pm-Hansard-v21n7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150310pm Hansard v21n7
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fc407ea05bac7bea6986dc4a942a2e1bb12509d6

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