2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2015

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

United Nations convention on persons with disabilities and Open Door Workplace Inclusion Awards

L. Larson

Burrowing Owl Estate Winery owl conservation initiative

K. Conroy

Ross Henderson

D. Bing

Pacific Rim Whale Festival

S. Fraser

Wood Design Awards event in Vancouver

J. Sturdy

Free dentistry event in Campbell River

C. Trevena

Oral Questions

Reviews into performance of Office of Auditor General for Local Government

S. Robinson

Hon. C. Oakes

K. Conroy

Role of Ben Stewart as Asian trade representative

B. Ralston

Hon. T. Wat

M. Farnworth

Impact of wholesale liquor pricing changes

D. Eby

Hon. S. Anton

S. Simpson

M. Mungall

Release of report on earthquake preparedness consultation

K. Corrigan

Hon. C. Clark

Petitions

M. Karagianis

S. Chandra Herbert

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Private Training Act (continued)

K. Corrigan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

R. Fleming

H. Bains

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (continued)

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

V. Huntington

B. Ralston

A. Weaver

[ Page 6643 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: I am very pleased today to introduce Diane Sowden, executive director and the founder of Children of the Street Society. Children of the Street Society is an organization dedicated to preventing the sexual exploitation of children and youth in British Columbia.

The Children of the Street Society recently celebrated their 20th anniversary. Since 1995 Diane and the Children of the Street Society have worked tirelessly to prevent the sexual exploitation and human trafficking of children and youth through such innovative programs as TCO 2 — Taking Care of Ourselves, Taking Care of Others — which includes workshops for youth ages 11 to 18, as well as through their predator watch and Hooked media campaigns.

I’m very pleased to have Diane with us here today as we recognize Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week. Would the House please make Diane Sowden welcome.

D. Eby: I would like to take the opportunity to welcome representatives of the independent wine stores of British Columbia.

[1335]

Among them today is Chris Reid, who runs the Broadway International Wine Shop in my constituency, a wonderful store that’s been there for 30 years.

Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the members’ gallery today is a constituent of mine, Don Grant. Don is an active member of the Richmond community and my great supporter. He is the immediate past president of the Richmond Curling Club and the president of Halftime Holdings. The Richmond Curling Club is a member of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, the Richmond Sports Council, Richmond Tourism and works closely with the school board for the promotion of a school curling program. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to Don Grant.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome for the second day here Michael Harding. He’s here with the Independent Wine Retailers Association of British Columbia. He’s also well known in our community for supporting groups like McLaren Housing, QMUNITY and many, many other organizations. He also runs a pretty cool adventure tour company. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today we have in the House my administrative coordinator, Nicki Blakesley. This is her first question period, and she has brought her best friend from high school, Jeanette Carlson, with her. Would the House please make them both feel very welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: There’s a guy sitting up in Prince George today named Bill Bond — a pretty good guy. Quiet — I don’t know why. But he’s a terrific guy, who’s become a friend of mine over the years. He is the husband of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour. Today is their 36th wedding anniversary. Would the House please congratulate them.

Hon. N. Letnick: Over 60,000 people are involved with agriculture in British Columbia, and today we have the honour of having three of them with us. We have Gordon Mathies, president of Cannor Nurseries. He’s also the growers’ chair for the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association. His family owns 425 acres of family farm. They have over 500 different species that they deliver all over the country.

Also, we have Hedy Dyck, the chief operating officer for British Columbia Landscape and Nursery Association. Hedy leads the industry in relationship with the provincial and federal governments — “Everything from soup to nuts,” she says — dealing with labour issues, border issues, CFIA and others.

Rounding out the top three, we have Wendy Bennett, the executive director of Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association. Her association works with farmers — and, actually, Minister Bond’s ministry — to make sure that we educate workers for safety on the farm. She has 13 people working with her all around B.C. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Tegart: I’m pleased to introduce Wendy Smitka, Deb Arnott and Bob Annis from Community Futures Association of British Columbia. Community Futures provides loans and support to small business in rural B.C., an invaluable service to ensure healthy small rural communities. I thank them for their presentation to caucus this morning, and I ask the House to help me make them feel welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries on my right is a rising force in the world of project development and on-the-ground politics. Would the House please welcome Gavin Dew.

D. Donaldson: Visiting the precinct today are Barbara McLeod, Jodie Wickens and Louise Witt of the Autism

[ Page 6644 ]

Support Network. As members know, it’s an amazing network of volunteers that help parents access quality autism treatment. Would the Legislature please make them welcome today.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re pleased to have in the gallery today Ms. Erin Shum, who is a member of the extensive and important Vancouver Chinese community. Her family has very deep roots in the community, and she has been newly elected to the Vancouver board of parks and recreation as a commissioner. Will the House please make her welcome.

[1340]

D. Horne: Madame Speaker, it’s with great pleasure that I actually introduce a guest of yours today. Cairine Green is having her first visit to the Legislature. Cairine’s father was the former MLA Arthur Ash. May the House make her truly welcome today.

G. Kyllo: I have two guests visiting today from the riding of Shuswap. I have Graydon and Maureen Ratzlaff. They’re the owners of Recline Ridge Winery and producers of award-winning wines. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I’m pleased to welcome in the gallery today some volunteers with the Alzheimer Society of B.C.: Kaley Aster, Evan Filder and Sarah Entrasen. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m pleased today to introduce Mike Gash, who is our regional manager in Williams Lake and with us here visiting in Victoria. He’s here visiting with his family — Sarah Gash, Charlie Gash and Olivia Gash — who are here while on spring break. He’s teaching his kids about the fun of politics in the big city of Victoria. So would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome two guests to the gallery here today. Joining us is my sister Alana Stone and her friend Janice Coell. Alana is a grade 4-5 teacher in Burnaby at Windsor Elementary. We have very spirited discussions around the Christmas dinner table, for certain. I think at times she subscribes to the segment of my family that attributes my political affiliation to being dropped on my head at childbirth. Nonetheless, it’s wonderful that she’s here, and I’d ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

N. Simons: Earlier today we had in the precinct the Powell River hockey team, the Powell River Kings, who last night defeated the Victoria Grizzlies in game 6.

Interjections.

N. Simons: None taken.

I just want to congratulate them and Kent Lewis for their excellent play. They’re on to the second round. Would this House please not only wish them welcome when they come back but congratulate them and wish them luck in the future.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1), 2015

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled: Supply Act (No. 1), 2015.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move first reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 16 will provide interim supply for government operating expenses during the first two months of the 2015-2016 fiscal year. Bill 16 also provides interim supply for government financing requirements for the ’15-16 fiscal year, including one-third of the year’s voted capital expenditures and loans, investments and other requirements, and 100 percent of the year’s requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities.

I move that Bill 16 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration of the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND OPEN

DOOR WORKPLACE INCLUSION AWARDS

L. Larson: I rise in the House today to recognize the fifth anniversary of Canada’s ratification of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

[1345]

This is the first international treaty that comprehensively recognizes the rights of people with disabilities, a convention working to guarantee human rights for an estimated 650 million individuals with disabilities around the world. Canada was one of the first countries to sign the convention, and we’re proud to recognize today’s anniversary.

[ Page 6645 ]

Consistent with the UN convention, B.C. has also set a vision to become the most progressive province in Canada for people with disabilities. Thanks to organizations like Open Door in British Columbia, we are moving towards that vision.

I had the privilege of attending UnTapped 2015 in Vancouver on Monday evening. This was the third year that Open Door has presented these B.C. Workplace Inclusion Awards. I want to congratulate the following individuals and businesses who were recognized: Kristin Bower from Vancity, Darcy Wilson from the city of Vancouver, Suipaul Singh from Victoria Shell gas stations, Atira Women’s Resource centre and BMO Bank of Montreal. Each one an individual or company acting as a champion for people with disabilities.

Today’s anniversary is a good opportunity to reflect on how we all — individuals, businesses and organizations — can take action to create a more accessible and inclusive province. So please join me in recognizing this day and the many contributions and achievements of people living with disabilities in British Columbia.

BURROWING OWL ESTATE WINERY

OWL CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

K. Conroy: When I say “burrowing owl,” most people think of a lush Merlot, an exquisite Chardonnay or a rich Cabernet Sauvignon. However, the Burrowing Owl Estate Winery that produces these delightful wines has also taken steps to help B.C.’s endangered wildlife, including the burrowing owl, for which the winery is named.

Following on the leadership and vision of owners Jim and Midge Wyse, their son and president, Chris Wyse, continues the winery’s commitment to environmental and ecological sustainability. The Wyses chose the name after learning that the little owl may have lived in the area at one time, but it’s since become an endangered species.

One hundred percent of the tasting fee charged in their tasting room is given to the Burrowing Owl Conservation Society of B.C. and to SORCO, the South Okanagan Rehabilitation Centre for Owls, raising about $50,000 each year for these two organizations.

Both groups are proud joint owners of a property close to Oliver, where their programs operate. SORCO, or the Raptor Rehab Centre, specializes in the rescue and recovery of any injured or otherwise incapacitated bird of prey at their clinic.

The Burrowing Owl Conservation Society of B.C.’s goal is to restore the population of burrowing owls to a sustainable level through captive breeding and site development, including the installation of artificial burrows through the southern Interior grasslands. They also have an educational program, which includes travelling to many schools throughout the year.

I had the pleasure of visiting the centre and want to thank my tour guide, Lauren Meads, the South Okanagan coordinator for the Burrowing Owl Conservation Society. I got to see the pairs of burrowing owls who were in their specialized breeding pens and walk amongst the healthy young owls soon to be released into the wild.

Burrowing owls are actually the cutest little owls, with their big yellow eyes, and are tough as nails. They have been known to migrate over 2,600 miles on their way south to California.

The centre survives on the hard work of many committed volunteers like Doreen Olson as well as the generosity of donors, the Burrowing Owl Winery a case in point.

So next time you have a taste of some of B.C.’s best, raise a glass to the good work being done on behalf of raptors in B.C.

ROSS HENDERSON

D. Bing: I want to say a few words today about my father-in-law, Ross Henderson, a self-described “luckiest guy in world.”

Ross passed away in January at the age of 95. Born on the family farm in Morden, Manitoba, on September 24, 1919, Ross enlisted when World War II broke out and joined the Royal Winnipeg Rifles.

After the war he took teacher training at the University of Winnipeg, where he met his future wife, Freida Thordarson. Ross used to say that the luckiest thing he did in his entire life was meeting Freida. They married in 1947 and moved to B.C., first to the Okanagan and then, in 1959, to North Vancouver, where he taught at Sutherland Secondary School from then until his retirement.

Ross was a kind, gentle, hard-working person whose main passion was his family. Ross remarked many times how lucky he was to have such a great family: three wonderful daughters — Carol, Helen and Nancy; eight beautiful grandchildren — Rebecca, Rachel, Emily, Jeremy, Graham, Eric, Robin and Patrick; and five awesome great-grandchildren — Ella, Ross, Heath, Henry and Rosa.

Ross was a born teacher, and his students loved him. This was most exemplified at his memorial service, when a large number of students came. They also sent touching sympathy cards and posted many lovely comments on line.

[1350]

While I know we will all miss him, I will never forget Ross’s passion for his family, his inspirational life and his significant contribution to all of his students. To be missed and loved by so many proves his point that he really was the luckiest guy in the world.

PACIFIC RIM WHALE FESTIVAL

S. Fraser: Yes, it’s that time of year again when the miraculous migration occurs on the west coast of Vancouver Island. You all know what I’m talking about — the amaz-

[ Page 6646 ]

ing spectacle of thousands of rubber-booted, yellow-slicker-clad, binocular-toting tourists that migrate to the coast via Highway 4 at the same time every year. More than 20,000 grey whales hit the region, travelling all the way from the Baja just to see this bizarre spectacle on the beaches or bobbing in rubber boats. The big greys still have found no plausible explanation for this unique phenomenon.

But seriously, folks, if you’ve not ventured to the Pacific Rim in March before, do it now. The 29th annual Pacific Rim Whale Festival begins in Tofino and Ucluelet on Saturday, March 14 to Sunday, March 22. With a significant focus on marine ecosystems and coastal life education, the Pacific Rim Whale Festival celebrates the continued protection and annual return of the migrating Pacific grey whales to the coastal waters of the communities — Tofino, Ucluelet — and the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve.

The events are endless — parades, the annual tug-of-whale, an amazing lecture series, a rubber boat race, hatchery tours, the blessing of the boats, tourism of a historic Tla-o-qui-aht whale-hunting village, learn traditional cedar-weaving, experience magical storytelling, interpretive walks, live music for kids, daily art shows, movies and much, much more. The chowder chowdown is my favourite.

For the time of your life, be in Ucluelet and Tofino March 14-22 for the 29th annual Pacific Rim Whale Festival. Be there; make the migration, be the migration.

WOOD DESIGN AWARDS EVENT

IN VANCOUVER

J. Sturdy: Last week the 11th annual Wood Design Awards took place in Vancouver. The event recognized innovation in architectural and structural design and celebrated the use of leadership in wood.

Architects, engineers, designers and builders attended this year’s event, which saw the nomination of 107 building projects, in 12 categories, from across the province. All nominated projects were chosen for highlighting and integrating the distinctive, unique qualities of wood and showcasing its beauty, strength, versatility and cost-effectiveness.

I’m very pleased to say that there were two winners from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Mateo Dürfeld of B.C. Passive House in Pemberton took home the environmental performance award. B.C. Passive House is a company dedicated to sustainable construction methodologies and manufactures buildings to the international Passive House standard.

The company was recognized for its use of wood products to improve the overall environmental performance of structures, which it has demonstrated through the use of wood in commercial buildings that typically have been both plain in appearance and poor in environmental performance.

McFarland Marceau Architects took home the Western Red Cedar Award for the Environmental Learning Centre at the outdoor school in Brackendale. The learning centre is intended to blend natural, human and building ecologies to create a unique organic architectural experience, with wood playing a lead role. In this endeavour, it has clearly succeeded.

Wood is playing an increasingly important role in sustainable architecture, and British Columbia companies are leading the way in design and integration of this renewable resource. Wood innovation is changing the way we build, and in B.C. we are leading the way. I’m sure the House will join me in congratulating all of this year’s winners.

FREE DENTISTRY EVENT

IN CAMPBELL RIVER

C. Trevena: People are lining up outside a Campbell River dentist at 5:30 in the morning, eager for treatment. Unusual? Yes. But it was an opportunity many could not miss: free dentistry for the day. Three dentists, Dr. Mike Finn, Dr. Paul Helpard and Dr. Paul Neate, along with 20 or so staff at the Dogwood Dental, opened their doors on a winter Sunday to provide the second annual Dentistry from the Heart event.

In all, 78 people were treated on a first-come, first-served basis during the more than 12 hours the service was offered, almost twice as many as those who came the previous year.

[1355]

The team provided basic dentistry from eight in the morning till about 8:30 at night, primarily extractions and fillings. One person had been waiting for a filling for more than three weeks, and another had four teeth extracted. Nearly everyone who attended was in pain. The reason? Many people simply cannot afford to go to the dentist. While children of those on low income are often entitled to free dental care, their parents are not, and staff recognized a number of those parents coming in for treatment themselves.

Good dental hygiene is vitally important to our overall health but is a gaping hole when it comes to our public health system. About one in five people say cost is a barrier to going to the dentist, so those few dentists that help out are most welcome.

Dentistry from the Heart is a U.S.-based non-profit, and it has the lofty but admirable goal of providing the world with free dental services. The practice team joins in as a way of giving back to the community. It becomes, as a staff member, Wendy Mason, said: “A day of dentistry with a different kind of atmosphere than we usually have.” Even regular patients join in, bringing food for those who are waiting and for staff.

The dentists themselves are hoping that next year more of their colleagues in Campbell River decide to take

part in a Dentistry from the Heart day and allow even more people access to a very important part of health care.

[ Page 6647 ]

Oral Questions

REVIEWS INTO PERFORMANCE OF

OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL

FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: For the sake of clarity, I think we should recap what we know about the problems at the Auditor General for Local Government. First, they’ve spent $5.2 million and produced one single audit. Second, if everything goes perfectly well with their new 18-month plan, they will complete the 17 remaining audits that they promised two years ago by August 2016 at a cost of $7.8 million. But there’s a catch.

That doesn’t include the cost of the Public Service Agency review. It doesn’t include the cost of the workplace environment review. It doesn’t include the cost of the audit council’s planned organizational review, and it doesn’t include the cost of the two teams of lawyers who are figuring out just who’s in charge. It also doesn’t include the cost to local governments, who’ve had to deal with this confusing office.

So to the minister, can she tell the House exactly how much the AGLG is costing taxpayers?

Hon. C. Oakes: I’m advised today that the audit council has issued a statement expressing interest in initiating an expert review of the AGLG. So if we’re to go through….We met with the audit council, and we identified an opportunity for us to work collaboratively together to ensure that the completion of the rest of the audits would be performed. I think it’s also really important, especially since the member opposite has local government experience…. The importance of the Auditor General for Local Government….

Again, let us recap some of the work that is being done. It is unfair to suggest that only one report has been done. There has been a perspective series, and they’re currently working on the rest of the 17 reports.

As a city councillor — and as the member opposite, as well, understands — for a smaller municipality, often we benefit from sharing best tools and best practices on projects, such as operational matters such as water treatment or procurement practices. This is the exact type of work that the Auditor General for Local Government is doing, and we look forward to continuing to work with them.

Madame Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: So if I heard correctly, we have yet another review added to this whole mess. This is ridiculous.

This minister insists, it sounds like, that things are getting sorted out, but it’s really hard for taxpayers to take her at her word. The organization is barely two years old, and they’ve already lawyered up.

To the minister, can she explain why on earth the AGLG and the audit council, both of which report to her, would need to hire lawyers to figure out who’s in charge?

Hon. C. Oakes: We’ve canvassed this topic on multiple occasions. This falls under the Auditor General for Local Government Act. Under

section 19 of the Auditor General for Local Government Act, it provides that the audit council has the responsibility for the review and monitoring of the performance of the AGLG.

[1400]

Given that one audit had been completed and that we are working towards the achievement of the completion of them, we sat down with the audit council, and we’ve identified a process to ensure that the rest of the audits would be reviewed. The AGLG has now indicated that she is supportive of such a review, and we look forward to the work proceeding.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a further supplemental.

S. Robinson: So the only thing we can say for certain is that this minister is not in charge and refuses to be accountable. She won’t take responsibility for the waste of $5.2 million in taxpayer funds, and she won’t take responsibility for the AGLG’s growing legal bills.

To the minister, what does she have to say to local governments that have been running in circles to accommodate repeated, confusing and often conflicting requests from the AGLG, only to discover that this whole thing is a wasted effort because the AGLG’s office is in such disarray?

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a unique mandate. It’s a unique piece of legislation and a new position for all of Canada. And it’s required to ensure that we have a functional independence of the role that’s maintained during the process that we’ve talked about. The parameters of this review must be informed by legal advice.

I have a quote here from the Prince George Citizen , dated February 10, from the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, acknowledging that the office has a complex job. “‘Contributions to improving our practices and…services isn’t going to be measured by the number of reports produced, but rather the quality of the reports,’ said Dhaliwal, ‘and if that takes time, then so be it.’”

K. Conroy: It’s so unique, it’s probably the first time this government’s paid $5.2 million for a single audit. And it’s clear that this minister is not on top of her file. Worse still, she’s letting down the very people she’s supposed to be helping.

Yesterday the minister claimed the Public Service Agency was addressing the human resource issues at the AGLG, but the PSA completed its staff interviews

[ Page 6648 ]

in December. The staff at the AGLG are still waiting for someone — anyone — to fix these problems so they can get on with their jobs.

To the minister, what does she have to say to the staff at the AGLG who are looking for someone to show some leadership on this file?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we’ve been disappointed with the office that has not delivered the performance on the audits in the original time. We’ve already expressed that disappointment.

We’ve met with the audit council who met with the Auditor General for Local Government as per the legislation. The Auditor General for Local Government requested that a workplace survey be completed. That workplace survey has been completed. Five recommendations were identified, and the Auditor General for Local Government intends on implementing those recommendations.

Madame Speaker: The member for Kootenay West on a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Yesterday this minister accused us of attacking public servants, when, in fact, it is this minister who has all but abandoned the staff at the AGLG. So again, what is this minister going to do to resolve these serious problems and stop the waste and dysfunction at the AGLG?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we’re working with the Auditor General for Local Government’s audit council to implement the recommendations that were identified in the workplace survey. We also intend to work with the audit council on ensuring the implementation of the revised plan to ensure that the audits be completed. But if it was up to the members opposite, there would never be a single audit ever performed.

[1405]

ROLE OF BEN STEWART AS

ASIAN TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

B. Ralston: Recently received documents from a freedom-of-information request show who the former MLA for Westside-Kelowna met in his new role as B.C.’s special representative to Asia. Mr. Stewart, who gave up his seat for the Premier and then was handed his new position, has only been able to squeeze in one meeting with a member of Japan’s expanding wine industry: Mr. Hiromichi Kuwahara of Kasugai Nenryo, distributor in Japan for Quails Gate Winery. This is the same winery owned by the representative and his family.

To the Minister of International Trade: which hat was Mr. Stewart wearing when he attended this meeting — his B.C. official hat or his Quails Gate hat?

Hon. T. Wat: Since the 2011 B.C. jobs plan our ministry, our government, has doubled the presence of trade and investment representative offices in our priority markets. Now we have over 64 trade and investment offices in our priority markets in China, in India, in Japan, in Korea, in Europe and also in the United States.

Due to the work of these trade and investment representative offices, we have facilitated a lot of direct foreign investment into British Columbia, and we have facilitated a lot of trade agreements. That’s why our government has been able to weather the economic recession; because we are the most diversified province in the whole of Canada.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: There are more than 22 importers and distributors listed for Japan on the Global Wine and Spirits website, and according to these documents, Mr. Stewart hasn’t met with any of them. It also appears he hasn’t even met with the Japan Wines and Spirits Importers Association. It looks like the only liquor industry group Mr. Stewart has met with in Japan is the distributor for his own winery in Kelowna. Why didn’t he meet with a single other wine importer, distributor or even the wine importers association?

Hon. T. Wat: Since the appointment of our special representative in Asia, Ben Stewart…. Actually, he has been a wonderful addition to our local team in our priority market. I’m sure the member opposite…. You have been to China. I understand that the member opposite has been to China several times, and you understand the culture of doing business in China and in Asia, including India, Japan and Korea.

Government-to-government relationship is very important to the private sector doing business with British Columbia. That’s why it’s important to have a government representative in our priority markets to try to connect that kind of government-to-government relationship, which in turn will lead to more trade deals for British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: I think the minister has missed the point of the question.

Japan is one of our largest trading partners. Mr. Stewart is over there to expand British Columbia investment and trade in Japan. There’s significant demand for British Columbia wine in Japan. So can the minister explain why Mr. Stewart has failed to meet with the Japanese wine industry — any other representative of companies in Japan interested in British Columbia wine other than the one that happens to be interested in Quails Gate Winery, which Mr. Stewart part owns?

[1410]

[ Page 6649 ]

Hon. T. Wat: Our Asia special representative, since he has taken up the position in Asia, has been meeting a lot of government officials. Not only government officials; he’s been meeting with a lot of private sector senior representatives as well and has been very instrumental in coming up with a lot of achievements.

Let me cite you a couple of examples. The Guangdong provincial government actually has been looking to locate an office in North America. They’ve been looking around — looking at Toronto, looking at San Francisco, all over North America. Finally, you know in what city they have decided to locate their office? It’s because Ben Stewart had a meeting with the senior Guangdong government official. He managed to convince them that Vancouver is the place where the Guangdong government should locate their office.

That was the announcement made by the Guangdong governor when he visited Vancouver in October last year, together with our Premier making the big announcement. It was well received by British Columbians.

M. Farnworth: We’re talking about Japan. We’re not talking about China. We’re talking about the former minister’s work, the Asia representative, Ben Stewart — his work in Japan.

There, one would expect that we would be promoting B.C. wine to a whole range of companies interested in wine in Japan. But no, the representative is not meeting with the wine institute in Japan. He’s not meeting with anybody else interested in importing British Columbia wine into Japan. He’s only met with one representative, who is the representative who deals with Quails Gate.

Doesn’t the minister find that somewhat strange? Can the minister give this House any sort of explanation that revolves around Japan, as opposed to trying to deflect the question over to China?

Hon. T. Wat: The member opposite is right in one thing. Ben Stewart, even though he’s stationed in Beijing, oversees the priority markets in China, Japan and Korea, and he has been travelling around those three countries meeting senior government officials and also the private sector, promoting every sector of our jobs plan. He’s not single sector–focused.

He has been trying to promote our exports to our priority markets. At the same time, he is inviting a lot of investors to come and invest in British Columbia.

IMPACT OF WHOLESALE

LIQUOR PRICING CHANGES

D. Eby: Yesterday we asked the Attorney General why she’s imposing a new wholesale beer and wine tax that’s going to increase prices in B.C. In response, she said she’d reduce the price of Red Racer IPA by just over 12 percent. What she didn’t mention, however, is that she’s cancelled the 16 percent wholesale discount for cold beer and wine stores. This means that, even on the Attorney General’s numbers, cold beer and wine stores will be paying 4 percent more for this product when they stock it on April 1.

They’ll also be paying 4 percent more for Corona. They’ll be paying 6 percent more for Budweiser, 9 percent more for Howe Sound Rail Ale Nut Brown. These new costs will be passed directly to beer drinkers.

Why is the Attorney General making beer drinkers pay more on April 1 thanks to her new beer tax?

Hon. S. Anton: Let me remind the member opposite that this is a wholesale price. Everybody is paying the same wholesale price. No more discounts.

[1415]

The wholesale price itself is set at roughly what the private liquor stores were paying all these years. They had a 16 percent discount. The wholesale price roughly aligns with that 16 percent discount.

That is the scheme starting on April 1. Everybody will pay that price — the rural agency stores, the government stores, the private stores, the wine stores. That is what a wholesale price is. Everyone pays the same price. Level playing field, starting on April 1.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The numbers are in black and white on the LDB website. The minister knows she cancelled the 16 percent discount. I don’t understand why she’s pretending that’s not the case. But the price is going up in the government stores as well. Yesterday, when the Attorney General said she’d reduced the price of Red Racer IPA, she didn’t include the government’s new retail markup, a markup that she’s not announcing for nine more days.

The Attorney General says the new price is 12 percent lower than current prices, but the overhead at government stores is over 17 percent. That leaves 5 percent of overhead to be paid for by government store customers.

Now, why is the Attorney General claiming that she’s lowering prices when Red Racer IPA and at least 5,000 other products will be more expensive as of April 1?

Hon. S. Anton: This is the wholesale price we’re talking about. It’s purchased by customers who take it out, and then they retail it. The private liquor stores will be retailing that product. They will set their own retail prices. That’s their prerogative.

The government stores will be setting their retail price. The wine stores will be setting their retail price. That’s how it works. You sell a product at wholesale, and people retail it.

This is the change that’s happening on April 1. It’s a change welcomed by industry. It’s the level playing field that people have been asking for, for many years. It joins

[ Page 6650 ]

all the many other changes we’ve been making in the liquor policy review, and they are good changes.

S. Simpson: We’re joined today in the Legislature by several wine store owners. The Attorney General, I will tell her, will have little success convincing them that the price increases they face are someone else’s fault. That’s because the minister is replacing their current discount with the single wholesale price.

Those owners are projecting $40 million in losses over the next five years unless they recover those losses by increasing prices to consumers. So my question to the Attorney General: can she tell these small business owners how they can recover their losses without passing unsustainable price increases on to consumers?

Hon. S. Anton: The system we had before the government stores set a retail price…. They discounted it to the rural agency stores by 10 percent. Then they changed it to 12 percent, but they could only go up by 10 percent. They discounted it to the private stores by 16 percent. They discounted it back to the wine stores by 30 percent.

That was a great system. Nobody could understand it.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: I bet none of you could understand that.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. S. Anton: Sorry, Madame Speaker. Through you, Madame Speaker.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. S. Anton: What we have done, Madame Speaker, is change the whole system so that it is a single wholesale price that purchasers, that retailers, will be paying. They will then go out and set their own prices — what the market will bear in their local stores in their local neighbourhoods. This is the level playing field that we are embarking upon on April 1.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What the government is doing is they’re adopting a single wholesale price that was never part of the review, that was done at the cabinet table after that as a separate item. I would say to the minister here: you can go ask those wine store owners. You can ask people in restaurants. You can ask the industry whether they like the system they have today better than the one you’re proposing, and they will say yes.

[1420]

These people said this was done with no consultation, no meaningful consultation at all — zero. On the wholesale price — zero consultation.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

S. Simpson: In a half-hearted effort to offset the elimination of this discount, the minister has told these business owners, the wine store owners, that they can sell other liquor products. But there’s a catch, of course. They’ll have to relocate their stores, because most of them are within a kilometre of existing cold beer and wine stores.

My question to the minister is this. Why is the minister throwing 12 small businesses with over 200 employees under the bus by telling them that they either become a private liquor store or that they go out of business?

Hon. S. Anton: There have been, of course, extensive consultations which carry on every single day. The member opposite mentioned the industry. There’s an industry representative group that I think people here are all familiar with, the Alliance of Beverage Licensees. Their representative was on the radio today. He said that some of them are going to go up a few pennies and some are going down a few pennies. Some are going to move a dollar or two, but it’s far too soon to be alarmist. In other words, this system is just fine.

But look at the other things that we’re doing on April 1.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Anton: We are changing so many things on the first of April that suit the consumers and that make our whole liquor distribution system and the system for consumers in British Columbia a better system altogether. This is out of the liquor policy review — which, may I remind members, was the most subscribed and the most interested, by the public, review that we have ever done in British Columbia. It’s resulting in a new system, and it’s good for British Columbia.

M. Mungall: Well, consumers are going to feel the pinch and retailers are going to feel the pinch because of the Liberals’ new pricing scheme on liquor. So are small distilleries in the province, particularly those who rely on sales at their tasting rooms. They will soon lose government commissions. These commissions were critical to help these small businesses get started. Without them, operations like Long Table Distillery will take a devastating hit.

To the Attorney General, why did she come up with such a scheme that hurts small businesses so much?

[ Page 6651 ]

Hon. S. Anton: Government policies over the last few years have played out in life. The member for Vancouver-Hastings — his riding is full of small breweries, craft breweries. There are distilleries operating around British Columbia. There are over 200 wineries. The industry is thriving, and they are producing good products in British Columbia that are enjoyed by British Columbians and enjoyed by the world.

Let me talk about a few more of the level-playing-field pieces that we have coming on the first of April. We’ve got store within a store. In other words, private liquor stores can now move inside grocery stores so that people can do their shopping all at the same time. B.C. wine stores are going to be able to move into grocery stores — again, so that you can buy your B.C. wine with your things that you’re taking home to dinner.

These are remarkable changes. It seems kind of funny that they are remarkable, but indeed they are. These are great changes for consumers in British Columbia. It makes our whole liquor regime in British Columbia better for consumers and better for producers.

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: In the mix of all of these changes, we see small businesses, we see retailers and we see consumers feeling the pinch. They’re the ones taking the hit for the Liberals’ liquor pricing scheme.

According to Charles Tremewen, the founder of Long Table, under the Attorney General’s new pricing structure, his company will make a $5 profit on a $50 bottle. That’s not enough for his business to survive.

Again to the minister, why on earth did she come up with a scheme that is going to hurt small businesses so much?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: There is a certain class of small business in British Columbia, and I bet there are some in the member’s riding, called rural agency stores. They used to pay a higher price than they are paying now, and they used to be limited in their markup to 10 percent. They are now going to pay less for their wholesale price, and they can mark it up to whatever they choose to do, as any normal retailer would. That is a whole class of small business that is very happy indeed.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON EARTHQUAKE

PREPAREDNESS CONSULTATION

K. Corrigan: Today marks exactly a year since the B.C. Liberal government tried to shake down the province’s taxpayers by appointing former Liberal MLA John Les to co-oversee earthquake consultations. It didn’t take much to shake out opposition to this crass pork-barrel politics, so the B.C. Liberals backed down and only hired the former director of California’s Office of Emergency Services, Henry Renteria, for the position.

Of course, what was really shaking was the Liberals trying to pre-empt a report from the Auditor General that found that the province is woefully unprepared for a major earthquake. The B.C. Liberals responded to the report by saying Mr. Renteria would be issuing a report at the end of 2014.

My question is to the Attorney General. Why hasn’t this report been released to the public as promised?

Hon. C. Clark: I was a little disappointed that I didn’t get any questions directed to me today, so I thought I would get up. I was hoping I might get a question from the favourite five, but the bottom 28 is okay too.

I’m happy to have that question from the member opposite, and I’ll tell her this. I thought that the question was actually going to be following this line on liquor. Of course, I hope that when she goes back to her home in the city of Burnaby, she’ll speak to the Burnaby city council about the fact that they don’t like private liquor stores.

Now here we are — an opposition, the No. 1 lobbyist for private liquor in British Columbia. What a change of heart we see from the opposition today. A member here who stood up and called the discount a subsidy for private business, and now all of a sudden they are the lobbyist for that very same private business. I hope when she goes home to Burnaby that she takes the message to some of the folks that she knows back there who have tried to stop private liquor stores being part of their landscape.

In the meantime, since she did ask me a question, I’ll get to the substance of it right now and tell her to stay tuned. The report will be available very soon. The consultant is wrapping up his work. We want to make sure that British Columbians, no matter where they live in this province, are safe and sound in the most important ways. The one most important thing that government can do is be there in the case of an emergency, and we intend to do that.

[End of question period.]

M. Karagianis: I have a petition to present.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The House will come to order.

Please proceed.

Petitions

M. Karagianis: I have a petition here with 1,369 signatures from residents in Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Enderby and the area calling on the government to increase staff levels and client-to-staff ratios in residential care facilities.

[ Page 6652 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to present a petition calling on the B.C. government to not proceed with changes to the B.C. Society Act that could muzzle charities from standing up for the public interest on issues, whether they be on earthquakes or other areas that are important and are not a laughing matter.

[1430]

S. Robinson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome Jodie Wickens to the House. Jodie is a tremendous advocate in my constituency for children with autism and a wonderful advocate for public education for all of our children.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Social Development — and, in this House, continued committee stage debate on Bill 7.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — PRIVATE TRAINING ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 7; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

section 7 (continued) .

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about

section

Section 7 deals with the registrar issuing certificates. I wanted to ask a question about subsection 7(7). It says: “A certificate issued under this

section is not transferable or assignable.” I’m wondering what would happen if there was a sale of an institution that fell under the act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, these being private sector interests, we’re concerned that the beneficial interest in ownership be in hands that we are familiar with. So certificates are not to be transferable and assignable unless the purchasing entity applies for its own certificate in order for operations to continue. This, of course, means that interests of the students are protected because we know who we’re dealing with.

K. Corrigan: I would assume, then, from the minister’s response, that if there was a sale, the business or the company that bought the school would then have to start at the beginning again and go through the certification process — pay the appropriate fees and all of that — and be assessed accordingly?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It will be treated as an application de novo , as if it were a first application. Nonetheless, one can well imagine that it could well be expedited if a large part of the circumstances of the institution have not changed but rather just the ownership has changed. If the operations are intended to continue, that should expedite matters.

K. Corrigan: I also wanted to ask about the posting and keeping posted copies of certificates. It’s my understanding, from the discussion we’ve had earlier and from looking at the act, that a particular institution could have many certificates, perhaps seven or eight or ten or 12, depending on the programs involved. If that’s the case, then would the certificate have to be posted at the program site, or are we talking at the institution? I’m just trying to get a little clarity on that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The approach to this is that each location will have to post the certificate. Presumably, like a well-qualified doctor, if there are lots of certificates on the wall, that will be impressive to the students and will demonstrate the institution’s success in receiving certificates to validate their ability to deliver programs of value to the student. The same, of course, applies to websites, where one would expect that perhaps the front page would include all the certificates and then subpages within the website would have a single certificate specific to that particular program.

K. Corrigan: These may seem like small questions. Just to understand how this would operate, though, an institution could, my understanding is, be required to get numerous certificates if it had different types of programs. If that is the case, where would it be…? One certificate would be posted at the location where that particular program was located. Another certificate would be where the other program is located. I’m just trying to understand that. Or would all the certificates have to be posted at all their locations?

[1440]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The operating plan is that each location will have a certificate which refers to that particular location’s capabilities and offerings. If an institution has more than one location, their website could, obviously, offer all their certificates available to the viewer on one page, and then perhaps for the sub-pages for each location there would a single certificate demonstrating that location as suitably qualified.

[ Page 6653 ]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about

section 7(2) — again, in relation to the issuance of certificates. It says, “The registrar may issue an interim designation certificate to an institution that has applied for a designation certificate, but does not meet the requirements for a designation certificate referred to in subsection (1) (a), if the registrar is satisfied that the institution meets (

a) the requirements prescribed by regulation for the interim designation certificate, and (

b) the requirements referred to in subsection (1) (b), (

c) and (d),” which all has to do with the variety of requirements that are going to be determined by regulation.

This is one of those sections that have created uncertainty and caused many institutions to say: “This is a very vague bill. We don’t know what it means when you say: ‘You can get a certificate, or you can get an interim certificate, but we’re not going to tell you what that interim designation certificate is going to be for, what the rules are, what the standard is going to be.’ It then refers back to what the permanent certificate is, but we don’t know what that is either.”

I’m wondering if the minister can provide an answer to the many, many institutions that have, as I’ve said earlier, been concerned about the vagueness and not understanding what the standards are and acknowledge that this is one of those sections that is so vague as for the institutions not really to know what kind of standard expectations they’re going to have.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The two subsections have an important distinction.

Section 7(1) refers to registration, which is, of course, the threshold the institution must pass before it can make any public offerings to students. Subsection (2) refers to designation, which is of course a higher standard that must be met.

The premise here is that if full designation requires a successfully graduated cohort of students having completed the program, if that is the goal, but an extraordinarily high standard of programming is being offered, then that institution could seek interim designation. Then, once they have a successful year of student production and student success finishing the program, that interim designation could be converted to an unrestricted full designation.

K. Corrigan: Well, maybe now would be a good time to get an example of a program and what the process is going to be, because I remind the minister that the minister said in this House — to us and also the industry — essentially: “Trust us. The meat of this bill is in the regulations.” That’s what the minister said.

[1445]

Let’s take the example of a flying school, which is one of the private training schools that would be covered. What is going to have to be done, and when is it going to be done, in order to have the framework actually filled out so that that flying school knows exactly what standards it’s going to have to meet, both for registration and then for designation?

What more work does the ministry have to do in order for us to know exactly what is being talked about in subsections 7(1) and (2)?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The example of a flying school is a good one.

If a new flying school were to come along and seek registration status, they would need to provide the sufficient expertise, and proof thereof, to the reviewing committee, which would include a capable person in the field of flight instruction.

Secondly, they would have to have demonstrated that they’ve developed an actual curriculum and they’re not going to do it off the cuff.

Thirdly, they will have to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of an inspector, that their facilities are appropriate and meet the expected standard of quality that will be required to conduct a flying school. One can imagine that that could well be a series of rooms in an airport, or it could be in a small office building nearby. Nonetheless, they will be inspected, to demonstrate that they actually have the facilities to deliver.

Then fourthly, there’s the issue of financial capacity to actually carry the program through the duration of the course, which the institution would have to demonstrate so that they aren’t operating, to use an old flight term, on a wing and a prayer.

K. Corrigan: Oh, perhaps I shouldn’t have used that example.

The problem is that the minister has just described some steps, saying that they would have to have the capacity, that they would have to have the room and that they would have to demonstrate that they could deliver the program.

But what the bill says is that the registrar “may issue a registration certificate or a designation certificate to the institution if the following requirements are met: (

a) the registrar is satisfied that the institution meets the requirements prescribed by regulation for the certificate.”

I have no idea what that means. Is the minister now, then, saying that the requirements for the certificate are the things that the minister just talked about? I mean, what kinds of things are we talking about? How can we possibly debate whether or not this is appropriate if we have no idea what it is that institutions are going to be required to do in order to get their certificate?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, we have the benefit of lengthy experience in this field, and the operators in the field are well familiar with the expectations to set up and operate a school. Given the breadth of fields that are pursued by this sector, it’s almost impossible to set out a

[ Page 6654 ]

standardized set of criteria in legislation, but they can be summarized, as I referred to in the flight school example, under the titles of competence, curriculum, facilities, finances and, of course — stating the obvious — suitable instructors.

[1450]

K. Corrigan: But even that is not in the bill, so we don’t know on the face of it…. The minister is telling us what is going to be in the regulations, what kind of things are going to be covered in the regulations, but we have no idea. We don’t know whether those four things are going to be there. It’s going to be decided, in some cases, by the minister, but more often by regulations from cabinet. On the face of it, we are being asked to simply trust the minister to come up with the right parameters for a certificate. It’s, essentially, giving us no information now.

I’m pleased that the minister has been able to tell us that competence and having the trainers and having the sites are things that are all going to be important, but I still don’t understand why it is that there is not more meat on the bones, as the minister himself put it previously, before we are asked to vote on this.

And, of course, just a reminder that this is one of the problems that so many in the industry…. Every single school that contacted me said the vagueness of the legislation is one of the major reasons that they can’t support it. I don’t know if the minister has a response to that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: One can well imagine the breadth of human endeavour, from pharmacy technician to pilot to dental assistant to legal assistant. To put these into the statute would result in an absurdly large statute, which would inevitably miss a few things.

Rather than take that meticulous and ineffectual approach, we have elected, as is so common in regulatory schemes, to set up the statutory framework that provides for regulations highly specific to subgroups of practitioners in the field to be developed in consultation with those practitioners so that we can develop the kind of standards that are required to protect the students’ interests in each of those fields of endeavour.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that. The minister has referenced consultation, but it is those various industry groups — including the flying schools, including health organizations, certainly including the language schools and a whole variety of other types of private training institutions — that have said this is not good enough. The minister can assure all of those organizations that they will be consulted, but they’re not satisfied with the level of vagueness that there is, in addition to some other concerns.

Certainly, one of the major concerns that I’ve mentioned before but I think is very much worth reiterating is the concern that many of the language schools have. They’re very concerned about the problem that many language schools will not be covered in this bill, and therefore the fly-by-night organizations, as some have called them, are going to continue to flourish. They will not be covered by the legislation, and therefore students will not be protected because there’s such a large portion of the schools that are not going to be covered.

I will go on to another question under this section. I don’t have too many more. It says the…. Actually, I think I have asked all of my questions under

section

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

K. Corrigan:

Section 8 provides that there can be conditions attached to certificates. “The registrar may, in issuing a certificate to an institution, attach conditions to the certificate for the purposes of consumer protection and quality assurance respecting the provision of programs of instruction by the institution.”

I’m wondering if the minister could give me an example of what types of conditions, apart from that vague general category, could be attached to a certificate.

[1455]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: A good example of this kind of condition is to ensure that a business licence has been issued by the appropriate municipality in a timely fashion, given that some municipalities are unable to issue a licence until occupancy occurs. Secondly, an example would be an institution limiting the number of students it is allowed to take on until the physical accommodations in, for instance, a laboratory have been set up for the program.

K. Corrigan: Another one of the concerns with regard to vagueness that many institutions cited with this legislation was the very issue of consumer protection and quality assurance. So I’m wondering why the minister chose not to provide more clarity about consumer protection and quality assurance.

It’s interesting that the examples the minister chooses to cite are municipal requirements that would therefore attach to the certificate. But what I’ve heard from many, many institutions is that there is no reference to exactly what kind of principles of consumer protection and quality assurance are envisioned by the act. And there are none. I’m wondering why there aren’t more explicit principles of consumer protection and quality assurance that are attached to the act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, this is a field which has a wide scope and range only limited to human endeavour and creativity, and so the goals of consumer protection and quality assurance must be in the statute. To itemize them would be to freeze them in the past.

[ Page 6655 ]

The premise here, of course, is to create the opportunity and the power for the registrar to act in the interests of consumer protection and to assure quality on a basis that can be flexible into the future, because this field is in ongoing development.

K. Corrigan: Well, there are other pieces of legislation. The Manitoba legislation talks about codes of conduct. The Manitoba legislation does reference, certainly, quality assurance and consumer protection in a much more explicit way.

I’m just wondering. Of course there’s going to be a difference with different schools, different types of schools, different sectors. But can there not be some guiding principles about what consumer protection and quality assurance standards are in the legislation so that everybody understands what those standards are about?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At the risk of being repetitive and perhaps restating myself, consumer protection is an emerging phenomenon. It affects the methods of payment. It affects the financial systems involved, which are constantly evolving. It affects things like on-line delivery. Quality assurance is similarly affected by this ongoing technological change.

To attempt to itemize the areas of concern under these two headings I think would inevitably be backward-looking. We’re much more interested in having a flexible forward- looking statute rather than ossifying it in the past.

K. Corrigan: I never thought that having standards of consumer protection and quality assurance was to be equated with ossifying in the past. I think that standards are standards. For example, in Manitoba included in the act is a reference to the minister prescribing a code of practice and conduct. And it’s not just suggesting that there should be. It goes through what the content of the code should be.

[1500]

It talks about standards and talks about ensuring that support services are there, procedures for dealing with complaints — some of which is in the act — saying that there need to be codes and we need to have standards.

I don’t agree that having no standards whatsoever for consumer protection and no standards for quality assurance within the act is necessary because they will freeze us in the past. I think we should be saying that we are entitled to some understanding of what the standards are going to be for private training schools.

We’re talking about — the whole thing is supposed to be talking about — quality assurance. That’s what we’re talking about: trying to protect consumers. So I don’t quite understand that answer, and I’m wondering if the minister wants to elucidate or respond.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The concern with codes of conduct is always how they are drafted, who can redraft them and the enforcement mechanism behind them. Having a statutory framework which provides for a flexible regulatory regime that is developed in consultation with the sector but not written by the sector will give us the statutory and regulatory authority to take action on these matters, rather than relying upon some kind of voluntary code of conduct.

K. Corrigan: What I still do not understand, though, is why, if all of this is being done in the future, we could not have had this work done so that the industry, as well as the students, as well as the students’ families, as well as the public, had some idea of what the whole framework was going to look like.

To say it all has to be done in the future…. Why not just write

an act — which is pretty well what’s happened here — and say: “We’re going to do 1,000 regulations to determine what this is all to look like, but just trust us”? That is essentially what’s happened here.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s rare that I openly disagree with the member opposite. In this moment I must, because the premise here, of course, is to get the principles out in front of the sector and then to sit down with the sector and draft the regulations. One cannot pass regulations without statutory authority. Here we are developing the statutory authority for a regulatory regime to be developed in consultation with the sector so that we can have an entirely viable, flexible, focused and enforceable regime.

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess the final thing I will say on this is that the sector itself has said that this is not satisfactory and that it is not doing what they hoped it would do. It’s so vague and so skeletal that they can’t support it.

Unfortunately, the flexibility that the minister is talking about…. There’s so much flexibility — if that’s the way he wants to describe it — that it’s unsupportable, certainly by the industry and also by many of those students who…. They probably haven’t seen the legislation, but it would not be comforting to the students or their families either.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m sorry. I wasn’t clear what the question was, but I’ll endeavour to respond in general, as I have to date, that our goal is to set statutory principles, develop regulations that are more specific to the sectors and to provide a thorough and enforceable regime to make sure that we can assure quality and consumer protection.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

K. Corrigan:

Section 9 says:

[ Page 6656 ]

“If the registrar refuses to issue a certificate under

section 7” — the

section we’ve dealt with already — “…the registrar must give written reasons to the institution for the registrar’s decision.

(2) An institution may not reapply for a registration certificate or a designation certificate during the 12-month period following the date of receipt of the registrar’s decision if (

a) the institution’s application for a registration certificate is refused, or (

b) the institution’s application for a designation certificate is refused and the institution is not issued an interim designation certificate.”

[1505]

From that I have a few questions. Why was that time period chosen? Is that similar to the legislation as it now exists, or is this a change?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite correctly points out that there are two layers here. One is both registration and designation. The working plan with this is that the applicant should re-apply, go through an academic cycle and 12 months later come back for another opportunity. They will have written reasons from the registrar outlining the deficiencies so that they can correct those deficiencies and hopefully have a successful application on the second round.

K. Corrigan: We were talking about the case, for example, if there was a sale. If there was a sale of a private institution, a training institution, they would have to re-apply. Then if they re-applied, even though they were buying a going concern, it’s possible that they could then be refused. Would they have to shut down, essentially, for the year, or would that be the kind of case where it is envisioned that there would be an interim designation certificate?

I guess I am trying to get an idea of under what circumstances the interim designation certificate would apply here and what kind of scenarios are envisioned.

J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome four very special visitors in the gallery. Their names are Pauline Gardikiotis, Theo, Hazen and Emerson. Why are the guests so special? They are actually from East Vancouver, which is very, very exciting.

Equally important, their partner and father, Trevor Stokes, is actually leading a group of people from the Streetfront alternative school today, right now, in climbing Kilimanjaro in Africa. This is a school from Britannia where they have led 22 students to climb Kilimanjaro. It’s just absolutely amazing that they are doing this trek.

Now, we actually got a message on March 9. A phone call relates the following: “The kids are just fantastic. They love Africa, the warmth and friendliness of the people who greet and wave to them wherever they go. The climb is not easy. They are now almost twice as high as any local mountains, but they are doing okay and are very well surveyed by Rod and the guys, who watch people continuously for symptoms of altitude sickness.” There is actually a website that you can follow to see where they are at every step of the way.

This will be life changing for the students that are on the climb. They are students who, because the regular school system doesn’t work for them…. The Streetfront school model pulls the kids back to the school system using an extreme sports model. The fact that they are there making this trip is just absolutely amazing.

I would like to ask the House to please welcome these wonderful guests and to send our love to all the people that are over in Africa making that climb.

Debate Continued

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Given the gap, I’ll try to address the question as I recall it.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I would never attribute that to you, hon. Member.

The premise is that on application for a certificate, the applicant…. We’ll take the example that I recall from the member’s question of an incumbent organization that has new ownership. They have to re-apply, and the potential outcome is they receive a positive answer from the registrar. They carry on as before with the new corporate structure but the same program and curriculum.

[1510]

Secondly, they could receive an interim designation subject to conversion to a full designation after successfully running the program and demonstrating that it’s a successful graduating class. They could then be converted to full designation, or they receive an adverse answer along with written reasons from the registrar, in which case they could promptly seek review of the decision by the commissioner. They would seek the remedies there.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

K. Corrigan:

Section 10 deals with “Continuation of certificate term if renewal application made before deadline.” It says: “If a certified institution applies for a certificate in accordance with this Division before the deadline prescribed by regulation, the institution’s current certificate remains valid until (

a) the registrar issues to the institution a certificate under

section 7…,”

— that’s the registration

section — “or (

b) receipt by the institution of the registrar’s decision refusing to issue a certificate under

section 7.”

[ Page 6657 ]

Essentially, this

section — I just want to get clarification — says that as long as somebody applies before their certificate expires, it will continue to be valid. I’m just wondering whether there is a concern that if there is a backlog…. I’m not sure what the expectation is — how long it’s going to take to process these certificates. Is there not a concern that what that could mean is that we could have schools, who may end up not being renewed or not being successful, operating for months on end with what, essentially, would have been an invalid certificate?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise of this

section is, I think, clear on the face of it. The onus is on the registrar to get back to the institution. The institution can carry on business until it hears back from the registrar. It is conceivable the registrar would get to the issue late, in which case the institution can continue to function until the registrar replies to them. The registrar’s response could be positive under subsection (a), in which case they carry on as before, or under subsection (

b) the registrar could refuse to issue a certificate, in which case that would trigger the review process and so forth.

The member is correct. If the registrar comes to the conclusion that the certificate should not be renewed, then the onus is on the operator to cease business until they have a certificate. The reasons for this are obvious. If the registrar is concerned about the facility and gets to the facility a week after the operating deadline has occurred, then the registrar must act. They cannot just allow the institution to operate indefinitely because of a one-week delay by the registrar.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

K. Corrigan: Division 3 deals with “Approval of Programs of Instruction.” It’s an important division of this part and important to the act. Again, it is very vague and concerning. What it says is:

“

(1) If a program of instruction is of a class prescribed by regulation as requiring approval under this Division, a certified institution must not enter into a contract with a student to provide, or provide the program of instruction if the program of instruction has not been approved by the registrar in accordance with this Division.

“

(2) As an exception, subsection (1) does not apply to a degree program of an institution for which the degree or the program is authorized by a consent under the Degree Authorization Act .”

Can the minister give me some examples of what we’re talking about here, what types of programs we’re talking about, and give me some idea of what’s envisioned by this section?

[1515]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that there will be thresholds of total tuition paid and instructional time. As subsection (1) indicates, an institution cannot enter into a contract with a student to provide such a course in the future if it is above a certain threshold. An example might be an expensive program or a lengthy program which the student might want to contract for, but the institution is prohibited from offering it until they actually are fully operational.

One can also see that there could be a threshold below which this is less of a concern — that students can be recruited, for instance, for a class that might have a dozen students and it might be cancelled if they couldn’t get enough students to offer a class in data entry.

K. Corrigan: This again points to the vagueness of this bill. I don’t understand. What I don’t understand is why, if we are going to be looking at regulations…. The minister says that the regulations are to be developed in consultation with the many different sectors that will be covered by the Private Training Act. If that is the case, why would it not be a preferable thing for this bill to be delayed until, say, the fall so that the consultations — the many, many consultations, the meat of the legislation, as the minister himself has described it…?

Why would it not make more sense — so that the industry could come on board and support this legislation and so that the many, many families, the many students that will not be covered with regard to language schools, could have more comfort — to say, “We are going to delay the completion of this bill until the fall and do those consultations and come up with the meat,” which the minister has acknowledged is missing, “and bring it back to the Legislature in the fall so that a much more informed discussion can happen”?

I do not believe…. I am not an expert on the rules of legislation and what level of understanding and specificity there should be in a piece of legislation. But it seems to me that the concerns that I’m feeling, that the industry is feeling, could certainly be addressed by saying, “Okay, let’s go and do that work” that the minister has said has to be done and then bring the legislation back in the fall and likely receive support from all sides of the House.

I want to reiterate again that we on this side of the House have been great advocates for regulation. We’ve brought forth private members’ bills.

[1520]

The member for Victoria–Swan Lake, who is sitting next to me, was one of those people who brought forth a private member’s bill saying that we needed to provide more protection for students and for the public attending private training schools.

We are certainly supportive of regulation. Our problem is that this is so flawed that the appropriate support is not there, certainly, from the industry. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it appears that the protection for a whole variety of students, clients who are going to be attending language schools…. The protection for those people would simply be non-existent. So that’s a suggestion.

[ Page 6658 ]

This section,

section 11, which has no understandable content whatsoever as to what it’s talking about, points again to the fact that I think we do need to hold back on this bill and wait till the fall.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, I reluctantly find myself disagreeing with the member on the principle of this. This

section would be notable if it were absent. This is actually leaving the statutory framework in place to provide for complex, expensive, elaborate programs to be approved before students are offered the opportunity to join the program.

One can imagine, for instance, a flight school. This is not a cheap thing to set up and operate. It requires a certain level of expertise. Before recruitment of students occurs, before students sign contracts to go into a flight school, they deserve, in our estimation, to have assurance that the program of instruction has been approved by the registrar before the flight school goes out and solicits interest.

This section, at least in my estimation, is clear on the face of it and is necessary and is part of an emerging regulatory regime that requires a statutory framework before the regulatory regime can be developed.

K. Corrigan: I don’t think I’m completely inept at reading a piece of legislation. But I read this section, and I had no idea what the heck it was talking about. I read it several times, and I said: “Okay, ask for examples.” You know, what is this talking about? Is it talking about things like apprenticeship? What kinds of institutions are they talking about? What kinds of programs? Does it have to do with money? Does it have to do with complexity? There is no hint whatsoever from this legislation of, for example, what the minister has just said, I believe.

Maybe I’ll just get a confirmation on this — that the minister just said it has to do with institutions that there is a particular cost associated with a program. Is that what it is? What kinds of things does the minister envision would fall under this

section that require approval before somebody can get their certification?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member notes, I stated earlier that the thresholds will include the total tuition paid, the instructional time, the duration of the course and, as mentioned earlier, just how capital-intensive and complicated the courses are. Those are all going to be parameters which deserve to be reviewed by the registrar before the course is approved and before students are solicited to enter the course and enter into contracts for the course.

Section 11(1), I think, is providing the necessary framework to implement that arrangement. Again, I would be very surprised if the members opposite thought that was a bad thing.

K. Corrigan: Part of the problem is that many in the industry are being scared off by this

section because they have no idea what it refers to. There is nothing in here…. The minister can make assurances that certain things will be under consideration, but even that is not delineated in the section. It just simply says: “We’re going to decide what things will require approval, and we’ll tell you later what it is after we’ve figured it all out.”

For example, there is the example of the flying school, and that’s a good example. I would expect that this would be a type of program that would require an approval.

[1525]

However, the person who has the local exercise facility, if it falls under the act…. And we’re not exactly clear because that’s to be decided later too. The person who has the local exercise school, fitness school, is going to take a look at this and say: “Is this something that is…? Is mine going to fall under this?” They don’t have any idea. They don’t have the benefit of having a discussion with the minister about the fact that “no, trust me; this is not going to apply to you.”

Again, why would the minister not, then, determine that the best thing is to put the legislation on hold so that the regulations can be developed so that there can be some comfort to the many, many representatives who are going to fall under the Private Training Act who have private training schools? Give them a chance to be assured that the regulations, the meat of this piece of legislation, are going to be something that they can live with and which are appropriate. They certainly don’t feel that way now.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite, unfortunately, works on the presumption that this legislation will come into effect tomorrow with no notice to the sector. In fact, we’re working closely with the sector, as I mentioned yesterday.

Last May and June there were 63 representatives engaged in consultations. In November and December of last year 176 representatives were involved, with more than 70 written submissions, and the senior staff in the ministry have been in discussions with more than 40 of the institutions involved, so this is hardly done in a vacuum.

Consumer protection and the quality of instruction being primary concerns, the statutory framework needs to be rolled out so that ongoing consultations with the sector will result in a successful outcome for all involved, both students and institutions.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, just building on some of the questions of the critic: on this clause specifically, what sort of new requirements may, by regulation, be placed upon private training institutions of all types? We’ve talked a lot about flying schools this afternoon, but I would go beyond that.

It’s clear that the legislation intends to have a transition to look at a different type of certification for institutions,

[ Page 6659 ]

but there is some concern that this clause specifically goes further and, in moving away from a self-industry, self-regulating model to this one, that there are unspecified service quality regulations that are contained in this clause.

I’m just wondering a couple of things about this. This will just be the question maybe I begin with. What is in mind, in terms of the drafters of the legislation, about the service quality regulations that will flow for the programs that are offered by institutions under this clause?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite has used the term “service quality.” I don’t see it in the section, and I’d be interested to know how he came to that conclusion. But I think the answer remains the same — that this statutory framework provides for a range of regulatory options that….

The existing regime under PCTIA will, obviously, be influencing the new regulatory regime, which will have the enforcement capacity provided by the statute. That will provide for a publicly administered regime that will be developed in consultation with the sector.

As I say, being a very wide and diverse sector, that regulatory framework will need to be flexible to accommodate the various human endeavours in this field.

R. Fleming: I just want to refer the minister to the language at the end of

section 11(1) that talks about the institution not being able to enter into an agreement with a student or to provide a program that has not been approved by the registrar.

[1530]

I understand that part, but to me, this

section is getting into the area around what quality or content of the program is going to be examined in order to achieve that approval elsewhere in the bill.

I guess my question really is: has the minister contemplated what kind of a regime, in terms of staff complement, is going to be required to make these kinds of determinations? Previously it was an industry-led process. It was not entirely done behind closed doors, but it was not a government-overseen process.

In my mind, this will now fall to the registrar, with the assistance of an advisory committee of some sort. It will have to be implemented and approved, ultimately, by ministry staff. I’m just wondering what that is going to look like. That has to be contemplated simultaneously with this legislation.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite asks what kind of staff complement will be involved in this. The current staff complement at PCTIA is 25, including six inspectors. As we canvassed at some length yesterday, the expectation is there’ll be a very similar staff complement in the government regime, and they will be employees of the ministry.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask a question about

section 11(2). It specifically states that this will not apply to institutions covered under the Degree Authorization Act.

Elsewhere in the bill there was a reference, perhaps in the

definitions, to the World Trade University, which was at one time going to be based in Chilliwack. I just wanted to ask if that reference means that that institution — which has its own act, as I recall — will be in fact an exception to this legislation. Or is it included?

Maybe I’ll just begin there, if he could clarify.

If I could just help the minister out, I am jumping around a little bit. It’s referred to in

section 88.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you to the member opposite for pointing out exactly where he was finding this reference — in sections 88 and 89 of the act, which are consequential amendments.

I can assist the member by taking him back to

section 1 in the definition of “excluded institution” — which, in (j), refers to institutions authorized under the Degree Authorization Act and, in (k), to designated institutions. We canvassed which ones those are yesterday.

My understanding is — to alleviate the member’s concerns — that the act in question, referred to in sections 88 and 89, has actually never been enacted.

R. Fleming: Well, just on that institution specifically…. That’s really what I want to ask here, on

section 11. I appreciate the minister’s indulgence if it is slightly out of order.

I’m not entirely certain — if the minister could comment on this — why the World Trade University continues to be referred to, if in fact it has never been enacted, as the minister said. I do recall it being a private order of business that went through the House some years ago. This institution never got off the ground. It received a number of generous tax subsidies from both local government and other levels of government.

[1535]

Then the institution suffered the discovery that it was in fact connected to somebody who’d been convicted of, or at least charged with, fraudulent activities in other jurisdictions. The institution in fact did not have any association with the United Nations, which was referred to in the legislation that went through this House, and the United Nations disowned entirely any connection with the World Trade University.

Given that “university” is very restrictive, as it should be, in British Columbia and appreciating that the debate here is mainly referring to institutions that call themselves colleges, which has a lot less restrictions placed on it, I would ask why — because we don’t get legislation dealing with advanced education all that often — this wouldn’t take the opportunity to repeal that legislation and even the very reference to a “World Trade University,” which had such an inglorious

chapter in B.C.’s history.

[ Page 6660 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member rightly points out that this is a tangent off the main course of what we’re covering here in sections 11 and 12. But if the member insists on addressing this issue, he can be assured that the legislation was passed but never enacted or brought into force, and so it seemed to be an entirely moot point.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if, with

section 11 where it says that some programs of instruction are going to require approval under this division…. Are there some, then, programs of instruction, including those that are designated, that are not going to be subject to approval? Is that the assumption that we can make — that there can be certain types of schools, including those that are designated as opposed to registered, that can get their designation without their program being approved under the act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m concerned the member may be reading something into

section 11 that is simply not there. We’ve covered, to some degree already, the distinction between a registration, which is required to operate at all, and a designation, which brings with it a higher standard and greater credibility in the marketplace. That was dealt with in the earlier sections. It’s open to an operator once they have obtained registration status to then seek designation status by meeting a higher standard.

K. Corrigan: I do fully understand that there’s a difference between registration and designation and that designation represents a higher standard. But what I’m asking now is…. This is where, in this

section and division, program approval is referenced, and what it intimates is that only certain classes of programs, which are going to be prescribed by regulation — so unfortunately, we don’t know what they are yet — are going to require approval.

My inference is, then, that there are going to be certain classes of programs of instruction that are not going to require approval. That’s a simple question. Is that not the case? That could be for a course that is registered either under a registration permit or a certification permit. You could, in both those cases, possibly have to or not have to apply for approval under

section 11.

[1540]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There may be some degree of confusion and overlap between the different categories. I’ll do my best to clarify it, subject to having my hem tugged by staff to clarify it for me.

An institution seeking to offer a course, if the course is more than 40 hours and costs more than $1,000, must seek registration status. They may offer other courses that do not require registration because they’re under $1,000 or less than 40 hours in duration. If an institution seeks designation, then all of their offerings must be approved regardless of whether they’re under $1,000 or less than 40 hours. Hence, the premise that designation is something special that can be relied upon for all of the offerings of the institution.

This

section 11 requirement for approval is to deal with a specific program of instruction that requires prior approval before a student can be permitted to enter into a contract for that course.

K. Corrigan: Well, the difference between designation and registration, which the minister was just talking about, doesn’t at that point talk about program approval. I don’t think we’ve talked about program approval before. It’s not clear from reading the

section itself.

What the minister just responded is that all programs that are offered by a designated institution will require program approval. At least, I believe that’s what the minister just said. A designated institution can have programs within it that would require designation. But it can also have programs within it — could it not? — that would not have such a high level of complexity or risk or so on, which I assume is part of what are going to be the thresholds that are looked at, the standards that are looked at in terms of whether or not there needs to be program approval.

Again, I just want clarity. What is it that is going to determine that a program has to be approved? I just want to confirm that the minister just said that any time there is a designation certificate, then those programs will all have to be approved — all programs in the institution, despite the variety of programs that a designated institution might offer?

[1545]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just for the sake of clarity and perhaps to attempt to clear the air, I’ll go over the regime more widely and bring it all back to

section 11 to the best of my ability.

If I were to be continuing a school or to be opening a new school, I would be seeking registration. I would, for any course of more than $1,000 tuition and 40 hours duration or more, need to be registered for that course. I may offer other courses, for the weekend or for a few hundred dollars, that do not require approval. So I will require registration for the courses that are above that hour-and-tuition threshold.

I then may seek to enhance my reputation, credibility and effectiveness in the marketplace by seeking designation status. If I seek to become designated, then all of my offerings have to be approved unless they do not fit into a national occupational classification zone. So if I were to offer something that does not connect to being in an occupation — like travelling in Europe — then I wouldn’t require that course to be approved.

Section 11 is invoked where a costly or complicated course or a course of long duration is being offered, and I cannot sign up students and put them into a contractual situation unless that course has been approved in advance.

[ Page 6661 ]

K. Corrigan: Okay, thank you. That’s very helpful, and I think it does answer the question, so I will sit down on that section.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions to begin with around

section 12(2)(c), the applicable fees. The minister has referred to a version of the consultation that has occurred prior to the legislation being introduced here. This clause refers to the regulation that will be proclaimed later. I’m just wondering if there was some discussion in the consultations with the institutions about what amounts fees may look like and whether they’re based on program costs or a percentage of revenue for the institution or if there are different classes of fees that are anticipated.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The PCTIA fee schedule, which was discussed at some length yesterday, is posted on the Internet and readily available. The actual quantum of the fees has not yet been reviewed with the sector in the consultation process. We expect that to be coming up, and it will be on a cost recovery basis. The accounting basis for that was also canvassed at length yesterday, and the premise is to seek fees that are (

a) reasonable and (

b) preferably lower than the existing fees.

R. Fleming: Just to ask a little further, then. The fees may vary from institution to institution or what type of program they’re offering, as I understand it, based on the existing PCTIA schedule. The principle will remain, under this new model, that the operation of the regulator will be on a cost recovery basis?

[1550]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This was covered at great length yesterday, and the answer is yes.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister about subsection (3) here, in terms of the registrar’s obligation to decide whether the program of instruction requires his or her approval for the institution. I think he gave an example under the last

section of the bill that we were just discussing about a hypothetical course called “Travelling in Europe,” if I heard him correctly, which sounds interesting.

I’m just wondering in terms of the decision. If the decision is that the program is not required to be approved by their office, what, if any, restrictions or oversight may exist for the institution that then goes on to offer a course that is deemed to be not of consequence or requiring approval. Is it just left there? Or does government receive information on enrolment and cost and content of that course, even if isn’t deemed to not require approval?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The threshold being the combination of $1,000 tuition and 40 hours of instructional time is the threshold above which the institution must be approved by the registrar. Below that threshold there will not be approval required or scrutiny, but this being a competitive sector, the understanding is that there may be attempts to ignore the thresholds.

That’s why the ministry, as PCTIA, will have six inspectors who will be out in the field making sure that the rules are being followed. We obviously expect to hear, as was noted yesterday, from the competitors if course offerings are put out there that are not already approved.

R. Fleming: I understand that while six inspectors may sound considerable, when you’re dealing with hundreds of institutions, the experience over the past several years has been that it’s spread rather thin. I’m just wondering in terms of these thresholds that are advanced.

If you do get an institution…. Again, I’ll be hypothetical here. They’re charging just below the threshold in terms of the tuition, so it’s not triggered, and they’re putting the course into certain modules that are just below the 40 hours or a portion of that, but the institution is creating a calendar and something that requires completion. There are units that are stacked together, and taken cumulatively, they will exceed these thresholds.

Is this the kind of thing that’s anticipated by the registrar and that will be looked into? Is there in fact going to be enough oversight to investigate complaints if this becomes something that’s being seen in the marketplace?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, this was canvassed at some length yesterday. We do have the precedent where this concept that the member refers to has been labelled as bundling, where an operator will unbundle a program to bring a number of components underneath the threshold. In recent years there has been a successful example of an injunction being obtained to prevent this and to bring the program back into the regulatory framework.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

K. Corrigan: I have a little note here that occurred to me while I was reading this section. It doesn’t necessarily apply to just this

section but to the act as a whole.

[1555]

Later in the act there is reference to offences and that there can be offences under this act. I’m wondering if the Civil Forfeiture Act applies to private training schools under this act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Presumably, this question refers to the assets of an individual who finds themselves in trouble with the law, to put it bluntly, and thereby comes

[ Page 6662 ]

within the focus or the interest of the civil forfeiture office. If this is an asset that falls into a class which would be subject to civil forfeiture, we do not have that answer readily available, but we’ll happily obtain it and send it to the member.

K. Corrigan: The reason why I was asking about civil forfeiture is that I think many British Columbians have been a little bit surprised at the scope of the use of civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is appropriate when there is an asset that is either gained by or used in the commission of a crime, but there doesn’t actually have to be a criminal charge.

I’m thinking that there have been…. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake was talking about, I believe it was, fraudulent practices, certainly unscrupulous practices, with regard to another institution that never has actually opened.

I think this is an area that there could be fraudulent activity. There has been fraudulent activity in the past, where you have students, particularly students coming from other countries, and they’re misled by the brand of B.C. post-secondary education. They believe that what they’re getting is a good product with very high standards.

Of course, that’s what this act is all about, to try to preserve or improve the brand, which has long been very, very high, very well-regarded. With some of the problems since the legislation put in by this government in 2003 — some of the problems under PCTIA — that brand has, unfortunately, suffered. Included in that is the possibility that there would be fraud — that students would pay money for a program, and there could be a charge of fraud.

Certainly, what the civil forfeiture office has said and what the legislation provides is that if it can be shown on a civil standard that the assets of a company were used or that proceeds of crime were accrued through fraudulent activity, therefore, those assets would be subject to civil forfeiture. I would imagine, since there is within the act…. It says “offences” in the Civil Forfeiture Act. It doesn’t say that it necessarily has to be…. It says that they can qualify. It doesn’t even have to be a criminal offence.

My guess is that probably the Civil Forfeiture Act would apply and could apply. For example, if there was fraud, if students were defrauded, perhaps from another country, the assets of a language school or a private training school could be seized under the Civil Forfeiture Act, and those assets would then go to the provincial government.

Perhaps we could get an answer back on that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the act does provide a tuition protection fund for a school that runs into difficulties. Secondly, of course, the civil forfeiture regime is subject to oversight by the judiciary. One can well imagine that, to use a tired old phrase from the courts, the various equities would be taken into account and the interests of the students would, hopefully, be the subject of some interest from the presiding judge.

K. Corrigan: Well, the Civil Forfeiture Act is overseen by the judiciary in some cases, but not necessarily. That’s one of the areas that we’ve expressed concern about — certainly not the idea of civil forfeiture, which is bringing a fair amount of money into the provincial coffers, but certainly the administrative use of civil forfeiture, wherein somebody can lose their assets without a judge being involved. That individual certainly can require that they go before a judge, but the process doesn’t necessarily require that.

[1600]

Anyway, I’ll go on to another question, because I imagine the minister doesn’t necessarily want to talk about that anymore.

Section 13 provides for additional requirements for certified institutions. They have to comply with the requirements for the institution’s certificate referred to earlier, maintain the security that’s referred to in

section 7(1), “(

d) comply with compliance standards applicable to the institution, (

e) offer at least one approved program of instruction, (

f) fulfill all reporting requirements prescribed by regulation, (

g) maintain compliance with all local, provincial and federal enactments related to the operation or administration of the institution, and (

h) pay the applicable fees prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

I’m wondering if the minister could maybe just do a little overview of what is intended by this section.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this

section provides a typical framework for compliance with any certificate being issued by government. This one, of course, is tailored to the specific needs of the sector and as a follow-on from the existing PCTIA framework. None of this should come as any surprise to anyone operating in the sector.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to ask…. It does seem like it’s sort of a framework for all of the things that are required of institutions, and it does actually make sense.

The applicable fees prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that has to do with the fees that were talked about earlier, both the fees for registration or certification as well as the fees for particular programs. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The fee schedule, I think, was canvassed at some length yesterday, both on initial registration and on ongoing operations. That fee

schedule has not yet been finalized, but one can imagine that it will be somewhat similar to the existing PCTIA fee schedule, which is on the Internet and which we reviewed yesterday.

[ Page 6663 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

K. Corrigan: This is another one of those sections that is hard to understand what it’s about because so much of it is going to be determined later by regulation. Certainly another example of, you know: “Could we get this sorted out before we finish debate, before the bill is finalized?”

“A certified institution must not implement (

a) a change that is of a class prescribed by regulation as requiring notification without notifying the registrar, and (

b) a change that is of a class prescribed by regulation as requiring notification and consent without the registrar’s consent to the change.”

Maybe those first two subsections…. I don’t even really understand what is being referred to when we’re talking about classes of change that are going to be later prescribed by regulation, requiring notification and, in some cases, notification and consent. Maybe an explanation of what this is about.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here, of course, is that material changes that affect the operations or content of the institution would have to either be reported and notified under subsection (1)(

a) or not only notified, but also require consent, under subsection (1)(b).

[1605]

K. Corrigan: Well, can the minister help us a bit? I imagine if anybody up in the gallery was watching this or was watching on TV, they would have no idea what it is that was being referenced here. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us a bit and tell us what kind of changes we are…. Just give us an example of perhaps a change that it would be expected would require notification and then the type of a change or class of a type of change — a class that would require notification and consent.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Examples of this would be a change of ownership, a change of location, a material change to program content or delivery.

K. Corrigan: That didn’t sound like it was too difficult. I apologize for the hint of sarcasm in my voice. But if those are the things that are contemplated…. If it’s going to be material changes, the word “material” is not even in the section. So we have no idea whether….

Okay, that’s a start, and it would be helpful to those that are going to be covered by the Private Training Act to know what that means. Again, this is a

section that…. I’ve had various organizations say, “Well, what does this mean? We have no idea what this

section is talking about,” and I think that’s after being consulted by the ministry in advance.

Why not put in this

section “material changes,” and then list the types of changes? I know there are many other acts that certainly would have that degree of detail — and I wouldn’t even call it detail — or even a list of the types of changes. List eight types of changes that would require notification and another eight that would require notification and consent, and then even possibly a reference to other changes as prescribed by regulation.

I’m wondering why we just have nothing in this

section with regard to what is being talked about.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There is significant guidance of the current regime on the Internet under the terminology “substantive changes” and “non-substantive changes.” One can well imagine that in consultation with the sector, those categories will, in all likelihood, be carried over into the new regulatory regime. But there may be some fine-tuning, as we learned from the sector which has been the most probative of the ongoing value or change to the organization.

For example, on the Internet one will find a change of ownership or a change of location, the addition of a location — those being substantive changes. Non-substantive changes would be a change of operating or legal name, a change in the institution’s contact person or web user, a change in board members for a non-profit organization.

K. Corrigan: Why would that not be the work done, then, so that it could be in the legislation so that when we’re debating it in this House, we’re not spending time trying to figure out some idea of what the

section refers to and, secondly, it’s making it less concerning to the people who are going to be covered — those that have private training institutions and will be covered by this act and are going to have to follow the rules, follow the requirements of the act?

Why would that work not have been done so that we could have a list and leaving a little bit of flexibility to say that further types of changes, as prescribed by regulation, as opposed to leaving it completely open…? It seems to me that once again this is an example of this bill being very rushed and not being fair from a public policy perspective — that we can’t debate any of the content because there is no content.

[1610]

Again to the minister: would this not be a good reason to say, “Let’s not complete this bill”? We’ve had a discussion. Let’s wait and see what those classes of changes are, see what the industry has to say about it, see what the consumer public has to say about it and see what we in the opposition and other members of the public have to say about it. I don’t understand why this is happening now and why we don’t put it off until the fall.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As mentioned earlier, those categories that are in the existing framework of substantive and non-substantive changes come as no surprise

[ Page 6664 ]

whatsoever to the sector. They’re well familiar with them. Those, of course, will form the agenda for consultations with the sector about, perhaps, reclassification of some of those into either subsection (

a) or subsection (

b) of subsection 14(1).

K. Corrigan: Well, it sounds like what the minister is saying is that we should assume that things are going to be largely the same as they are in the present act, but I don’t think we can make any such assumption. We don’t know whether or not any or all of those particular types of material changes…. We didn’t even know if it was material. We didn’t know what kinds of things were being contemplated. So to say that you should assume, I think, is a little bit presumptive and slightly unfair to all of those, and particularly those, that are going to be covered by this act. I’ve made that point.

Subsection (3) says: “If implementing a proposed change requires consent under this section, the registrar must decide in accordance with the regulations whether or not to consent to the change.” Again, one of the comments that I’ve heard repeatedly from those that are concerned about this bill is the power of the registrar. Here is an example of a power of the registrar. Now, there are going to be regulations, but there’s no knowledge of what that’s going to include, what those regulations are.

Can we get some sense of what that scheme is, what the regulations are going to say that are going to guide the registrar in making a decision whether or not to consent to the change?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The anticipated regulations are, of course, to outline the standards which the registrar will have to apply and the issues which fall within

section 14(1)(b). Of course, that is the nature of requiring consent. Otherwise, everything would fall under

section 14(1)(a). The registrar has to exercise some decision-making authority in order to decide whether or not to consent.

K. Corrigan: Can the minister, then, give us some idea of just some of the content of those regulations — what those regulations might look like, what kinds of principles they’re going to be and what kinds of factors we are talking about here?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The presumption here is that the regulations will contain not only the list of items that fall into categories in 14(1)(

a) and (

b) but also some of the parameters which the registrar will be required to consider in coming to the decision whether or not to consent under sub 14(3).

K. Corrigan: I think what I was asking was: can the minister give me some idea of what kinds of things those parameters might be?

[1615]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The substantive issues to be resolved will be things, as I mentioned earlier, like location, ownership and so forth. The parameters to be applied to them by the registrar will be within the usual parameters of administrative law functions and administrative decision-making — that is, fairness, transparency and following the rules of natural justice.

K. Corrigan:

Section 14(2)(

d) says that a certified institution that is proposing a change referred to in subsection (1) — changes that we really don’t know exactly what they are because it’s going to be decided later — are going to have to “pay the applicable fees prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” So these would be fees for changes. Is that the idea? They’d be something very specific to the fact that there is going to be a change?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It might be easiest to reference the existing PCTIA fees, which are available on the Internet. It shows fees payable to the agency on pages 53 and 54 of the PCTIA bylaws. The current state of play is that a substantial modification fee ranges from $100 to $200 per program, and a non-substantive change ranges from $50 to…. Well, it looks like it’s only $50 per program. That’s the current fee schedule, and one can imagine it’ll be in the same range in the new regime.

K. Corrigan: What I’m hearing repeatedly with regard to this

section and some other sections, but particularly this section, is that we should take a look at how things operate now and look at PCTIA. “We’re not going to be specific about what the new regime is going to look like. Take a look at what the regime is now, take a look at the framework now, and that’ll give you an idea. You can assume that probably things are going to be quite a bit like that. But oh, by the way, this act is designed to fix all the problems.”

So in some unspecified way, we are going to fix all the problems. “Trust us with regulation. But if you want to get an idea of how it’s going to be, go back and look at the old act.”

It seems to me you’re asking us to do almost two opposite things at once. I think this is an overall concern with the act. What we are left with, then, is that we really don’t know what it is that government is proposing.

We have a problem that needs to be fixed. We know that there’s a problem that needs to be fixed. But there is no meat on the bones, as the minister himself has acknowledged and said: “Trust us. We’re going to put the meat on the bones later. The meat of the legislation comes later. But, by the way, if you are concerned about what this is actually going to look like, go back and look at the old act, and it’ll give you a pretty good idea.”

I’m sorry. This is not helpful, and I don’t think it’s appropriate in a piece of legislation. I do believe that it’s a

[ Page 6665 ]

good reason why we should be delaying this and getting that meat on the bones that is going to come later — before it’s finalized in legislation.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps I can remind the member of the substantial faith we’ve placed in the provincial civil servants that do a remarkably good job of administering the affairs of this province — 28,000 individuals who work for the direct provincial civil service. This regime is being moved into and incorporated into that civil service and the very capable staff of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[1620]

There will also be an entirely new governance regime. The old board has been dissolved already. The current deputy minister is the administrator of PCTIA at this point. We expect that that governance regime and the diligence, thoroughness and capability of the civil service will prevail to lead to a brighter future.

K. Corrigan: I’m certainly not impugning in any way the capabilities and the professionalism of the civil service as a whole in British Columbia. I think they do a fabulous job. Part of the problem here is that there was no faith in the civil service when this government brought in the legislation in the first place that took away regulation and oversight of private training in British Columbia and handed it over and separated it from government with the Private Career Training Institutions Act, after which we’ve had the many, many horror shows and embarrassment.

I certainly am not in any way suggesting any kind of criticism of the able civil service that we have in British Columbia. What I was saying was that it was generally summarizing my concern and the concern of many others that we are being asked to trust that all of this will be fleshed out at a later time. We have a new regime. It’s going to be better. But by the way, if you want to look at what it’s going to look like, if you want to get some idea of what these regulations are going to look like, then you should look at the old regime because that’ll probably give you a pretty good idea.

I’m sort of left in the dark. I’m really not sure where we are. But I think I actually don’t have any more questions under this section.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

K. Corrigan:

Section 15 deals with the surrendering of certificates. I just have a big question mark beside this section. “

(1) A certified institution may surrender any or all of its certificates in accordance with the regulations.

(2) If an institution surrenders a certificate under subsection (1), the institution must immediately return the certificate to the registrar.”

What is the minister expecting are going to be the circumstances that a certified institution would be surrendering its certificates? What is going to be in those regulations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This

section envisages either the complete closure of an institution or, more likely, that an institution closes at a particular location when it has multiple locations.

K. Corrigan: Then I’m wondering: why wouldn’t that be in the act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise, of course, is that the certificate is the fundamental piece of evidence to show compliance with the act and authorization to operate the institution. Both in terms of Internet presence and the physical presence of the location, given that the certificate must be prominently displayed at the location and on the Internet, once the certificate has been surrendered, that web presence and physical presence will cease to be a certified private teaching institution and would, if it contin