Hansard -- Thursday, October 9, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 13 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Petitions		7281
	D. MacKay
	K. Stewart

Committee of the Whole House		7281
	Judicial Compensation Act (Bill 41)
	Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills		7281
	Judicial Compensation Act (Bill 41)

Third Reading of Bills		7281
	Judicial Compensation Act (Bill 41)

Second Reading of Bills		7281
	Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65)
	Hon. G. Plant
	R. Hawes
	S. Orr
	J. Kwan
	B. Suffredine
	R. Sultan
	Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 35)
	Hon. S. Bond
	R. Hawes
	L. Mayencourt
	R. Sultan
	H. Bloy
	I. Chong
	D. Hayer
	E. Brenzinger
	Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52)
	Hon. S. Bond
	J. Kwan
	L. Mayencourt

D. MacKay: I have a petition to file. I have a petition here from 630 residents from around the northwest part of the province, particularly from the Burns Lake area, asking that the government stop the privatization of sales and distribution of liquor.

K. Stewart: I have three petitions to present to the House today. The first is a petition of 1,780 names to keep our Pitt Meadows, Haney and west Maple Ridge liquor stores open. The second petition is in support of the Ridge Meadows Women's Centre, and the third petition I have to present today is for support of the scope of practice for our naturopathic physicians.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 41; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendments standing in my name to sections 32 and 33 of the act. I know that's not in order, but we'll make it in order.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 65 represents the product of several years of work between the provincial government and municipal governments in British Columbia to try to develop a new system for the enforcement and adjudication of minor municipal bylaw infractions.

The reality is that our court system is expensive. It is valuable, and it is a hugely important part of our system of democracy in British Columbia, but increasingly it is needed to deal with cases that are evermore complex and difficult. As a result, the experience that municipal governments have across the province is that when they seek to enforce particularly minor bylaw infractions, they experience difficulty in getting access to a busy court list because the court list is often full with matters that are perhaps not unfairly described as more deserving of their attention. Oftentimes these cases of minor bylaw infractions are at the bottom of the court lists, and sometimes they never rise to the top.

We've been looking for some time for a new way of dealing with the enforcement of local government bylaws. Part of that search has involved an attempt to rethink what it means to enforce municipal bylaws, and that rethinking is evidenced in this bill. We have tended to think of the enforcement of minor municipal bylaws like parking tickets, dog licensing violations and noise bylaw violations as being criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. I think it is both appropriate and timely to reconceive our approach to these matters

from an administrative rather than a quasi-criminal perspective, and that's what this bill seeks to do.

What this bill does is reinvent the system of bylaw enforcement in a way that I think will make it more efficient and more effective, without sacrificing any of the important requirements of fairness that are an essential part of any system of the application of law in the context of potential disputes between citizens and agencies of government. What this bill does, in part, is create a new adjudicative system for the enforcement of local bylaw disputes.

Let me summarize briefly the features of the new system. First, the bylaw notice may be delivered by mail or by leaving it on the vehicle if it is a parking contravention. That's the first step: delivering and receiving the bylaw notice. The second step in the process is that this bill gives local governments the ability to enter into what are called "compliance agreements" where there is a need for corrective action. Alternatively, if that is neither appropriate nor successful, then these matters will be referred to an adjudicator rather than to the Provincial Court.

The bill provides for the structure of the process for the hearing of these disputes. It says that those hearings can take place with people present in person, by video conferencing, by telephone or even based on written submissions. In other words, we are trying to make the structure around the enforcement of these bylaws a little less formal than it has been in the past.

This process, we believe, is fair and appropriate for less serious matters. One of the things we have been doing is trying to draw a line that will distinguish between those matters that can fairly be described as less serious and those matters that will require a little more serious attention, because local governments do have the power to impose fines — in some cases, of very high amounts. The bill creates a ceiling of $500 as the maximum amount for fines or administrative penalty amounts that would be available for the new process.

For the more serious matters — that is, the matters where the amount at issue is more than $500 — those matters will continue to be heard by the Provincial Court. This bill gives the judges hearing those matters additional sentencing powers, such as compliance and restitution orders. Failure to obey those court orders will be punishable with a fine.

It's important to make a couple of additional points at this stage, although they could of course be made during committee stage debate. One of the things that was asked when I first started talking about this proposal two years ago with representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities was the question of the independence, if you will — the adjudicative independence of dispute adjudicators. I think those were good questions that were raised, and we've done some work in this bill to address those questions.

In fact, part 3 of the bill speaks about this in more detail, but let me just say a little bit about section 15, because it speaks to that issue that I think is important. First of all, the adjudicators that will be available to deal with these disputes are going to come from a roster. The appointment of adjudicators is actually not going to be made by local government but rather by the Deputy Attorney General.

There is a requirement that is consistent with the government's general approach to merit-based appointment across our administrative system of justice and in other areas. There is a requirement that dispute adjudicators have prescribed qualifications. They will be required to take an oath. They are prevented by statute from being an employee of local government, and they are also prevented by statute — by this bill — from holding elected office in a local government.

What will happen is that one or more rosters of these adjudicators will be established for the purpose of allowing adjudicators to be selected to hear disputes in respect of bylaw notices. There may be one roster for the province as a whole, or there may be a roster for one or more local governments. The structure in the bill is intended to be flexible to respond to the reality that this system, in terms of things like the availability of qualified adjudicators, may operate a little differently in a large urban area like the lower mainland than in smaller rural communities. That's why there's the possibility that there may be more than one roster. I think those provisions, as well as some others, go quite some distance — in fact, they go far enough, in my submission — to ensure that the adjudicators have the necessary degree of independence and neutrality to make the decisions that will be required of them.

In order for local governments to take up the opportunity to implement this new system, they're going to have to do some work to redesign their existing bylaw systems. That may range from rewriting their ticketing software to other kinds of processes. The fact is that in order to ensure that that work can be done within a framework where we know what the framework is, it's necessary to take this step forward and to put that framework into place through this legislation.

As a next step in the process, the government has been working with the three municipalities of the North Shore in Vancouver — that is, the district of West Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver — who have come together to see if they can work together to create one process, one system for all three communities. We are working with those three communities to put in place what will probably become a pilot project so that we can do a test run on ideas like software and important elements of the system.

The act is structured in a way that allows this new process to be rolled out in parts of the province rather than, necessarily, the whole province all at once. I am hopeful that we will learn enough through this work with the three communities I've mentioned to find the tools, the processes and the technology that will allow us to ensure that this system eventually rolls out to the vast majority of the province.

This is really another step along a road that has, to date, been characterized by a great deal of cooperative

consultation with local governments in British Columbia, who are generally enthusiastic about moving to this new system. We will continue to work with local governments to ensure that this system works for them as well as for the citizens who will be affected by it.

I think it does represent another instance of a reform-minded approach to the justice system, which is necessary if we are going to have a justice system that will work for the citizens of British Columbia in the twenty-first century. I'm happy that this process has reached the state where we are able to examine this framework on the floor of the Legislature in this debate today, and I look forward to the comments of other members.

S. Orr: Joining us today, we have a whole range of students from the University of Victoria from the English-as-a-second-language program. I'm sure these students are a long way from home, so I would really like the House to please make them all very welcome.

R. Hawes: I'd like to start by thanking the Attorney General for bringing forward this legislation. I'd like to thank him on behalf of all of the municipalities in British Columbia and, in fact, all of the people of British Columbia.

In the almost a decade I spent serving at the local government level both as a mayor and as a councillor, I can't think of any issue that was more frustrating, that consumed more time and that really had no solution than dealing with bylaw enforcement matters: noisy dogs, barking dogs, noisy parties and this sort of thing. These are the frustrating things that create friction between neighbours, that really destroy neighbourhoods and yet with no real remedy, no way to really deal with the problem in a way that was concrete or that brought results and satisfaction to the vast majority of people who are just quiet, peace-loving people who obey the laws and bylaws and who are absolutely frustrated by that very small handful of people in every community who disrupt life for others.

In the past the only remedy that was available was to try to take these kinds of bylaw breakers, if you will, to Provincial Court, which is an extremely expensive procedure and often fails, to be quite honest with you. The fines system that's imposed is very difficult to collect upon, so the penalty to those who would break bylaws is negligible. The time it takes to work through a simple bylaw infraction is months and months. Frankly, many cities have almost given up in frustration and just don't enforce bylaws, because it's just not practicable.

For all my time in local government, we approached the government of the day on a fairly constant basis, asking for more tools to deal with this problem, and nothing happened — nothing. I also know that during my time in local government, as local governments will do, you speak to the government of the day, but you also speak to the opposition.

We did speak to the opposition, the Liberal Party, and in fact approached the Attorney General, as he was an MLA and a critic for the Attorney General's department. I know that the reception, when he was in opposition, was a very positive one, and I'm so pleased that once taking office, he immediately began working with the UBCM and began a concerted effort to put together a program that's going to bring results and satisfaction to communities.

Frankly, I really hope this is a warning to those people out there who cause such frustration in neighbourhoods. They'd better shape up, because their day of reckoning is coming. They are going to be dealt with on a much swifter basis, and I know there's going to be a huge amount of satisfaction at the city council tables throughout the province. Those who would take this up, I am positive, are going to quickly discover that their frustrations are going to end.

I'm also convinced that those who live in neighbourhoods beside the bylaw breakers…. The people with the barking dogs that would keep you up all night or the people who constantly have the noisy parties are going to be dealt with quickly, swiftly, and I think satisfaction is going to be felt by those who live in the neighbourhoods that are bothered by these problems.

Again, to the Attorney General, my personal thanks, but on behalf of the municipalities throughout the province…. I know if UBCM were here today, they would be standing up saying: "Thank you very much. It's time." This is something that's well past due, and the Attorney General is to be congratulated for bringing forward this great piece of legislation.

S. Orr: I also have chosen to stand up in support of this piece of legislation and join my fellow colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission. The reason I'm doing that is I, too, was a municipal councillor and sat for several terms. Councillors have a very tough job anyway. They are overstretched. Municipalities and cities are growing. I admire the work they do, but when they're sitting in council chambers, most of the stuff they should be dealing with is land use issues. That's really what you do as a councillor.

But I found many times, as my colleague did, that our time would be taken up in the chambers with neighbours fighting neighbours. The strain on our bylaw enforcement officers…. Again, municipalities do not have large budgets, and we would spend a lot of time on all of these issues — important to the neighbours but very frustrating when you're trying to sit at a table and run a municipality efficiently.

I will just say that this is a very welcome piece of legislation. I certainly would have been happy and

very pleased to have had this piece of legislation when I was sitting at the table as a councillor, and therefore I support it 100 percent.

J. Kwan: This is an interesting piece of legislation — Bill 65, the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. It raises some questions for the opposition, particularly around the issues on due process for the judicial system.

It is interesting in that the legislation will now allow for a new structure to take place. That new structure would allow municipalities, instead of going to court, to deal with perhaps minor infractions not in a court system but rather through a hearing but, more particularly, through that new structure where witnesses are allowed not to appear in person to testify. It does raise some concern for the opposition.

Where a bylaw contravention ticket is issued to a named person, I am curious to know and will be exploring some of these questions in committee stage, how the key witness — that is, the person who issued the ticket — will have the opportunity to be cross-examined in that instance, especially if that individual is not participating by teleconference or…. Well, even in a teleconference situation, how would cross-examination take place? In the case where written submissions are provided, then one would assume that the person is simply not available to answer any questions at all from anybody.

Equally important, how will the individual who issued the ticket to the alleged violator have the opportunity to identify the alleged accused? How would that take place when the person is not there? In most instances in the court system, as I understand it, you would actually be in court in person. You would actually see the person who is accused sitting there, and you would be able to point out that person as the alleged violator, etc., and go through that kind of process. This erodes, in my view, the due process now available in our judicial system.

The other point the opposition would like to raise, of course, is with respect to the downloading of this responsibility onto local government. Granted, it may well be a welcome step for municipal governments. However, I should note that it may well also be an increased cost to local governments. I read in the paper yesterday that some municipalities say they're not quite sure how they would go about implementing this system, and it's something they have to work through.

They even go so far as to say it may actually increase costs for them. While they're willing to try it, nonetheless, the point I want to make here is that it is another opportunity for the government to download. I hope the Attorney General would actually stand up and say, "Actually, we will ensure there will be no increased costs for local government," and that somehow the Attorney General will ensure they would assist in the process of setting up the system.

If the system, in fact, costs the local governments more money to follow through with Bill 65 and the authority delegated to them and if those costs would be covered, then it would be reasonable, I think, for the local governments to receive that kind of support from the government. After all, it is this Liberal government that promised to local governments they would not download onto the local governments.

While the opposition is tentative in saying that we have these concerns, we are willing to see whether or not the system works, whether or not it will make it more efficient and whether or not it would erode the due process that is enshrined in our judicial system and that is so important in a democratic society. I know the Attorney General is a lawyer himself, and I have no doubt in my mind that he, too, would value the protection of due process in our judicial system and that he would not see our judicial system compromised in any way, shape or form.

The opposition is willing to see how this will work out. We will monitor it with interest and with care, most notably on some of the technical questions I have raised with respect to testifying — the issue around cross-examination, etc., and how those would be resolved in this new system and particularly where a case is dealt with through written submissions — and how to make sure that democracy, as it relates to our judicial system, is not eroded in any way.

B. Suffredine: Listening to the opposition look for things to find problems with concerns me. When I read this legislation — and I have practised law for about 27 years — I have absolutely no concerns about the civil liberties that might be affected here. I, in fact, was a lawyer in Nelson who on occasion got into a little controversy over things like traffic tickets, bylaw tickets, because they were almost impossible to prove if you actually knew how to defend them.

I was the city solicitor for seven or eight, ten years, in Nelson. During that time, bylaws were a huge frustration for the municipality because they had to pay the cost of prosecuting those tickets, but they didn't get the revenue. The provincial Crown counsel viewed them as a nuisance, and if you could persuade provincial Crown counsel to prosecute those tickets, the barking-dog tickets became the laughingstock of the courtroom. They went to the bottom of the list and stayed there forever until people simply got tired of calling them or the witnesses didn't show up. They almost inevitably went south as a result.

Contrary to the opposition, when someone asks where these tickets are going to be heard and whether people will get a process that's fair, we now have traffic courts heard by travelling justices of the peace. They might well handle these in addition to their load on traffic tickets. The cities and towns that are faced with repeated offenders, and that's usually the problem…. I have to say candidly that when I was city solicitor, I advised the city not to prosecute occasional offenders on the parking tickets because they were way too expensive to prosecute for a $25 or $35 ticket. But if you have someone who went downtown every week or

every second day and got a traffic ticket and didn't pay it, then it was worth pursuing that person simply to get them complying in a better way so that they weren't a repeat offender.

This is a tremendous improvement. This means that bylaws will actually mean something, that municipalities where they have repeat offenders will be able to deal with it in a cost-effective way, that they'll be able to utilize the revenue they get from any tickets where they're successful to offset their legal costs. Candidly, I doubt that they will recover their legal costs in most cases. But it may be a potential source of revenue. It will also bring about better compliance with municipal tickets.

If people know there is an effective process and they can be taken to court and dealt with, it will help improve the behaviour of people in municipalities. I congratulate the Attorney General for bringing forward this amendment.

R. Sultan: I, too, rise in support of Bill 65. I speak as a representative of three of the communities mentioned by the Attorney General — namely, North Vancouver city, North Vancouver district and West Vancouver — of whose citizens I represent in this House. I take pride that the Attorney General has seen fit to work with these three communities, who have always felt they had a degree of innovative skill, shall we say, in governance and have brought forward an important issue affecting the ability to maintain our quality of life in our communities, to crack down on scofflaws and to enforce municipal bylaws.

It's a magnificent endeavour by the Attorney General, who is burdened, incidentally, with what I suspect are the two biggest criminal cases in the history of Canada: Air India and the pig farm. He is also in charge of negotiating path-breaking accommodations and treaties with our first nations — certainly a huge endeavour which will occupy us for many years to come — not to mention some other incidentals like civil liability review — a rather large menu.

I think it's a tribute to this government that faced with these blockbuster issues, this government and this Attorney General have also found time to facilitate resolution of parking tickets in North Van city, of people who ignore the dog walking bylaws at our magnificent doggie park in Ambleside and who generally don't care to play by the rules in our wonderful communities on the North Shore. I think it's a tribute to the sensitivity to local concerns, which is portrayed in many ways by this government, and I would like to congratulate the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 65, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the support for this initiative from members of the House. To the extent that there are specific questions that can be more appropriately addressed in committee stage debate, I certainly look forward to participating in that debate.

I do want to make one general comment in terms of some of the comments by the member of the opposition and the emphasis on due process and the court system. While this, I think, represents a good innovation and a necessary innovation and a step forward into helping rethink how we can make the system of justice do better what it must do, it's not the first time in history that government has come into the Legislature and said that there is an area of public policy where issues and disputes arise that is not as appropriate for the traditional court system as we might think. In fact, over the last 80 years, governments have come into this chamber on many occasions to make that statement. That's why we have, over the course of the last 80 or so years, created a Workers Compensation Board. We've created a Labour Relations Board. We've created an Employment Standards Tribunal. We've created administrative tribunals to deal with income assistance. We've created tribunals to deal with human rights issues. We've created arbitration systems to deal with residential tenancy issues. The list goes on.

In each of those cases, the government of the day came into the Legislature and said: "We think there are better ways of dealing with the issues of residential tenancy or collective bargaining or employment standards or human rights — better ways than the traditional court system. That's really pretty consistent with what's happening here — that the traditional court system has not been able to do effectively and efficiently the right job for these relatively minor matters. In part, that's because the traditional court system has become very expensive. A typical bylaw prosecution — that is, a typical prosecution of the sorts of matters that are the subject of this legislation — may, if successful, result in a fine of $25 or $50 or $100 but will cost $3,000.

There is a disproportionate use of resources, and if that weren't enough, there is the very real frustration that I heard expressed — particularly from the members who spoke from the perspective of having been in local government or having advised local government — that you just simply can't get these cases onto the traditional court lists. So we are coming into the Legislature and saying: "We think there is a different structure within which these matters can be dealt with more efficiently and in a way that will help municipal governments achieve their objectives in relation to public safety and peaceful neighbourhoods."

I think it's possible to do that in a way that protects all the most important elements of due process, and I think this framework does that. If there are specific questions about elements of the framework, I certainly look forward to answering them in committee stage debate.

I appreciate the support of the House as government moves forward with this initiative.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 65, Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Our government believes that post-secondary institutions should be able to serve their students and serve them well. We also believe that public post-secondary institutions can be more responsive to meeting academic and other needs of students in different ways.

We asked the public post-secondary institutions to tell us some of the challenges they were facing, and they came back and pointed out to us that there were a significant number of outdated regulatory requirements and red tape, in fact, that did not encourage institutions and did not reflect the current practices. We also heard that there was a very cumbersome degree-approval process, and that was a concern.

They suggested to us that government's involvement in reviewing and approving university foundation bylaws and appointing members to university senates and foundations was time-consuming and inefficient, and certainly one of the concerns expressed reflected that because of a variety of restrictions, not all students and staff were eligible for election to a university board.

So we made suggestions. We reviewed the legislation that was in place, and today I bring to you a bill that will amend a number of statutes. We want to bring legislation governing public institutions into line with current practice. We want to see the degree-granting process streamlined. We want red tape and regulatory burden for institutions to be reduced, and we want to ensure that university faculty, staff and students will have flexibility in how they elect their members to both boards and senates.

The bill that will be debated will amend a number of statutes: the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act, the Royal Roads University Act, the University Act and the University Foundations Act. As I have suggested, these amendments will certainly reduce red tape and regulatory burden for our public post-secondary institutions.

We find, also, at times a necessity to streamline administrative processes, and you will find within this bill that a number of housekeeping amendments will do precisely that. The amendments will also update legislation governing public post-secondary institutions, which will then more accurately reflect the current practices. Let me give you an example of that. Institutions will no longer be required to submit annual budget proposals to the minister, since this requirement is outdated.

A number of other outdated requirements will also be removed by this bill. For example, the Minister of Advanced Education will no longer be required to present the annual report of the British Columbia Institute of Technology to the Legislature. Why is that no longer necessary? It's because — as you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues are well aware — we now have systemwide initiatives in place in government which see ministries with three-year service plans, and the Ministry of Advanced Education has recently included with those service plans an accountability framework which lays out the clear expectations around issues such as budget letters to the institutions.

In addition, the Minister of Finance will no longer be required to pay grants to the British Columbia Institute of Technology. Again, this provision is outdated, since BCIT, like other public post-secondary institutions, receives its operating grant from the Ministry of Advanced Education.

The amendments will also remove the provision in the College and Institute Act that requires the minister to coordinate continuing education programs. As you can imagine, there are literally hundreds of continuing education programs and offerings around the province. Institutions have autonomy over program areas, and so it's simply not necessary for us to have that noted in legislation.

We also want this bill to streamline approval processes in a number of areas. One of the frustrations we continue to hear is that every time we have an approval process, it extends the length of time in which an institution can actually respond to something that's necessary and needs to be done far more quickly. Let me give you an example. Currently, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council designates the degrees that colleges, university colleges and institutes may grant. These amendments will authorize the Minister of Advanced Education to designate these degrees in order to reduce the time required for approval of new degree programs. We believe that will significantly reduce the time it takes to have those approvals done.

The bill will also streamline the process for requiring application of the Company Act to institutions. Currently, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is authorized to declare that all or part of the Company Act applies to an institution. The amendments once again will authorize the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance to make this determination. Why? Once again, this will allow for a much more timely response by government, since an order-in-council and all of the time lines that are added because of that process will no longer be necessary.

Additionally, one of the concerns we heard from the institutions, in particular, was the involvement of government in reviewing and approving bylaws of the

university foundations. These amendments will see government having no further involvement in the reviewing or approval of bylaws. The change again will streamline the process and reduce the time required for making university foundation bylaws. This change would also be consistent with recent amendments to the College and Institute Act and the Institute of Technology Act that removed the requirement for ministerial approval of board and education council bylaws.

The bill will provide much-needed flexibility, and it will allow university faculty, students and staff to elect members to university boards and senates. Currently, the University Act provides that new and part-time faculty and part-time students and staff are not eligible for election to the board. These amendments, which we consider to be important, will remove that restriction. In addition, individuals who ordinarily reside outside of British Columbia will no longer be prohibited from becoming board members.

The amendments contained here will also repeal and replace revisions that require the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Finance to preapprove in any given fiscal year the estimates of institutions' deficits. This requirement will be replaced with a general prohibition concerning deficits along with a requirement that institutions report deficits to the Minister of Advanced Education immediately and submit a deficit management plan. The amendments will address the issue of both planning for and incurring a deficit.

The amendments will also remove a redundant provision in the College and Institute Act concerning expenditure for benefits. This section provides that institutions may not provide benefits to employees in an amount that exceeds the funds allocated to the institutions during that fiscal year. This section will be removed, and institutions will remain responsible for meeting their budget and performance targets.

Finally, the amendments will implement the recommendations of the core review and deregulation task force to remove the requirement that government appoint members to university senates and university foundations.

The good news is that we assume these amendments will allow institutions to make decisions and to operate and serve our students in a far more effective and timely manner. That is the focus of our particular ministry and certainly a focus of government as we remove red tape and regulation and allow institutions to do the job they need to do.

R. Hawes: In rising to speak to this bill, it brings me to think that this, for many, is a bill of perhaps not great consequence. I'm sure the opposition, for example, will not be speaking to this bill. That would be my guess. Bills that are amending, particularly those that are cutting out red tape and regulation for the most part, generally are not seen to be of great consequence by many people.

What I want to say is that I think this bill is hugely symbolic of the move this government is trying to make and the direction this government is trying to take the province. Sure, this bill brings our legislation on colleges and universities throughout the province in line with the current practices, and it does streamline the degree-granting process. It does a number of other positive things, particularly things that those who run colleges and universities throughout the province have been asking for. But I think, symbolically — and that's what I want to speak to — this bill speaks to a lot more.

First, it speaks to the consultation process that takes place between this government and the institutions out there around the province and, in fact, the people of the province. I know that the minister and her staff have been listening. There's been extensive consultation with the post-secondary institutions in this province, and I know that the minister and her staff have listened. This is a reflection of that listening process. They've heard what was said. They are moving to make life just a little bit easier administratively for those who would run those institutions.

This bill also speaks to the government's commitment to cut regulation right across government. The importance of that really can't be overstated. One of the reasons that I wanted to speak to this bill was just to remind not just my constituents but everyone that red tape, regulation and the burden it imposes on every type of institution — whether it be in the private sector or in the public sector — is what chokes progress, chokes growth and eats up money. Regulation, particularly foolish regulation, is not only time consuming, it's just horribly expensive.

We have a commitment to cut regulation across every ministry in government, and this act is a part of the minister's commitment in her ministry to cut some regulation. When I look at what that does and the signals it sends, along with other initiatives of the government, I know the positive results are already being seen.

I'd just like to read a couple of quotes from today's paper. I'm sure you've read them already, Mr. Speaker, from Michael Kane's column in the Vancouver Sun. This is a statement from Sherry Cooper, the chief economist for BMO Nesbitt Burns. She said: "In B.C. alone, more jobs have been created in the past year than all of the United States. Canada as a whole has gained nearly 250,000 jobs, while the U.S. has shed almost 500,000, but in B.C. alone, more jobs have been created. In British Columbia, I am forecasting that growth rates double between this year and next, and we are likely to see 3 percent economic growth in British Columbia."

That says to me that the policies of this government, particularly policies such as deregulation, are working and that the private sector is noticing and rediscovering that this is a wonderful place to invest money after a decade of ramping-up of regulation and driving business out. Of course, that's what loses money.

Business is now saying: "Gee, we are seeing British Columbia move in the right direction. We are seeing

that the bottom line for our investment is being honoured by government." In fact, profit in this province is no longer a dirty word.

As we put money into the education system — precious taxpayers' dollars — it's incumbent on all of us here to ensure that money goes to educating students and not to expensive, unnecessary regulations.

The minister is to be commended for listening, first and foremost; recognizing that the overregulation, the needless regulation, that costs money has to be eliminated; and moving to do so. I am pleased to support this piece of legislation that some, on the surface, would say is not consequential. I believe it is highly consequential and highly symbolic of the directions this government is moving in to ensure that our province returns to its number one position in this country.

L. Mayencourt: It's a great pleasure and honour to be here today to speak to Bill 35, and to offer my support for it and my congratulations to the minister. It's a small bill. It's just 45 different sections, but it is the little bill that could, because it actually does a number of things. With this legislation, our post-secondary education will be better able to serve our students, and that's important because we made a commitment many, many months ago to put students first. This is the principle that is driving us towards this particular bill.

With this bill, government and post-secondary institutions are going to be able to be more responsive to academic and other needs as they arise. When I think about why this bill was so necessary…. We know that, as the minister and the previous member have spoken, we have a lot of outdated regulatory requirements and red tape that institutions do not use. They actually don't even reflect the way they do business nowadays.

We have a cumbersome degree approval process, and I think the minister has spoken a little bit about what that means for the time it takes to get degrees approved, to add to an institution's ability to educate students. The government's involvement in reviewing and improving university foundation bylaws and appointing members to university senates and foundations was also time-consuming and inefficient. Because of varying restrictions, not all of our students and staff were eligible for election to the board.

Now, in this bill, I think we've eliminated…. We've got a net reduction of 29 regulations. I've said in this House, as the previous member has said as well, that nobody's ever run across a regulation that didn't cost people money. Every regulation that we as a government are able to remove from the public institutions we have means that we're going to be saving them money. When we save the post-secondary educators and education ministries some money, all that money gets plowed back into education. It goes back to students.

That's why we're bringing legislation that brings public institutions in line with the current practices. The degree-granting process will be streamlined. We're eliminating some red tape and regulatory burden. We're going to be making some changes so that the university faculty, staff and students will have more flexibility in electing members to the boards and senates.

In my riding of Vancouver-Burrard I call it sort of a centre of excellence for advanced education. I am very proud of the fact that I have UBC, BCIT, SFU, Vancouver Community College and the Vancouver Film School. I have all of these wonderful institutions in the heart of Vancouver, and they are serving the people of my constituency very ably. They're doing a terrific job. They're helping people upgrade their skills if they're still working. It allows students to come and experience…. If they're doing social work, they're in a neighbourhood that social workers are in. If they're doing arts and fine arts, well, they're in a community that appreciates that. It's a wonderful thing when I can find a way, as we have done with this bill, to reduce some of the burden on them administratively and, in fact, on their costs.

This bill is more than just cleaning up the bureaucracy that's a burden to the universities. It is about putting students first. It enables our universities to focus on what matters most, what is important, and that is the education of our students. It provides some autonomy for the universities. I think the degree-granting section of this bill is pretty important, because as it is right now, every time a university wants to add a program or a degree to their menu of services for students in this province, they have to go through a very cumbersome process. Now the minister herself is able to approve for baccalaureate degrees and master's degrees right in her ministry. I think that's going to make it faster for people to do, to move forward with this.

We also have some issues around the budget and budget approval. I know that we have created service plans and accountability frameworks in the province here for all post-secondary education. We've got that there. We don't need the multiple rounds of approvals and what have you. Every university, every post-secondary education institution in this province is prohibited from running a deficit under this bill. They don't have to send that budget in to us. They need to let the ministry know immediately if they are in a deficit position.

Another portion of the bill that's important to me is the foundation part of it. You know, I've been on the foundations of many wonderful institutions in this province and gone out and done my bit to raise money for them. That's what people do when they're sitting on a foundation board, often, at universities. We just think that it's better for them to decide how they do business, and that they have the capability of managing bylaws, of developing policies, of developing practices that are fair and ethical and reflect well on the university institution they're there for.

We also have a wonderful opportunity here to meet our government's new-era commitment to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden. We've said we're going

to do that by one-third over the first three years. It will improve the regulatory environment for public post-secondary institutions by removing unnecessary requirements, by more accurately reflecting the current practice in our universities and institutions, and by streamlining the administrative processes in a number of areas — all in the interests of putting students first.

R. Sultan: I'm pleased to rise in support of Bill 35, the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

I think, predictably, there will be cries of agony and despair arising from some segments of the advanced education community in British Columbia as a result of this bill. My response to those possible expressions of opinion might be that if the advanced education institutions of British Columbia under the governance arrangements of the previous decade were so magnificent, why is it that attendance at advanced education institutions in British Columbia still lags behind the national average? We have some ground to make up, and under the leadership of this Minister of Advanced Education, I think we're proceeding to do that.

I speak with a particular set of biases. I have been involved in advanced education either as a student, a professor or a member of some governance organization for about one-half of my life. I know that's a horrible confession, but I think it does allow me to give some sense of proportion to these innovations the minister is presenting. We have magnificent institutions of advanced education in this province — from the UNBC to BCIT to even our own distinguished Capilano College on the North Shore, of which we're very, very proud. I think it's no great stretch to conclude that they know best how to run their own affairs, rather than Victoria. Indeed, the Minister of Advanced Education is giving them, with this bill, the opportunity to demonstrate that by removing 34 regulations to net 29, setting them free in many areas of their affairs.

There is one quibble I would offer, however. I predict, as well, that there will be some consternation by the involvement of our Company Act into the governance of universities. I had suggested that this is a misnomer. It really should be called an act permitting organizations, commercial and non-commercial and academic, to organize and administer their own affairs without dabbling and interference from Victoria. My creative ideas fell on deaf ears, unfortunately, but that is in fact, I believe, the intent.

The act will create three freedoms in particular. Firstly, fiscal freedom. You live and die by your own budgets. It's called accountability and responsibility. Preapproval by the minister of deficits is gone; you control your own life fiscally. Secondly, governance freedom. We are allowing institutions to appoint non-residents, as long as they're Canadians. What a radical thought: to think that somebody who doesn't live in British Columbia might have some idea how to administer and govern our institutions of advanced education. How parochial have we been? Finally, foundation freedoms — not requiring university foundations to have government direction and support.

I think by unfettering these institutions, we will see them continue their proud record of quality. I'm sure they will further penetrate the market and fulfil the growing, accelerating demands for advanced education in this province while maintaining their tradition of excellence. As in so many other areas of endeavour, as my colleague on the left has just pointed out, we are moving from a command-and-control environment to one of institutional freedom and freedom in other areas of our life. For contributing to that spirit and to that new culture, which is liberating British Columbia in so many aspects of its life, the minister deserves to be commended.

H. Bloy: It gives me an honour to stand here today, because I'm excited about this legislation. I've been talking to the minister on a number of occasions over the last two years, but I want to compliment her….

H. Bloy: I am excited about this, because this is the piece of legislation….

I want to compliment the minister on having the vision to look forward, the vision to allow new degree-granting institutions and the vision that is going to create more classroom space for students in this province starting, at the very latest, next May. She's had the vision to take in the colleges, the private colleges in this province now, to make presentations to a quality assurance board so they can be part of the process. As of this November, private colleges will be able to apply to become degree-granting institutions. I think this is unbelievable for the province. What this minister has done is said that the turnaround for applications will be a maximum of six months. I say starting next May, we're going to have new institutions offering degrees for more students in British Columbia. I just wanted to stand up and compliment the minister on her vision.

I. Chong: I, too, wanted to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 35 and commend the minister for her vision and her consultation process that allowed for this piece of legislation to come forward. I live in a riding that represents one of the larger universities, the University of Victoria. On many occasions I have spoken about this university, as I am very proud of the work they do and their innovativeness and their ways of doing business to ensure that students are well taken care of.

What is this legislation all about? Well, as has been mentioned by the minister and others who have spoken today in support of this bill, it assists in reducing the regulatory burden for public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. That is important, because our goal to reduce the regulatory burden by one-third doesn't just pertain to business. We should

acknowledge that, because there are so many aspects of our lives that extend to other things — that extend to health care, that extend to education. Here we have a piece of legislation extending to education that deals with regulation that actually would hinder a student's opportunity to go forward. I'm very glad this legislation will deal with that.

In addition, this legislation provides for more certainty and clarity regarding deficits, particularly the responsibility to report deficits where it is no longer necessary to obtain ministerial approval. That's important. It's important so institutions know they have this kind of flexibility that they are able to report actual and forecast deficits to the minister immediately after they know of this. Even more important is that they can submit a deficit management plan. If all businesses were able to do this but institutions that have taxpayer dollars were able to show they have a deficit management plan in hand, that, too, would provide comfort to the taxpayers. Our taxpayer dollars are being used, and people want to know that in those rare circumstances where a deficit is going to occur, a management plan will be in place to deal with it, to grapple with it.

I, too, am very pleased. I know the University of Victoria is pleased with these changes. In addition, I also represent a college in my area, Camosun College. They, too, will look forward to the degree-granting opportunities that are now afforded them. There is another university in the greater Victoria area that I don't happen to have in my riding, but I know the members from those areas share the delight in this legislation. That is Royal Roads University, a very innovative university that has reached out to students not only locally but internationally. I know they, too, are looking at this piece of legislation with some delight.

Keeping with our government's commitment to meet post-secondary spaces and to meet demand, to bring in legislation that takes care of students' demands and challenges and meets the twenty-first century — that's what it's all about. That's what this legislation is all about, and that's why I'm in support of it, as I know my colleagues are.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak today on this bill, the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

This is of particular interest to me and to my constituents, because only recently we gained the opportunity to have Simon Fraser University open a campus in Surrey, thereby allowing my constituents and their children the ability to attend classes at one of the top universities right here in Canada in my community. What this act means to me is that it smoothes the way by which education is delivered. That means it will be better for British Columbia students to gain valuable advantage in the future workplace.

A well-educated population means a more competent and, therefore, successful workforce. That is what this government is all about: creating the opportunity and the ability for our population to generate higher incomes, bolster the economy and return prosperity to this province, which over the past decade has fallen from number one in the country to have-not status. Advanced education and this act are strong steps toward those goals. What I like about this act is that it is designed to slash red tape and to make it easier for educational institutions to operate, therefore making it easier for them to deliver the education that our future workforce will need.

This legislation means a net reduction of 29 regulatory requirements. Whenever we remove the constraints of regulatory requirements, we open up opportunities; we make things easier; we lessen the burden that government often places on people, institutions and business; and in this case, we make the provisions of learning easier. This bill allows our educational institutions to get deregulatory changes sooner. It allows them to prepare for next year's implementation, their direction and budget in response to the request. This is a direct response to the request from the institutions to cut red tape.

This bill is the right step to take, and while it does remove regulatory burden to the education institutions, it does not give up the protection enjoyed by taxpayers. This bill will protect them by ensuring that public post-secondary institutions will continue to be responsible for meeting our performance and budget targets, and it protects them by ensuring that the institutions will continue to be prohibited from incurring a deficit.

One new aspect to advanced education in this province is contained within this bill. It changes the requirement for the membership of the university board to be a British Columbia citizen. By this act, universities will be able to access the brighter minds, the progressive thinkers, from across Canada, because the residency requirement will no longer be there. This is a very progressive step. It makes sure the university and the students are exposed to the brightest and the best possible and the most experienced people in the country, as a university whose student body is expected to make sure our students get the best education and best training. This lifts the restrictions and opens up the nation's best for our students and our university infrastructure and for our future economy.

Also included in this bill is a progressive step toward the continued development of private training institutions, an avenue that many citizens take. This aspect of our post-secondary education opportunities in British Columbia will also benefit from the cutting of red tape and from the reduction of the regulatory burden. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we made a promise in our New Era document to cut red tape, and the Premier followed through strongly on that promise by creating a Minister of State for Deregulation. Those promises and the ministry are working. This bill is, in part, a perfect example. As I said, one of the beneficiaries of these promises is private training institutions. These changes will allow them to really invest time and money into the expansion of their businesses.

E. Brenzinger: I'm standing up in support of Bill 35 today. I want to commend the minister for putting out

requests for information on how we can streamline these regulatory burdens within the institutions. I also want to say that we don't just file these reports. We take them and listen to the recommendations, and we've been able to reduce a number of the miscellaneous and housekeeping amendments that are coming up and to streamline the administrative process in a number of the areas.

I want to say that these changes make government and post-secondary institutions more responsive to changing academic and other needs. They will also make university boards and senates more accountable to and representative of those they serve.

The act amends a number of administered statutes to streamline processes and better reflect current practices at public post-secondary institutes in B.C. I'd like to highlight some of this act. These are very important. To reduce the time required for approval of new degree programs, the minister, instead of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, will be authorized to designate the degrees that colleges, university colleges and institutes may grant. This will ensure that institutions can receive faster approval of new degree programs they wish to provide for students, thereby making them more responsive to student needs.

To streamline the process and reduce the time required to create university foundation bylaws, government will no longer be involved in reviewing and approving them. This change is consistent with recent amendments to the College and Institute Act and the Institute of Technology Act. Those amendments also streamline government's process by removing the requirements for ministerial approval of board and education council bylaws.

University faculty, students and staff will have more flexibility in electing members to university boards and senates. In the past the University Act made new and part-time faculty and part-time students and staff ineligible for election to the board. Today's amendments remove those restrictions and allow individuals who reside outside of British Columbia to become board members.

The amendments also remove the requirements that government appoint members to university senates and foundations. This will empower boards of post-secondary institutes to be directly accountable for their decisions and allow them to be more representative of those they serve. This can only benefit students in the long run.

I support Bill 35, and I want to commend the minister in following through on our new-era commitment of reducing regulatory burdens to these institutions.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate on Bill 35, the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. S. Bond: I am absolutely delighted when we get to come into the Legislature and talk about advanced education. I want to say that I am absolutely proud of being part of a government where the Premier and my colleagues think that post-secondary education is important and essential. That is great news.

This bill has been referenced as a little bill and that maybe nobody cares about it. Well, you know what? We actually do care about this for a number of reasons, and my colleagues today have articulated some of those reasons. First of all, we asked people what the regulatory burden that was causing them difficulty was, and as has been pointed out, we went out and asked them. They told us. We listened, and in fact this piece of legislation, which will bring amendments to a number of acts, is a response to listening to the people who actually govern those institutions. I think that is great news.

Second, when we talk about cutting regulation in this province, we have an aggressive target, an aggressive strategy and an excellent minister responsible for driving this agenda. My colleagues are absolutely correct: this does not simply apply to business; it applies to institutions in this province. While this legislation, with a net reduction of 29 regulations, may not seem significant in many minds, it is my responsibility as minister to reduce red tape and regulation in my ministry by one-third as well, and I think this is a significant step towards doing just that.

I want to thank my colleagues for supporting the amendments that are on the floor of the House, and I know there will probably be further questions in committee. But in summary, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation does keep the government's commitment to reduce red tape and regulatory burden. I know it will improve the regulatory environment for public post-secondary institutions. It will remove unnecessary requirements. It will more accurately reflect current practice and streamline administrative processes in a number of areas. That's important, because we care about students. We care about education. This will allow institutions to do their job much more efficiently.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The bill that I speak of today will repeal and replace the Private Post-Secondary Education Act in order to implement the core services review recommendations concerning the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, known as PPSEC. We have a significant number of private trainers in the province, and I want to say today that they provide an avenue of choice, and they provide top-quality offerings for students within British Columbia. They are an important part of the post-secondary education system in this province.

As we reviewed our legislation and, certainly, as the core services review worked, we found that current legislation and regulations for the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission are simply too broad when we look at jurisdictions in Canada, including Alberta and Ontario.

This bill, I am pleased to say, will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions.

This bill will replace PPSEC with the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, which will be a self-regulating board composed of industry representatives and one member appointed by the Minister of Advanced Education. This bill will narrow the scope of the registration requirement to only those institutions providing career-related training beyond a specific time and cost threshold. Institutions that are no longer required to be registered will be able to do so voluntarily with the agency, should they wish to do that.

The bill will provide key changes in the area of tuition protection. Instead of requiring institutions to post bonds, cash or letters of credit to protect the tuition fees of private post-secondary students, these students — and I want to emphasize this — will be covered by the student training completion fund. This fund is similar in nature to the travel assurance fund maintained by the province's travel agencies. It will improve the level of consumer protection available to private post-secondary students. Let me give you an example of that. In the event that an institution closes before students have completed their program at that institution, this fund will ensure that students have the opportunity to either complete their program of study at another institution or obtain a tuition fee refund. We think that consumer protection for students is absolutely critical.

The fund will also replace the current financial security requirements for private career training institutions. Many institutions have found the current financial security requirements burdensome, and the sector has been asking for changes for years. As in the previous piece of legislation we presented earlier, we heard their concerns. Again, this legislation seeks to respond to the request for changes.

The bill will establish an effective two-stage process for institutions to appeal decisions of the registrar. Institutions will also be authorized to request a reconsideration of decisions refusing either registration or accreditation. If institutions are dissatisfied with that reconsideration, they may appeal that decision to the board. These provisions will establish a streamlined process for reviewing decisions of the registrar and will assure that appeals are resolved in a timely manner.

Finally, under the new model, government will work with the new agency to set standards for voluntary accreditation necessary for eligibility for student financial assistance. This will help to ensure that taxpayer-funded student financial assistance is provided to students enrolled at institutions that have met acceptable levels of quality.

This bill will continue to provide consumer protection to students of registered institutions, while reducing the regulatory burden for the private training sector. I am pleased to say that we have listened. We have considered the information that we have received. We believe this bill will provide protection and yet reduce the regulatory burden that so often causes challenges to those who provide excellent private training opportunities in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I rise today to speak about the changes being made to the regulations surrounding private post-secondary education in B.C. — Bill 52, the Private Career Training Institutions Act.

At a time when British Columbia and our students are facing incredible pressures throughout the advanced education system, it is crucial to ensure that all voices are being represented. Tuition fees throughout the province are skyrocketing, access is declining, and students are struggling with debt loads. There are people getting lost and left behind in this so-called new era of education, and this minister needs to ensure that it stops.

There are many problems and deep concerns in the advanced education sector right now that need to be addressed, and I'm not sure that Bill 52 will help it at all. By 2005-06 funding to institutions will be cut by $19 million. For the first time ever in B.C., apprenticeship courses will not be fully paid by the province. The funding cuts fail to address higher student numbers, inflation and increasing participation rates.

This government is depriving the system and forcing the burden onto students with unprecedented tuition increases. By reducing funding to institutions, the government is abdicating its responsibility and putting increased pressure on students. Who benefits? Private institutions who will take advantage of the increasing fees at public universities and the new degree authorization powers to help privatize education in B.C.

It fits perfectly with everything else that this government is doing: privatize, strip British Columbians of accountability, assurance and assets of our public institutions. Just look at the situation facing B.C.'s colleges. Every single college, university college and institute, except Malaspina, will receive less in the year 2005-06 than it did this year. At the same time, they will be required to fund over 3,400 new spaces. As a result, funding per student will be reduced throughout the province, putting even more of the burden onto stu-

dents. Again, this government and this minister are abdicating their responsibility.

Provincewide, colleges are looking at situations where less than one-third of their spaces will be funded by government. By 2005-06 per-student funding will hit a 30-year low. This is absolutely shameful.

Taking a closer look at one of these colleges highlights the incredible burden this government is placing on our public institutions. Earlier this year the Okanagan University College received some extra funding after the minister announced that $12 million of savings had been found in the ministry. At the same time that she announced the extra funding, she demanded more seats. The $12 million was not even enough to cover the imposed increases, and OUC ended up losing $122 per student. As a result, OUC students are facing a 38 percent tuition increase on top of last year's 65 percent increase. Somehow the minister claimed that she was increasing the budget, but as it turned out, it was nothing more than a useless exercise in Liberal math.

Bill 52 deals with career training in private institutions, but what is happening to career training at our public institutions? Throughout the province, colleges and university colleges are closing high-cost programs in order to shift funding to cheaper programs so they can meet government-mandated enrolment targets. Vocational programs all around B.C. are being lost, regardless of their effectiveness and value, at a time when lifelong learning and access to the knowledge-based economy are so crucial.

Affordable access to vocational training is absolutely essential to ensure people have the opportunity to participate in B.C.'s economy. One would think that a government determined to kick people off income assistance would favour affordable vocational training. After all, it is estimated that between 1998 and 2008, 72 percent of all job opportunities will have been in occupations requiring more than high school completion. However, this government would rather cut public access in favour of private enterprise. At a time when the government needs to do all it can to ensure that we have a skilled workforce, the minister is failing to ensure that youth and adults alike have access to affordable employment programs and vocational education.

Just look at the situation at Vancouver Community College. In January 2003, VCC staff announced that the college was facing a $5 8 million deficit for 2003-04. Several programs were to be shut down, and hundreds of FTE student spaces were eliminated. After several negative media reports, the minister, to her credit, stepped in with more money. However, it was not enough to prevent many cuts.

Over 700 FTE student spaces will be lost, mostly in high school completion and English-as-a-second-language. The minister herself called this a very significant reduction during the estimates debate last spring. Forty faculty positions have been threatened. The building service worker and institutional aide programs have been combined and reduced. The travel agent program has been cut at a time when this government wants to promote tourism. The adult basic education for youth program will lose funding in June 2004. The basic employment skills and training program, as well as employment and educational access for women programs, have been combined and reduced. The graphic communications program has been cut, and the production technology program has been cut.

Where will all these students turn? You guessed it: to the private institutions this government is so eager to promote. Students will lose access to affordable public programs, and the private institutions will be happy to fill the void with high-cost alternatives that do not always have positive results and put students under massive debt loads. These are single mothers, displaced workers and people just trying to make a better life. The minister wants to make it more difficult for them.

Here's another example. At the University College of the Cariboo tuition was imposed for the first time on students taking college preparation courses this past year. For the first time, people are being charged for adult basic education in some of our most vulnerable communities. On top of everything we have Bill 52.

While preparing for this debate, an article from a September edition of Monday Magazine by Andrew MacLeod was brought to my attention. I'm sure the minister has read it, since it quotes her. It is a incredibly well-thought-out and descriptive article outlining some key concerns with this government's direction. I'm not going to read the entire article, because it is rather lengthy, but I will go through it quite extensively. It is called "Schooled in Disappointment."

The article begins with the story of a Nanaimo resident, John Brazier, who fell in a workplace accident, shattering his shoulder. According to the article, the accident forced him to undergo five different surgeries and to think about finding a different line of work.

The article then points out that Mr. Brazier was especially bitter about the burden it put on his wife, who was left to look after their kids and home while she also worked, and the delay it caused for his return to the workforce.

It is essential that we consider Mr. Brazier's story, because it speaks to the heart of the issue. How can we ensure that people trying to improve their lives are not taken advantage of by corporations out for profit, especially when the government is cutting access and affordability to public programs?

The article goes on at great length, identifying problems at Sprott-Shaw. According to the author:

The article then goes on to provide an analysis of the B.C. Liberal education. Quoting from the article again:

There you have it. Bill 52 is a clear illustration of this government's intentions to enhance the private sector at the expense of public institutions and students trying to improve their lives and the lives of their families.

Aside from the points illustrated by the article, I have a few more significant concerns. First of all, the minister will be able to exempt institutions through the minimum tuition requirement and the minimum instructional hours component. Private post-secondary institutions that do not provide career training will no longer be obligated to register. Neither will institutions that charged less than a certain amount in tuition fees — let's say $1,000 — or those that offer programs that are less than a certain length, less than 40 hours.

What does this mean in a real-world sense? Currently, there are about 1,100 registered private post-secondary institutions. They are each required to put money into a tuition assurance fund which is then used to refund students if an institution is forced to close for bankruptcy or other reasons. There are estimates that the new legislation will deregulate about 500 of those institutions, leaving about 650 registered. Students at

the newly deregistered institutions will be left with no consumer protection or tuition assurance. Students could lose up to $1,000 in tuition if an unregistered institution is forced to close.

In its current state, Bill 52 does not provide for any assistance or further information on the consumer protection available for students at the institutions that will no longer be required to register under the new provisions. Even more significant is that fact that this legislation remains largely silent on the issue of language training schools. There are a large number of ESL students in my community and across British Columbia. I'm increasingly concerned that this new legislation will fail to represent their needs. As language schools do not provide career training, they will fall outside of the mandatory registration framework. They will continue to be voluntarily registered, but that does not provide any guaranteed protection for many vulnerable ESL students.

I'd now like to turn to the issue around self-regulation. The minister made comments in her remarks about self-regulation, and a press release was issued back in February about the private post-secondary institutions that would be self-regulated. Quoting from the press release, it states: "The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission will be replaced by a self-regulating and self-funding industry board. The change is a result of the government's administrative justice review announced February 7, 2002, by the Attorney General."

The interesting thing here, of course, is that according to the minister's own words — and I quote her from Monday Magazine: "We believe the best way to manage these institutions is for them to be self-regulating. This is about looking at more efficient ways to manage those institutions." Now, I can't help but contrast the approach that this minister and this government have taken with private post-secondary institutions versus that of the teachers in the public sector.

Just this last spring the Minister of Education took away the self-regulating component for the teaching profession, took away the independence of self-regulating for the teaching profession. The minister says — and one could only surmise by her actions as the Minister of Education that she took these actions because she doesn't trust the teachers in our public school system to be self-regulating — that she wants to take away the independence and the self-regulations of the teachers. She wants, in my view, to pick a political fight with the teachers — the teachers whom we entrust our children with for their developmental advancement from the years of kindergarten to grade 12.

The Minister of Education has demonstrated that this government is completely inconsistent in its approach in dealing with the teaching profession. There's a set of policies that would now apply for the private post-secondary institutions which are fraught with problems, some examples of which I have outlined in my speech earlier.

"But that's okay," the minister says. "They can be self-regulating. We trust them. They'll do a great job. Don't worry. Everything will be fine, even though known problems have been identified." Yet in the K-to-12 system, for the first time ever in a profession, government took action to take away independence and self-regulation for the teaching profession. Inconsistencies? Yes. I would further argue that it's politically motivated.

This government has one interest and one interest only, which is to favour their own at all costs. It is to penalize the people who work day in and day out to educate our children not only in their own interest, because of their own area of interest for children and children's education, but in the public interest to advance young people who will be competitive in the global economy as they grow up to be adults, will have the best advantages in their learning capabilities and will be legitimate members of our society.

This is what this government has done. They have drawn a line in the sand: "Public education teachers, we don't trust you. We're going to take away your self-regulating authority. We're going to control you. We're going to appoint people to the board so that we will determine how the administration and control of the college is to be done." That is the approach this government has taken.

Finally, I would like to turn to the issue of conflict of interest. Several groups have raised concerns that Bill 52 opens the door for potential conflicts of interest to arise. Given the fact that the private post-secondary industry will now be self-regulating, what guarantees are there that they will make decisions that are in the public's best interests? Will consumer advocates be invited to sit on the board?

These are just some of the issues I'll be raising with the minister during committee debate. I look forward to the opportunity to do that.

L. Mayencourt: If that isn't the biggest bag of baloney I ever saw, I don't know what is. I have much to say about the comments from the member opposite, but noting the time, I move adjournment of debate.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY