Hansard -- Thursday, October 9, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 14 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7297

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7297
	Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003 (Bll 74)
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 76)
	Hon. T. Nebbeling

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7298
	Abbotsford Hospital project
	R. Hawes
	Nanaimo-Vancouver passenger ferry service
	M. Hunter
	Health care services in Kootenay area
	B. Suffredine

Oral Questions		7299
	Income assistance regulations and access to benefits
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. Coell
	Imposition of sales tax on Georgia Straight
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Government response to B.C. Rail employee proposals
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. Reid
	Rehabilitation of grazing lands
	W. Cobb
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Water quality in Golden
	W. McMahon
	Hon. C. Hansen
	U.S. softwood lumber duty
	T. Bhullar
	Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents		7302
	Ministry of Provincial Revenue, memorandum on application of sales tax act to newspapers

Second Reading of Bills		7302
	Private Career Training Institutions Act (Bill 52) (continued)
	L. Mayencourt
	K. Stewart
	H. Bloy
	D. Hayer
	S. Orr
	S. Brice
	R. Lee
	E. Brenzinger
	R. Hawes
	B. Locke
	Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt
	J. MacPhail
	B. Suffredine
	J. Bray
	I. Chong
	Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 48)
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	J. MacPhail
	J. Les

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today in the gallery visiting from Westbank, British Columbia, I have Pauline and David Knowles from my riding of Okanagan-Westside. David is a director for Westside in the Central Okanagan regional district and does a great job. Visiting with them is David's brother and his wife from Leeds, England: Hugh and Janet Knowles. Would all the members in this House please make them welcome to British Columbia.

D. Hayer: On behalf of the member for Surrey-White Rock, it gives me great pleasure to introduce 115 grade 9 students visiting from Semiahmoo Secondary School. Joining them are their teachers, Mr. Gordon Masi and Ms. Susan Ignatzi, as well as several parent-volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule to accompany these students. Would the House make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: I have the pleasure to welcome to the gallery today my sister, Diane Read, who is a new resident to Kamloops. She's accompanied by her husband, Bob Read, who recently retired as a district manager for the Ministry of Forests from the Fort Nelson area. Bob is here to, I think, join a number of other retirees and active members of the B.C. public service at the long-service awards. He'll be receiving his 35-year pin, I believe, from the Minister of Forests tonight. I would like everyone to please make them welcome.

S. Brice: In the gallery today there are a number of local CAs, and everyone in this House knows how valuable these particular folks are. This South Island team of CAs works well together. Their latest piece of work was assisting us in the Juno Beach recognition ceremony. I would like the House to please welcome Val Terry, Linda Morton, Mike Demers, Debbie MacLean and Sharon Klein.

K. Krueger: We have a very special guest indeed in the precinct today. B.C., as you know, experienced a tremendous out-migration of young people during the last decade, and this has led to declining enrolment in our school system and other pied piper–type problems. Well, this government and all who work for it are turning that around, doing all we can to turn the tide, and we've seen the fruits of that many times in this very building.

I don't actually know the name of our guest. I don't even know this special person's gender, but a very special guest is with us indeed. Our caucus managing director, Sarah Bonner, told me she didn't know how to convey this news, so I said I'd think of a plan. Sarah Bonner is expecting a baby, folks, and if it's a boy, Kevin is a very good name. Would you all join me in congratulating the Bonners and welcoming this news.

Hon. R. Thorpe presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 74, Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2003. The motor dealer legislation is being modernized through the Motor Dealer Amendment Act. This provision will enable the creation of a delegated authority to be responsible for administering the rules and regulations governing the motor dealer industry in British Columbia.

The proposed amendment is aimed at maintaining high levels of consumer protection while stimulating a competitive market environment for the motor dealer industry. It does three things. First, it provides for the delegated authority for the Motor Dealer Council, with the chair being Bob Stewart, former chief constable, city of Vancouver; and the vice-chair, George Morfitt, former auditor general of British Columbia. Second, it provides for new regulation-making powers that will enhance industry professionalism. Third, it increases penalty amounts for violations so they reflect the current value of motor vehicle transactions.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 74 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMUNITY CHARTER
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS,
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND
OTHER AMENDMENTS ACT, 2003

Hon. T. Nebbeling presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to present the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003. Last spring we passed the most empowering piece of legislation ever introduced for local government in Canada, the Community Charter. It came at the longstanding request of local governments, and it sets the foundation for a whole new relationship between municipalities and the province of British Columbia.

Typically, when we introduce a piece of legislation such as the charter, we tack on to the end of the legislation transitional provisions and consequential amendments, but because of the magnitude of amendments required in relationship to the charter, we introduced those provisions as a separate stand-alone bill, Bill 67. Today we are replacing Bill 67 with Bill 76. Time has allowed us to refine Bill 67, and this new bill reflects those refinements and helps us clearly and effectively implement the Community Charter.

The majority of Bill 76 provisions are minor technical updates, which are part of the process required to carry through the intent of the Community Charter. This bill ensures a smooth transition for municipalities from the Local Government Act while maintaining the integrity of the local government system.

I move that the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Hawes: Through a decade of empty promise after empty promise to construct a new hospital in Abbotsford, the former NDP administration never put one nickel into a capital budget for this facility. Meanwhile, MSA Hospital has been crumbling, and it can't meet the needs of the Fraser Valley residents that rely on it for acute care.

The good news is that in our first budget, this administration included $210 million in the capital budget for this much-needed new facility. The even better news is that we are no longer building just a hospital; we're now building a health campus. In addition to the community and regional hospital facilities, the Abbotsford campus will include a state-of-the-art cancer centre that will serve as a vital research and medical training facility, as well as offer treatment programs.

In recognition of the tremendous growth projected for the Fraser Valley, the project has been expanded by 10 percent — to a 55,000-metre facility — housing a much-expanded emergency centre, advanced disease control and isolation rooms, an expanded ICU and CCU segregated capability, and video conferencing capability in the ORs that will allow for immediate consultation with the top surgeons around the world. Perhaps the most important thing is that it's the first time a cancer centre and a hospital have been built together from the ground up, thus opening the door to all kinds of new, exciting possibilities.

This ultra state-of-the-art complex will be a magnet to attract key specialists from around the globe. With the expanded plans, the overall project is now estimated to cost $300 million. This publicly operated facility will be constructed as a P3. I want to stress for my constituents that this will be a publicly operated facility. The private partner will supply some support services, but the medical services will all be operated under the Fraser health authority.

This carefully planned, well-managed and very transparent process will result in the most functional state-of-the-art centre anywhere in the country, and it's something we can all be proud of. I'll take the punishment the Whip will lay out for me for going over my two minutes, because this is such good news for my constituents.

M. Hunter: At 7:15 this morning a new era of opportunity was launched in Nanaimo. It was at that time that the inaugural sailing of a new private sector high-speed passenger ferry service left Nanaimo's harbour for downtown Vancouver. This new service, operated by HarbourLynx ferries, has been awaited by the people of Nanaimo and the mid-Island region for many, many months.

It affords new choices and competition with existing transportation services that will improve the accessibility and visibility of the mid-Island. It provides new flexibility in the lives of the many people who have chosen the mid-Island lifestyle but who must still visit the lower mainland for business or for recreation. I expect there will be many more such people relocating to Nanaimo in the coming years as this new service becomes established. The new HarbourLynx service reflects a growing confidence in the economic policies of this government and a strong investor interest in Nanaimo.

I want to thank the board of directors of the Nanaimo Port Authority for the vision they have shown in assisting HarbourLynx in its new venture. Most of all, I want to say thank you to the investors

and to the board of directors of HarbourLynx, who have weathered some considerable difficulties to getting to today's launch. I want to say thanks to those people for their confidence in my community and in our province.

B. Suffredine: Recent reports by the provincial media suggesting Kootenay Lake District Hospital in Nelson is unsafe must be clarified. There have been a number of changes to services in the Kootenays that have improved services to the region. It is important that people understand those changes.

Moving complex surgery to Trail now means a team of four surgeons is available to provide services 24-7 for the entire region. Before, surgeons were split between Trail and Nelson, which meant 24-7 surgical coverage was not assured — not in Nelson, Trail or anywhere else in the region. Some patients had to be transferred to Vancouver, Kelowna or even further for urgent surgery. Now people in the region, including Nelson, have guaranteed access to surgical services 24-7. I understand why people in Nelson are concerned that those services are focused in Trail, but the bottom line is that the system is safer than it was before for everyone in the region. Kootenay Lake Hospital is open as a full-service, level 1 community hospital that provides high-quality care.

Over $2 million in improvements are planned for Nelson in the near future. We have 24-7 emergency services, with monitored beds for heart patients. According to one of our most respected doctors, emergency is the best it has ever been, due to the highly qualified staff who currently man it. Contrary to the news reports, we have a radiologist and a pediatrician as well as family practice, internal medicine, ophthalmology, oncology, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology and neurology. There's still a lot of work to be done, but we do have a good hospital in Nelson that provides quality care. I can say this with confidence, because I know personally many of the doctors and nurses who work there. They're great, caring people.

Patients tell me regularly about the great care they receive at Kootenay Lake Hospital. I also know, because on August 26 my first grandson was born at the Kootenay Lake Hospital, and he and his mother received the best of care.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources was ashamed to say how many British Columbians will be kicked off of income assistance when the two-year limit kicks in next April, even though he has that information. But right now people are coming to our office — some of the poorest, most vulnerable citizens in our society — because they can't get assistance as a result of the two-year financial independence test. That's the new measure that this government brought in last year. Can the minister tell us how many British Columbians are being denied assistance right now as a result of this new requirement?

Hon. M. Coell: Just for the member, in the past year British Columbia has created 93,000 jobs. We have 10,000 jobs in my ministry available for people with income assistance. There are jobs available for people on income assistance in this province.

We're working every day to make sure that people who are employable get the jobs that they need, unlike the previous government for whom success on welfare was more people. Success for us is helping people get into jobs.

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

J. Kwan: The minister knows the answer to my question, but he insists on hiding it from the public. Let me read from an internal ministerial briefing note that was obtained by the CBC on a two-year financial independence test: "It is estimated that an average of blank applicants per month will be denied income assistance because they have not been financially independent for two years." Will the minister continue to hide behind his rhetoric, or will he fill in the blank?

Hon. M. Coell: What the opposition doesn't understand is that there are jobs out there for people who are employable. If someone isn't employable, they happen to be able to get income assistance. But if you're employable, we want you to work. We've gone out of this area and found 10,000 jobs for people all throughout the province, so maybe the…

Hon. M. Coell: …socialist NDP doesn't understand that people want to work in this province. Maybe they don't understand that people want to be successful in this province. Maybe they'd like to return to the years when the member was a minister and there were 400,000 people in British Columbia on income assistance. One in ten people under that former government was on income assistance. Is that helping people? I don't think so. I think helping people is finding employment.

The best social safety net a British Columbian can have is a job. But I don't think the member understands that, because she was quite happy at one in ten British Columbians on welfare, six out of ten British Columbia

single parents on welfare. That was success for her government. Well, success for British Columbians today is employment. My ministry is spending $300 million…

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

Hon. M. Coell: …on job placement and job training programs, and I think the caseload moving down and people moving into employment must be somewhat reassuring, even to a couple of NDPers.

J. Kwan: Let's talk about those 10,000 jobs. This minister is very proud of these supposed 10,000 jobs available to income assistance. Just wait. What he doesn't tell you is that….

J. Kwan: What the minister doesn't tell people is that if you're denied assistance in the first place, you don't qualify for those jobs. Many of the British Columbians who are being denied assistance make their living on the margins of society. They can't prove to the ministry that they have been financially independent for two years. As a result, they can't get assistance, and they have no access to job training and placement programs. They are caught in a horrible catch-22.

The minister likes to pretend everything is rosy and everyone is finding a job, but he knows it's not true. People are being denied assistance and left with no support. The minister has been told by the officials how many people are being cut off. Will he come clean?

It's a simple question. Will he come clean and tell this House how many people are being cut off income assistance now?

Hon. M. Coell: I remember the days when there was a government in this province where people were losing tens of thousands of jobs in the forest industry and the mining industry. People were leaving this province because of mismanagement. This government has created 93,000 jobs since we were elected. There are opportunities out there that there weren't under the previous government. There are opportunities for young people in this province like there weren't for a decade. In the pit of despair with the NDP in government, there was no hope for young people in this province. There is today.

J. MacPhail: To the Premier, a matter he has been briefed on: the Georgia Straight newspaper has accused the government of political interference in a decision to charge them $1 million in taxes for technical reasons. This is a very serious allegation, a very serious accusation, and the government's decision threatens the financial viability of a B.C. media institution. Will the Premier agree to ask for an independent assessment of how this decision was arrived at to determine whether political pressure was brought to bear?

Hon. S. Hagen: Provincial auditors make their assessments as provided for in the sales tax legislation and according to detailed policies. To keep the system free of political interference, I am not involved in the audit process and neither is the minister. However, for fairness to taxpayers, the legislation provides for an appeal process. Where the taxpayer disagrees with the results of an audit, an appeal may be made to the minister within 90 days, and the minister personally reviews all the appeals. The sales tax legislation ensures and establishes that the taxpayer information is confidential. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of the audit or the appeal.

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

The accusation being levelled against this government is the first of its kind. It's an accusation of political interference. It's not about the audit; it's not about ministers hiding behind public officials. I would have thought that the minister speaking, I gather, for the Provincial Revenue minister would have jumped at the chance to clear up this serious allegation.

It's a simple matter. Will the Premier, or whoever is in charge over there, simply ask for an independent assessment of how this decision was made so that British Columbians can determine whether these first-ever charges of political interference are true?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I outlined on behalf of the Minister of Provincial Revenue, the legislation does provide for an appeal process, and where the taxpayer disagrees with the results of an audit, an appeal may be made to the minister within 90 days.

P. Nettleton: I have been informed that the Minister of Transportation did not respond to a proposal from the B.C. Rail workers sent to the Ministry of Transpor-

tation on June 26 of this year, nor did the minister afford the B.C. Rail workers the courtesy of acknowledging their letter of proposal. The workers' proposal offered the government a three-year wage freeze, no participation in the bonus plan and the establishment of an employee-management joint committee to facilitate the return of a third-party passenger rail service.

This proposal would have saved B.C. Rail some $150 million that could have been used to build the infrastructure needed to keep B.C. Rail profitable. I can assure the minister that the employees are approaching this with a great deal of flexibility, are looking at it with a view to cost saving and are willing to discuss achieving greater efficiency and the goal of running an efficient railway that continues to bring in profits for the people of this province. This dialogue is something that rail-line communities want to see occur. It would help restore public confidence in the process and, indeed, in the government itself.

My question, then, to the minister is: with reference to the workers' proposal, why are you refusing to meet with the workers at B.C. Rail who are offering this government over $150 million in savings and, now, further flexibility? Will she place a six-month moratorium on this sale in order to listen to what the workers at B.C. Rail have to offer?

Hon. J. Reid: Our goal is, as the member suggested, a viable, long-term rail service for the people of British Columbia. Our goal is a renewed investment in the rail service. Our goal is a strong railway for a strong north for a strong province. That is our objective, and that's what we're going to achieve.

With regard to working with the workers of B.C. Rail, B.C. Rail has continued to work with their employees and will continue to work with their employees and continue to listen to their employees with regard to proposals. That process is ongoing.

W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Forests. We all know that over the summer, fires across the province had a devastating affect on the forest resources. Another additional consequence of this disaster was the loss of grazing lands, yet another blow to the valuable cattle industry. While recent measures announced by the Premier have helped, more can be done. Ranchers need to know that grazing lands will be replenished by the time they turn their herds out next spring.

As an issue that is vital to the economic health of the Cariboo region, will the Minister of Forests act with all urgency to help our ranchers and develop a reseeding plan for grazing lands damaged by the fires?

Hon. M. de Jong: A timely question. Just an hour ago, in fact, I got a letter from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. It's a tough time for them, with BSE at a time when they can't sell their cattle south of the border and trouble feeding them because of the fire season.

We are deferring the obligation to pay for the grazing permits until next year. The Premier made that announcement. Where possible, we're looking to extend the actual grazing season to help with the feeding of the cattle. I'm happy to tell the member and will be communicating to the Cattlemen's Association that we're going to do what we can to expand the reseeding program as part of our overall rehabilitation project. As well, as part of that program, we'll look at the other damage that's been suffered by things like fencing and corrals.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Late last month, the interior health authority issued a boil-water advisory to the town of Golden when bacterial contamination of the community's water system was discovered. Interior health acted swiftly to alert the community of the health risk and is in the process of testing the water quality. Residents of Golden, however, are anxious to have the boil-advisory lifted. Can the minister explain what steps are being taken to ensure water quality for Golden?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member indicated, there was a boil-water advisory in place on September 25 as a result of test results that came back showing elevated contamination. We have one of the strongest regimes for drinking water protection in Canada. Our obligation with the Ministry of Health Services, through the health authorities, is to make sure it is regularly tested and monitored and, if there is any compromise to the water system, that the appropriate action is taken. In this case, it was the boil-water advisory.

The interior health authority is certainly working with the community to make sure there is a safe period of time, after which the boil-water advisory will be lifted but only once there is 100 percent certainty that human health is being protected.

T. Bhullar: My question is for the Minister of Forests. Could the minister provide a status report to this House on the softwood issue and the countervailing duty imposed by the United States?

Hon. M. de Jong: Probably the most significant development of late was just over two weeks ago when the NAFTA binational panel issued its order that was exceedingly favourable to the Canadian position, and that particularly, specifically, was the finding that the commerce department in the U.S. had not made out a case for not just actual injury but even threat of injury. I think it's fair to say that has changed the complexion of this. The ball is squarely in the U.S. court right now. I'm happy that the Premier will be travelling to Wash-

ington in the next couple of weeks to pursue with the Americans directly whether they are actually serious about getting a deal. If they are serious, they will issue the policy bulletin that has been some time in the making, and if they are serious they will now sit down and engage in reasoned, reasonable negotiations aimed at arriving at a negotiated interim solution. If not, our option is to pursue the NAFTA and WTO panels to their logical conclusion.

Hon. S. Hagen: I wish to table a memorandum from the Deputy Minister, Ministry of Provincial Revenue, that outlines the application of the sales tax act to newspapers, which also states that there have been no changes in either policy or legislation with respect to newspapers since April of 2000. It also lays out the general audit and assessment policy.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm still reeling from the opposition leader's earlier comment on my shortcomings. [Laughter.]

L. Mayencourt: I'm here to speak in favour of Bill 52. I am speaking in favour of it because this bill will provide consumer protection to students of registered institutions, while reducing the regulatory burden for the private training sector. It will also reduce red tape for private training institutions and will allow them to reinvest their time and money into the expansion of their businesses. Growth in this sector of the economy will expand access and the range of quality learning choices for students in British Columbia.

Before I get into my reasons for why I want to support Bill 52, I want to go back to some comments that were made by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant a few moments ago, before we took our recess. I'm doing that because I want everybody here in this Legislature and I want people in this province to know that I think we have the finest Minister of Advanced Education since 1991 sitting in this chamber. I stand beside her, the Premier stands behind her, the Solicitor General stands behind her, and the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services stands behind her. We all stand behind her because she's done a darned good job for the people of British Columbia. She's put students first in advanced education, and she is making a difference for students in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: …was that the Liberal government is privatizing education like it's privatizing everything else. The facts are, as was stated in the Monday Magazine article that Ms. Kwan so fondly referenced….

L. Mayencourt: Oh, I'm very sorry. Counterpoint. As stated in the Monday Magazine article that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who is named in this article, so fondly referenced, there have been private institutions in B.C. for at least 100 years, including the dark decade of the NDP's reign.

In fact, even in her comments in the Legislature today she acknowledged that there are currently 1,100 private post-secondary education institutions. What is that about? You had ten years to be in power. You were ten years in power, and you left the place just the way it was. You had 1,100 private institutions. If you thought they were so evil, why didn't you get rid of them when you were in power?

Second point. According to Monday Magazine, private institutions in British Columbia are already underregulated and taking advantage of students. Further deregulating the system would only make it worse. The issues that arise from that article indicate that the problems arise from the mandate of PPSEC. The Social Credit government wrote this legislation, and the NDP proclaimed it into law in 1991. This is the very body that we are proposing to change with this legislation. We don't think it works.

When accrediting institutions, PPSEC's focus is primarily on administrative considerations — job descriptions of administrators, numbers of staff, a lot of paperwork. The new accreditation system focuses less on administration and far more on program quality, where we think it should be — serving students. It will pay closer attention to how current a program's curriculum is, whether it fills a market need and leaves graduates with job opportunities, and whether they have the space and capacity to offer the program. We feel this is a tremendous improvement over the former system.

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

making a profit guarantee quality of education? Well, this seems to be their mantra. Anybody that's making money in this province, that's employing educators, that's delivering private education is somehow evil. In fact, private post-secondary institutions succeed and thrive on one thing — their reputation. Where does that reputation come from? It comes from quality. As with any business, a private educational institution relies on its reputation to succeed and keep its doors open.

The purpose of this bill is to replace and repeal the Private Post-Secondary Education Act in order to implement the core services review recommendations concerning the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, PPSEC. Through our core services review — which included consulting with private post-secondary institutions, students and people in this province — we discovered that there is more we can be doing and that PPSEC is not as effective as it could be, and in some cases it's too broad in its legislation and regulations.

How do we compare with other provinces? Other Canadian provinces show examples of how it is possible to reduce government regulation in the private post-secondary sector while encouraging this industry, a growing industry, to assume greater responsibility for its actions. This bill will allow us to do the same.

What were the specific recommendations of the core services review? The core services review recommended replacing PPSEC with a self-regulating, cost recovery board composed of industry representatives. It recommended narrowing the scope of the registration requirements to include only those institutions offering career-related training and further narrowing the scope of registration to include only those programs that exceed a minimum threshold for program length and cost.

One very important part of this bill is that it will provide key changes in the area of tuition protection. Instead of requiring institutions to post bonds, cash or letters of credit to protect the tuition fees of private post-secondary students, these students will be covered by the student training completion fund. This fund is important for a number of reasons. It will improve the level of consumer protection available to these students, and it will also replace the current financial security requirements for private career training institutions.

This bill has been suggested not only by core services review but also by students. Students had an active role in making suggestions as we went through this process. They had the opportunity to provide feedback on PPSEC and the proposed private training model in the discussion paper, which was posted on the website.

That's really the beauty of it all. This bill will benefit both students and private institutions. How can this be? The training completion fund will also replace the current financial security requirements for private career training institutions. Many institutions have found the current financial security requirements burdensome, and the sector has been asking for changes for years. This government believes in creating solutions for students for putting them first.

Institutions will also benefit by this bill. The new agency will have the authority to make bylaws concerning their administrative requirements, with the provision that the minister may require the agency to amend or repeal the bylaws. This will provide the agency with the flexibility to determine appropriate administrative requirements for registered and accredited institutions and to modify these requirements as necessary. If it's necessary, and the institution doesn't want to do it, the minister can step in.

In conclusion, there are many other facets of this bill that I see as beneficial to everyone involved. This bill benefits students, by providing consumer protection, and private training institutions, by decreasing regulatory burdens and red tape. We need to see growth in this sector of the economy, as it will lead to an increase in the range of quality learning choices for students in British Columbia.

I have a number of these private post-secondary education centres in my riding, and I am very proud that almost the very first visit I had with the Minister of Advanced Education was her coming to my riding to meet with private post-secondary educators about this very problem. It was the first thing that was brought to my attention as an MLA. It's the first thing for which that minister came to my riding, sat down with me around a table and discussed these issues with educators who were confounded by PPSEC's administrative rules and bureaucracy.

I am proud that this bill has come forward. I am proud that we are ending the insanity that some of those institutions have had to deal with. I am glad and proud that this minister has, from that very first meeting just after we came to office, dedicated herself to solving that problem for the people who sat around that table. I support this bill wholeheartedly, and I hope my other colleagues will join me in that.

K. Stewart: I, too, stand in support of Bill 52, Private Career Training Institutions Act, and also in support of the Minister of Advanced Education and her determination to ensure the protection of the students in the province of British Columbia. It's very important to provide students, who go out and invest their money, time and their future in an organization, with the skills they are going to need in their future lives. This act, in conjunction with the student training completion fund, will ensure that their resources and time will not be wasted.

It was interesting. I had two duties this morning. One was, of course, to read Bill 52, and by the fact that I was in the House, my other duty was to listen to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It appears that she didn't do her first duty, which would have been to read the act, because if she had, she would have found out that the act accomplishes many of the issues for which she was criticizing the minister — primarily, protection of students.

When I go through this act, I see a number of things. Under section 3, objects of agency: "…to provide consumer protection to the students and prospective students of registered institutions…." That certainly would help alleviate some of the issues that were discussed earlier. Again, "a person must not provide or offer to provide career training unless the person is a registered institution." Further to that, as we go along, it discusses that a person who does so will be committing a criminal act or an offence.

As I go through this, I see nothing but protection. In my view, one of the roles of government is protection. Regulation, of course, is another strong role. The role of government isn't to provide the service that's required by every British Columbian for every moment of their time. But as a government I think we are carrying an obligation to ensure that as those acts are carried out throughout this province by, in many cases, private organizations, we have a responsibility to ensure the protection of, in this case, those students. So it's easy for me, when I actually go through and read the bill, to support it.

Again, as we look back at some of the cases that have happened in the past…. I look to some of the newspaper articles I've seen in the past, some of the news clips where there are students all of a sudden showing up somewhere where the doors are closed, wondering where their tuition went. The high quality of education they paid for doesn't exist. Here, there will be a fund that ensures those students will have access to completing that education or to returning the funds that they've paid for such education.

In closing, I'd just like to say that I am fully supportive of Bill 52. I wish all the other members of the House would take the time to read it, because I'm sure they then would be supportive also.

H. Bloy: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. But first of all, from my colleague beside me, there was…. The speaker from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant earlier today was talking about a bill that I'm sure she didn't read either, because she just doesn't get it. She doesn't understand what the Minister of Advanced Education is doing for the students of British Columbia.

This is a bill that was passed earlier, which will allow more student spaces for students in British Columbia, and I believe that is the goal of this government. It's what they wanted to do. That member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant does not understand and continued to attack the bill, but she was in part of the government for ten years where they didn't have any increases in students. They actually reduced the funding to advanced education over ten years.

We as a government have increased the funding to advanced education. We have allowed the universities to set their own tuition fees, which — can you believe it? — has allowed them to hire more professors, and there's more classroom space. I just wanted to say again how much I support the Minister of Advanced Education on Bill 35.

I stand here today also to talk about Bill 52, Private Career Training Institutions Act. I would like to announce my support for this act. You know, I support it for many reasons, but the fact that it'll provide consumer protection for students is number one, as well as establish a standard of quality that must be met by all the private institutions.

The private institutions are accredited institutions. They've all gone through a process. The bill will allow for both appointed and elected members of the board. The board will have the opportunity to establish its own practices and procedures. These practices and procedures will be maintained in a complete and accurate recordkeeping, but they will be doing it for their industry, for their training. It's not one size fits all; it's specific to their training needs.

All of these bylaws will be and must be made available to the public at any time. The bill will allow for the establishment of a student training completion fund. Money paid into this fund will be held in trust by the agency. This money must be accounted for separately from other moneys of the agency, and these funds will not be subject to any process of seizure or attachment by any creditor or agency. They will further protect the student enrolment tuition fees, and the moneys can only be invested as per the Trustee Act of British Columbia.

Registered institutions will make payments to the fund through the board at times and in amounts required by regulation. Prior to a student beginning a career training program, the registered institution must collect from the student and pay to the fund, through the board, the prescribed training completion fee for the program. The board may authorize payments to be made from the fund for refunding a portion of the tuition fees a student has paid to a registered institution that ceases to operate so that the refund compensates the students for the uncompleted portion of the program.

Also, on request of the student, a refund could be calculated to pay another registered institution that agrees to allow the student to complete the program at that registered institution. This will further ensure that our students have the maximum opportunity to complete all of their required instructions, no matter what registered institution they happen to be attending.

A claim against the fund must comply with the regulations and be filed with the board within one year after the institution to which the claim relates ceases to operate. The board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims against the fund. The board may prorate payments among claimants if the fund is insufficient to pay all the claims. This is where the students are protected, and this is where our Minister of Advanced Education is allowing for the expansion of trade schools. There are many expansions.

I would like to read a press release that was sent out on October 8 of this year, and it was from myself. It says: "Burquitlam MLA Harry Bloy said Burnaby piping trades apprentices can learn their skills at their own

pace, thanks to a provincewide initiative to improve access to certified industry trades education. In most cases, industrial trade schools require students to commit to fixed core schedules which may not be suited to their learning needs."

It means that there will now be so much more flexibility with the addition of more private training facilities, and students will be able to take the trades and the educational part of their program when they can take it — when their trade may be slow, possibly in the winter months. So there will be a lot of flexibility. Core studies are often set in stone, and trainees have no option but to learn at the same pace as the rest of the class. I think this takes away from opportunities for students to perfect the skills they would like to spend more time working on.

I believe the government has responded to these issues by partnering with a number of industrial trade schools to develop flexible, certified training programs which will allow students to learn at their own pace. One of the schools, Burnaby's Pacific Vocational College, has received $131,000 to develop a pilot project for self-paced level 1 certification training for the piping trades — plumbing, gas-fitting, steam-fitting and sprinkler-fitting.

Because of the actions of our Minister of Advanced Education, there are now many more opportunities in British Columbia for students to learn the trades and to get the education they require for the future. I'd like to stand here and offer my support for Bill 52.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to rise again to address this House on another education matter, Bill 52, relating to private career training institutions.

This act is another that is very worthy of support by this House, as was Bill 35 to which so many of us spoke in favour of this morning. It will assist students throughout this province to gain a better education while at the same time protecting those students who are buying the services of private educational institutions.

We have all heard of stories in which students have found private education institutions failing, of lost tuition and lost training, which forced students back to square one. It has cost them time that can never be recovered, and it has cost them lost opportunity. This bill will protect those students from failure of private learning institutions. It will ensure there is in place a student training completion fund. This fund will ensure that if for any reason a private institution fails its student body, there is the ability for those students to switch to another institution or at least receive a refund of their tuition payments. This is good news for students. It brings a feeling of security to them, knowing that after they do their part, the government has required the institution to do their part.

As we all know, it is difficult enough for many students to struggle with post-secondary education and perhaps juggle a part-time job while they study, without having to worry that their classes may collapse partway through the educational program. This bill may not prevent the institution from, for whatever reason, going under, but it will protect the vulnerable student, and that is good news for our students.

As the minister said this morning in moving this bill, these private institutions are a very important part of the post-secondary education system in our province. This bill will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions. I want to assure this House that while this bill does add a regulatory requirement that protects students, it still ends up with a net reduction in the regulatory burden placed on private education institutions.

I want the House to know that this bill will take into consideration the interests of both students and business, and that is good news for both. Everybody involved has been asking for this legislation. I'm very happy to say that this government has not only listened to what they had to say, but with this bill they're actually taking action on what they had to say. That is why I want to make this brief statement in support of this bill and to urge all others in this House to support Bill 52.

S. Orr: I'm speaking in support of Bill 52. I speak in support of this bill because it's building the space and the capacity of post-secondary education in private career training institutions.

I listened to the debate on this bill this morning with keen interest. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spent a good part of her ramble on the argument: how can organizations focused on making profit guarantee quality education? How could people in the private sector possibly do something right?

Well, let's deal with that first. Post-secondary institutions succeed and thrive on one thing and one thing only: their reputation. Where does that reputation come from? Well, quality. As with any business, a private educational institute relies on its reputation to succeed and keep its doors open. If an organization has a poor-quality product, it will not attain a good reputation. If its product and reputation are poor, that organization will not survive. It is in the best interest — in fact, it's in the sole interest — of a private institution to maintain quality of programs. Otherwise they will just go out of business because unlike private institutions, they receive no government funding and must sustain themselves. And they do go out of business. That has happened because they did not have the quality. The institutions have a vested interest in meeting the needs of students. In addition, those private institutions wanting to be designated for student financial assistance purposes must be accredited and must meet quality standards.

Now, moving along from that, let me respond to some of the comments made by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant when she singled out the private institution Sprott-Shaw College. This is a college in Victoria

that has a good reputation and has been here a long time. Let's talk about that organization that's 100 years old and now has 21 schools. For the record, as of August 1, 2003, Sprott-Shaw Community College was the only multi-campus organization to go through the rigorous accreditation process and receive 24 commendations for the excellence of their operations and zero requirements.

It is also interesting to note that this process was the identical process used for many years in accrediting private training institutions. Sprott-Shaw Community College was the first private proprietary institution in Canada to be accredited by the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of B.C. to train nurses for employment. It is interesting to note that out of their 34 graduating students, all 34 passed the nursing exam. When the second group of students wrote the test, it is also interesting to note that the aggregate passing rate for the 561 Canadian students who wrote the test at the same time — that's the passing rate — as reported by the College of Licensed Practical Nurses was only 73 percent. Another point is that their internally developed practical nurse curriculum is the actual curriculum that is used at many of the public colleges throughout the province.

It was also of interest to note that the member used Mr. Brazier as an example. Now, the member was right when she said Mr. Brazier was dissatisfied with what he received at Sprott-Shaw College. What she failed to put on the record was this. Mr. Brazier, who was signed up for a webmaster program, was a WCB-sponsored student. He was dissatisfied. He was refunded his tuition…. He wasn't; it was refunded back to WCB, as they were the sponsoring program. Then they put him through another program. That was a fact that was just missed out. I think that's a very big fact.

Another example that came out came from a former employee. She mentioned Kim Lichtensteiger when she talked about: "…Sprott-Shaw would not be ordering any new textbooks to supply its courses for three years, something" — this is Ms. Lichtensteiger — "she thought makes it hard to tell students they are getting the latest information, especially in rapidly changing fields like technology and computer software."

Well, this is a little confusing, because in fact the students purchase their own books. The school does not supply the books. The students purchase their books. The books are reviewed every three years, but in high technology they are reviewed every year.

I feel it was extremely important — after some of the comments that were made this morning about this college, which actually does do a very good job — to get on the record what was actually stated and what is actual fact.

What I would like to just say to close is that I really want to thank the minister. She recognizes — and she has worked very hard at this — the importance of these institutions. These institutions are good institutions. They are there to build capacity. They gives spaces to many, many students. This act accomplishes the protection of the students.

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

S. Brice: I am pleased to stand and, as well, speak to this bill this afternoon, as I am pleased to stand and speak about any of the legislation that has been brought to this House by the Minister of Advanced Education. This minister has, with thoroughness and passion, taken on the task of looking to see how she can get access to post-secondary education for all students in British Columbia.

Our Minister of Advanced Education recognizes that a student can be anyone from 18 years of age to probably 60. This Minister of Advanced Education realizes that a student who may at one point access a public institution in this province may at some other time in their education be accessing a private facility in this province.

This is not a piece of legislation which stands apart and separate from all of the other very integral, well-thought-out, well-established policies and legislation that the Minister of Advanced Education has brought into this Legislature for this House to consider. The minister has been a champion for students in this province.

The minister has increased the public post-secondary system by 3,154 full-time-equivalent student spaces for '03-04, and that's on top of the 2,700 spaces in the previous year. This minister has added 825 new seats in computer science and electrical and computer engineering; more than 1,800 new seats for nursing students; and has committed to adding 124 new spaces for medical students, doubling the current number of graduates to a total of 228. This is part of the ongoing plan of this minister to meet the needs of all students in this province, regardless of when they have to access the service. Many of them will take one or two years, perhaps when they're younger, perhaps at a public institution. Then, as they go about their life, they will find they need specific skills to go out into the marketplace and to find a facility, oftentimes a private facility, which can meet their very specific needs — so greater opportunities to access post-secondary education.

In the public system this minister — the minister who is bringing Bill 52 to us — in previous opportunities, exercises, has increased funding to institutions by a total of $12 million in '03-04, which was due to prudent fiscal management, in addition to the $32 million added last year, along with a $10 million one-time funding boost due to ministry administrative cost savings.

This minister has established a $45 million leading-edge endowment fund, and that was fulfilling a promise to create a cost-sharing program to establish 20 leadership chairs in the fields of medical, social, environmental and technical research. This minister has the confidence in British Columbians to establish at the universities very professional and well-backgrounded

individuals to run these institutions and boards, and this minister returned to those boards the authority to establish at their own institutions just what level of tuition fees students should be paying.

This minister recognized that in the years leading up to her assuming that role, the freeze on tuition fees had put a freeze on growth. It had put a freeze on innovation, and it had put a freeze on opportunities for students. This Minister of Advanced Education lifted that freeze — that freeze on innovation, on growth, on the ability of institutions to set their own tuition rates. Despite the fact that some institutions have had to address those years of underfunding due to that false freeze on education, the university fees in British Columbia are still lower than Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. This is all within the ministry's mandate of increasing opportunities for future students in British Columbia.

This is the background in the public institutions, and now Bill 52 comes forward to provide yet another very important part of the package for post-secondary education.

Many students will avail themselves of private institution training. They'll do it, never knowing that Bill 52 exists. It won't be front and centre in their day-to-day lives. Hopefully, they will go, they will ascertain what their needs are, they will search the marketplace, they will find institutions that meet their needs, they will enrol, they will take the courses, they will succeed, and then they will move on with their careers. They will never know that a bill such as Bill 52 is being debated in the Legislature such as it is today. Bill 52 will provide a protection for them which, hopefully, they will never have to access.

This bill, of course, replaces the PPSEC with a private career training institution agency, with this agency much more in tune with today's marketplace — less hidebound concern about parts of administration which didn't deal with students' needs. It once again brings B.C. into line with what is going on in other provinces.

It will focus on registering those institutions providing training beyond specified time-and-cost thresholds. Obviously, the institutions that want their students to be able to take advantage of student loans are going to have to be registered and meet the criteria that are established by this agency.

You know, the consumer protection aspect of Bill 52 cannot be understated. In my previous life as executive director of the Better Business Bureau, some of the saddest cases for me were when I would go and be met by students who had paid a good deal of money, had started courses and then arrived at their school to a sign that said "Closed." Those students felt desperate. Not only had many of them taken out loans to get that far, some of them had made incredible commitments within their own families to allow them to get some more training, and then the institution closed. For a variety of reasons these things happen.

The consumer protection that is in Bill 52 mirrors the very successful legislation that is in place for people who travel within British Columbia, which is that everybody who may some day have to access that support pays something for the service. This is truly user-pay. The students will have to pay. This will be identified in regulation, just to what extent they must pay. It will be an insurance which, of course, they hope they never have to trigger.

I am delighted to stand here and support Bill 52, because Bill 52 is just one of the important pieces of legislation which this minister is bringing to this House in order to have a complete package of post-secondary education opportunities, private and public, available to all students throughout British Columbia. This bill that is brought to us for consideration deserves unanimous support in this House. I'm delighted to stand here and support it.

R. Lee: I would like to stand to speak in support of the bill. The bill is named Private Career Training Institutions Act.

This bill actually will create more choices for students, for consumers. Despite a lot of efforts in this province to increase the number of seats in post-secondary institutes, the demand is still there — very high. For the past two years, we can see that there were almost 6,000 seats created for the post-secondary institutes. That's a tremendous increase in two years. It is about 3.7 percent.

If you look at the number of students that graduated in 2001-02, the number only increased by about 600 to 700. In terms of the population of graduates — about 39,000 — the increase in the number of student graduates was only 0.18 percent, compared to the number of seats available in that year, over two years — an average of 1.8 percent. You get ten times the number of seats increased as compared to the number of students graduating from grade 12.

Despite all that, there are also professional seat vacancies available in post-secondary institutes. For example, we have 1,800 new seats for nursing students. Those are students who are interested in pursuing a career in nursing. We understand that over, say, the past few years, we've had a shortage of nurses in our society, in our institutes. That kind of increase of, for example, 1,800 seats for nursing students is a very positive element to increase the number of professionals in our future.

I understand that in many institutes, including some private institutes, they have new programs for professional students and for nursing students. Some of those students will be coming from private institutes.

It's a very positive development for the students in this province, as well as for the nursing and the medical fields. At UBC, we understand that there will be a lot of development on the new Life Sciences Centre in cooperation with UNBC and UBC. Those kinds of training institutes are important to train future professions.

I also was very pleased to see that in terms of research and development, there is $45 million allocated

for leading-edge and endowment funds. That kind of support for research and development is very important. Over the past few years, the total allocation committed for research and development and technology development is about $900 million — since June 2001. That kind of commitment by this government will go a long way in creating new areas of innovation and research in this province.

As I said, despite this kind of investment in our education system, there is still quite a lot of demand for our post-secondary institutes. The bill introduced today will actually protect the students going into private career training. That kind of protection will increase the money available in case some of the institutes fail. In the old system, the institutes put up some kind of bond that would protect the students if they cannot complete the program. But for this new kind of model, all the students, when they are entering the institute, will also help to contribute to a completion fund. That fund will be available for students who cannot complete their studies in case the institute they attend failed, but the institutes have to be registered under this kind of a model.

So for the consumers, it's very clear. If they want consumer protection, they will go to the institutes, register under this act, under this kind of model. Before, over 1,000 of our institutes were registered under PPSEC. Some of those institutes may not deliver good programs, so they fail. Under this registration procedure, the consumer will be really clear. They will see that if the registration is completed for certain institutes, they will have the protection. They can complete their studies in due course. They are independent of the success, or not, of the institute they are attending.

These kinds of registration programs are important for consumer protection. In my community, there is also some concern on the registration of ESL language institutes. Under this act, those language institutes can also register. It would be a bonus for them if they can register under this act so that the students coming to their institute will know that they are under that kind of protection too. I can imagine in the future many of those institutes, the language institutes, will voluntarily register under this act. This is not a major concern, I believe.

I would like to offer my support to this act, and I will be very pleased to see this act come into action.

E. Brenzinger: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 52, the Private Career Training Institutions Act. I want to thank the Minister of Advanced Education for this bill, which will provide more access, choice and security to students in British Columbia. Here's how this bill will enable us to do this.

To start with, this act reduces the regulatory burden on private training institutions and recognizes the important role that these institutions play in post-secondary education in this province. As there is an ever-increasing demand for student spaces and a need for more skilled workers in B.C., it is important that we acknowledge the role that private training institutions play in filling that void.

The Private Career Training Institutions Act will repeal and replace the Private Post-Secondary Education Act. This will accommodate recommendations from the core services review concerning the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, also known as PPSEC. In addition, the review of the Private Post-Secondary Education Act found that current legislation and regulations were too broad, especially when compared to other Canadian jurisdictions, including the provinces of Alberta and Ontario.

This new legislation is intended to bring British Columbia in line with the other provinces by reducing government regulation of the private post-secondary sector while encouraging industry to assume greater responsibility for its actions. This new model for regulating these private post-secondary institutions is consistent with government's new-era commitment to reduce bureaucracy. Reducing the regulatory burden for private training institutions will allow them to reinvest time and money into expansion of their business. Growth in this sector of the economy will expand the range of quality learning choices and spaces for students in British Columbia.

The Ministry of Advanced Education consulted with the private post-secondary stakeholders and obtained advice to help the ministry draft the Private Career Training Institutions Act. The consultation process included the creation of an industry-based advisory committee in the spring of 2002 and the development and release of a discussion paper in the fall of 2002 that discussed the proposed mandate, governance and funding arrangements for the new private training model.

I am proud to say that this ministry always includes students in consultations. Students provided feedback on PPSEC and the proposed private training model in the discussion paper. Education is no different from business. It is too difficult for young people to attend post-secondary institutions. It results in fewer educated, qualified graduates to contribute to the British Columbia workforce. We need a skilled workforce to continue the growth of our economy.

This act directly impacts my community in Surrey, which is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. A recently released Statistics Canada report showed that 54 percent of people living in the lower mainland, including the Surrey area, immigrated there. This is evident in my hometown of Surrey. The large immigrant population in Surrey and elsewhere has created a huge demand for resources that help new residents learn a new language, the English-as-a-second-language courses. The act speaks directly to the private institutions that are offering these services. Not only does this act put the needs of students first, it also helps to stimulate growth in this sector.

While private institutions will not be required to register with the new agency, they are encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis. This is consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada that could be considered

competitors for the international ESL student market. These private institutions will play an even greater role as they obtain approval to grant degrees. Earlier this year the Degree Authorization Act was passed, authorizing both private and public post-secondary institutions to grant degrees.

I am also excited about this legislation because it will protect students' interests through tuition protection and will enable private training institutions to continue offering educational choices. This is an important part of our commitment to students.

There have been situations in the past where students at private sector schools have borrowed money to upgrade their education, only to be crushed when they learn the school has closed because of financial difficulty. Those students not only lost their money, but their hopes and dreams were crushed when their dreams of an improved life were crushed. This act will make sure that doesn't happen again.

Plus, this act will ensure that the people of my riding are able to take advantage of programs that will help them to learn a new language and enter the workforce. I commend the Minister of Advanced Education for putting through this Bill 52, and I am happy to support it.

R. Hawes: Like my colleagues before me, I'm pleased to stand today and also support this bill. My colleague from Saanich South spoke earlier about the advances the minister has made in developing new seats in universities across this province — wonderful strides over the last two years.

What I like particularly about this bill is that this is the career training part of the education piece. This is not about university post-secondary degrees; this is about career training. I know — and I know many others in this House know — from experience partly, that in every high school in this province there's a fairly substantial number of students who are never going on to university. In my riding it's a very, very significant number. It's well over 80 percent of our students who are not going to go on to university training. Yet for years, career training and careers such as plumbers, electricians and cosmetologists, etc., have been denigrated as being something inferior. As a result, we are facing a massive, massive skills shortage in this province, and it's coming soon.

Trained tradespeople are going to be in a huge, huge deficit — and very shortly, as we have an aging workforce of accredited tradespeople. These people are not being trained in our public institutions. As we advance the number of seats in the publicly funded institutions, and as we look at the budget constraints all of us have to live under and this government is struggling under, it's not possible for us to open publicly funded institutions to provide enough skilled people to fill the need we're going to face very shortly.

When the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke this morning about the evils of the private sector being involved in education, surely she couldn't have been implying that somehow the public purse be opened wide enough to open publicly funded career training institutions all over this province to meet the needs we're going to face here within the next few years. Actually, when I think about it, she probably did mean we should do that, because the members from that side of the House don't seem to get it.

They don't seem to understand that people have to live within budgets. It's something that every one of us faces in our life. Unless we happen to be born into one of the silver-spoon families with multimillions that don't care — and that's very few of us — all of us live within budgets. Governments are absolutely no different — from our side of the House, anyway.

Clearly, for the last ten years the government of the day, the NDP, did not understand what living within a budget meant. From the member's remarks this morning, it's pretty clear that the lessons that should have been learned over the last ten years haven't hit home with her. She continues to talk about the evils of the private sector in education and how they have to be curtailed. Somehow making a profit would mean putting students behind your ability to make a profit, and somehow students would suffer greatly. She doesn't seem to understand that the marketplace sorts all of this out, that private sector training institutions that do an inferior job actually wind up going out of business and don't survive because they develop a poor reputation.

I'm really pleased this minister recognizes the coming skills shortage, and this goes a great deal towards addressing that by removing a lot of the encumbrances and the red tape and the costs of running private educational institutes. We need those institutes to spring up in greater numbers to provide the kind of training that is going to be necessary for all of the trades we're now seeing are going to be in great shortage.

Last spring there was a graduation ceremony in my riding at the Riverside Centre. The Riverside Centre is a skills and technical training school that was opened by school district 75. It's a publicly funded training institution, but it was opened basically without any extra funding coming from government. It operates very much like a private training institute would. The school board has had to work this off the back of the desk and try to beg, borrow and steal enough money to get this institution open. They're trying to run it just exactly the way a private institution would.

I want to talk for a minute about that institution, about the Riverside Centre and what it does, because it so much fits with what this bill is going to allow to happen. The Mission school board recognized there are all kinds of kids who can be seen early in their high school career, grade 10 maybe, who are in jeopardy of dropping out, who aren't fitting the educational curriculum at all and for whom the educational system, as it's laid out, has no relevance. These are kids who aren't lacking intelligence but who are unable to really cope with the curriculum as it's stipulated, so they wind up dropping out. This is happening in cities all across this province, and all of us know that.

In recognition of that and in recognition, too, that the kids that have dropped out of school are often the kids that you find on the street, they're often kids that fill the homeless rolls. In fact, when you go down and look in Vancouver or other places where there are squats, quite often numbers of the people there will be kids who dropped out of school at an early age, because for them education wasn't relevant.

The Mission school board, through Riverside Centre, has reached out to a bunch of those dropouts and tried to reconnect them to an educational program that will not just give them their Dogwood diploma — their grade 12, which is a prerequisite of graduating from Riverside Centre — but give them technical training. It's a preapprenticeship program with pretty much a guarantee of employment for these kids. I can tell you that they offer cosmetology. They offer cooking classes and mechanics. They have a carpentry course that's a certificate program which will offer framing, window and door-hanging certificates, which are all part of the certificate program that will lead to full journeyman status as you get enough certificates. You can at some point go for the Red Seal program, which is a full tradesman designation.

I can tell you that we attended the graduation ceremony for a bunch of students that came out of Riverside Centre last year, and we made a tour of the school. After the ceremony a mother of a student came to me in the hallway of the school where the graduation ceremony took place. The way she was walking, to be honest with you, I thought she was going to come up and lay a pretty heavy complaint, but instead she said: "My son just received a certificate for hanging doors and windows. He's a mentally challenged boy who can't read and really has had no hope of employment in a meaningful way until this program came along. And now he has the certificate to hang doors and windows. He's very proficient at it. He's very proud of what he's got, and he's going to go out in the workforce."

He may never go further in the certificate program. He may never become — and probably never will — a journeyman carpenter, but because of the changes the minister has made and because of the implementation of the certificate program, this young lad has a piece of paper that gives him a designation he can take for the rest of his life. He has a skill that's documented and certified that he can sell, and he very proudly is doing that. His mother is absolutely thrilled.

That's the kind of innovative change that the minister's putting in place and that she recognizes is important as we move on in developing a post-secondary education system in this province. She's well aware that a huge percentage of our kids aren't going to university. They're not going to be doctors, and thankfully, they're not going to be lawyers. I see a number of them in the House here, and they would probably say the same thing. But they are going to be tradespeople, and they are going to provide services in a service industry that requires some skills training, and they're now going to get it much easier through this bill.

I believe there is going to be a huge number of new accredited private training facilities, career training facilities, that are going to open because of this bill. The previous system run through PPSEC was very regulatory with far too much red tape and was expensive for the career training institution. Frankly, it offered the kind of things that the member from the other side of the House really liked. That's: "Let's have the government be Big Brother to everyone. Let's not have anyone responsible for any decisions they make in their life. Let's make the taxpayer provide the safety net for everybody's decision on everything. At the same time, let's employ a whole bunch of people to operate that safety net, and we'll get the money from these rich people working in private industry" — who of course have all left and gone to Alberta.

That's the way it was operating before. The changes being made and the things being recognized are that the private sector actually takes huge pride in doing the job well — and they do do the job well. They do it best when government gets out of the way and allows them to do the job they want to do and they're supposed to do. People will choose, without a lot of safety net from the government, the private operators that offer the best service, that have the best ability to stay in business because they offer quality service. People, without a safety net, will again learn you need to do a little research, and you need to protect yourself a little bit. Government isn't going to help you with all of your decisions and make them very easy.

This bill says that if you're going to school less than 40 hours a week and your tuition fees are less than a thousand dollars, you're not going to be offered protection if the organization you've paid your tuition to happens to fold or go broke or something happens. You'll still have recourse through the small debts court system, but you're not going to have Big Brother there holding your hand. Frankly, if you're going to take the kind of course that is less than a thousand dollars, you should research who you're paying the money to. You should know the school that's offering the course. As the member for Saanich South said — she was the former director of the Better Business Bureau on the Island here — maybe you should check with organizations like that and make sure that who you're doing business with is reputable.

If it's over a thousand dollars and you're going more than 40 hours, you will be offered protection. There will be a fund so that if the educational institution stops offering the service or financially collapses or for any reason suspends your education in the course you've paid for, you will either get transferred to another organization offering the same course or get your money back. There are protections here.

The biggest thing…. I spoke about this when we spoke on the previous bill that this minister brought forward this morning, Bill 37. That was a small bill with I think a very, very large symbolic meaning. In this bill there's some very large symbolic meaning as well.

Just to reiterate a little bit of what I said this morning on the previous bill, we have committed to a deregulation process in this province that's unprecedented, and we've gone a long, long way down the road to achieving the objectives that we've set out. This bill helps accomplish that. This bill removes a considerable amount of regulation that has been put in front of these private educational institutions.

The relevance of that is that business, free enterprise, is noticing what's happening. As they notice what's happening here in this province, they begin to put their money back here — money that has left this province. The two members opposite frequently like to refer to us as being in tenth place economically in this province. The fact is that their policies took us to tenth place, last place in the country, and to turn around that ship does take a little bit of time.

I know that a huge amount of investment is today waiting at our borders, wanting to know we are not going to see in this province a return to that socialist, left-wing, anti-business type of thinking. So they want to see what's going to happen on May 17, 2005, when the new election comes up. What a wonderful opportunity for the people of this province to show the private sector, the investment community, that we have confidence in them; that we welcome their investment in this province; that we want job creation in this province; that we have a government that understands what business needs; that business, free enterprise business, is the job engine and that it's not government; that we're going to get out of taxpayers' pockets to the greatest extent possible; and that our target is to be the lowest taxed in the country.

What an opportunity for the people of this province in May of 2005 to tell business: "We support that kind of thinking, and we absolutely reject the policies that were there for the last ten years under the NDP." I believe the people of this province are going to take that opportunity. I think the people of this province are going to look at legislation like this, understand it, understand the comments made by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and how those comments really are typical of that old way of thinking — that government should look after everyone.

I think that the people of this province want the kinds of changes that we see coming in this bill. I believe that our kids, our youth all across this province, the majority of our youth who are not going on to UBC or the University of Northern British Columbia or UVic, the kids that are now going to be looking to go to a trade school, that are going to look for a career opportunity — whether it be in plumbing or electrical or perhaps a legal secretary type of position…. These are the kids who are going to benefit from this legislation.

Just briefly, I do also want to say that this legislation doesn't completely supplant what's happening in the public education sector either. I'll give an example: a legal secretary course. I know that you can take a legal secretary course at the University College of the Fraser Valley, a publicly funded institution. You can also take that same course through one of the private career corporations in the Fraser Valley or in Vancouver, and the difference is the time you want to spend going to the course. If you want to take it in the public sector, the cost is somewhat less, but the time is about double. I can't remember exactly what the dates are, but it's something like two years in the private sector and four years if you're going to the university college. It may be one year versus two years, but it's a significant time difference. There's a decision now, a choice students would have: pay a little more and go private — and get your certification a bit earlier and get out in the workforce earlier — or pay a little less and go in the public system. It takes a bit longer. There are some other courses in it that, while they're great courses, perhaps are not as directly beneficial towards the specific job you're looking for.

The choices are still going to be there. This doesn't supplant the public education system in any way, but it certainly enhances the educational opportunities that we need and that are going to happen in the private sector. There simply isn't enough money in our coffers. There isn't enough money in government to open public education institutes and supply all of the training opportunities we need and still have enough money to supply our health needs and all our other needs in this province.

I find it so interesting to listen to those two members opposite as they jump from topic to topic. Every single thing they talk about is about: why have you taken money out of something? Why aren't you putting more money into something? All of this really enforces my belief that they have absolutely no connection with the real world when it comes to fiscal responsibility. These are people who were on a wild spending spree and, if they were still in power, would have continued to be on a wild spending spree and in listening to them — if, God forbid, they ever, ever regained a position of power — would be straight back on that wild spending spree. It would be at the expense of my kids and my grandchildren, and yours. I don't think we can allow that to happen.

I've rambled on a little bit about this bill. It is a piece of good news, and it is very symbolic of the direction in which this government wants to take this province. I think it's very symbolic of the philosophy that we on this side of the House want to take this province down. We are embracing a philosophy of free enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, if you look around the world, if you look across this country at what's happened in those places that have truly embraced socialism, you see economic havoc, you see ruination, and what you really see is the destruction of the public institutions that all of us have depended on. When Ontario was under the NDP administration, they drove themselves into such horrendous debt that their bond ratings were threatened. In fact, their public institutions were threatened.

I really marvel at the commonsense revolution. Mike Harris's government was elected and did exactly what they said they were going to do, and the public

was actually very appreciative of that and showed it in a subsequent election. It's remarkable to me that when there was a change in leadership in Ontario and when, in an attempt to woo the voter, that government tried to buy votes by going back on a bit of a spending spree, they were repudiated by the people. The people understand that you can't spend more money than you have.

I also note with interest that the bond spread we enjoy as a province is now better than the bond spread of the province of Ontario, because we have much, much better control of our finances; we have much, much better control of our budget; and we are moving to a balanced budget. So I know, in looking at what's happening in just our credit reputation around the world, we are moving in the right direction.

Going back to this bill, it does echo the philosophy of our government, and I'm extremely proud of our minister for bringing it forward. I'm extremely proud of the way our minister has related to the youth of this province as she's visited city after city, including my own, and I'm really proud of the way she reacted when she saw the Riverside Centre in my own community and the kind of innovation they've brought to the education system.

I know that in her mind, as she brings a bill like this forward, she sees Riverside Centre–type institutions springing up in all corners of this province — operated through the private sector, offering wonderful opportunities to our youth and allowing the kids who aren't going on to university to have pride in what they're doing, to have a job in British Columbia that pays real money and allows them to become taxpaying voting citizens of this province.

B. Locke: I, too, rise in this House in support of Bill 52, the Private Career Training Institutions Act. I must commend the Minister of Advanced Education for the incredible job she has done. I listened to the member for Burnaby North talk about the numbers and the increases in the student body and in the province. I want to talk about just 200 of those students — 200 students that were going to Tech B.C. at one time, 200 students whose career paths were at risk because the previous government thought of a great idea. They thought of this university; they just didn't think they had to fund it. The problem that was left for these students was…. They had engaged in their university education; they had their hopes and dreams in front of them. They had a whole lifetime of planning that was virtually put in limbo because there was no effective and efficient management of their career paths.

This minister made sure that those students were protected. Not only would no other university in the province accept their credentials from Tech B.C., but they had an investment that they would never be able to capitalize on. This minister ensured that their futures were secured. She conducted a number of different interviews with other universities and came up with the Simon Fraser University option, which we in Surrey are very thankful for and very proud of. I can tell you that without her dedication to students and to education, especially post-secondary, it wouldn't happen for those students. So I applaud her and thank her for that.

I want to tell you, too, about problems we've had in Surrey with the previous administration and their idea of post-secondary education. There was a field in Cloverdale, in Surrey, that remained vacant. It was just a field with nothing going on there. But we were supposed to look at that field and dream of a Kwantlen University College campus there. There was, again, no plan, no management, no foresight, no projections for dollars. We were just supposed to dream. Well, unfortunately, there is no reality to the dream that the previous government had. Again, this Minister of Advanced Education made sure the dream could be a reality. She worked very hard to ensure that there were actual, real dollars that were going to go into that project. That was pretty important.

I can talk to you, too, about a hairdressing student that graduated from high school in our community. It was her dream to go to a private institution. They did a great job. That student now has a certificate and has a very good career path for her.

Surrey is a rapidly growing community with a very young demographic. Our young students are looking to new and innovative career opportunities. Today middle-aged and older students are also looking to new opportunities and upgrading their old skills. While our public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia are second to none, often it's the private post-secondary institutions that offer a unique option for many students who want to increase their skill sets.

We are in a very fast-paced world, with ever-growing changes in our workforce. Businesses are looking for new and well-trained people to fill a myriad of specialized jobs. We're in changing times, with changing technologies that put significant demands on both employers and employees. Keeping up with that rapid change is challenging.

I remember an old résumé of mine from the seventies. Not one of those skill sets that I used in 1970 would I use today. I doubt that most people in the office workforce that I was in use any of those technologies today. I mean, we think of things like telex and switchboards and typewriters. None of those pieces of equipment are used. Today's office workplace is completely different, and it's not just the office workplace that's changed. All workplaces have changed.

This new bill will encourage private post-secondary institutions to reinvest and expand their businesses by being part of a large pooled resource. It will help businesses develop job-specific courses to be taught, and it will help train people for new and exciting careers.

This bill will also protect students, and that's probably one of the most important parts of the bill. In Surrey we've experienced the closing of private institutions with no notice to students. This is an extremely

difficult time for students, many of whom had all their money invested in their education. Students are generally living on a shoestring, and this bill will ensure that their investment, their future, is protected. It will ensure that through the accreditation process, the taxpayer-funded student financial assistance plan will protect them.

There are many innovative programs that can be attributed to private sector post-secondary education, and I commend this minister for opening those doors for students, for business and for these new businesses to flourish.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: It's a great pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak in favour of the second reading of Bill 52, the Private Career Training Institutions Act. I originally hadn't intended to speak to this bill this afternoon, because I thought its clauses and what it brought to British Columbia were self-explanatory and everyone would certainly be in agreement with it. But some of the comments mentioned earlier today upset me somewhat. As the member for Surrey-Whalley mentioned, it does affect a number of her constituents. It affects a number of mine as well, so I would like to make a few points this afternoon.

I believe this is good public policy. It's good legislation, because it responds to students' needs and it responds to industry's needs. It really does cut overregulation, and it allows the growth of new courses for students in British Columbia. It establishes a private career training institution agency, which will be a self-regulatory board made up of training institutions and one member appointed by the minister.

As was mentioned by previous speakers, it really is an attempt by the government to get out of the way of overregulation. We have over 1,100 institutions now regulated by government — certainly the highest in Canada. We want to bring ourselves into conformity with other provinces of Canada.

In terms of that agency, it's now going to be funded by the members of that agency rather than the taxpayers of British Columbia, which certainly should be the case in terms of private business.

Registration will only now be necessary for those institutions that provide career-related training that goes on for a longer period of time and has a higher cost threshold than in the past — career-related training programs that exceed 40 hours of instruction and at least $1,000 in tuition payments by the students. There are a lot of very short-term courses, low-cost courses, courses that aren't related to career training that certainly do not require that regulation.

The one that interests me particularly was responding to students, because it sets up a student training completion fund. We can all remember those — often through the media and particularly on television in the late eighties and early nineties — students coming to their classes at a private institution and finding that they've had to close their doors. Well, this legislation constructs better consumer protection for private post-secondary students. This fund will enable students either to continue their studies, which I'm sure most of them would rather do — finish off the courses they've enrolled for — or at least to get a tuition fee refund. They get that particular choice.

Over the last decade or so, I've had a lot of immigrants coming to Canada, settling in my constituency, looking for resources, looking for additional training. This regulation will certainly protect them as newcomers to our country. They will be covered in terms of completing their courses or at least getting a tuition refund.

There's also an exciting part of it that allows private ESL institutions to voluntarily register within the program as well, which again will assure the students.

Just a final point is the accreditation for private institutions, which will be worked out between the government and the regulatory agency. I think that's critical, because for those who are accredited, the students will be eligible for student financial aid. There's this balance between accreditation and student financial assistance. Obviously, the student but particularly the government, as a guarantor, is interested to make sure that money is going to students who are taking a properly accredited course.

In conclusion, I'm very, very pleased that this legislation has been introduced, pleased to speak to it at second reading. I know it's been called for, for a number of years, and I know that many of my constituents will be relieved when this bill is passed as an act.

J. MacPhail: Well, here we are on a bill that pales in comparison in its importance to forestry legislation that not one government caucus member even stood up and asked one question about yesterday — not one question. Communities around this province are dying because of the chaos in the forest industry. Where was the Minister of Labour when his community was being thrown into chaos by forestry legislation? Where were all the members from the northwest whose communities are dying because of the chaos in the forestry sector? Well, they were nowhere — not one question asked.

Here we are. My gosh, government caucus members, executive council members, standing up and touting the wonders of privatized education. Does the term "ragging the puck" ring a bell with anybody over here? Have they become so embedded in the Vancouver Canucks lottery giveaway that they now feel they actually have to demonstrate on the floor the skills of ragging the puck, skating? Is that what they're doing?

It's unbelievable how this government is afraid to actually debate real issues in this Legislature, like forestry legislation, and yet hour after hour the executive council stands up and joins in the debate.

Well, I must say, I wasn't going to join in the debate until I heard one of the most abhorent statements from a government caucus member to date. It was from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. I've listened to government caucus member after government caucus

member avoid the real responsibilities in this Legislature all week. Today is no different.

Maybe they felt like they had to rag the puck today to give that great team who escaped to Calgary some rest from all that hard work they did over there. Oh, it was hard work. I mean, the results for British Columbia were astounding. I'm sure we'll figure out one day what the heck it was they did do there. I'm sure we'll figure out what that photo op cost British Columbians, and I'm sure we'll figure out why the people who were left behind couldn't answer a single question that was asked of them. Maybe that's what the government benches are doing here today: ragging the puck so those poor people can get a nap.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission said an offensive…. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that probably isn't parliamentary. He said a statement that rejected the well-being and the values and the interests of tens of thousands of British Columbians in this province, and I can't let it go by. My colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did an admirable job of pointing out the issues this government needs to address with this Legislature. It seems to have offended the entire government caucus. My gosh, their skins are thin. I guess they don't like to have a challenge to anything.

I guess they think their legislation is perfect. I guess that's why we had a second Community Charter introduced today — because they're so good at drafting legislation. I guess that's why we've had nine forestry bills introduced, half of which now have undone the work the first half of the forestry bills introduced tried to achieve. The government better realize that they're not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, at getting legislation right. In fact, I would say, in my 12 years, they've gotten it wrong more often than any other government I've ever seen and had to undo and correct their errors.

One of the points my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raised was the concern that students who enter into programs with private institutions who were not registered will lose their tuition assurance. That will especially be prevalent in the language training sector, an area that will greatly affect the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's constituents and mine as well — and many more. The Richmond MLAs will be greatly affected by that. The Tri-Cities MLAs' constituents will be very much affected by that. Furthermore, programs that have tuitions of less than $1,000 or less than 40 hours won't be protected either.

What does the member for Maple Ridge–Mission do? Instead of standing up and maybe saying, "Well, that's a point the minister needs to address," or "Wait for the minister to address it," what does he do? He attacks British Columbians. He stands up and attacks those who, as he said, "should do their homework." I couldn't believe it, actually, when I heard that member attack British Columbians who may be caught out by a weakness in this government's legislation. He stood there, and he said: "Shame on them. They should do their homework and make sure they get into programs that are covered." By the way, I'm doing a pretty good imitation of the way he addressed the Legislature as well. He told the House, this Legislature, that it wasn't the government's responsibility if those people get rolled over by business. He said they should make better choices.

I guess the constituents of Maple Ridge–Mission now know where they shouldn't go for help. I guess they know that if they get caught by the weaknesses in this legislation, the door will be slammed in their faces by their MLA — because they should have made better choices, and they should have done their homework.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I say, through you to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission: has he ever actually sat down and talked to a single mom on welfare, who's trying to upgrade her life and raising a family at the same time? Has he ever talked to a Canadian whose first language is not English or to an immigrant whose first language is not English? Has he ever talked to a person who maybe can only afford a thousand bucks and only has 40 hours' time to invest in his or her upgrading? Has he ever talked to anyone like that and known the struggles those people face and the greater challenges they will now face in terms of upgrading their skills?

How about the people that are going to be booted off welfare — the tens of thousands of people who have been booted off welfare or are about to be booted off welfare? The Minister of Human Resources makes up the number of jobs that this government has created. He just made it up. He had a big hole poked in that balloon just a few moments ago, in how he made up statistics. In fact, he didn't actually accurately tell the House what's going on in the job creation record of this government. How about those people? How about the people who aren't eligible for training by this government because of the tightening up, the cutting of welfare, the mean-spirited approach this government is taking to the people with the least resources in this province?

This is another tightening up. This is another one saying that if you're of a certain socioeconomic class in this province, where all you can afford is $500, $600, $700 or $950 in tuition and you only have 40 hours to invest, we're cutting you loose too — the same way we're cutting the poorest on welfare. We're cutting you loose too, because we want to make sure our big rich friends are looked after with those big tax cuts.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission attacks those very people who are at the lowest end of the socioeconomic ladder. He insulted — yes, Mr. Speaker, he insulted — the hard-working, genuine, honest British Columbians who are trying, with every ounce of energy they have, to better themselves and their families. They live in my constituency, they live in the constituency of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I expect they live in the constituency of the member for Maple Ridge–Mission as well.

What about the families who are attempting to get English language training, much of which has been cut

by this government, as well, in the college system? What about all the people new to British Columbia who need English-as-a-second-language training and who we need to participate in our economy? What about all those single moms who are just trying to give their kids a better life?

What the member for Maple Ridge–Mission said was: "Do your homework. Don't come crying to government if you don't make a good choice." Isn't that nice? We've heard other jurisdictions and other extreme governments telling people, "Don't come crying to government; make better choices in your life," and they're not the kinds of governments that British Columbians want to represent them. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission isn't the kind of member that British Columbians voted for as well.

I submit that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission should be ashamed of himself, and I hope the Minister of Advanced Education in her closing comments distinguishes herself, removes herself, distances herself from the comments of the member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

B. Suffredine: I rise to speak in support of the bill. I'm reminded by the rather loud wailings that we just heard in defence of her partner, in the comments from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant….

B. Suffredine: Well, yeah, and it reminds me…. Will Rogers, years ago, was a philosopher who used to be on U.S. radio nationally, and he once told a story on the radio. He said: "After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good that he began to roar. And he continued roaring until a hunter heard him, found him and shot him." Will Rogers said: "The moral of the story is when you're full of bull, the first thing to do is shut up."

This morning I heard a critique of an enactment by a member who, in my view, didn't have the experience to be critiquing that enactment. The bill before the House makes the rules simpler for people taking what are relatively minor professional courses in their career development. Some of them can lead to greater and greater skills, but the private courses that are available out there are legion.

What the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant seemed to overlook, in my view, is that training and experience can't be and aren't only learned through public institutions. I know in her background, from reading her résumé, that she learned through a public institution. Public institutions do provide very valuable training, excellent training. I took two university degrees. But there are also many people who learn skills you can't learn in a university and that sometimes you can't even learn in a public institution.

My grandfather was a butcher. He didn't learn that by going to a school. There are people who work in our woods — logging, running heavy equipment. There are pilots who are private and commercial pilots. Very few of them go to public institutions. It used to be that you could be a teacher in a public school or high school and learn that training from practical experience. It even used to be that you could get to be a lawyer by clerking to a lawyer for a number of years. To suggest that everyone who takes a course needs to be protected from start to finish is simply wrong. The critique that in smaller courses, the protection is still absolutely necessary and that people who offer courses can't be in any way trusted to be reputable or can't be licensed in a way that will give reasonable protection to the public is also wrong.

For about ten years I was a director of a small private institution called the Nelson University Centre. That was made up of volunteers who taught classes, received a very small bit of compensation from tuitions for teaching great courses in history, in literature. These were people retired from universities that in their careers were professors. They enjoyed continuing to work on a part-time basis, and they offered excellent education at Nelson to people who wanted to expand their horizons and take courses at nights and on the weekends.

The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission was the most bureaucratic and unworkable organization that could possibly have been dreamed up by someone having a nightmare. It cost the Nelson University Centre — a bunch of volunteers — $750 a year to register their courses. I saw the kind of forms they were given to fill out. They were 20- and 30-page questionnaires of meaningless questions that, when you saw them, you wondered why anyone would even ask.

The net result of it all was not that they were assessing the value of any of the courses. The only decision they came to at the end of this entire process was: "You're now registered if you pay us $750." It took months to get through this process. That wasn't working for students. That isn't doing what this bill is designed to do, which is to recognize that people can get valuable education for their careers outside of public institutions.

I can give the House a small example of someone out there who actually made the same complaint to me. Just a few months ago I went and toured. At Salmo there's a little place called the Kootenay Stone Centre. Maybe many people here haven't even been to Salmo, but there's a lady at Salmo named Iris Lamb, whom I've known for about 25 years and who is a remarkable person.

When I first knew of her, she had separated from her spouse at the time and needed a home. So Iris, being an ingenious person, actually bought a house and physically moved it herself onto a lot that she wanted to occupy. That was remarkable for anyone to do. She did it by herself, and she's showed the same kind of ingenuity in all the 25 years I've known her.

She now has a thriving little stone business at Salmo. She exports stone to other provinces and to the U.S., but she also teaches stonemasonry. She has a two-

week course in stonemasonry. It's probably the only stonemason's course in North America.

She complains, as well, about the regulatory bureaucracy of having to pay money just to be registered — not to be certified, because nobody knows how good or bad a course it is, and they don't try to be. Just to be registered to teach a two-week course in stonemasonry, she has to pay fairly substantial sums of money.

This is a course where people actually do come. When I went toured it, they had people from all over North America who come and learn to do this. After they're done, they're their own little businessmen. They can go out and be contractors and do decorative stonework. I saw them practising putting stone on the walls. It's a great example of the kind of course and the kind of ingenuity that we should be encouraging. The former bit of legislation did nothing but discourage that sort of thing.

When I look at the bill before us and then I see the critique of it, because the opposition is always focused on how they can say what's wrong with this…. They need to view it from the perspective of a working person — maybe a person who wants to learn to, say, frame a house. I've got a nephew who, when he graduated from high school, didn't think he was university material and didn't know what to do with himself, and who went and learned to framed houses. He's now fully occupied — as a matter of fact, I think more than fully occupied — most summers. He does nothing but frame house after house out of one course that's outside of an institution.

We should be — and we are, through this bill — encouraging more of that, not less. I congratulate the minister for her foresight in putting this forward.

J. Bray: I, too, am pleased to rise and support Bill 52. I am very excited about this bill for a number of reasons. Certainly, I have a lot of positives, as the member for Nelson-Creston alluded, to point out in Bill 52.

But I have to, again, rise in some shock at the comments that we get from both the members of the opposition. It's interesting. Earlier the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made this interesting comment. In talking about Bill 52 she said: "It fits perfectly with everything else that this government is doing." Now, that is a statement that I can agree with, and I agree with that statement because it does fit with everything else we're doing.

This is one of the things the members of the opposition simply don't get: we have a plan. Each ministry has a plan. In fact, each ministry has a three-year plan. It's on the website, it's made public, it's part of our budget process, and then we execute that plan. I actually think that when she says it fits perfectly with everything else this government is doing, she's actually acknowledging that this government and each of our ministers put forth a plan, look out over three years, plan for changes, consult on those changes and then execute.

The members of the opposition always were great artists with respect to announcements. They announced all sorts of wonderful things. The problem with the former administration was their inability to execute any of it. That's why we have the economy we do. We're trying to undo their lack of execution — great on announcements; very, very weak on execution.

Many of my constituents do go on the website and take a look at the service plans. They'll go take a look at the Ministry of Advanced Education's website and their service plan. What they see is a series of strategic goals, strategic objectives and the measurements by which we and the public, in real time, can determine whether or not the government is succeeding on those objectives. It really does shock the opposition when we actually execute our plan and we're successful, because that's not something they ever recognized when they were in government.

There's another theme I'd like to pick up on as well. The members of the opposition talk about us having our sort of stream of consciousness that's similar in all the things we do, and the sky is falling, but there is a very clear theme in this first week of the fall sitting that's coming through from the members of the opposition. I spoke about this yesterday when we were discussing the Environmental Management Act. It is the opposition's almost complete contempt for the people who employ and the people who pay the taxes in this province.

Private institutions have been in this province for 100 years. Again, just like other industries in this province, private institutions don't come from another planet. They're not another species. They are owned and operated and staffed by British Columbians. When the members of the opposition suggest that private institutions are out to get the public, and all they're there to do is try and rip off the public, and all they're trying to do is do shoddy courses so they can make their profit, they're actually insulting British Columbians — British Columbians who are risking their capital, who are pursuing their dream, who are employing other British Columbians and providing a valuable service to our young people and to people who are looking to upgrade their skills or perhaps are recovering from an economic setback and are looking to retrain.

Private institutions have been around for a century, and it's British Columbians who are doing that work. I can tell the members opposite that if I were watching this debate right now and I were on a coffee break at Sprott-Shaw or one of the other private institutions, I'd be so insulted at the fact that the opposition was accusing those employees, those people, of actually trying to do something dubious, trying to pull the wool over students' eyes. I mean, it really is insulting.

There's no question. In our society there are always a handful of people that try to break rules, that try to do things unscrupulously — absolutely. That's the case no matter how much regulation you have, no matter

how much law you have. That occurs in our society. The difference is that the opposition feels that the only people who can't make mistakes are government, and therefore government should do everything. I guess government should be selling blue jeans, because any private entrepreneur who tries to sell blue jeans must be doing it for their own self-interest, and they are not interested in protecting the consumer, not interested in helping their community because they're private. It really does gall me when the opposition members simply assume that because it's a private college or private training institute, it is ergo bad, and government must completely oversee it; otherwise, we're all going to fall victim.

The other thing, of course, that is shocking about those statements is that Bill 52 in fact is about enhancing protection for students. It's about enhancing compliance. It's about ensuring that we are looking after students and their interests. So not only is it an insult to private industry — which is a theme that they want to bring forward again and again and again, which is really insulting British Columbians, both the workers and the investors — it's also insulting the students who choose private academic institutes for a variety of reasons.

It's also showing that even though it's up on the website, they're not actually looking at the Ministry of Advanced Education's own website, because one of the realities that B.C. is facing is that we're having a growth in those going to require post-secondary education not just across the spectrum but especially in the 18-to-24 year-old cohort. The capital, physical reality is that we can't possibly build enough space in the next couple of years to meet that demand.

Also, our colleges, our university colleges and our universities provide a whole host of academic opportunities, and they do a wonderful job. The instructors and staff who work in our post-secondary institutions do an incredible job, and our students here in British Columbia get not just world-class training but probably the best education in the world. That continues to improve under the Minister of Advanced Education.

We also have a whole host of skills that are being identified as coming up for shortage in the next several years as people retire in the skills and the trades. One of the strategies, one of the ways to meet that demand, is through the private institutions. They provide flexible, realistic opportunities for our young people to get trades — trades that pay family-sustaining wages, jobs that pay community-sustaining wages, jobs that provide opportunities for people to stay in this province. Children and grandchildren of the people who are watching now can stay in this province because they get trained at quality institutions. Just because they're private doesn't mean they don't fill the need. They, in fact, are going to expand that need.

What we've been hearing on the Select Standing Committee on Finance across all sectors of the economy, from presenters from all sectors, is the importance of post-secondary education and the importance of training. The members of the opposition simply say: "Well, there's only one way that you can provide that, and that's in the colleges." Now, that's one way — absolutely. But there are qualified dedicated instructors, qualified dedicated entrepreneurs, qualified dedicated tradespeople who want to help fill that niche, who want to go into business to help their communities, to help their young people.

These members opposite don't want that. They don't want those opportunities. They don't want to let people with skills and ability flourish in their own communities. They're afraid of success. They're afraid of British Columbians moving forward and pursuing their dreams. They're afraid of communities taking a hold of their own training needs and providing that through various opportunities.

The member for Nelson-Creston gave a sterling example of this — a stonemason's course and the troubles that under the old regulatory regime that individual faced. They were providing something because they loved their trade, and they wanted to impart that skill to other people. What did those other people do with that skill? They went forth and found employment by being entrepreneurs. Those entrepreneurs now having a new skill could hire other people. They're paying wages. They're creating economic opportunity. This is in the town of Nelson, I believe, that the member spoke about.

That is exciting, and that's what we need to unleash. When we look at the regulatory burdens placed on individuals who want to help their communities, we have an obligation as government to find ways not to weaken it, not to eliminate it, but to make it make sense in the modern world, in the educational sense of the twenty-first century.

The other thing that I think frustrates the members opposite and why they get sort of antsy is that when they look at the service plan, if they ever do, they're actually afraid of the fact that the Minister of Advanced Education is achieving those results. What were some of the Minister of Advanced Education's goals last year when she would rise in this House and speak? Well, we wanted to ensure that university and colleges had maximum flexibility to meet the demands in their own local communities. We achieved that, and now we're starting to see the results. Various institutions around the province are becoming more and more adaptive to the needs of their community. They're freer to deal with curriculum, they're freer to manage demand, and they're freer to meet the needs of their students, and that's exciting.

What else did the minister talk about? Well, the minister wanted to expand spaces. Imagine that — actually increase access for students. She has achieved that. There are over 2,400 new spaces this year. That's 2,400 young people who are getting a chance at a valuable post-secondary education when we know 70 percent of all new jobs in this province will require some form of post-secondary education; 2,400 new students this year are going to get that. That's just in the public system. In the private system there's the chance for

further expansion in aerospace technology, in the mining sector, in the forestry sector. In some of the administrative support sectors where people need flexible, unique opportunities to train, the private sector and the private institutions can meet that. Unlike the members of the opposition, I believe that British Columbians who work in the private institute sector are dedicated to their students, are dedicated to their communities.

A few other things to point out the positive things of this bill before I wrap up. We talk about trying to make legislation that makes sense, that protects students. Bill 52 achieves all of those goals, and it did so in consultation with the experts. We know who the opposition used to consult with. It was a handful of people somewhere in the Premier's office, and they would come up with their various strategies.

The Minister of Advanced Education went out and consulted with instructors, went out and consulted with industry, went out and consulted with students and said: "What are your needs, and how can we achieve that?" She came back, worked with her very capable staff in the Ministry of Advanced Education — some of our great public servants that serve our population — and came up with the answers in Bill 52, one in a series of strategies laid out in her service plan for improving access for post-secondary education, improving the lives of community — strengthening communities by strengthening educational opportunities.

Bill 52 is another in a great string of successes that the Minister of Advanced Education has brought forward. She is to be commended. I enjoyed the debate of all the colleagues talking about the positive aspects of Bill 52.

I. Chong: I, too, rise today to speak on Bill 52, the Private Career Training Institutions Act. I was quite surprised as I listened this morning as the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke and then the Leader of the Opposition, because once again they've got it wrong. They got it wrong for ten years when they were in government, and they've got it wrong again today. They have missed the point about Bill 52. Bill 52 is about strengthening consumer protection for students who are attending these private post-secondary institutions.

What does the NDP have against protecting students? I don't understand. The NDP seem to forget that we should be putting students first. For those students who choose to attend a private post-secondary institution, there are risks, and the risks can be their funds in terms of consumer protection. So we've strengthened that; yet they're against this. I hope they'll go back to their constituency. I hope they'll go back and speak to their students in their constituency and say: "We don't think you should have better consumer protection."

With this legislation we also see that a student training completion fund will be introduced. That's how the students will be better protected in terms of their dollars. We've seen, from time to time, that a private post-secondary institution, for whatever reason, may have had to cease business. They can continue their courses in another institution, or they can access a refund. But sometimes that can take a long time. With this new fund, it means that there will be a pooled amount of dollars, and for those students who need to get on with their lives, who need to obtain a refund so they can continue their courses at another institution, they'll have better and quicker access to these funds. Again, I think that's a positive for students.

What we are talking about here are private post-secondary institutions — institutions for which dollars have come from the private sector and private investment. Now, that's another new ideology for the opposition members: private investment. What do they have against private investment? I don't know. All I do know is that they didn't embrace it, because they took our provincial economy from first place to worst place when they were in government. That is shameful on their part.

Let's talk about private post-secondary institutions for a moment. Under the previous government, the NDP, these private institutions were spending resources, time and money dealing with unnecessary regulations — regulations that did not focus on students or their programs. With this legislation we will be able to streamline the regulatory oversight of these career training programs so that these institutions can instead focus their resources on students' needs, putting students first. That's what this government is all about. Isn't that fair? Isn't that the right thing to do? Well, I think it is. Finally, we will see our province be competitive with other provinces — our province being brought in line with other jurisdictions like Alberta and Ontario.

What is also significant with this new act is that there will be a new self-regulatory board composed of elected industry representatives and one member appointed by the Minister of Advanced Education. That's also a good-news story, because industry representatives who know what is needed in their particular sector will be responsible for establishing registration and accreditation requirements for their institutions for providing career training. Government can still be involved but to a lesser extent, because government will be limited to assisting this new board in the areas of establishing standards for accreditation to ensure that those standards also focus on program quality. And isn't that better for these institutions to be spending their time, energy and resources on?

Accreditation. Let's be clear. Accreditation will continue, and it will continue to be necessary for institutions that wish to be designated under the B.C. student assistance program, so that their students are eligible for student financial assistance. Taxpayer-funded student financial assistance will continue to be used on programs that have met this very acceptable level of quality.

I just wanted to highlight for you some of the good aspects of this legislation because in the rhetoric of the opposition members, they seem to have forgotten what

we were elected to do here. It was to make improvements. It was to make change. It was to provide students with more choices, more opportunity.

We are now in the twenty-first century. We are not back 40 or 50 years ago. Things have changed; technology has changed. We have to embrace the opportunities that are available. We have to allow for private post-secondary institutions to flourish so that our students, our young people, our future leaders, have the opportunities they need to succeed. Bill 52 is absolutely the right piece of legislation, and we should all be supporting it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 52.

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

Bill 52, Private Career Training Institutions 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.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to move second reading of Bill 48. I am pleased to speak today about the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. This bill amends the Farm Practices Protection Act and the right-to-farm provisions of the Local Government Act. Together those two statutes are the main legislative framework for the right-to-farm system.

This policy was enacted in 1995 by the previous government. As a supporter of the right-to-farm policy, I spoke in the House in support of that legislation on behalf of the official opposition at that time, and we continue to support the right-to-farm policy today.

Farming is a core activity in many communities around the province and coexists with other community activities. The lands and areas that are most suitable for farming are in many cases the same areas that are most attractive to non-farm uses, particularly residential development. This proximity of farm and non-farm users sometimes results in conflicts between farm businesses that are employing normal farm practices and other community members who may be affected by the farming activities. The right-to-farm system enables the province to ensure there is a proper balance between provincial objectives for agriculture and aquaculture, and local government regulatory authority over these activities.

Typically, complaints about farms are made to the local government and can occasionally result in local governments enacting bylaws that restrict or prohibit farm operations unreasonably. I want everyone to clearly understand that we want to minimize conflict at the local level. Therefore, the right-to-farm system encourages local governments to actively plan for farming within their communities. In fact, many local governments have established farm advisory committees. Many local governments are actively working with farm groups and other community groups to help them plan for farming within their communities.

The right-to-farm system is based on the principle that farm businesses have the right to operate in areas that the province has designated as farming areas. At the same time, the right-to-farm policy recognizes that local governments may need to make and adjust bylaws that affect farming, in order to reflect unique local circumstances. The system permits local governments to make zoning bylaws to regulate the use of land in farming areas and to make farm bylaws to regulate the operations of farm businesses in farming areas.

If a local government is placed under the right-to-farm system, bylaws made under those powers of the Local Government Act are subject to the approval of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in order to ensure that local interests and provincial interests are fairly balanced. Currently, only two local governments have been placed under the act by cabinet directive, and two other local governments have asked to be put under the Right to Farm Act voluntarily.

The system has operated with a high degree of success since it was introduced in 1995. However, the changes proposed in this bill are needed to make its application more effective. The Right to Farm Act has applied to land-based farming and aquaculture from the beginning. It will continue to apply to both. Operational experience since 1995 has demonstrated that there are two areas where the existing legislation needs to be clarified to better reflect the policy of the right-to-farm system.

The first area concerns the ability of local governments, where the system applies, to avoid the intent of the legislation and thereby impact agriculture and aquaculture in an unreasonable manner. The second area of the right-to-farm system that needs to be clarified is how it applies to aquaculture. Before I speak about these two areas that need to be clarified, I want to briefly describe the right-to-farm policy and explain why and when it requires the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to approve certain local bylaws. I believe this will help in understanding what the system does and what it does not do.

Firstly, the right-to-farm system does not apply automatically to local governments. This is very important to understand in this debate. The right-to-farm system must be applied by provincial regulation and order-in-council decision. Unless and until the system is applied to a local government by cabinet decision, the local government can make bylaws that affect farming areas and the operations of farm businesses without getting approval of the Minister of Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries. Many local governments do plan for farming and make decisions that are consistent with both local and provincial interests. As a result, the vast majority of local governments in the province don't need to seek ministerial approval.

Secondly, even after the system is applied to a local government, it does not remove council's local authority to make bylaws that affect farming. The system does not apply to every bylaw that a local government makes. The system applies only to bylaws that regulate the use of land or the conduct of farm operations in farming areas — and I emphasize "in farming areas."

What are those farming areas? Farming areas are defined as land in the agricultural land reserve and land covered by an aquaculture licence issued under the Fisheries Act — and we're talking of the B.C. Fisheries Act. It is important to note that local bylaws that don't apply to these farming areas do not require the minister's approval, even if that particular municipality has been put under the act.

The intent of the right-to-farm system was that when the system applies to a local government, local bylaws that have the purpose and effect of regulating how land is used or how farm operations are carried out in farming areas must be approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. By and large, that is how things have worked in practice for the four municipalities where the system has been applied in the eight years that we've had the right-to-farm legislation.

That brings me again to the first of the two areas of the right-to-farm system that this bill is required to clarify. Operational experience since 1995 has shown that in the case of farm bylaws, the intent of the legislation may not have been as clear as it needs to be. The system focuses on the purpose and effect of a bylaw, not on the form the bylaw takes.

Here's an example. Without the amendments that I propose today, a municipality to which the right-to-farm system has been applied can make a business-related bylaw that applies only to farms. They can then come back to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and say: "You have no legislative authority over this decision because it is a business bylaw, and the right-to-farm system doesn't apply to this type of bylaw." Yet the purpose and effect of this so-called business bylaw unreasonably restricts agriculture. That was never the intent of the original legislation.

That lack of clarity has been detrimental to agriculture and the whole right-to-farm policy. It has led to confusion and even litigation. This bill cleans up any confusion regarding intent. If the right-to-farm system has been applied to a local government and that government chooses to make a bylaw that has the purpose and effect of regulating the conduct of farm operations in farming areas, then that bylaw is deemed to be a farm bylaw, and that bylaw must be approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries if the local government has been brought under the act.

If the local government chooses to put the bylaw in a different form to avoid the requirement of ministerial approval, with these amendments, that will not work. The bylaw will be treated as a farm bylaw, and the minister's approval will be required.

This amendment is completely consistent with the original policy of the right-to-farm system. It expresses the original policy intention and brings greater certainty to the operation of the right-to-farm system. This is the first area that this bill is intended to address.

The second area that needs to be clarified is how the right-to-farm system applies to aquaculture. I should say, first off, that the right-to-farm system is intended to apply to all types of farming and to apply equally to all types of farming. It certainly covers food, but yes, it also covers flowers, lawn turf and Christmas trees.

This bill is not about extending the right-to-farm system to aquaculture. Aquaculture has been part of the right-to-farm system since it was created in 1995. I want to emphasize this point. The right-to-farm legislation has always applied to aquaculture, because it is a type of farming as set out in the original legislation. The policy intent of the right-to-farm system is that the system should have the same effect for aquaculture as it has for other types of farming. However, we have learned through practice that this has not happened.

The current definition of farming area is land in an agricultural land reserve and land affected by a licence for aquaculture under the Fisheries Act. Most agriculture is carried out on lands that are in the agricultural land reserve. Agricultural land reserve legislation does not allow local governments to prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of reserve lands for agriculture, but most aquaculture is not carried out on land in the agricultural land reserve. It is carried out on Crown land that has been tenured to a person for the purposes of aquaculture development. Local governments can establish restrictions and prohibitions on the use of Crown land for aquaculture that they are not able to establish for agricultural land reserve lands used for farming.

Translating this into practical terms, local governments can enact zoning bylaws that prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of Crown land for aquaculture. This can effectively trump the ability of the province to issue Crown land tenures and aquaculture licences within such areas. We want to make sure that the right-to-farm system has the same effect for aquaculture as it does for agriculture, and therefore we need to address this catch-22.

The bill provides a mechanism for the province to designate Crown land for farming, including aquaculture, on the basis of information that identifies the area as a good area for aquaculture. This will not be done hastily or in isolation. The province, in consultation with local governments, first nations and other interests, will identify Crown lands that are suitable for aquaculture. Through designation, the province can then ensure that these lands are covered by the right-to-farm system if the system is applied to a local area.

Let me assure you that this proposal has been discussed with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, acting on

behalf of local governments. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and I have engaged a committee of the Union of B.C. Municipalities in a formal consultation process on this issue.

We have also committed to the Union of B.C. Municipalities that together we will develop a protocol for the exercise of a designation authority. The protocol will outline the planning processes that will be relied on before any designations are put in place. The planning processes will involve the local government, of course. In fact, these processes could be a joint process between local government and the provincial government. Planning processes will be conducted at the local level to identify Crown lands that are both technically suitable for aquaculture and socially suitable.

The process will also involve local residents and the aquaculture industry. It will also include and incorporate overall coastal planning that has been done within the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. The planning process is an important way to collaborate on ways to identify aquaculture farming areas as well as those areas that are not appropriate for aquaculture.

As we work to designate farming areas for aquaculture, we will ensure that the province's consultation and accommodation obligations to first nations are respected. I want to make sure it is understood that any designation decisions on farming areas for aquaculture will be informed by consultations with first nations. I want to make it clear that this clarification of the right-to-farm system does not do away with zoning or zoning bylaws or local governments' authority to pass those bylaws, and it will not change in any way or diminish our obligations to first nations.

The outcome of these planning processes will be greater certainty and good decisions for siting aquaculture. This is in keeping with our overall objectives regarding planning for overall land use.

This brings me to one further misconception about this bill that I need to address before I conclude. Some are saying this bill will undermine the purpose and intent of the Community Charter. It is widely understood that the charter is to provide greater local autonomy in order to better meet community needs in a wide range of areas, but the Community Charter also provides a legislative framework that allows us to balance provincial and local interests. As my colleague the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has put it, the challenge is to balance the independence being provided to local government through the charter with the obligation the provincial government has to protect provincial interests, especially where interests may diverge.

For that reason, the responsibility to balance interests, this bill is consistent with the new-era commitment of ensuring that farming sectors of the economy have a supportive policy environment. This is certainly not contradictory to the spirit and intent of the Community Charter. We must not forget that the right-to-farm system also exists for the benefit of those who live adjacent to areas where farming occurs. It ensures that farmers must follow acceptable practices and also gives local residents and governments avenues for dispute resolution.

These amendments are not extensive. They clarify the original policy intention of the right-to-farm legislation. I believe they will have a positive effect and will make the right-to-farm system more effective for everyone.

The right-to-farm system has worked well for the province, local governments and the farming industry. The system has encouraged local governments to actively plan for farming within their communities and helped ensure that local government regulation of farming operations is consistent with provincial interests. Local governments that have relied on their agricultural advisory committees have been successful in planning for farming. This tool is available for land-based farming and aquaculture. These are the models for ensuring growth and prosperity for the farming community.

I want to take this opportunity to commend all of those communities who do have active farm advisory committees to assist in their planning for agriculture and aquaculture. These amendments will support their successes. These amendments will continue to encourage local governments to plan for farming. These amendments will not affect those communities that accept the spirit and objectives of the right-to-farm legislation. These amendments will support continued growth in the agriculture and aquaculture sectors, which contribute some $20 billion to our provincial economy and support British Columbians in every corner of B.C.

J. MacPhail: Bill 48, the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Well, I always get nervous when a minister of this government stands up and says he's introducing legislation that clarifies. He's introducing legislation where he wants to end confusion. He's introducing legislation to allay misconceptions. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm quaking in my boots right now, because I just heard 20 minutes of the minister saying that's what this legislation was all about.

I have to say that prior to the minister's comments when Bill 48 was first introduced, I was frankly quite surprised. After all, the minister is part of a government that had been taking over two years on the Premier's pet, the Community Charter. Now the minister says he wants to allay or alleviate the misconception that the Community Charter is undermined at all by this legislation.

Well, sorry. Those who know best, our municipal governments, know exactly what this legislation is all about. They know it's an intrusion on local government, and they want it repealed. So, unfortunately, no matter how hard the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture tries to spin his way out of saying this has nothing to do with the Community Charter, no one believes him.

I must say, though, that maybe we'll have to have this debate again, because we've had a brand-new Community Charter introduced today. The Premier has been working on the Community Charter for, oh, a decade. This government has been working on a Community Charter for, oh, two years, two and a half years, and today we have a gosh-darn series of volumes.

J. MacPhail: It's a volume of new legislation a few dozen centimetres thick, of a new Community Charter, so we'll probably have to do all this work all over again, based on the new Community Charter. Even though this minister stands up and says Bill 48 has nothing to do with the Community Charter, unfortunately, no one in the municipal sector believes him.

Let's look at the Community Charter, going back to the original press release. That wasn't today. It's a whole new, new era today with a new, new Community Charter. It's like one of those new-and-improved pieces. That's what this is today: a new-and-improved Community Charter. But even on the old Community Charter, here's what the press release said about that draft charter.

There are some wonderful quotes from the Minister of State responsible for the Community Charter. Let me read one: "We have committed to establish a community charter that would give local governments greater independence and outlaw provincial off-loading of costs onto municipal governments." That's the end of the quote. Or how about this one from the same Minister of State for Community Charter? "The draft community charter legislation we are tabling today will be the most empowering legislation of its kind in Canada. In addition to providing greater autonomy, the charter will also provide local governments with the planning and revenue tools they need to provide services to the public in a modern and more efficient way."

J. MacPhail: In fact, the members are applauding the old charter that has just been totally gutted and replaced with the new charter. We're not quite sure what the new charter is about, but that was the old charter. Apparently, that Minister of State responsible for Community Charter didn't get the memo that the government sent out about fish farms, because this legislation that we're debating today is all about giving precedence to expansion of fish farms at the expense of local governments.

In fact, this legislation, Bill 48, is all about this Liberal government ordering local governments to allow fish farming in their area of responsibility, regardless of what the local government may feel. I guess that Minister of State for Community Charter wasn't at the meeting with Stolt Sea Farm. I guess he wasn't invited when three of this Liberal government's ministers were told to back off and cut the fish-farming industry some slack. I guess the Minister of State for Community Charter wasn't in on the conference call when this Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries spilled the beans and gave inside information to the industry. I guess the Minister of State for Community Charter wasn't invited to that meeting when this Minister of Agriculture was saying to the fish-farming industry: "Don't worry; we'll deliver for you, regardless of what other levels of government want."

If the Minister of State for Community Charter was in on all of those memos and conference calls, he never would have made the promises he did about the Community Charter — the ones I just read out. Greater independence: balderdash. Empowering: no. Greater autonomy: wrong. Planning and revenue tools: give me a break. The Community Charter is overridden with the stroke of a pen in all of those areas in Bill 48.

Bill 48, this legislation, shows just how sincere this government is about empowering local governments. The Minister of Agriculture likes to stand up and say that he's just clarifying. Wrong. Here's what this government is doing with local governments. They're saying, "We'll sweet-talk you all you want, but when it comes to fish farms or you, local governments, we'll pick fish farms every step of the way," because that's what Bill 48 says. No matter what this Minister of Agriculture tries to say, it won't do. It is exactly what this legislation is all about.

I just listened to the Minister of Agriculture say, "Oh, no one should worry, because it requires a cabinet order, under this legislation, to take away local government rights." Well, duh. This legislation gives his cabinet the right to do that for the first time, and they're going to exercise that right. That's the express purpose of this legislation. It strips communities of their ability to plan — something that the Community Charter, the Premier and all the Liberal backbenchers have been bragging they would do for years.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is a Liberal government that has repeatedly sidestepped any responsibility they have for the environment, for wild salmon and their habitat. Since this government came to power, fish farm companies have been ticking off their wish list one by one. The fish-farming industry, the aquaculture industry, are in their glory. Here's their checklist. They wanted the moratorium on aquaculture lifted: check; done by this government. Cozy relationships with the ministers: they've got that. Complete denial of the threat of lice: well, not only have they got that, but the minister is leading the charge on that denial. Insider information: they've got that. The power to usurp local governments: they're getting that today.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you that the fish-farming industry is getting everything they've paid for — and

boy, they've paid. They've paid this Liberal government with thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party. Let's just go through the recent ones: $1,000 in a donation from the fish-farming industry to the member for Alberni-Qualicum; $2,700 to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast; $3,500 in a donation from the aquaculture industry to the member for North Island; and a big, honking $4,500 donation directly to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. It was a good investment for the aquaculture industry. Bill 48 is the payoff.

This bill comes before the House for second reading the month after — just the month after — we learned this government's Broughton Archipelago action plan was a complete failure, a dismal failure. The wild pink salmon numbers returning have crashed again. This government's handling of the fish farm file just gets worse and worse as the months go by and the controversies pile up.

Let me read what maybe some communities think about this matter, who are actually directly affected by this legislation. I'm going to read an article into the record from the September 27, 2003, edition of the Nanaimo Daily News. The member for Nanaimo likes — I've heard him over and over again — to talk about how great his community is and how his community supports everything this government is doing. In fact, when we travel the province and hear how dire the consequences are in other communities about these Liberal government promises, that member for Nanaimo stands up and says: "Oh, my community is just fine. My community's wonderful." Well, let's read an article from the Nanaimo Daily News, then. I'm going to read it in its entirety.

No, it would appear that B.C.'s fishery and aquaculture ministry doesn't care. The Nanaimo Daily News goes on to say:

J. MacPhail: Maybe the Solicitor General doesn't know I'm quoting from the Nanaimo Daily News.

That's from the Nanaimo Daily News just two weeks ago. There you have it. This government has lost all of its credibility on the aquaculture file, and Bill 48, the legislation we're debating right now, is just another step that shows who the Liberals answer to — not to the public, not to municipalities but to their friends and insiders.

This time around, it's local governments and municipalities being rolled over. One would think that a caucus full of former mayors and city councillors like this Liberal caucus is full of would be a little more sympathetic to the concerns of local government leaders, but as we all know, they're just a little more sympathetic to the interests of foreign companies that make large donations to them.

Contrary to what all the backbenchers will get up and complain about, this isn't just the point of view of the opposition. No wonder the minister, in his opening remarks, talked about clarifying, ending confusion and trying to deny misconceptions, because it isn't just the opposition that feels the way I do. It isn't just those nasty special interest groups. Here's who's concerned about this bill — the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They've had a chance to look at this legislation. They've had a chance to talk to the minister about this legislation, and I'll tell you what the Union of B.C. Municipalities wants to do about this legislation in a moment.

Now, I know the Liberal government will say, "Ah, who cares about those groups," because this government doesn't care about them. But there are concerns raised by groups like the Georgia Strait Alliance, the Comox-Strathcona regional district and the Islands Trust.

Let's see what the Union of B.C. Municipalities said about this legislation. This is a news release dated September 25, 2003:

Maybe that's the "misconception" that the Minister of Agriculture is "trying to clarify." Well, these local governments know what this legislation is about. They understand the intent of the government, and they want this legislation repealed.

There are already concerns being expressed from regional districts. This government, I'm sure, is willing to write off people like the Comox-Strathcona regional district. They've done it numerous times now in intruding into their jurisdiction.

Let me just read the beginning of a letter from the Comox-Strathcona regional district. It's to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Moving on here to another paragraph but from the Comox-Strathcona regional district.

"This Bill 48 is a knee-jerk reaction to political pressure applied to your government that has no basis in fact, " says the Comox-Strathcona regional district.

So the story outlined by that chair is very compelling. Local governments do not want this change. They do not want to lose their autonomy and land use planning tools. This Bill 48 directly contradicts the principles and intent of the Community Charter. It's another broken promise, and it's even more duplicitous, in that this government actually set up a consultation process on this matter and goes completely contrary to the results of that consultation process. Why would this government do that? Simple: the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries responds better to personal calls from aquaculture CEOs who don't get their way than through consultations with local governments.

This minister should listen to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the local government leaders throughout the province and abandon these changes. He should stand up, he should show leadership on this file, he should recognize his government's bias, and he should give back to the communities the autonomy

he's taking away. At the very least, if he's unwilling to do that, then he should say to the Minister of State for Community Charter: "Stop misleading local governments that they're going to get greater autonomy." The Minister of State for Community Charter and this Minister of Agriculture…. One has to stop speaking, because one of them is a stranger to what actually is happening out there.

J. Les: It's a pleasure this afternoon to rise and speak to Bill 48. Sometimes I'm astonished by what I hear in this House. The diatribe just ended is one of those astonishing moments in time. I had to pinch myself and remind myself that it was actually the previous government in and around, I believe, 1996 that itself passed right-to-work legislation and didn't seem to be at all….

J. Les: Right-to-farm legislation, as the member for Vancouver-Hastings points out.

In any event, I assume that back in 1996 right-to-farm legislation was okay then, but somehow today, with an evolving agriculture and with an evolving aquaculture industry, now it's not okay. I find that kind of logic curious.

We have in this province an agriculture industry and an aquaculture industry that are, frankly, worth billions of dollars of economic activity per year, which employ tens of thousands of people. It is absolutely appropriate that government would legislate to ensure that there is a secure economic environment available in which those industries can operate.

I would point out, as well, that when we hear these long monologues about fish farms and how harmful

they are to the environment, every fish farm that's out there today in the waters adjacent to British Columbia has in fact been approved and sited by the previous government — every one of them. One of the things this legislation will do is allow some of these farms to be moved because they were, in fact, inappropriately located and sited. I think it's extremely important that that be allowed to go ahead. This legislation will help to enable that process to happen.

As I said a few minutes ago, the agriculture industry and aquaculture, as well, are evolving industries. Technologies evolve, and the realities of the operation of those various operations change over time as well. We cannot allow, in the provincial interests, for those industries to be affected by capricious actions at the local level.

Now, I was a mayor back in the nineties, and I watched as the right-to-farm legislation was brought in. Did I take great offence? No, because I was in one of those communities where agriculture is a major presence, and I thought it was a sane and rational approach for a government to take to protect this very important industry. I see nothing particularly nefarious in this legislation.

I'd like to make some further comments. However, noting the time, I would at this time move to adjourn debate.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until Monday, October 20 at 10 o'clock.

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