2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 7

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Introductions by members. Perhaps one from the Chair. Today marks the final workday of a longtime employee of the Legislative Assembly. After 38 years with the Legislative Library, Linda Jackson will be retiring from a career which began with the government documents division, and later the technical services department.

On behalf of all members, I’d like to wish Linda all the best in her retirement and to thank her for her many years of service to the Legislative Assembly. I would ask the members to join with me in wishing her well.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In this House I call committee stage, continuing, on Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015, and in the small House, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continued estimates for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On section 3 (continued).

Hon. M. Polak: In the break time, we were able to gather some additional information that the member would be interested in, I’m sure — was asking about in some cases.

[1335]

In terms of park staff visits, we’re told that Bodega Ridge Park sees three to four times per see and Denman Island Park, three to four times per year. We haven’t spoken about it yet, but E.C. Manning Park…. They are working within Manning Park on a daily basis in the summer season between May 1 and September 30. Then over the winter season it’s one to two days per week. Octopus Islands Marine Park — it’s typically once per year. It’s sometimes twice. Small Inlet Marine Park — same thing. West Arm Park — again, park staff visit approximately once per week over the summer season and then one to two days over the winter season, October to April.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister and her staff for that answer. It’s helpful to get a sense of how busily trafficked these parks are and how often they get protection or visits to support the protection of them and their unique features.

I wanted to ask…. Apologies to the minister if it’s a surprise. I was speaking to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, and we both were wondering if the minister might pronounce the names of the new parks in the Okanagan, certainly Haynes Point and Okanagan Falls.

We might as well start here, since we’ll be asking constituents and people who visit the parks from here on out to recognize the names that the Osoyoos Indian Band have determined are the most appropriate. We might as well begin that practice here, as a name is powerful.

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll do my best, and I apologize to the First Nations for what will probably be not nearly a great job. With respect to the new name for Haynes Point Park, it’ll be Sẁiẁs. With respect to the name of Okanagan Falls Park, it will be Sx̌ʷǝx̌ʷnitkʷ.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think I heard Sẁiẁs and Sx̌ʷǝx̌ʷnitkʷ. Certainly, next time I’m in Osoyoos, I will speak to a native speaker and ask them to correct my pronunciation. Anyway, we’ll try, and I think that’s what we have to do.

Thank you to the minister for taking that request. May those names be said with pride for many generations to come for those parks.

I wanted to follow up around Omineca Park. It says it’s being moved to schedule D from this bill. I’m just wondering what the thinking is around that.

Hon. M. Polak: This fixes an error when the park was first established. There are existing uses that involve the continuation of three range tenures that were in effect at the time of the establishment of the park. As such, the park should have been created under schedule D and, instead, was created under schedule C, which would not allow for the continuation of those range tenures. So it’s correcting an error from the time when the park was first created.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for that.

To return to naming again, I had one more question. I wondered: is there a formal process that the ministry has set up to accept requests? I know we’ve had a couple of changes now in park names to reflect local First Nations heritage and occupation and, I guess, previous history and continued history on these places.
[ Page 6588 ]

Is there a formal process, or is it kind of ad hoc, based on when parks are being reformatted? How is that being approached? I’m sure there will be more interest. I know in my own backyard, in Stanley Park, there’s interest in potentially giving the name Whoi Whoi or Xwayxway back to Lumbermen’s Arch. Now, that’s a municipal park. It’s not in the ambit of this Legislature, but I’m just curious.

[1340]

Hon. M. Polak: We do have an overall naming policy that guides us. The initiation of changes to names can happen in any number of ways. It can happen because of the request of a First Nation, a local government. It can happen as a result of treaty or other agreements with First Nations. In some cases governments, past and present, have pursued changes to names that were viewed as offensive. It really could be initiated in any number of ways, but we do have a naming policy that we could certainly share with the member if he’s interested.

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions dotted throughout this bill at committee stage. I can summarize them, really, along one line.

It goes along the line as follows. The math actually doesn’t add up when you compare the park areas in this bill relative to the previous bill. The reason why…. That may seem moot, but there will be people — students in universities, others — spending hours trying to understand why the numbers changed.

I believe this to be true: that the mapping techniques have improved with time. Now we have better certainty as to actually how much land is in these parks. There are two in section 3 that I was hoping to get on the record so that those future students who wonder what happened actually can see in Hansard where and why the changes occurred.

That’s with respect to Strathcona Park, which looks like it’s adding 2,820 hectares, and West Arm Park, which looks like it’s adding 880 hectares, when you compare the areas in this bill relative to the areas that were in the previous bill.

Would the minister be able to clarify the extent to which these number changes are because of the more updated mapping techniques?

Hon. M. Polak: I’ll deal with Strathcona Park, and then, given the interest in the mathematics involved, I’ll attempt to give a quick rundown of how the math works. My staff apparently have also spent hours figuring out the math. I wouldn’t ordinarily just read straight from the notes, but in the case of the Strathcona issue, I am going to, just because it is important to be accurate here.

The stated area for Strathcona Park in the bill is 248,669 hectares. The area stated in the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act at this time is 245,849 hectares. Of course, that makes it appear that a net total of 2,820 hectares are being added to the park, but that’s not the case.

To describe the boundaries of the park, the Ministry of Environment is using an official plan — mapped boundaries, rather than the current metes and bounds description. It’s an improved and more accurate measuring technique, and it is what accounts for the difference.

[1345]

Despite the apparent substantial increase in the overall area figure, no land is actually being added to the park. The difference is simply with respect to improved measuring and mapping techniques.

This will be in Hansard, so you don’t have to take the notes down yourself. I’ll see if I can get this right.

Megin River, plus four hectares as a result of mapping. Bodega Ridge, plus 147 hectares as a result of additions, another 17 hectares as a result of mapping. Carmanah Walbran, minus 85 hectares, as a result of mapping. Octopus Islands, plus 86 hectares as a result of additions and plus 15 hectares as a result of mapping, for a total of 101 hectares. Small Inlet Park, plus 84 hectares as a result of additions, plus 68 hectares as a result of mapping, for a total of plus 152.

Strathcona we’ve spoken about. West Arm Park, plus 1,219 hectares as a result of additions, minus 339 hectares as a result of mapping, for a total of 880 hectares. Denman Island, plus two hectares as a result of additions. Manning is plus 3.2 as a result of additions and then minus two hectares that is going to highways, for a net positive of 1.2 hectares.

A. Weaver: On behalf of generations of students at universities to come, I wish to thank the minister for providing that clarification.

I have one other question, which I’ll save for section 4.

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

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister explain what’s happening in Cariboo River Park? I understand it’s a housekeeping amendment, but it would be helpful.

Hon. M. Polak: It’s correcting a typographical error in subsection 4(a), where the letter “s” is missing at the end of “metre” — at the request of leg. counsel.

S. Chandra Herbert: Going from “metre” to “metres.” Amazing, the things that we do in this place.
[ Page 6589 ]

I wonder. Manning Park — I understand that the argument is that this is going to increase safety because of a couple of bridges but that the land being taken out of the park for the road will be replaced from a former right-of-way or a right-of-way that’s in the park. Can the minister explain how this decision came about? How soon is this change to occur?

Hon. M. Polak: Transportation, from time to time, does make requests for boundary amendments. Ordinarily, they are required to go through the full and complete boundary amendment process. However, in the case of issues of health and safety we do operate under a more expedited process.

[1350]

It’s very similar. Of course, we try to advance those more quickly, and there are some different considerations. The reason that there is a boundary adjustment is because under the Park Act we would not be able to allow the work that would be needed in order to replace the three bridges on Highway 3.

S. Chandra Herbert: In a previous world, as a park commissioner in Vancouver, I tried to bring in an amendment to legislation, bring in a policy that if we were going to take land out of a park, we needed to replace it with land. So I was happy to see that because of these changes, the ministry is actually going to be bringing in three hectares to replace, I believe, the two hectares that will be removed. It is an improvement.

I’m curious if the minister can provide a bit of the backstory on the right-of-way that is now going to be added to the park. Was it ever developed? Was it just a notional right-of-way? Why wasn’t it in the park to begin with if it wasn’t developed?

The Chair: As the minister prepares the answer, with leave, I’ll recognize a former member and minister in the gallery, Blair Lekstrom. May the House make him welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: The area is an unused right-of-way along the Skagit River. I’m advised that it contains high conservation values, including old-growth forest and riparian plant communities.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is it generally the policy that if the government has to remove land, they try and replace it with other good parkland or to become parkland?

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

S. Chandra Herbert: Is there a cost to this addition, the three hectares that was a right-of-way, or was that just within government?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s Crown land owned by the Ministry of Transportation — so no cost.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister said this was expedited because of safety issues. I know there’s been some ongoing highway work through Manning Park. Has any of this work begun, or are we waiting until this passes so then the ministry can start work? I’m just not sure. I’ve noticed some bridges and some work running up to bridges being done. Some clarity would be helpful.

Hon. M. Polak: They’re waiting for this to be passed. Under the Park Act, they can’t engage in activities like that. Even the preparation for the work would be considered too impactful.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for that. Was this a surprise — I’m just curious — in terms of the public process? This was expedited, I know, in another park. There was a discussion around a road going on, but there is a community consultation side to it. Is it measured in degree of risk, that this would be very dangerous unless we moved quickly on this? How is that decision determined versus, say, doing a fuller consultation, as in other parks?

Hon. M. Polak: Just to be clear, although the process was expedited, the Ministry of Transportation did conduct consultation with the local communities involved and also with the First Nations.

[1355]

In terms of the assessment as to health and safety risks, that’s something where our parks staff would take the advice of the engineers and experts at the Ministry of Transportation.

S. Chandra Herbert: So then the ministry would make a request that this is an urgent issue and needs to be addressed right away?

Hon. M. Polak: That’s correct. Similarly, the member may recall in a previous session an amendment that was made to a park boundary in order to allow for a First Nation to be able to access drinking water.

A. Weaver: On this same theme, of attempting to get the numbers down pat for future generations of students scratching their heads. When looking at Wells Gray Park,
[ Page 6590 ]
it looks like it’s adding 16,562 hectares to that which existed in the previous bill. My suspicion is that this is again because of updated mapping and techniques. I was wondering if the minister might be able to confirm where that 16,562 hectares came from.

Hon. M. Polak: The member is correct. It’s the same situation as Strathcona. The area of the park is corrected from 524,990 hectares to 541,516 hectares, a difference in the positive of 16,526 hectares — again as a result of improved measuring and mapping.

A. Weaver: I had a dyslexic moment there. I said 16,562. I did mean 16,526, as the minister pointed out. Again, on behalf of generations of future students, thank you for that answer.

Final question on this is trying to understand something that’s going on in Omineca Park. According to the original legislation, Omineca Park contained 132,296 hectares. The amendment in section 4 of this bill maintains that the park will be the same size. However, on the B.C. Parks website it says Omineca Park contains 133,369 hectares.

My question, then, is if the minister could clarify if there will be any changes to the boundaries of Omineca Park as a result of the legislation. Or is it again the fact that the B.C. Parks website is either updated or not updated relative to the numbers that are in this bill here?

It may be an unfair question in that the minister may not have access to the B.C. Parks website. Clarification some time later would be sufficient — again, for generations of future students who may be asking the same question.

Hon. M. Polak: Fortunately for us and all British Columbians, the legislation takes precedence over what may incorrectly be framed on our website. Staff will certainly look into that and update it. I am told that it is the website that is in error. No lands are being removed or deleted from Omineca Park.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that this is a rescission of an order-in-council for Megin River Ecological Reserve. Just curious how many ecological reserves in this province are still just through an order-in-council rather than a schedule, as is happening here.

[1400]

Hon. M. Polak: I will try not to overcomplicate this. There’s no change made with respect to whether they are put in place under order-in-council. All ecological reserves except for one are on schedules. The difference between schedule A and schedule B is how they are described.

As we spoke of before, we’re trying to move them all to schedule A. All of the ecological reserves in schedule B are described by referencing their original order-in-council rather than in schedule A, which would be the commonsense way of doing it.

In schedule A they would be described in mapping terms. You would say, “They exist at this longitude and latitude, and here are the boundaries,” and they would be described.

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

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:02 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 7, Private Training Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — PRIVATE TRAINING ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to introduce the staff members present: Claire Avison, Assistant Deputy Minister of Ministry of Advanced Education; Christine Massey, Assistant Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development; and Monica Lust, registrar and CEO of the Private Career Training Institutions Agency.

On section 1.
[ Page 6591 ]

K. Corrigan: I’ve heard many, many concerns about this bill over the past several days. One of the problems that we have in dealing with it in committee stage is what I’m hearing repeatedly — that it’s not about what was in the bill but what is missing from the bill.

I guess I’ll start with some questions. One of the particular issues…. It was raised by a lot of the language schools in British Columbia and also by private training schools and their organizations, such as B.C. Career Colleges, which represents at least 30 colleges in the province and, I believe, close to half the students that are studying in the province in private post-secondary schools.

The Vancouver Island Private Accredited Colleges organization is 20 accredited colleges representing some very well-known and long-term organizations like Pacific Design Academy, Aveda Institute, Sprott-Shaw, West Coast Adventure College, Academy of Excellence — 40 years in business. There’s a whole range of schools that have some real concerns.

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

I’m wondering if the minister could explain why it is that the purposes and goals are not included in this legislation.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think it’s fairly well understood in this province for at least a decade now that purpose clauses in legislation have been eschewed. They haven’t been utilized because the sense is that they serve no actual purpose in the legislation and, if anything, tend to muddy the waters.

The history that brings this about, of course…. I believe the member opposite is aware that in 2003 the body that we will call, I suspect, frequently in this exchange PCTIA, Private Career Training Institutions Agency, was created. Over the 12-year period that it operated in a self-regulated industry model, a number of issues arose.

[1410]

The conclusion was that it would be better to have this managed within the Ministry of Advanced Education, as a government regulator. The vehicle to bring that about is the new Private Training Act, which I suspect we will refer to many times as the PTA.

K. Corrigan: The old act did refer to consumer protection, quality assurant objects, and bylaws that could set quality standards. What I’ve heard…. Perhaps the minister could just respond to that general concern.

I know that many of the people that have been talking to me over the last days have also, I’m sure, contacted the minister. Their concern is they really don’t know exactly what the focus and goal of the legislation are. Perhaps the minister can explain what those goals and aims are and what the minister has been telling those stakeholders, who have a real concern. What is he saying to them when they express their concerns about the lack of clarity in terms of what the goals and intentions are of this legislation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise behind this legislation is in the title of part 3 of the legislation: “Consumer Protection.” This, of course, refers first and foremost to the students who are enrolled in these organizations. The goal is to ensure that they receive the education they anticipated and bargained for and that their end of the contract is satisfied by the institution that delivers to them the product in an appropriate form and quality over an appropriate time course. If that does not happen, the student has recourse to other sources of protection.

K. Corrigan: When we were dealing last week with the unification in Bill 4, which unified the various professional accountants, one of the questions that I first asked the minister was about what consultation took place. I’m wondering if the minister could explain what consultation took place with regard to this act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m pleased to advise that the assistant deputy minister visited more than 40 of these schools during consultations. More in-depth consultations took place in May and June of 2014 and included detailed discussions with sector associations, including two full days with the member organizations and the predecessor, PCTIA. So 63 private training institutions and former PCTIA board members were included in that process. There was a full day of consultations with language schools.

[1415]

The second phase of consultations was held in November and December of 2014, with in-person sessions at five locations around the province, with 176 sector representatives participating. The ministry also received 70 written submissions.

In addition to that, there were sector-specific consultations with flight-training institutions and theological institutions due to their unique circumstances.

K. Corrigan: I had heard about that, and I think government always has to be given credit when there is consultation like that. It was done, and I’ve heard that from many sources.

One of the quotes in the introduction, when Bill 7 was introduced, was from Jeremy Sabell, president of the B.C. Career Colleges Association, which I mentioned earlier.
[ Page 6592 ]
The quote is from the government press release. It says that Jeremy Sabell said: “Extensive consultations with private career-training institutions are helping to shape the future of private training in the province. We look forward to changes being brought in by government that will make the sector stronger and that will support our ability to continue preparing students for their future careers.”

I would like to read what I received yesterday from the same Jeremy Sabell, president of the B.C. Career Colleges Association. He said: “This legislation has nothing to do with the consultations. The association does not support the bill as written. There is no reason to be rushed, and we are more than happy to continue until legislation that is better crafted can be brought in.”

That’s the person who was quoted about consultation in the press release by the government. I’m wondering what response, with regard to this act and the framing of this act, the minister has with regard to the fact that the person who they quoted feels that this has been rushed, it has nothing to do with the consultations, and it is not supportable as written.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The reference to Mr. Jeremy Sabell is timely because he is one of the 12 members of the advisory committee that assisted the ministry in putting together this legislation. The overall view of this, of course, is found in that same news release of February 11, 2015. There’s the quote from Mr. Sabell followed by the statement that the “Private Training Act will create higher quality standards for the sector and broader enforcement mechanisms to better protect students. It will also introduce a risk-based approach that protects the public interest while reducing the regulatory requirements for private institutions offering high-quality programs and with a history of strong compliance.”

The essence of this, and in a response sent to Mr. Sabell, is that the overall priority here is protection of students, and part and parcel of that is to have a progressively lighter regulatory hand on well-run institutions with a good track record and to focus the energies of this new body on the newcomers and also on those whose compliance and performance records are not as admirable as the long-term players with a lower-risk profile.

K. Corrigan: As the minister said, Mr. Sabell was — and, I think, continues to be — one of the members of that advisory committee, representing probably the largest organization with regard to private training. His comment, after being quoted in the government press release, is that the association does not support the bill as written; there’s no reason to be rushed.

I guess the question to the minister…. With these kinds of warnings that I know the minister has received, why was it decided that we would bring Bill 7 to the Legislature at this time, to go through second reading, and now we’re heading into committee stage reading?

[1420]

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

K. Corrigan: I’m just going to ask maybe one or two more questions, and then my colleague from Vancouver–West End has got a couple of specific questions with regard to some of his constituents.

It wasn’t just that organization, the B.C. Career Colleges Association, that has continuing concern. Richard Tachell of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said that he would be happy for us to raise the fact that the CFIB has concerns. Their members have concerns, and they’ve have asked the minister to press pause — as he said — and the minister did not do that. In addition, Mr. Tachell confirmed what the minister just told us, that “the real meat is in the regulations.” Those were the words that were used by Mr. Tachell.

So we have another organization that’s expressing real concern about how quickly this has been done and how there are too many questions. I guess I would raise a more general concern that has peripherally been raised by the comments by Mr. Tachell and the response from the minister. If it is true that the real meat is in the regulations…. How can we have a meaningful debate in the Legislature if we don’t really know what it is that’s being proposed, because the real meat is in the regulations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Truscott and the other representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on March 6, which I believe was last Thursday. Mr. Truscott reported out to his membership, and I’m going to quote from his news item that he sent to the members. “The minister assured us the government is not looking at creating a duplicate process to the registration process and will review the accreditation program’s reputable industry groups to determine if those groups meet the criteria set out by the Ministry of Advanced Education.” That is true, and that is the approach we are taking.

Secondly, he went on to say: “Many of the details behind this bill are still to be developed. They have offered to conduct a seminar for those businesses that are interested in finding out more about the new bill and also to discuss the regulations that are to be developed.” That is also true.
[ Page 6593 ]

We believe that the updated encounter with Mr. Truscott from CFIB was in fact a positive engagement. Of course, before one develops regulations, one has to have legislation. We’re in somewhat of a chicken-and-egg position here, in that we have to pass the legislation before developing the regulations, which will be developed in concert with the sector.

K. Corrigan: Well, that conversation that we had with the CFIB was today, so that is, as of today, a concern. I just wanted to point that out.

S. Chandra Herbert: This bill seems to be rushed. Given that consultation was long, you would think that a bill would be able to be introduced and have widespread support.

Language schools in my constituency certainly have great concerns — and not just in my constituency but across Vancouver. They say that because of the challenges with PCTIA, they’ve lived with regulatory uncertainty for nearly three years, which has led in many cases to people going to Australia to get schooling. They thought this consultation would lead to something that would work better for them. But according to EF International Language Schools, Tamwood International College and VanWest College, the government still has it wrong.

[1425]

Their concerns are many but could really be drawn out in three ways. One, they believe that this legislation will continue to leave international language students in B.C. unprotected. Two, it will create unnecessary costs for their school. Three, it will create unnecessary bureaucracy.

They want a level playing field, and they want all schools to be accredited so that a fly-by-night operation, as they say, can’t set up down the street — with much lower fees because they’re not accredited, don’t work hard to meet the international standards, siphon business away and then disappear.

According to them, in their read of this bill, this bill does nothing to stop that from happening. There is, in their view, no added consumer protection. On the contrary, they say, the door is now wide open for the fly-by-night institutions to operate without any control.

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

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

There’s also another factor that’s a bit more specific to language schools, in that those that seek visa approval through the federal government, through Canada immigration services, require a designation status, which they have to acquire through the necessary regulatory process that we are outlining here.

There are some costs of compliance, but as I say, there is an intent to work on a regulatory regime which will import some of the standards from the industry itself in terms of language training so that we are not asking them to replicate or duplicate work that’s already been done.

Those who are already in the category of what are now called accredited institutions will readily transform into designated-institution status, have the status they need with the federal government to be a conduit for student visas and carry on business as usual. Inevitably, there are some compliance costs with this. As I say, we seek to minimize those for the reliable, good actors.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ll just read from the letter that I’ve received from EF International Language Schools. There are also the same concerns from Tamwood and VanWest College. They say:

“We understand the need for consumer protection from fly-by-night schools. In fact, as accredited schools, we are in full support of legislation to minimize the possibility of a fly-by-night operation opening its doors. Initially, that is why we supported such legislation.

“Unfortunately, the proposed legislation does little to ensure that. In fact, the proposed legislation makes it more difficult for all of the accredited institutions that are already Languages Canada members to operate, although they already adhere to quality assurance standards.

“The proposed legislation does not hinder subpar institutions from operating. It only stops those institutions from accepting long-term students on student visas. Short-term students would still be able to be recruited by fly-by-night institutions, which can still open and operate and accept students on a visitor visa.”

The legislation does not benefit institutions that were in support of it initially, because other schools without quality assurance mechanisms will continue to open and operate. In fact, those schools will likely succeed, because they will not be regulated and can, therefore, operate at a reduced cost. Thus there’s no added consumer protection. On the contrary, the door is now wide open for the fly-by-night institutions to operate without any control.

Can the minister respond to that concern? It’s a legitimate one, I think. I had thought this would be included in such legislation, as did they.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I had the benefit of meeting with Languages Canada representatives first thing this morning and heard their concerns.

[1430]

The challenge here is that, of course, we are not a government that is interested in providing a heavy hand of regulation at high compliance cost for someone who is teaching Spanish in their basement once a week to a friend for $20 an hour. That is not a field that requires or attracts our regulatory interest.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the good-quality institutions with strong track records that are currently accredited and have the appropriate seals of approval on their websites. Those are obviously attractive to students in other countries who might be coming here to study English and, for that matter, to students, locally and elsewhere, who study languages other than English.

The challenge, of course, is to find the balance between those two ends of the teeter-totter in terms of the high-quality schools and not regulating them excessively and catching those in the middle that are newcomers or in need of a regulatory hand to ensure quality and protection of students while also not laying a regulatory burden on tiny operations that are operating a benign language class in someone’s living room.

K. Corrigan: Since my colleague has mentioned the language schools and a meeting with Languages Canada — and I believe that was Mr. Gonzalo Peralta, who came from Ottawa, I believe, to meet with the minister….

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Languages Canada, which is an umbrella organization representing language schools all across the country, is very concerned about this legislation. One school has been quoted or noted. Their concerns have been noted. But maybe at this point I will mention the concerns that Mr. Peralta has. My first thing will be a quote just from him, an e-mail. He said I could quote him on anything that I wanted.

He said: “To be honest….” I was asking him about a clause-by-clause analysis on exactly which clauses should be changed. He said: “A clause-by-clause analysis would not accomplish much, as the bill, the way it stands now, misses the mark so much for B.C.’s accredited language programs.”

The minister refers to the suggestion or says that this is a balancing act. Unfortunately, I have heard nobody…. Not one stakeholder has contacted me to say that the ministry is on the right track with this legislation, and I have been contacted by dozens of organizations representing, in some cases, dozens more organizations that say that this is the wrong track, that this bill is fatally flawed and should not pass through this House.

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

The new regulations, which the minister referred to, which came into operation and in effect on June 1, 2014, require that provinces and territories provide CIC with a list of designated institutions which are approved by the province. The language schools say…. Languages Canada says that B.C.’s accredited language institutions want legislation and want it now. It doesn’t want a delay, but unfortunately….

They want this regulatory framework, but they say this is so flawed that we need to delay.

I’m wondering if the minister has any further comment on the position of Languages Canada.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Mr. Peralta was actually at the meeting with me first thing this morning. His concerns were heard and elaborated, and we are in the process of working with him on developing a regulatory regime. He is actually on the advisory panel for the development of the regulations.

I’m sorry. I stand corrected. A representative of Languages Canada is on the advisory panel helping to develop the regulations.

[1435]

We’ll be working closely with Languages Canada to sort out the appropriate balance in the regime. As I mentioned earlier, it is a fairly long teeter-totter from the living-room Spanish class to the well-established and accredited organization that operates courses eligible for international student visas. We will find the balance in that regime with the assistance of the sector.

K. Corrigan: Now we know that two of the eight people — is it eight people on the advisory board? — have said: “Please stop. This is fatal.” These are the people that are advising, that the minister says the ministry is relying on. Two of those people so far — I haven’t talked to the other six — have said…. They’re representing large constituencies, both of them — one with 30 language schools and another one with Languages Canada, which is a very large organization representing language schools across the country. Two have said: “Please stop.”

I’m not sure why the minister believes that we should just hold on and wait for the regulations. It raises, again, my real concern. Essentially, what the minister is acknowledging is that we have a piece of legislation that you really can’t understand what it’s about or what it’s going to do and that everything is going to be in the regulations. I don’t believe that that’s appropriate for legislation that’s before the House.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just a small point. The advisory committee actually has 12 members, and I’m sure the member is pleased to know that it’s somewhat larger than the eight that she suggested. But I think the act speaks
[ Page 6595 ]
for itself, in terms of the section titles. It is a regime designed to provide for certified institutions, to provide for consumer protection of students, an enforcement regime, then an appeal and review process and the usual administrative regime.

This is legislation that provides a framework for a regulatory regime. This is actually fairly standard format for legislation of this sort. Perhaps a section-by-section review might reveal some deficiencies, but we’ll look forward to that.

K. Corrigan: One of the comments by Languages Canada is similar to what my colleague referenced earlier, with regard to one of the language schools in his constituency:

“The proposed legislation leaves a gaping hole in the net by continuing to allow anyone to open and run language programs. For too many years B.C. has allowed fly-by-night operators to offer services that do not include mechanisms to protect students’ interests in the Languages Canada quality assurance scheme. It is difficult to understand why the proposed legislation ignores student protection. All language programs in B.C. should be accredited under a recognized scheme and should offer tuition protection measures.”

I guess my question to the minister is: does the minister acknowledge that this act, the Private Training Act, will allow anyone to open and run language schools and that this is a huge gap or a gaping hole in the net?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course we have recognized that a language school, like any other, seeks to sell itself on quality and on the reputation that it has built. This act provides the mechanism for the currently accredited schools to turn themselves into designated schools, which is essentially a very similar term, and to adopt some of the criteria used by Languages Canada for that designation.

That will continue to allow them access to the federal student visa programs, which most of them seek, because, to be blunt, that’s where the big part of the market is. It’s an opportunity for them to re-establish their credibility and to demonstrate their commitment to quality by becoming designated, and that, of course, is provided for in the act.

[1440]

A. Weaver: I, too, share the concerns of the previous members speaking to this with respect to private language education. In reading through the definitions, I have some trouble with the definitions of “career training institution” and “career training program.”

My question to the minister is: does the minister see career training to mean and include private international language education schools, which are not actually providing career training but, rather, language education for foreigners? I’ll follow that up with a quick question after that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: On reviewing those definitions of “career training institution” and “career training program,” those definitions are directed at the “program of instruction” definition above — “(a) enhancing the student’s employability in a career occupation, or (b) improving the student’s ability to carry out a career occupation.”

That is not specifically addressing the language skill issue, which is captured in section 5 of the act. It provides that “an institution that is not required to hold a certificate may apply in accordance with this Division for a registration certificate or” — what they seek for federal approval for student visas — “a designation certificate.” They cannot get the federal visa status without the designation certificate.

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

The opportunities that this school brings for international students are profound. There are 175 host families, who generate income from the students staying with them. The tourism sector in Victoria benefits from these students coming to our region. These students spend money. A third of their money is on tuition; two-thirds of their money is on other things.

The international language education is more than just tuition, which is my concern with respect to this bill as we move forward with these definitions and how they play out for private language education. This school provides a substantial economic boost to the greater Victoria area, and it is but one. There are many, many other such schools in the province of British Columbia.

My concern is that while it’s laudable and I applaud the efforts to actually protect students from perhaps fly-by-night organizations, my real worry is that the baby is going to be thrown out with the bathwater in doing this.

So my question to the minister is this. Is it possible, in light of the fact that we’ll almost certainly be discussing this bill for the rest of the day and perhaps much of tomorrow, to reflect upon the definitions, to recognize that perhaps something specific should be added into the definitions to deal with private language schools or exempt private language schools from the present bill so that more time could be put in to reflect how these non-career-training institutions will be better regulated under legislation that actually reflects the value-added that they provide to our economy?

[1445]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member, of course, alludes to this balance I referred to earlier between those that
[ Page 6596 ]
seek to improve their quality of profile, enhance their credibility, improve their marketability and appeal to the international student market and thereby be looking for a federal student visa designation, which requires them to be compliant with the act and be designated institutions. That introduces a certain compliance obligation, which will be limited over time, for those who are compliant and have a good track record.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, we look to have a light regulatory and compliance burden placed on those small institutions that perhaps are doing some less sophisticated training in a smaller venue.

The organization that the member refers to, having 175 homestay families in British Columbia…. One would suspect that they are in the former category of the high-quality institution with the big reputation and a history of performance. That, of course, applies not only to the training in language but also to the selection and management of those homestay relationships.

I think the overview is that the organization the member refers to has very little to be concerned about with this legislation, because if they are big enough to be designated now, they will carry on in a very similar fashion under the legislation as they did formerly.

K. Corrigan: I would like to continue on in the same vein, asking more questions about language providers.

We could ask under the definitions, or we could ask under section 5. I suppose we could ask under section 2. But it’s all about the full scheme, so I appreciate that the minister is answering these questions under the definitions section, which is as good a time as any, I believe.

Languages Canada says, with regard to this point that this might not be the right place to put language schools…. Among other things, it says:

“Language providers are not degree-granting or career-training institutions and do not offer diplomas or certificates in specific trades or professions. We’re solely language education providers. The government is insisting that all schools who want to remain on the ISP designation list meet PTA’s legislation of contributing to a student completion fund.

“This may be a necessary and important function for career-training institutions, but this is not for Languages Canada members who must provide refunds back to their students. Through a special fund, Languages Canada ensures that students can complete their language learning goals without disruption.”

To the minister: did the minister look closely at and consider that argument that Languages Canada makes — that they, essentially, with their members, have 100 percent compliance, and not one student has ever ended up being not made whole when it is a Languages Canada member? What are the minister’s comments on that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The position taken by Languages Canada is understood. I have heard it directly from them at least twice about their capacity, which they have developed amongst their members, for continuation of a language course in the event that school A ceases to function, whether it’s due to illness or insolvency or something else — that school B or school C, or both, will pick up their students and complete their course for them.

This has, I gather, historically been done on a without-charge basis so that schools B and C would not be compensated for this. In fact, it’s been rare that it has occurred. I’m not actually aware of any specific examples where that service has been called upon.

But in this regime we have encouraged Languages Canada to continue with that plan, and the regime that will apply to designated schools will require participation and a tuition protection fund. But the premise will be, of course, that if schools B and C are the ones to continue that program, then they would be reimbursed for continuation of the program that failed under school A.

Also, if any or all of schools A, B and C are already accredited, then they would acquire the designation status without undue difficulty and their costs and compliance burden would decrease over time — in fact, quite quickly.

This seems to be a regime where it’s a variant on what Languages Canada already does, and given that Languages Canada has not, to my knowledge, called upon that service from their members — that mutual coverage service — this may actually be a theoretical concern, rather than a real one.

[1450]

K. Corrigan: The Languages Canada member schools say — it’s my understanding — that the students are refunded and absorbed by other Languages Canada member schools through the LC student fund. This system is 100 percent successful and does not cost members anything.

I’m learning as we go along here. Could the minister please explain why it is that other schools under the Languages Canada framework would be out of pocket? My understanding is that the other schools are fine with this and that there is a student fund which compensates them.

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

Nonetheless, if Languages Canada takes the view that they would do the teach-out of a failed program at no charge, one can anticipate that would be fine with a handful of students. But if suddenly there are 3,000 or 4,000 students, then it becomes more of a challenge to do it for free. Under the new regime, a designated school would
[ Page 6597 ]
be part of the tuition protection fund and would be able to call upon it. Schools B and C that I referred to earlier would, in fact, be compensated for their teach-out work.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister could then tell me whether any students in Canada…. Languages Canada has been operating for a long time now. Are there cases in the past — and there may be — where the Languages Canada schools did not make students whole — or whether it’s other schools that are the problem?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The information I’ve gathered is that Languages Canada is a trade organization, basically. It’s a collection of the schools that decide to work together. They have developed this teach-out program. We understand there has never been a payout to these schools for the teach-out because the incidence of this problem is low.

The idea that they might make their own students whole financially or by teach-out is truly their business. That’s not something that we have been involved in. We don’t have their data sets. We aren’t privy to what their practice has been apart from their own reports to us.

Under the new regime, under the act, these schools, if they have attained designated status, will be required to participate in the tuition protection fund. Their premiums to join that fund will decline over time in response to good performance. The premise, of course, is very similar.

Languages Canada collected this fund of $200,000 for all of Canada, which one would presume to be a rather shallow fund, given the potential exposure. What will be happening here instead is that government will collect a fund and make it available for reimbursement to the schools in the event that schools B and C do want to be compensated for the teach-out.

Again, government has the obligation to be ready for a substantial failure — not two or three but 2,000 or 3,000 students.

K. Corrigan: Is it not true that being a Languages Canada member is sufficient in other provinces to meet the requirement for eligibility on the federal designated institution list? In other words, this approach is not the approach that other provinces have taken. Other provinces seem to recognize that an organization like Languages Canada understands the specialized nature of this sector.

[1455]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I suppose it’s a source of pride that British Columbia and Ontario are the two largest providers of language training for students. That partly goes without saying because of the size of Ontario, being about 45 percent of the Canadian population, and British Columbia’s extraordinarily fine people, skills, landscape and way of life.

Ontario, interestingly, does not accept the Languages Canada designation as the necessary step for their approval for federal visa eligibility. Under this new regime, both British Columbia and Ontario, which account for the lion’s share of language students from abroad, would not accept the Languages Canada designation as equivalent to the provincial designation for federal visa purposes.

K. Corrigan: It’s been a couple of years that the new requirements have been in place. They actually became operational in June 2014, requiring that provinces and territories provide Citizenship and Immigration Canada with a list of designated institutions. Is it not true that the number of students that are coming to B.C. has been falling since the introduction of these regulations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that our internal data set shows that the number of students on international visas attending language schools is stable. We don’t have access to the detailed data sets of Languages Canada. They have presented a slightly different scenario. I’m sure that will be sorted out in the ongoing consultations about the regulations so that we can have an optimized regime to make sure that students are getting a safe and high-quality training experience here in Canada without financial risk or exposure to insolvency or failure, while the language schools themselves are operating in a flexible and robust regulatory regime that protects both sides of the equation.

K. Corrigan: I just want to make it very clear that the members on this side of the House have repeatedly raised issues with private training schools and language schools. We are not in any way suggesting that there should not be legislation and that there should not be regulation.

Unfortunately, the concerns raised by so many in the sector — in the private training school sector, the career colleges as well as in the languages sector — have been so widespread that it is difficult to support this legislation because it is being described as rushed, not properly thought through.

Languages Canada has 65 members in the B.C. chapter — 52 private and 13 public. It includes public institutions. So we’re talking…. It may be described as an industry organization, but it is both industry and public institutions. It represents a good chunk of the students who come over. Their concern is that the regulatory regime that is existing and that will be carried on under the Private Training Act is, in fact, going to punish and is…. They believe that the number of students coming to B.C. is coming down and is decreasing.

I wanted to ask. One of the requirements of the new legislation…. Also, over the last couple of years, there has been a requirement that — in order to get the federal designation, in order to get a student visa — somebody be accredited or designated.

[1500]

How many schools in British Columbia have applied for designation under either the old act or the new act? How many language schools have applied?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Although I don’t want to encourage it, I suspect we’ll be here beyond the end of today’s session. As I don’t have that number here with staff, we’ll provide that to the member as soon as possible and certainly before we sit again.

K. Corrigan: Well, my understanding is that schools were told that they needed to apply. There was a deadline. I don’t have it right in front of me, but I believe it was within the next couple of months. Certainly, with regard to the Languages Canada school, nobody has applied.

Nobody has. Of those 65 members from the B.C. chapter, not one. They’re all very concerned about the regime — both under PCTIA, the previous regime, and what will be continuing under the Private Training Act.

So does that sound about right — zero? Does that sound approximately correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m informed that the arrangement with the federal government is that the languages schools have until December 31 of 2015 to apply to stay on the international student program for visas. The deadline for them to give notice that they will be applying is the end of this month.

It’s a bit like filing one’s tax return. There isn’t a rush of early applicants. There have been three applicants so far, and more are expected by the end of March.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the minister reminding me of the date for the original notice to get in.

It is my understanding from speaking to Languages Canada that there is a real concern. We’ll wait to see, under this new act, whether Languages Canada members in fact apply, because they are so concerned.

[1505]

One of the issues that was mentioned by my colleague from Vancouver–West End was the fact that what seems to be missing in this bill…. It’s partly to do with other agreements that are referenced in the bill or triggered. One of the concerns is that it only applies to students who are studying for six months or more. That is a real concern because many, many schools have terms that are less than six months. So this bill is going to do absolutely nothing to protect against those language schools that have terms that are less than six months, where you don’t need to get a visa.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The language schools that do want the federal student visa eligibility do need to acquire the designated status. They will be regulated under this act, and those that do not seek to obtain federal student visa eligibility will not be regulated under this act.

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

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

A. Weaver: I’d like to build on an answer that the minister gave me with respect to my question regarding the definitions of “career training” and “career training program” and his referring of me to section 5, which we will discuss later, of course. The question I have is…. My understanding, first off, is that the British Columbia government has entered into and signed a memorandum of understanding with Citizenship and Immigration Canada with respect to visa requirements and tracking those who are given a visa to come to an eligible institution. First off, may I ask if that is a correct understanding?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There is an agreement between the provinces writ large and Citizenship and Immigration Canada as to the standard that will be applied at the provincial level to those language schools that seek to have eligibility for student visas.

A. Weaver: Coming back to the point raised by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, visa requirements are different depending on which country you come from. You may come from Taiwan, for example, and not need a visa to go and study in a school. You may come from another country and require a visa. You may be on a visitor’s permit and, as such, be allowed to study up to six months.

[1510]

Coming back to the reason why I’m seeking clarification with respect to the definition of “career training program,” these private language schools provide critical training — not so much career training but language training — for international students wanting to better their skills in English. The concern here is that, as the minister pointed out, by not having a specific definition for “private language education,” if someone is directed to section 5….
[ Page 6599 ]

It says: “An institution that is not required to hold a certificate may apply in accordance with this Division for a registration certificate.” This is making the whole private language sector in some sense voluntary. Now, a student could get a visa to come and train at a voluntarily registered private language institute. They could be with that institute for, say, two weeks and then move to a non-registered private language school.

Now, the reality here is that this does nothing to protect the students from fly-by-night organizations. All it’s doing is protecting the students at entry point to a registered school, but they can immediately move to another school.

I would argue that, in so doing, the MOU that the British Columbia government has, along with other provinces, signed with Citizen and Immigration Canada cannot actually be enforced because the government will have no control as to where a student actually ends up having their private language education, because it’s only at the entry point that the visa requirement is there.

What this does, without specifically defining private language schools in the definitions and treating them separately, is it gives a loophole and actually penalizes those who actually want to voluntarily register and who, in doing so, must then put aside moneys to protect students — which I agree with in general. It’s a good idea to protect students. But the students will come in….

Those institutions that have spent the money to register voluntarily and put money aside — as per this legislation — can be the entry point for a student, but they don’t have to be the final point for a student. They could be a transition point for a student. This is why it’s so critical, I would argue, to put in the definitions and treat separately private language schools — not through voluntary regulation under section 5.

My question, then, back to the minister again, another time, is: is it possible for the minister to reconsider, over the course of the night, the potential for adding an exclusion or adding in a different definition for private language schools that does not treat them as a throwaway into section 5, along with schools like massage therapy and other things as well?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To address the member’s concern, as I understand it, the federal student visas are school-specific. So if the student arrives at school X and decides after two weeks they would rather go skiing or perhaps go to a cheaper school or something of the sort, their visa becomes void. That is the mechanism by which this regime is managed in concert with the federal government.

A. Weaver: Will that remain the same if this bill were to pass or not? Is that something that’s occurring now or has been in the past? Will it continue to be so in the future?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, working with the federal government, we anticipate continuity, but we cannot tell them what to do with their legislative regime or their visa regime. But the status quo is expected to continue into the future in terms of that federal-provincial agreement because, as I say, it’s not just with British Columbia.

If I can answer the quantitative question from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake that she raised earlier, there are 124 language schools on the federal immigrant student program…. Sorry, there are 124 language schools on the provincial list that are eligible for federal student visas.

[1515]

I’m being corrected repeatedly here, because the note is not very clear. There are 124 schools on the ISP list with the federal government giving them visa eligibility, and 59 of them are language schools.

S. Fraser: I’m pleased to be able to enter this debate on a bill that’s raising some concerns in my constituency. This is from a member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Alberni–Pacific Rim. I’m just going to quote from her letter to me about this bill. “The bill includes no purpose statement, carte blanche ability to close institutions without rebuttal or response to allegations, and no option to exercise our rights to use the courts on any and all decisions.” I’ll stop right there.

Can the minister please address these concerns?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I would draw the member’s attention to the CFIB notice that was put out about Bill 7 to their members about their March 6 meeting with me. It states, in the words of Richard Truscott, the vice-president for B.C. and Alberta: “In response to our questions about control of the registrar, the minister pointed out there is an appeal mechanism to the commissioner. The specific rules that guide the commissioner in the appeals process will be set out in the regulations which will be developed after the law has passed.”

In response to the concern about the lack of a purposes section, there has not been a purposes section in any British Columbia statute that I know of for at least ten years.

S. Fraser: All right. But on the issues of “carte blanche ability to close institutions without rebuttal or response to allegations” and no option to exercise rights in the courts, is this accurate? Is this how the bill is actually intended to work?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I conveyed to the delegation from CFIB last week, that perception is wrong.

S. Fraser: Well, there seems to be some conflict here on fact. The member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business goes on to say:
[ Page 6600 ]

“No amount of concern and opposition from the sector is being noted by the government. They are insistent that the sector is in cooperation on this legislation. This could not be further from the truth. Sector administrators and school owners are considering leaving their jobs and closing their businesses if this legislation passes.

“We see this as a strangling legislation that puts the onus on the sector to take all blame, warranted or not, and leaves its employees vulnerable to charges that do not have to be upheld in the court. This is not a democratic process allowing freedom of speech and the rights given under the constitution of this country.”

These are strong words. It seems that she is alleging that indeed her organization does not agree with or support this legislation — and very clearly so.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It might be worthwhile for the person who wrote to the member opposite to be back in contact with Mr. Truscott at CFIB, because his note to me — or at least to his members following the meeting with me — addresses those concerns squarely. It’s a bit perplexing when the correspondence starts talking about freedom of speech, which really isn’t entailed here in any way.

A. Weaver: Coming back to my…. I know I’m belabouring this point, but as you can see from the numerous members here, there’s some profound concern about the application of this legislation to private language schools in particular, in light of the fact that they’re not mentioned specifically in the bill, in the definitions in particular — what we’re discussing right now.

My understanding is that in fact Citizenship and Immigration Canada does not yet track students upon entry into Canada. They are planning to do so, my understanding is, this year. However, my understanding is that they will be relying on the designate school, upon receipt, to actually provide information to CIC with respect to the date of entry and date of leaving Canada.

[1520]

Now, my understanding there is that, again, there is nothing to stop a person coming to Canada, to a designated school, and two days later moving to another school. That person is lost in the system. That person can attend another school with a valid visa that could be shown. It seems to me that unless we treat all such private language schools as requiring registration, then they’ll be lost.

This actually might encourage those to actually come with a visa for an accredited registered language institution and then move to some quick, fly-by-night organization. They head back to their country after they get their training, but there’s no record of them.

This bill does not protect the student. It actually penalizes the private language institution that must put aside money, etc., and spend the cost of registering. But that fly-by-night organization, which is not required to register, is not really tracked, and hence, the student is not tracked in the system.

Back to the minister again. Will the minister consider protecting our vibrant, solid, well-established private language school industry in British Columbia, catering to a very large market in the Asia-Pacific, by ensuring that all private language schools are required to register, or failing that, putting in a specific definition here to exclude private language schools from this act until such time as consultation on that particular sector can occur in greater detail?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There seem to be a number of issues there, which I’ll try to unravel. First of all, the majority if not all of these designated language schools that provide the eligibility for a student visa require payment in advance. So presumably, the student then arrives in Canada. They may not arrive directly in British Columbia. They may take a few weeks to get here. They then show up for their course, and they have paid in advance. They will then engage in their course.

If they decide to quit the course, that is a federal issue, that they have then violated the terms of their visa. We do not engage in immigration enforcement issues in this government. That is exclusively federal jurisdiction.

If that student, as the model suggests, were to quit the school that they had paid tuition to after a few days — which is hard to comprehend why they would do that — and go to another school, they would lose the tuition they’d paid to school A, pay tuition again at school B and face deportation for violating the terms of their visa. That paradigm seems to be flawed.

I think the member’s question is more specifically directed at the definition section of the act. Our goal with this act is to capture those institutions that do lead to eligibility for federal student visas so that the federal regime will be invoked, and we will protect the reputation of our schools and our programs by not allowing them access to federal student visas unless they are designated and have met the designation criteria here in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: Not to be argumentative, but as I pointed out earlier, in fact, you don’t have to have a student visa from many countries to actually study in this country, Taiwan being an example. You can come here from Taiwan and study. You only need a student visa, in my understanding, in most cases if it’s for longer than six months.

This does not protect those institutions that have spent a lot of time building their credibility, their reputation, putting British Columbia on the map as a go-to place for private language instruction from the fly-by-night organizations that don’t have to register. Those accredited schools, those registered schools, have extra burden put on them, and those not-registered schools get to benefit from the reputation put on them.

Again, to the minister, will he consider putting in a definition to specifically define private language schools in British Columbia?
[ Page 6601 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We seem to be dealing with apples and oranges here, mixed metaphors. If a student comes from the European Union, anywhere in the European Union, to a language school in British Columbia, they don’t need a visa. They have a lengthy stay period. They can go skiing. They can pick apples in the Okanagan. They can go to language school for a while. They will have paid their tuition to the language school up front.

[1525]

It begs the question: why would they go to language school A, change their mind after three or four days, as the member suggests, go to language school B and pay twice for the same product when they can come and go from Canada as they please?

A. Weaver: In fact, I was pointing in this case, in the last question, with respect to people who didn’t need a visa. They could come from Taiwan, say, and go to school B that is non-registered. They’re not protected. They don’t require a visa because they’re not here for an extended period of time. They can just enter the language school.

My question to the minister: why would the minister not want to regulate all private language schools instead of only those certain components of them that voluntarily choose to register? This is not protecting students, international foreign language students, because students from some countries can come to B.C. and register into a language school without a visa. It can happen today.

Some of the schools that they’re going to are going to be protected. They’ll be protected because they’re registered. Others won’t be. Those that are not registered, by and large, probably don’t have the same reputation — not in its entirety — as those who have spent the time and money to build that reputation. They’re benefiting from the established reputation of our vibrant private language education sector in B.C.

My question to the minister: why does the minister not want to protect all international students and only just those coming specifically on a student visa — as opposed to visitors, or from those countries that don’t require a student visa to actually attend private language schools here in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise here is finding the balance between a light regulatory burden on schools that do not require government intervention — the living-room classes in Spanish or in English, for that matter, that are conducted informally, that require no regulation that we’re aware of — and the other alternative, on the other end of the spectrum: schools that seek the endorsement of the state, schools that seek to have on their website and in their materials the demonstration that they have met federal student visa qualifications and thereby, as a prerequisite, have met the standards to be designated provincially. Those are major selling points for any school.

In order to have those criteria applied to them and be eligible under those terms, the schools need to meet some regulatory standards because they’re asking for the endorsement of the state, both federal and provincial. That is what this regime does.

K. Corrigan: But what we’ve heard from the Languages Canada schools is that the reality is that that is what is happening already. The concerns that the member has raised are concerns that are happening already, events that are happening already, and this bill does not fix that. The minister seems to acknowledge that.

I wanted to also note that the minister said there were 59 language schools in British Columbia. It looks like almost all of them, if my numbers are correct, are members of Languages Canada, which is the organization which is raising concerns. I could be wrong on that, but it sounded like that was the case.

I wanted to just mention another general concern that I have with this bill. I’m doing all of this under “Definitions,” but they are general concerns. They’re directly relevant to the bill.

Tomorrow the Ombudsperson is going to be releasing a report which appears to be from the press release on exactly the issues that are being raised, the longtime issues and concerns with respect to private training and language training schools in British Columbia.

Certainly, when we were in second reading, I and many other members raised some of the horror stories that have happened because this government brought in PCTIA, the regime that did not work and which was supposed to decrease red tape. Now, apparently, we’re bringing in a regime that’s supposed to decrease red tape again, which is an admission of failure and doesn’t actually make any sense, because we twice in a row have red tape being cut.

[1530]

My concern is that we now have a report coming out tomorrow from the Ombudsperson on this very subject, on private training schools and language schools in British Columbia.

My question to the minister is: given that we have a report coming out now, why is it that government would not have delayed this legislation and let all of the public see what was in that report prior to the legislation passing?

My understanding is that now that it’s been introduced, we won’t be able to see the legislation before it either passes or doesn’t pass. I think that’s very unfortunate. The timing’s unfortunate. Certainly, if we could get a look at the report, it would inform debate, which I think is good for everybody.

I’m wondering about why the debate has been timed in such a way that the Ombudsperson’s report, which presumably will point to many, many concerns from students, is going to be coming out after debate of this bill.
[ Page 6602 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I had the pleasure of meeting with the Ombudsperson a couple of weeks ago. The priority was to get a new regime in place to deal with management of private colleges, and particularly private career colleges, so that it could be moved out of the PCTIA regime back into government. That’s exactly what we’re doing here.

Just to clarify an issue that the member referred to — of going from a regulatory, light-touch regime under PCTIA to one that she talks about reducing the regulatory burden under the new PTA regime. In fact, as I’ve said many times now, an institution that seeks to be designated will have to go through a regulatory regime, will have to pass through thresholds, will have to contribute to the tuition protection fund. Then after they’ve established their bona fides and a track record of reliability, their regulatory and financial burden will be reduced so that they can operate as they should — as a strong, reliable member of our educational business community.

K. Corrigan: Well, I just do want to point out…. I don’t think I have the press release associated with this bill in front of me, but I do believe that the press release said that red tape was once again going to be cut. We know that government has talked repeatedly about red tape being cut and that this was going to save money, that it’s going to be more efficient and so on.

My point was simply: that’s exactly, exactly what government said when it brought in PCTIA, the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, in the first place. It said exactly the same thing. It said that the purpose of this is it will “bring British Columbia in line with other provinces by once again reducing government regulation and allowing the private post-secondary sector to take greater responsibility for their actions.”

So it’s been said twice. The point is that bringing it in and getting rid of it — government has said they’re both good moves.

A. Weaver: I rise on a point of order.

In light of the issue that was brought to us momentarily ago by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, that the Ombudsperson’s report is being released tomorrow, it behooves this chamber and MLAs within to hear the results of this report — this report that’s been in the works for quite some time — prior to debating this bill.

We checked with the Clerk’s office earlier today to see whether or not such a point of order would be in order — to actually raise it. Obviously, I can’t determine what the result is. But we have not as a House, as a chamber, got the information before us that we as a chamber need in order to debate and discuss the merits of this bill further. That will be available to us in this chamber tomorrow, after the Ombudsperson’s report is released.

[1535]

There is no reason for us to be debating this in committee today. The reason this is happening today, I don’t know. We have several weeks to go in the sitting of the Legislature. We can debate this and examine this more closely in committee stage once we have the information provided to us by the Ombudsman’s report.

With that, I leave it to your fine judgment, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Member, the point of order is not acceptable. It doesn’t qualify under the usage of the standing orders.

K. Corrigan: I think that I have, in a general way, expressed the great concerns that I have and that Languages Canada and its 65 public and private institution members have expressed about this bill. Also the 30 or so members that are represented by the B.C. Career Colleges Association and the 20 or so members that are represented by the Vancouver Island Private Accredited Colleges — all very concerned.

All have said that they do not believe that this bill solves the problems that are supposed to be solved in terms of protecting students, making sure we have a vibrant but predictable, safe and attractive private training industry. They don’t believe that the problems are being solved. They believe that this bill is not a good bill — some of whom sit on the minister’s advisory council.

That’s a general comment. But with that, I would like to start actually asking more specific questions about the provisions of the bill itself.

Since we’re on part 1, definitions, the definition of, for example, “compliance standards.” It says it means “standards respecting education, administration and finances prescribed by regulation.” This is one of the first sections. I mean, there are many of them.

How is it possible that we can have a debate about whether or not the regime that is being put in place, the framework, is appropriate if we don’t know what the compliance standards are going to be? “Simply trust us that we’re going to put in standards.”

Neither we, asking questions on behalf of the public, nor the very language schools and private training schools that are going to be subject to those standards…. None of us can actually know what those standards are going to be. I’m very concerned about that, and I’m wondering about why it is that we have no idea what the standards are going to be.

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

Regulations are a far more flexible and sensible way to
[ Page 6603 ]
manage these issues. As I say, they’re to be developed in concert with the sector so that we can have a flexible regime that will be responsive over time.

K. Corrigan: I certainly understand and appreciate the minister’s response. But the industry itself has said that it’s uncomfortable with legislation that is so vague and so wide open that they have absolutely no idea what is planned. To say, “We pass the legislation first. Trust us. We’re going to figure out everything else, the meat” is the way the minister himself described what is going to happen later, and the industry itself is not satisfied with that. I’m wondering if the minister has a comment on that.

[1540]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, in an industry that’s as dynamic and as variable as this one, to attempt to record the entire regime of their practices in a statute would lead to something as big as the Income Tax Act, and it would be completely inflexible.

The only viable approach to this is to develop enabling legislation and then to develop the regulations in concert with the industry, which is what we’re doing.

K. Corrigan: I want to go to another definition: “‘career training institution’ means an institution that provides or intends to provide a career training program.” Just for clarification, because of the earlier discussion that we’ve had about language schools, my understanding is that career-training institutions and career-training programs, as defined by this act, do not include language schools.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As mentioned earlier, section 5 of the act does actually capture language schools which seek designation either for their reputational enhancement, which would be an extraordinarily strong selling tool in this marketplace, or for the federal student visa eligibility program.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, and I do recognize that section 5 does provide that institutions may apply under that section to get a designation certificate or to get a designation certificate if they want to have those provisions apply to them.

My question, though, is…. Just to be clear: apart from section 5, by definition, language schools are not included in the definition of “career training institution” or “career training program.” It does not…. Unless someone voluntarily seeks a designation, they would not be included under this act. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member’s premise is correct in that language schools seeking designation are captured by the regulatory regime. One that does not seek designation is not.

K. Corrigan: This is just for my own understanding. There will be many, many other types of programs that will be captured because, by definition, they fall under “career training institution” or “career training program” or “career-related program of instruction.” Is that is correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, the member’s premise is correct — that a large array of career-training institutions will be captured. The operative definition here is “career training program” because that is part of the definition of “career training institution.”

These career-training programs are obviously the ones designed to provide skills to the student that suggest that they will have increased their marketability in the workforce.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that.

I wanted to ask about the definition about the use of the new term “designation certificate.” Some of the language schools — a fair number of the language schools, I believe…. Perhaps they’re umbrella organizations, but I’m not sure about that. But certainly what has been raised, and also by training schools, is that they are concerned about the change of the term from “accreditation” to “designation.”

I’m wondering if the minister could explain what that means in terms of the changes and whether or not it’s just a term that is being changed or whether everything else is the same.

[1545]

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

This not being in any way related to hospitals, the conclusion was it’s time to get a proper term that describes what we’re doing rather than adopting an American term which can be full of cultural overtones. “Designation” was chosen as the appropriate term to demonstrate that the institution is compliant with the regime.

K. Corrigan: Do not Languages Canada schools describe their members who have gone through the process that they require…? Do they not call them accredited schools? I’m not sure of this. I’m just asking the question.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the term “accreditation” is available to use by private sector organizations and trade organizations as they please. What we’re talking about here is the role of government in providing that seal of credibility which attaches to the term. As I say, we elected to use the term “designation” rather than “ac-
[ Page 6604 ]
creditation.” It’s a fairly arbitrary choice. “Accreditation,” as I say, has become laden with American influences as to exactly what it means.

K. Corrigan: I’m a little surprised at that. I would have thought that the term “accreditation,” which was a term that at some point, at least, was used for universities and colleges and for talking about being accredited institutions, accredited programs…. I thought that was a term that rather than being laden with problems was, in fact, a term that would make one think the standards were a little bit higher.

I would have thought of accreditation as perhaps being something that was a little bit more desirable a term and that would provide more comfort to a student coming and to say: “Oh, this is an accredited institution.” That gives me more comfort than designation, which is a much more nebulous kind of term.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is actually not a term that’s used for British Columbia public institutions. It’s only when they apply for American accreditation for sports or other purposes. It’s not used in professional schools in Canada. It’s not used in our university system. It’s not used by the ministry in any other context. It is a somewhat arbitrary choice of term, but as I say, “designation” was selected because it does not carry the social baggage that “accreditation” does.

K. Corrigan: It wouldn’t have been my natural interpretation of the word.

Did the minister or ministry staff, then, receive any kind of feedback, positive or negative, about changing that term from “accreditation” to “designation”?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The choice of term was not part of consultation with the sector.

K. Corrigan: I just want to get it clear, then. The minister is saying that the term “designation” was chosen, and the change from the longstanding term that was in the act for the last decade, at least, I guess was because it was seen as a negative connotation? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s rare that I can say the member is wrong, but on this occasion she is.

There is nothing positive or negative about this term. It’s simply a term that is deemed to be useful for ministry purposes to establish it as a British Columbia term that is not laden with cultural overlay in the kinds of accreditations that are generated by numerous organizations in the United States. I might note that “accreditation” is not a term that’s used in Europe. It’s a heavily American term.

[1550]

K. Corrigan: Was there any thought that keeping the term “accreditation” would suggest that there was a greater level of oversight and process associated with somebody achieving that accreditation, that it would be too high a standard because it was associated with American universities or other institutions? Has that got anything to do…? I’m just trying to understand why the term was changed.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again — perhaps I’m not making myself clear — the choice was somewhat arbitrary. It was elected to move away from the term “accredited” because it is a term that is widely used in American institutions of varying quality, from the very best to rather poor. So rather than confuse the picture by adopting that American term, the premise was to develop a specific term for these uses, and that is “designation.”

K. Corrigan: Again, we could deal with this later, but some of the questions that I’ve had with respect to this act talk about which types of institutions would fall underneath the act and which ones don’t. That would be: what is a career training program? What is a career training institution?

The question that I was asked to ask is: why are yoga schools subject to the regulatory regime, but Pilates and martial arts schools, for example, are not?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The third definition under the definition section is that of “career occupation,” which means “an occupation described in the current edition of the National Occupational Classification,” which is an extensive statistical tool used to measure labour force statistics. So if a particular calling in life falls into that category, it becomes part of the career training focus here. If it does not, it will be outside the regime.

There’s a further pair of criteria to be met to be included in this legislation. That is the $1,000 fee and a 40-hour-minimum program. If any of those three are not met, then the program falls outside this course.

So when I go to my Pilates class, sporadically, for an hour a month and pay $10, it won’t be part of this.

K. Corrigan: Okay. Just to be clear, if it falls under one of the career occupations that are included in the national occupational classification, then that automatically, if the other criteria were met, would mean that they would come under the provisions of the act — is that correct? — along with the other two. Is that right?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer to that is yes, although there is the ability to exempt in special circumstances so that any particular nuanced arrangement, perhaps an international visitor teaching Pilates for 40 hours, might be exempted. But the premise is yes, if those three criteria are met.
[ Page 6605 ]

K. Corrigan: The minister mentioned a second ago that if somebody goes to a Pilates school once a month or whatever, but yoga schools that people go to once a month…. So I guess for this interested citizen, they don’t understand how it is.

[1555]

I appreciate the answer that it’s whether it falls under the national occupational classification or not. But why is it that a yoga school instructor is part of the national occupational classification, and a Pilates instructor or martial arts instructor or school is not?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re at a bit of a loss here for the latest iteration of the federal initials that used to be HRDC and has gone through many different iterations as to what the federal department is right now. We’re just looking it up on the web.

That is the body that is the author and manager of the national occupational classification, which is obviously used for a whole series of granting programs, social programs and so forth. It’s operated by Employment and Social Development Canada — ESDC, I guess, being the latest iteration — and Statistics Canada and their successors, as amended from time to time. I am also informed that Pilates instructors are captured in the NOC.

V. Huntington: I’m interested in canvassing the relationship between “career-related program of instruction,” “career training institution” and “excluded institution.” Could the minister tell me whether an excluded institution under contract to a private company to provide a career-related course would be captured by any element of the act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The section 1 definition of “excluded institution,” as can be read there, includes boards of education, the School Act and so forth. The question, as I understand it, is: if they were to hire someone to offer a component of their program, would that be excluded?

Apparently I am misunderstanding the question. Perhaps the member would care to restate it.

V. Huntington: That’s a good question for the minister to answer — his own comment. Mine specifically was: if the excluded institution had a relationship with a company that was providing students for a course that was offered by that excluded institution, would that institution then be covered by this act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I believe the member’s question is: if, for instance, a school board were out recruiting students, would the recruiter be captured by this act? The answer is no. This is about instructional content and tuition being paid. This is addressed to institutions as described in the definitions that actually provide career-related program instruction.

V. Huntington: I’ll be quite specific in my concern, then. It has to do with an issue that my office was certainly involved in at length, and perhaps other offices, where a college, now I believe a university, was providing a course of instruction — a career-related program of instruction — and was providing it to students that were being sent and registered in the program by a private firm. Most of these students were from offshore. This company, as it turned out, had falsified many of the entry qualifications for these students with the excluded institution.

[1600]

The students were absolutely doomed to failure in the course. They lost everything — thousands of dollars. I’m wondering if the act, in any way, protects students in a situation like that, which may or may not be unique. I don’t know. But it was a very serious situation that impacted a number of students. I’m concerned that that situation could arise again, and there may be nothing that captures it.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is rather a complicated answer. An institution that is providing career-training programs that is not excluded is captured by this regime. Their offshore agents are far beyond our jurisdiction and are not captured by this regime. But if the school makes a representation or a misrepresentation in its materials to the student, then the student, assuming that they are in British Columbia to claim their remedy, does have a remedy.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to go back to something that the minister just mentioned in response, a question or two ago.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The minister mentioned recruiters. Again, this is not with relation to a specific section of the act, although I guess we could ask questions about it under section 5, the section that gives language schools, or other schools, an opportunity to apply for a certificate voluntarily.

I’ll ask it now because the many language schools that I’ve heard from, at least some of them, have specifically mentioned that recruiters and the role of recruiters or agents are not dealt with in this legislation. There is a real concern about that.

By way of comparison, the International Education Act from Manitoba has many sections about recruiters. Their legislation does seek to, in some way, address the issue of recruiters. For example, the minister can “prescribe a code of practice and conduct.” And the purpose is “to provide consistent standards for (a) designated education providers in providing programs of education or training to international students; and (b) recruiters in recruiting prospective international students.”

The content of the code could include “recruitment,
[ Page 6606 ]
including, without limitation, the use of recruiters and the imposition of obligations (such as professional and ethical obligations) on them.”

“A recruiter must comply with the code of practice….”

This is all in the legislation. It says, in addition, that a designated education provider “must establish and maintain a list of all the provider’s recruiters and recruitment agencies and publish that list on its website and in any other prescribed manner.”

Section 21(2) provides for a prohibition against knowingly permitting recruiters to contravene the act, etc.

The recruiters or the agents, from my understanding, are a real issue. Having some kinds of controls over recruiters is a real issue, from some people’s perspectives, in British Columbia.

[1605]

Unfortunately, unlike the legislation in Manitoba, the bill before us does not, in any way, deal with recruiters — at least, that’s my understanding — and I’m wondering if the minister could explain why.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Sections 41 and 42 of the act do address this issue in terms of creating offences under the titles “Prohibition on false or misleading representations” and “Prohibition on false or misleading information.”

Clearly, this is directed at the school which is in our jurisdiction and the school’s contact agents and others overseas. Our only remedies are against the school. We do not have jurisdiction to discipline agents in Asia or Europe or anywhere else in the world. And so our remedies and the students’ remedies are directed toward the presence of the school here in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: Well, Manitoba seems to believe that it can take steps. It’s not in regulation. It’s right there in the act. It seems to me that although recruiters and agents may be overseas…. They may not be, but they may be overseas, and they would be overseas in the case of Manitoba as well, I would think. Or they may be.

It then places some responsibility on the schools, if nothing else, to take a role, to have a role in terms of maintaining lists of recruiters, making sure that they follow a code of conduct. So I’m just wondering why the minister felt that this was impossible to do or not an appropriate thing to do in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In fact, under subsection 41(2), there is an offence created whereby an institution “must not engage in advertising or make a representation that is false, deceptive or misleading or otherwise prohibited by regulation.”

Now, it’s a rather convoluted factual analysis whether an agent in Korea or Taiwan is actually acting as their legal agent, thereby triggering an offence by the institution here in Canada, or whether that person making representations in Taiwan or Korea is actually at arm’s length and is simply seeking some kind of commission. That is a matter for the courts, but certainly our legislation provides for prosecution of these individuals and their institutions here in British Columbia.

Manitoba may have engaged in some overreaching to impress the local audience, but given they have no jurisdiction offshore, it’s very hard to believe that they would have a viable mechanism for enforcing it. We have chosen to make two robust prohibitions on false or misleading representations or information with the intent of actually enforcing them on everyone who is vulnerable to enforcement here in our jurisdiction.

V. Huntington: If I understand the minister, section 42, in particular, because it’s not referring to an institution, would in fact capture a recruiter, a company, a recruiter resident in British Columbia who provided false or misleading information on a student to an institution that was providing a career-related program.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The legal use of the term “person” applies to a legal person or its equivalent. That can be a company or a partnership — there is a wide variety of circumstances that could apply — as well as to a human being. So “person” is designed as a catch-all term to impose this prohibition on any person, object, company or otherwise with legal powers.

V. Huntington: Just to continue with subsection 42(1), then: “A person must not provide false or misleading information when required or authorized under this Act to provide information.” That would cover all issues surrounding the support or the application of a student to an institution for a career-related program?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The prohibition on a person, including a company, partnership or otherwise — any legal person — is that they must not provide false or misleading information, as required under the act.

[1610]

Of course, our jurisdiction being limited to British Columbia, we would be imposing that on all legal persons in British Columbia, no matter what form they take. If they were using agents offshore, that could conceivably be used to prosecute a legal person of whatever format here in British Columbia, but we would not be attempting to prosecute someone in Taiwan, because it would be futile.

The Chair: While I do recognize how we got to an in-depth discussion on section 41 — and the Chair would be pleased if we were indeed on section 41 — I’ll remind members that we’re currently on section 1.

V. Huntington: I’m referring, therefore, to the definition of “recruiter” that is lacking from these definitions in section 1. I’m just trying to ensure that a student who was
[ Page 6607 ]
accepted to an excluded institution on the merits of the paperwork provided by a recruiter — who’s not mentioned in the definitions, section 1, but who is resident in British Columbia — would then be protected under this act.

I’m more interested in whether the student — who is part and parcel of an illegal application, if you will, because the information provided is incorrect or misleading — remains protected and can be fully restored for the cost of the tuition.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: If I understand the question correctly, the premise is that a student is admitted to an excluded institution under false pretences, and the false pretences have been aided and abetted and exacerbated by some kind of agent, whether in British Columbia or elsewhere. This legislation restricts the non-excluded institutions and manages their affairs through a regulatory regime. The student may have access to a student protection fund, but that does not apply to excluded institutions.

If the student in the member’s example is somehow out of pocket for their tuition and travel costs to get here at an excluded institution which they cannot be admitted to because of their fraudulent credentials, then that student would presumably have some kind of remedy for fraud — or deceit, at least — against the recruiter. But the institution is not involved. The institution did not fail in any of its purposes, and in this case, we’re talking about private training institutions, not excluded institutions.

V. Huntington: I’m just going to say that in the case that I’ve dealt with, the suit was against the institution for the tuition. There was basically nothing they could do against the recruiter. It was a very complex and complicated situation in which a lot of foreign students — not only foreign students, but many foreign students — were financially devastated. They had to go home. There’s a little anomaly here that I’m concerned doesn’t protect people. However, without the definition of “recruiter,” we’ll have to see how it turns out, I guess.

K. Corrigan: With regard to the definitions, I just was going to get examples, just so I understand what types of institutions are excluded from the operation of the Private Training Act, which is primarily for private training schools that provide diplomas or courses, career-training programs.

Many institutions are excluded — school boards, francophone education authorities, independent schools and many other types of organizations. But one of the subsections that provides for an exclusion is “an institution that is authorized by a consent under the Degree Authorization Act and offers only degree programs to which the consent applies.” I’m wondering if the minister could give me an example of what is being referenced in subsection (j).

[1615]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This refers to those private degree-granting institutions, examples of which include Quest University in Squamish; the Vancouver branch of Fairleigh Dickinson University, which is a fairly large concern based in New Jersey; City University, based in Seattle, and so forth.

K. Corrigan: Then similarly under subsection (k) another excluded category of institution is “an institution established or continued under an Act and authorized under that Act to grant or confer degrees.” Is this sort of an enabling subsection, or are there examples of institutions that would fall under subsection (k) now?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that at least two institutions, Trinity Western University and Quest University, have their own arrangements under subsection (k), but they would also fit into the category under subsection (j).

K. Corrigan: Then subsection (l), another excluded category is “a professional organization established by an Act in respect of a program of instruction, if the program of instruction is part of professional requirements or is for the purpose of professional development.”

Would this be referring to, for example, articles with the Law Society, getting the accounting…? We’ve just spend days talking about the accounting field. Would it be those kinds of arrangements?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As is often the case, the member opposite is correct. This refers to training programs such as for the certified public accountants, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the Law Society.

K. Corrigan: Under “institution” the definition of “institution” is “(a) a person who provides or intends to provide a program of instruction, and (b) in relation to compliance with and enforcement of this Act and the regulations, a person who provided a program of instruction, other than an excluded institution.”

My question for the minister is: what if the institution is foreign or if it’s from another province or another country and offers on-line instruction in British Columbia? What would be the status of on-line programs of instruction that otherwise would be career-training institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is actually a very thoughtful question in that in the modern era these things are offered around the world. The act will regulate institutions which are based in British Columbia which provide on-line learning, which do exist. They will be fully regulated under this regime. But those that are regulated in other jurisdictions — because anyone can sign on the web any time — are not capable of regulation from here.
[ Page 6608 ]

K. Corrigan: Sorry, that was just a listening thing. I didn’t…. Could the minister maybe just re-explain? If it’s something that’s offered here? It’s sourced here? What are the circumstances?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, this is a very pertinent question because in the modern era when web-based tools are provided as career training from an institution based in British Columbia, whether a corporate registry or physical presence or otherwise, then they are squarely within the regulatory framework of this act. If they’re based in another jurisdiction entirely and someone in British Columbia signs on, uses their tools and pays them, perhaps, a fee, those are not captured by this regime.

K. Corrigan: Well, that’s a reasonable answer.

[1620]

I’m wondering whether or not the minister is concerned about whether or not organizations might intentionally use another jurisdiction, set up in another jurisdiction while at the same time targeting clients in British Columbia and use that other jurisdiction simply because it knows that there is no or a very lax regulatory framework. Is this something that the minister is concerned about?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This issue is an important one in this era, but it goes back to the fundamental legal issues of jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction over activities within our boundaries in this province — whether there’s a corporate registration here or a physical presence or the guiding minds are here — but if an organization from Guyana sets up with Canadian flags and British Columbia flags stuck on the front and offers courses to anyone in the world who signs on, we have no jurisdiction over their activities, even though they may hold themselves out as being somehow linked to British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: There are some other concepts or definitions that are in the definition section that are also in other sections. I won’t deal with too many more of them right now, but I wanted to just ask a little bit about the “tuition” definition.

The definition is: “‘tuition’ means the total of the fees a person must pay to an institution in respect of a program of instruction, but does not include the following: (a) administrative fees; (b) application fees; (c) assessment fees; (d) fees charged for textbooks or other course materials, including equipment and uniforms; (e) any other fees prescribed by regulation.”

One of the concerns that I’ve heard expressed — it’s not necessarily to do with the old act versus the new act but a problem with private training schools — is that a lot of the costs or a lot of the burden is transferred over to administrative fees and away from tuition.

Therefore, when you’re looking at the designation…. Whether or not a school gets the amount of money and the amount of revenue that would take it over the threshold — that it needs to be a designated school and come under the act or a school that comes under the act — artificially money is being transferred away from tuition to some of these other application fees and administrative fees in order to avoid that obligation.

I’m wondering if the minister has thought about that, considered that, and whether or not that is indeed an issue.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again the member opposite brings up a very valid concern, that an institution may push the overall financial cost into the fees category to bring itself below the $1,000 threshold in tuition.

The existing regime under PCTIA provides a reasonableness test for allocation of tuition and fees to avoid or to regulate that behaviour. The expectation is that the regulations in the new act, under the PTA, will do exactly that so that this inappropriate reclassification of tuition into the fees category will not be tolerated.

K. Corrigan: I’m paraphrasing, but one of the comments made earlier by the minister was essentially that when it comes to international agents, those agents are often in other countries, and we have no control over the activities of those agents.

[1625]

The payment of fees is often done overseas as well. I’m wondering how it is contemplated that this act is going to address the issue that sometimes all the money transactions take place overseas, that it’s difficult to get the information about what is administrative, what is an assessment and so on, to get this teased out, and whether or not this will be a problem under this act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise of the act, the section referring to tuition, is that these are tuition items and fees that are payable to the institution regardless of what’s payable to an agent.

Of course, the member opposite is well versed in the extreme complexity of the law of agency. If an agent were captured by the British Columbia law of agency and then becomes accountable through their principal — that is, the institution — then there would be a liability attached to that. But the working premise here is that this definition applies to essentially any and all revenue that is acquired by the institution that is regulated by this act.

A. Weaver: With respect to “tuition” again, I notice that (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are there. But I was wondering to what extent the minister feels comfortable about…. Could he perhaps provide justification as to why room and board fees are not attached to this term here?
[ Page 6609 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that these are fees that are paid in a contract, the terms of which are regulated by PCTIA now, and will continue to be regulated, for the contract for tuition. A contract for food is quite separate. A contract for a place to sleep is another thing that’s quite separate. Room and board is not included here, on the premise that it’s a separate contract. The student may decide to sleep and eat somewhere else.

V. Huntington: It’s just a very brief question under “excluded institution.” Subsection (k) refers to “an institution established or continued under an Act and authorized under that Act to grant or confer degrees.” Can the minister give us some sense of what that might be applying to, what subsection (k) is applying to?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I stated about five minutes ago that this refers specifically to Trinity Western University and Quest University, which are also captured under subsection (j).

A. Weaver: Coming back to the definition of “excluded institution.” This was canvassed very thoroughly by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. I do have an amendment I wish to add here, hon. Chair, in light of the fact that, as we’ve had a great amount of discussion concerning private language education institutions and the fact that both the organizations representing them, as well as the members on this side of the House, have grave concerns about this particular bill and its potential handling of these private language education institutions.

The amendment that I bring forward is under “excluded institution.”

[By adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 1 - Definitions

“excluded institution” means any of the following

(n) a private language education institution]

On the amendment.

The Chair: Proceed, Member. Do you have anything further?

Minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We do not support this amendment. So perhaps there should be debate on the amendment. We’d be interested in hearing what the member opposite has to say, and I suppose it’ll proceed to a vote.

[1630]

A. Weaver: It’s unusual not to debate a motion more thoroughly. I, of course, brought this amendment forward in light of the fact that there have been a number of questions with respect to private language education institutions not being listed in the definitions and so falling under section 5 of the act. Then the questions arose as to the fact that only some language education institutions would have to register. Others would not have to. The visa issue is complex, because some students require student visas and some don’t, depending how long you’re here, what country you’re from.

The fact here is that this legislation does not regulate the entire private language education sector. It only regulates those who voluntarily agree to actually seek registration. So it’s punitive, one might argue, to those who actually want to live by the so-called law of the land and meet higher standards — punitive in that it requires them to create funds through tuition funds, etc., to protect students. We’re all for protecting students, but others can get away with it.

I think that if we’re going to move forward, at a minimum, while there are other issues with the bill, we need to actually pull apart private language institutions from this bill and take more time to more thoughtfully come up with means and ways of providing legislation that actually will deal with the regulation of the private language sector.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment proposed by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Amendment negatived on division.

K. Corrigan: I actually believe that’s all the questions that I have on section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

K. Corrigan: Section 2 is part of Part 2, which is to do with certified institutions. Division 1 deals with the requirement for a certificate under the Private Training Act: “Certificate required to provide career training programs.” Section 2 says:

“Unless an institution holds a certificate under this Act, the institution must not offer to provide, enter into a contract with a student to provide, or provide a career-related program of instruction for which (a) the tuition is equal to or greater than the amount prescribed by regulation, and (b) the instructional time is equal to or greater than the duration prescribed by regulation.”

I’m wondering if the minister could explain this section and what those thresholds are.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As stated earlier today, the three thresholds are: whether the institution is providing training within the current edition of the national occupational classification, plus the current regime has a tuition of more than $1,000, plus instructional time equal to or greater than 40 hours per week. That is the existing regime under PCTIA. The anticipation is to take that to
[ Page 6610 ]
consultation with the sector, and that will be the starting premise for the development of regulations.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister aware of whether or not there are a number of schools that charge right on $1,000 — an inordinate number of schools charging $1,000? Is that considered to be a problem — that schools not only charging $1,000 or less…? My understanding is that sometimes schools would take modules of a course and stack them together, essentially, and charge X number of dollars — something less than $1,000, maybe.

[1635]

You know, $200 for this, $200, $200, $200 — if you added them up, they would add up to more than $1,000. But if you take them individually, they don’t. So they then are not required to get a certificate, because they don’t meet that threshold.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The experience with that issue to date, which is known in the trade as bundling, has been that PCTIA has sought and obtained an injunction on that very issue, to at least engage the courts in restricting or prohibiting the behaviour that the member opposite suggests would be inappropriate.

K. Corrigan: Perhaps that answer then raises another question, a more general question. Is it the expectation of the minister, and does the legal advice that the minister has received in framing this act…? Would things like the injunction then continue on with whatever legal decisions had been made and so on? I do think there’s actually reference to this later in the act to some degree. Is it expected that that kind of thing would continue to operate under the new act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise is yes. The point was made. The injunction was obtained. Under the new regime within the ministry we intend to continue that practice.

K. Corrigan: I believe the threshold of number of hours per week which would require a career-training program to have a certificate, to be certified under this act…. I believe the minister just talked about 40 hours per week. No? Okay, maybe I can get a clarification of what is meant — oh, 40 hours total for a program.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The three criteria, again: the NOC classification, the $1,000 threshold on tuition and a program of 40 hours total instruction. If the 40 hours is spread out over a month or a year, it still qualifies for regulation.

K. Corrigan: Going back to the issue of institutions trying to avoid the framework and trying to avoid the requirement that there be certification, it seems to me that it would be easier for an institution to break up course programs into smaller chunks in order to avoid that 40-hour threshold. I’m just wondering if this has been dealt with — whether the injunction dealt with that kind of issue. It seems like it would be very difficult to do.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this is, again, a bit of a balance in that if a student wants to take business 1, business 2, business 3 and business 4, and if they’re charged for all four of them to avoid the accusation of bundling — that is, to bring them into the regime — and the student decides that they’re not cut out for a career in business after taking business 1, then the student complains that they paid $4,000 in tuition when they should have had it cut up into sections to find out if they would pass the course and if they were any good at the program.

We’re very much aware of that balance. The goal is to seek out inappropriate bundling by carving fees up into sections of less than $1,000 and to pursue those as necessary with the regulatory regime or in the courts.

K. Corrigan: This raises another issue that I was hoping to raise in this discussion. The minister just mentioned wanting to monitor, wanting to regulate, wanting to be able to know what was going on and investigations. There is provision for investigations and all sorts of other things — monitoring and so on — later in the act.

[1640]

What is the budget for bringing the Private Training Act back into the ministry? I know it’s already partially done, but what is the budget, and what kind of enforcement and monitoring mechanisms is the ministry going to have in place in order to make sure that this act can be enforced?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current operating budget for the PCTIA organization is roughly $3 million a year, entirely funded by the sector. One can presume that the budget will be in a similar range, but with government’s efficiencies, it may be less, and with a regime that develops the regulations, it may be more. It would be quite speculative to guess what range it would be in, but one can see that with a history of a $3 million per year budget, that’s the ballpark one is looking at.

K. Corrigan: Where is the funding going to come from? Is it from the ministry budget?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This will be a cost recovery regime from the participating institutions.

K. Corrigan: I think I’ll just wait and go on to section 3 in a minute.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.
[ Page 6611 ]

K. Corrigan: Section 3 says that a designation certificate is required for some training institutions. Section 2 required a certificate, but it wasn’t necessarily a designation certificate. I’m wondering if the minister would explain exactly what it is in these provisions that would require a designation certificate for an institution.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In clarification, this is for institutions seeking to hold a designation certificate. Under section 3(1)(b), this will be for certain callings in life, such as pharmacy technician — those that carry a certain kind of professional import and content out into the community once they’re awarded. Those will have to be provided by designated institutions.

[1645]

Under (3)(1)(a), the premise is that there will be a tuition threshold there that we will sort out in regulations. Arbitrarily, $750,000 or $1 million in total revenue taken in by the institution — they will require a designation certificate in order to carry on business.

K. Corrigan: Those institutions that went over those thresholds — either that the tuition revenue was high enough or that they offered certain types of training programs, like pharmacy technician — would have to get a designation certificate. But it refers to the certificate being for the whole institution. I’m trying to understand what that means. That means that the institution, then, as a whole…. It might offer a variety of different types of courses.

If an institution was offering, say, pharmacy technician, but it also offered a number of other courses, it would have to get a designation certificate for the whole of the college. Is that correct? If so, what would that mean in terms of the other programs that it offered?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The designation status, as we’ve covered for roughly the last three hours, is a higher level of engagement with this act than is basic registration. Designation is required in this particular section when the institution is offering these specialized programs and holding itself out as being able to train people adequately for those publicly important roles or when they pass a threshold of revenue from tuition.

Again, if we work with arbitrary numbers, if an institution is registered and successfully gets out in the marketplace and finds it has a million dollars in tuition revenue, it has to meet the higher standard then. Presumably, a successful institution would anticipate this and seek designation and not find itself in a spot where it couldn’t carry on business because it was too successful and needed to wait until it had designation status.

K. Corrigan: A couple more questions on this section. If the institution then had, in the example we’re using, the pharmacy technician program but it also had other types of programs, what would be the responsibilities of the institution with regard to those other types of programs that would only require a registration certificate? Would all the requirements that apply in the case of a designation certificate apply to those other programs within the school, even though they were not pharmacy tech programs or other prescribed programs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct in that the entire institution must be designated if it either goes into specific programs like pharmacy technician or if it reaches a certain tuition revenue threshold — the premise being, of course, that if an institution is designated enough to provide pharmacy technicians, the students themselves and the community at large may not make the distinction between a designated program and a designated institution. So the premise is that the whole institution should be designated if it’s going to be designated at all.

K. Corrigan: Then all the reporting requirements and the obligations that fall to a designated institution or program would fall to each one of those programs — all the requirements with regard to all of those programs, whether or not they were programs that would need to be designated? I’m trying to figure out what extra regulatory burden it might impose upon a school that wants to provide a variety of private career-training programs and what that means to them if they include the pharmacy tech type of program.

[1650]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The designation status arises when an institution has been reviewed and found to be meeting certain thresholds in terms of the quality of the staff, the training of the staff, the quality of the programs offered, the financial wherewithal of the institution, the facilities offered and so forth. The premise is that if a student in Saskatoon or Singapore is looking on a website and they see that it’s a designated institution, they can take some comfort in knowing that it’s operating at a higher standard than one that is simply registered.

This is part and parcel of being able to offer a pharmacy technician course, because our own community needs to be satisfied that that pharmacy technician training is at a higher standard than simply asserting that the institution knows how to train pharmacy technicians.

K. Corrigan: I’m going to read a submission that was given to me by the group that I was talking about earlier that has 20 members in it, the Vancouver Island group that was concerned about provisions. I’m not entirely clear what this is asking, but I think I’ll just read it, because I think it’s important to express the concerns of this group. It says, with regard to sections 2 and 3:

“The bill does not effectively distinguish the various and distinct contract and regulatory relationships involved with training, stu-
[ Page 6612 ]
dent finance and immigration. There appears to be an assumption that loan non-payment or study permit risks can be significantly resolved with institution designations, despite the fact that the institution has limited influence over students, and it cannot be legally responsible for risks they don’t contribute to. They only control training services they provide in the contract period.”

That sounds fair enough.

Then the second concern is:

“Core prohibitions, no training without a certificate, relate to both registration and designation certificates. Designation does not refer to loan or study permit designations. There’s no requirement for distinct standards, for distinct certificates and risks, even though risks associated with quality service delivery are different than risks associated with loan defaults and immigration fraud, where the student is the primary source of risk and not the party protected, as with service quality regulations.”

I put that to the minister, and I’m wondering what the response is to this concern from the constituents.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I understand the question, which had many facets to it, the essence of it is how much an institution can be accountable for the outcomes of the students once the students are out in the workforce and beyond the confines of the institution.

This will, obviously, be the subject of some interest in the regulation of this sector in that if there is a particular institution showing massive rates of unemployment, default, drunkenness and police activity, that will reflect on the institution. However, if an institution happens to have a normal course rate of student loan defaults or an attrition rate or non-completion rate, then that, obviously, reflects the student body more than the institution itself. All of those things will be, obviously, balanced and taken into account, with a thoughtful approach, within the ministry.

[1655]

K. Corrigan: That organization I don’t want to…. I was talking about the Vancouver Island group. More specifically, it is the Vancouver Island Private Accredited Colleges. It does represent a large number of institutions that do have real concerns.

I’ve raised many of them already, but it does include, as I said earlier, Pacific Design Academy, Aveda Institute, Canadian College of Performing Arts, Academy of Excellence, Westcoast Adventure College, Victoria College of Art, Q College, West Coast College of Massage Therapy, Richard Mar, Tru Spa Institute of Aesthetics, Del Rio Academy of Hair and Esthetics, Excel Career College, Pacific Rim Early Childhood Institute, Pacific Rim College, Discovery Community College, DiveSafe International, Sprott-Shaw College, Academy of Learning and Insignia College.

These are all institutions under this umbrella organization which are opposed to this legislation. They don’t like the legislation. I might take this opportunity just to read in a letter from their lawyer. I did ask the representative from Vancouver Island Private Accredited Colleges specifically if this letter was reflective of all of the members, and I was assured that it was.

It says: “A large and growing number of private colleges have asked me to vigorously seek changes to Bill 7. They include media arts; film; animation, gaming and visual effects; flight training; trades training; ESL colleges” — I list just a few — “automotive training centres in B.C., Ontario and Quebec; Dorset College; Pacific Design Academy; Langley Flying School” — and, of course, in addition, all of the ones that I’ve just mentioned, as well, that are on this list as the Vancouver Island Private Accredited Colleges group.

What they say is:

“The ministry promised there would be access to the bill or a substantive summary of it before its introduction. Many industry leaders and bodies were encouraged to wait and see what the government presented, and they relied on these assurances. These promises were not kept.

“Ministry failures went beyond a lack of communicated vision and substance. Consultations were like one-way Twitter messages. People had to keep comments brief enough to fit on a small yellow piece of paper with a felt pen. Even Twitter allows for return points.

“Here the point would be made, posted on the wall and not followed up with meaningful dialogue or summaries that could be used for later nonexistent dialogue. Events were choreographed to ensure officials never had to answer hard questions.”

I was not there, but this is the feeling that these many, many private institutions or private accredited colleges — they like the word “accredited”; we’ve talked about that somewhat — and other organizations, some of which I have read out…. That’s their feeling about the process. I have a great deal of respect for the staff, but it continues to be the feeling…. And this was written just a few days ago. This was written on March 3, so we’re not talking way back.

I wanted to specifically mention that. It could have been mentioned at any time. But I mention that because it is a feeling from many, many private institutions and one of the reasons that we have real concern about the act.

I don’t know if the minister wants to respond before I ask another question.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We are aware of the letter in question, and fortuitously, it turns out the assistant deputy minister met with the author a number of times prior to him writing the letter, so it seems to be subject to some clarification.

[1700]

K. Corrigan: I want to get back to section 3 specifically, the section that we are on. The problem that we talked about — bundling, as the minister defined it…. The question of bundling that was mentioned both with regard to section 2 and section 3. The problem is that institutions could try to avoid a responsibility to being either designated or registered under this act by unbundling, by separating fees and so on, so that they didn’t hit the threshold, and separating the hours.

Another comment I made earlier was about moving fees over. What is to stop an institution from avoiding the designation requirement in section 3 by simply mov-
[ Page 6613 ]
ing a bunch of the tuition revenue over to administrative fees and, therefore, not reaching the threshold that would require designation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: These matters are scrutinized, as mentioned earlier this afternoon. The premise is that there must be a reasonable test applied to the allocation between tuition and fees so that an institution doesn’t game the system by keeping its tuition below the necessary threshold.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if this has been a problem in the past and, if this act were to pass, what the ministry intends to do to ensure that there is oversight. The responsibility for this, of course, with this act will move into the ministry. My understanding is that the minister has said that it’s going to be a pay-as-you-go. It’s going to be cost recovery. There will be cost recovery, so presumably, it’ll be paid for by the fees that institutions pay. But if they can avoid paying that fee altogether by staying under the threshold, I’m just wondering what kind of monitoring and enforcement capability the minister foresees. Will it be within the ministry itself?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that, this being the private sector, there’s a certain amount of competitive vigour in that institutions that note that others might be engaging in the process of bundling are more than happy to report them to the regulator.

K. Corrigan: I’m pleased that the minister is confident that enforcement and monitoring will be accomplished by way of snitches, but I do believe that that has certainly not been enough in other areas for this government. For example, in the environmental area there have been real concerns that the level of monitoring and the level of oversight have not been sufficient. So surely, the minister is not suggesting that there will not be any enforcement and monitoring — in inspections and so on. I’m trying to get a sense of how much of a commitment there is from the government to undertake inspections and monitoring and enforcement.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Referring the member ahead to section 28 and subsequent, they provide for the appointment of inspectors and inspections and inspections under warrant issued by the superior courts. This is a fairly robust regime consisting not only of competitors — to use a different term than the member opposite applied to them — but also of in-house inspectors. The current PCTIA regime makes use of six paid inspectors.

[1705]

K. Corrigan: Well, it’s important that the…. I know that there is provision there for inspectors. But the question was…. And I’m sorry. I was looking at something else and got an e-mail and so on. Government bringing it in, therefore, takes on responsibility to make sure that the inspections take place. So there were inspections under PCTIA. Those inspectors are going to be government inspectors, paid for by government? Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer is yes.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

K. Corrigan: Division 2 of part 2, about certified institutions, deals with the issuance of certificates. It says: “(1) An institution may apply in accordance with this Division for a certificate required for the institution to provide a career training program. (2) An application under this section (a) must be for a designation certificate if section 3 applies, and (b) in any other case, may be for either a registration certificate or a designation certificate.”

I’m wondering why it is that whereas in the past act it was imperative, in this act there is more of a use of the word “may.” This would be one example. Would not there be an obligation for an institution to apply if they were required to have it?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here is that if the institution falls within the criteria, which we’ve covered earlier this afternoon, to be required to register — and it may seek a designation beyond registration; it may be required to seek a designation — then it may apply. Then it would be up to the registrar to decide whether or not to issue that certificate. But any institution meeting those criteria is required to get a certificate, and it’s up to them to apply.

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess they always have the choice whether or not they’re going to apply, but if they don’t, they’re not going to get the certificate. Therefore, they’re not going to do that which they are mandatorily required to do.

I’m okay on that section.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

K. Corrigan: We actually probably have dealt with most of the questions that I had with regard to section 5. Section 5, “Other institutions may apply for certificate,” says: “An institution that is not required to hold a certificate may apply in accordance with this Division for a registration certificate or a designation certificate.” So this would apply, for example, to language schools. This is the section — is it not? — that language schools would be covered by if they wanted to get a designation which they are required to get if they want to qualify for the federal loans and visa program.
[ Page 6614 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is essentially correct. This provides a voluntary program for an institution that wants to be validated by being registered or designated and therefore is prepared to pay the fees and engage in the necessary compliance regime.

[1710]

Of course, this means that they would be eligible, as the member opposite says, to seek the visa eligibility with the federal government. There are other benefits, such as being able to receive student financial assistance, if they reach these thresholds and other criteria.

There will be some institutions that don’t meet the threshold for compulsory registration but seek voluntary registration.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister referring specifically to language schools in that case? Or is that any type of school?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s both types.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear then, is the minister saying that a language school which has not reached the tuition threshold, either for individual courses or for annual tuition for the whole institution — if they haven’t done that, then they are not required to be designated? If not, does that mean…? No matter what the size is, do they not have to be designated if they want to be on the ISP-designated list?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise is correct. If an institution wants to get on the federal government’s visa-eligible list, it must be designated. And if it doesn’t meet other criteria, it can still apply for designation here.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that. What that means, then, is that no matter how small a school is, if it wants to get on the ISP-designated list, the federal list, then they have to be designated. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise is again correct. Even if the school is tiny and even if it doesn’t charge a lot of money, if it wants to be eligible for student visas through the federal immigration ministry, then it must be designated provincially, and it would have to voluntarily seek designation.

K. Corrigan: I want to just ask a couple more questions about EQA and maybe get an overview from the minister about what the regulatory differences are, rather than trying to go through every single section. I mean, I can ask as well. What are the differences between EQA that would be achieved in some provinces by going through the Languages Canada process as opposed to what is going to be required under this act in order to get designation? Maybe just an overview of what the differences will be.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The EQA, or education quality assurance, designation is only used in British Columbia. Languages Canada can assist an organization to meet the criteria, of which there are more than a dozen.

[1715]

Languages Canada provides transferrable approval for at least six of those criteria, partial approval for other criteria, and then there are a handful that require work to be done by the institution, which is not subject to validation by Languages Canada. These criteria include operational capacity, financial capacity, student protection, data reporting, administrative and student support services. For instance, ongoing compliance with data reporting is not something that Languages Canada can do for the institution. The institution has to do it itself to maintain its EQA status.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that. I’m going to have to ask a couple more questions because I was just not quite hearing or processing what the minister said. My fault entirely, I’m sure.

Again, the EQA is something…. I thought that that was something that was across Canada, and starting off, the minister said that that is simply a B.C. designation. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: Well, the EQA designation, which designates quality…. Again, maybe I could just get an understanding of the difference between what will be required of a school under the Private Training Act that’s a designated school and what their regulatory requirements will be, as opposed to one getting an EQA designation under Languages Canada.

Has the ministry taken a look at that? I’d just like to understand how much more…. One of the things that I’ve been told by many, many language schools and their representative bodies is that this is going to put a much larger regulatory burden on them. So I’m trying to get a sense of what more they’re going to have to do that they wouldn’t have had to do under EQA.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The historical regime in the recent past has been that British Columbia has issued an EQA certificate to an organization that has fulfilled more than a dozen criteria. As I said moments ago, a half-dozen of those criteria can be fulfilled by their relationship with Languages Canada. Others cannot.

The anticipated regime is very similar, and discussions are underway with Languages Canada about continuing their role as a partial certification for ongoing designation status under the new legislation. Again, some of the criteria would seem to be amenable to Languages Canada certification for something like operating experience, but Languages Canada cannot satisfy the institution’s
[ Page 6615 ]
ongoing data reporting and compliance regime because that’s an ongoing task that is a direct relationship with government.

In summary, the old regime under EQA and the new regime under designation will be very similar, and we’re in contact with Languages Canada on that issue.

K. Corrigan: One of the problems that I’ve mentioned before with the act is that so much is left to regulation, and so much is unclear about the act that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to support it. And that continues.

Part of the problem, I guess, also is that the minister is saying: “Well, we’re in ongoing discussions.” But it seems to me that this is another example of putting the cart before the horse, because that is not clear to either the…. It certainly doesn’t seem to me that it’s clear that there’s a way forward to the language schools at all or exactly what the relationship is going to be between EQA and what has happened in the past and the future.

There is not any sense of comfort in the schools themselves, which is part of the reason that I’m not sure that we’re going to be able to support this act.

It’s very clear, then, that any school that has higher than that threshold for either tuition value or has more than a number of hours and is a language school will need to get a designation certificate.

[1720]

Will it be required to get a designation certificate if it…? What’s going to be the difference for language schools between a registration certificate requirement or a designation certificate? Or do those sizes matter at all? I guess they don’t matter at all, do they?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Coming back to where we were a couple of hours ago, section 5 provides that a designation certificate may be required for an institution and that that is what the language schools require to get their federal visa eligibility. The thresholds for the $1,000 in tuition or the 40 hours of instructional time are not applicable to language schools. Their test for entry into the system is whether they seek designation.

K. Corrigan: Is there an expectation that there will be other types of schools that would, for international purposes or other purposes, be required to get a designation certificate? Is this really referring only to language schools, or does it apply to other areas as well?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the national occupational classification is a rolling ball. It changes over time. That is the threshold criterion for designation as a career-training program, so that will capture the vast majority of training programs. It will not capture language schools because that is not a career-training program within the NOC definition.

Conceivably, there may be other fields of endeavour that don’t fit into either language schools or NOC classifications which could come into play and would be subject to the thresholds. But over time one would assume that the NOC classification will occupy most of the space in the room when it comes to these issues.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to go back to the issue that was raised earlier by me, and others: the issue of language schools that choose not to seek a designation certificate.

I certainly had it posed to me. It was the member from, I think, Delta, that raised the issue of the possibility of somebody getting the student visa and then going to another institution. Perhaps maybe they’d paid part of their fees or whatever. How would anybody ever know if a student saw that at the second school the fees were $1,000 lower, they hadn’t paid all of their fees, and they go over to that other school that is not designated?

This seems to be a real concern for the industry — I’m hearing it; I’ve heard it from many different sources: that there still is a huge range for problem schools to operate and that those problem schools are going to be the ones that don’t have any kind of regulation. This is part of the argument that the language schools are making, to say: “We need to be separate, or there needs to be a different consideration, a different approach, rather than just simply parachuting us into the act under section 5.”

I’m just looking for assurances from the minister that this is not going to continue to be a big problem. There are an awful lot of schools out there that will not seek designation and will continue to quite legally run, and there’ll be nothing to stop them. What is to stop them from continuing to operate, and once students get here, then they operate and perhaps not in a way that will avoid problems?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re in ongoing contact with Languages Canada not only about the development of regulations in this file but also the transition from EQA to the new regime. We’ve been made acutely aware of the issue the member raises.

I have to go back to the issue, though, that if they have acquired a student visa to come here to study at a language school and paid a substantial amount of money in advance to guarantee their spot in the school, it’s hard to comprehend why the student would break the terms of their visa, be subject to deportation and write off their tuition at school A in order to go school B and pay tuition again. That is the kind of rationale for the current regime.

With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I’m wondering if we could take a five-minute break for obvious reasons.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:25 p.m. to 5:32 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
[ Page 6616 ]

K. Corrigan: I think I’ve actually probably covered the ground pretty well. Just by way of ending, I wanted to reiterate that there are many, many language schools that are very concerned. The members of Languages Canada are very concerned about how under section 5 they are essentially going to be required to become designated. They don’t feel that this act as a whole fits them well. They feel that they are being forced into an act. They would like to have a separate act, some other framework or a much improved framework for regulation of them.

I would also reiterate that they, like those on this side of the House, are not suggesting that there shouldn’t be regulation. In fact, they’re looking for more. They’re looking for more clarity. They’re looking for a better regulatory framework. But they feel that this does not provide it and that being required to register under section 5 is going to be onerous.

They point to the fact that although the minister has disagreed, the number of students coming to British Columbia has declined. Under the old act the requirement has come in that language schools become designated — or accredited in the past — in order to get their ISP qualification for international students. They feel that it is onerous. They are feeling it’s very unfortunate that the ministry has chosen to go ahead. It feels like it’s rushed, it feels like there could be a solution, and they’re very, very concerned.

[1735]

As I’ve said with regard to both the language schools and the private training schools, I have heard from individual schools, dozens, and organizations representing both private training schools or career colleges, as they’re sometimes called, and the language schools, literally hundreds of them. Not one response have I had that says that this is a good idea. They say it’s rushed, and they say that it’s very, very flawed.

I’m mentioning that under section 5 because it is section 5 that is the section under which…. It’s the enabling section that enables language schools to be designated, and there is very much a concern, for all the reasons that I have raised thus far. But I guess, in terms of section 5, those are the questions that I have.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

K. Corrigan: With regard to applications for certificates, it says that the “institution may apply for a certificate by submitting the following to the registrar: (a) the information and records required under this Act; (b) the application form and other information and records required by the registrar; (c) the applicable fees prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

I’m wondering what those fees are. What are the fees that are paid now, or in the past, under PCTIA, and what is expected that those fees are going to be in the future? Is that framework in place?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current fee regime for a registration application for a main campus is $2,450. The current terminology for an accreditation application — read that as a designation application in the new regime — for a single main campus will be $2,600.

Then there are annual fees in the current regime proportionate or related to the revenue stream of the organization. An organization with revenue between 25,000 and roughly $50,000 would be $1,000. At the extreme other end of the scale, the fee to maintain status for an organization with revenue between $7.5 million and $10 million is $15,600.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, the $2,450 was for, well, a now-called designation under the old regime, and it’s going to be $2,600 now? Did I get that correct?

[1740]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Not quite. These fees are available on the web. The registration application fee for basic registration is $2,450 for a single campus. What will become designation status is a separate application of a further $2,600.

K. Corrigan: So that’s current. Is it expected that those numbers are going to stay the same under the act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the new regime rolls out, inevitably there will be some changes and a new fee regime will be developed. We’ll have to go through Treasury Board with an eye to, first of all, self-financing and, secondly, being affordable in the sector.

K. Corrigan: I’m referring back to an earlier question. It has to do with fees, and so on, too.

It’s expected that the industry will pay for itself, and I’m just trying to figure out what part. The fees will pay for what part of the operation of the act? That’ll be for all the regulatory processes and would also include the costs of monitoring inspections and all of those kind of things. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is correct. This fee regime will cover the operating expenses of the regulatory body, but it will not be covering the tuition protection fund, which of course, is proportionate to the amount of tuition paid by the students in the institution.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that the initial funds, the $2,400 plus $2,600 — so $5,000 all together, if it’s going to be a designated institution — would be for the initial processing, and then the annual fees would cover things like monitoring, and so on. Is that the expectation?
[ Page 6617 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: I’m just wondering what level of accountability or transparency there will be with regard to that. The fees are all on the site. Will there be, for example, on the site…. Will the minister put together a schedule of inspections and say there will be X number of inspections, and so on? I assume it’s partly going to be risk-based.

I’m sort of jumping ahead, but I’m just getting a sense of what the changes are going to be.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: If I’m anticipating the member’s direction of inquiry, clearly, the fees may need to be adjusted if there is a proliferation of problems and more inspectors are required and headaches appear. Being self-financing, if the sector proves to be orderly and tidy and self-managed in a good way, then presumably, the fees would go down.

But the member is correct that these entry fees are quite distinct from the ongoing status fees to ensure continued registration designation.

K. Corrigan: What assurances can the minister give that the fees, and so on, will not become like many other fees have, wherein they go into general revenue and they’re used in order to support the revenue of government?

How do we know that these fees are going to be kept separate and go entirely to the break-even operation of this department of government, given that it’s not a separate entity or doesn’t seem to be a separate entity?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There is not anticipated to be a separate set of financial statements for this regulatory body. That would be quite unusual. But there is the usual regime of fee approval, and so forth, through Treasury Board, and we can certainly expect the sector to make their views clear on what the appropriate fees are.

[1745]

K. Corrigan: So there’s nothing that is going to prescribe that the money that goes in through annual fees and through registration fees…. There’s going to be nothing that is going to ensure that the money that goes in is simply the amount to make sure that the organization runs. I’m wondering what type of transparency there’s going to be for those language schools and for those private training institutions to assure themselves that they’re not basically subsidizing the general costs of government.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise is that like any other part of government, there are economies of scale in terms of accounting, payroll, all those things being managed for a very large body of public servants — about 28,000 these days. That introduces a degree of complexity in separating out financial statements for a subgroup, such as the regulatory group that will be managing this act.

This will be part of the overall government financial statements, and the sector will obviously be consulted about fees. Fortuitously, we have the precedent of the self-sustaining PCTIA body and its financial performance over the last 12 years, which will guide us. Obviously, if there’s a great deal of activity, troublemakers emerge or there’s a need for court applications and the like, costs will rise.

In the alternative, if the sector proves to be orderly and productive and the number of inspectors can actually be reduced because of good performance, then of course, the fee revenue will decline, because this is a risk-based arrangement. That will result in less revenue. Government will have to manage risk by saying, essentially: if the fee revenue has gone down because of good performance, clearly we don’t need as much inspection.

K. Corrigan: I’m having just a little bit of difficulty understanding. Is there going to be some kind of structure set up that is somewhat separate and siloed from government? Is there going to be a structure set up that says: “Okay, here’s the expectation, for any given year, of what the fees coming in are going to be, and here’s what we expect the associated cost to be”? And are they going to stay as one?

It’s going into general revenue. Is that correct? There’s nothing to require that the money that goes in for fees is different than any other fee in government, which becomes part of general revenue and may have nothing to do with the costs.

When the minister suggests that if there aren’t great expenses, if there are not problems, if for some reason there are great efficiencies found by bringing this back into government, there’s no requirement that government would take a look at those fees and say: “Gosh, it’s costing less than we expected, and therefore the fees will go down.” Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current regime is that the freestanding PCTIA has a staff, and the anticipation is that the current head of PCTIA will come into government at the executive director level and have a complement of staff within the ministry who will be accountable to the assistant deputy minister, and upward from there.

Of course, the sector itself will be acutely aware of the level of compliance problems in the sector. We expect to hear from them, loud and clear, if there are no significant compliance problems, that their fees should be adjusted accordingly. On the contrary, if the sector experiences some problems, then clearly, to be a self-financing entity of government, there’ll have to be some fee adjustment to account for new hires. But we do not expect an earmarked vote with a specific breakdown of salaries, benefits, pensions and the other incidental costs like rent, which are very difficult for government to extract from the overall financial picture.

[1750]

K. Corrigan: Well, it raises the question, then: other
[ Page 6618 ]
than regulatory changes, how much of a change is there actually to PCTIA if the registrar or director, the head of PCTIA, is coming into government? Are the PCTIA staff…? I know the transition has partially happened anyway, I guess. But is it the expectation that just the staff will move over and that the leader of PCTIA will come over and just continue on but within government as opposed to separately?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As a government, we always try to capitalize on experience and skills that have been developed wherever they are — within the public service, within government-related agencies, within arm’s-length agencies, within the private sector. So when we have competent individuals who know the sector well, we will be content to have them become part of government.

On the other hand, I would not expect the entire complement of PCTIA staff to be moved, en bloc, into government, because government does things slightly different from self-regulatory bodies. There will be transitions there, and we’ll see how that rolls out. We certainly don’t want to lose the developed expertise that has grown up in PCTIA.

The working premise, though, has been that PCTIA, as a self-governing body, has not been as effective as one would have hoped. So it’s coming back into government.

K. Corrigan: If the minister is saying…. The minister just said it hasn’t been as effective as a self-governing body as one would have hoped, but by the way, we’re going to bring the…. I’m sorry. Is it the director? What is the correct term?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The CEO and registrar is expected to join us at the executive director level to carry on with the regulatory regime — as I say, because of acquired expertise and a particularly nuanced knowledge of the sector.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that is there, and I appreciate expertise wherever we find it. But it seems interesting that the minister would in one breath say that PCTIA has not operated as effectively as one would have hoped and, by the way, that we’re going to bring the CEO and registrar in to run that new department of government.

I’m trying to figure out exactly what is changing with PCTIA as a result of it coming into government. I mean, that’s apart from the legislation to some degree. But what is changing, then, in terms of day-to-day operation of PCTIA, now the department?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the self-governing body that was PCTIA had its own private sector board. That board is no longer functioning. The administrator has moved in, in the form of the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education. The board has been dissolved, and the CEO and registrar of PCTIA now reports to the deputy minister directly. That will change into a ministerial reporting relationship once the act is in place so that the new regime can be managed within government.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’ve always got a concern about job security for people who work for government or people who are working in any job that they…. You know, it’s tough out there. We know that the CEO and registrar has a job within government. I’m wondering about what the status of the other employees of PCTIA is. The minister suggested that there were no guarantees. How many staff is that, and what’s going to happen with those staff?

[1755]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current PCTIA staff is Vancouver-based. As we make the transition, some of the staff will probably be Victoria-based and a good quantity of them Vancouver-based.

One doesn’t want to presuppose the structure there, because it will be determined by the structure of the regulations and the reporting profiles and so forth. One can anticipate change, but as the member has noted, there has been a lot of expertise acquired in this field. One can expect that a good chunk of the current complement of staff will be offered employment in the new regime.

K. Corrigan: I assume those staff would become part of the public service. Are they part of the public service now?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: They are not currently part of the public service, but under the new regime, they all will be part of the public service.

K. Corrigan: This is a little diversion that I hadn’t really thought about, but to those people’s lives, it is not, by any means, a diversion. It’s very important to them. Is it the intention of the minister to try to ensure that those people that have jobs in PCTIA will then have their jobs continued once the transition has been completed?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current employment arrangement is that PCTIA is a Crown corporation. As with any such transition, the Public Service Agency will be involved in sorting out the employment relationship with government directly rather than through a Crown corporation.

K. Corrigan: The Public Service Agency may be involved, but is the minister then saying that the minister has no ability to influence whether or not those people that are working for PCTIA would continue their job? Or is it just simply…? Are there any rights that are associated with those jobs that would automatically allow them to transfer into government?
[ Page 6619 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I certainly don’t profess any expertise in labour law. The member opposite may know a lot more about it than I do. This will be managed through the Public Service Agency in the usual fashion, respecting the rights of the individuals in sorting out their employment status.

As I’ve said, given the acquired expertise, one can expect that a substantial number of them will be joining government. Others may say it’s time for something else in their life and elect to leave. We just don’t know. That’ll be up to the Public Service Agency in consultation with appropriately skilled labour lawyers.

K. Corrigan: My final question with regard to that is: how many employees are there of PCTIA at the moment?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Mr. Chair, 25.

K. Corrigan: I’m sorry. I have one more question. So 25. It’s a fairly substantial number of people. I do hope that the minister…. I appreciate that there are processes that are appropriate processes that would be handled through the Public Service Agency.

[1800]

However, when 25 people who have been serving government — maybe not in government but serving government — are going to lose their jobs, I would hope that the present government has the ability to, in some way, provide some level of influence to say that we need to do what we can to make sure that those individuals have some advantage or some ability to move into those positions where appropriate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think I’ve said a number of times that the staff at PCTIA have acquired substantive expertise in the field, which is valued. Far be it from me to pretend to want to influence hiring decisions in the public service, but I’m sure it will be handled in a most professional manner by the Public Service Agency.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

K. Corrigan: Section 7 deals with the registrar issuing certificates. It says: “On application by an institution, the registrar may issue a registration certificate or a designation certificate to the institution if the…requirements are met….” Those requirements are to be prescribed by regulation.

Later it says: “...if the registrar determines in accordance with the regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council that security is required, the institution gives security acceptable to the registrar in accordance with those regulations; (d) the institution pays the applicable fees prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

In this section there are several references to regulations, and this is one of the sections that make it very difficult to know exactly what the regulatory scheme is going to look like. I think that’s part of the reason I have concerns about this bill. I know that it’s one of the reasons that many of the schools and individuals from those schools that have contacted me have concerns about it. They don’t know what this all means because the regulations are yet to come.

The other concern that has been raised to me is that it says that the registrar “may issue a registration certificate or a designation certificate to the institution if the following requirements are met….” It means, it sounds like, there is absolutely no requirement that a registrar issue a certificate even if all the requirements — we don’t know what they are yet, those future requirements — are met. There’s no mandatory…. There’s nothing that requires the registrar to issue that certificate.

I’m wondering, why the word “may” was used there instead of “must” and then, secondly, why it is that so much is going to be decided later in regulation.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here, of course, is that at some point in the development of a regulatory regime, there must be a statutory authorization for regulations leading to the criteria that lead to the issuance of a certificate, and that the registrar should be vested with discretion — in case an unforeseen circumstance occurs where someone of bad character or a fraudster or someone who is on the lam satisfies the criteria — and the registrar may show the good judgment to say that they will not agree to issue a certificate.

I think it’s fair to say this is a fairly standard arrangement in any statutory setup which provides for issuance of an approving document, such as a certificate, because there are going to be fees, there are going to be criteria, and there needs to be discretion.

K. Corrigan: That’s certainly a concern that has been raised with me, however — raised by more than one person. The idea is that there is, in this section and in several other sections, a great deal of discretion — discretion layered on top of a vagueness about the bill, particularly because there are so many aspects of it to be just guided later by regulation.

[1805]

The minister has essentially said: “Just trust us. We’re going to work it out.” But the industry — and the public, but particularly the industry — that is being asked to trust the minister is not comforted by that and feels that this is just so vague that they cannot support it.

The question of the number of aspects of this regulatory framework that have yet to be described — I’m wondering if the minister has any response to the concerns raised by so many with that regard.
[ Page 6620 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: One can see in section 9 that it actually provides that the registrar must provide written reasons to the institution for a registrar’s negative decision under section 7. Of course, that makes it incumbent upon the registrar to provide a thoughtful, reasoned approached with a proper legal basis for the exercise of their discretion. Then, of course, there’s the prospect for review of that decision farther on in the legislation.

K. Corrigan: I do appreciate that. That’s a fair enough response. That is some comfort. That is just one of many instances of the word “may” being used with regard to decisions in this act.

The other part of my question continues to be: why is so much of this being left to be decided later by regulation? It makes it very difficult for me and for members of the public to evaluate what the framework is going to look like and even to ask questions about it. We have no idea about what the meat of this is going to look like. It’s the minister’s words, and not mine — that the meat of this is going to be decided later in regulation. Why is that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this kind of a structure leaves it open for substantial input from the sector — from the industry, from the operators — to talk to the staff in the ministry about an appropriate and functional regulatory regime. There’s a 12-member consultative panel, including some of the individuals that were mentioned earlier this afternoon, who will have the chance to have input into this.

This is a fairly diverse sector. It’s very difficult to make a one-size-fits-all arrangement in a statute without making it, as I say, the size of the federal Income Tax Act. It’s far more sensible to actually have tailored regimes that are flexible, that can be changed. When the sector comes back and talks to government and says, “Something’s changed; we’re doing things more on line,” or payment regimes have changed or the market has shifted, then we can actually be responsive in regulations rather than having to come back into the Legislature.

K. Corrigan: Well, it hasn’t satisfied the very industry, as I said, that is going to be affected. The industry — or at least everybody that I’ve heard from — is feeling very strongly that it is very vague, partially because of the fact that so many of the decisions about what the framework is going to look like are left to regulation.

If the minister is saying, “Look, it’s very complicated, and we have to figure it out,” well, why is all the figuring out happening after the act goes through? Why was the figuring out not done ahead of time so that we have a better idea and we can discuss it and have some public debate about it?

I’m not sure what the government is so afraid of, in terms of the timing of this. That, of course, is another criticism that has been raised by many organizations, the language schools as well as the private training schools. What is the rush?

Why can we not work out many of these things before the act is finalized? All of that stuff could happen before the act is finalized.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the working premise is that the conclusion was reached that the outside-of-government PCTIA regime was not functional to the necessary degree, so a decision was made, roughly a year ago, to bring this function back into government.

Legislation is required to do that. There have been fairly extensive consultations, which were canvassed earlier this afternoon. Those consultations are ongoing, so that the regulations can be tailored to the specific profile of the different subsectors.

[1810]

K. Corrigan: I’m going to ask something a little bit different, then. Subsection 7(1): “…the registrar may issue a registration certificate or a designation certificate to the institution if the following requirements are met….” One of them is: “(c) if the registrar determines in accordance with the regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council that security is required, the institution gives security acceptable to the registrar in accordance with those regulations.” I’m wondering if the minister could give me an example of what kind of situation would require the operation of that subsection — in other words, that security has to be given.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a section which is one that we hope wouldn’t be invoked but, nonetheless, is a necessary tool. A risk assessment will be used to determine which institutions are subject to posting additional security. Examples of potential risk factors could include very large student enrolments that come out of nowhere or doubtful financial viability. That would mean that a security deposit would be required so that the student tuition protection fund would be adequately capitalized.

K. Corrigan: Would it be a one-off type of determination that the risk had arisen or that it was a very large institution? Would it be a class, or would it be seen more as: “This specific situation requires a security”?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There will be a specific risk assessment for each institution — that is, each applicant. As I said, they’ll be reviewed for their financial capacity. If, for instance, a poorly capitalized or minimally capitalized organization wanted to open a school with 4,000 students on the first day, charging them each $3,000 tuition, that’s an exposure of $12 million. Government, obviously, has to be prudent about the carrying capacity of the institution.
[ Page 6621 ]

K. Corrigan: I’d like to find out about the differences, then, between a registration certificate and a designation certificate. I know there are probably differences all through the act. Can the minister, then, start to explain some of the differences between a designation certificate and a registration certificate in terms of a whole variety of areas — maybe just a little rundown of what the differences are?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In addition to the earlier commentary on section 3, which went on for some time, there will be considered, in terms of designation, the size of the institution and whether it’s necessary to place the institution under a greater regulatory burden because of its sheer scale or the type of programs it offers. If an institution were to offer a two-year program to 2,000 students, that’s a very different thing than offering a four-month program to 100 students.

[1815]

K. Corrigan: But the difference between designation and registration…. Is there not now a list that says: “Okay. If you’re being designated, then here are the things you have to do. If you’re being registered, then here are the things you have to do. Here are your reporting requirements. They’re this if you’re registered, and they’re this if you’re designated”? Has that not all been set out already? I mean, there must be some understanding of what the difference is going to entail.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a rather complicated sector. Rather than coming up with one-size-fits-all rules to distinguish between registered organizations and designated organizations or institutions, we’re going to be engaging in fairly substantive consultation with the sector so that we can come up with a functional regulatory regime.

For instance, it may be that in some fields of training, having 2,000 students is not a big deal, whereas if one were to try and teach them something highly meticulous, involving personal contact and, potentially, contact with patients, that would be an unmanageable size.

It will have to be specific to the training program that the institution is seeking to embark upon.

K. Corrigan: Does that mean that if a language school, for example, seeks a designation certificate because it wants to have the advantages of that, then it could be that what is entailed for that designation certificate for a language school could be different than what is required for the designation certificate for a school that teaches pharmacy technician or flying or all sorts of other different things? Could it be different in different schools?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Returning to section 5, this of course, is the section that provides for any training institution to voluntarily apply for either registration or designation. Using the example of a language school, they may seek registration for credibility or marketing purposes to establish that they have actually passed some criteria established by a state entity such as my ministry.

Of course, the member also points out that something like a flying school, which one would hope involves one-on-one instruction, will be in a very different category than a language school, where a class of ten or 20 or 50 may be entirely normal.

K. Corrigan: But there are these two discrete categories of registration certificates and designation certificates. I would have thought that there were at least some descriptors of the difference between what a registration certificate is and what a designation certificate is.

Are there not any kinds of general descriptors or markers that would say: “Okay, for a registration certificate, you need to do this, and it will mean this in terms of what that entails, and a designation certificate means these things”? Otherwise, why have two different categories?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise, of course, as I think I’ve tried to elaborate this afternoon, is that depending on the program of instruction, the higher category of being a designated facility will be available to some institutions and not others, depending on a higher step of qualifications they meet.

Coming back to the flying school example, if they are using a wonderful array of aircraft and have highly qualified instructors and a total class size of six, that may qualify them for designation, whereas a larger cohort with a single, older airplane may simply qualify them for registration status.

This has to be worked out with the sector. That’s why we don’t have strict criteria laid out. We’re talking to the varied components of the sector to get them to understand and agree on the appropriate regulatory regime. Obviously, it’s not that they will control the regulatory regime — this is a function of government — but certainly, their input is essential as we figure out the appropriate range of criteria.

[1820]

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying that what a registration certificate — versus a designation certificate, which is more onerous — is going to look like, comparatively, will be decided on an industry-by-industry basis. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: One would hope these can be bundled, to reuse that term, so that personal services would be in one category. Highly technical services, such as flying, computer systems management or information management systems, would be in another bundle. Perhaps there’d be a third bundle for personal services of a non-contact nature, such as cooking.
[ Page 6622 ]

These fields are hard to anticipate in terms of the range of interests that come onto the table. Rather than anticipate the categories now, it makes sense to hear from the sector about what those appropriate bundles might be. Understandably, some groups may say that they would rather not be in a bundle with another group because they want to be seen very differently. But that would lead to regulatory proliferation.

We will work this out with the sector and listen to their interests, then sort out what is in the public interest, which is why we have the statute in the first place.

K. Corrigan: Interesting, in terms of timing, because the minister is saying that we’re going to work this out. But in terms of the language schools, they’re being told that they need to get their application in before the end of this month, I believe — is that correct? — or next month. They need to get their notice of application in. They’re being asked to seek designation.

What the minister is saying is that we’re going to work all this stuff out later, what that actually means. It does, again, seem to me that we are putting the legislation in place before we really have any idea of what it means at all.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The language schools seeking designation will be seeking it for federal immigration purposes. Their deadline to express an interest in seeking that federal immigration status will be at the end of this month.

They will then go through a process that ends at the end of this calendar year, on December 31, 2015, to determine whether they meet that designated status. There should be no particular surprise to the language schools. If they want to seek federal visa eligibility for their students, then let us know by the end of the month.

With that in mind, I note the hour. I wonder if we might seek leave to do this another day.

The Chair: Move the motion.

Member, go ahead.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to finally…. I know we’ll come back to this tomorrow, but tomorrow is the day that the Ombudsperson’s report on private training in this province is going to come out.

I want to again say that I think it’s very unfortunate that…. At least, I assume it’s coming out tomorrow. I hope it comes out tomorrow. I hope there’s not delay because of this act, because I think it would have benefited all of us to have had a chance to read the report in order to better inform this discussion, these debates. There may be nothing in there that’s relevant to our discussion, but I do have concerns. I hope that this doesn’t mean now that because we’re not finished with this act, the publication of that report is in some way delayed.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Martin in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,593,575,000 (continued).

J. Kwan: Welcome to the minister. This is my first time in canvassing estimates debates with the new minister. Congratulations.

I would like to ask some questions around the CLBC funding from the sector, actually. These are questions from stakeholders that are out there. They are quite confused as to what exactly CLBC will fund. It seems to them that this question is unclear. Often the funding is unspecified.

I wonder if the minister can clarify for the stakeholders out there. What exactly would the CLBC funding be targeted for in their respective agencies? For example, in your budget this year, how much will go into what service delivery?

[1340]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If I might also take a moment now to welcome the member opposite — I hope that the flight delay wasn’t too tragic for you this morning; it’s great that you could make it here today — as well as introduce Seonag Macrae from CLBC, Community Living British Columbia, who’s joining us for this portion of the estimates.

In regards to your question, the developmental disability allotment budget line is $772 million. For the personal supports initiative it’s $21 million. The personal supports initiative supports those individuals with fetal alcohol syndrome as well as the autism sector.

As well, there is the provincial assessment centre, which gets $4.8 million. That’s for the individuals with complex mental health issues that require more intensive assessment and planning.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much. It’s always such a pleasure to be on a schedule where you just don’t know when you’ll actually get there. I really appreciate and feel for my colleagues who have far greater travel demands than me. That said, the flight from Vancouver today started at 7:30, but I am here now, so I feel really good about that.

Okay, on that question let me get really specific, then. Does the minister have in the ministry a list of services which CLBC funds and a list of services which CLBC does not fund? If so, can I have that list?

[1345]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The answer to the question is that there is a Catalogue of Services that is provided to both families and service providers. It’s a tool that is used to help identify family needs while working with the family to develop a support plan. That is a Catalogue of Services that we can make available to the member.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate that. I actually have correspondence from stakeholders who have been in the sector for a very long time and providing services for people in the CLBC community that said they are unclear as to what specified services are listed that would be funded by CLBC and what specified services are not funded by CLBC.

If there is such a list that exists, it would be very useful for the service providers and the stakeholders to get that. I would love to receive that from the minister. The list, I assume, is very specific, right? It’s not broad categories of service which the minister is referring to.

[1350]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: CLBC actually has broad categories because the idea, obviously, is to try and individualize the planning. Every individual is unique. We really try to make sure that we’re flexible and target the individual’s needs. Obviously, living in British Columbia, we have a vast province — a large geography — and community services within a community will be different than in, say, the Lower Mainland. We try to make sure that we’re using the natural supports that are in the community, as well as the services that are offered in each community, by targeting the needs of the individual.

Is there a specific issue or case file that you are referring to that we can better support you with?

J. Kwan: I have dealt with cases that I have advocated for CLBC clients that are not my constituents. Some of them are my constituents.

I myself have experienced situations where there’s no standard of service provisions that you can actually apply and understand how it works. It really just depends on whether or not you’re lucky enough to have a strong enough advocate for someone in pushing that through. In some cases people may go into an MLA’s office or a critic’s office in driving that through. There is no standard of practice.

This is what people are finding on the ground in the community. So many people actually go through the gaps. They do not get the service — some people don’t know how to go about getting the service — and others can make a lot of noise, and they get some of it. Others don’t. So there is no standardized practice.

I get it that it needs to be individualized. I get that. I understand that — to meet everybody’s different needs. But even if it’s individualized…. Take for example…. Let’s just use an example of a wheelchair. Does CLBC fund wheelchairs? It does. I’m just using that as an example. That ought to be on a list to say: “This is a service to which you will get a piece of equipment.”

It doesn’t matter. If it meets your needs, based on medical assessments and so on, you will get that service. On the flip side of it, let’s take another piece of equipment. Let’s, for the purposes of discussion, say a vehicle that has been adapted for purposes of transportation. This is a service that we do not provide, for example, right? No matter what your individualized service needs are, this is a service that we do not provide or equipment that we do not provide. I’m making it up. I’m not saying that these are exactly the services. I’m just making that up.

There ought to be some standardized list of equipment or services that’s provided that people can look to see whether or not they can actually get access to it. And then it will be subject to each individual case to determine what exactly their needs are. That’s what I’m talking about. Because right now, as the system stands, it is hodgepodge. It really is a free for all for people, and a lot of people don’t get the service that they need.

I have experienced cases that I’ve advocated for like heck to get services for people. Initially the answer is, “No, no, no. You can’t get that,” until we push — it almost feels like a mountain — until we move it along. Sometimes we’re successful, and sometimes not so much.

I wonder if the minister can explain that. That doesn’t
[ Page 6624 ]
speak to individualized services and meeting people’s needs. It speaks to a lack of accountability and standardization within the ministry so that people actually know what kind of services they could get.

What exactly does CLBC pay for, and what exactly doesn’t CLBC pay for, irrespective of the individual need?

[1355]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, there are standardized tools in place that are applied, but we need to remain flexible. I refer back to the Catalogue of Services that I mentioned earlier that lists that the services that we provide include respite, community inclusion activities, day support services, home shares, supported living. When the member has an opportunity to take a look at that catalogue, she’ll see what is offered by CLBC.

As well, we also have the STADD facilitator-navigator that can assist individuals to access other supports that come from either the community or other ministries that offer supports to individuals who require assistance.

[1400]

If the member knows of particular individuals who are struggling and having difficulty accessing services, I would want to ensure that they have accessed their local office, the facilitator at the local CLBC office. As well, there is a complaint process that they can register a complaint with for the process or the protocol that’s in place for us.

J. Kwan: Well, I think that the minister’s actually missing the point. Actually, in fact, I have navigators phoning me, asking me to help their clients. I have people in the system phoning me asking me to help their clients.

The confusion out there is not about these broad categories. I know of that list. What I’m talking about is specific itemized things that people can access or not. Certain things would be funded. Surely, the minister will understand what I’m talking about, that certain things would be funded.

This is a category. Whether or not the person needs it is not up to me to decide. Rather, the medical team and all the people who are dealing with that individual will decide that — if this service is something that CLBC funds, generally, or not.

A case in point. There’s another case, for example. The CLBC fund, for example, intense physiotherapy, and to which degree. How does a person qualify for that? What would be required for a person to access intense physiotherapy if the medical team for that individual would deem that that’s something important? Or is that something that the minister will say: “No, we don’t fund that because that goes over to Health”? Where does it cross over to try and sort out where it is Health and where it is developmental disability?

These are the kinds of questions that actually are there every day that people are trying to navigate, and no facilitator and navigator can actually sort it out. That’s just one example. There are many, many examples I can give to the minister.

Surely, the minister will see the need to actually develop — if she doesn’t have one, and it sounds like she doesn’t have one in the ministry — a list of services which CLBC will fund and a list of services that CLBC will not fund, and be specific about it so that the public actually knows what they can try and access and what they cannot access.

I’m going to leave that. We’ve already spent 35 minutes on this one question. We’re going to move on to another question on that. I do want to flag it for the minister. It is an important question coming from stakeholders around that and, as I said, I’ve experienced myself.

This is a list of questions I got from stakeholders on the ground who’ve been in the field delivering service. To this day they still didn’t know, and they’re not clear. Every case that they come across, they have to fight through it like crazy to get it.

That’s also, I think, a waste of resources as well. People should not have to do that to try and access services. Staff should not be having time to do that. Those assessments should be done, and then here’s a list that says, “Yeah, you qualify for that,” so therefore, you’re eligible and then you move forward.

On the funding of the $106 million over three years in increased funding, can the minister itemize for me how much of that will go into front-line staff salary increases? Does that actually pay for the cost of the collective agreement for the agencies?

[1405]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: So $37 million of the three-year budget increase for CLBC is to implement the economic stability mandate: $4 million will be for the 2015-2016 budget year, $11 million for 2016-2017 and $22 million for the year 2017-2018. That’s $35 million of the funds that will be given to CLBC’s contracted service providers, leaving $2 million for the CLBC staff wage increase. And yes, the wage increase is fully funded.

J. Kwan: Well, actually, I have a note here, and maybe the minister can explain the discrepancy for me. Inclusion B.C. states that the $37 million for front-line staff salary increases, while appreciated, does not reflect the actual cost of the collective agreement nor the recruitment and retention issues resulting from low wages in the sector.

The minister just said that that money actually pays for all the increases in the collective agreement. Inclusion B.C., the minister will know, is a broad agency with many members within it in the CLBC community. They say that they have to actually stretch every dollar to ensure maximum impact and feel that in fact the dollars allocated, in spite of the increase, is insufficient.

Maybe the minister can explain to me why there’s a discrepancy, then.

[1410]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Like any other sector, we do understand that there are pressures outside of the collective agreement, but the $37 million will fund the negotiated collective agreement, the salary increases that were in the agreement.

J. Kwan: That’s for all the agencies?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, for all agencies that are funded by CLBC.

J. Kwan: I hope that’s the case. I’ll go double-check with the stakeholder groups. I hope it’s not the case in the Ministry of Education, where the minister says that that’s what they do when, in fact, it doesn’t. In any event, I will move on, then.

In terms of the increases, caseload increases, in the budget…. Can the minister explain the funding increases in the budget? Is it for growth in cases for those who are eligible? Is that where that budget increase is mostly targeted?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The budget increase is for the targeted services of those transitioning into CLBC, so newly eligible clients, as well as those individuals who are already receiving services that will require or do require changes in their programming because of a needs change.

J. Kwan: What’s the projection of the increase in caseload that the minister anticipates the budget increases would be targeted for?

[1415]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The projected increases for 2015-2016 to the caseload is approximately 2,100 individuals with developmental disabilities and 200 individuals who qualify for the personalized supports initiative. That includes both new and existing clients.

J. Kwan: Is it the minister’s anticipation that the number of eligible adults will increase by another 5.7 percent next year, and does the minister actually feel that this budget would actually be sufficient to provide the support to those individuals with this rate of increase?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The money received by CLBC definitely goes a long, long way, and yes, the forecast currently is 5.7 percent.

I must add that CLBC and the ministry continue to look at ways and continue to work together to ensure that the service delivery and demand is addressed in a measured, responsible and sustainable manner.

[1420]

J. Kwan: Isn’t it the case that the lift in the funding does not match the rate of increase in terms of service demand, as is noted, actually, in your service plan?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Our government continues to increase the funding to CLBC. It is a priority for our government. It’s one of the few areas in government that continue to see increases in their budget. CLBC continues to do the best that they can with the money that they receive to address the issues of the clients that they serve in the community.

[1425]

J. Kwan: Does the minister actually think that the lift that she got in her budget is sufficient? This is a question — just an opinion from the minister — to see whether or not she feels that the budget lift is sufficient, based on the demands that she knows exist within the sector. It should be a quick question because it’s just an opinion.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I actually believe that CLBC continues to do the best work in the community that they possibly can with the money they receive to support the individuals that they do in the communities around British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I believe that the minister is not going to answer my question, because that wasn’t the question that I asked. I’m sure everybody is trying to do the best that they can. There’s no question. People always work really hard. I don’t doubt that for one minute.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the budget in CLBC, even with the lift, is insufficient to provide for the supports that are needed in the sector. We’re talking about people who have developmental disabilities. Families are struggling and are stretched every single day.

I’m simply asking an opinion from the minister: whether or not she feels that the lift from her government is sufficient to meet the needs of the community. She’s not answering that question, and she’s refusing to answer the question. The message box that she gets does not actually answer the question.

Let me try it this way with the minister. My question to the minister is this. The request for service lists for each of the regions…. Each region gets a list of service requests.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

I wonder if the minister can provide that information to me. What does each region’s request for service list look like? Let me add this question to it as well, because I may as well try to speed up the system here. I wonder if the minister can attach a cost to each of those lists for each of the regions.

[1430]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you, Chair. Nice to see you. Welcome.
[ Page 6626 ]

To the member opposite, just a clarification that the request for service list is just a list as part of the planning with individuals used by facilitators when they’re meeting with their families, working on the planning for the individual. It is a tracking tool. It’s not a costing tool. It is ever-changing and dynamic as people move through the system and around the province.

J. Kwan: Well, one of the things that’s important to note, I think, is this. We were talking about insufficient support in the budget for the Community Living B.C. community.

[1435]

With the increase in demand, with an aging population, with people coming into the system and complex, complex situations, the process is such that people go about putting forward their requests for services. A list is developed in each of the regions, and so it gets put forward. The support allocation score and so on is developed. What I understand, and how people feel in the system, is that often the request gets whittled down further and further and further.

For the purposes of budgeting, one would assume, though, when you get these lists, these requests that come in, that you would actually have the estimated costs of the request for services list — what that would be. If you don’t have an estimated cost, you don’t really know whether or not you’re going to meet the needs, do you? You have no way of projecting. I’m wondering whether or not the ministry, if they actually have any projections then, as opposed to actual costs, of what those request for services lists in each of the regions might look like.

[1440]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Like most caseload-driven organizations, CLBC uses in their budget process, based on previous years’ experiences, the projected caseload growth, as well as the average cost per case, to determine their budget requirements. But might I make this comment? It’s to remind the member that the individuals we serve at CLBC are unique in a variety of different ways — in their needs and their assessments — and require different wraparound supports to help them reach their full potential.

J. Kwan: Yes, no kidding. And the problem is that for a lot of the people actually out in the sector, in the community, including service providers, they’re not having any luck in terms of accessing sufficient resources to provide those wraparound services that the minister talks about.

That’s what we’re trying to get at here — to see whether or not those services could be provided in such a way that actually meets the needs. The issues around the request-for-service list actually gives you some of that information, gives you a glimpse into what those needs are. Projecting those costs into a budgeting process will let you know whether or not your budget is going to meet those needs.

If you’re not even budgeting it out on a region-by-region basis, you really don’t know whether or not those requests are being met in such a way that provides the level of services for, I think, so many people in our community who are very, very desperate for support.

I gather that no matter how many times I ask this question, I’m not going to get that information from the minister because the minister simply doesn’t have it, which is bizarre to me.

That said, let me ask this question of the minister, then. Last year I canvassed a series of questions with the previous minister around InclusionWorks. At that time, there were a number of individuals in that process where they were not getting the funding that they were assessed at, based on their GSA scores.

I have since then met with individuals around that, and some of those costs are to be met. Some of them are still pending. I wonder whether or not the minister can give me a quick answer on those cases that were put forward from last year — if all of them have been addressed.

[1445]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We have been able to increase the supports for the InclusionWorks group, and we continue to work with the group to expand this model of service that they provide in the capital region.

J. Kwan: Sorry, no. My question was very specific. All the cases that I brought forward last year, which were brought to the attention of the former minister — did they all get the funding that they requested, based on their GSA scores and assessed hours?

[1450]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I believe this question was canvassed by the previous minister in the previous budget estimates where he explained that the GSA scores are not the only tool used in the assessment process when we assess individuals.

In regards to the cases that were raised previously by the member, we continue to work with those families to ensure that their needs are being met.

J. Kwan: Yes, I know exactly what the former minister’s answers were to me on those questions, and we argued about it at length. I don’t intend to do that here. What I really basically wanted to check on is to see whether or not those cases had been dealt with in an effective way.

I talked with some of the folks in the community, and there are still some ongoing concerns. I just wanted some assurance from the minister that they will be dealt with accordingly. That’s really the purpose of the question. But clearly, I’m not going to get an answer on that either.
[ Page 6627 ]

I would ask the minister to ask her staff, though, to check in with InclusionWorks to ensure that those needs are met in such a way that those individuals…. A lot of them are youth transitioning. I would rather, like all these cases, have the issues dealt with than to have individuals suffer and not be able to get their needs met, and then to go through a whole rigmarole in terms of a public fight about it. It’s much more conducive to not engage in that kind of process. I would ask the minister if she would kindly ask her staff to check into that and ensure that those cases are dealt with accordingly.

I’d like to actually turn to another issue with the minister. I actually met with a whole number of individuals in the community who have children with FAS or FASD. I have consent forms for all of them, but even with that, I’m not going to mention the individuals’ names but as a cluster of issues with the community. It actually brings up a number of common threads, when you look at these cases individually.

The families that came in and met with me have led the charge for a program called Vitalink, based in Abbotsford, which is jointly funded by CLBC, B.C. Housing, Fraser Health and MSDSI. After two years of hard work and many more years of advocacy from this particular individual, the cases of at least one, two, three, four, five, six, seven — a number of different individuals…. They are all unique and each of the families has struggles with service provisions, which include poor transition from services provided by MCFD; poor collaboration with Health Services, with Fraser Health Authority, in all of the cases; problems with representation agreements with service providers not aware of the unique challenges individuals with FASD face; and money going to service providers even when services were no longer being provided or money being scraped off the top of PWD payments for these individuals.

Both the ten-year plan on FASD, from 2008 to 2018, and the personalized supports initiative, PSI, introduced in 2010, were supposed to bring positive changes to the sector. Both have failed to live up to their aims.

According to one parent, this is what they say. “Things like the ten-year plan provide ‘false hope’ for families. We’re still for government simply admitting in the first place that they don’t know what they’re doing.”

This is a group of individuals who have children who have been diagnosed with FAS or FASD. Some of them, many of them, are transitioning, and things have actually fallen through the cracks for them and horrible, horrible things have happened to the families. The struggles that they are going through are unbelievable. It’s absolutely unbelievable.

I’m going to cluster these questions to the minister with the common threads that have been identified for these cases with youth with FAS and FASD.

Can the minister advise what sort of training or specialized training is being provided to the staff within the ministry to deal with family members with FAS or FASD?

[1455]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The staff at CLBC attended a conference and workshop last year. Some of them have done some on-line training. Of course, the FASD area of supports is new to CLBC, so they continue to look at ways to improve the staff knowledge and the staff skills in this area as they go forward.

J. Kwan: How much of the budget is dedicated for staff training in this area, then?

[1500]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There is dedicated funding for training, and training for staff is based on their individual development plans. We do not have a specific budget that is targeted directly to FASD training, but there is, like I mentioned, dedicated funding for training.

J. Kwan: I may argue for the minister to relook at that. Actually, as the minister acknowledged herself, this is a new group coming into CLBC. I would say, fairly, that there is a deficiency in the system to address the issues.

Let me just put on the record some of the stories and experiences of families and what they’ve had to struggle with in dealing with CLBC and the system around the needs of their children with FAS and FASD.

The families have resorted to working by themselves to create a program that benefits their children. They have to be their own champion for their children and spend years of long effort in forcing the hand of CLBC to cooperate with MSD, the Fraser Health Authority and B.C. Housing.

The families are rightfully asking why it is that they have to resort to this when CLBC’s own ten-year plan on FASD calls for “service systems that are coherent, integrated and coordinated.” The fact of the matter is that the system is not coherent, it is not integrated, nor is it coordinated.

Here is an example of a devastating case, I would say. In a lot of these instances individuals also have complex issues as well and other issues that they’re coping with. Here’s a case with an individual. They have been dealing with a situation where there are no programs in B.C. for individuals with FASD and addiction issues, so it’s a complex issue.

Home share is not a good model. Individuals are uprooted and forced to assimilate into a completely new culture and environment. They say that more funding is needed to support, from CLBC, programs that work. In this instance the individuals own the house. They choose what they want to eat, what activities they want to do, and this gives them a sense of ownership and independence.

In this instance they’re citing an example, actually, from Alberta, where they have programming in place. They’re asking why it is that the government is not able to provide some of those services in that context. They also have 24-7 highly trained staff to provide support to
[ Page 6628 ]
them. Here in British Columbia, in many instances, the families do not have access to those kinds of services.

In a specific case, this individual is struggling because health authorities are saying that she has a developmental disability and CLBC should take care of it. CLBC says that she has a mental health issue. Nobody wants to take responsibility for it, and people are now falling through the cracks.

We have experiences from the family where they say that CLBC is resistant at the top end, and they don’t give more supports to them. Consequently, those families are just stuck in a place where there’s no resolution.

Last year in estimates I brought up this issue about coordinating between ministries so that people can actually get services across ministries. The former minister, to my recollection, actually said that he would be the lead in that integration of services amongst ministries. That’s not happening in many cases and most certainly is not happening in the case of FASD and FAS.

I’m wondering whether or not the minister can comment on that in terms of how they’re grappling with those issues that families are experiencing across the ministries and the integration of those kinds of services and service needs.

[1505]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There are cross-agency collaborations that are working. There has been a partnership developed with community mental health supports as well as with Housing.

If there are specific cases that the member would like me to give particular attention to, I’d be in a better position to assist if I had that information. As well, those cases can be referred to the integrated service support team under the services to adults with developmental disabilities, the STADD program.

J. Kwan: I think the point that I want to make with the minister is this. It’s not about just advocating on a case-by-case basis. I get that, and I do that regularly as an MLA and as a critic.

[1510]

My point here is this. I want the system addressed in such a way that people don’t have to do that. Time and time again we’re dealing with people who are most vulnerable, people who are struggling, people who need services. They have to navigate through the multiple ministries who keep on saying: “Not me. Go to someone else.” They always find a reason why they’re not the people who are responsible, when clearly….

Actually, in other jurisdictions what they do is they bring in all those ministers together, and they don’t get to walk away from it. Then it gets done, and the services get delivered. The problem here is this. It doesn’t get done here in British Columbia, and the services don’t get delivered.

Yes, I get it. I can bring forward a case to the minister. Goodness knows, I do that on a regular basis with ministers. What I want to see is the system change, not just a case-by-case change. That’s what it should be, and I hope that the minister will concern herself in that regard. I know she says that it works sometimes. It works sometimes, true. It also doesn’t work a lot of the time, and that’s the problem. That is the problem.

Let me just put this case here for the minister, by way of an example. I have an individual whose daughter is diagnosed with FAS and FASD. She’s been put in a house where she is experiencing bullying and where people are making sexual advances to her. Drug use is happening. Men are being brought back to the house. If she says anything to the staff there, they’re being demeaned. This is a real example of someone who’s experiencing that coming forward. They’re at a loss as to what to do in situations like that. Now, families shouldn’t have to struggle with that kind of stuff.

I’m fast running out of time, so I’m not going to go on with a lot of the cases. I will actually put those forward to the minister at a different time. These are real situations that are happening in the community today. Those are real situations that are happening.

I’d like to ask the minister for clarification on representation agreements. When the family has a representation agreement to represent their child, does that give them authority to access information with respect to what’s going on with their child’s case?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: That was actually a really good question. I’d like to have the opportunity to consult with the Attorney General and individuals at JAG, and I take that on advisement.

The Chair: With that, actually, we’re just going to take a five-minute recess, and then we’ll convene after that.

The committee recessed from 3:13 p.m. to 3:20 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

J. Kwan: I know that we’re fast running out of time, so this is what I’m going to do, actually. I’ll put a whole bunch of stuff on the record, and I hope that the minister would agree to actually respond to these questions to me in writing after the estimates debate.

This is a particular case with a woman named Christina Singh. This should be an old file for the ministry, really, because it’s a process where I bring up her case, I think, pretty well every year. While we’ve made some progress with Christina, we’re now at the stage where she has moved back to her family home, with the support of other agencies in the renovations of the home. She’s living somewhat semi-independently, I guess. That said, she needs a lot of support.
[ Page 6629 ]

Her most urgent need right now is that she needs intense physiotherapy. This has been an ongoing ask of the ministry. In fact, when she did get it at the outset, she had such significant improvement that the doctors thought she might be able to walk again. But since that time she’s lost the intense physiotherapy support, and of course, she has regressed in terms of her abilities.

The other thing that is important for her is skin breakdown. She also was in a situation where she suffered major burns on her body. If she doesn’t actually get moving, in circulation, with that kind of therapy, it causes a lot of grief for her in terms of skin breakdown and therefore infections, and so on and so forth.

Now, this is a case that I know involves not just CLBC but also other ministries as well. Case in point — I have dealt with this case for more than two years now, and it is constantly back and forth with someone else and pointing fingers. No matter what integrated services people I talk to, it still gets put off this way.

What we have done with Christina’s case is break it down bit by bit and chunk by chunk to move ahead certain pieces of it and then, once she gets settled in on that, focus on another. Now the piece she really needs is the therapy. The doctor calls it a neurological rehabilitation program, which would help her reach her goal and get her independence back.

I can fully appreciate that the minister would agree with me that if that opportunity exists for someone, we want to provide every measure we can to facilitate that. Maybe that’s that list that’s not on the list of services that a person might be provided. But here’s the case, and I will advance the details of that to the minister at a later time.

I also want to bring forward another case. This is, again, a cluster of cases for individuals. This is an old-age situation where an individual’s IQ is at 70 or just over. When that happens, they’re not qualified for CLBC funding. That said, it does not mean to say that they don’t need support, but the kinds of supports that they get are deficient for their needs.

There’s a whole group of people whose needs are not being met, and they’re falling through the cracks. I have literally dozens of cases of people that I’ve met with, and they’re in that situation. They don’t qualify for supports under the personal support initiative, and they don’t have means to address the current concerns.

I know the minister will say this is outside of her purview, because it’s not a qualification that they can deal with. But again, I would urge the minister to review that and to talk with her colleagues at the cabinet table to see how individuals like these and their families could be supported.

The families that are coming forward — I’ll will tell you this — in many instances the parent or parents have been providing the support as best as they can, and they will continue to do it for as long as they live. The trouble is that the parents are aging. They live in fear every day as to what would happen to their children when they die. And those are the real stories.

Like I said, I have dozens and dozens of cases like that. Right now the system does not address their needs and does not provide the supports for them. I don’t think that’s okay, and I would hope that the minister would agree with me on that score.

[1525]

I’d like to ask the minister, too, if she could ensure that I get the information on their satisfaction survey. I would love to get every detail, if I can, around those surveys. How much is it costing the system? How many surveys are being done? How is it broken down by the regions? Who’s providing the services to get the satisfaction survey done? What are the questionnaires that are being put forward in the satisfaction survey, and also what are the answers? Not the sanitized answers but rather the answers that people actually provide to them, the raw data with respect to that, and then to get the full report on that information.

I hope the minister is not going to come back and tell me to go FOI that information. This is within the ministry’s purview and the work that’s within their ministry. I wonder if the minister — I will stop here for a minute, and I have another set of questions to ask the minister — could commit to providing that information to me in writing after the estimates debate.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The survey has just been received by CLBC. It needs to go through to the board and be reviewed, and of course, we will make it available to you at the time that it has had a chance to be reviewed.

J. Kwan: Yes. What I’m asking for is not a report but rather the responses back from the individuals who were surveyed and the information about how many people were surveyed. How much did it cost? Who actually conducted the survey? That kind of information, but not a finished report.

I sort of see people nodding. Assuming that’s the case, then, I would wait for the minister to confirm after I ask my next set of questions. If the answer’s going to be different, then I will sit down, but I assume that that’s okay for me to get that information. Maybe I’ll just wait.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, we will get you that information.

J. Kwan: Okay, great. Thank you.

All right, I’d like to ask this question of the minister. It’s pertaining to a particular case. I have the consent from the family to bring their case forward, and I’m going to name names in this instance.

Cathy Grant, who has been trying to get information about the funding that she’s received, is an individual amongst the 80 individuals who were deinstitutionalized and were promised that they would have their funding
[ Page 6630 ]
and services met until the day they die.

[1530]

Of course, since they were deinstitutionalized, Cathy has had enormous difficulties in terms of getting the supports that she needs. She’s now trying to get some information on how much money or funding she was given as she was transferring from different locations. There are many detailed questions that she wants, pertaining to her own specific case. She’s not able to access it. She’s put in FOIs to the ministry, and she’s not able to access it.

This is peculiar to me, because this is a family asking for their own information for their own selves. Therefore, I would imagine that there will be documentation on where the money went and what agency it went to and how much was spent on what program, etc.

All of that information, theoretically, should be made available to Cathy and for her to access. She has not been able to get it. Again, this is a file that’s been sitting on my desk for a number of years now. I would really like to just move that off my desk so that they can access the information and they can make their own determination on the accountability issues related to that.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I wonder if the minister can commit to providing that information. Actually, I will ask this question. I wonder if the minister will meet with Cathy Grant and her family so that they can actually deal with this issue in an effective way and, hopefully, once and for all have the issue dealt with.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you, Chair. The face keeps changing. It’s lovely. Welcome.

If I could ask the member to send me the details of this particular case…. It’s not one that I’m familiar with or aware of, so if you could send me that information, then I can consider taking the meeting with her.

J. Kwan: I’d be happy to send the information. In fact, the ministry actually has the information. It’s been sent before; I’ll send it again. It should be in the files somewhere in the system.

I hope that means that the minister is not going to say no to a meeting requested with a client of CLBC for which the minister is responsible. That was not a definitive answer, and I think that the minister is perhaps looking for an out.

I hope that’s not the case. I hope I read it wrong, and I hope the meeting would be granted. I’ll tell the family accordingly that I have made the request, on their behalf, for a meeting. I’m sure that they’ll be happy to provide the documentation to the minister so that a meeting could be set up.

I want to ask the minister my last set of questions. I’m wondering if the minister can provide me all of the information about a pilot program that they had initiated in my community.

[1535]

This pilot program was meant to “develop a comprehensive wraparound support program for individuals eligible for CLBC, and that this pilot project has been presented to the board of CLBC and to the former minister and that it is fundamentally anchored in two interdependent areas of focus: building a sustaining and intentional inclusive community and housing individuals in a village context in one central building that offers not just housing but a home. And in particular, it is the intention of the program to house this initiative at 406-408 Union Street.”

This is the specific pilot project information that I’m looking for. I would like to access the budget that was set aside for this initiative. How much was spent in this pilot program, and what was it used for — itemized? I would like to know what agencies were involved in this program. How many clients were in that program? What sorts of services did they receive?

It does not have to provide the names, although I know who they are. I do not need that. For privacy reasons, I would expect that the minister would not provide the names, but I would like to know what services they were given and how much was paid, in terms of the breakdown of the budget so that we know how much was allocated for what service — for example, for the facility, how much was for the programming itself, etc. — so that I would have those kinds of details.

I know that the program then switched over to a different operator. I would like to get the information on when it switched over — again, the same series of information that applied to that pilot program. If the minister can also answer the question as to if there is an evaluation of this program and where it is at — in writing.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, certainly we can respond in writing to you.

J. Kwan: Last but not least, in terms of this pilot initiative, I understand that this model was meant to be duplicated elsewhere. If the minister can advise, then: across the province of British Columbia what other places is this pilot being implemented? If so, if the minister can provide details for each of those programs as well.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes.

J. Kwan: To close, I’d like to thank the Minister and her staff for their time.

I’ll look forward to receiving the information from her staff and from the minister at a later time. I hope that we can get this information before the session ends — end
[ Page 6631 ]
of May? I think that’s my usual request to all the ministers every time I ask for documentation. If the minister can confirm with me on that, I would deeply appreciate it.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes.

M. Mungall: While staff are changing, I’m going to be jumping right to a news release that came out this afternoon. I just have a couple of questions on that, and then we’ll pick up where we had left off before the break — before I broke, anyway.

Just so the people at home are aware, because this is breaking news, the government announced that they will be increasing the exemption for employment earnings for people receiving income assistance from $200 to $400 a month. That is good news. I think members of both sides of the House would happily applaud that increase, noting that we’re definitely tinkering around the margins of some of the major issues that exist for people who receive social assistance.

[1540]

In the news release it said that 10,600 families would be benefiting from this increase. My first question around it: is 10,600 families, or individuals, the actual number of people who receive income assistance but also have some employment earnings right now?

I can repeat the question. In the news release it said that 10,600 families would be benefitting from this increase in income earnings exemptions. I’m just wondering if that is presently the number of people who are declaring employment income while on social assistance right now.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No, that’s the potential amount.

M. Mungall: I’m wondering, then, what the amount is of individuals who are claiming earnings exemptions to date — not to date in total, like forever, but right now. How many people?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The amount is 794.

M. Mungall: Well, if the number is 794, that’s a far cry from 10,600. I’m wondering where the ministry got 10,600.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The first number I gave you, the 794, are the ones who are currently declaring. The 10,600 are single parents and parents in general, who could, potentially, start declaring earning exemptions.

M. Mungall: There’s what’s possible, but then there’s what’s real. I think in the news release the ministry pointed out what’s possible but didn’t necessarily speak to what’s real and what’s really happening.

If we’re looking at 794 — families, individuals or however we want to categorize them — clients who are actually claiming earnings exemptions, that is a far cry from 10,600. We’re short about 10,000 here.

Why is the ministry saying that 10,600 could possibly benefit when, currently, there are only 794 clients who are claiming earnings exemptions?

[1545]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, the number 10,600 is a projected continued growth because we expect to see continued growth in the uptake of individuals coming from income assistance, moving into the employment and workforce, whether that be part-time. We continue to remove the barriers that are standing in the way of individuals now in order to be able to fully participate in employment opportunities with our diverse economy and our million jobs that will be coming forward in the next ten years.

These are just better ways to help support those individuals that we serve in our ministry.

M. Mungall: There are multiple barriers for many people who are receiving income assistance and persons with disabilities assistance to getting employment. I won’t get into some of those, in terms of the service delivery that employment B.C. centres are able to do with the current funding levels and the current eligibility and contracting that exists and how those are actually the number one barriers that many people are facing.

As well, I mean, in another ministry we see cuts to ABE, which is the first step for most people to get the post-secondary training that they need so that they can actually get a good job, and so on.

There’s a variety of barriers that this government puts in front of people. Mind you, I will acknowledge, again, that increasing the earnings exemptions per month to $400 is a small removal of some of those barriers.

Now, when the minister says that there is 10,600 families that could potentially benefit, is that over how many years? Is that within year one? I’m trying to drill down to find out how you can come to a number that is so grossly inflated from the actual number of people who are currently claiming earnings exemptions while on income assistance.

[1550]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The 10,600 is the current caseload of all the people that currently receive income assistance that could benefit if they wanted to gain employment. That way they would be putting more money into their own pockets without affecting their income assistance.

Our experience has been showing, since we went to annualized earning exemptions for PWD, that over the last two years we’ve seen a 25 percent increase. We are confident that that will be a continuation of a steady increase and optimistic that that’s what we’ll see as well with this change.
[ Page 6632 ]

M. Mungall: First question, then, is: will these earnings exemptions also be annualized? I did not see that in the press release.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No.

M. Mungall: The second question is…. The minister alluded to the increase in uptake of persons with disabilities who are claiming exemptions up to $800 a month, or $9,600 annualized. She said that it’s 25 percent. However, I think it’s important for the public to know that the increase is still a very small number.

What we’ve seen, and according to the service plan, is that the ministry isn’t planning to see more than 16.4 percent of current PWD clients actually claim any type of earnings exemption at all. In fact, over the years that I’ve asked this question of the ministry — what is their estimated uptake level for PWD earnings exemptions? — it’s never beyond around 15-16 percent.

That’s just reflective of the reality of many people who are currently receiving PWD. There just are not a lot of employment opportunities out there that respond to their particular needs or their ability to work in current work environments.

That being the reality for the PWD earnings exemptions, how does the ministry consider that there will be 100 percent uptake for this earning exemption by saying that 10,600 people will benefit?

[1555]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There is a difference between the PWD caseload and the expected-to-work caseload. It’s like the member said for PWD. There are more barriers standing in their way, whether it’s their physical level of ability. But the expected-to-work caseload is expected to do just that — find work and get work. This will just be another support for them to keep more money in their pocket without it affecting their income assistance rates.

M. Mungall: I know the ministry expects that all people receiving income assistance different from PWD, just regular income assistance, are expected to work. They would expect everybody to be taking advantage of the increase in the earnings exemptions. But that being said, they still only selected 10,600 recipients to be considered as those who would benefit. The minister has already said it’s because these are families, primarily, and many of them single-parent families.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time on this line of questioning, and I do have one more question around this, but I’m going to move off of the number and this gross exaggeration in a press release and perhaps just recommend to the ministry: in the future let’s be a little bit more accurate.

If you don’t want to just say 794 — because that’s the current number of people who are actually claiming income exemption rates — just stick with thousands. Going over by 10,000 is just a little bit unreal. I just don’t think it’s very honest or fair to the public to be saying that extreme number, compared to what actually is the uptake currently.

With that being said, though, for many of the families who could potentially benefit from this increase, $400 a month is not a lot.

We saw the government do something quite exceptional in Canada with PWD earning exemptions, and that’s making them annualized. That was a step in the right direction. I’m wondering why these are not annualized, especially when we’re talking about single parents who might have to rely on a seasonal type of work when their kids are in school and have to provide full-time parenting and child care when their kids are out of school in the summer, for example.

Why not annualize these?

[1600]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As the member knows, PWD is very different from the income assistance that we provide, which is temporary. PWD tends to be the long-term support that we provide. Making it an annualized earning exemption doesn’t really make sense when an individual comes off of income assistance, on average, in eight months.

M. Mungall: Well, I beg to disagree. While eight months is the average, it’s not the case for everybody. Since the ministry is expecting nearly 100 percent uptake of this, you’d think that they’d want to cater to everybody as well. It’s not everybody.

Equally important is that I’m talking about seasonal work that might be available to somebody. For example, they make $500 in a month. Well, they’re going to get $100 of that clawed back rather than being able to keep that extra $100 for that month because it’s being considered as annualized.

I don’t see the difference that the minister is trying to highlight here. I just don’t agree with that difference, and I’m wondering if the minister can just comment on that further.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Well, we certainly want to encourage more parents to find work and get a job, keep a job. This exemption is going to help give them incentive to find work, whether that be part-time that will continue on to find full-time, and help them gain the independence that they need to better support their families. The goal is to gain that employment, to help the individual reach their full potential and not rely on income assistance year after year.

I’ll mention to the member again — I know she knows — that at least half of our caseload is only on income assistance for eight months.
[ Page 6633 ]

M. Mungall: I’m going to have to move on here, because I’ve belaboured the point quite extensively. This is a small incentive — a very, very small incentive — to help people to move from income assistance to employment. It doesn’t recognize the multiple barriers that exist for people. It is not even annualized, and the government is claiming a much higher uptake than I think is at all likely, based on the facts that we’ve seen here today.

[1605]

This new announcement — I don’t want to suggest that it was a step in the wrong direction, but I don’t want to overinflate it in the same way that the government clearly has.

I’m going to step back to some of the questions that I started with this morning. We were looking at some of the ministry’s contractual obligations. I appreciate the minister’s last response on that front.

My next question here is…. I’m just wondering how many of the contracts that the minister listed off were tendered in the last fiscal year. I appreciate that some of these contracts are multi-year contracts and that some are annual contracts. So if the minister could break down those numbers, that would be great.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We don’t have that information here in the precinct, but we’d be happy to get that to the member.

M. Mungall: When the minister gets that information to me, if she can also include the number of contracts that were direct-awarded. So some are tendered out to the public; some are direct-awarded. You guys all know what I mean when I say that. If you can get me those details, that would be excellent. I’d really appreciate it if they could be broken down, as well, by dollar amount. That would be very helpful.

I’m just wondering how many staff are dedicated to monitoring and managing the contracts and if the ministry produces regular reports on the performance of these contracts.

[1610]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Every contract has someone who is responsible to manage it. Those individuals sometimes have more than one contract that they are responsible for managing. Those individuals are also responsible for managing performance of the contracts, but those individuals also have other components in their work duties other than just the contracts, so an actual number is not possible to get for you.

M. Mungall: Sorry, just a reminder. The second part of my question is if the ministry produces regular reports on the performance of these contracts.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, absolutely.

M. Mungall: Are those reports made available to the public?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The answer is: not generally, because there is proprietary information in the reports that could be made public.

M. Mungall: Well then, I’m just wondering how the public would know if there are any problems with the performance of any of the contractors. Could the minister, then, respecting that they have contractual obligations around confidentiality, let the public know at this time if there have been any problems reported in those reports from the contractors and on the contractors?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Not to our knowledge.

M. Mungall: Should problems ever be identified with a contractor, what is the resolution process?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: That would vary depending on the terms of the contract.

M. Mungall: Just out of curiosity, I would imagine that the ministry has, as part of its resolution process, things such as fines, potential discontinuation of the contract and anything in between.

[1615]

Can the minister highlight what some of the things are that take place on behalf of the public should there be performance problems with a contractor?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, it depends on the contracts, and it would vary. But often the procedure would be that there would be formal notification via a letter indicating that there has been default. Staff would then require that the contractor comply to develop a plan to remedy the situations. If that fails, they have the ability to apply penalties or fines or even cancel the contracts.

M. Mungall: I’m just going to be moving on to some general questions around staffing levels. I’m wondering: what are the current number of FTEs for this fiscal year?

[1620]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The current number of staff is 1,978.

M. Mungall: Are there any vacancies currently?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes. We always have postings. We’re a big ministry, so there is staff turnover. We currently have three jobs that are posted, with ten pending, so there’ll be 13 vacancies.

M. Mungall: What is the staff turnover rate specifically for front-line staff?
[ Page 6634 ]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s 15 percent annually.

M. Mungall: How many FTEs are in the minister’s office?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Four.

M. Mungall: How has this changed from last year’s budget?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It hasn’t changed from last year’s budget.

M. Mungall: Has the ministry budgeted for any wage increases for non-political staff and political staff?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If you mean in the minister’s office, no.

M. Mungall: I was just going to ask a question that I knew very well what the answer was — if they’d budgeted for any wage increases throughout the entire ministry. Of course you have. People have their collective agreement steps, and so on.

Has the minister appointed any special advisers or contractors of any kind for her and ministry staff?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No.

M. Mungall: I’m wondering how much money was spent on travel for the minister and minister’s staff and if this is higher or lower than the previous fiscal year. What has been budgeted in the upcoming fiscal year?

[1625]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In previous years we spent about $50,000 a year on travel, and we expect to budget the same, $50,000, for this coming fiscal year.

M. Mungall: What is the purpose of this travel?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The purpose of the travel is to engage with stakeholders around the province as well as any ministry business.

M. Mungall: I figured as much, but I always ask the question to at least get it on the record so the public knows that…. When the ministry is spending this amount of money for travel, they are aware that the minister, of course, has a duty to go to various worksites, meet with stakeholders, and so on.

My next question is: what is the advertising budget for this year? Compare that to last fiscal as well.

[1630]

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: A new face.

Last year’s budget for advertising — we don’t have that here with us, but I’d be happy to make that available to you. This coming year we have budgeted $5,000.

M. Mungall: What type of advertising, and where does the ministry conduct that advertising?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The advertising is the statutory advertising and publications. It includes costs associated with special notices and publications required by statute and regulations. It’s used for our employment appeals tribunal posting for members around communities throughout British Columbia.

M. Mungall: I’m wondering if any advertising was paid for by another public agency — for example, the GCPE. If so which campaigns did they pay for, and what were the costs of those campaigns?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’re not aware of anyone paying for any advertising for us, so perhaps the member could ask GCPE.

M. Mungall: It’s a little bit disconcerting if the ministry doesn’t know if another government agency is conducting any advertising on its behalf. I would suggest that better communication needs to take place there.

I’m just wondering: who is the advertising agency of record for this ministry, and what campaigns are they currently contracted to do? Are they doing all the statutory advertising, for example, that the minister talked about earlier?

[1635]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We don’t have an agency that we use because we don’t actually do any advertising. The statutory ads that I was speaking of earlier are for placing ads in local papers or gazettes, advertising for job postings available for the appeals tribunal.

M. Mungall: Just to clarify, those are all done in-house?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: They are done by the tribunal staff.

M. Mungall: Just to clarify, the reason why I asked if it was done in-house — and clearly that is the case if it’s being done by tribunal staff — was just trying to ascertain whether it’s being paid for by existing staff dollars or if any advertising whatsoever is conducted by a third-party contractor. There are so many to possibly name, but I think the minister understands the purpose
[ Page 6635 ]
of that question.

I’m going to move onto some questions around the end of the child support clawback. I want to just drill down into the change in administration that this is going to take. It’s going to be a significant change, and the ministry plans to complete that change for September 1.

The first questions that I had were around the numbers. When the government made the announcement through the budget, they said that around 5,400 children will be impacted. I think it was around 3,200 families impacted. They came to the conclusion that it would be roughly around $13 million a year, I believe, for a total of $32 million over the upcoming three fiscal years.

This is different than the numbers we received for the family maintenance enforcement program, which is essentially the program that we’re talking about when we talk about child support clawbacks. The Ministry of Justice actually administers the family maintenance enforcement program, and they gave us some very different numbers.

For 2013-2014, the total amount that was spent by government was about $18 million — $18,458,250 on the family maintenance enforcement program. That was the total. The number of families in 2013-2014, on a monthly average, who were enrolled in the FMEP — therefore, the number of families who are collecting child support and having to claim that back to the Ministry of Social Development — was 6,294.

I’m just wondering if the ministry can explain where they got their numbers that they’re using for this budget.

[1640]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’ll try to be short. Not sure it’s going to come out very short, but we’re going to try.

Basically, it measures two different things. The family maintenance enforcement program from Justice measures the amount of family maintenance that it collects over a 12-month period from the people who are, at some point, on income or disability assistance.

The member is correct that the number from ’14-15 was $18 million, but this is different than the $13 million that the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation has identified. That was the child support portion that was impacted by income assistance and disability assistance payments over the most recent 12-month period.

M. Mungall: All right. I’m just going to clarify, because I think it’s very important that we ascertain what numbers we are working with in this. It’s obviously very important for the budget, and I don’t disbelieve that the ministry has not done their due diligence. I’m sure that they have. But just so that I’m clear.

The Ministry of Justice, when it calculates its totals for the family maintenance enforcement program, is measuring the full annual total. What the Minister of Social Development was looking at was the monthly total.

[1645]

I’m getting a “no.” Maybe if the minister can just reiterate that, and I can get this straight.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Let me try this again. The difference between the $18 million that was reported in the media and the $13 million that the ministry looks at can hopefully be summarized like this. The $18 million is the amount of family maintenance, including child and spousal support, collected by the family maintenance enforcement program, while the $13 million is the amount that families on income assistance receive in child support. So the difference in the numbers is that the $17 million includes both spousal and child support for people who are no longer receiving assistance or who come on and off income assistance.

M. Mungall: That makes total sense. I understand.

As I was mentioning earlier, of course there is going to be a considerable amount of administrative change, so I have some questions around that. The first is: how did the ministry determine that it would take seven months to dismantle the clawback of child support payments and develop a new administrative system for child support exemption? And not only how did they determine it would be seven months but why seven and not two or five or six or however many?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The family maintenance exemption is actually a five-month period. It will go into effect considering from the budget time of April 1. It’s five months, not seven months, because it will be effective September 1. We estimated that length of time based on the regulatory changes and the IT changes that we’re required to make in order to put it into effect. There were just a number of anticipated changes.

[1650]

M. Mungall: With the budget looking like it’s going to be rolled out within the entire fiscal year, I’m just wondering if people will be receiving retroactive payments for the child support starting April 1 to September 1. So September 1 is the date of the rollout, but will they be able to retroactively claim their child support?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No, the regulations will become effective September 1.

M. Mungall: My question, then, is: why did the ministry choose to do that and not allow for retroactive starting at the beginning of the fiscal year?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The ministry needs time to, of course, transition, and we want to ensure that there will be a smooth transition while we make this large, complex administrative change.

There are people who will be applying mid-stream for
[ Page 6636 ]
income assistance and disability assistance and people who are also establishing orders for family maintenance. There’s a lot going on, but I think both the member and I will agree that, in the end, families are better off because of this change that we are able to make starting September 1.

M. Mungall: Yes, we would agree to that, but my question was: why has the government chosen to not do retroactive payments or allow for retroactive claims starting April 1 to September 1?

[1655]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The changes that we’re making for the child support payments…. It was part of the budget package. There was very clear direction given by government. It’s much like today’s announcement with the exemptions that we announced earlier today, as the member knows. The government and the ministry need some lead time in order to make those changes and put them in place.

M. Mungall: I think it’s possible that the government could have made them retroactive to the beginning of the fiscal year. I think that would have been the right thing to do — been able to budget for the full fiscal year. I dare say the government certainly could afford that, as they’ve been able to find the full amount for future fiscal years.

That being said, I’ll move on to the next question. I’m wondering if staff has begun the process of changing over from the clawback of child support to now the 100 percent exemption of child support.

[1700]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, the process has begun. We have a transition working group in place that’s working on the implementation plan and the IT changes, etc.

M. Mungall: Is everyone involved with the transition in-house, or has government had to hire externally for some support in making this transition?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The transition working group is an in-house group that is collaborated between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Development, with senior staff.

M. Mungall: I’m wondering, once the transition is completed, if families will have to report receipt of their child support each month. And how will they be required to do so?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, the individuals will need to report. We’re still working through all the details of how they will report, but it is likely that it will be similar to the way that current clients self-declare income.

M. Mungall: How will the new exemption on child support impact monthly benefits? We know that it’s 100 percent exemption. We’re just wondering if there is any other further impact on benefits.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No.

M. Mungall: Sorry. Saying no means that no, there will be no other impact? Okay. Great. That’s just been confirmed by the minister. Super. Just wanted to make sure we got that on the record.

Will clients also receiving child support still be eligible for crisis grants and rent supplements?

[1705]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The child support exemptions will have no impact on client eligibility for the supplemental supports — the shelter, the crisis grants. That being said, the individual still needs to be eligible to apply for those supplements or meet the criteria.

M. Mungall: That’s great news that child support payments will have no impact whatsoever on eligibility for crisis grants and rental supplements.

I’m wondering if they will have any impact on determining someone’s eligibility once they apply for income assistance or disability. Basically, what I’m saying is when a single parent applies for income assistance and they are already receiving child support payments — if those child support payments will be considered as existing income and used to determine if someone is eligible for income assistance or disability.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No.

M. Mungall: Just to make sure we have this absolutely clear, because there is quite a bit of worry out in the public right now around how the new rules will be rolled out, child support will have no bearing whatsoever to determine whether someone is eligible or not for income assistance and disability.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: So long as they meet the other eligibility criteria for receiving income assistance.

M. Mungall: Okay. So if a non-custodial parent is applying for income assistance, will his — and it’s normally a father, but it’s often sometimes a mother as well — or her child support payments be used to determine their eligibility for assistance?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The way it’s done today will be the way it will be done tomorrow. It will continue in the same way, where the custodial parent declares their earnings and can’t net out their child support payments.

[1710]

M. Mungall: If a payer of child support has paid several months of arrears in one payment, which often happens…. They’re supposed to be paying, let’s say, $100 every month. They miss six months, and on the seventh month they end up paying a full $700. How will that impact the recipient of income assistance and the children? They’ll have to claim their full $700 within that one month. With the full exemption, I just want to make sure that that’ll have no impact whatsoever on their monthly income assistance or disability cheques.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: That is correct.

M. Mungall: This is all really great news. I know that a lot of families as well as social workers and, goodness, the many people…. I haven’t even counted the number of people who learned about this and wrote in to the ministry. They’ve been a little bit worried about the rollout, and I am sure that this will alleviate some of their concerns. So this is, I think, very good news.

One of the things that the ministry also committed to, which I will applaud the government for — I think this is further good news — is that this is voluntary. If somebody…. Now once they apply for income assistance and they haven’t been collecting child support prior to receiving income assistance or disability…. Historically, they would have to sign over their rights to the government, who would then go to court on their behalf to collect the child support payments and get a court order and all that entails.

That was a good program because, of course, a lot of people living in poverty can’t afford to take on those legal costs themselves. The government doing that on their behalf, of course, was for the benefit of the children, and society as a whole benefits in these cases. So I’m glad that the government is continuing that on and that the government has decided to make it voluntary rather than mandatory that an applicant sign over their rights, and then the government seeks the child support.

Now that it’s voluntary, how will the ministry inform clients and applicants of this option for aid in seeking child support from the non-custodial parent?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We are still currently working through all the particular details, but we believe that we will make it part of the intake process for those applying for income assistance and PWD.

M. Mungall: I’m going to relay some of the concerns that I’ve heard to the minister and allow the minister to comment on whether these concerns are warranted or people can be alleviated that their concerns…. They don’t have to worry, basically.

One of the concerns I’ve heard is that the ministry will discourage applicants and clients from seeking a court order for child support, rather than encourage them to do so, in an effort to save money — from having to spend, of course, taxpayer dollars on going to court and seeking court orders for child payment since the government is no longer clawing those back from monthly cheques.

[1715]

I just want the minister to comment that the government will continue to encourage families to seek child support. Ultimately, it’s to the family’s benefit, the community’s benefit, for children to not be living in poverty and to get every little bit of help that they can.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m thankful that you’re relaying the concerns, and I hope you will always relay the concerns of the people that you come into contact with, because that’s how I will be able to do my job better and the ministry will be able to do their job better.

In short, we will continue to encourage those individuals to seek out family maintenance plans, and we will, like I mentioned earlier, make it part of the intake process.

M. Mungall: If a client’s ex currently pays child support and seeks legal action to reduce or discontinue child support payments — and I know of some families that this is actually happening to right now — will the ministry support the client’s legal costs and obligations as part of the family maintenance program?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What the member spoke of is not currently part of our program. The part that we take part in is to do the front end, in getting the orders. The question that you’re asking is actually something that should be referred to the Ministry of Justice.

[1720]

M. Mungall: Thanks to the minister for clarifying that.

Now, the minister will recall we brought this up in question period. We partially brought this out. It was part of a broader question. It was specifically around the 51 layoff notices that went out to staff involved with the administration of clawing back the child support from income assistance and disability cheques.

If the ministry is currently just in the process of transitioning from one system to another and administering this aspect of income assistance, I’m just wondering why they were very quick to issue layoff notices.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Just to be clear, there have been no layoff notices provided to any staff.

M. Mungall: So then how has this been reported in the news? I mean, the general consensus in the public, based on the news reports and so on, is that there have been layoff notices. Can the minister explain what’s going on?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Well, I’m really not sure where the media got their information that there were laid-off
[ Page 6638 ]
notices that were given. What has happened is that there has been a pre-canvass offer to the employees for people who, perhaps, want to leave the ministry to pursue other opportunities or, perhaps, for those people who are considering retirement.

That has happened. As I mentioned in question period, we will make every effort that we can to ensure that we manage the changes within the ministry.

M. Mungall: Okay. Well, I’m going to pass the floor over to my colleague for Surrey–Green Timbers who has some questions pertaining to some issues in her community.

Before I do so, though, I don’t know if I’m going to be coming back to clawbacks. This pretty much sums up most of my questions on this. I just wanted to take this moment to, again, thank the minister, thank all of the staff and government members, for listening to this issue, for listening to the families that came forward. We told the stories of those families in the Legislature.

I think for a lot of families who came forward, who had the courage to come forward…. Like I said, living in poverty and having disability, as well…. There’s a lot of social stigma associated with that. To, kind of, bare your soul publicly about what’s going on — that you’re struggling to feed your children — is a very difficult position for any parent.

I thank the parents that came forward to share their stories — that allowed me to bring these stories forward to the Legislature. I think what the government showed them by listening is that the system can work and that, regardless of political stripe, we can all find ourselves on the same page and on the same side of an issue and recognize that we have a real opportunity here to make the world a little bit better for some people.

What it takes is that, when people come forward and have support from the broad public, they can impact government. I think it’s just an incredibly positive story that we were able to make this change. I wanted to take the moment to, again, just reiterate my thanks to the government for having some open ears on this issue.

With that, I’m going to pass this off to my colleague for Surrey–Green Timbers.

[1725]

The Chair: Thank you, Member, for those comments.

S. Hammell: I’d like to move to some issues around recovery houses. The ministry has a role in the recovery places, but I’d like to start off by asking you how much the ministry tops up social assistance if a person on social assistance is residing at a registered recovery house?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There is no top-up to income assistance. What happens is the supportive recovery home receives a $30.90 per diem per day for the individual who is at the recovery home, and the individual receives a $95 comfort allowance that they can use for personal supplies.

S. Hammell: How long has that amount of money been in practice? Has there been an increase recently?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s been in effect since October of 2008, and there has not been an increase.

S. Hammell: When do you anticipate an increase, given that that’s seven years…? Is there an increase anticipated?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There isn’t an increase anticipated at this time.

S. Hammell: Does the minister or the ministry think an increase, given that it’s been seven years, is justified?

[1730]

[S. Hamilton in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, a lovely new face. Thank you, Chair.

To the member opposite, again, there is no anticipated increase coming.

S. Hammell: The recovery houses. Is the minister aware that the recovery houses are generally ordinary houses that sometimes house up to ten people? People in those houses will have received hydro increases, will have received other increases, just as increases have happened throughout our province.

I guess I would then ask: what criteria is used? How is a decision made to increase or not increase something like the allowance to the recovery houses that are trying to work with people as they go through the recovery phase of their lives?

[1735]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: All the expenses for the client are covered through the per diem to the supportive recovery home. We keep a close eye on monitoring to ensure that our clients are able to access the services that are provided at the approved recovery homes.

S. Hammell: Can you explain to me what this monitoring looks like?

[1740]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’re working in a partnership with the Ministry of Health to have recovery homes registered, keeping with the standard of the assisted-living registry. The assisted-living registry then monitors
[ Page 6639 ]
the health and safety of the recovery homes, and our staff has involvement through the monthly intake and billing process. But we actually don’t fund homes. We pay to support our clients.

S. Hammell: I’m aware from…. The first response was that you pay a per diem to the house. My question was around the decreasing value of that per diem, and your response to me was that you monitor. I have to assume you meant the monitoring of whether that per diem was enough, because that’s the question I asked.

Now you’re telling me that you don’t monitor, that the Ministry of Health monitors through the assisted-living process. I know they do that. I just want to be clear. Does that mean that you are actually telling me you don’t monitor whether that per diem is enough or not, or too much?

[1745]

It’s a fee that’s been in place for seven years, and as far as you’re concerned, that’s sufficient.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Questions through the Chair, please, Member.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We do feel that it is enough to cover everything that the clients need while they’re in the recovery home.

S. Hammell: I think we can leave that.

I’d like to, through the Chair to you, ask you a question about when people are eligible for their per diem. Oftentimes people are sent to a recovery house from the courts, or they are released to the recovery house through the court system on being released from jail.

From the time they are released from jail and the recovery house assumes responsibility for them, there’s a gap — between the time they’re eligible. As I understand it, you are not eligible for the per diem until you have been accepted as a person on social assistance. So there’s a gap between the time the person has been assigned to the recovery house — the recovery house has accepted the client — and the time they are on social assistance.

As I understand it, the recovery houses do not qualify for a per diem. They have to look after the person who has been assigned to them by the courts or through the parole system without any assistance from the ministry, and there are no retroactive payments allowed. Is that correct?

[1750]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: : We don’t have the ability to provide the per diem to the supportive home until an individual — like your example of somebody who’s coming out of jail from the courts — becomes one of our clients on income assistance.

That being said, there is a process where we can fast-track the payments to the supportive recovery home should an individual become eligible for income assistance if they meet the criteria.

Again, we don’t fund recovery homes. We fund our clients for the recovery homes.

S. Hammell: I’m sorry. I thought I heard you say that you pay the houses the $30.90, not the individuals.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Correct. We pay the supportive recovery home $30.90 to support our clients that receive income assistance.

S. Hammell: I don’t want to seem pedantic, but what appears to me to be the problem is that you have a payment that I have to assume was adequate seven years ago and has lost value. That payment must be sitting somewhere less than $27 in our money today when it was $30.90 seven years ago.

Then to boot, you have a system where the justice system assigns a person to a recovery home. Because the ministry cannot figure out how to retroactively pay that recovery house, they also have to carry the freight of looking after someone who has been assigned to them from the justice system. The ministry says we can’t figure out how to retroactively make the recovery house good in terms of at least the $30.90.

[1755]

The alternative for this situation is the recovery house tells the people who have been assigned to them that they have to stay out on the street or find some other kind of way of living until they are eligible for social assistance and the $30.90.

Is that a system that might assist a person through recovery and on to being a productive member of society?

[1800]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s complicated. I’ve learned a lot in the last five minutes about the situation that is there. The current legislation that we have creates a barrier, and there is a gap that stands in the way. My understanding, at this point, is that we continue to work with our partners, whether that be the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Justice, as well as Corrections, to help reduce that gap.

I can assure the member that I will keep a close eye on this and see if there’s any way I can support the gap.

M. Mungall: We’re going to shift some of the questions to some service level issues. Starting us off is my colleague from Delta South. She’ll start with her questions, which will probably take us to the end of today. Tomorrow, we’ll be back on this topic, so for anybody watching at home, the “Michelle and Michelle Show” will continue, starting tomorrow at about 2:30.

The Chair: Be sure to tune in.
[ Page 6640 ]

V. Huntington: Thanks to the critic for being so generous with the potential time I might take this afternoon.

I would like to discuss with the minister and her staff access to services and how the ministry’s efficiencies and streamlining have impacted ridings that might be isolated, like mine. I’ll speak specifically to the case in south Delta and the impact this streamlining of services has had on my riding. I will say, I am speaking specifically about south Delta. I do not think the issues face the Chair’s riding, North Delta, in the same way. It’s a peculiarity of geography and access.

When the ministry started streamlining services, as they called it, and moving offices out to other areas, they moved the services out of south Delta and sent them to Surrey offices. I don’t think they sent the services to the Richmond office, but they assumed the Richmond office would also pick up service to south Delta. Then they moved to put forms on line, and many of the forms that are required for social assistance and other opportunities — disability, etc. — that the minister services are now on line. Members of the public who are in need of the services are kind of expected to apply on line.

Then the difficulty of talking to an individual in a place like south Delta becomes extreme. The phone becomes absolutely mandatory to access those services, when you’re isolated in a community like south Delta. You have to phone in.

When you phone in as a member of the public — and a vulnerable member of the public — you are left with, generally, a wait time on the phone of up to 45 minutes. In many cases the phone is cancelled at that point, and you are left hanging. If you are left with a waiting time of 45 minutes and you happen to be on a cell phone — which most likely you are borrowing because you can’t afford a cell phone in that situation — you can’t afford the time to sit.

[1805]

I can tell by the expressions over on that side that you’ve heard these arguments before. But what I’m talking to here are individuals in a community that is now isolated from services, other than by computer or by phone.

In the case of south Delta, it is almost impossible…. I would hope the Chair might nod his head in agreement. We know it’s almost impossible to reach Surrey by transit. It takes upwards of an hour and a half to get there, an hour and a half to get back, and then if you’re lucky, you might make the connections.

The most recent direct bus to Richmond has now been removed from the system. You have to go via Bridgeport. Then you have to figure out which bus takes you to an office in Richmond that is on a side street, not near a bus stop, that has no sidewalk. You have effectively, yet again, isolated people who are vulnerable or who may need assistance getting to a location.

What those roadblocks have then done to the vulnerable in my riding is created a situation where it’s almost impossible for many of them — who are attempting to access, say, for the first time — to get the services. They have now come to the constituency office. They’re sitting in a riding in which there is no shelter. Housing has withdrawn the subsidy for our church shelter in the riding, so there is no shelter. There is nowhere for the homeless to go — and we have homeless.

There are individuals coming into our office now who…. It takes a while to identify that this is the problem behind their compulsion and, sometimes, their aggressiveness. They’re distraught. It takes a while to identify that that may be because they’re illiterate. Then we spend the hours helping. This has happened lately in three situations, where we spend the hours filling in the forms for them.

There’s no advocate for the government offices in the riding. There are no resources. We used to be able to go and send some of these individuals to Deltassist, which had contracts with the ministry, but we have now, to our shock and awe, found that Deltassist is now focused on program delivery. It is not focused on these other issues of social assistance that we’ve found.

We have no mental health facilities. Our hospital does not have mental health capacities. That is a situation for Surrey now.

What I’m saying to the minister, through the Chair, is that your decision to streamline has isolated a whole body of people in my riding, and that isolation has forced them to turn to the constituency office for assistance. I’m wondering: does the ministry understand the hours of obligation that are now placed on a constituency office like mine, and do they understand the impact that you have had, in your decisions to streamline, on certain ridings and municipalities?

I would like an answer to the fullness of your understanding about what some of these decisions have made in specific areas.

[1810-1815]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We certainly realize that any time there is change, there are impacts that come with that. We try to minimize those impacts as best as we can when we go forward with these changes in the ministry.

We continue to try to create services that will better assist our clients with technology. As you know, we have the website. We have on-line options so that they can do much of their service on line now. Some clients, as you mentioned, can also use our phone system or My Self Serve.

We have increased and expanded the options on our phone service. As you mentioned, there’s a callback option. You mentioned that a person with a pay-as-you-go can’t wait on the phone. That callback option will call them back on their pay-as-you-go so they’re not losing their minutes on their phone.

That being said, the member also spoke a great deal of the clients that are now coming into her constituency office. I just want to note that since the office closed in
[ Page 6641 ]
March of 2010, our office hasn’t had any information from your constituency assistant that actually raises those concerns in a way that we can support or help her. If you want to make sure that your constituency assistant lets our office know so that we can assist better, we welcome that.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

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

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada