2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 8

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

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

The Children of the Street Society recently celebrated their 20th anniversary. Since 1995 Diane and the Children of the Street Society have worked tirelessly to prevent the sexual exploitation and human trafficking of children and youth through such innovative programs as TCO² — Taking Care of Ourselves, Taking Care of Others — which includes workshops for youth ages 11 to 18, as well as through their predator watch and Hooked media campaigns.

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. Donaldson: Visiting the precinct today are Barbara McLeod, Jodie Wickens and Louise Witt of the Autism
[ Page 6644 ]
Support Network. As members know, it’s an amazing network of volunteers that help parents access quality autism treatment. Would the Legislature please make them welcome today.

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

[1340]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

N. Simons: None taken.

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

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2015

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND OPEN
DOOR WORKPLACE INCLUSION AWARDS

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

[1345]

This is the first international treaty that comprehensively recognizes the rights of people with disabilities, a convention working to guarantee human rights for an estimated 650 million individuals with disabilities around the world. Canada was one of the first countries to sign the convention, and we’re proud to recognize today’s anniversary.
[ Page 6645 ]

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

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

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

BURROWING OWL ESTATE WINERY
OWL CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROSS HENDERSON

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

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

PACIFIC RIM WHALE FESTIVAL

S. Fraser: Yes, it’s that time of year again when the miraculous migration occurs on the west coast of Vancouver Island. You all know what I’m talking about — the amaz-
[ Page 6646 ]
ing spectacle of thousands of rubber-booted, yellow-slicker-clad, binocular-toting tourists that migrate to the coast via Highway 4 at the same time every year. More than 20,000 grey whales hit the region, travelling all the way from the Baja just to see this bizarre spectacle on the beaches or bobbing in rubber boats. The big greys still have found no plausible explanation for this unique phenomenon.

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

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

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

WOOD DESIGN AWARDS EVENT
IN VANCOUVER

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE DENTISTRY EVENT
IN CAMPBELL RIVER

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

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

[1355]

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

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

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

The dentists themselves are hoping that next year more of their colleagues in Campbell River decide to take part in a Dentistry from the Heart day and allow even more people access to a very important part of health care.
[ Page 6647 ]

Oral Questions

REVIEWS INTO PERFORMANCE OF
OFFICE OF AUDITOR GENERAL
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. C. Oakes: We’ve canvassed this topic on multiple occasions. This falls under the Auditor General for Local Government Act. Under section 19 of the Auditor General for Local Government Act, it provides that the audit council has the responsibility for the review and monitoring of the performance of the AGLG.

[1400]

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

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a further supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday the minister claimed the Public Service Agency was addressing the human resource issues at the AGLG, but the PSA completed its staff interviews
[ Page 6648 ]
in December. The staff at the AGLG are still waiting for someone — anyone — to fix these problems so they can get on with their jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1405]

ROLE OF BEN STEWART AS
ASIAN TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMPACT OF WHOLESALE
LIQUOR PRICING CHANGES

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

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

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

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

[1415]

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

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

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

This is the change that’s happening on April 1. It’s a change welcomed by industry. It’s the level playing field that people have been asking for, for many years. It joins
[ Page 6650 ]
all the many other changes we’ve been making in the liquor policy review, and they are good changes.

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

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

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

That was a great system. Nobody could understand it.

Interjections.

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

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

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

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

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

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

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

[1420]

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

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

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

To the Attorney General, why did she come up with such a scheme that hurts small businesses so much?
[ Page 6651 ]

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

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

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

Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

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

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

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

[1425]

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

RELEASE OF REPORT ON EARTHQUAKE
PREPAREDNESS CONSULTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of question period.]

M. Karagianis: I have a petition to present.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The House will come to order.

Please proceed.

Petitions

M. Karagianis: I have a petition here with 1,369 signatures from residents in Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Enderby and the area calling on the government to increase staff levels and client-to-staff ratios in residential care facilities.
[ Page 6652 ]

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

[1430]

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

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

Orders of the Day

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — PRIVATE TRAINING ACT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On section 7 (continued).

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about section 7. Section 7 deals with the registrar issuing certificates. I wanted to ask a question about subsection 7(7). It says: “A certificate issued under this section is not transferable or assignable.” I’m wondering what would happen if there was a sale of an institution that fell under the act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1440]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The operating plan is that each location will have a certificate which refers to that particular location’s capabilities and offerings. If an institution has more than one location, their website could, obviously, offer all their certificates available to the viewer on one page, and then perhaps for the sub-pages for each location there would a single certificate demonstrating that location as suitably qualified.
[ Page 6653 ]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask about section 7(2) — again, in relation to the issuance of certificates. It says, “The registrar may issue an interim designation certificate to an institution that has applied for a designation certificate, but does not meet the requirements for a designation certificate referred to in subsection (1) (a), if the registrar is satisfied that the institution meets (a) the requirements prescribed by regulation for the interim designation certificate, and (b) the requirements referred to in subsection (1) (b), (c) and (d),” which all has to do with the variety of requirements that are going to be determined by regulation.

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

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The two subsections have an important distinction. Section 7(1) refers to registration, which is, of course, the threshold the institution must pass before it can make any public offerings to students. Subsection (2) refers to designation, which is of course a higher standard that must be met.

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

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

[1445]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what the bill says is that the registrar “may issue a registration certificate or a designation certificate to the institution if the following requirements are met: (a) the registrar is satisfied that the institution meets the requirements prescribed by regulation for the certificate.”

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, we have the benefit of lengthy experience in this field, and the operators in the field are well familiar with the expectations to set up and operate a school. Given the breadth of fields that are pursued by this sector, it’s almost impossible to set out a
[ Page 6654 ]
standardized set of criteria in legislation, but they can be summarized, as I referred to in the flight school example, under the titles of competence, curriculum, facilities, finances and, of course — stating the obvious — suitable instructors.

[1450]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will go on to another question under this section. I don’t have too many more. It says the…. Actually, I think I have asked all of my questions under section 7.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, this is a field which has a wide scope and range only limited to human endeavour and creativity, and so the goals of consumer protection and quality assurance must be in the statute. To itemize them would be to freeze them in the past.
[ Page 6655 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

To say it all has to be done in the future…. Why not just write an act — which is pretty well what’s happened here — and say: “We’re going to do 1,000 regulations to determine what this is all to look like, but just trust us”? That is essentially what’s happened here.

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

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

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

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

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

K. Corrigan: Section 9 says:
[ Page 6656 ]

“If the registrar refuses to issue a certificate under section 7” — the section we’ve dealt with already — “…the registrar must give written reasons to the institution for the registrar’s decision. (2) An institution may not reapply for a registration certificate or a designation certificate during the 12-month period following the date of receipt of the registrar’s decision if (a) the institution’s application for a registration certificate is refused, or (b) the institution’s application for a designation certificate is refused and the institution is not issued an interim designation certificate.”

[1505]

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

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Continued

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

Interjection.

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

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

[1510]

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

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

K. Corrigan: Section 10 deals with “Continuation of certificate term if renewal application made before deadline.” It says: “If a certified institution applies for a certificate in accordance with this Division before the deadline prescribed by regulation, the institution’s current certificate remains valid until (a) the registrar issues to the institution a certificate under section 7…,” — that’s the registration section — “or (b) receipt by the institution of the registrar’s decision refusing to issue a certificate under section 7.”
[ Page 6657 ]

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise of this section is, I think, clear on the face of it. The onus is on the registrar to get back to the institution. The institution can carry on business until it hears back from the registrar. It is conceivable the registrar would get to the issue late, in which case the institution can continue to function until the registrar replies to them. The registrar’s response could be positive under subsection (a), in which case they carry on as before, or under subsection (b) the registrar could refuse to issue a certificate, in which case that would trigger the review process and so forth.

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

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

We are certainly supportive of regulation. Our problem is that this is so flawed that the appropriate support is not there, certainly, from the industry. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it appears that the protection for a whole variety of students, clients who are going to be attending language schools…. The protection for those people would simply be non-existent. So that’s a suggestion.
[ Page 6658 ]

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, I reluctantly find myself disagreeing with the member on the principle of this. This section would be notable if it were absent. This is actually leaving the statutory framework in place to provide for complex, expensive, elaborate programs to be approved before students are offered the opportunity to join the program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s clear that the legislation intends to have a transition to look at a different type of certification for institutions,
[ Page 6659 ]
but there is some concern that this clause specifically goes further and, in moving away from a self-industry, self-regulating model to this one, that there are unspecified service quality regulations that are contained in this clause.

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

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

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

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

R. Fleming: I just want to refer the minister to the language at the end of section 11(1) that talks about the institution not being able to enter into an agreement with a student or to provide a program that has not been approved by the registrar.

[1530]

I understand that part, but to me, this section is getting into the area around what quality or content of the program is going to be examined in order to achieve that approval elsewhere in the bill.

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

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

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

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask a question about section 11(2). It specifically states that this will not apply to institutions covered under the Degree Authorization Act.

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

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

If I could just help the minister out, I am jumping around a little bit. It’s referred to in section 88.

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

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

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

R. Fleming: Well, just on that institution specifically…. That’s really what I want to ask here, on section 11. I appreciate the minister’s indulgence if it is slightly out of order.

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

[1535]

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

Given that “university” is very restrictive, as it should be, in British Columbia and appreciating that the debate here is mainly referring to institutions that call themselves colleges, which has a lot less restrictions placed on it, I would ask why — because we don’t get legislation dealing with advanced education all that often — this wouldn’t take the opportunity to repeal that legislation and even the very reference to a “World Trade University,” which had such an inglorious chapter in B.C.’s history.
[ Page 6660 ]

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

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

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

K. Corrigan: I do fully understand that there’s a difference between registration and designation and that designation represents a higher standard. But what I’m asking now is…. This is where, in this section and division, program approval is referenced, and what it intimates is that only certain classes of programs, which are going to be prescribed by regulation — so unfortunately, we don’t know what they are yet — are going to require approval.

My inference is, then, that there are going to be certain classes of programs of instruction that are not going to require approval. That’s a simple question. Is that not the case? That could be for a course that is registered either under a registration permit or a certification permit. You could, in both those cases, possibly have to or not have to apply for approval under section 11.

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just for the sake of clarity and perhaps to attempt to clear the air, I’ll go over the regime more widely and bring it all back to section 11 to the best of my ability.

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

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

Section 11 is invoked where a costly or complicated course or a course of long duration is being offered, and I cannot sign up students and put them into a contractual situation unless that course has been approved in advance.
[ Page 6661 ]

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

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

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

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

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

[1550]

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

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister about subsection (3) here, in terms of the registrar’s obligation to decide whether the program of instruction requires his or her approval for the institution. I think he gave an example under the last section of the bill that we were just discussing about a hypothetical course called “Travelling in Europe,” if I heard him correctly, which sounds interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

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

[1555]

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Presumably, this question refers to the assets of an individual who finds themselves in trouble with the law, to put it bluntly, and thereby comes
[ Page 6662 ]
within the focus or the interest of the civil forfeiture office. If this is an asset that falls into a class which would be subject to civil forfeiture, we do not have that answer readily available, but we’ll happily obtain it and send it to the member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps we could get an answer back on that.

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

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

[1600]

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

Section 13 provides for additional requirements for certified institutions. They have to comply with the requirements for the institution’s certificate referred to earlier, maintain the security that’s referred to in section 7(1), “(d) comply with compliance standards applicable to the institution, (e) offer at least one approved program of instruction, (f) fulfill all reporting requirements prescribed by regulation, (g) maintain compliance with all local, provincial and federal enactments related to the operation or administration of the institution, and (h) pay the applicable fees prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

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

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

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

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The fee schedule, I think, was canvassed at some length yesterday, both on initial registration and on ongoing operations. That fee schedule has not yet been finalized, but one can imagine that it will be somewhat similar to the existing PCTIA fee schedule, which is on the Internet and which we reviewed yesterday.
[ Page 6663 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

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

“A certified institution must not implement (a) a change that is of a class prescribed by regulation as requiring notification without notifying the registrar, and (b) a change that is of a class prescribed by regulation as requiring notification and consent without the registrar’s consent to the change.”

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise here, of course, is that material changes that affect the operations or content of the institution would have to either be reported and notified under subsection (1)(a) or not only notified, but also require consent, under subsection (1)(b).

[1605]

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

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

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

Okay, that’s a start, and it would be helpful to those that are going to be covered by the Private Training Act to know what that means. Again, this is a section that…. I’ve had various organizations say, “Well, what does this mean? We have no idea what this section is talking about,” and I think that’s after being consulted by the ministry in advance.

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

I’m wondering why we just have nothing in this section with regard to what is being talked about.

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

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

K. Corrigan: Why would that not be the work done, then, so that it could be in the legislation so that when we’re debating it in this House, we’re not spending time trying to figure out some idea of what the section refers to and, secondly, it’s making it less concerning to the people who are going to be covered — those that have private training institutions and will be covered by this act and are going to have to follow the rules, follow the requirements of the act?

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

[1610]

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As mentioned earlier, those categories that are in the existing framework of substantive and non-substantive changes come as no surprise
[ Page 6664 ]
whatsoever to the sector. They’re well familiar with them. Those, of course, will form the agenda for consultations with the sector about, perhaps, reclassification of some of those into either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of subsection 14(1).

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

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

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The anticipated regulations are, of course, to outline the standards which the registrar will have to apply and the issues which fall within section 14(1)(b). Of course, that is the nature of requiring consent. Otherwise, everything would fall under section 14(1)(a). The registrar has to exercise some decision-making authority in order to decide whether or not to consent.

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

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The presumption here is that the regulations will contain not only the list of items that fall into categories in 14(1)(a) and (b) but also some of the parameters which the registrar will be required to consider in coming to the decision whether or not to consent under sub 14(3).

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

[1615]

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

K. Corrigan: Section 14(2)(d) says that a certified institution that is proposing a change referred to in subsection (1) — changes that we really don’t know exactly what they are because it’s going to be decided later — are going to have to “pay the applicable fees prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” So these would be fees for changes. Is that the idea? They’d be something very specific to the fact that there is going to be a change?

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sorry. This is not helpful, and I don’t think it’s appropriate in a piece of legislation. I do believe that it’s a
[ Page 6665 ]
good reason why we should be delaying this and getting that meat on the bones that is going to come later — before it’s finalized in legislation.

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

[1620]

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

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

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

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

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

K. Corrigan: Section 15 deals with the surrendering of certificates. I just have a big question mark beside this section. “(1) A certified institution may surrender any or all of its certificates in accordance with the regulations. (2) If an institution surrenders a certificate under subsection (1), the institution must immediately return the certificate to the registrar.”

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

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

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

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

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate the answer. But the question was: if those are the circumstances — the closure of an institution or the closure of a site — why would that not be in the act so we know what the heck we’re talking about? If it says that “a certified institution may surrender any or all of its certificates in accordance with the regulations,” on the face of it, when I look at that, it could be a hundred different reasons that a certified institution would surrender its certificates.

[1625]

It could be for closure. It could be if they’re moving from one place to another. It could be if they’re required to surrender them. It may be that if they’re being penalized, they have to surrender them. There’s nothing there that is clear.

Again, my question to the minister is: why would it not be specified what it is that we’re talking about? If it is to do with when an institution closes or when an institution moves, why not just say that in the act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the member opposite has hit the nail on the head. Hundreds of circumstances could be envisaged.

The essence of this is stated in section 15(1). The certificate can be categorized as “any or all.” If all certificates are surrendered, the institution ceases to exist as a statutorily authorized private teaching institution. Or it may surrender one or more of its certificates and remain in business at other locations.

With that explanation, I’m going to propose we take a five-minute break, Mr. Chair.
[ Page 6666 ]

The Chair: This committee will stand in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

K. Corrigan: This section is a fairly lengthy section which deals with personal education numbers. Rather than going through section by section, and certainly to start with, I wonder if the minister could perhaps explain what this section does.

[1635]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There are a number of layers to this. First of all, the personal education number is, as it says, a unique identifier so that the post-secondary student can have an integrated experience with their elementary school experience. As they make their educational journey through the province, it’s to make sure that their credits are understood throughout the system so that they don’t get lost in the system between institutions.

Secondly, these are used as a client number for student financial aid. Thirdly, they are used as a tool to anonymize information so that the ministry can analyze the journey of our students through the system to determine where they’re going and how they’re pursuing their education so that we can optimize offerings for those students.

As I say, there are three layers to it: first of all, the service layer to the student; second, the financial tracking number if they do get involved with student aid; and thirdly, for anonymized data analysis.

K. Corrigan: The personal education number would be the same if it was a student that had gone through the elementary system in British Columbia or had come in at some point. That would be the personal education number that they already have.

Under the previous act, did a private post-secondary student enrolled in a career-training program…? Were they assigned a personal education number under the previous act?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The legislation existed, but it wasn’t brought into force because the administrative wherewithal to manage this was not in place. It is about to be in place, so it will be implemented.

K. Corrigan: This will be a first time. Will that be done through the Ministry of Advanced Education — where this will be administered?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working arrangement here is that this has been used for some time now for K-to-12 students. It is in use for public post-secondary institutions, for obvious reasons. It will now be implemented for the private institutions, as I say, for the three reasons previously stated.

K. Corrigan: Some might find it disconcerting to see that private, for-profit institutions would have access to a personal education number. Then that raises the question…. I know it states here in subsection (5) what the uses are to be for, but I think it’s important to really understand how that information can be used.

The training institution can use the education number for the following purposes: “carrying out its responsibilities in respect of operating a career training program or activity of the institution; (b) conducting research and statistical analysis of a private post-secondary student’s personal information in its possession; (c) facilitating the provision of a private post-secondary student’s personal information under subsection (6).

First of all, would private post-secondary certified career-training institutions get access to data on anybody other than the students attending their institution?

[1640]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is actually onto a very valid point here. The information available to the private institutions is very tightly restricted to the information that the students themselves provide to the institution. The private training institutions have no access to the larger aggregated data set. The student must provide them with any information that they get.

This system has been in use not only in the public sector institutions, both K to 12 and post-secondary, for some time but also in the private K-to-12 system. This is the last corner of the matrix to come into the personal education number arrangement. As I say, the institutions themselves have very, very limited access to information — only what the students provide them.

K. Corrigan: What information is a student required to provide that would be included with the personal education number?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This may be best illustrated by an example, whereby a private training institution in something like dental work or in nursing may turn to the student and say, “Well, we need some personal information” — the basic information of address, name, date of birth and contact information, whether phone or e-mail. They of course are governed by the privacy legislation on what they can do with that. They may also ask for some evidence of prerequisite training.

The student may fill out “grade 12” or that they took a prerequisite course at another college or at a public in-
[ Page 6667 ]
stitution. It would be open to the institution, whether it’s public or private, to ask for proof of that course completion by getting a transcript through the student from their prior institution, whether it’s K to 12 or another public or private institution.

The access to information by the private institution is very limited and regulated at every step by the student himself or herself.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s always pleasing to know that we’re amusing the member for Nanaimo over in the corner.

R. Fleming: On the section, there are some possibilities where these private institutions could choose what would be considered an unsuitable personal education number mechanism.

This section, as I read it, just suggests that the institution create one out of the personal information of the student. They could invent their own and have a student XY123. Or in some instances they would perhaps, for example, potentially be tempted to use the personal education number that’s being introduced in the K-to-12 system in British Columbia — if it was primarily a domestic student audience that the institution has — which would provide numbers that had been issued for a completely different data set.

Just to make the example, maybe, more real for the minister, I’m aware of an institution that had to cancel using, improperly, social insurance numbers as student ID numbers, which obviously created potential pandemonium on the privacy side for students. But that was what the student ID at an institution was. In this case it was a public institution.

On practices like that, this section of the bill seems to me to be extremely vague. There could be some institutions that want to create the cheapest personal education number database possible. They will use information that could expose students to privacy concerns, or they could be improperly using other ID numbers that are issued by the provincial or federal governments.

I’m wondering if it might be something that could be dealt with either by an amendment or by the explicit instructions of the registrar that certain types of personal identity–issued numbers explicitly not be used.

[1645]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite brings up a valid point. He may recall that prior to about 1990 there were no personal health numbers. The MSP cards just had our social insurance number on them. That was thought to be, as time progressed, an inappropriate use of a social insurance number because it provides access to other forms of information that should not be accessed — and similarly, in today’s era, allows for identity theft.

The personal education number is never issued by the institution. It is issued by the Ministry of Education. Most students in British Columbia will have come through the K-to-12 system, either private or public, and will already have a personal education number which is theirs exclusively and provides no access for the institution to do anything else, other than what the student provides to them.

In the instance of a student who comes into the province for the first time for this educational experience, they will be issued a personal education number by the Ministry of Education to provide for this kind of supervised management of their information.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to clarify then. A domestic student that is coming from the K-to-12 system and is then attending a private career-training institution will come with their number, and then that number is simply a number. Does the data that is associated with that student then come into the possession of the career-training institution or language school?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As usual, the member asks a very thoughtful and insightful question. The answer is most reassuring, because the data flows only one way — to the Ministry of Education. No data flows back to the private institution. It must obtain all student personal information, as in subsection 16(5)(b), from the student. The student controls the information going to the institution.

K. Corrigan: I’m sorry. I didn’t quite fully hear that answer. Just to be clear, then, I believe what the minister was saying is that the student would come with the number, but there would not be a data set that was attached to that number. So the student wouldn’t…. Okay. That’s fine.

Subsection (7) says:

“The minister must provide, to the minister responsible for the administration of the School Act” — that would be the Minister of Education — “the private post-secondary student’s personal information about a private post-secondary student that is in the possession of the minister if the minister responsible for the administration of the School Act requests that information and provides the minister with a valid personal education number for that private post-secondary student.”

What is the purpose of that — for what purpose?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, the member asks a thoughtful question. In today’s era of protecting personal information, government seeks to have explicit authority for transferring personal information of this sort.

This section is obviously designed to meet the expectations of the Privacy Commissioner by explicitly authorizing the movement of information from the Ministry of Advanced Education to the Ministry of Education and, likely, back to the Ministry of Advanced Education so that that learning journey of the student can be followed and analyzed on an anonymized basis.
[ Page 6668 ]

K. Corrigan: So a student who is not a domestic student, who is here as a foreign student to go to a career training institution or a language school, would be given a personal education number as well. Everybody who attended would get a personal education number. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Yes, if an individual comes from, as I say, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Taiwan or Thailand and enrols in an institution in British Columbia, whether public or private, the new regime will provide that they get a personal education number.

[1650]

Obviously, this provides for a method of engaging them in the system on an ongoing basis while also protecting their privacy from the institution.

K. Corrigan: Is it the expectation that whatever data is collected about a student, if they come…? Say they’re a domestic student or a foreign student from some other part of Canada or another country, and they have a personal education number. Then that information would — a certain amount of information….

There would be a minimum level of information like address, name, I guess the program that the student was enrolled in, and whatever was collected. Then that information would automatically go into the Ministry of Advanced Education, go to the Advanced Education Minister and could go, if appropriate, to the Minister of Education.

Is that correct? Could it be used for educational purposes generally? Could that information be used by the government?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The plan in this situation is that the Ministry of Advanced Education obviously has an interest in sorting out where students are, making sure that the head count of an institution matches what the institution represents it to be and, when appropriate, for managing student financial aid. That obviously lies in the bailiwick of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Then there will be periodic data transfers to the Ministry of Education which are motivated by the desire and the need to analyze what happens to students after they finish high school. That is not a matter of the Minister of Education being particularly concerned what that student is doing day to day or what their financial status is. That is, essentially, irrelevant. It’s really to track their progress of learning through life and to determine whether perhaps grade 12 curriculum is taking them to a successful path through post-secondary education, whether public or private.

K. Corrigan: Would the passing on of the data to the Minister of Education then…? Does that mean that the data could now be used, for example, to inform Statistics Canada data? Could it be used for analysis of how — I think, from what the minister has said, it probably could — particular types of people, a class of people — maybe women as opposed to men — or anything else that is worthy of analysis…? Could that data be used for that type of analysis once it’s passed to the Minister of Education — or by the Minister of Advanced Education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again the member brings up a very thoughtful and interesting point in that educational information is obviously a big investment by the state and by individuals to pursue paths of education. At the StatsCan level, assuming the federal government remains interested in these kinds of fields — that is, of course, an open question — there may be some data sharing of aggregated, anonymized data.

[1655]

For instance, graduates of high schools in Richmond, B.C. — what is their ongoing career path, and what is their earnings profile downstream?

The privacy protections, both provincially and federally, especially at Stats Canada, are sufficiently rigorous that it is normally reduced to about three postal code digits or less so that the chance of identifying anyone by back-analysis from those aggregated data is made effectively impossible under both the Statistics Act federally and our own Vital Statistics Act.

K. Corrigan: Well, if a student was to be born in British Columbia and had gone through their K to 12 in British Columbia and then went on to a public university or college or institute and then went to a private career-training institution or language school, would there be a file somewhere that essentially, then, had all of that information? Perhaps not accessible to a wide range of people, but does that mean that there would be, for that individual, a file of information about that person that went, basically, from when they were five years old through to when they’re in this career-training institution?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As alluded to earlier, the Ministry of Education files, as we understand it — since we aren’t from the Ministry of Education — contain, essentially, report card information, as we would have recorded it in the old days, associated with the personal education number. That’s true for both public and private K-to-12 systems.

From the public post-secondary system, there is, basically, demographic and curriculum vitae information — whether the individual completed their degree, how many years they completed — but, as we understand it, not the grades. The full transcript information is retained by the post-secondary institution.

That has been in place for public post-secondary institutions for some time, so there’s been the ability to integrate that basic demographic information and identifier
[ Page 6669 ]
information, curriculum vitae information, from the post-secondary institutions with the K-to-12 information within government.

[1700]

That has not been the case for the private post-secondary institutions. This section is to enable that so that data analytics can be performed to sort out how we might improve our educational system more generally and to identify those who perhaps bounce around in the educational institutions and how we could better serve their interests by encouraging them or enabling them to complete programs, rather than take multiple programs with limited success.

K. Corrigan: I’m getting from that, that the answer is yes, and I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing. But I think when we’re talking about personal information in files that are part of a very large entity, which the government of British Columbia is, the minister is saying yes there would be. If this person had gone through this route — either private or public, K to 12 in British Columbia and then perhaps a post-secondary public institution and then came to a career training institution under the new act — there would be a file. It would be available to….What arms of government would have access to that?

For example, would that information…? You’d have information about a student who had a personal education number from the time they were five years old. It went through with them, and it had a certain amount of information about where they went to school and stuff, K to 12 and then where they went to university and what degree they got. I don’t know whether it would have anything else. Would it have things like a driver’s licence number or whatever? And they went to these career training institutions.

For example, would that information be available…? I’m sorry to get into a long thing about personal information, but we are now saying under this act that we’re going to have the same kind of access to information about students in the private training world that we do with public education. So I think it’s important to understand what we’re talking about here.

I guess one example would be with the police. If they were investigating a crime, would they have access to those data files that are in government’s possession?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: For context, one must recall, of course, that the K-to-12 information is truly private. There’s very limited access to it. An individual seeking their own K-to-12 information can write to their school board that they graduated from — or from, presumably, the ministry — and ask for disclosure of that information. Under our freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation, they’re entitled to that information for free.

Once they’re into the university system or the college system, of course, any graduation ceremony will tell the public. It’s public information whether any of us have graduated from a particular institution because it’s announced from the stage during the ceremony. So it’s hardly private. The premise, of course, is that that essentially public information of whether someone is a graduate or not is integrated with the K-to-12 record.

Subsection 16(7) provides that only the two involved ministries may engage in that data sharing and using the valid personal education number for that particular student. This section connects the private post-secondary institutions into that system, but presumably the Privacy Commissioner would have strong views on whether that data file in the Ministry of Education would be available to the police or to creditors or to the court system.

Of course, the member opposite is well familiar with the disclosure rules available in litigation or in the courts more generally, where an order can be obtained — or a consent order in the right circumstances — for disclosure of that information. Subsection 16(7) simply provides for the two ministries to share that data in an explicitly stated statutory framework, which would satisfy the needs of the Privacy Commissioner and other legislation that further sharing would be subject to great scrutiny.

K. Corrigan: Just an assurance, then, that that information would not be available to other ministries of the government individually and, secondly, or aggregately, in order to do analysis.

[1705]

What if the Ministry of Health wanted to do some analysis to try to establish a connection between education and health outcomes? Would that type of information — first of all, the question would be individually, and secondly, in some kind of aggregate fashion — be available to the Ministry of Health, for example?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In the absence of an explicit statutory provision providing for the study that the member suggests, the individual or entity or body within government seeking to do that study would have to go first to the Privacy Commissioner to ask for the appropriate standards for disclosure of information.

If the information were totally anonymized — no height, no weight, no address, no dates of birth — and it were simply “male/female; educational attainment, in the broadest sense; and dead or alive,” the Privacy Commissioner would likely say that that is entirely acceptable and, with the appropriate scrutiny and controls, they could proceed. But it would be cleared through the Privacy Commissioner first.

If a more detailed study were requested for the city of Richmond for women below a certain birth weight to be analyzed for their educational outcomes, that would receive a great deal more scrutiny and would have trouble
[ Page 6670 ]
passing muster, particularly if it got to the level of detail where an individual could be identified.

As I said earlier, there are statutory safeguards in place to prevent that degree of scrutiny that could result in back analysis and identification of even small groups of individuals, such as particularly tall people.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you for that. I do appreciate the answer. I’m certainly not an expert in how data can or cannot be used by government, but I think it’s important to consider, anyways, what the implications are.

I do have one other area in this section that I wanted to ask about with regard to the use of data. One of the stated goals of government is to increase the number of foreign students coming to British Columbia. Fifty percent was the stated goal. I’m wondering if this data could be used for that type of analysis.

Okay, so we are tracking where students…. I would assume that this personal education number would include, if the student was a foreign student, where they came from. Could this data, and would this data, appropriately be used to do that kind of analysis?

For example, for the government saying, “Okay, we want to figure out how many students are coming here to attend language schools and what countries they’re coming from so that when we’re going to advertise in the future, we might say we want to target a certain country that we think should have students” — I mean, those kinds of things — could the personal education numbers and the data associated with them be used for that type of analysis?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ve now been educated that the personal education numbers do not discern whether the student is an international student or a domestic student. That is an aggregated reporting function that’s performed by school districts and by our post-secondary institutions.

For instance, Simon Fraser University will report to the ministry that they have X number of domestic students and Y number of international students. We do avoid the now passé term “foreign students,” because we greet them, rather than treat them as strangers.

My mandate letter provides that we’re to increase the number of foreign students by 50 percent, and the aggregate number of foreign students — or rather, international students — in the system is still in single digits percentagewise. It’s hardly approaching 50 percent of the student body. It’s more like 7 percent.

[1710]

K. Corrigan: In defence of whether or not the goal has been reached, I think it was a 50 percent increase — not suggesting that 50 percent of the students were going to be international students.

I’m just trying to be clear on this then. What the minister is saying is that the information is there because somehow the university has to be able to…. The post-secondary institution now, whether it’s public or private, will need to be able to report that, even if it’s at an aggregate level. It is there, and it could be used for that purpose.

I mean, that’s really what I’m trying to get to. That information would be made available. I would assume that there would be requirements of a career-training institution that they do gather certain information, including, I would assume, where the student comes from, what country or province.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The private post-secondary sector, of course, is one where we do not provide any funding, so there is a less stringent reporting system in terms of whether students are international or domestic. Nonetheless, we do get data from the federal immigration office for those who are on student visas, and the capacity exists to ask the institutions. Of course, they will only be required to let us know about courses that are registered — that is, above the $1,000 and 40-hour threshold.

The data analysis for the number of international students attending PPSIs is more limited than it is in the public system, where, of course, funding follows domestic students.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I guess my question, then, is: is the minister saying that it’s not expected that the personal education number and the information that is attached to that student could be used or would be used in order to, for example, market British Columbia’s educational opportunities in the private or public sector to other countries or other provinces?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer is that we simply don’t have access to country of origin through the PEN, through the personal education number. It doesn’t entail that information, partly because it’s incomplete in the PPSIs, as I’ve said. They don’t receive funding from government, so we have a limited entitlement to that information, if I can put it that way. There are privacy issues there.

The countries of origin are determined either through immigration, the federal agencies involved or through basic queries sent out to the institutions asking them, in fairly broad terms: “Where does your student body come from?”

[1715]

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

K. Corrigan: Section 17 deals with an on-line directory of institutions. It says that the registrar has to “establish and maintain an online directory of…certified institutions and former certified institutions for the pur-
[ Page 6671 ]
pose of providing the public with the following information....” Then it lists the name, what kind of certificate the institution has, the programs and so on.

Just to be clear, this applies only to certified institutions; it does not apply to registered institutions. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The overarching structure of this section is that the registrar, being an employee of the Ministry of Advanced Education, will maintain a data site which will be available for public scrutiny so that a student who is in Cranbrook or Calgary or Chandigarh can look on that website and see if the institution they’re interested in is in fact properly registered and also, in section 17(3), if there have been any problems with that institution, so that the student has access to an objective and up-to-date data set which is not being used for marketing purposes.

K. Corrigan: Actually, I was mistakenly using the word “certification” to mean just the designated, but it doesn’t. “Certified” means either designated or registered. So just to be clear, then, if it’s either a registered institution or a certified institution, then they have to be part of the website and contain the information that is contained in section 17. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is in almost every case highly accurate in her questions, but this time I think she misstated herself in that a certified institution means it is either registered or designated or both. One cannot operate a designated institution without it being registered, and all registered institutions are certified. So certification is really the evidence that one has a registered institution, which may or may not be designated.

K. Corrigan: Part of the information that is on the on-line directory…. Well, first of all, just to be clear, it is the registrar that takes ultimate responsibility for the directory, populates the information and takes responsibility for the content of the site? Or is the information put on there by the individual institutions? I’m just trying to figure out who has ultimate responsibility here.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It is the registrar.

K. Corrigan: That information includes a record of any administrative penalty imposed on the institution, any suspension or cancellation of the institution’s certificate under sections 36 or 37, which are yet to come, or any injunction granted under section 45 and any additional information prescribed by regulation, which I think the public will be happy to hear about.

Subsection (2) says: “Subsection (1) applies to a registered institution or an accredited institution as defined in the former Act if the registration or accreditation of the institution, as applicable, was cancelled under the former Act.”

[1720]

So from that, am I correct in saying that if there was an institution that was registered or accredited under the old act and then was registered under the new act but had been suspended under the old act, that would not show up on the website under this legislation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This section needs to be read in concert with section 73, which provides that suspension or cancellation under the current regime is carried on and continued into the new regime. So, if I understand the member’s question correctly, that suspension or cancellation will be visible under the new regime, and the cancellation under subsection 17(2) will appear on the record of the institution in the registrar’s on-line directory. Similarly, subsection 17(1)(e)(ii) would capture the section 73 continuation of the suspension.

K. Corrigan: Does that apply, then, to a former suspension, though? Section 73 talks about if there is a suspension that is in effect during the transition period, then it continues.

[1725]

But where is it that refers to a former suspension? It could well be there. That’s many sections ahead, and there are many, many sections to this bill, so I could well have missed it. I’m wondering if the minister could indulge me and show me where it is in section 72 or 73 — something that says that if there had been a suspension and the suspension had ended, then under this act that suspension would show up on the website.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The point the member makes is that a historical suspension should come to the attention of the prospective student. The current arrangement under PCTIA requires that the suspension remain on the record of the institution for five years. That is the current state of affairs. Section 73 should provide for the transition of that existing suspension into the record of the institution under section 17(1)(e)(ii), which would be a continuation of that record of suspension.

K. Corrigan: Okay, just to be clear. What the minister is saying is that although section 73 talks about a suspension that is an existing suspension during the time of transition, what that really means is that that would include any suspension. Even though the actual suspension had ended, that subsection, which says that it would deem it to be suspended, would include any suspension that had happened in the last five years? I don’t read it that way. But maybe I’m misreading it.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re fortunate that the drafters decided to include some redundancy in the statute. So on this particular point, if it is not captured in sub-subsection 17(1)(e)(ii) in concert with section 73, then it is cap-
[ Page 6672 ]
tured in subsection 17(4), where this five-year duration of the recorded and visible suspension can be published by the registrar in the public interest.

K. Corrigan: Subsection 17(4) gives the registrar powers, but it certainly doesn’t commit the registrar or force the registrar to provide that information. I think the minister is saying that…. My reading of it is that a suspension that was three or four years old…. While somebody is, I guess, deemed to not have to put something more than five years old, a suspension that was three or four years old would not necessarily be caught in the transitional sections of the act. Unless the registrar made the decision that it was in the public interest, that information would not be captured — a suspension would not, unless the registrar made that decision. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There’s also a provision in subsection 17(3) that provides for institutions that have either given up or lost their certificates to have their information made known by the registrar. So this matrix of subsection 17(1)(e), including sub 17(1)(f), which could be prescribed by regulation, and subs 17(3) and (4) should capture the mischief that the member opposite identified. Certainly, the learned staff in the room here with me will be making sure it’s included under section 17(1)(f) in the regulations.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m pleased to hear that we have a confirmation and that the minister is assuring us that that situation will indeed be captured by the regulations, but we haven’t see the regulations yet.

[1730]

I mean, it may not be a big thing.

It seems it is true that — unless the registrar makes the decision that it’s in the public interest — a suspension that occurred under the old act, unless it’s more than five years old, would not necessarily be reflected on the new website, unless the registrar decided that it needed to be there or that it is in fact contained in regulations. But I guess I’ll leave that as it is. I think the point is made.

I think it should be. It should carry over, and I don’t believe it does, unless the registrar decides that that should be the case.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Subsection (3) says: “If an institution (a) does not hold any certificate, and (b) is contravening or has contravened a provision of this Act or the regulations, the registrar must, in accordance with the regulations, publish in the online directory any information referred to in subsection (1) (a), (b) and (e) (i) and (iii) known by the registrar about the institution.”

This would cover a whole variety of institutions, particularly the language schools in British Columbia. I’m sure it would be true of other types of post-secondary career-training institutions as well. There are all those types of schools that will not be governed by the act if they don’t decide they want to be registered or certified and they don’t go over the thresholds that require them to be. In other words, the training programs are not more than 40 hours, or the tuition is not over $1,000.

As the language schools have said, this is a huge number of schools that are not going to be covered by the legislation. That’s one of the main concerns that we have. This legislation is not going to protect the public, the students and their families from any language programs that will not be registered because this act doesn’t apply to them.

This is some comfort to know that if the registrar is aware…. How proactive does the registrar have to be in order to try to publish that information or provide that information to the public?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The staff advise me that this is actually a fairly active area. Those who have not held a certificate, in this section of the act, and are found in contravention of the act…. We can anticipate that they will be reported by consumers and by the competition in order to have their adverse record publicized. Obviously, that is the basis for the requirement that it’s obligatory for the registrar to publish this information in accordance with the regulations.

The reporting system, which I think is what the member is after here, consists of the public, the competition in the sector and also our own internal staff, who do spend time, not only the inspectors but the staff within the existing regime. It’ll also be carried over to the public sector management of this regime — that they do review information, review websites, look for contraventions and pursue them and publicize them, as is provided in subsection 17(3).

[1735]

K. Corrigan: What kind of obligation does the registrar have, on the other hand, looking at the rights of the providers, the institutions that are not registered or designated? What level of proof or what level of…? How sure does the registrar have to be? What is it obligated to do in order to confirm that this information should go on a website warning people that there have been contraventions of the act or the regulations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The regime has historically been based upon finding a basis for concern, whether it’s from a student or a competing institution or from the in-house inspection staff. Documents are collected, such as a web printout or a student contract or something comparable, and then the institution in question is asked to explain their position on the evidentiary record — it may be a webpage, it may be a document, or it may be something
[ Page 6673 ]
more — in order to ensure that there’s a degree of administrative fairness at an informal tribunal level.

If the explanation is found to be insufficient or wanting, then the contravention is recorded, and it is now available for entry on to the registrar’s website under the new legislation.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

K. Corrigan: Section 18 deals with program completion if the institution ceased to hold a certificate. In order to fully understand this section, I’m wondering if I could ask the minister to describe a scenario in which this section might apply.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: A scenario will describe this. If a student were enrolled in a licensed practical nurse program and the institution ceased to hold the certificate while the student was two-thirds of the way through the program, then the student is entitled to file a claim against the fund, under section 18(1).

Under section 18(2) the registrar could then contact the student and say: “Well, there’s a comparable program, and you could fit into that program” — on, call it, May 15 — “to carry on with your course and finish the course.”

Then section 18(3) provides that the former institution has to comply with the regulations to facilitate the connection with the comparable program. The receiving institution, institution B, may say: “Well, we don’t know what that student really did. Are they actually telling us a story, or is there some basis for saying that?” So institution A, which is no longer in possession of a certificate, would be obliged to tell institution B where that student actually had attended and passed their mid-term and the like.

[1740]

K. Corrigan: What would be the role of the registrar or government personnel in this case? Is it a hands-on role, or is it a hands-off role? I mean, the registrar is going to be appointing the person to provide a comparable program. Then is it left to the devices of the institution that doesn’t have a certification anymore and the new institution that has been appointed to finish the program off, basically, for the student? Would that be left to them, or would there be involvement to enforce and make sure that that actually happened? What would the role of government be in that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current regime and the anticipated regime is the registrar will act as a facilitator here rather than just an arm’s-length web presence telling the disappointed student that there is an option for them at another college. In fact, the registrar would be in contact with the student and would facilitate that transfer. If the failed institution that was the source of the student is uncooperative or is somehow insolvent, then the registrar will have seized the records from the former institution and will make them available to the accepting institution.

K. Corrigan: The money side of this — it only applies if the student files a claim against the fund under section 23. I’m wondering why it requires a claim. Is the claim against the fund an administrative claim as well as a financial claim, then? I’m just wondering why there has to be a claim against the fund. I could foresee a situation where the student would say: “Okay. Well, I’ve got a little bit left to do in this program. I’m going to go to this other place.” Do they need to claim under the fund so that they can get the money back so that they can pay the receiving institution? Is that how this would work?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The student here is protected in that the funds required to pay the remainder of their course to institution B will be provided through the good offices of the registrar from the tuition protection fund. Then it’ll be up to the registrar to go back to institution A to attempt to extract from them the appropriate sum to cover the teach-out at institution B.

The goal here, of course, is consumer protection so that the student is given viable choices as soon as possible: would they prefer to have their tuition back from the tuition protection fund, or would they prefer to complete a comparable course in a prompt manner for the same price? Either way, the student has the choice and is protected.

H. Bains: I think the minister answered many of the questions that I had under section 18. But for 18(3), I think there could be another scenario. It’s not just a hypothetical question. It has happened. There are real-life stories. The minister says that the “former certified institution referred to in subsection (1) (a) must comply…any applicable regulations….”

[1745]

Some of these scenarios have been covered. But we have seen in the past that institution A, as the minister has described, that does not hold the certificate any longer, has folded. Not only folded, they’ve declared bankruptcy, picked up their records, and they’re gone away. Although in one case the RCMP was sent in, they couldn’t find anything.

My question to the minister is: under that kind of scenario what kind of remedy is available to the student, as the minister described, in order to continue on with a program with another institution with the help of the registrar? If that particular information is not available, which is supposed to come from the institution that no longer holds the certificate, what’s the anticipation under this section to help a student in that situation?
[ Page 6674 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: One can envisage a wide range of scenarios here, the worst-case scenario being something dreadful like the school burns down with the owners and operators in it and there are simply no records and no accountability. There’s no one to recover from. There’s nothing. The tuition protection fund would allow the student to recover their tuition or to go to a comparable institution.

The second institution, the receiving institution, would then obviously say: “Well, we realize that college A burnt down, and we feel very badly about that and feel sorry for you, but how can we evaluate where you got to in your program? We’ll have to sit down and do that.” The registrar would facilitate that.

A more plausible scenario is one that the member suggests, that a school fails in the marketplace, becomes insolvent, and records are hard to find. The owners have wandered off. They may still exist.

The premise here in section 18(3) is that it provides a statutory basis for the kind of intervention the member talked about — that is, an entry to the facility or into their database to find the necessary records to protect the interest of the student at institution B. So that the student, preferably, doesn’t have to undergo an evaluation at institution B, they are able to transfer their records and information over from institution A, which has a statutory obligation to do so.

Perhaps this is most effective in the scenario where an institution fails in a particular program but still exists or has another line of business. This provides the registrar and the courts — and in a worst-case scenario, the police — with a statutory authority to go and gather the necessary information and also to deal with the consequences of the student being protected in institution B.

H. Bains: I fully understand. I think there could be a variety of scenarios where no record is available. I think the question would be that there must be some mechanism available to the registrar if, under any of those circumstances, the records are not available, for whatever reason. There must be some mechanism available to the registrar. How do you evaluate the course that they have started, the program that they started in institution A, so that they could continue on in institution B without losing a year or losing that program?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member points out an interesting issue. The private sector institution has its own privacy obligations, and it would be wholly inappropriate for the institution to be uploading the student’s progress and grades to the ministry without the permission of the student and without any statutory basis for doing so. That would be a pretty flagrant violation of the privacy of the student.

This section is obviously designed to, as much as possible, balance the needs of the student with the privacy interests of the student so that the student has a vehicle, through the registrar, to go and recover what information there is on them and perhaps even to recover their tools that were left in a locker at the failed institution. This does provide the statutory authority for those steps.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

K. Corrigan: This provides that the certified institutions “must establish, in accordance with the regulations, a dispute resolution process for student complaints respecting the institution or any aspect of the institution’s operations.” This is very wide open, and I’m wondering what the minister envisions for this dispute resolution process.

[1750]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This envisages a continuation of current arrangements. These are quite elaborate, now, at our public post-secondary institutions and the private sector institutions. This requires that each institution develop a process for managing and dealing with complaints and grievances. Of course, as it says, it has to be a proper dispute resolution process, not just a suggestion box.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions about the fund and the transition of it. First of all, if I could just ask him the current balance of the fund, the student tuition protection fund, of the PCTIA.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The current balance in the fund is $14.9 million. This section, of course, provides for that to be continued into an ongoing student protection fund.

R. Fleming: If I could just ask the minister a couple of questions about the history of this fund and its activity — how much it annually raises and also disburses in typical claims, if there is such a thing as a typical year and whether $14.9 million represents several years of accumulation.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The total claim on the fund each year from 2009 to 2014 ranged from $197,000 to $655,000, and the accumulated fund — I’ll call it fund rather than surplus — is $14.9 million.

The premium set, the requirement on the institution to pay into the fund, has clearly been successful in that there’s a reserve in place, which is of a suitable size, in case of the failure of a larger institution. But the claim’s history suggests that between $200,000 and $650,000 will be paid out, making the $14.9 million fund viable in the long term.
[ Page 6675 ]

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister if…. Subsection (2)(a) of this section refers to the closing balance. This fund is referred to as a trust fund, so I would gather that there are significant restrictions on it. Nevertheless, if the PCTIA is being wound down, is the fund what remains of any outstanding debts or obligations, the sum total of…?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: And liability.

R. Fleming: And liability. Sorry, yes.

[1755]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a thoughtful question in that the essence of it is: will there be $14.9 million available for transfer into the new fund, or are there contingent liabilities on the fund that will reduce that sum? The answer is that in the normal course, there’ll be minor claims against the fund. It will probably be in the range of $14.9 million but not exactly $14.9 million at the point of transfer.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister just about the wording in subsection (1). It seems to me that there’s more than the name of the fund that is being changed here. The student training completion fund will henceforth be known as the student tuition protection fund.

One of the criticisms in the previous regime is that the scope of what students could claim for was extremely narrow. In essence, it was only when the institution was wound down or entering into bankruptcy that claims could be successfully lodged and made. There was little in terms of protection for students where there was consumer dissatisfaction or where the program and the courses offered were not as advertised.

I’m just wondering if this is more than a name change being referred to here and whether he’s given the historical pattern of what claims typically are in a year — there’s quite a range there — and if the scope is expanding, whether he expects the number of eligible claims to go up.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ve now had clarified that the criteria for initiating a claim were the same in terms of the student being misled or, as the member pointed out, insolvency or closure. Those criteria will be continued, but the adjudication of what qualifies as a student being misled will be conducted by a public sector agency. Obviously, if the scale of the claims on the fund increases, then the premiums would be increased accordingly.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the way the member has phrased that, because it was a fairly obvious potential conflict in the adjudication previously, and that may, in a sense, be responsible for the healthy state of the fund.

I’m just wondering, though, in terms of replenishing the fund and keeping it managed in future years, what the determination is going to be around how institutions pay into it. We used to have, under the commission model in the 1990s, a percentage holdback of tuition. I’m forgetting just now the mechanism that was used under the PCTIA. I know it changed several times.

If he could give an indication of what is envisioned, whether it’s going to be a holdback model that’s used in Ontario and was once used in British Columbia or a different type of model.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premiums, if I can call them that, are currently in the range of 0.4 percent to 1 percent of tuition received, the scale being adjusted according to risk profile, size of the institution, claims history.

That plan is anticipated to continue, but like in any compensation fund, there’ll have to be an actuarial analysis of claims made on the fund, suitable reserves and adjustment of premiums accordingly. And again, the range may be changed in the new regime. It will probably be comparable, and the method of risk adjustment will also be subject to review in the new regime so that the concerns the member has noted will be addressed accordingly.

With that answer, I’m going to suggest, Mr. Chair, that we take another five-minute break.

The Chair: The committee will stand recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: The member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, hon. Chair. You woke me up.

I just want to be clear on the student tuition protection fund because there is a lot of interest in this, obviously. This is the fund that would provide some compensation to students if they were to end up at a school that closed or wasn’t providing what it said it was going to provide — if they were misled. So it’s important to know that the fund is going to be solid and how it’s going to be administered.

My understanding, just to confirm — and I’m sorry, I was out of the room for a couple of minutes — is that the minister said that the primary source of funding for this fund is that 1 percent of gross revenue of the institutions will go into the fund. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As mentioned before the break, the current range is from 0.4 percent to 1 percent of total tuition revenue for each institution, risk-adjusted and size-adjusted. The regime to be put in place is yet to be determined. One can imagine that it would start in a similar place and then be adjusted depending on the risk profile and the experience.
[ Page 6676 ]

K. Corrigan: Was it something like WCB, for example, that every year it would be looked at? It could be adjusted up above or below, depending if there’d been claims against the fund, depending on the risk profile, depending on that whole class of claims or that whole class of type of institution. For example, WCB, then, certain classes would have higher premiums than other classes. Is that the kind of thing that would be determined?

[1810]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There are, as we all know, many, many different compensation arrangements in our society — some publicly managed, some publicly funded, some privately managed through insurance companies or mutual insurers and the like. This fund will import the capital sum that was referred to before the break, with the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

The risk adjustment will be a composite of actuarial advice on the cash flow in and out, the investment performance of the fund and also the claims profile of the student body and the new institutions, because we’re anticipating, of course, that the institutions that are obliged to participate in the fund will be a slightly different profile than what they are now.

As the member opposite has mentioned, the claims-paid experience may change in the new regime. As that becomes clear, obviously, the premiums charged to the participating institutions will be adjusted.

K. Corrigan: Under the regime, what kinds of factors would significantly change the claims-paid numbers?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Clearly, if there were a particularly large insolvency or misrepresentation, that could lead to an unexpectedly large claim. Similarly, the profile of institutions may shift, and perhaps we’ll see the number of claims go down. There are many, many factors that could be anticipated that could lead to claims on the tuition protection fund.

K. Corrigan: Is there anything about the change from the previous act to the Private Training Act and the movement into government and the operation of this act that should significantly change the claims under the act? Apart from variations from year to year or a big claim or something, is there anything about the change that would be expected to significantly change?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, it’s impossible to predict the future. We look forward to a stable, reliable management regime under the new Ministry of Advanced Education staff-managed organization. So it’s difficult to tell what the future will hold.

K. Corrigan: Is there…? I’m just trying to think in terms of registration and all the discussions that we’ve had over the last many hours.

Will there be major changes anticipated to the number of students that would be covered by the student tuition protection fund, apart from the normal vagaries of increased and decreased number of students, for example, because of the value of the Canadian dollar or whatever — those kinds of things? Is there anything about the act and those that are going to be registered and the number registered that would cause one to expect that the student tuition protection fund would be significantly affected?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the longer programs, which are captured by the new act, constitute the bulk of the tuition revenue. The census count, the FTE count is not expected to change in those programs. Short programs that fall under the threshold will not be covered — so a program under $1,000 or less than 40 hours.

[1815]

The weekend program on travelling to Europe that I mentioned earlier, which is probably fictitious, will not be covered. So the total number of eligible students will shrink significantly, but the FTE count will probably not shrink significantly because those longer programs are still covered.

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, those programs that didn’t reach the level that requires registration, that didn’t require registration before — they weren’t covered by the fund, were they, in the past?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The essence of this is that the courses that are currently covered are those which are not limited by duration or tuition fees, but rather by the national occupational code. If I were to do a weekend course on surveying, which is an NOC training program, and I paid $800 for that and it lasted for 12 hours, that would currently be part of the tuition protection fund. If I took that same course under the new regime, it would not be covered because it’s too short and too cheap.

K. Corrigan: This was not something that I understood. I don’t pretend to have great expertise in the previous legislation, but I’m certainly learning. This surprises me a bit.

Just to be clear, what the minister is saying is that for a course up to $1,000, which is not over the threshold in hours, that institution does not have to register, and therefore…. But those courses would have been covered before as long as it came under the national job certification — whatever that is called. Under the NOC. We could have courses up to $1,000 that used to be covered before that are not going to be covered.

Has the ministry done any analysis of those past claims? What portion of those past claims that previously were covered and are not covered…? How much money are we talking about there?

[1820]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There is an element of common sense in the answer, now I’ve learned what it is. In that short courses tend to complete quickly, there are fewer claims on the fund because the course is done by the time the student is affected by any adversity in the institution or change in circumstances. There are many, many short courses, but they don’t last very long.

The claims on the tuition fund to date have been such that the courses that are below the new threshold of $1,000 and 40 hours would probably amount to a single-digit percentage of the total amount of the claim. If there have been $300,000 in claims in a year, about $30,000 or less of those claims would apply to the shorter courses that will not be covered in the new regime.

K. Corrigan: I don’t need it right now, but I’m wondering if it would be possible to find out exactly how much money that was over the last few years. I think the minister understands that what I’m asking for is claims that would have been collectible under the old act that are now not collectible under the new act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’ll endeavour to get that information, but it may be a more complicated task than it sounds.

K. Corrigan: I certainly don’t want to put your able staff to too much work, but I’d like to get a sense of what that is. There’s obviously been thought going into the legislation, and I would assume that there would be thought going into what these levels, thresholds, should be — some consideration, at least, of what kind of impact that’s going to have on students. I would assume that some analysis must have been done to come up with that number so that we can have some sense of how much of a difference it’s going to make and how many people are going to be affected and what that’s going to mean for the fund in the future.

Is it expected, as a result of that change…? Was it an aim that the claims on the fund go down? I’m just wondering: what were the reasons for that change?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this is one of those fortuitous situations where it turns out that there are very useful benchmarks, in that the $1,000 and 40-hour threshold is pretty much uniform across Canada.

R. Fleming: To the minister, he was discussing, through some of his answers, the $14.9 million fund and, also, the claim history typical of the last several years. I can’t remember how many he referred to. On the $14.9 million, is there an opinion made available to government in this transition period, now that it’s going to come back into the government reporting entity, that that’s an adequate amount?

He talked about this as sort of a risk-pooled insurance fund, so it’s not just the claims we should look at and the accumulated money in that fund. There is an element of planning and having a sufficient amount in the event that a larger institution…. Maybe a hypothetical example would be the Eminata Group. If it were to go bankrupt — with thousands of students studying in a wide variety of programs under a different umbrella, name of institutions — that could create a very large draw on the number of claims upon the fund.

I’m just wondering if there is an opinion there that $14.9 million is adequate. It sounds, on the surface of it, from the discussion we’ve been having, that it more than adequately meets the number of claims. But is it there for a significant event which could involve hundreds, if not thousands, of students making claims?

[1825]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to correct the misapprehension of the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, these funds, the $14.9 million, do not come into the GRE under the Financial Administration Act. They are actually held in a separate trust fund.

There have been actuarial opinions in the past, and given that this fund would come into its new format as a trust fund, the trustee will be required to obtain ongoing actuarial opinions about the claims exposure to the fund and whether the fund is sufficient.

H. Bains: I’d just like to ask a couple of questions along the line that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake asked about the history of claims, those that are under the new threshold of $1,000 and 40 hours. I understand the minister mentioned a dollar amount and that those could be in the single digits. But they would be lower amounts because they are smaller claims.

My question would be if the minister could tell us the number of claims — compared to the overall claims that would be historically filed, in the last year or the year before — which were under $1,000.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There may be a bit of miscommunication here. The earlier question from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake asked for an elaboration of the claims history for that under-$1,000, under-40-hours exposure — which we understand to be in the under-10-percent range of the total claims in the fund.

I am perhaps misunderstanding the question. Is it asking for the same information?

H. Bains: For clarity, if — in the example that the minister used — the total amount of claims totalled $20,000, and I understand the minister said it would be 3 percent, it will be a percentage of the total amount, as far as their measure in dollar amounts.

My question is: in numbers, how many claims would
[ Page 6678 ]
have been filed last year or the year before, historically, by those who are under the $1,000 threshold?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The precise numbers will have to be gathered. We won’t have that available readily, so we’ll have to look into that.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister will have it percentage-wise, compared to the overall number of claims and compared to the claims that are under $1,000.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, I believe that’s the same question that we’ve addressed earlier.

The percentage is small, for a variety of reasons, but the percentage claimed against the fund is under 10 percent. It’s because, of course, longer courses have larger claims. Short courses have very small claims. The actual number of claimants we’ll have to look for. The actual amount of the claims we’ll have to look for. But the understanding is that the percentage of the payouts is under 10 percent for the short courses that will no longer be required to be registered.

[1830]

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

K. Corrigan: Section 21 deals with the administration of the fund. The minister is the trustee of the fund and can delegate. What does the minister expect? How is this actually going to be administered? Who will administer the fund?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The premise is that the minister is trustee of the fund but can delegate that authority, power and range of duties to ministry staff in writing or to another person, which could conceivably be a contractor who does this kind of work managing claims funds in a professional fashion.

It’s important to realize that the minister cannot delegate the part of managing the investments, which remains the trustee’s responsibility. So the fund itself, in terms of the assets, is not a delegable authority from the minister. It remains a ministerial authority and, obviously, ministerial accountability. But in terms of the administration of fund and the compensation claims from the fund, that can be delegated to staff or to an outside contractor.

K. Corrigan: With regard to subsection 21(5), that “The trustee must make public the report required by section 11 (3) of the Auditor General Act,” what report is that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This section of the Auditor General Act requires that the trust fund make an annual report using generally accepted auditing and assurance standards to the trustees of the trust fund.

K. Corrigan: Will that be a public report?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As stated in section 21(5), the report must be made public.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that answer. Thank you for reading better than me. So made public. Is it going to be in public accounts, or will it be a separate report that is available to the public?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s anticipated this would be a separate report because it is outside the government reporting entity and would be a freestanding trust under the terms of the Financial Administration Act.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

K. Corrigan: This provides for students being able to make claims against the fund. It’s an important section. It provides how that can be done and under what circumstances. It says on either of the following grounds: either that “an institution that was a certified institution ceased to hold any certificate before the student completed an approved program of instruction” or “a certified institution misled the student regarding any significant aspect of an approved program.”

I’m wondering if the minister considered any other grounds for a student to be able to claim against the fund.

[1835]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The section anticipates, of course, the institution itself ceasing to function or the approved program ceasing to function or, as it states, any significant aspect of the approved program of instruction in which the student was enrolled. That would be where the student was misled.

Obviously, if there’s a smaller number of windows in the classroom than in the brochure or it’s on the third floor rather than the second floor, that would not trigger a valid claim. But if the student were, for instance, exposed to a class of 300 rather than three, that would obviously be a significant aspect that they had been misled upon.

K. Corrigan: I know that some of the types of complaints I’ve heard of in the past are…. For example, a student being told that they were going to be in a course that was specifically for a technology type of program. Then when they got to the school, it turned out that that particular course combined two or three different courses because they didn’t have the registration and it made more sense for the school to put them all together — or according to the school, it did. They didn’t have enough enrolment. Therefore, it wasn’t going to be financially viable for them to just provide the course as specified.
[ Page 6679 ]

Are those the types of…? I’m just trying to see what the threshold is. Would those likely qualify for a claim that the student had been misled regarding a significant aspect of the program?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this is designed to provide a flexible regime so that the trustee would be in a position to appoint an appropriate adjudicator, likely a ministry staff member, who would then hear these claims and, in all likelihood, hear the position of the defendant institution and then sort out where the equities lie and what the appropriate answer is. Of course, being publicly administered, it will be done to the highest standards of integrity and transparency.

K. Corrigan: I believe there are some provisions for this later, but maybe I’ll just ask this now anyways, because we don’t have much time this evening, and I’d like to ask a few questions generally about what is eligible.

What exactly is eligible? If a student comes to B.C. from another jurisdiction, is an international student or is a student from another part of Canada…. They come here. They pay travel costs. They find a place to live for three or four months, maybe rent an apartment. They buy books. They undertake thousands of dollars worth of expenses.

Perhaps the minister could explain exactly what types of expenses are eligible and to what degree under the fund.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The fund is entitled the tuition protection fund for a reason. The amounts available for compensation are limited to tuition. It does not get into the issue of refunding the cost of meals or travel or the like.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask the minister. Subsection (4), “A student may not file a claim against the fund on the grounds referred to in” — the above section — “until the student has first exhausted the institution’s dispute resolution process.” Now, this can become a contested area in and of itself.

I’m wondering if there is something beyond mere guidelines that the ministry will issue to the institutions about what a dispute resolution process looks like which would include an understanding that the process will and can go directly to the adjudicator, who, of course, is a neutral party.

We have seen so many examples of the self-investigation of the institution, which was then followed up by the private training authority, which sometimes included representatives sitting on the board from the very institution that had self-investigated itself.

[1840]

It didn’t work. It failed. And it was the source of considerable controversy. I’m just wondering here whether the internal dispute resolution process that is referred to — and the word “exhausted;” I don’t know how that’s legally determined — presents some risk that students, again, could find themselves in the same situation where they’re in an interminable revolving door inside the institution and they can’t get to the independent government adjudication process.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member may not have familiarized himself with section 19 of the act, which provides for the institution to establish a dispute resolution process in accordance with the regulations. The term “exhausted,” of course, can mean that the student would come to the trustee saying, “I am not being well treated because I’m being given the runaround,” which would also constitute exhaustion — from running.

K. Corrigan: I guess with regards both to claims against the fund and then how it’s dealt with, perhaps a question that kind of straddles both section 23 and 24. One of the concerns that I’ve heard from many private training institutions is that the process does not give the institutions the ability to…. It’s basically driven by the trustee. The schools that are affected…. We’re very concerned about the students, but they believe that there’s not a lot of procedural rights for the schools as well.

In other words, it is the trustee that would make the decision about who was going to be contacted, who was going to give evidence, what evidence was going to be received, who is going to inspect, audit and so on. But there is no ability for the institutions themselves to compel production of records, make inquiries and so on with regard to these hearings. I’m wondering if we could get a response to that concern of institutions.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Many of us are familiar with the range of opportunities in litigation, judging from superior courts with unlimited jurisdiction and extensive procedural rules and extensive production of documents, perhaps to the point of exhaustion. Then, of course, we have under that small claims, which is a much more restricted process in terms of disclosure, much less elaborate cross-examination, much less expectation of witnesses and expert witnesses.

Then we have a scenario like this, where the trustee is empowered to make final decisions which are not open to question or review in any court, because the goal here is to have an expedited, inexpensive and effective dispute resolution mechanism so that all involved, both student and institution, can get on with their lives after adjudicating a process which is designed to pay out from the student tuition protection fund.

K. Corrigan: I guess I’ll go back specifically to section 23. The time limit for filing a claim against the fund. My understanding is this is a change from the previous act — and we’re supportive of this particular change. It’s a year after the institution…. If the claim is on the grounds that
[ Page 6680 ]
the certificate was finished or it ended, then it’s a year. If the claim is on the grounds that the student was misled, then it’s “no later than one year after the student completed, or was dismissed or withdrew from, the program of instruction that was grounds for the claim.” This is an increase of six months. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct.

H. Bains: Just another question on what can be claimed, what’s eligible. The minister mentioned only the tuition fee, as I understood.

[1845]

We had a situation here under the previous regime where, on behalf of the students, the college helped them secure B.C. and Canadian student loans. They also had them authorized to have those funds go to the college directly. The arrangement was that the college would deduct the tuition fees and return the remainder to the students. In fact, that never happened. The students received the student loans, went to the college, and the college declared bankruptcy after they had the money. I mean, this particular case was a fraud.

That money went to the college, but the students are now holding a student loan debt from B.C. and the federal government. Can they claim that amount? This is what was allowed under the previous regulations. If they are only allowed tuition fees…. But these students in this particular situation…. If there could be another situation like that, it could be much more than tuition fees that the college held from them.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The scenario the member describes is indicative of fraud and should be reported to the police. I gather that’s what happened. Of course, there would be the potential for a substantial claim by the students, whether as individual claimants, group claimants or in a class action against the institution for this substantial fraud.

The remedy for that is not found in this act. This creates a tuition protection fund which would provide for compensation for the mischief or ills described in these sections. The fund would be paid out to the student if the trustee adjudicated a valid claim and would be limited to tuition only.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

K. Corrigan: I did refer to this a little bit previously under section 23. This gives the authority for trustees in dealing with the claims in that they can “require a person to give evidence” and so on. Then it says: “The trustee may apply to the Supreme Court for an order directing a person to comply with a requirement…” with regards to giving evidence and so on.

The final subsection is one that I know the minister has referred to but has also concerned a large number of people that have contacted me. Subsection (5) says: “A decision, order or ruling of the trustee made under this Act in respect of a matter that relates to the fund and that is within the trustee’s jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court.”

I’m concerned about that. I do believe the minister did, earlier in our discussions, at one point say a person could go to court. I could be wrong about that. It seems concerning, and I wonder if the minister could explain why it is that we would have a provision that there is no appeal to a court of law under this act.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There was earlier a reference to a variety of compensation funds, including WCB. Of course, the Workers Compensation Board has one of the most robust prohibitive clauses in existence. Certainly, the same approach is taken across Canada to preclude excessive appeals that are designed to either grind the other party into submission or to drag things out or to cause undue dismay to a claimant.

The funds in question here are anticipated to be limited to tuition. That’s the scope of the available payout. These amounts are not enormous. They may be significant. Certainly, they may be significant to the individual, but the individual claimant wants to get on with their life. If their conclusion, from the trustee’s decision, is that they are or are not entitled to compensation, they will then proceed with their life either with or without compensation.

Similarly, these adjudications do not directly affect the amount payable by the institution. They may affect the premiums payable by the institution if there are multiple claims, for instance, or large claims.

[1850]

The trustee does not adjudicate a payout from the institution. It adjudicates a payout from the student tuition protection fund. The only recourse to the institution will be on their subsequent premiums payable through their contribution to that fund.

In either case, it is, I hope, apparent that the idea of ongoing review in the courts would be simply adding legal fees to an already adjudicated matter, which would not warrant the involvement of a learned member of the bar — such as the member for Nanaimo, who is walking away in a perplexed state.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask a couple of questions about part of it, though. If there are multiple claims, maybe the minister could explain the process.

If there are multiple claims by a student, the trustee can adjudicate those particular claims. But what are the rights of the trustee or other parties to then go back and claim…? My understanding is that they can go back and try to claim from the institution the moneys that were paid out of the fund. Is that correct?
[ Page 6681 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The option for recourse to the institution for replenishment of the fund, because of a substantial payout, exists. But it is something that’s left in the discretion of the trustee as to whether it should be simply a payout from the tuition protection fund or whether there is sufficient cause to trigger a claim against the institution for some either larger or more widespread mischief that has been compensated out of the tuition protection fund in that adjudicated process.

With that answer, I am going to suggest that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:52 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 resolution, 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 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:54 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); M. Hunt in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

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

[1440]

M. Mungall: The member for Delta South will continue on with her questions, but before she does that, I just wanted to ask the minister a question around today’s announcement.

We saw $24.5 million that’s going to be disbursed over a four-year period to some very worthwhile programs. That is roughly around $6 million a year. I’m just wondering how that’s going to be paid for. Where is that coming from in the budget?

I know that the ministry was increased by about $20 million for this fiscal year and for upcoming fiscal years. I’m wondering if that $20 million covers this $6 million or if it’s coming from a different location within the ministry.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you for bringing that question forward. It was truly a wonderful announcement, I think, that we made this afternoon that will continue to break down some of the barriers that single parents currently face.

Just to clarify, it’s actually a five-year period, not a four-year period, which you mentioned, and the money won’t be allocated on a year-by-year basis. The estimate is over the full five years, because it is an in-demand program. It will be based on how many people come into the program, what their needs are and what their training pathway ends up being. It will fluctuate year by year.

Just to be clear, as well, the Ministry of Children and Family paid the portion of the child care expenses. That’s not coming from our ministry. But the income assistance portion will come from the current existing budget of income assistance — and the same with the employment program. It will also cover the funds that we need to run the program. It’s not coming from any new money. It will come from existing funds.

M. Mungall: So EPBC will be paying for the education and training costs, and transportation costs as well? Or will transportation be paid for out of income assistance?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The EPBC program will pay for the training costs as well as the transportation costs.

V. Huntington: I appreciate the critic enabling me to finish my comments and to respond to the minister’s answer from yesterday.

I appreciate the…. I think it was an offer to discuss the issue that I brought up. But I was also a little concerned with the minister’s comment that it happened — I guess she was referring to the moving of the office — ten years ago and that we hadn’t been in touch with her since then — or the minister’s office.

I’d like to assure her, first of all, that my office must be in touch with the liaison two, three or four times a week at least, and I have certainly spoken to other ministers about my concern about the isolation south Delta is experiencing.

[1445]

However, I would like to emphasize, especially for her staff and for herself, that this didn’t happen ten years ago. This is a death by a thousand cuts.
[ Page 6682 ]

It’s the clawbacks, where WorkSafe B.C. compensation is clawed back from a disability payment. It’s where persons who are disabled have gone into their meagre RRSP savings, and that’s clawed back from their disability payment. It’s where we have increasing numbers of mental health issues that we’re having trouble coping with and that we know the police forces are having trouble coping with.

It’s a total absence of emergency housing and subsidized housing. There’s just no more subsidized housing available in Delta. It’s the moving of the office and the lack of accessibility that that has caused the vulnerable and those who need assistance. It’s the difficulty in using transit to get into Surrey or reaching an office in Richmond that’s two or three bus rides away and not on a bus route and not on a sidewalk.

It’s digital applications that have been put into place. It’s phone contacts and the long waits and the callbacks that are difficult for people. It’s the accumulation of efforts the ministry is making to streamline and create efficiencies. The accumulation has created a perfect storm.

We have spent the last 18 months recognizing, only in the last year and a half, that we have a huge, steady increase in people coming into our office that aren’t being assisted by the department, and that we are having to access, help access, the department. It’s that issue that I really feel the ministry has got to look at. It’s the accumulation of the decisions made by your ministry and others that have suddenly become an identifiable problem in municipalities like mine, where we are isolated from your offices.

No office, no constituency office, should have to go to its ministerial association — the monthly gathering of all the ministers in the municipality, or at least in my riding — and say: “We need your help.” We are regularly now accessing ministers to provide help for people that we aren’t qualified to help. We have to go to business communities and say that we need gift certificates because we have people coming into the office that we need to help find clothing, help find food, immediately. We don’t have emergency funds. We don’t have emergency housing.

It’s something I am just saying to the minister and her officials. You need to look at the accumulative impacts on communities that are isolated. That’s not just mine. I’m sure it occurs elsewhere in the province. Well, I know it does.

I would say that one of the things I thought could help, and wouldn’t provide the cost to the ministry that permanent offices would, is perhaps looking at a mobile office of some type, where people could expect somebody appropriate from the ministry to be in their riding or their community once a week, once every two weeks — where we could help them go through the next week until they can meet with somebody that can cover these issues that are so desperately, desperately needed.

Our offices — thank goodness we have compassionate, intelligent people staffing them, otherwise there would be chaos out there right now. I’d like the minister’s response to what I think has become a perfect storm and the possibility of looking at servicing these people in a new way that would help your MLA offices.

Otherwise, I’m about to say, was it a considered policy decision to force constituency offices into this position? If it wasn’t, it’s happened. Therefore, I think somebody needs to start looking at these cumulative impacts.

[1450]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Member for Delta South, tomorrow I would like to assure you that our community relations and service quality manager will contact your CA to discuss some of the issues that you’ve been having. I also want to confirm and reassure the member that it is not the intention for the changes that we’ve been making to have the effect to change the constituency office function.

M. Mungall: I want to bring the minister’s attention to some of the service issues that clients have been facing over the last while. I brought this issue to her attention in the main chamber a while ago.

I’m going to start off with…. Sorry, this always ends up happening. I’m thinking I’m going to talk and ask questions about something, then I note in my notes: “Oh, I had this question I needed to start off with first.” It’s a bit more general, and that’s why.

[1455]

The ministry has made significant shifts in how it provides services, moving more to on-line and telephone-based services. For the people at home, if the minister could explain why government has moved in this direction.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Well, obviously, we’re moving in this direction to offer better service and improve the service that we currently give to our clients, providing them with more options. You can well understand that for somebody with a disability, perhaps, it’s harder to get out into the community to a ministry office, so the option to have a phone service or use the internet to provide them the access that they need just makes life a little bit easier for them.

That’s really what we’re trying to do, and our uptake in the service has been quite good. It has actually surprised us at how much people are using the phone service, especially. It receives more than 1.4 million calls a year. It proves to us that people are using the option. But if a client still wants to go to a ministry office, they are more than welcome to go to a ministry office and be served by a front-line worker.

M. Mungall: Well, the characterization we just heard was as though people have various options, and they can choose whichever option they’d prefer and be served in that manner. That’s not what’s quite happening on the ground.
[ Page 6683 ]

What we actually see, what’s happening on the ground, is somebody will go to a ministry office and be told to call the 1-800 number or find that that’s the only option available to them — especially, for example, in my riding in Nelson. In the afternoons on weekdays, unless it’s a cheque-issue week, they have to use the 1-800 number. Then, when they get to an office, if they want to do an intake, it has to be on line. They’re directed to a computer rather than doing something one-on-one with an intake worker, as it had been done in the past.

Of course, for people who have very low computer literacy, this is a major problem. Even if they have a relatively high computer literacy, being able to have that one-on-one option available rather than just be directed to a computer terminal is very important, especially if someone’s feeling like they have some very sensitive personal issues and they’re sitting there in an open office and anybody can come by and start peering over their shoulder and look at the screen. Some people may want to have something that is quite private that they want to protect.

The array of options is not being experienced in the way that the minister characterized. Rather, people are being told to go to the 1-800 number. Community offices, RCAs are being told to go to the 1-800 number. Advocates are being told to go to the 1-800 number. Everyone is being told to go to the 1-800 number. I’m not surprised that there has been this major uptake in it because that is actually, in essence, the only option many people are being given to get service.

[1500]

With that being said, the ministry has made these changes, and I’m wondering if the ministry has conducted any client satisfaction surveys of the service changes and how many of these surveys and client-based analyses of the changes they have done. How many studies have they done and on what aspects on the changes?

[1505]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: To get to the three questions you asked. The first one was: do we do client satisfaction surveys? The answer is yes. We regularly survey the clients to get the feedback and improve the service.

How many have we done most recently? There were two. There was one in December. It was an on-line survey for the My Self Serve. There was also a customer satisfaction survey done in October of 2014.

Of course, with our new technology with the phone service, we actually have better capability, or ability, to perform surveys more frequently. We’re just learning about that technology — that is, with the phone service. As we learn about it, we hope and intend to use it more frequently.

As well, the member also talked about how individuals struggle with computer literacy and perhaps the ability to use the phone, etc. I just wanted to point out that 79 percent of the individuals who are using the phone service actually authenticate using either their personal identification number, their social insurance number or their telephone number if they can’t remember the other ones. I think that’s a pretty solid number that represents that people are able to use the phone service and that, whether it’s computer or phone service, they have those skills that are necessary to access those services as well.

The final thing would be that the member talked about people being turned away from the ministry offices and being told to use the phone service or the on-line service. We have a policy. It’s called the no-door policy. We’re committed to standing by the no-door policy. If you know of particular individuals who have been sent away from the ministry office and told to use the other options, I certainly would want to know about it so that we can assist them in any way.

[1510]

But the ability for a client to access service remains their option. Whichever way they want to do it, whether it’s phone or on line or face to face, that still remains their option.

M. Mungall: I’ll be sure to tell the advocates that that’s the case and that we should be letting you know when there’s a particular problem. I hope that your office isn’t flooded with e-mails and phone calls as a result. I know I hear about this quite often.

The Chair: I would just remind both the minister and the member that your questions are all through the Chair.

M. Mungall: Absolutely. All the time. I mean to be directing everything through you, Mr. Chair.

The minister has talked about that it’s supposed to be option-based and that it’s the client’s option which point of access they choose to use. I’m wondering if the ministry has conducted any reviews in terms of the changes and how they are being rolled out and how policy and regulation is actually being implemented on the front line.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We would just like clarity on the question so that we’re accessing the correct information.

The Chair: Unfortunately, the member has had to leave for a moment. We’ll shift to another question and then we can come back to that one when the member returns.

B. Ralston: My question to the minister is this: what is the current intake backlog, and what is the ministry doing to reduce or, preferably, eliminate the backlog?

[1515]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Of course, meeting the current service delivery standards is our priority, and we’re committed to the performance management. Our standard is five days to first point of contact. Normally, individuals are applying through or via the self-serve option.
[ Page 6684 ]
Currently, we’re meeting that standard.

Then individuals who have applied have another five days to make sure they are eligible. That means that the clients have to bring in their documentation, and we go through that process as well.

That being said, with those policy standards or service standards, any client who comes into a ministry office who needs immediate assistance will go through the immediate needs assessment, and they would be contacted within two days. If it was an individual who, very sadly, would be fleeing abuse, they would be returned or contacted within one business day.

B. Ralston: So is the minister then saying that there is no backlog? Or are these standards that are set and, in certain cases, not met? I think that’s really the essence of the question. I understand that the minister has enunciated the policy, but I’m interested in how the policy is being carried out.

[1520]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The request you asked me for is very difficult to measure, because there’s a combination of things that are happening. There’s work that the staff need to do. There’s work that the clients need to do.

[1525]

There are times when we see an influx of service requests for applications that are waiting for staff or client action, whether that be the documentation or the follow-up to ensure that they meet the eligibility. There are busier times — perhaps during cheque issue time — where there’s an influx of people or an influx of things going on in the office, but staff do work hard to ensure that the client is being served well and that we are meeting the service standard.

B. Ralston: This is the era of big data, and some of these alternate service delivery models, such as the phone access or on-line access to applications, are easily monitored and counted. I find it hard to believe that there is no data about the backlog. It may be in several sources, but I find it hard to believe.

Is the minister saying that the ministry does not have any records whatsoever about the state of the backlog in different channels of access to the ministry for benefits? Is that what she’s saying?

[M. Morris in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Your face has changed, Chair.

No, that’s actually not what I’m saying, because we actually have better technology now to get the data that we need. That’s how we know that we are meeting our service standards.

We have some excellent triaging in place for those in greater need. Those people are served in priority, served based on the urgency of their needs, because customer service is our priority.

B. Ralston: In the first response to the question in this area, the minister set out a service standard, which is the policy — five days and a further five days, I believe, if necessary. Is the minister saying there are no statistics?

[1530]

Let’s, perhaps, isolate this question to those who contact the ministry and make an initial application on line. Are there statistics about the number of applicants who make their application on line and the time that it takes to process those applications? Is that a question that the minister could answer?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, those are available.

B. Ralston: Given that those statistics are, then, available, can the minister tell me whether the data analysts or the policy analysts in the ministry provide an analysis of that data stream to determine whether or not the applicants who apply that way are receiving their benefits within the policy — the time that’s allocated by policy? I think that’s a pretty straightforward question.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, we track the service standards, and we’re actually in the process now of developing a dashboard that will be made public when it is complete.

B. Ralston: Is the minister, then, saying — and I’m isolating this to on-line applications — that the ministry cannot say now how many applications that are made on line are fulfilled within the policy of, I believe it was, five days? That’s not available now? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, we track it, and that’s how we know our service standard is currently at the five-day.

B. Ralston: Is that five days an average, or is every single application that’s made being dealt with within five days? If that’s the case, is the minister prepared to release the data stream that would confirm that? I notice in the minister’s service plan that there is reference to three performance measures included in last year’s service plan being released through DataBC. Goal 1 is very clearly: “Eligible British Columbians in need have access to income assistance and supports in a timely manner.”

[1535]

Goal 1 for the minister in her service plan is to provide income assistance in a timely manner. I would think that that data stream, and not only as a matter of policy, should be available, and the minister should be proud to
[ Page 6685 ]
release it if she says that everything is being done within the standard that’s been set.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It is actually an average. Five days is the average. Our intent is to post a number of our data elements on the open DataBC. We have committed to that in our service plan and intend to stick to that commitment.

M. Mungall: I see my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head is interested in asking some questions, but before we pass the floor to him, I just want to go back to the announcement that the ministry made earlier this afternoon and have a few questions around that.

[1540]

The minister said that it’s an on-demand program — specifically, the funding allocated for the training and post-secondary education portion being paid for through the EPBC side of things.

First off, I’ll ask if it’s the federal government funding through the LMDA or if it’s the provincial government funding through their own sources that is the funding source for this program.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s all the provincial funding.

M. Mungall: Then, it being an on-demand program, I’m wondering what happens if the subscription is higher than anticipated and if people who, let’s say, were not first to the application process will not be able to receive the supports that others will be receiving.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We believe that the $30 million from the provincial budget will meet the anticipated demand for the program.

M. Mungall: Sorry, the minister just said it was a $30 million budget, but today I heard $24.5 million. What am I missing? That $30 million is actually supposed to be covering the fee-for-service model.

Many of the fees that are not covered by the federal government or programming that EPBC work centres provide…. Much of what they do is covered by the LMDA funding, but some of it isn’t. Some of it’s supposed to be covered by the provincial funding.

The provincial government actually has $55 million in contracts for that funding for those services that are provided by provincial funding and yet only budgeted $30 million. There’s a discrepancy there. If there’s already discrepancy, how is the ministry finding the funding for this new program?

[1545]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The money budgeted for the $30 million provincial budget is used for non-EI clients under the EPBC program, which includes the single parents, and there is a wide range of services available to those individuals under the EPBC that will serve the clients that come into the program. We are confident that the $30 million budget will meet the demand.

M. Mungall: Let me just be clear with the minister. I know I was kind of rambling in the last question, but this is actually really important.

The ministry expects that they’ll be able to meet the demand for the new program within the $30 million that it budgets each year for EPBC, which is the employment program of British Columbia that this government runs. The majority of that program is funded by federal dollars to the tune of about $300 million, but there is presently $30 million in the budget that covers non-EI clients, as the minister said, and various other clients and programs.

The thing is that $30 million is considerably less than what it was in just 2008-09. In fact, it’s 70 percent less than what it was in ’08-09, and it’s 46 percent less than what it was just two years ago when it was $55 million. The $55 million that was budgeted two years ago was to cover the amount for which contractors could invoice the province for their programs.

So there is essentially $55 million worth of contracts already existing, and the government has just cut that, in the last two years, down to $30 million. That’s a discrepancy of $15 million that is suddenly not being accounted for, but we actually have contracts that total to that amount.

Now the government has added a new program that they announced today and said that that program will be able to be covered within the $30 million. This causes me great concern. This was a nice announcement, but when the devil is in the details and the rubber hits the road, we’re not going to be able to see an uptake for this program, because the funding isn’t actually there for it.

[1550]

I’m sure the minister can appreciate that that concerns me very much and that I’m trying to get to the bottom of this, since like I said, you have $55 million of contracts, but you’re only budgeting $30 million for those contracts, and you’ve just added a new program into it.

How are all the demands for this money going to be met, when we’re already less than where we should be?

[1555]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: These are volume-based contracts and a volume-based budget. Historically, we’ve never spent the full amount so we know that there’s room in the budget. We’ve seen a successful reduction in the expected-to-work caseload as people are returning to work. With the expansion of the service offerings through EPBC, the current demand of the provincial budget is low. With the new program, we expect that the contractors from EPBC will be part of the role. They know that they have a role to play in this new service program.
[ Page 6686 ]

M. Mungall: I have no doubt that the contractors for EPBC were pleased to be able to play a role in this new program. But that being said, we do have $55 million a year available to contracts. If that’s not being taken in full, then why not? Why are EPBC contractors not invoicing government for the full amounts?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, it’s because it’s a volume-based contract. The volume of non-EI clients is low. For instance, in 2013-2014 the amount that was spent was $15.4 million out of the estimated amount.

M. Mungall: Well, I’ve heard reports from some of the EPBC providers that the government has made eligibility for that particular funding pot quite narrow. They’re not able to fully invoice for all the potential opportunities that they could and provide the full breadth of services that they ideally would if the eligibility was not so narrow. There’s that aspect.

[1600]

Then there’s also the issue that I want to, again, ask of the minister. I just want to ask her, though….

She mentioned that all people subscribing to this new program of being able to stay on assistance and seek post-secondary education or training for up to 12 months, the anticipation is that they’ll be able to pay for all of this within the existing $30 million. I didn’t hear a plan in case that doesn’t happen.

In case we do see an oversubscription, in case we suddenly see our EPBC contractors invoicing for the full $55 million that they possibly could, then we’re left without even having enough room for this program. I’m hearing from the minister that they just don’t anticipate that happening or they just have no plan in case it does.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The announcement today actually opened up that eligibility and the criteria for the individuals who will be seeking the services. If you contact those service providers that you’ve previously spoken to, I’m sure they’ll be very happy with the changes they’ll see going forward.

We are confident that we can meet that demand. We are committed to meeting the demand. We will continue, as we go forward, to monitor the performance of the new program that we brought into place today.

[1605]

You know, we have always had to adjust with the times. We all know that during the economic situation in 2008-2009, we had to accommodate for that. Today we had the opportunity to be proactive with single parents. We are, like I said, committed to ensuring this program is successful.

M. Mungall: I hope that this plan is successful, and I have no doubt that the minister anticipates that I’ll be watching this very closely to make sure that it is. That’s, in fact, my very role as the opposition spokesperson. That being said, I do have a couple more questions around this program before I pass the floor off.

I’m wondering about the programs that people can sign up for. Do they have to be 12 months because they can only get…? The eligibility has said that it is 12 months, essentially. They’ll be able to get funding, they’ll be able to get transportation support, and they’ll be able to retain their assistance for only 12 months. Are they only allowed to sign up for a 12-month program? What happens if they would like to get, for example, a diploma in human services, which is a two-year program? What happens then?

[1610]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The new program that we announced today is targeted to the top 60 in-demand jobs.

We understand that not everybody is on the same path; not everybody is starting from the same place. There will be individuals, for instance, who, when they get referred to a Work B.C. service provider, will find out that perhaps they need a six-month upgrade. There will be other individuals who, after they’ve had their assessment, discover they want to take the path to becoming a welder. Again, these are jobs and opportunities for those stepping stones, for individuals to make steps towards finding that independence so that they can truly reach their full potential and achieve the goals that they have.

M. Mungall: Is this particular program, then, only available to the top 60 in-demand jobs, or is it available to any training program?

[1615]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The announcement we made today — the targeted jobs would have to align with the labour market demands.

M. Mungall: My question is: if people choose to go into a program that isn’t in that 60, do they still get the support? Do they still get the funding — yes or no?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: No.

M. Mungall: This is the purpose of estimates right here — to drill down and get the full scoop.

If human services, for example, is not on this list or carried…. I’m sorry. I haven’t seen the top 60 list. If they’re not on there, the result is that they won’t be able to pursue that particular career goal. They’ll have to pursue what government has identified in the top 60.

Then my next question is…. Each one of those 60 jobs — is the training required for them within 12 months? Or are some of them more than 12 months, and if they are, what happens then to a client? Will they be able to get the supports that were announced today for longer than a 12-month period?

[1620]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Our commitment is to support individuals for the in-demand jobs for the 12 months. When we’re doing that, not only are we paying for the tuition for the 12-month period. We’re also providing child care support. We’re also providing transportation where it’s needed.

We are also, most importantly, allowing the individual to keep their income assistance cheques or funds that are coming to them while they’re getting their training. They also get to keep their health benefits. They will keep those, as well, for the year after they’ve had the training and have been able to find a job and obtain employment.

The clients will work with Work B.C. to find a suitable pathway for them. If the training path is more than 12 months, the staff will work with them to find other grants or other opportunities that support single parents or single families, because the important part is that we want people to find sustainable jobs. We want to ensure that the jobs will be available for them when they’re done their training.

A. Weaver: I recognize that a version of this question may have been asked. I’ve just got three questions. I am trying to put together the answers so that I can use them in the further work that we’re doing in my riding on the issue of poverty.

The first question is with respect to income assistance rates in B.C., which, as the minister will know, have not increased since 2007, with the maximum monthly shelter allowance for a single individual on income assistance set at $375.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

As of April 2013 the average monthly rent paid by someone on income assistance in greater Victoria was $501. These monthly rent rates are consistent throughout the province, if not even more in some jurisdictions.

[1625]

My question is this. Does the minister have plans to increase income assistance and shelter allowance rates in order to keep up with inflation and market pricing? If not, why not?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: To the member: I expected you to provide questions to me ahead of time like you give everybody else, but thank you for your question.

We acknowledge that it is very challenging for people who are living on income assistance, and we have definitely made the commitment to raise the rates when the fiscal situation allows. But most importantly, we continue to refine the policies that we have within my ministry and within other ministries, as we saw with the announcement we made today for single parents.

We also made the announcement a few months ago about the annualized earnings exemptions for persons with a disability, the child support exemptions, the increase in exemptions that we saw yesterday. There are ways that we can refine the policies in the meantime while we continue to try and make life better for those individuals who rely on us most.

A. Weaver: I do apologize for not providing questions in advance. I normally do that. I’m just not that organized now because there are so many bills that are coming before us so quickly. They’re coming up so fast that I’m unable to actually stay more than, like, half a day ahead of this.

Here’s my second surprise question. Studies have found that 52 percent of people on the streets have brain injuries, and approximately 74 percent of those individuals had their brain injury before becoming homeless.

[1630]

Given these findings and the fact that responsibility for social assistance programs falls under the mandate of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, has the ministry considered working with the Ministry of Health to address the need for improved supports and services for brain injury survivors?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, we do actively work with and in partnership with the Ministry of Health but also with health authorities, other non-profits, B.C. Housing — multiple partnerships around. When it comes to the Ministry of Health, we use our ACT Teams with the outreach to ensure that the homeless, including those who are brain-injured, are actively brought into the income or disability system.

Most likely a person with a brain injury would qualify for PWD, and we would have an expedited service for access to the Medical Services Plan and the PharmaCare plan as well. I certainly recognize and acknowledge the concern that you’ve brought forward.

M. Mungall: This is an issue that I have brought up to the minister in the House before. It’s the call wait times. Over the past year call wait times have consistently gone up. In 2013 wait times while people were calling the 1-800 number went from four minutes to ten minutes in July, then back down to eight minutes by January 2014.

[1635]

Since then, however, we have seen an increase, hitting 22 minutes in July and steadily increasing since then to 34 minutes by December 2014. Can the minister explain why call wait times have consistently gone up so much? I am also specifically wondering if it has anything to do with some of the problems that people have been experiencing with ICM, or if it’s just the new switchover to a new computer system — ICM, if it’s that, or specifically the problems.

[1640]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I think there’s a lot of misinformation about how the call service works and how we calculate the wait times that we have now. The callback-to-queue is something that can affect the way the calculation for the wait times happens. With this new system, from the time an individual calls the call centre, and if they put a request in to receive a callback, that’s when we start calculating that call time.

If we were really to compare apples to apples and take out that process of having any callback service, we would still currently be looking at an average ten-minute wait time. Again, that callback service is really popular with many of our clients. We see they’re happy that they no longer need to go and wait in a ministry line, that they don’t need to find transportation to get them to the office. It’s just providing that extra service for them.

Because of that misinformation that seems to be out there, we would be happy to provide you with a briefing or run you through how it works, if you so choose.

The Chair: Member, if we may take a recess.

M. Mungall: Okay. Yes, we’ll take a five-minute recess, if we could, please.

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:43 p.m. to 4:54 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

M. Mungall: I’m wondering, from the minister: what is the current average speed of answer or call wait time? The minister noted that there was some misinformation about the call wait times.

[1655]

Of course, the numbers I’m quoting from are from a freedom-of-information request, so this is the ministry’s own numbers. We have their target times of around eight minutes, and we know that the comparison that they’re giving us — which I would hope is, then, apples to apples — is telling us that by December the call wait times, or the average speed of answer, was 34 minutes.

I’m wondering, from the ministry, if they can say what the current average speed of answer is right now.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m assuming, if I understood correctly, the member was looking at the December report, which was 37 and eight. The first number, the 37 that you see, the average speed to answer, includes the callback feature. The ASA inbound-call-only is the call wait time for the other portion that doesn’t include the callback time.

As the member asked for, the current wait times, the average speed of answer, is 28:34, and the inbound-only is ten minutes and 27 seconds.

M. Mungall: Just to clarify, the second number, then, the 34 minutes and then the 24 minutes that is currently the wait time, is the wait time to get a callback from the ministry. Somebody phones in. They’re on hold for eight to ten minutes. Then they say, “Call me back,” and hang up. Then they wait roughly 24 — and in December, back then, 34 — minutes, to get a callback. Is that correct?

[1700]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I would welcome the opportunity to take you through the whole process of how the callback service works. But I will let you know that an individual can call in and receive a callback, not in ten minutes. That process is within about a minute. I’m just going to read through the process of what somebody would hear if they were to call the ministry number. It would start out with:

“Welcome to the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. Please listen carefully as our telephone menu options have been updated.

“To serve you faster, if you are receiving ministry services and have an eight-digit person ID number and three-digit personal identification number known as a PIN or a PID or a social insurance number, SIN, please have it ready and press 1. If you are receiving ministry services and do not have a personal ID and PIN or social insurance number, or for all other inquiries, please press 2. To hear this information again, please press star.”

If the client then presses 1, they would hear:

“You have indicated that you are receiving ministry services and have a person ID and PIN or social insurance number ready. Please press 1 to enter your eight-digit person ID number and three digit PIN or press 2 to enter your social insurance number.”

If the client presses 2 after this step:

“Please enter your nine-digit social insurance number.”

If the client remains on the line after step 2:

“No response was detected, so please enter your nine-digit social insurance number.”

If the client does not press anything after the first initial introduction, they would hear this message:

“Please hold while we transfer your call. The wait time is between ‘blank’ and ‘blank’ minutes. If you prefer to leave a callback, please press 1 now. Otherwise, please remain on the line to maintain your call priority.”

At which time they would then be forwarded to enter their callback number.

M. Mungall: That didn’t really answer my question, though — whether the numbers that the minister was referring to are the amount of time it takes to get a callback or the amount of time it takes to be answered if you are waiting on the phone.

What I’m wondering is…. I’m looking at numbers that have shown an increase in what has been called average speed of answer. This is what we got in a freedom-of-information request. What it shows is this continual increase in average speed of answer.

The minister said that that is not accurate information Why are we getting inaccurate information, then, with a freedom-of-information request? That’s a problem, if that’s the case.
[ Page 6689 ]

Can she explain why that average speed of answer went up frequently, consistently, up to 34 minutes, and where it is at today? If she can just clarify the numbers that she’s talking about and specific….

I don’t need to know what I hear when I call the 1-800 number. I’ve called it before. I know that. Clients know that. What I want to know is: how long are people sitting there waiting to talk to somebody at the other end of the line?

[1705]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The average time currently, as I mentioned earlier, is ten minutes and 27 seconds. If we include the callback-to-queue, the average wait time is 28 minutes and 34 seconds, for the month of January.

M. Mungall: Okay. My next question, then, is…. Every 1-800 number has dropped calls. You’ll be sitting there. You’ll call 1-800-AIR-CANADA, and you’re talking to somebody and then all of a sudden you’re not. This happens with this 1-800 number as well.

I’m just wondering what the current rate for dropped calls is with the ministry’s 1-800 number, how this has changed in the last year — if it’s getting worse; if it’s getting better — and if it has been getting worse, what the ministry has been doing to stop that trend, reverse it and have as little dropped calls as possible.

[1710]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Well, there can be a number of reasons for dropped calls, whether it’s an individual using their cell phone or perhaps somebody is hanging up or they’ve called in and then they give up their place in priority. That will affect the numbers of dropped calls.

We don’t currently measure that on our dashboard, but we do believe the number has decreased because of our new system. We know that the system will never drop an individual’s callback. Part of the communication that we have to make sure we provide is building the trust in the clients that when they call in and they choose the callback service, they will actually receive the callback within the announced time.

Because of the intelligence of the computer system, if it announces that it will take X amount of minutes before you get a callback, it will call back within that time or even less. Again, we don’t have that here. If you want the actual numbers, we can get them to you.

M. Mungall: Great, thank you.

Something that I’ve heard from clients and advocates alike, and this was…. I don’t know if this is happening at the moment, but for a while about a few months ago I was hearing quite a few stories along these lines. I want to share them with the minister and ask her about them.

Clients have said that after 11 minutes of speaking to someone on the 1-800 line, they’ll be cut off. They’ll be chatting away with someone dealing with their case file, and all of a sudden after 11 minutes there’s just nothing at the other end. They’ve been cut off. They’ve been hung up on.

I’m just wondering if this is a dropped call or if this has become policy that after 11 minutes…? That’s the weird part. It’s consistently 11 minutes. If 11 minutes is a new policy…. If you can’t help a client in 11 minutes, you just hang up. I’m wondering: dropped call, or is this a policy?

[1715]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’re not aware of the particular issue that the member is speaking of, but I can tell her that we do not limit our calls. We’re not sure what the 11-minute hang-up call is about. We do triage based on need when people call in.

[1720]

That being said, the system is a very intelligent system, so we do believe we can go back into the system and track the 11-minute hangups that the member mentions or thinks are happening. We should be able to look at that and to get the information about it and get back to you.

M. Mungall: Great. In the future what I’ll do is…. I’ll just let the minister know that if I’m hearing this, I’ll let her office know right away, and then they have the opportunity to look into that and make sure, if there’s a problem within the computer system, that it’s fixed immediately, because I think we both have the same goal at the end of the day. We want to provide the best possible service to clients.

Going on to my next question, then. Sorry, I had a lot of follow-up questions on that, but the minister was able to answer them. That’s great that we’ll be able to work on that in the future to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

I’m wondering how many outstanding service requests there are currently and how this volume has changed in the last year, from month to month.

[1725]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In the 2013-2014 fiscal year there were 830,800 closed service requests, and that covers all service delivery streams. In the current fiscal year the amount that we are at now, keeping in mind that we’re not completely at the end of the fiscal year, is 735,889.

[1730]

By month to month, April 2014, 70,387 closed service requests; May 2014, 58,478; June 2014, 68,761; July 2014, 108,546; August, 61,963; September, 69,614; October, 71,121; November, 58,584; December, 61,477; January 2015, 70,178; February, 36,780 — which brings us to the total to date that I mentioned at the beginning, 735,889.

M. Mungall: I’m wondering how many in the last fiscal year were unfilled. You received around 800,000. How many went without being fulfilled? How does the min-
[ Page 6690 ]
istry plan to avoid this in the upcoming year? What is the plan to ensure that every service request is filled, is closed and dealt with appropriately?

[1735-1740]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In regards to the service request — not a request for service; service request was what the member asked about — we respond to all the service requests that we receive. They are all dealt with. If a client is found to be eligible, if they meet the criteria, they are entitled to receive the service that will be provided. If they’re found eligible, they will receive it. If they’re found not to be eligible, the documentation will be put on file, and the request would be closed.

There are also situations where perhaps an individual comes in, we open the service request, and then maybe we don’t see that individual again, for whatever reason. We all have life reasons that take us to and fro. Then that service request would stay open. At any given time, month to month and fiscal year to fiscal year, those are rolled over while they’re open and we’re waiting to get the documentation in place or finally be able to close it.

But there is no cutoff on funding, and a request that was put in this year would then roll over into next year’s budget.

M. Mungall: I’m going to have to start speeding along. For the viewers at home wondering how long we’ll be able to conduct the estimates budget for this ministry, we have one more hour and a lot of ministry to go through. I’m going to have to refrain as much as possible from follow-up questions when an answer actually generates a bit more follow-up questions. I’m going to have to hold off on those.

I know that there are actually community groups and individuals who are watching this particular ministry at home. If they’re wondering what’s going on, that’s what is happening.

I’m wondering if there has been an increase in the number of third party–administered clients.

Interjection.

M. Mungall: Okay.

I’m wondering — and I’ll just ask these questions as a group — if there’s been any increase in the number of third party–administered clients and if this increase is because there is an increase in clients frustrated with the service delivery changes and cannot be helped by these changes, so they have to be supported in other means. Or is this about offloading clients to third-party administrators to save resources?

[1745]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We’re just trying to get the number for the member. If she has another question so that we can continue the process — I know she’s a little anxious about how many things we need to cover — I’d be happy to work on that while we wait for the number.

M. Mungall: Thank you to the minister for appreciating the amount of time that we have and the amount of ministry we have to cover.

The ministry reduced office hours in 11 rural communities, one of my communities that I represent, Nelson, being one of them. I’m just wondering why the ministry chose those communities and why the reduced hours.

[1750]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: With the introduction of our additional services — phone options, the on-line application, My Self Serve and the enhanced phone service that we have — we found that some of our offices were underutilized.

We still maintain a presence in the afternoon in the offices that the member referred to, giving the staff the opportunity in the mornings to do the important back-office work, like the service requests that we previously discussed.

M. Mungall: Does the ministry have any plans to reduce the number of service centres in the province?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m just wondering if she’s referring to local offices or service centres.

M. Mungall: Thank you for the clarification. Local offices — the actual offices where people can go and receive service in person.

[1755]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: There are no current plans to have any office closures.

That being said, we’re always looking at ways to better serve our clients. There’s no additional counter consolidation with Service B.C. We will still have the presence in a community when there is the consolidation. For example, currently we have the Gateway here in Uptown, Victoria, that is transitioning from a regular office to a Service B.C. office. It will then expand its services that are provided from that particular office. So there will be still a presence in the community.

M. Mungall: Well, I’ll take the opportunity now to let the minister know that having specialized offices in communities, particularly rural communities, does make a difference in terms of the service level and the type of service that clients get, as well as the confidentiality and so on.

I appreciate that in an effort to continually reduce inflation of budgets — and in this government’s case to reduce budgets all the time, unless they are tax cuts to rich friends — this is not an area that should be first on the chopping block.
[ Page 6691 ]

My next question, then, is: what is the current wait time between application and being enrolled in PWD or income assistance?

[1800]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: As of January 8, the ministry is taking approximately 30 business days to process an application for persons with disabilities.

Interjection.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Yes, the expected time frame is actually 90 days, so it’s well below.

M. Mungall: Perhaps that’s because the ministry has taken in some of the recommendations by the ombudsperson. Mind you, her report Time Matters was an investigation into the reconsideration process, not necessarily the application process. But I’m sure that the ministry took the opportunity to look at its entire processes around reconsideration and application and looking to reduce those time frames.

The four recommendations from the ombudsperson in Time Matters — last year I asked the minister if those recommendations had been accepted and if they were being implemented. He said yes, that three of the four had already been implemented, and a fourth — he didn’t mention which one, though — was taking 12 to 18 months to complete after a lean review

I’m just wondering if the minister can update this House on which of the four recommendations took a prolonged implementation and where it is at in its implementation phase.

[1805]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: In January of 2014 the ombudsperson completed her investigation and released the report then. That report obviously had some recommendations. Four of them were:

“(1) the ministry take the necessary steps to ensure that the systems are able to accurately track reconsideration requests and compliance with the time limits based on the date of submission,

“(2) the ministry review its persons-with-disabilities application process and make the necessary changes to improve the accuracy of decisions about PWD status made at the first level of decision-making and track and report publicly the results of those changes,

“(3) the ministry identify reconsideration approvals since June 2009 where delay beyond legislated time limits resulted in a later effective date of eligibility and compensate the affected individuals for the amount of benefits they would have been entitled to if the request had been approved within the time limits and

“(4) the ministry minimize the impacts of delayed reconsiderations on clients’ assistance by taking the steps necessary to make the effective date of an approval at reconsideration or a subsequent appeal no later than the date the reconsideration is required to have been made under the regulations.”

In reference to those four recommendations from the report, the ministry has implemented recommendations No. 1, 3 and 4 and has accepted the second recommendation.

The review of the PWD application process is well underway. The review is being led by the strategic policy branch, the health assistance branch and will be completed by the summer of 2015, at which time the ministry will be in a position to consider those recommendations. Following that review the ministry will ensure any process changes are clearly communicated and will provide guidance to clients, staff and the relevant stakeholders.

M. Mungall: My next question is that…. PWD clients who attend post-secondary institutions often apply for student loans and grants. I’m wondering if it’s policy to deduct these loans and/or grants from their monthly PWD cheques.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The policy is that we have an exception for loans and grants that are related to the education costs for persons with disabilities. That could be tuition, books, supplies, computers, etc.

[1810]

M. Mungall: My next question is if the minister is aware that student financial assistance does not consider $906 a month enough to cover costs of living and will increase a PWD student loans amount above the amount needed for tuition and books to cover costs of living.

I’ve seen examples of this. People who work at post-secondary institutions in the offices of financial assistance have seen this as well. What ends up happening is that the client’s PWD cheque is then deducted, dollar for dollar, using the amount that has been set aside for cost of living in their loans and grants.

I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of that, and if that increased amount deducted from a PWD client’s monthly cheque is standard policy.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s not our policy. It would be something that we need to follow up with our colleagues at Advanced Education. We will do that for you.

M. Mungall: My next question is if the ministry is aware of the total they are actually deducting from PWD students receiving student loans and grants each year. Like I said, there is a deduction that is taking place because they are receiving student loans that are higher than the amount of tuition and education costs. There are deductions taking place. Does the ministry know the total of those deductions at this time?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We don’t have that information with us. We’ll need to follow up with the member.

M. Mungall: When we’re talking about student loans and grants, of course, we’re talking about several thousand dollars often. For many students their loans are disbursed in large sums over the course of a program. They
[ Page 6692 ]
don’t just receive everything right up front, but, say, halfway through the program they’ll receive another $2,000.

The Ministry of Social Development, on the ground, will consider that their education costs have already been paid for and that that $2,000 they receive, say, halfway through the program, is now unearned income and will deduct.

I’m just wondering if the ministry, then, will be deducting 100 percent of clients’ cheques in multiple consecutive months, up to the point where…. My understanding is that once a client is not receiving full support for two consecutive months, they are removed from being able to receive further supports and would have to reapply.

My question is…. Somebody gets $2,000. The ministry considers that $2,000 unearned income and then will deduct their cheque one month and then the second month right after that. Suddenly that person finds themselves off PWD, and they would have to go through the reapplication process.

This is extremely encumbering. It’s a very difficult and stressful process for students who are just trying to better their lives and ultimately find a job that works with their disability.

[1815-1820]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The intention of the persons with disabilities is to provide support, shelter and supplements. The policy is that we allow them to go to school full-time so that they aren’t disadvantaged. We still allow them to have their income assistance while they’re gaining their education. The intention is that they take advantage of grants that are made available to them for their educational costs. We have EAW workers, or employment and assistance workers, who assist them to identify the costs that they have with the receipts and such to see what their educational costs were, to avoid any impact to their PWD.

If someone — for instance, as the member had asked or mentioned — goes off for some reason and they have to reapply, the person, if they go off of PWD, will have to reapply for eligibility of still receiving PWD but not for their designation. They keep that designation for their disability.

M. Mungall: Well, the issue here is that students don’t want to lose their PWD. That’s the most secure income that they have. Because they’ve been essentially receiving an overpayment in student loan…. They’ve only asked, let’s say, for $3,200, and they receive $7,000 from financial assistance. Now it’s one application. As a student, you have one application, but the application is then forwarded on to both the provincial student assistance and the national student financial assistance.

Somehow in that process, whether it’s the provincial or the federal financial assistance, they’re saying that $906 is not enough to live off of. “So we’re going to give you more money. Instead of the $3,200 you need to go to school, we’re going to give you $7,000.”

The money above and beyond the $3,200 is then…. What’s happening is it’s then being deducted from a PWD client’s cheque. What’s happening then is, because they’re disbursed in large sums…. They got the $3,200 at the beginning of their program, and then they were disbursed the remainder money halfway through their program. That’s often how financial assistance works. You don’t get everything right at the beginning but over the course of the program. So they get the remainder midway through their program.

To date, midway, they have not received any deductions off their PWD cheques. But suddenly, they just got $2,000 or $4,000. Now they’re going to be seeing a deduction off of their cheque. After two months they fall off. It’s just policy that they are no longer eligible to receive PWD because they didn’t receive it the two previous months because it was 100 percent deducted.

I don’t know if the minister is following. It’s complicated. What ends up happening is that somebody doesn’t have their most secure income anymore because they’re pushed off of PWD because the system and the way it’s operating sees that person as having sufficient monthly income, but they don’t, at the end of the day.

They actually have a student loan. They have debt that they have to pay interest on. I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of this. It sounds like this might be new. This is stuff that’s happening on the ground, so this might be new information.

I’m wondering…. Somebody gets that $2,000, that $4,000 lump sum. The ministry considers that above and beyond their educational costs. They then deem it as unearned income, and they therefore deduct 100 percent for multiple months in a row. Is that standard policy? Is that what should be happening? That is what’s happening for some people.

[1825]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: That’s certainly not our intention. The intention would be that people remain on PWD so that they have that securer form of income for their shelter and their needs for the month and that they make use of the financial assistance for their educational costs.

If the member knows of a particular situation where this is happening, I would certainly encourage you to bring that forward to me so that we can look into it and make sure that the individual is being served appropriately.

M. Mungall: I appreciate the minister’s willingness to fix this problem, and I’ll be sure to work with her on this over the coming months.

My next question is around dental coverage. This year the Dental Association made a presentation to the Finance Committee, and it was a very compelling presentation. The dental coverage costs have increased by 18 percent since 2007, yet rates have not increased — the rates that are paid by this government to dentists for
[ Page 6693 ]
providing dental health services. Those rates have not increased, thus reducing the coverage that clients, and particularly the clients with disabilities, can get.

We all know that oral health often determines the amount of nutrition one can get. Notably, when one relies on food banks — and this is a very common situation for anybody receiving income supports from this government — and they have poor oral health, their opportunities for nutrition are reduced even more.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

When oral health is causing people to not be nourished properly, it increases other health problems, and it increases visits to doctors and emergency rooms. This is all quite expensive to the taxpayer. Does the ministry have plans to bring dental coverage rates in line with current fees?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you, Chair. I love when the faces just keep rotating and changing. It kind of spruces things up in here.

I hope the people at home are finding the information useful and helpful. I’ve certainly enjoyed the discussion we’ve had today.

In regards to the question that you asked about the Dental Association, we continue to have a strong working relationship with B.C. Dental Association. They were actually one of the first stakeholders that I met with when I, just recently, became the Minister for Social Development and Social Innovation.

[1830]

What we do know is that 90 percent of the dentists in the province of B.C. billed the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry last year. We serve 137,000 individuals and have spent more than ever, with $58 million in costs to help serve the people of British Columbia who so need it. But at this time we don’t currently have any plans to change.

M. Mungall: As I mentioned, the Dental Association had an excellent presentation to the Finance Committee this year. One of the things that they noticed is that the limits on annual coverage for PWD clients means that they may not be able to get the full care required for proper oral health. What the Dental Association pointed out was that the system is an entitlement-based system and not a needs-based system.

I’m wondering if the ministry has any plans to address this issue and move from an entitlement model to a needs-based model for dental coverage.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, as I mentioned, I’ve met with the Dental Association. In that meeting I became very aware of some of the issues that are surrounding the casework that they provide to British Columbians, individuals around the province. I will continue to build on our partnership and our work with the B.C. Dental Association.

M. Mungall: For the people at home, we’ve got 15 minutes left, and I will be rushing through some questions.

My first question is around EPBC. The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation sits on the labour market priorities board, along with other key ministries and agencies — like the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and the Ministry of Advanced Education, as well as the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and the ITA. The intent of the board is to foster close collaboration.

This being the case, why has a new employment services and supports program been created under the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training that very, very closely overlaps and resembles the services offered through the employment program of B.C.?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The main purpose of the labour market priorities board is to ensure that there is no overlap. The Canada job grant is out for RFP, and ministry staff — with both my ministry and Jobs, Tourism — is working collaboratively together to re-evaluate the RFP to ensure that the Canada job grant programs align and do not duplicate the EPBC programs.

[1835]

M. Mungall: My second question is…. A number of the EPBC contractors are experiencing pressures on the labour market development agreement portions of their budgets due to EPBC policies which heavily favour the federal government funds instead of the provincial government funds. I alluded to this earlier in my questions around the announcement that was made today and how that’s going to be paid for.

At the same time, of the $55 million that the province has allocated as an annual maximum to EPBC contractors, contractors are only projected to spend $30 million. Will the minister consider opening up the eligibility criteria for provincial services from the EPBC budget to alleviate the LMDA pressures contractors are experiencing in the employment program of British Columbia and help that program fully serve unemployed British Columbians?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We actually opened up eligibility today with our announcement for single parents.

M. Mungall: Yes, the government did. Again, just highlighting for any EPBC contractors who are just tuning in now, we did canvass this earlier on.

There is a discrepancy between the $55 million that was budgeted two years ago, in that budget — that actually is the amount which contractors can bill for — and the
[ Page 6694 ]
$30 million that is currently in the budget for these particular items. There’s actually a new eligibility added on to that. We’ll see how that all turns out in the upcoming year.

My next question is…. In the service plan the ministry says it expects a 40 percent rate of employment for EPBC clients, with small increases in future years. This is less than half. This tells me that, I think, we could be doing a lot better. Perhaps we could be looking at ways that we can increase those numbers.

Has the ministry done any review of their contract obligations and the possible relationship between the funding cuts from the previous years’ budgets to this year’s budget and the low employment rate from EPBC programs?

[1840]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We all want to see the 42 percent employment rate increase. We are always looking at opportunities to improve and increase the employment outcomes for our clients.

We’re in the midst, currently, of a formal evaluation of EPBC, and we’re also in the midst of a five-year contract. Based on the evaluation, we will look for the improvements that we can make with the program and continue to collaborate with the contractors that we utilize, to meet the needs of our clients.

M. Mungall: I’m going to sneak one more question in, hon. Chair, if that’s all right with you.

“Social Innovation” is in the title of the ministry. In previous years I’ve asked the minister if he could report out on what kinds of activities were taking place on the Social Innovation side of the ministry. His response was that not much had been done to date, as it was just an initiative that was getting started.

I’m wondering if that’s still the case, and if the minister can please outline the deliverables that are expected from Social Innovation.

[1845]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Social enterprise is slowly building in our province and hopefully continuing to see some growth. Owners were included in the February 2013 small business summit. In the subsequent development of the small business accord, the ministry continues to work with the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training to ensure that social enterprise is included in government commitments and actions to support the growth of B.C.’s small business sector.

Legislation and regulations enabling social enterprises to incorporate as a community contribution company came into effect on July 29 of 2013. To date there are 26 social enterprises that have chosen to incorporate as CCCs, triple-Cs, community contribution companies — however we want to refer to them.

A number of proclamations have also been issued to recognize the contribution of B.C. social enterprise. On May 27, 2013, it was proclaimed as Social Enterprise Day. In April 2014 Social Enterprise Month was proclaimed, which featured a series of events that provided networking and learning opportunities and recognized some of the province’s most promising social enterprisers. On April 22, 2014, Aboriginal Social Enterprise Day was proclaimed.

B.C.’s new on-line social innovation hub, www.hubcapbc.ca launched in September of 2014. Hubcap provides a place to find information and resources, to connect with each other. Since its launch, more than 200 people have created profiles on the site.

The ministry has also partnered with Futurpreneur Canada to create a new award category for the annual Small Business Awards, which I just got to go to in Vancouver and award the very first Emerging Entrepreneur Award. It focuses on young entrepreneurs who contribute to the social, cultural and economic well-being of their communities.

We also implemented social impact purchasing and developed guidelines to support ministry staff to consider social value in addition to financial value when making procurement decisions.

The ministry has also worked with the Ministry of Finance to develop a model for B.C.’s first social impact bond. We’re currently in discussions that are underway with other ministries and agencies to identify policy or program areas that could potentially be the subject of an SIB.

The resilient capital fund has supported 21 of the social enterprises to date with $8 million of funding.

[1850]

To follow up on that, I just want to refer back to some of the questions the member had asked previously, if we could get them on the record before we close up here today. Previously she asked about the contingency funding. In 2013-14 the contingency funding was $22 million. All of it was used for CLBC caseload. It can be found on page 23 of the service plan report, which is a public report.

In regards to the question on contracts, the ministry entered into 91 contracts this year, and 28 of them were directly awarded but all in compliance with procurement policy. Eighty-five of the 91 contracts were single-year contracts.

Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,593,575,000 — approved.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:51 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