Today in the house I rose in question period to ask the government once more about the economics of the Site C dam project in light of recent revelations. Since elected I’ve continued to point out the economic folly of moving forward with Site C at this time. I’ve expressed concerns on the effect it will have on our credit rating; I’ve pointed out that there are cheaper alternatives like wind or geothermal which would allow supply to keep pace with demand. I’ve also called on the government to broaden BC Hydro’s scope to allow for production of geothermal power.

Earlier this week Emma Gilchrist, Executive Director of DeSmogBlog Canada, authored a two part series on the economic justification for the Site C project. The two articles were based on an extensive interview she had with Harry Swain, former co-chair of the federal-provincial Site C review panel:

• B.C. Government Should Have Deferred Site C Dam Decision, Says Chair of Joint Review Panel
• ‘Dereliction of Duty’: Chair of Site C Panel on B.C.’s Failure to Investigate Alternatives to Mega Dam

Below is the text of my exchange with the Minister of Energy Mines. Our press release is reproduced at the end of this post.

Question

A. Weaver: Earlier this week Harry Swain, co-chair of the joint review panel appointed for the Site C dam and a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, raised some very serious concerns about the government’s approach to approving Site C. Mr. Swain was very clear that the government was rushed in approving Site C, and British Columbians will pay for their haste. As Mr. Swain said: “Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they” — that’s B.C. Hydro — “were making had any basis in fact.” That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for the fiscal underpinning of Site C.

The review panel predicted that by building it now, Site C will actually produce more electricity than we’ll need for the first four years, costing taxpayers $800 million. My goodness, we could use that money to build a state-of-the-art sewage system in Victoria.

Mr. Swain is only the most recent person to suggest waiting a few years to see if electricity demand for the project materializes. We could still build Site C down the road if necessary, but we could use the additional time to properly explore cheaper alternatives like our vast geothermal potential in B.C. We have the time. LNG final investment decisions are delayed or not happening at all or somewhere down the yellow brick road or perhaps in never-never land.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is this. Given the massive costs associated with rushing into Site C, will he hit the pause button on construction for two to four years, as recommended by Mr. Swain, and use the time to save British Columbians money and explore viable alternatives?

Answer

Hon. B. Bennett: I will answer the question. I categorically disagree with the premise of the question, but I do have to thank the member for the question. We as government announced this project in December of 2014. It’s certainly one of the largest public infrastructure projects in the province’s history, and it’s an extremely important project to the future of this of province. So I appreciate having the opportunity to stand in the House and talk about it. I’m not sure if I have a critic with the opposition. He hasn’t asked me any questions about Site C to date.

Fair enough questions about the need for the electricity, the cost of the project. These are all legitimate issues that we should be debating in this House.

I’d like to quote from the panel that Mr. Swain chaired. One of the things that Mr. Swain said was that Site C “would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly.” He went on to say, in terms of debt: “The panel concludes that the risk of Site C to the province’s debt management plan is entirely manageable by a prudent B.C. government.” He went on to say: “There is little doubt about the competence of B.C. Hydro to build and operate the project efficiently.” That’s what the panel report stated.

With respect to need, the forecast that Hydro had done, this is what the panel said. The panel said that B.C. Hydro’s forecasting techniques are sound that and B.C. Hydro “has done a responsible job in forecasting.”

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Well, we have seen Site C pushed throughout without adequate consideration of the cost effective-effective alternatives. I’d like to quote Harry Swain again. He called this a dereliction of duty. Those are very strong words from a very highly regarded senior official from the Canadian government. To be even more blunt, it’s recklessness on the part of the government. We have a sense of the costs: a $800 million loss in the first four years of operation because of construction timing.

What we need right now is a government that is willing to show leadership on this, willing to put good policy ahead of ideological politics. My question to the minister is this. Will he listen to the call from every member of this side of the House, along with the expert opinion of the joint review panel and countless others, to send the Site C project to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for a proper regulatory review?

Answer

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. I actually haven’t heard a peep from anybody on the other side of the House about Site C other than this member, but that’s fine.

 They don’t seem to want to talk about economic issues for some reason or other.

B.C. Hydro has been working on this project for the last seven years. They forecasted a demand for electricity that will require the province to have 1,100 megawatts of electricity by 2024. Their forecasting methodology has been tested by the BCUC. That’s the agency that this side of the House loves so much. The BCUC has actually said that B.C. Hydro’s forecasting methodology is state of the art.

B.C. Hydro figures that we’re going to need 1,100 megawatts of electricity in 2024. We set about, over the past two years, to determine what’s the best way to get that 1,100 megawatts of electricity. We looked at absolutely everything, and the decision that we made on this side of the House was to honour the ratepayer. We chose the option that is the fairest, lowest cost to the ratepayer, but that side of the House wants us to do something different.

Media Statement – March 12, 2015

Andrew Weaver Calls for Pause on Site C Dam Development

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party says its time to hit the pause button on the Site C dam before British Columbians have to foot the $800 million bill for this government’s rushed decision.

Dr. Weaver’s call follows “unprecedented” comments from Harry Swain, chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed the Site C Dam proposal. In an interview with DeSmog Blog Canada, Mr. Swain called the government’s failure to properly consider alternatives to the dam a “dereliction of duty”.

“Mr. Swain is a highly respected former public servant. When someone like him raises such serious concerns, we need to listen,” said Andrew Weaver.

Mr. Swain, is a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. He is concerned the government was irresponsible in rushing into its decision on Site C and instead should be taking the time to explore alternatives.

According to the panel’s report, by building Site C now the government will end up saturating the electricity market to the point where it will cost B.C. Hydro more to produce electricity than it will get from selling it. The result would cost British Columbians at least $800 million in the first four years of operation.

“The question that needs to be asked is what’s the rush?” said Andrew Weaver. “LNG isn’t materializing along the timeline promised by government. Even if B.C. Hydro’s current projections are true, we still have up to four years before we need to start building the dam. We should use that time to explore alternatives before embarking on the largest infrastructure project in B.C. history.”

Mr. Swain made it clear that alternatives to Site C exist and should have been considered. The panel, however, was not empowered to do so.

“The Minister’s talking points are missing the point.This dam didn’t make sense for BC thirty years ago, and it doesn’t make sense now.”

Andrew Weaver also joined numerous others in calling on the government to send the Site C project to the BCUC for a full, regulatory review.

Media Contact
Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Media Statement – March 12, 2015
Andrew Weaver Calls for Pause on Site C Dam Development
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party says its time to hit the pause button on the Site C dam before British Columbians have to foot the $800 million bill for this government’s rushed decision.

Dr. Weaver’s call follows “unprecedented” comments from Harry Swain, chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed the Site C Dam proposal. In an interview with DeSmog Blog Canada, Mr. Swain called the government’s failure to properly consider alternatives to the dam a “dereliction of duty”.

“Mr. Swain is a highly respected former public servant. When someone like him raises such serious concerns, we need to listen,” said Andrew Weaver.

Mr. Swain, is a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. He is concerned the government was irresponsible in rushing into its decision on Site C and instead should be taking the time to explore alternatives.

According to the panel’s report, by building Site C now the government will end up saturating the electricity market to the point where it will cost B.C. Hydro more to produce electricity than it will get from selling it. The result would cost British Columbians at least $800 million in the first four years of operation.

“The question that needs to be asked is what’s the rush?” said Andrew Weaver. “LNG isn’t materializing along the timeline promised by government. Even if B.C. Hydro’s current projections are true, we still have up to four years before we need to start building the dam. We should use that time to explore alternatives before embarking on the largest infrastructure project in B.C. history.”

Mr. Swain made it clear that alternatives to Site C exist and should have been considered. The panel, however, was not empowered to do so.

“The Minister’s talking points are missing the point.This dam didn’t make sense for BC thirty years ago, and it doesn’t make sense now.”

Andrew Weaver also joined numerous others in calling on the government to send the Site C project to the BCUC for a full, regulatory review.

Media Contact

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Media Statement: March 12^th, 2015
Andrew Weaver: Minimum Wage Increases need Review Mechanism
For Immediate Release

Victoria, B.C. – The process for determining increases to the minimum wage needs to be de-politicized according to Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

His comments follow today’s political announcement of a $0.20 increase to the minimum wage. While this announcement included a process to increase minimum wage annually, there was insufficient consultation and an apparent lack of expert review to determine today’s increase and the baseline for future increases.

“This is a political move that doesn’t actually solve the problem. Annual increases tied to inflation will only ensure minimum wage doesn’t fall further behind,” said Andrew Weaver. “This government hasn’t done enough to ask whether it still has some catching up to do before indexing minimum wage to the B.C. Consumer Price Index.”

Today’s announcement contained little information about how this new rate and revision process was developed. There was no indication that a consultation process with experts and with those who are affected by potential increases took place.

“What is needed is a full, independent examination of British Columbia’s minimum wage policy, including advice about how best to determine future wage increases, and to explore what the baseline minimum wage should be,” said Andrew Weaver. “We need to move the decisions about increases into a non-politicized environment so they can be about people, not politics.”

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Today in Estimates I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation two questions concerning poverty, homelessness and affordability. I ended up not asking the third question. Earlier in the day government announced changes to the support for single parents on income or disability assistance; yesterday government also announced changes to the support for families with children who receive income assistance.

My third question would have been:

“In the Premier’s mandate letter to the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation on June 10, 2014, the Ministry was mandated to work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to provide options to Cabinet that will ensure barriers are removed for single mothers looking to develop their skills to secure long-term employment. Given that lone-mother families are at a much higher risk of living in poverty than lone-father families and couple families, this mandate is important for addressing BC’s growing child poverty rate. What has the Ministry done over the last year to ensure that this mandate is met and what steps does this budget take to improve upon the work that is already being done?”

Based on the disappointing answers I received on my first two questions, I expected that I would simply be told about the two recent announcements government made.

Below I reproduce the exchange between the Minister and me.

Question

On plans to increase income assistance rates

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 maximum monthly shelter allowance for a single individual on income assistance set at $375.

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.

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?

Answer

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 today with the announcement we made for single parents. We’ve 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.

Question

On plans to increase support for brain injury survivors

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. Approximately 74 percent of those individuals had their brain injury before becoming homeless. 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?

Answer

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 expedited services for access to the Medical Service Plan and the PharmaCare plan as well. I certainly recognize and acknowledge the concern that you’ve brought forward.

Over the last two days, we have been debating Bill 7, Private Training Act, in the legislature. This bill replaces the Private Career Training Institutions Act, dissolves the Private Career Training Institutions Agency (PCTIA), and transfers its authorities and functions to the Ministry of Advanced Education. Closing the agency and transferring its functions to the Ministry of Advanced Education will save about $1.5 million over three years and moves British Columbia in line with how other provinces handle private career institutions.

Last April, the BC government dissolved the PCTIA, the organization that regulated private career colleges. This decision came after complaints about administrative fairness and enforcement of educational standards. A month after this decision was made, BC’s Office of the Ombudsperson also announced it would be launching a probe into the Agency.

On March 9, the Office of the Ombudsperson issued a Media Advisory indicating that its In the Public Interest: Protecting Students through Effective Oversight of Private Career Training Institutions would be made public following it being tabled in the legislature on Wednesday, March 11, at approximately 2:30 p.m. Today, we received an additional Media Advisory indicating that the report would not be tabled today and its public release would be postponed until further notice.

As you might imagine, this puts opposition MLAs in a very frustrating position as we were again discussing Bill 7 today in the absence of critical information that would inform us in our deliberations. As you will see from the discussion below, yesterday I rose on a point of order (but was overruled) asking that further deliberations of Bill 7 at Committee stage be delayed until such time as the Ombudsperson’s report was tabled.

In principle, Bill 7 is well intentioned. Unfortunately, it is incomplete and I spoke to the bill extensively yesterday in an attempt to offer means and ways of improving it. As evident in the relevant transcript of the proceedings (which I reproduce below), in my view there is a significant problem with the way Bill 7 regulates private language education schools. This legislation does not regulate the entire private language education sector. It only regulates those who voluntarily agree to actually seek registration. Those who choose not to register are not regulated. Paradoxically, in an attempt to protect students, those schools that voluntarily register and in so doing choose to meet higher standards are penalized with additional costs and administration. Those schools that choose not to register are not regulated and there is no additional protection for students, which is what this bill was supposed to do.

During the committee stage I offered an amendment to exclude private language education institutions from Bill 7 with the understanding that they would be regulated through the introduction of a future bill. The amendment was defeated.

Hansard Transcript of Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, the reality here is that this does nothing to protect the students from fly-by-night organizations. All it’s doing is protecting the students at entry point to a registered school, but they can immediately move to another school. I would argue that, in so doing, the MOU that the British Columbia government has signed — or has along with other provinces, signed with Citizen and Immigration Canada — cannot actually be enforced because the government will have no control as to where a student actually ends up having their private language education, because it’s only at the entry point that the visa requirement is there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[By adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 1 – Definitions

“excluded institution” means any of the following

(n) a private language education institution]

On the amendment.

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

Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment negatived on division.