British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (20031007pm-Hansard-v16n11)
20031007pm-Hansard-v16n11
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 16, Number 11
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Tributes
Israel Harold Asper
Hon. R.
Coleman
J. MacPhail
Hon. G.
Cheema
Introduction and First Reading
of Bills
Local Government Bylaw Notice
Enforcement Act (Bill 65)
Hon. G.
Plant
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Canadian mountain guides
W. McMahon
Addiction services in Victoria
J. Bray
Maa-Nulth agreement-in-principle
G. Trumper
Oral Questions
Work of public relations firm on
government energy plan
J. MacPhail
Hon. S.
Santori
J. Kwan
Hon. J.
Murray
Management of Fort Steele Heritage
Town
B. Bennett
Hon. G.
Abbott
National sex offender registry
I. Chong
Hon. R.
Coleman
Future of Louis Creek sawmill
J. MacPhail
Hon. M. de
Jong
Petitions
S. Orr
Second Reading of Bills
Administrative Tribunals Appointment
and Administration Act (Bill 68) (continued)
J. Kwan
J. Bray
Hon. G.
Plant
Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal
Act (Bill 70)
Hon. R.
Coleman
Committee of the Whole House
Health Professions Amendment Act,
2003 (Bill 62)
Hon. S.
Hawkins
Reporting of Bills
Health Professions Amendment Act,
2003 (Bill 62)
Third Reading of Bills
Health Professions Amendment Act,
2003 (Bill 62)
Committee of the Whole House
Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment
Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42)
Report and Third Reading of
Bills
Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment
Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42)
Committee of the Whole House
Skills Development and Labour
Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37)
Hon. G.
Bruce
J. Kwan
[ Page 7215 ]
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003
The House
met at 2:03 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. G.
Cheema: In honour of Mental Illness Awareness Week, I would like to welcome
two guests to the gallery today. It's my pleasure to introduce Gail Simpson,
executive director of the Capital Mental Health Association, and Ken Beattie,
president of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Victoria branch. Ken is
also a facilitator for the Mood Disorder Association of Victoria. I would like
to mention that in 1993, Gail brought B.C.'s first depression screening test
site to Victoria. In honour of the National Depression Education and Screening
Day, which is occurring this Thursday, would the House please make them both
very welcome.
P. Wong:
Joining us in the gallery today are some wonderful people from the
Philippines-Canada Trade Council. They are Mr. Ron Benoit, president; Elena
Agala, adviser; directors Carmelita Tapia and Bob Rai; and Mr. Andy Jagpal. All
members are from British Columbia, and they are meeting with the President of
the Philippines sometime this month. They are here today to watch the
proceedings. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome.
[1405]
Penner: Today it's my honour to welcome a delegation from Washington State
in what may be something of a historic occasion. For the first time in living
memory the co-chair of the joint Washington State House and Senate
Transportation Committee is here: Senator Jim Horn, along with committee members
Senator Joyce Mulliken, Representative Beverly Woods, Representative Doug
Ericksen and Representative Fred Jarrett. Representative Jeff Morris, you'll be
pleased to know, has just landed at the Victoria airport — I just spoke to him
a moment ago — and he's on his way in. He's my predecessor as president of the
Pacific NorthWest Economic Region.
addition, Andrew Johnsen, transportation adviser to Governor Gary Locke, is
here, as is Jim Troyer, chief of staff to the Senate Republican caucus. There
are a number of other individuals here, as well, that I would like to
acknowledge: Brian Volkert and Mike Thorn from Washington State Ferries; Darrell
Bryan, Jim Boldt and Robin Appleford, all from the Victoria Clipper ; as
well as Elmira Forner and Jennifer Ziegler from the Washington State
Transportation Commission; Kevin Cooke from the Canadian consulate office in
Seattle; as well as Matt Morrison, PNWER's executive director and a hard-working
gentleman known throughout the Pacific Northwest; and Mike Groesch, coordinator
of the Senate Transportation Committee.
We've been
assisted in arranging a number of valuable meetings today by Dr. Sukumar
Periwal, an adviser with the intergovernmental relations office associated with
the Premier's office. They are here today to meet with a number of people.
They've already met with our Transportation minister and our Minister of State
for Intergovernmental Relations. I believe this may be the first meeting of its
type, at least in living memory, and the first time I'm aware of that any group
like this has come to Victoria to meet with elected representatives here. It's
another good sign of our growing relationship with Washington State, and I ask
the House to please make our visitors welcome.
Tributes
ISRAEL HAROLD ASPER
Hon. R.
Coleman: Today we mourn the passing of Israel Harold Asper, affectionately
known as Izzy. Izzy Asper died this morning at age 71 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mr.
Asper was referred to as a media mogul, and for good reason. He truly was a
giant in Canadian broadcasting and print journalism. He entered broadcasting in
1974 with a small Winnipeg TV station under the CanWest banner. The company has
since grown to become CanWest Global and includes TV stations from coast to
coast, as well as outlets in Australia and New Zealand. The family also owns
dozens of Canadian newspapers.
As founder
and former chairman of CanWest Global Communications, Izzy Asper retired as
executive chairman this past January. He has received numerous awards, most
notably the Canadian Association of Broadcasters gold ribbon award for broadcast
excellence in 1992. In 1995 he was inducted into the Canadian Broadcast
Association Hall of Fame, and that same year he was named an officer of the
Order of Canada.
Prior to
making his mark in Canadian broadcasting and journalism, Izzy Asper served
Canadians in legal and political arenas. A law graduate of the University of
Manitoba, he was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1975, and from 1970 to '75 he was
a leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba and was elected twice to the Manitoba
Legislative Assembly.
Izzy Asper
was also known as a philanthropist and, in fact, in 1993 established his own
charitable foundation, the Asper Foundation.
We offer
sincere condolences to his wife, Babs; his two sons, David and Leonard; and his
daughter, Gail.
MacPhail: We in the opposition rise to give our condolences to the Asper
family, to Manitoba and to Canada. There is never, ever an easy time to lose a
loved one, and that is true of the Asper family, even though the contribution
is, as the Solicitor General has said, a great contribution to Canada.
He was also
a spiritual man, a deeply religious man, and for that he should be remembered as
well. We join with the government in sending condolences — I hope through you,
Mr. Speaker — to the Asper family.
Hon. G.
Cheema: I would also like to express my sincere sympathy to the Asper family
on the passing of
[ Page 7216 ]
Izzy Asper, a great Manitoban and exceptional Canadian. I had the good
fortune of knowing him during my time in Manitoba. I knew him to be a very
compassionate, personable, community-oriented and very committed person. His
contribution to the Jewish community, minority groups and to our country is
enormous. His legacy will not be forgotten. On behalf of my constituents and my
family, I would like to send my prayers to the Asper family on this sad
occasion.
[1410]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BYLAW NOTICE
ENFORCEMENT ACT
Hon. G.
Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill
intituled Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act.
Hon. G.
Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 65, the Local Government Bylaw Notice
Enforcement Act. This new act will create a new model to resolve local
government bylaw disputes. It will establish local government dispute
adjudicative systems to deal with minor bylaw disputes such as parking tickets.
This model
gives local governments more authority to deal with local issues and avoids the
time-consuming court processes associated with disputing minor bylaw tickets in
the Provincial Court. There will also be more rigorous penalties for serious
bylaw breaches, and they will continue to be heard in Provincial Court.
I move that
the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next
sitting of the House after today.
Bill 65
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 25
b) CANADIAN MOUNTAIN GUIDES
McMahon: Today I have the pleasure of recognizing a very dedicated group of
individuals, the Canadian mountain guides. Last winter was a very difficult one
for many mountain guides in my region and around the province. As we all
remember, a series of avalanches resulted in a number of deaths, reminding us
how powerful Mother Nature can be and how fragile life is when exploring our
back-country mountains.
Those
avalanches were obviously beyond anyone's control. While we were in the middle
of one of the worst avalanche seasons ever in this province, I was extremely
impressed with the professionalism of the guides. These are dedicated people who
put safety first and risk their own lives to save others. If there is one thing
I learned last year, it is that we have the best, most knowledgable guides
anywhere in the world.
While I
have thanked many guides personally for their professionalism and dedication to
safety in the back country, I want to thank them again today publicly. The
guides in our back country allow people from all over the globe to come and
explore our back country in as safe a manner as possible, and we should be
extremely grateful. They also play an important role in our local economies.
Tourism in our back country is growing, and it is absolutely critical that we
have experts such as the Canadian mountain guides to assist those with a spirit
for adventure.
In 1963,
with the encouragement of Parks Canada, the Association of Canadian Mountain
Guides was formed. It now has over 500 members, and Canadian guides can be found
working around the world. They are perhaps best known for having developed
helicopter skiing and setting the acknowledged standard for safety and client
care in ski-guiding. They are a self-regulating board that assesses their
training and their skills. They meet accepted standards and as an
internationally recognized body are regulated worldwide.
We should
be proud of the work that they do. I ask all my colleagues here today to join me
in wishing the Canadian mountain guides a safe and adventurous year in our back
country.
ADDICTION SERVICES IN VICTORIA
J. Bray:
Two weeks ago I, along with the member for Victoria-Hillside and the mayor of
Victoria, had the opportunity to tour the Vancouver downtown east side's newly
opened supervised injection site. This was another result in the ongoing
cooperation between the province, the city of Victoria, the Vancouver Island
health authority and the Victoria city police on looking for short-, medium- and
long-term solutions to issues affecting downtown Victoria.
The tour
was good, the services great, and the need is greater. However, the question
comes forward: does Victoria need a supervised injection site? The city of
Victoria will be completing an extensive needs analysis. My educated estimate is
that this analysis will determine that we do not need a supervised injection
site.
However, I
believe Victoria needs to be open to new services that may be needed in our
community. One may be what is often referred to as wet shelters. Wet shelters
offer shelter to homeless persons also suffering from chronic alcoholism. Having
done walkabouts in downtown Victoria, I know this is a particular need.
[1415]
Most
shelters and hostels ban alcohol consumption or intoxicated clients from
staying. For safety purposes
[ Page 7217 ]
this makes sense. A separate shelter that deals with those who are drinking
and will drink ensures their safety but also an increased sense of community
safety by providing a safe place for these persons to go.
Downtown
needs to ensure services that provide alternatives to this small population from
simply being on the streets. It would help make everyone feel safe. Do wet
shelters condone alcoholism? No. Do they lend to increased homelessness or
alcoholism? No. Wet shelters do recognize a need, provide individual and public
safety, and perhaps can serve as the first intervention that deals with those
suffering chronic alcoholism on their terms and for some lead to further
treatment.
Controversial?
Maybe so. But let us be open to exploring wet shelters as another step in
developing a made-in-Victoria continuum of care for the most vulnerable in our
community.
MAA-NULTH AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE
Trumper: Cooperation is a simple word that means big things, something
residents of the Alberni-Qualicum riding are seeing on a regular basis. This
past Friday the Maa-Nulth first nation signed an agreement-in-principle with the
province and federal government.
We have
reached this stage because our government and the Maa-Nulth people know
cooperation will benefit all of our communities, aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
The chiefs have told me this is about building a strong economic future for
their communities, about moving forward together with their neighbours. It's
been exciting working side by side with my first nation friends to build these
partnerships. First nations must be our partners if our local and provincial
economies are going to move ahead to the benefit of all British Columbians.
The
Maa-Nulth AIP is just the latest sign of partnerships in action. The Eagle Rock
Quarry, a business partnership between the Hupacasath first nations, the
Ucluelet first nations and the Polaris Minerals Corp., has won approval.
The
Tseshaht first nations, thanks to provincial tenure award, have signed a deal
with Coulson Manufacturing to mill 75,000 cubic metres of timber. Forest tenure
has gone to the Ditidaht, Pacheedaht first nations and the
Huu-ay-aht–Ka:'yu:t'h/Chek:k'tles7et'h' first nations. These tenures are an
economic opportunity. Across Alberni-Qualicum, first nations and our government
are leading the way, building bridges, building partnerships, and building a
bright economic future for aboriginals and for our mid-Island communities.
On the west
coast of Vancouver Island, we are building a template for a new era of
partnerships, and we are showing that cooperation works. Many years from now,
when we look at a B.C. where all first nations and their neighbouring
communities are working together to build strong, vibrant communities and a
strong, vibrant province, they will say that the first nations of the west coast
and this provincial government led the way to making that new era happen.
Oral Questions
WORK OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM
ON GOVERNMENT ENERGY PLAN
MacPhail: The Premier's office gave National Public Relations an untendered
contract to help it spin its communications plan for the government's energy
plan, a plan that rewards big oil and big mining in an unprecedented way.
We now know
that National Public Relations was also working for precisely the same industry
interests that benefit from that government energy plan. We also know that
National Public Relations gave the Liberal Party more than $8,000 in a donation
in 2002, the same year that they were handed the untendered contract. That
donation was more than three times the average donation they'd contributed over
the previous six years.
Can the
Minister of Management Services, who has responsibility for government
procurement, please explain what controls are in place to stop Liberal insiders
from playing both sides of the fence, and can he explain why the controls aren't
working?
Hon. S.
Santori: This government made a commitment two years ago that we were going
to restore open tendering and procurement in this province. We are committed to
the whole theory around openness and accountability and how we procure it. We
have done that, there are safeguards in place, and we will continue to meet that
commitment.
Mr.
Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.
[1420]
MacPhail: I expect that some ministers will wish they had gone to Calgary
today, because that didn't answer the question. It was an untendered contract
— untendered. The National Public Relations contract was for a maximum of
$22,000. The government — not a tendered contract; untendered — paid them
$37,000 — $15,000 more than the contract was worth. That's a 60 percent
overrun.
Again to
the Minister of Management Services: why did the government pay National Public
Relations $15,000 more than the signed contract allowed, and could he explain
what the taxpayers got for the extra money? It's his job to know.
Hon. S.
Santori: My ministry is responsible for the overall governance of
procurement in British Columbia. I am not totally aware of all of the details
surrounding this particular matter that the member rises to speak on in the
House today. I do understand that on some procurement practices there are
thresholds in terms of what can and cannot be let out. I will get that
information and make that information available to the member opposite on this
particular tender process that did go out.
[ Page 7218 ]
MacPhail: Maybe I should be asking the question, "What value are the
taxpayers getting for this minister?" because he should know this kind of
stuff. That's his sole job.
It's an
untendered contract. Here's what National Public Relations themselves admitted
to. They were given the government's energy plan before it was made public. That
gave National Public Relations special access to inside information on the
contents of the energy plan at the same time that they were registered lobbyists
for the Coal Association, the Mining Association, the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers and for an umbrella group that represents energy interests
that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Liberals.
Can the
Minister of Management Services now please explain why his government contract
procedures would allow for energy industry and Liberal insiders to have access
to the government's energy plan before it was finalized and before it was made
public?
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Management Services has the floor.
Order, please.
Hon. S.
Santori: In order to provide some briefness to my reply on this, the same
answer I provided to the member opposite still stands. The member opposite knows
that through my ministry and through government, I do not see every procurement
or tender that goes out throughout the ministries. As I said earlier, I will
find out the details around this process, and we will get back to the member
opposite, but I remain confident….
J. Kwan:
The Premier yesterday said that the cabinet ministers left behind would be
able to answer any questions that might arise, so let's put that to the test. We
know that National Public Relations was on contract with the Premier's office to
manage the government's energy policy rollout. We also know that National Public
Relations was retained at the same time to lobby this government on behalf of
big oil and coal. We also know that the finalized energy policy rewarded those
oil and mining interests with a plan to increase pollution and greenhouse gases.
Can the
Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection assure this House that the energy
plan was not shared with the corporate interests represented by National Public
Relations before it was released to the public?
[1425]
Hon. J.
Murray: My ministry was not in the lead with the energy policy, but I can
tell you that we have an energy policy that we are exceedingly proud of. We have
the greenest energy policy in the country, and we have a 50 percent renewable
energy policy that no other jurisdiction in North America can match.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
J. Kwan:
You know what? It's not only the ministry that's not in the lead on this file;
it's the minister who's not in the lead of protecting the environment. Well,
that doesn't surprise me. The minister is clearly not given the same access to
inside information as energy lobbyists. Right now one-third of the cabinet is in
Calgary, and I suspect that more than a few energy lobbyists and insiders have
been invited to the party. But the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection
won't know what is being promised to the industry, because she's not allowed to
go on the trip. How are British Columbians to have any faith in her ability…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
…to protect our environment when she has less…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan:
…access to government than energy industry lobbyists and insiders?
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for East Kootenay.
MANAGEMENT OF
FORT STEELE HERITAGE TOWN
Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, the member for East Kootenay has the floor.
Interjections.
Bennett: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, if I could be allowed to ask it.
MacPhail: And I bet you the minister will be able to answer it.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition, please come to order.
Bennett: Thank you. I have an issue that I'd like to raise with the Minister
of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services on behalf of my colleague from
Columbia River–Revelstoke and myself. Fort Steele Heritage Town is located
just outside of the city of Cranbrook and is very important to the people of the
East Kootenay, both as a tourist attraction and as an important part of our
regional heritage. Not long ago
[ Page 7219 ]
the minister announced that an AIP was agreed to by the Friends of Fort
Steele, which is a local community group, and the provincial government.
Can the
minister tell the people of the East Kootenay how Fort Steele will be managed by
this community group so that our area maintains this important tourist
attraction and the heritage site well into the future?
Hon. G.
Abbott: I think the memorandum of agreement is great news for British
Columbia — certainly great news for Fort Steele. I think what we're going to
have as a final agreement is concluded is the Friends of Fort Steele bringing
new energy, vision and imagination to the operation of the Fort Steele site. I
know some people are drawn to the proposition that only government should
operate things. I think, for example, since the fast ferry fiasco, about four
million British Columbians might question that proposition. Actually, I think
this is great. Having a non-profit, community-driven group in control of the
Fort Steele site is, I think, just great news for that site. It's great news for
heritage in British Columbia, and I think it's a good-news story and a win-win
for the province and for the region.
NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
Chong: I understand that just last week the Solicitor General met with the
federal and all of the provincial justice ministers to discuss the national sex
offender registry. Well, I have heard from many concerned parents in Oak
Bay–Gordon Head who are still wanting to know about the status of this
national registry. This sex offender registry is an important tool for
preventing and fighting crime. In light of these discussions, can the Solicitor
General tell us the status of the sex offender registry?
[1430]
Hon. R.
Coleman: At the federal-provincial justice ministers meeting, we made it
pretty clear — all provinces made it clear — that we were not in favour of a
sex offender registry that did not include retroactivity or photographic images
on the system when the enhancements to CPIC were done. We made that very clear
to the federal Solicitor General, who has agreed to take it back and try and
work out the issues with regard to retroactivity, which is an important aspect
of this. The geomapping we think we can actually apply through a relationship
between CPIC and back into our PRIME system that we're putting into British
Columbia today.
Those are
the three aspects that we really had a concern about with the sex offender
registry. I think it's important to remember that we also need to track sex
offenders when they come out of incarceration when they have different aspects
to their release that are conditions to the release, because we know that they
will reoffend or break their conditions within 72 hours.
The package
is that we have to have the integrated response to sex offenders in British
Columbia at the prevention side and also at the geomapping and at the site,
where we can actually keep track of the people that we have. Frankly, one is an
investigative tool, and the other is a preventive tool, and they both have to go
together.
FUTURE OF LOUIS CREEK SAWMILL
MacPhail: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson seems to have trouble
keeping his stories straight. First, he said that forcing companies to process
raw logs in local mills was akin to communism. Then he said that he and the
government were doing all they could to save the jobs at Louis Creek, and when
Tolko pulled the plug on Louis Creek, he said he was angry and suggested that
the company misled him.
To the
Minister of Forests: what caused him to abandon the workers in Louis Creek? Was
it (
a) saving local jobs is communism, (
b) incompetence by the member for
Kamloops–North Thompson or (
c) sneakiness by the company?
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please! The Minister of Forests has the floor.
Hon. M.
de Jong: I hardly think something as serious as what we are dealing with is
an issue that the member would want to use her terms to be cheeky or cute about.
No one….
Interjections.
Hon. M.
de Jong: The….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order! The Minister of Forests has the floor.
Hon. M.
de Jong: In the days following the tragic events that we are all so familiar
with, it is true that I and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson met with
officials from Tolko, the operator in the area, and made it clear to them that
our preference and our belief that it was in the best interests of the people in
Louis Creek, in Barriere and in the North Thompson Valley for that facility to
be reconstructed in the North Thompson Valley…. In fact….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M.
de Jong: In fact, there were requests from the company to change things like
the points of ap-
[ Page 7220 ]
praisal that would have made it easier to relocate the mill, which sadly is
what is actually taking place, and we said no. We said no….
Interjection.
Hon. M.
de Jong: We can adopt the stance of the opposition, which seems to be that
in the aftermath of a tragedy, government can simply come along and say to a
company that has been burned out of its premises, "We order you to do
something that the government doesn't have the power to do," and….
Interjection.
[1435]
Hon. M.
de Jong: The member makes these claims about certain regulatory provisions.
Well, maybe she hasn't figured this out yet. The provisions in place that allow
for this decision to be made are the ones that have been in place for years and
years and years and were in place under her government, Mr. Speaker. Maybe
instead of pointing fingers, this member would join with everyone who wants to
do what's in the best interests of the people of the North Thompson, do what's
in the best interests of the people of Louis Creek and Barriere, and deal with
them as they should be dealt with, which is as casualties of B.C.'s worst fire
season ever.
[End
of question period.]
Petitions
S. Orr:
I would like to present a petition with 2,000 signatures from the business
people and concerned citizens of this region about the proposed closure of the
Victoria land titles office.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R.
Coleman: I call continuation of second reading of Bill 68.
Second Reading of Bills
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
APPOINTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ACT
(continued)
Kwan: To continue on, on second reading of Bill 68, Administrative Tribunals
Appointment and Administration Act, I now want to turn to the issue of
independence. Just prior to the lunch break, I was talking about the issue of
accountability. I now want to turn to the issue of independence.
Within its
report on independence and accountability, the administrative justice project
authors highlighted the importance of independence. They wrote: "When
deciding cases, administrative tribunals are part of the overall system of
justice, and public confidence in the integrity of the justice system is
essential in a fair and democratic society. Ensuring such confidence requires a
public perception that decisions are based on the merits of cases and are made
in a fair way, free from outside interference by the government" — or
other groups, for that matter. Furthermore, the AJP commented: "A common
reason for creating a tribunal is so that a particular task can be carried out
at arm's length from government."
The changes
brought in by the Liberals in 2002 clearly reduce the distance between the
commission and the government. That's the Agricultural Land Commission. The arm
has been shortened. The result is a reduction in the Agricultural Land
Commission's independence. First of all, the ability to delegate authority to
other groups could undermine the longstanding mandate of the agricultural land
reserve by introducing the potential for inconsistent decision-making. For
example, former Central Saanich mayor Wayne Hunter expressed concerns that
municipalities would be incapable of adequately protecting lands in the reserve.
Mayor Hunter's concern was that municipalities "used to count on the
commission to be the consistent body saying no, we don't think that's
appropriate; now you have to get the local political flavour."
[1440]
This is
very significant, because it goes to the heart of the commission and its role.
Since its inception, the commission has been the body charged with protecting
the agricultural land base as well as agricultural development. Allowing
political bodies like municipalities to approve non-farm uses within the ALR
could open up the process to political interference. For example, a particular
council that values development more than preservation could remove valuable
agricultural land in an unbalanced approach.
The
traditional impartiality that the commission has operated under is absent from
municipalities. Furthermore, the consistency of a single body is lost. As a
result, it is likely that a body other than the commission can impact the
results of decisions. This is a clear violation of the principle of
independence. The commission's ability to function as an independent body
operating at arm's length from the government has also been greatly reduced by
section 58 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. This
section grants the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to establish "policies and
procedures to be followed by the commission in conducting its affairs,
performing its duties and functions and exercising its powers."
These new
regulatory powers reduce the independence of the commission by giving the
government the ability to introduce changes that can supersede decisions made by
the commission. It opens up the process to potential political interference. In
combination with the changes to the delegated authority discussed earlier, these
new powers give the government significant leeway with the commission.
On this
very issue, the administrative justice project states: "A decision-maker
should not only be impartial but also be perceived by a reasonable person as
being
[ Page 7221 ]
impartial. There is a direct link between the amount of independence enjoyed
by a tribunal and its members and whether the institutional arrangements create
a perception of reasonable apprehension of bias."
While
critics are not concerned with the individual members of the tribunal, since new
appointment processes ensure accountability, the institutional arrangements
established by this government do not create a perception of reasonable
apprehension of bias.
Several of
the changes allow direct political interference and allow other bodies with
conflicting mandates to make decisions. All of this adds up to a distinct
perception that government bias will influence the tribunal at an institutional
level.
Looking at
the overall picture, it is clear that the Ministry of Attorney General's
principles described by the administrative justice project and Bill 68 have not
been met in the changes to the Agricultural Land Commission. The balance between
accountability and independence has not been met. The potential result is a lack
of public confidence in the tribunal.
The
government should revisit the Agricultural Land Commission Act and ensure that
the principles of independence are more adequately considered. If the government
is actually committed to the principles laid out by the administrative justice
project, the commission's enabling legislation should be revised to remove the
government's new overriding authority. This will remove the perceived influence.
The
legislation should also be amended to remove the ability to delegate authority
to other bodies with conflicting mandates. At the very least, transparent
guidelines should be developed to ensure the Oil and Gas Commission cannot
violate the purpose of the agricultural land reserve.
J. Bray:
It is my pleasure to stand up in support of Bill 68, the Administrative
Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act. I'm also pleased that the
opposition has chosen to see the wisdom of this particular act and the changes
that the Attorney General is bringing in. I thought the Attorney General did an
excellent job during debate of outlining the genesis of this act as well as the
reasons why it's so necessary now.
[1445]
thought that I perhaps could add to the debate from the perspective of somebody
who has worked in the public service and, therefore, has had a lot of
involvement with administrative tribunals, their important role in our society,
and the way in which government services and other services are provided and why
these changes are so critical.
I think one
of the first areas I want to focus on is tribunals. The 29 administrative
tribunals covered under this act really do form the basis of significant issues
of administrative justice and fairness to citizens seeking services from
government and other bodies. There is a need for those individuals seeking that
justice to feel confident that the tribunal members and the chairs to which
they're addressing their concerns are actually skilled and knowledgable in the
area in which they're adjudicating. Because their decisions are often critical
in the lives of individual appellants and individual citizens, they really must
be based on knowledge and technical skill as well as other skills that one who
is an adjudicator must have.
One of the
areas of Bill 68 that I think is so important is the
section that deals with
merit-based appointments. Now, nobody argues with that as a concept, but it is
sometimes a little bit harder to put into place when you're appointing positions
— how you actually go about doing that on merit. I think over time the
politicization of some administrative tribunals and the ability to pick people
for a variety of reasons has impacted, if nothing else, the confidence of the
public in those tribunal members and chairs but also could have an impact on the
actual decisions made by those tribunal chairs and those individuals.
Moving back
and actually putting it in legislation that government wants those arm's-length
administrative tribunals to be filled by people based on merit, their skills and
their knowledge is, I think, absolutely critical. Just as we have placed merit
back as an important hiring factor in B.C.'s public service — in fact, we now
have a merit commissioner whose sole task is to ensure that, from the lens of
merit, that's how people enter into the public service or move up in the public
service — so too should that carry over to administrative tribunals. I
certainly, for one, am very pleased to see that as being a significant focus in
Bill 68.
There's
another issue that is critically important for citizens seeking services of
administrative tribunals, and that's the area of fairness. We want to make sure
there is consistency with which these tribunals deal with matters from an
administrative law perspective. We want to make sure there's a fairness with
respect to how these tribunals are staffed and how people are on there so that
the decisions they make at the end of the day are felt to be fair by those
receiving services. It doesn't mean that they always agree but that they feel
the process has been fair and that the members are well trained and knowledgable
— and to ensure that the process by which these tribunals are staffed starts
first with merit and second with fairness.
The third
area I think is critically important is that because these tribunals deal with
individuals often in distress, often dealing with very complex personal issues
that are monetary or health related, the effectiveness of these administrative
tribunals has to be uppermost. What Bill 68 allows us to do as government and
allows those bodies to do is maximize their effectiveness in dealing with their
general scope of review so that they perform their task with a cost-effective
and decision-effective process. That, to me, is critical and something you don't
know about. The general public, if they've never gone to one of these tribunals,
may or may not realize how critical it is. Those who have been before some of
these bodies know that the effectiveness of those decisions, the fairness of
those decisions and the people who make those decisions…. It has a
life-altering impact. The effectiveness we will be able to
[ Page 7222 ]
achieve on these administrative tribunals through Bill 68 is critical.
It's also
time, as part of the administrative justice review project, to look at the
governance structure with respect to administrative tribunals. We want to make
sure that they can function independently, that they can function effectively.
Quite frankly, some of the rules around their governance hindered that and
actually created obstacles for those individuals to do the job to which they
were appointed. I think the Attorney General did an excellent job of addressing
that. This bill will help a long way towards that.
[1450]
Another
area I think is also critical is that because there was a concern as to whether
or not some of the appointments were based on merit or other reasons, the fact
that there were not independent time limits that ensured the independence of
people once they were appointed further eroded some people's confidence in the
impartiality and independence of the administrative tribunals. By putting in
time limits, we clearly signal in this act that once you're appointed in a fair
process based on merit, you are there to do the job because you have the skills,
you have the ability, you have the technical knowledge and you have the
understanding of administrative justice to then go forth and do your job. We
aren't going to interfere with you, whether we like your decisions or not.
You're there to do the job. That time limit really is a cornerstone of enhancing
that independence.
By the same
token there are very, very skilled people who end up on tribunals, and through
the merit process, we'll see that talent pool increase. We want to make sure
that among similar tribunals, if we have a talented person who is properly
qualified to be there, they can move across tribunals based on their skills so
that we ensure that we keep that talent pool there. Time limits make them
independent, but cross-appointments ensure that we keep the best, based on merit
and based on a fair process, to ensure they continue to serve the public through
this process.
The 29
administrative tribunals that are affected are critical to the services British
Columbians receive. Bill 68 ensures one thing above all else, and this is really
what the Attorney General highlighted that's important. These 29 tribunals,
through Bill 68, will be better able to serve the community, the individuals
that come before them, the agencies to which they are adjudicating decisions and
the province of British Columbia.
congratulate the Attorney General on another step as we go through the
administrative review project. I think Bill 68 is an excellent example of good
consultation and good public policy.
Mr.
Speaker: On second reading of Bill 68, the Attorney General closes debate.
Hon. G.
Plant: I rise to close debate. I appreciate the comments of the members who
participated in the debate. I think that for the most part, the comments of the
opposition member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke to policy issues. I
assume they are of interest to her, because of the time she took to speak to
them, but they are really outside the scope of the provisions of the bill that
we have before us today. I'm certain that the Minister of Sustainable Resource
Management will look at her comments as he continues his work to ensure that the
Agricultural Land Commission is doing the best it can to protect the public
interest of British Columbia in respect of agricultural land issues. I look
forward to dealing with any specific issues that members may have concerning the
legislation in committee stage debate.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House
for consideration at the next sitting after today.
Bill 68,
Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act, read a second time
and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next
sitting of the House after today.
Hon. R.
Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 70.
COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION
REPEAL ACT
Hon. R.
Coleman: I move that the bill be read a second time now. I am pleased to
rise today to speak about Bill 70, which demonstrates this government's
commitment to a core service review and to the elimination of unnecessary
bureaucracy. This bill repeals the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, dissolves
the commission and replaces the current appeal mechanism with more direct, more
appropriate and more accountable processes. The core review recommended this
course of action based on findings that given its extremely low level of
activity, the commission represents an unnecessary level of review.
The
Commercial Appeals Commission was established by enactment of the Commercial
Appeals Commission Act in 1982. It provides an appeal mechanism for those
impacted by administrative decisions, typically related to licensing made
pursuant to a variety of statutes. On average, only 25 appeals are made to the
commission annually, even though there is no fee for launching an appeal.
This repeal
should not be viewed as a negative judgment on the commission., which has
faithfully and properly addressed its mandate throughout its history. As
mentioned, the recommendation to dissolve the commission is reflective of the
number of appeals being insufficient to justify continuation.
[1455]
The nature
of the appeals in question means that the consumer will not be adversely
affected by this repeal. Decisions that may be appealed to the commission relate
primarily to licensing of businesses or individuals, not to disputes arising
between consumers
[ Page 7223 ]
and suppliers. The low number of appeals to the commission demonstrates that
the impact to the business community by repeal will be minor.
First level
administrative decisions made in relation to the statutes amended by this bill
are solid, yet we are committing to further improve this decision-making process
to reduce any potential for negative impacts. Judicial review will remain for
anyone aggrieved by a decision formally within the commission's jurisdiction.
The types of administrative decisions that were subject to appeal to the
commission were quite varied. In the consequential amendments of this bill, we
recognize this fact and have tailored the new processes appropriately.
Consequential
amendments to eight statutes will repeal sections that reference the Commercial
Appeals Commission Act, leaving persons aggrieved by administrative decisions
with the option of seeking judicial review. These eight statutes include six
consumer protection statutes that I am responsible for — cemetery and funeral
services, consumer protection, credit reporting, debt collection, trade
practices and travel agents — as well as the Homeowner Protection Act and the
Motor Dealer Act, which are the responsibilities respectively of my hon.
colleagues the Ministers of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and of
Competition, Science and Enterprise.
Each of the
offices making these administrative decisions follow the principles of natural
justice, ensuring that those impacted will be heard before any final decision is
made. The processes inherent to these principles of natural justice will be
further strengthened within the policies of each decision-making office.
Judicial review will ensure administrative compliance with these principles.
Persons aggrieved by decisions pursuant to the eight statutes mentioned will be
able to access the courts to have decisions reviewed on the basis of
administrative fairness.
Eight
additional statutes are the responsibility of my hon. colleague the Minister of
Finance. Of these eight, five are within the mandate of the Financial
Institutions Commission, or FICOM. Rather than relying solely on judicial
review, the Minister of Finance and FICOM, with the administrative justice
office, have decided to continue a form of tribunal review for these five
statutes. This is appropriate in the context, given the nature of the decisions
made under these statutes and given that the bulk of appeals made to the
commercial repeals commission were decisions under these statutes.
A new
financial services tribunal is therefore established by the consequential
amendments to this statute. This tribunal will be staffed from within FICOM and
funded through the existing FICOM budget. Judicial review will remain an option
for appellants following the ruling of this tribunal.
The
remaining three Ministry of Finance statutes have appeals to the commission for
decisions more like those under the consumer protection statutes. As a result,
persons aggrieved by decisions on these statutes, as under the consumer
protection consequential amendments, will have recourse to the courts. However,
requests for review under the three Ministry of Finance statutes will be wider
than judicial review, as it will allow review of the merits of the specific
decisions as well as enabling the hearing of new evidence.
Other
consequential amendments update statutes which reference the Commercial Appeals
Commission Act without using the commission for appeals. For example, the
consequential amendment to the Land Act brings provisions of the Commercial
Appeals Commission Act that were previously only referenced for the purpose of
providing fair process directly into the Land Act.
The
dissolution of the commission will save the government approximately $250,000
annually. This repeal also demonstrates a broader commitment of government to
remove unnecessary bureaucracy. Those aggrieved by administrative decisions will
now have more direct access to a final appeal rather than being faced with a
multi-tiered appeal process that stretches the final resolution of the issues
into months.
I move
second reading of the bill.
Motion
approved.
Hon. R.
Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House
to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 70,
Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a
Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House
after today.
Hon. R.
Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 62.
Committee of the Whole House
HEALTH PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 62; H. Long in the chair.
[1500]
The
committee met at 3:01 p.m.
Section 1
approved.
On
section
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I move the amendment to
section 2 that's in the possession of the
Clerk.
[SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed paragraph (
a) and
substituting the following:
(
a) by adding the following subsections:
(2.1) A designation under subsection (1) and regulations under
subsection (2) may recognize that 2 or more health professions are included in
the designation.
[ Page 7224 ]
(2.2) If subsection (2.1) applies to a college, this
Act, the regulations or the bylaws of the college may be applied to
(
a) each health profession separately, or
(b) 2 or more health professions jointly., and.]
On the
amendment.
Hon. S.
Hawkins:
Section 2 is basically a technical amendment. It's basically
removing the phrase "classes of registrant" from the act so as to
remove any potential overlap with classes of registration, which is established
by a board of the college in the bylaws. It's basically a clarification.
Amendment
approved.
Section 2
as amended approved.
Sections 3
to 6 inclusive approved.
On
section
I move the
amendment to
section 7 that is in the possession of the Clerk.
[SECTION 7, in the proposed
section 17.2 (2) by deleting
"one third of the members of the board" and substituting "one
third of the members of the executive committee".]
Amendment
approved.
Section 7
as amended approved.
Section 8
approved.
On
section
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I move the amendment to
section 9 that's in the possession of the
Clerk.
[SECTION 9,
(
a) by adding the following paragraphs:
(b.1) by repealing paragraph (
g) and substituting the following:
(
g) provide for the appointment, removal, functions and
duties of officers of the college; ,
(b.2) by repealing paragraph (h),
(b.3) by repealing paragraph (
i) and substituting the following:
(
i) establish classes of registrants and specify if members
of a class are eligible to vote in an election referred to in
section 17 (3)
(
a) or to be elected under
section 17 (3) (a);,
(
b) in paragraph (
e) by adding the following paragraph:(1.8) provide that
non-registrants described in paragraph (1.2) may be appointed or elected as
members of the board with or without voting rights on the board;, and
(
c) in paragraph (
h) by deleting the proposed paragraph (x.1) (ii) and
substituting the following:
(ii) creation of health care records containing personal health
information, and .]
Amendment
approved.
Section 9
as amended approved.
section
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I move the amendment to
section 10 that's in the possession of the
Clerk.
[SECTION 10(a), by deleting the proposed subsection
(1.1) and substituting the following:
(1.1) A board may only do the things described in subsection (1), except
subsection (1) (k), (
l) or (z), by bylaw.]
Amendment
approved.
Section 10
as amended approved.
Sections 11
to 16 inclusive approved.
section
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I move the amendment to
section 17 that's in the possession of the
Clerk.
[SECTION 17,
(
a) by deleting the proposed
section 25.5 (
b) and substituting the following:
(
b) providing a program for registrants who prescribe methadone so that
they have the education, guidance and ability to become authorized to
prescribe methadone under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) and
including in this program the criteria under which the college may recommend
to the federal minister responsible for that Act
(
i) the registrants who should be authorized to prescribe
methadone,
(ii) the restrictions, if any, which should be placed on
the authorization of a registrant to prescribe methadone, and
(iii) the registrants who should not be authorized to
prescribe methadone or that should have their authorization to prescribe
methadone suspended or cancelled;, and
(
b) by adding the following section:
Medical examination to assess whether curtailment of practice should be
ordered
25.6
(1) In this section:
"medical examination" means a medical examination ordered under this
section to assess whether the continued practice of medicine by the registrant
may constitute a danger to the public;
"report" means a report referred to in subsection (2) (a).
(2) If the registrar or the executive committee has reasonable grounds
to believe that a registrant may be suffering a physical or mental ailment, an
emotional disturbance or an addiction to alcohol or drugs that impairs his or
her ability to practise medicine and causes the continued practice of medicine
by the registrant to constitute a danger to the public, the registrar or
executive committee may
(
a) appoint one or more other registrants to conduct a
medical examination respecting the registrant and to report, as soon as
practicable, their conclusions, with reasons in writing, to the executive
committee,
(
b) require the registrant to undergo the medical
examination referred to in paragraph (a), and
(
c) for the period necessary to allow the registrar or the
executive committee to make an appointment under paragraph (
a) and to allow
the executive committee to receive, consider and act under this
section on the
report,
[ Page 7225 ]
(
i) set limits or conditions on the
practice of medicine by the registrant, or
(ii) suspend the registration of the registrant.
(3) Section 26.2, except
section 26.2 (3) (c), applies
(
a) to each person involved in the preparation and receipt of a report
as though the person were a quality assurance committee, and
(
b) to a report as though it were a record described in
section 26.2
(4).
(4) If the executive committee receives a report concluding that
(
a) the continued practice of the registrant constitutes a danger to
the public,
(
b) the registrant is prepared to take remedial measures, and
(
c) there is a reasonable prospect that these remedial measures will
allow the registrant to resume practice and not constitute a danger to the
public,
the executive committee may
(
d) set limits or conditions on the practice of medicine by the
registrant, or
(
e) suspend the registration of the registrant
and the limits, conditions or suspension apply until the registrant satisfies
the executive committee that it should act under subsection (6) (a).
(5) The executive committee must not act under subsection (4) (
d) or (
e) unless it has first given the registrant an opportunity to respond to the
proposed limits or conditions on practice or suspension of registration.
(6) If action has been taken under subsection (4) concerning a registrant, the
executive committee may
(
a) cancel or amend a limit or condition or cancel the suspension to
allow the registrant to resume practice if satisfied on the registrant's
application that the registrant can resume practice without constituting a
danger to the public, or
(
b) order that the inquiry committee cease or delay undertaking an
investigation under
section 33 of a complaint arising out of the same
circumstances that resulted in the action under subsection (4) being taken.
(7) The executive committee may act under
section 35 respecting a registrant
if it considers this necessary to protect the public and
(
a) it has received a report concluding that
(
i) the continued practice of the registrant constitutes a
danger to the public, and
(ii) subsection (4) (
b) or (
c) does not apply to the
registrant in the circumstances, or
(
b) the registrant has refused to undergo a medical examination ordered
under subsection (2) (b).
(8) for the purpose of subsection (7),
(a)
section 35 (1), (2), (4) and (5) applies as if the executive
committee were the inquiry committee, and
(
b) it is not necessary that an investigation is being conducted under
section 33 or that a hearing of the discipline committee is pending concerning
the registrant.]
Amendment
approved.
Section 17
as amended approved.
Sections 18
to 28 inclusive approved.
section
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I move the amendment to
section 29 that's in the possession of the
Clerk.
[SECTION 29, in the proposed
section 39 (4) by deleting
"and concludes" and substituting "on the basis".]
Amendment
approved.
Section 29
as amended approved.
Sections 30
to 33 inclusive approved.
section
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I move the amendment to
section 34 that's in the possession of the
Clerk.
[SECTION 34, by deleting the proposed
section 50.2 (1) (
a) and (
b) and substituting the following:
(
a) the person is a registrant of a college for a health profession that is
authorized by a regulation under
section 12 to provide a service that includes
the provision of the reserved action,
(
b) the person is delegated to perform the reserved action by a registrant
described by paragraph (
a) and the delegation is consistent with
section 50.3
and any regulations made under
section 50.3,.]
Amendment
approved.
Section 34
as amended approved.
Sections 35
to 59 inclusive approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with
amendments.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 3:05 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
Bill
62, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.
Third Reading of Bills
Mr.
Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?
Hon. S.
Hawkins: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.
Leave
granted.
Bill
62, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 7226 ]
Hon. R.
Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 42.
Committee of the Whole House
PROVINCIAL REVENUE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 42; H. Long in the chair.
The
committee met at 3:08 p.m.
Sections 1
to 12 inclusive approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. B.
Barisoff: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without
amendment.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 3:09 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 42,
Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete
without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. R.
Coleman: I call a five-minute recess.
Mr.
Speaker: The House will recess for a few minutes.
The House
recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.
[Mr.
Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. R.
Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 37.
Committee of the Whole House
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 37; H. Long in the chair.
The
committee met at 3:12 p.m.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I would just like to introduce Jan Rossley, who is the director of
policy for the ministry.
Sections 1
and 2 approved.
On
section
J. Kwan:
Section 3 of Bill 37 is a very telling section. It replaces a
section called
"No hiring of children under 15 without director's permission," and
replaces it with a new
section called "Hiring children." This is a
section that relaxes the rules by allowing parental consent alone. This
section
also states that a person may not employ a child under 12 without the consent of
the director and that the director will continue to set the conditions of
employment for children under 12.
Here are
some of the questions that I have for the minister. Could the minister please
advise: are there any instructions as to what types of work the director would
not permit a child under the age of 12 to perform?
[1515]
Hon. G.
Bruce: I just want to be clear. You were talking about a child under 12?
J. Kwan:
Yes.
Hon. G.
Bruce: No, that can and still would be under a case-by-case basis.
J. Kwan:
Yes, the minister says that it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But
are there overall general instructions, guidelines, that are being given to the
director so that one will have a general sense of what will be permitted and
what's not permitted?
Hon. G.
Bruce: There's no change to what the legislation currently is in this
particular instance. The director of employment standards is still required to
do the permitting for children under 12, so as is the current situation for
under 12, they would still have to go and get a permit from the director of
employment standards, and the director at that time would make the determination
— just as is currently the case.
J. Kwan:
I love it when the minister…. It's a habit of this government for the minister
to say: "Hey, there's no change; things are the same." No, things have
changed, Mr. Chair, and the provision here under this
section changes
significantly. "No hiring of children under 15 without director's
permission" is being replaced with a new
section called "Hiring
children." Now we have a new threshold being applied for children in terms
of who could perform work and who couldn't. The age limit has changed
significantly. So now, more specifically for the people under 12, the minister
is saying there are no guidelines. I actually saw the minister's staff shaking
her head when the question was asked. The minister in his response also
corresponds to say there are no guidelines.
What
conditions would the director impose on the employment of children under the age
of 12 concerning the type of work, the hours of work, the time work is performed
and adult supervision?
Hon. G.
Bruce: I think we want to be careful about body language, because sometimes
a different conver-
[ Page 7227 ]
sation can be had. Why one is shaking their head or not shaking their head
can be for an altogether different reason.
I think
what you're trying to ask me…. I'll rephrase this, if I can, so I can explain
what you were coming to me about. I did ask you very clearly whether or not
you're referencing children under 12, and I thought I got the nod that that, in
fact, is what you were referencing. So my answer to that was that as is the case
for children under 12 today, so will it be tomorrow with this legislation.
Now, if
we're actually talking about children between the ages of 12 and 15, then in
fact there is a change. Indeed, this government actually likes to talk about
change, if you want to go down that road, and I know the member opposite doesn't
want to go down that road because we had far too much of the wrong way of going
in this province during the past ten years. But there indeed is change happening
in many different areas in this government.
If we want
to get to the fact of things and we don't want to be pretending there are
conspiracies and we don't want to be pretending that, in fact, children are
going to be more vulnerable under this legislation, then I'll be happy to answer
your questions in a reasonable and concise manner. But I will not put up with
the constant of the fact that people in today's workplace are actually more
vulnerable than what they were before in the administration of the NDP
government for the past ten years. I actually take this part of my job very,
very seriously about the statutory responsibility of the Minister of Labour to
protect vulnerable people, including children. Because of the fact that I saw
time and again that there was no protection for children under the current
legislation, we've changed it to make sure that young people are protected.
Be clear
about this: under 12, all permits still have to go to the director of employment
standards with respect to the type of work and hours and everything that goes
along with that. Between 12 and 15, it's now required that the employer must
have written consent from the parent. The employer must have written consent
from the parent — very clear, very concise. Failing to have that written
consent from the parent can result in a mandatory $500 fine. If it was a second
offence, $2,500; if it was a third offence, $10,000. There are now actually
teeth in all of what we're talking about.
I want to
be very clear on this. That's what, in fact, we are talking about with this
legislation.
[1520]
J. Kwan:
It is unbelievable what this minister just stated. I have here a document from
someone who resigned from that ministry after the changes were known to this
individual, and this individual cannot stomach what is being proposed. And the
government and this minister go, "Hurray for us. This is change. This is
positive for people." Child labour with the lowest standards across the
country, and somehow that's something to brag about.
For the
minister to suggest that there were no rules or regulations under the previous
NDP government…. He is wrong, dead wrong. Let me enlighten the minister with
this information. It is shocking. It is absolutely shocking — the arrogance of
this government and this particular minister. Let me just enlighten the minister
about the rules that do apply. Permits were granted where it appears that the
health, welfare and safety of the child would not be compromised. These permits
do not relieve the employer, the parent or the guardian of their
responsibilities. The director has the authority to control the working
conditions of children. It is important the child be old enough to understand
the nature of an employment relationship. Only under exceptional circumstances
would an application for a child under 12 years of age be approved.
Under (1)
it goes on to deal with the employment of children under the age of 15, which is
prohibited without the director's approval. The requirement for the director's
approval enables the director to ensure that the child's welfare is considered.
The director takes into consideration the child's schooling, health and safety
on the job. The director may, after an investigation, decline to permit the
employment of a child.
Under (2)
the director will not grant child employment permits without receiving written
consent from the child's parents or guardian and the child's school. These
consents should be included with the application.
The
director will conduct an investigation by consulting with the child's parents or
guardian, school and a prospective employer before granting a permit.
If the
application is made during a school vacation period, no school consent is
required. Permits granted without such consent automatically expire during the
first week of school.
Subsection
(3). The director has the right to set certain conditions of employment for the
child. These may include restricted hours of work, transportation, adult
supervision, additional safety standards, type of work performed, limited
locations of work, school's permission and tutoring in certain circumstances.
These
directions are not just a formality. They did not not exist, minister. They
existed under the previous government, and it's under this administration that
they're actually being done away with. That is the reality here. Maybe the
minister would actually like to learn of what actually happened before he gets
up in his seat to accuse and point fingers erroneously.
You know
what? The minister writes off these rules and conditions that apply as just
formalities that weren't really important anyway. They were important. It
stopped some employment in some cases where it put children at risk. Let's just
be clear and be on the record with respect to what was in place and what is now
not in place.
I want to
ask the minister further questions. Obviously, the minister is suggesting, then,
that there are no rules that apply. There are no rules that apply? Would the
director impose any conditions about how the child travelled to and from the
workplace?
[ Page 7228 ]
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
I'll repeat it very slowly for the minister, Mr. Chair. Would the director
impose any conditions about how the child travelled to and from the workplace?
Hon. G.
Bruce: The director of employment will have the authority to impose that for
children under 12 — all right? And just going back to what you were
referencing was the fact that, as I mentioned to you last night, all's well and
good for the 300 permits that were issued, but there wasn't much in respect to
anybody else that was out there. We know there are well over 300 young people
working in the province of British Columbia today between the ages of 12 and 15.
MacPhail: Prove that.
The
Chair: I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that she must be
in her chair to speak in this House when she is recognized.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order.
[1525]
J. Kwan:
It is outrageous that this minister makes a mockery of this bill. You know what
we're debating about, Mr. Chair? In the second reading comments last night, the
opposition raised severe concerns about this government's decision to open up
wide child labour in B.C., the decision to give B.C. the weakest child labour
laws in the country. In response to the concerns from last night and consistent
with today, not only is the minister not willing to listen and to answer the
questions — the valid concerns that have been put to him — he mocks it and
he belittles it.
I just want
to share this information first with the minister. The minister and, I think,
especially the public who may be watching this debate may be interested to know
that next week there will be a vigil for the child labour legislation being held
by the Anglican Church of New West. On October 15 the justice and peace unit of
the Anglican Church is holding a vigil at Robson Square at noon and inviting
people of all faiths to join to show their concern about the B.C. Liberal
government's child labour law.
The process
that was in place is far from being a formality. The ESB took its mandate
seriously. The employment standards branch procedure required industrial
relations officers to inspect the workplace to identify potential dangers, to
visit where the child was to work, to review arrangements for the child getting
to and from the workplace, to verify the arrangements were safe, to interview
the parents — long trips by public transit at night with transfers, for
example, would be unacceptable — to direct that the child had immediate and
constant adult supervision with the view of better ensuring the child's safety
and compliance with workplace rules, and to interview the employer and/or the
manager.
The
industrial relations officers were instructed to say no to many employment
situations, including but not limited to the following: construction sites,
working near moving machinery or equipment, going door to door, being
responsible and accountable for cash, and working alone. The IROs restricted
when work could begin, its length and when it had to end — the hours that
could be worked in a day or in a week. Those were some of the provisions that
were in place.
The
minister said yesterday that no child applications were ever turned down. Well,
I want to ask the minister that question again. I challenge the minister to
provide proof of that. I have a case here that says to the contrary. Maybe the
minister can explain the contradiction from his point of view. We know the
industrial licensing officers turned down applications for permits with parental
and school approval. As one example, a permit was sought for a child ice cream
vendor along the seawall in Stanley Park. This was rejected on the basis that
having children carry money and goods without adult supervision would make them
a target for robbery.
For the
minister to say those systems in place were useless, perhaps that they were
never used…. How is that so? Why is there an inconsistency with this fact
versus what's in the minister's head?
Hon. G.
Bruce: I'm a very imaginative guy. I'm not sure where the member is getting
her facts from. Maybe she's getting them from the BCTF website. I'm not sure if
that's the case. That's full of erroneous information.
J. Kwan:
From someone who resigned in the ministry after you took office.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Yes, that gentleman or two…. I think there were probably a couple
there that did. We actually know of that. We actually, though, have very, very
good staff in the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: No, no, this is very important.
The
Chair: Order, members. Let the minister respond to the question, please.
[1530]
Hon. G.
Bruce: This is very, very important. What you're actually saying, in a
sense, is casting some aspersions because of one individual or two that left the
ministry — and so what they say is all correct. Now, I didn't sit down in the
dark of night and write all this stuff. I actually turned to my very competent
staff, the people that are in the field, the people that run the ministry
offices, and with what has come through to us, this legislation has been
drafted. Those are, in fact,
[ Page 7229 ]
people employed by the province of British Columbia on behalf of the
taxpayers of this place to make sure we have employment standards and laws in
this province which do protect the vulnerable.
It's great
that you have an individual or two who would like to throw out things, and
that's fine. I would also remind the member, though, that when you are kind of
trying to castigate me — and you're quite welcome to do that; I'm a little
thick and a little stupid, anyway, so none of it really bothers me very much —
you're actually casting aspersions on some very competent staff.
J. Kwan:
It's your policy that's the issue.
Hon. G.
Bruce: That's exactly what you're doing.
J. Kwan:
Own up to it. Answer the question.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Well, then let's talk about the policy. Let's talk about the policy,
and let's not talk about the individual that's feeding you erroneous
information.
J. Kwan:
Those cases are somehow not relevant?
The
Chair: Will the member please let the minister answer the question.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Let's speak to the cases, then. On average for the past three years
we have had some 300 applications to the director of employment standards —
okay? — for the current legislation required for individuals under the age of
15 who would like to go to work. Of that, we have for the most part found that
those permits have been accepted, apart from about 3 percent. In that 3 percent
there were refusals because of several instances — first of all, that
applications were made for young people over 15 and they didn't have to, so that
permit was refused. Then we had incidences where they had been made and the
individual, I believe, turned 15 during the course of the application, and so
they were refused and not dealt with. Then we had several incidences where in
fact the director of employment standards rejected the application. Usually
there are other mitigating aspects in there.
The point,
I think, that's really important is that rather than holding up the mantle that
the current regulations that were in place were there to protect young
people…. The rules and the regulations that you have all read out and through
really didn't do the job to protect young people in the workplace. I think the
member opposite would be undertaking a different tack to make sure that what we
are bringing in will apply to not only the 300 people but to the many, many more
young people who are in the workplace today.
We've
stated what we are doing in the first part here — of how it is that they are
going to be looked after, the onus that is now on the employer, and the
responsibility of parents. I know you'll beg to differ, but I'll accept that I
believe parents have a responsibility in this issue. I appreciate that you,
through your administration of the past, did not.
That's the
first part, really, that we're talking about in the
section we're currently
addressing. If you want to move on to the other sections as we go — and
whenever you want to go, I'm happy to go with you…. If you want to move on,
we'll get into more of the detail of how in fact it is that young people will
have other parts through regulation that will make sure they are working in a
safe worksite.
Ultimately,
that's what we come down to. There's not a person in this House, regardless of
their political leaning, who does not want to make sure that young people are
properly protected in the workplace. It really comes down to the aim and the
goal of how you go about achieving that in the broadest context, not just simply
for 300 young people.
J. Kwan:
So the minister suggests that the rules and regulations that were in place
earlier were of no consequence. The number of permits that were disallowed under
the former rules were 350 or so, and he says it's really of no consequence.
First, I challenge that number. Second, even if it was true with the 350 cases,
it still applied to 350 cases of individuals where it was not appropriate for
that child to be in the workforce. So it matters; it does matter.
[1535]
For the
minister to use the argument that somehow — he says — because the
regulations and rules weren't used that much, let's throw them away anyway….
Then not only that. Let's reduce the bar with the age limit to 12. Let's dive to
the bottom with respect to child labour. Then the government says: "But
it's not our responsibility. It's the parents' responsibility with respect to
that." I would agree to a certain extent. The parents do have a
responsibility, but so, too, does government. Government cannot simply walk away
on this issue.
I want to
bring to the attention of the minister, and I'd like to seek his response to
this particular parent who, I have no doubt, cares very much — cared very much
— for her child. I'd like the minister's response.
"On
May 12, 1995, my 15-year-old nephew made headlines, becoming the youngest
person in province of B.C. to ever die in an industrial accident. Luke Ryan
McIver was only five days into his first summer job when he was killed, buried
under a mountain of garbage while working for Wastech Services Ltd. of
Coquitlam. My brother, Luke's dad, also worked for Wastech and assumed because
he worked there that Luke would be safe. It wasn't until the coroner's inquest
that we discovered that Wastech had previously been fined for other safety
infractions. Like any big business, they pay the fine and move on. In the case
of Luke, his death hopefully made them more cautious for a few more years.
"This
morning while watching CTV, I listened to your Minister of Labour" —
she names the minister — "try and justify why he feels the labour law
should be changed to include 12-to-15-year-olds. I can give him a hundred
reasons why it shouldn't.
[ Page 7230 ]
"On
May 1, I travelled to Toronto for the official unveiling of the
LifeQuilt. For anyone who may not have heard about LifeQuilt, it is a project
of love that was designed by Laurie Swim in conjunction with the Workers
Health and Safety Centre to commemorate the lives of children between the ages
of 15 and 24 who were killed or seriously injured working in Canada. Each of
the 100 quilt blocks represents a child who lost his life, while the centre
panel contains the names of 33 young people who were seriously injured while
trying to earn a day's wage.
"In
Luke's case, he was hoping to get enough money to buy his first
car when he turned 16 that September. Anyone who has had the privilege of
seeing the LifeQuilt as it travelled across Canada last year will probably
agree with me when I say this is not the time to be relaxing labour laws. The
only people that are going to benefit from this are the businesses, who we can
guarantee will not have to pay the same wages for a 12-year-old as a
16-year-old.
"At
a time when our governments are cutting back the
number of inspectors they hire, who is going to oversee that these new
employees are indeed safe? At six feet tall and over 200 pounds, Luke, like
us, thought he was invincible. He also wanted to please his new employer, and
as a mature 15-year-old, we assumed we could trust his judgment. We later
found out that he had been injured early in the week and was told by a fellow
employee not to report it. Had he reported it, maybe he would still be alive.
Does anybody really believe a 12-year-old can avoid being exploited?
"My
understanding is this bill has yet to be passed. I urge all
MLAs to see that this labour bill does not get approved and Luke keeps his
title of being the youngest child in B.C. to ever be killed. I can assure you
that this is a title that no one else wants to win."
story put forward by a real person — not made up; a real incident. In fact,
even under the previous rules, accidents happened. So where is the
justification to relax the rules even more in situations like this? What's the
minister's response to this individual's letter?
[1540]
Hon. G.
Bruce: I think it's very sad and tragic whenever a young person is killed,
be it at a workplace or in life, and I think it's very sad and tragic when
anybody in the workplace is killed. I'm glad the member opposite acknowledged
the fact that these are under the current rules and regulations. I suspect, not
knowing all the details of this particular incident, that…. Accidents, as the
member opposite mentioned, do happen.
The
categorization of what we're talking about here is that what we are bringing
forward under Bill 37 means that there are fewer rules and regulations or that
the workplace will be more dangerous, not as well policed or less safe, when in
fact we believe the changes that we're making, because of the onus, because of
the fines that go with it, because of the regulations that will come in behind
this, the workplace will indeed be safer and that children — the children
between the ages of 12 to 15 — will actually see more protection today than
what is currently under the legislation in effect in British Columbia.
I know it's
a good emotional ring from the standpoint of what has been put and described
here. Again, I've got some notes from the BCTF website, some of which…. I'm
not sure if it's that particular incident. It's very tragic when an incident
like that occurs and a young person is killed. These changes that we're making,
I'm not suggesting for a moment are going to eliminate death in the workplace of
any group.
Now, with
respect to occupational health and safety and the actual safety component
through WCB, that is there. We're working hard to try and find ways to reduce
serious accidents and death in the workplace. We've embarked in the one sector,
the forestry sector, which is deemed to be one of the most dangerous vocations.
Certainly from the standpoint of the number of deaths, with all the additional
rules and regulations that we have put in place in the forestry sector, we can
actually stand up and say today that we still have the same number of men and
women killed in the forestry industry today as there were three and five years
ago.
What that
would say to me is that maybe we all better be a little bit more serious about
what it is we're bringing in place, take a look at how it is that some companies
have safer regimes than others and go about trying to bring about an effective
change so that we save lives. It isn't just a question of written-down paper
rules and regulations. It's about how they're administered, and it's about how
people live with them. What the member perhaps is not acknowledging, doesn't
know or is forgetting, or whatever, is that in behind all of this are some very
stiff financial penalties that will add a great deal to the aspect of what takes
place in the worksite for young people.
J. Kwan:
The minister would have you believe that just because we have rules and
regulations in place, it does not make the workplace safer. The minister would
have you believe that to take away those rules and regulations will make the
workplace safer. That's what the minister's argument is based on.
Now, I'm
not suggesting, Mr. Chair, that by having rules and regulations in place it's
100 percent risk-free for the people in the workplace. I'm not suggesting that
at all, but I sure am challenging the government and this minister when he
suggests that by having rules and regulations in place and by doing away with
them, somehow a workplace would be safer.
The current
act protects child workers by ensuring that a staff member of the employment
standards branch reviews applications made by the employers who want to hire
children under the age of 15. The current act enables the branch to examine the
worksite where the child will be employed and to stipulate conditions upon the
terms of the child's employment. For example, a child worker employed in the
film industry may need transportation to and from a worksite, an educational
plan that enables the child to maintain his or her studies, or limitations upon
the number of hours that the child can work.
[1545]
Those
things took place under
an act where those regulations were in place. There was
a system where routine inspections were in place. There was a system
[ Page 7231 ]
to check for child hand harvesters, as an example, in the agriculture
compliance team, and it was kept off of the fields. There would be a system
involving WCB and reporting of hours worked and taxes remitted involving CCRA.
Those are some of the things that regulations can address with respect to safety
in the workplace.
The
minister would like to claim that the larger fines would be a sufficient
deterrent, but at the same time there is much evidence that for large employers
fines are often viewed as a cost of doing business. Even given that the current
system — and I'll grant the minister that — is in need of reform, and others
have identified that…. Not just the BCTF, and I thank the BCTF for caring
enough to actually look at this legislation and put forward their comments. But
others have as well.
A York
University child labour expert, Judy Fudge, has also observed: "Just
because people are not following the law, it doesn't mean that's a good reason
to get rid of it. You have to ask: what are the pros and cons of this? I don't
think there was this kind of discussion in British Columbia." You know
what, Mr. Chair? She's right. There has been no consultation, no discussion of
the pros and cons — typical of this government. We are now forced to have this
discussion here in the Legislature where — I know the minister knows very well
— he has the majority to ram the legislation through.
The
minister's argument is flawed — to say that to do away with the regulations
will somehow make the workplace safer. If enforcement was not sufficient
previously, then instead of laying off more staff, one would have assumed that
the government would actually ensure that there's more enforcement in place to
better ensure that the workplace is safe for children 15 and under — not lower
the age limit, which is what this government is doing, what this minister is
doing.
I want to
ask the minister these questions. He didn't answer the question with respect to
conditions around the child travelling to and from the workplace. Are there any
conditions at all that would apply?
Hon. G.
Bruce: Okay. If you are a child — all right? — between the ages of 12
and 15, the regulations, first of all, say you cannot work during school hours
on a school day. Anybody have a problem with that one?
The School
Act is the overriding act that applies. A child does not work more than four
hours on a school day or 20 hours in a week when school is in session. The child
does not work more than eight hours in a day or 35 hours in a week — actually,
I believe that's going to be seven hours in a day and 35 hours in a week —
when school is not in session.
So in the
summertime, summer holidays, we're talking about now — children between the
ages of 12 and 15…. We're thinking about July and August. We're thinking about
spring fairs — you know, summer fairs. We're thinking about kids that might go
pick some corn on the farm. They might have an after-school job that allows them
to work a little bit more during the summertime when they want to. Maybe it's a
tourist job in a campsite that they're working at. When school is not in
session, a young person between the ages of 12 and 15 can work a maximum of 35
hours in the week and seven hours a day. When the school is in session, they can
work a maximum of 20 hours in the week and only four hours in the day.
The child
is under the supervision of an adult. In that particular aspect of things….
Much of that is reflective of making sure they are well protected from the
standpoint of being exploited in the case, of course, of working through extra
hours and that sort of thing.
[1550]
Now, in
respect to film — and we want to understand the difference here; those are the
general regulations — the film industry along with the province is very
concerned. With the way film is, you actually have some very young people
involved in film. When we talk about film, we often think of the big major
productions, but there are commercials and little shorts that are done.
Commercial production may involve a very young baby. If you're trying to sell
baby diapers in a commercial, you actually have to use a baby. So what we have
done there is wrote the regulations with the film industry who also, because of
the nature of this, want to make sure that their industry is well protected by
the right type of regulatory regime so that they're not in a position of looking
like they're exploiting young people. They don't want that happening at all.
The
ministry has been working through with the film industry. As I mentioned last
night, we want the film industry and the movie sector to grow for the area. Next
to Hollywood — that's Hollywood, Los Angeles — we will have the strongest
child regulations for children in film of any country — okay? I wanted you to
know that.
We have, in
that respect, the minimum age, the limits on daily hours, what a junior child
means, what a school day means, no split shifts and maximum limit on breaks.
Time before an actual recording device, because this can be very onerous for….
It can be particularly tough on very small babies when you've got the lights and
the things that go with that when you're trying to do a commercial.
We actually
have in that, depending on the age, how many minutes you can be before a
recording device. For instance, if you're less than three years of age, for a
moment, you can only be 15 consecutive minutes in front of a recording device,
and then you need 20 consecutive minutes of breaks. If you're three years to
less than six years of age, you can have 30 consecutive minutes before a
recording device and then 15 consecutive minutes of breaks. If you're six years
to less than 12 years of age, you can have 45 consecutive minutes in front of a
recording device and then ten consecutive minutes of break. If you're 12 years
to less than 15 years of age, you can have 60 consecutive minutes in front of a
recording device, and you are then required to have ten minutes of consecutive
break.
Hours free
from work. This is a challenge too, particularly more in the production of major
films where you've got cameras and sets and everything all set up and the
industry wanting to move ahead. There can be
[ Page 7232 ]
pressures then, because either the climate or the environment, for the
moment, is just right. Some of it revolves around nighttime; some around
daybreak. It depends what the movie is at. The employer of a child in this
business must ensure that the child has at least 48 consecutive hours free from
work each week depending on what that child is working through.
Chaperons.
There's a definition of workweek. Chaperons in relation to children in this
section that we're talking about as to who looks after the child on the set.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: This is all up to 12 years to less than….
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Twelve years. Yes, it does.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Well, you actually, hon. member, did mention the film industry. I've
been trying to be nice about this. You're actually taxing my better nature,
because as I mentioned to you, I actually take this very, very seriously.
I happen to
think that in fact the children weren't well protected in the workplace in this
province prior to…. I can understand that perhaps during the course of the ten
years of your administration, you didn't have time to pay attention to this, or
you thought that by simply adding more rules and regulations, you would add more
protection, but in fact you weren't.
[1555]
What I'm
trying to do is get across to you that on the basis of the legislation that's in
place that we're proposing, which we're debating here, behind that will come
some very specific regulations. I know you didn't want me to read this all out,
because it's much easier to just talk in general terms, but if you're trying to
make the case that young people….
J. Kwan:
I was asking specific questions about….
Hon. G.
Bruce: Hon. member, I'm giving you some very specific answers, and in fact I
gave you very specific answers to begin with. You tend to ignore the fact that
only 300 permits per year, on average, were applied for. Now, I'm going to say
that again. For the last three years….
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order, order. Minister.
Would the
member please refer her questions through the Chair, not directly to the
minister.
Hon. G.
Bruce: I'd like to state this again, because I think it's very important
that the general public…. And I'm sure there are thousands at this moment that
are taking in every single scintillating minute of this discussion and debate.
Certainly, my wife will be.
I would
just like to make it very, very clear that on average, during the course of the
last three years we have had some 300 permits applied for, for children up to
the age of 15, and virtually all were granted.
I'm going
to state again that we all know there are well over 300 young people in that age
category working in British Columbia today. I just want to be careful on this
one. I'd have to check in detail, but I'm pretty sure that there has been very
little in the way of determinations that have been actually filed in regard to
penalties. I'll get that number for you as to how many determinations were ever
filed.
I would
also like to remind the member opposite that for penalties that were filed
before, the first penalty was discretionary. It was zero to, I think, $150 — a
discretionary penalty. They were all discretionary. Then the second offence was,
I think, $150 to $250. The third was $350 to $500 or something along that line.
They were all discretionary and very, very small. We have changed that. That was
under Bill 48 in the springtime, when in fact we brought in mandatory penalties
for people that did not subscribe and follow the rules and regulations of
employment standards. They are now mandatory penalties, and they consist of the
first being a fine of $500, the second time — I'll repeat this — being a
fine of $2,500 and the third being a fine of $10,000.
I just want
to state this again, because it is important, and perhaps what we're missing in
all this discussion is this thought that by having all of the rules and
regulations that you thought you had by virtually going through to the director
of employment standards and requiring permitting, young people then were looked
after in the province of British Columbia, but in fact they weren't.
In essence,
what we have changed here is simply, really, the aspect of going to the director
of employment standards for a permit. We're talking about children between the
ages of 12 to 15. Now what we're saying is that it's up to the parent to provide
a letter, but the onus is on the employer to have a letter from the parent that
agrees, under the regulations which I had earlier stated, to the hours of work
and whether that is during school hours or that is during holiday hours. The
employer must have that on file. All employers, as of the passage of this
legislation, have to have that on file.
If a
complaint is lodged by a parent, the child, a family member or a third-party
individual, and the employer is found not to have that letter on file, there's
an automatic mandatory penalty of $500. If it were to be a second time, it would
be an automatic mandatory penalty of $2,500. If it were a third time, it would
be an automatic mandatory penalty of $10,000.
[1600]
J. Kwan:
The minister is obviously proud of this piece of legislation. He's obviously
proud of previous
[ Page 7233 ]
legislation and actions of the government, where they gutted the Employment
Standards Act.
Let's just
review for a moment what this government has done with respect to the Employment
Standards Act. They've abandoned the investigation of compliance with the
Employment Standards Act. They've severely restricted investigation of
compliance with the act by farm labour contractors in hand-harvested berry and
fruit crops, introduced onerous self-help prerequisites for filing complaints
— prerequisites that result in a 75 percent reduction in the number of
complaints filed. They've refused to act against bankrupt employers, and they're
placing a branch employee in the offices of an industry lobbyist to facilitate
complaint resolution.
This
government says this will make it better and give better protection for children
in the workforce. He says that before, rules that staff were to investigate and
visit worksites to ensure that there was a schooling plan, a health plan and a
safety plan on the job; to restrict hours for 15 and under, including 12 and
under; transportation issues, adult supervision issues, safety standards, types
of work performed, limited locations of work-school permission, tutoring even in
some circumstances…. Those rules, the minister says, are no good. Instead,
let's look at what a great job we've done with the Employment Standards Act. We
say it's only on a complaint basis, and by the way, we've made the complaint
process so onerous that it's going to be even harder for people to go through
the complaint process. But that's a better standard for protection of children
in the workforce.
We're going
to lower the age limit to 12 instead of 15. That's better protection for
children in the workforce. If that's not good enough, let's cut some staff as
well, because enforcement was no good to begin with. Let's get rid of the staff
who are doing the enforcement, and that will give better protection for children
in the workforce — well, only in the minds of this minister and this
government. Nobody else I've spoken with agrees with it.
There are
many individuals and organizations that are concerned: religious groups,
teachers, individuals, youth advocates, children's advocates, First Call!! The
list goes on with respect to this government's action on the change that they
are bringing forward.
When I
asked the minister the question about what conditions would apply for the
employment of children under the age of 12…. Basically, so far what I've
gotten from this minister is that there are no conditions that would apply.
Formerly, there were a set of rules that were laid out in a director's
interpretation guideline manual that would apply, and I listed all of those
rules before. But the minister says: "No. Doesn't matter — gone,
unimportant, irrelevant."
With
respect to permitting children under the age of 12 to be fruit or berry
hand-harvesters, are there any regulations around that? Are there any guidelines
for children under 12 to be garment workers? Any rules and regulations for
children under 12 to be janitors? Would the director seek input from teachers of
children under the age of 12 whose parents had permitted to be employed? Would
the director visit a worksite where a child under the age of 12 would be
employed before deciding the merit of the child employment permit application?
These are just some of the concerns. These concerns, by the way, are not just
the opposition's; they're from other folks as well. These questions have been
put forward by the industry workers of the world, who are generally concerned
with this bill and the direction this government is going. So, that's for age
12, and I would expect that the government, the minister, would not….
Actually, we already know what the answer is, because there are no rules that
would apply.
Turning to
12-to-15-year-olds, let me explore these questions with the minister. First,
must both parents approve in consenting to work for a 12-to-15-year-old?
Hon. G.
Bruce: I think we do a real disservice to the people of the province when we
kind of carry on in this type of back and forth, so I'm going to try changing
directions here a little bit, and I don't know whether you'll want to come along
with me or not. But I want to be really clear, because I think it's important.
I'm a parent. I've actually got four children, and I now have three
grandchildren, and like every member in this House I'm sure, regardless of
political stripe, I want to make sure that the workplace is safe.
[1605]
Let's be
clear. The rules and legislation that apply to children from birth to 12 years
of age are exactly today, in this new legislation, what they currently are, in
effect, in the old legislation. There is no change.
I've said
that one way, and now I'm going to say it another way. Any child under the age
of 12 will follow the same process to have work in British Columbia in the new
legislation as they did in the old legislation. That's two ways of trying to
actually put it across to people. The third way is that there is no change in
respect to children under 12. There is no change. No, we're not talking about
janitors and all the different work and all the rest of the things you've
mentioned. There is no change.
Now, there
is a change for children between the ages of 12 and 15, where the member thinks
she wants to talk about now. And that's fine. I'm happy to talk about that, but
I want to be really clear that the people of the province understand that for
children from birth to 12, there is no change in any of the legislation that
we're talking about here today. I would hope that the member opposite could at
least acknowledge that, because I believe that if there is anybody watching,
they would at least like to know that in fact that's the case. I've stated it.
It's there. It's black and white. That is the case.
From the
age of 12 to 15 we have changed, because what was happening in the past was that
it was required for a young person that would like a job to first of all get a
letter from their parent. They required a letter from their school, and they
then required a permit from the director of employment standards. That was all
there. It sounds wonderful, eh? We're going to create this perfect utopia where
all will be looked after.
Of course,
what happened, because there's so rigmarole in that particular instance…. Many
parents didn't
[ Page 7234 ]
even know that. I would suspect, quite frankly, that there are many, many
good parents out there today who have children doing some sort of job between
the ages of 12 and 15 and who didn't know they had to go through that whole
regulatory regime. Their child is probably doing very well, developing, learning
some responsibility for a job. The parent is probably very concerned and knows
the employer and who it is they are working with and makes sure that the young
person is developing in a proper way and understands the importance of school.
They have their child in school and understand the importance of being able to
concentrate on their school work without being laboured with additional work
hours but also understand how you develop character and how you build people and
that part-time jobs….
I would
suspect that if we asked around this room, virtually all had a job somewhere in
the age group between 12 and 15. The older you are, the earlier you probably
actually started. You may have been well below that. However, society changes,
we bring in rules and regulations, and that's great.
In fact,
what we have here now…. Between the ages of 12 and 15 we're saying that
instead of all those other steps that you had to take, it is now the onus of the
employer to have on file a letter from a parent of the child. It doesn't have to
be both parents — a parent of the child. This, again, is the child between 12
and 15, because there are no changes to young people under the age of 12.
Between the ages of 12 and 15 they have to have on file a letter with permission
from a parent that the young person can work for that employer.
The
employer not having that letter on file is open to any complaint from a third
party or a family member or the particular young person and to a mandatory fine
of $500, which did not exist under the legislation which we're faced with today.
I've mentioned that that ramps up to $2,500 and then $10,000, so it's pretty
onerous. They have to have that on file.
[1610]
We also
want to be clear — and I'm going to state this again — that the School Act
takes precedence. A child cannot be working during school hours. If a child has
a job…. These will be the regulations we'll bring in with this as well. I want
to make this very clear to the member in case she didn't hear that I was talking
about the general regulations when I was also mentioning the regulations that
apply to children in film. A child that is in school and has a job during school
hours is only allowed to work a maximum of four hours per day — that's not
during school hours; that's after school — to a maximum of 20 hours per week
while school is in session. I'll state it again, because I think it's really
important that people understand this. A child between the ages of 12 and 15 who
has a job when school is not in session, such as the summer holidays, can work a
maximum of seven hours per day up to a total of 35 hours per week.
In all
instances the employer must have a letter on file from the parent indicating
it's okay with the parent that the child is at work there. Failure of that
employer to have it on file results in mandatory penalties. Now, that's all of
how the system is working with these regulations that come in behind this
legislation. I just want to restate it again, because I think it's very
important that people understand this. For children from birth to 12, there is
no change in anything we're talking about here today in this legislation from
what currently is in the legislation that's in effect.
J. Kwan:
It's simply not true when the minister says there's been no change. Let me just
put this on the record once again. Bill 37 replaces a
section called "No
hiring of children under 15 without director's permission." That is being
replaced with a new
section called "Hiring children" — full stop.
This provision relaxes the rules by only allowing parental consent alone to be
required to be in place. This
section that the minister says is not different
from previous…. When asked the question of what rules and guidelines are in
place for children under 12, he said that nothing's changed. There are no rules
and guidelines. I read off earlier — and I won't repeat it again — the list
of rules and guidelines that were in place. The whole range of issues around the
subsections that I stated earlier — the restrictions around work,
transportation, supervision, etc…. I won't belabour this issue again. The
minister is wrong in stating there's been no change. There's a major fundamental
change, and the minister knows it.
Coupled
with that, with the issue around ensuring that these worksites are checked and
that there will be inspections, etc., the minister says, "Don't worry;
things are fine," when we know very well things are not fine. The
employment standards branch has been gutted by this ministry, by this minister,
because the approach to look at, review and investigate these matters has been
changed fundamentally, and the resources have been changed fundamentally. For
the minister to just sit there and say: "Hey, don't worry; nothing's
changed…." It's simply not true.
I want now
to turn to the 12-to-15-year-olds. I'll ask the minister a very specific
question. We can belabour these arguments over and over again, and I have many
questions, so I want to move on. With 12-to-15-year-olds, must both parents
approve?
[1615]
Hon. G.
Bruce: I'm going to try one more time, and I'm actually going to try to keep
myself under control. What you're almost implying is that I'm misleading this
House. Now, you're almost implying that. I'm going to ask you to take a look at
the bill, and I want you to read the words with me. Okay? I actually want you to
look at the bill and read the words with me. Do you understand what I'm actually
saying here? It says right there: "A person must not employ a child under
12 years of age without the director's permission." That's in the bill. It
was in the bill before; it's in the bill today.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Listen. Go ahead. You can go on all night, if you want, with this
thing.
[ Page 7235 ]
The
Chair: Minister, please, through the Chair. Thank you.
Hon. G.
Bruce: It's pretty clear that this piece of legislation relative to young
people under the age of 12 is the same today as the legislation that's currently
in effect. It's actually in black and white; it's right there.
To stand
— and if there is anybody watching this — and imply that I am personally
misleading this group and the rest of the people in British Columbia…. I
happen to take pretty serious exception to that. I fully appreciate and
understand that you might not like what this government does. That's fine,
because in the same manner that you don't like what this government does, I
detested what you and your types did to the province during the past ten years.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Absolutely. Build the regulation. Build the rules. Never mind
actually making sure that what you're trying to do has any end effect for
people.
Interjection.
Hon. G.
Bruce: Exactly. The type is that which continues to stand up when it's right
there in black and white. Just acknowledge it. Just stand up in this House and
acknowledge that that line is there in the legislation today. Stand up in front
of the province and read the very words that I read. Just stand up and read
them; they're there. Then we can move on. They are there.
Now, you
asked me, and I already answered the question. I'd be happy to answer it again.
In respect to whether it is one parent or two parents: no; it's "a
parent."
J. Kwan:
You know, Mr. Chair, perhaps the minister wants to take his misplaced anger in a
more positive direction and translate it into rewriting this bill in a way that
is consistent with the UN convention. Perhaps the minister would like to take
his misplaced anger and put it towards consulting British Columbians who share
the concerns that the opposition has with respect to this bill. Perhaps the
minister would like to take his misplaced anger and look into the words that are
being deleted, the
section that's being repealed, and the changes that this
minister and this government have brought in place.
You know,
it was not the opposition who made child labour wide-open. It was not the
opposition who decided that we will now put in the weakest child labour laws in
the country for British Columbia. It is this minister and this government who
are doing that.
So as much
as the minister would say, "I am fed up with the opposition and those
types…." I'm not quite sure what he's referring to when he says
"those types." Maybe the type that he's referring to are people who
would actually care about the negative impacts of this government's policies on
many British Columbians. Maybe I'm the type who cares about child labour in the
workforce and am concerned about the guidelines that were in place and that the
minister, when asked the question earlier on, said don't exist — that somehow
there's no change. Yet I put forward a list of restrictions that do apply for 15
and under — not just 12-year-olds and under but for 15 and under. Those
restrictions apply, and they were in place under the previous government.
[1620]
For the
minister to suggest that those were, of course, onerous regulations, so we can
do away with them…. It's unimportant, he says. There were only 300 or so
applications that were put through, and I think earlier on he said that to the
best of his knowledge none were turned down. Well, it simply is not true. I put
forward the information on the record to challenge the minister on that. To
somehow suggest that all the people who share these concerns — for the
opposition to have these concerns — and that somehow they're not relevant, is
shocking.
I don't
know why I'm shocked, but I am. I suppose it just shows the arrogance of this
government and this particular minister. Just write off the opposition's
concerns: "Not valid. They're just fearmongering." I'm sure; I've
heard that over and over again. Unfortunately for many British Columbians, all
of the opposition's predictions and the fears and concerns that we have are
materializing. I wish I was wrong; I really do. I wish that I was. It's too bad
that I'm not.
I want to
ask the minister questions for children, 12 to 15, in the workforce. What will
the director do if one parent approves and the other parent does not?
Hon. G.
Bruce: I think it's important to know that actually everybody does care. I
wasn't sure if I understood that in your comments, but I'm hopeful now that you
understand that there is a distinct difference between children from birth to
age 12 and…. The changes we're talking about are around children of ages 12 to
15. I think I heard you say that. I'm not absolutely positive, but I'm pretty
sure I heard you say that.
So now
we're actually talking about what this bill focuses on, and that is children
from the ages of 12 to 15. For children under 12, there are no changes. What was
there in the past is still there today and will be in the future. So between the
ages of 12 to 15, the first question, I believe, that was asked of me was:
"As a parental signature, is one signature good enough?" The answer is
yes.
J. Kwan:
The question was: what will the director do if one parent approves and the other
one does not?
Hon. G.
Bruce: I'll state it again. If the employer has a letter from a parent of a
young person that's working for them that it is acceptable — from that parent,
with that employer — and it's on file, then that's acceptable.
J. Kwan:
In other words, nothing. Basically, if one approves and the other doesn't, the
ministry won't intervene. They'll just let it go. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[ Page 7236 ]
He says, "We have one letter on file, and that letter is good
enough," but even if the other one does not approve, the director will do
nothing. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I presume that is the case.
Hon. G.
Bruce: One letter is good enough. I've said that five times now, and I'll
say it again.
J. Kwan:
The minister says, "I said it five times." In other words, the
minister will do nothing. I just want to be clear in terms of what rules and
regulations will be in place, what kind of protection will be in place. If you
have a two-parent situation, and one disagrees and one says the child should
work, as long as the one letter that approves is on file, then everything is
hunky-dory. Well, what about foster parents? In the situation of foster parents,
how would that work?
Hon. G.
Bruce: A foster parent can only permit a young person working if they are
and have been appointed the legal guardian.
[1625]
J. Kwan:
What about children in care?
Hon. G.
Bruce: To be clear, either the parent approves or it is the legal guardian,
as I just had read out.
J. Kwan:
If one parent has sole custody, is that the only parent who will have a say
then?
Hon. G.
Bruce: If a parent signs a letter that says their child can work at this
place of business, then that is good enough. If the child is a foster child and
where they are staying the person looking after them is a legal guardian, then
that signature is good enough.
J. Kwan:
On the question around sole custody, if the parent who — let's flip it
around — does not have sole custody authorizes the child to work, is that good
enough?
Hon. G.
Bruce: It's an interesting line of questioning. Even under the current rules
and regulations, we haven't had any known circumstances of that to exist,
because at this point you still require a letter from a parent. We haven't had
any instances that we know of.
It's a
pretty interesting line of questioning. It would apply equally today under the
current legislation as it would under the new legislation, because in both
instances you're requiring a parent to sign. The types of suggestions or
problems that would come up would apply the same as they do in the current
legislation as they will in this new legislation. Just quickly reviewing, to the
best of our knowledge, we haven't had that situation occur, but it's an
interesting question.
J. Kwan:
Under the previous legislation — or the current legislation, because the
legislation has not yet changed — there was no hiring of children under 15
without the director's permission. That is now being replaced. It's being
replaced with a provision that says "Hiring children" and that the
rule that applies would be parental consent, so it's different.
The
minister fails to see the difference, and he consistently says everything is the
same, but it isn't. It isn't. That's why we're debating this bil