2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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)

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill Pr403 — Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009

R. Sultan

Bill Pr402 — Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009

R. Howard

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Downtown Victoria Business Association

C. James

Infant development program for special needs children

L. Reid

Labour dispute at Extra Foods

M. Sather

Homelessness Action Week

S. Cadieux

Report on quality of life in Victoria

R. Fleming

Response to forest fires in Cariboo-Chilcotin area

D. Barnett

Oral Questions

Report on child labour regulations in B.C.

C. James

Hon. M. Coell

R. Chouhan

M. Elmore

M. Karagianis

S. Simpson

Provincial Health Services Authority contract with Jonathan Burns

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

Labelling of B.C. wines and wines with Olympic logo

L. Popham

Hon. R. Coleman

K. Corrigan

M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Statement of 2008-2009 borrowings

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2008

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Labour Mobility Act

Hon. M. Stilwell

D. Black

D. Barnett

R. Chouhan

K. Corrigan

J. McIntyre

M. Mungall

G. Gentner

Hon. R. Hawes

M. Karagianis

Hon. I. Chong

H. Bains

D. Horne

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Ralston

H. Bains

J. Brar

R. Chouhan

H. Lali

L. Popham

M. Sather

M. Mungall

[ Page 1137 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: On behalf of myself and the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and — I think in fairness — the member for Parksville-Qualicum, I want to recognize in the gallery today the chair of school district 68, Donna Allen; vice-chair David Murchie; Nelson Allen, school trustee; Andrea Bonkowski, school trustee; and Dot Neary, school trustee.

As we all know, those at the bottom of the political chain — the least paid and heavily worked and dedicated to public education…. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: A constituent in the gallery today, Mr. Steve Hammer, is a financial adviser from Salmon Arm and a constituent of mine from the Shuswap. He is visiting the Legislature today with a number of other financial advisers who are part of the Financial Advisers Association of Canada, otherwise known as Advocis.

Today at the lunch hour members from both sides of the Legislature, in a typically non-partisan process so typical of the proceedings here in this chamber, enjoyed both a very nice lunch with Advocis and also the opportunity to learn a little bit more about the business of financial advisory services and how they might be improved.

I'll just mention the leaders of the organization who are joining us in the gallery today. David Webb is the chair of the B.C. political advocacy committee, Greg Pollock is the president and CEO of Advocis, and Kris Birchard is the chair of the Advocis board. I would like all members to please make them welcome.

[1335]

V. Huntington: It is my pleasure today to introduce two individuals who have been in Victoria to attend the Gathering and Sharing Wisdom Conference sponsored by the University of Victoria and the Indigenous Child Welfare Research Network.

In the gallery are Miss Trish Naziel, Wet'suwet'en, a member of the Moricetown band and the community family support worker in Moricetown. With Miss Naziel is my great friend and mentor Miss Bonita Danes, Gitxsan, a member of the Gitanmaax band and the house of Wii Gaak — which is my house, I'm proud to say — and the social development program manager at Moricetown.

I would like to add that our hon. Deputy Speaker recalls meeting both women during a trip to Moricetown as minister and passes on her regards. Would the House make my friends feel welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm very pleased today to welcome to the gallery guests from Elsie Roy Elementary School in Vancouver–False Creek. I would like to introduce teachers Doug McMillan, Melissa McCleary, Kelly Egilsson and Avril McLachlan, along with parents Marnie and Gilda, who have come with their students in grade 5. I had the pleasure of meeting with them at their school last week, and I'm really pleased that they're able to be here this week. I would like you all to make them feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: I'm very proud today to welcome to the House 25 officers from Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt. They are currently involved in the professional military education program. They include navy, air force and army officers. They're here with their teacher Mona Brash. I would like the House to give them a very good welcome.

L. Reid: Today I have two guests in the chamber. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Dr. Dana Brynelsen and Judith Oldfield. True leadership deserves our thanks. I rise today to extend a heartfelt thank-you to both these women who have devoted their careers to the babies of British Columbia — Dr. Brynelsen as provincial adviser and Judith Oldfield as the adviser for Vancouver Island.

There have been Canadian firsts under Dr. Brynelsen's leadership — the first infant development program in Canada since 1975 — and the first aboriginal infant development program in Canada was founded in British Columbia. Today Dr. Brynelsen is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. I would ask every member of this House to join with me in thanking her and offering every possible encouragement as her treatment proceeds.

B. Ralston: I too want to join with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations in welcoming the members of Advocis, who are the Financial Advisers Association of Canada. I'd also like to extend the greetings and the welcome of this side of the House to their leaders: David Webb, who's the B.C. chair; Greg Pollock, the president and chief executive officer of the national organization; and Kristan Birchard, the chair of the national board.

And if I might say, Mr. Speaker, I was particularly moved by the conversion — very recent, admittedly — of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations to non-partisan status.

D. Hayer: I also wanted to say thank you and welcome to two special guests from the same lunch we enjoyed today. One is Mrs. Gail Sidhu, and the other one is her husband, Charanjit Sidhu. He is a community leader in Surrey and Lower Mainland of the greater Vancouver area, and he is also the president of the Vancouver Financial Advisers Association of Canada. He often

[ Page 1138 ]

goes on radio stations in the Punjabi language — and also TV stations — to explain the government policies in Punjabi and does a great job of it.

He's a great friend of the community and a great leader. Could you please make them very welcome.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome two women who have made great contributions to the communities of the Cowichan Valley over many years and continue to do so.

The first is Ann Andersen. Ann is the chair of the Cowichan Valley school district. She has a long history in the valley. She's been a columnist and a reporter and currently still does that work from time to time. She is very community-connected as a community leader and maintains friends on all sides of the political spectrum. I have great respect for Ann.

Joining her in the gallery is Diana Gunderson, who is a great friend. She's the vice-chair of the Cowichan Valley school board.

[1340]

She's a retired high school teacher, and — not wanting to betray too many advantages to our opposition — I'll tell you, you have to campaign door to door with a retired high school teacher, because they open the door and say: "Hello, Ms. Gunderson. How are you?" And she says: "This is my friend Doug."

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

And then they go: "Yeah, well, that's fine. How are you, Ms. Gunderson?" So it definitely breaks down barriers when you campaign with a retired high school teacher.

I'd like to thank both of them for all their contributions to the communities of the Cowichan Valley and for their longstanding friendship.

P. Pimm: I'd also like to stand and welcome a constituent of mine to the House today. Mr. Brad Brain is a member of the Advocis group.

N. Simons: I'd like to welcome today to the House Allen Cummings, who I've worked with in the area of child welfare. I'm pleased to see him here working on behalf of the Wet'suwet'en Nation as they set up their own child welfare agency. Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: Also as part of the Advocis group here today, a good friend and constituent of mine, Mr. Bob Cowan. I hope the House will make him welcome.

M. Mungall: I'd like the House to make welcome a constituent of mine, Sheryl Anne Kennedy. She's a young mom, a nursing student. It's very rare that constituents from Nelson-Creston make it all the way to Victoria, so please make her welcome.

H. Bloy: I would like to make two introductions today. I had the privilege of having lunch with two students, from close to my area, from Mediated Learning Academy. I had lunch with Victoria Hitchen and Michelle Stein, and they challenged me on the future of British Columbia.

This group has been over many times, and I would like to record their names for history in Hansard . I would like to read out the names of the students that are visiting today. Fisal Khan is the teacher — Jennifer Pritchard, Peter Woods, Krista Wuensche, Kristina Wilson, Steven Chang, Kelly Hill, Ashley Secrest.

The students are Jose Yanez, Jonathan Giang, Sheldon Hillman, Jacob Comin, Qahir Hirani, Safeer Jivraj, Mathew Tom-Wing, Chantal Martin, Kayla Logan, Charis Hughes, Nahim Bhatia, Pearl Yang, Forest Graves, Victoria Tai, Anthony Shum, Stephanie Cruz, Marisa Cannon, Mary Ann Saunders, Sam Lai, Sung Min Yang, Celine Poulin and Willy Tan. I ask the House to make these young people truly welcome today.

I have the privilege of introducing a group from China from Jiangsu Community Health and Women and Children Services. I look forward to meeting them here later today: Mr. Shen Zhihong, Mr. Qin Cheng, Mr. Yu Guosheng, Mr. Xia Xianquan, Ms. Zhuge Moyi and Ms. Wu Shanfeng.

S. Herbert: Myself and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country had the pleasure of a good discussion and lunch with Ronald Russell and Vic Scarpe and the president of the Greater Vancouver area for Advocis, Charanjit Sidhu. I want to welcome them to this House and thank them for their financial advice, since we certainly all could use some.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, 20 years ago one of your predecessors occupying the high office of Speaker lent his title to a trophy that is awarded annually in a tennis tournament that takes place between members of this assembly and members of the press gallery. Since 1989 the gallery and members of this assembly have gathered on the grass court field of battle and done battle.

[1345]

I have to tell members that in the aftermath of the election, numbers were down on both sides. The press gallery fielded the top-seeded players Les Leyne and Keith Baldrey; the assembly, the unseeded Clerk of the assembly and me.

However, modesty precludes me from disclosing the actual outcome, except to tell members this. When the tournament began, this assembly had won 18 of 19 tournaments. By the conclusion of the tournament, this assembly has won 19 of 20 tournaments.

I thank the gallery, I thank the Clerk, and I invite all members next year — around June — to be aware of the tournament and to come and have a good time in this annual event.

[ Page 1139 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill P r 403 — Victoria foundation

amendment act, 2009

R. Sultan presented a bill intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009.

R. Sultan: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Sultan: The Victoria Foundation is in many ways a core philanthropic institution of this community, hosting some 72 other societies and philanthropies, and each year giving away millions of dollars to causes ranging from autism to Alzheimer's, to aboriginal scholarships and to the Pacific Opera.

This rather longstanding organization,

an act going back some 73 years, has encountered some technical difficulties and requires amending at this time.

In the financial meltdown, the general guideline by which most foundations operate — namely, "Thou may disburse income but never capital" — has in this case forced the foundation to consider ceasing all donations until capital markets improve. Given the wide scope of impact of this foundation, the directors have decided to seek relief from that particular provision in its charter.

A second issue has arisen in terms of some ambiguity in language as currently interpreted by the Canadian Revenue Agency. They seek clarification to ensure that there's absolutely no doubt as to their standing as a charitable organization.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill P r 402 — Trustee Board of the

Church of God, Richmond

Municipality, B.C. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2009

R. Howard presented a bill intituled Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009.

R. Howard: I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

R. Howard: This is simply to restore the society to the registrar of companies, as it has been over ten years that an unintentional omission to file caused the society to be struck from the registrar.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DOWNTOWN VICTORIA

BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

C. James: As we celebrate Small Business Month in B.C., I rise to recognize an organization that represents many small businesses in my community. Victoria is regarded as one of the top downtowns in North America. No doubt one of the reasons that it receives such a high rating is because of the work being done by the Downtown Victoria Business Association.

The association represents hundreds of businesses in downtown Victoria. It collaborates with many partners to reinforce and enhance the wonderful attributes of Victoria's downtown, while making important contributions to our community.

The association is a voice and an advocate for a vibrant and prosperous downtown. Every September it provides an opportunity to local artists to come downtown and sketch and profile their work.

[1350]

By funding and supporting projects like the retail theft prevention project, the greater Victoria commission to end homelessness, the clean team or grants for the purchase and installation of lighting for buildings, the downtown association plays an incredible role and serves in so many different ways.

Today I'd like to applaud the work that Downtown Victoria Business Association is doing to ensure we have a healthy, safe and welcoming downtown in Victoria. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for all they do.

INFANT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it's about the babies. If you are concerned about your child's development, the infant development program can help. For more than three

[ Page 1140 ]

decades now, the infant development program has been serving families whose little ones, birth to three, either have or are at risk for developmental delays or disabilities.

The infant development program continues to focus on the home life of these young children and on giving parents and other family members the support they need to provide loving environments that will encourage the development of their children.

Infant development consultants are expert in parent-child attachment. The wide range of family-centred services provided by the dedicated staff and volunteers includes play groups, parent-infant interaction groups and family support services.

The infant development program recognizes that a child's early years are of critical importance and that identifying developmental challenges early is crucial so that appropriate services can be accessed.

I'd like to recognize the infant development program staff in Richmond: Carolyn Keith, Annie Hung, Ramnik Ahluwalia, Michelle Bulthuis, Stella Wong, Grace Yip, Jenny Shin and Ann McCormick.

All children flourish when they're supported by welcoming family members, peers and professionals. I ask this House to recognize the outstanding services that the infant development program continues to provide. Congratulations on 3½ decades of service to the babies of B.C.

More than 80,000 infants and their families have been served by this program over its lifetime, with approximately 40,000 home visits each and every year.

Dr. Brynelsen, you have built an amazing legacy, and we thank you.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT EXTRA FOODS

M. Sather: There's some light at the end of the tunnel for a long, ongoing labour-management dispute in my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

The workers at the Extra Foods store located in downtown Maple Ridge have been on strike for over nine months now, manning the picket lines rain or shine and, if anyone remembers our last winter, snow. I talk to the workers regularly, and I can tell you that they are a determined lot — something one can understand considering that they have been without a contract since 2004.

Though this dispute is between management and the workers, the seniors of Maple Ridge have been greatly affected. The store is located close to a number of seniors homes, and these seniors were able to walk to Extra Foods to do their shopping. Many of these seniors are unable to drive, and this location allowed them to get their groceries independently and conveniently.

Having Extra Foods nearby with reasonable prices has become even more important recently. Due to discontinuation of the seniors outreach program, it is more difficult for many of our seniors to get assistance for shopping as well as to obtain their medications and attend medical appointments.

The workers did not want this dispute and had requested mediation months ago, but the company refused, and the work stoppage has dragged on and on. Thankfully, I hear that the company has come back to the bargaining table, agreeing to mediation. Hopefully, this means the store will be open soon, employing people and filling its invaluable role in our community.

HOMELESSNESS ACTION WEEK

S. Cadieux: Next week from October 11 to October 17 we recognize the fourth annual Homelessness Action Week in B.C. Homelessness is an issue we must address, and this is an opportunity to identify the men and women who live on the streets and the people who help them in their daily lives.

This year local communities around B.C. are taking action by hosting local events, allowing those in need to benefit from services like haircuts, veterinary care, acupuncture, resumé writing and, as well, backpack drives at community schools for warm clothes and hygiene products. In Surrey the Surrey Urban Mission is hosting multiple events, including a Thanksgiving lunch.

[1355]

This is about taking action. Through initiatives like the homelessness intervention project, which has successfully housed 102 people in just Surrey alone, we can help people like Lorne. Lorne lived in a Surrey park, supported himself by picking up pop bottles and eating at soup kitchens. With the help of outreach workers, he now has secure accommodation.

We must work with partners at all levels to create supportive housing. These successful partnerships have built 702 units in Surrey in the last eight years.

Fighting homelessness is also about connecting people with health care, addiction services and stable homes — a stable foundation on which to build independence. Taking action against homelessness is now more important than ever during a global economic turndown.

I would like to acknowledge the Surrey Urban Mission and all of the organizations and communities that support Homelessness Action Week. Let's also take this opportunity to recognize those British Columbians who find themselves without a home and to taking the steps necessary towards ending the cycle of homelessness.

[ Page 1141 ]

REPORT ON QUALITY

OF LIFE IN VICTORIA

R. Fleming: Today I'd like to recognize in this House an innovative and important process that tells us how well our communities are doing in terms of their quality of life.

Vital Signs is an annual community checkup conducted by community foundations across Canada to measure the vitality of our cities; to identify demographic, social and economic trends; and to assign grades based on these performance indicators in areas that measure our quality of life.

The use of indicators and report cards to assess community needs and opportunities is a growing trend in Canada for policy-makers, for community organizations and for citizens wanting to make a difference where they live, where they work and where they raise their families.

Embarking on their fourth year of publication, the Victoria Foundation is utilizing this report card to make connections between issues and trends that at first glance sometimes seem unrelated. Victoria's Vital Signs report card measures the health of our city and evaluates 11 areas critical to Victoria's vitality. It presents information in key areas such as learning, health, housing, the environment and affordability in the community.

Data included in this annual report has been gathered in cooperation with a number of institutions in our community. It is analyzed and interpreted by the Victoria Foundation to then evaluate the capital region as a place to live, learn, work and grow.

As our community's oldest and largest philanthropic foundation, the Victoria Foundation is very well suited to this kind of initiative because of the broad role it plays in working with and funding a wide range of community organizations, not just one charity or sector.

Across Canada Vital Signs report cards are giving each community foundation, its donors and the community at large valuable insights into the strengths, challenges and opportunities that exist in our community. Measuring the vitality of the capital region and other Canadian communities through Vital Signs helps to make this happen.

I wish to thank all of the volunteers that have put together this fourth annual report.

RESPONSE TO FOREST FIRES

IN CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN AREA

D. Barnett: To date in the Cariboo-Chilcotin there have been over 460 forest fires. Some are still active. Natural causes account for over 325 of these fires, and 135 human-made. The estimated cost in my area: over $40 million to fight these fires; 500 firefighters, many of whom are volunteers; homes lost, five, and one historic post office.

I would like to thank today the B.C. Ministry of Forests, the forest fire fighters from all walks of life, volunteers, the Cariboo regional district board and staff whose authority under the Local Government Act work with all agencies and citizens to ensure safety of life and limb of humans and animals.

I would like to thank the provincial emergency program staff, the RCMP and the search and rescue — to the many volunteers who gave of their time so unselfishly in my region to ensure that the comforts and safety of all citizens were met.

[1400]

I am proud to announce that in my area, where most of our firefighters are volunteers, on Saturday there will be two new fire halls opening — one in memory of a pioneer by the name of Shorty Horn and the other in the memory of a firefighter, Sonny Johnson. These halls were built by volunteers, volunteer firefighters and their wives, local citizens, through the industrial community's and businesses' donations and support from the B.C. gaming branch.

I ask this House today to thank the volunteers, the firefighters and the agencies for their great work during the forest fire season in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON CHILD LABOUR

REGULATIONS IN B.C.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia woke up today to a shocking report. It shows that since this government rewrote the child labour laws in 2004, ten times more children are getting injured working in British Columbia — children as young as 12, 13 and 14. This report is an indictment of this government and their direction.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will he admit today that his government was wrong to change child labour laws, which has put children in British Columbia at risk?

Hon. M. Coell: I think members on both sides of the House take reports like this very seriously. Any injury is one too many, I know, for all members of this House.

I can remind the member, though, that when the changes took place in 2003, the age of children able to work did not change. The employment standards did not change, and the occupational safety programs did not change. What changed was a permit system that wasn't working. A few hundred permits were taken out per year, and government knew that there were literally thousands of young people working.

What we've done is allow parents and employers to be involved in their children's work, while allowing children to be protected by all of the same protections that are there for all workers.

[ Page 1142 ]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: This minister should be ashamed. He should be ashamed for standing up and trying to defend this government's failure to protect children in the workplace. There were warnings well before this government brought in their changes. People across this province warned that the changes would be damaging for children, and they pushed ahead anyway. Today we have the weakest rules on child labour in this country, here in British Columbia.

This is what the report says: "Since the new law came into force in 2004, B.C. is the only province that does not place legislative or regulatory restrictions on the type of occupations, tasks or time of day that a child can work."

Again, my question is to the minister. Whether it's the shocking increase in work-related injuries, the worst child poverty rate in this country or more homeless kids, why do B.C. children always come last with this government?

Hon. M. Coell: I needn't remind the member that during the years of the NDP government, there also were large numbers of people who were injured in the workforce. That does not make that right — now or in those days. We want to make sure that we are working to protect children if they choose to work in the workforce.

WorkSafe B.C. has increased regulations. It has increased the number of times they're in schools with programs to talk directly to students. It has a number of programs it has initiated in our term of office that deal directly with employers, telling them what rights they need to look for and how they need to supervise young people who are working for them. WorkSafe is doing an excellent job on protecting young people. They can, of course, do more, and we will do more.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: How can the minister stand and say that an excellent job is being done when there's a tenfold increase in the injuries for children in British Columbia?

[1405]

This government was warned before they brought in the changes. A 2003 report said that the new rules would take away kids' ability to finish high school and leave them vulnerable to exploitation, but the government ignored all the warnings and stripped the rules down.

We now have the worst labour laws for children in this country, ten times more children being injured, and they're being hurt in jobs that include construction, manufacturing and the oil and gas sector. These children that are getting hurt aren't being monitored. They don't have a voice, and they certainly don't have a say.

So my question is again to the minister. Will he admit today in this House that the government was wrong to rewrite those child labour laws, and will he put in place protections for children in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: The member seems to prefer a regime that had a permit system that a few hundred people took out permits, and literally thousands of people were working. Young people were working and not having the protection they needed. WorkSafe in the last ten years has done a great deal of work to educate employers, to educate parents, to educate school boards and individuals on safety. They will continue to do that.

R. Chouhan: The report also says: "When B.C. abandoned the permit system overseeing the employment of children, it also abandoned keeping track of how many children are working…. Due to a lack of data, it is very difficult to estimate the number of children participating in the workforce."

My question is to the Minister of Labour. How does he explain not having a system to collect child labour data when we are seeing a record high increase in child labour injuries?

Hon. M. Coell: I hope the member isn't suggesting that their permit system was actually keeping track of those young people who were working in the system. It certainly wasn't. There were literally thousands and thousands of young people working in the system that weren't tracked by the NDP government. We have brought in the fact that parents and employers need to agree that the employment of an individual is important.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members, we've got somebody that's asked a question. We've got somebody that's going to answer the question.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said to the previous speaker, the age of children working did not change. The protection of workers has actually increased. WorkSafe has increased their programs to deal with parents and employers so that they work together. Any injury on the job in this province is one too many, and I would hope that all members of this House agree.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: The question is then: what has this government done in the last eight years to protect the children? You have miserably failed to protect the children in B.C.

Under the current rules, all an employer needs to hire a child as young as 12 is the permission of only one

[ Page 1143 ]

parent or guardian. Here is what the report says: "While the new law required the written consent for their children to work, 58.3 percent of 12- to 14-year-olds with jobs reported that their employer did not receive written approval from their parents."

So my question again to the minister: why aren't even the most minimal laws being followed?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that the occupational health and safety regulation applies to all workers in this province equally, no matter what age they are. The member also knows that having parents and employers working with children who want to work is a good thing. Increasing the number of programs that WorkSafe has for children, for employers and for parents is a good thing. WorkSafe is continuing to develop programs and continuing to work with employers and children and parents.

[1410]

M. Elmore: Worst child poverty rate in Canada for six years, kids of homeless working parents living on the streets, $6 training wage and now ten times more 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds getting injured working. To the minister: what does it take for this government and this minister to take steps to protect B.C.'s kids?

Hon. M. Coell: The member seems to be looking back to the days when we had the highest youth unemployment rate in this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: I think everyone in this House wants to make sure that we have safe workplaces for the workers of this province. I think that WorkSafe has done an excellent job in the last ten years of looking to what they can do, what programs they can put in place for young workers. They have done that. They're continuing to do that. They're continuing to look at the statistics that they get and build on those programs, and they'll continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Today under this government, we see the highest injury rate for kids. The report says B.C. is noteworthy as the only province that does not set out in law or regulation the occupations, tasks or time of day for children to work.

This government was warned for years about the deficiencies of the new rules, and they pushed ahead anyway. Today B.C. has become a national shame on child labour conditions.

So my question is to the minister. Twelve-year-olds working in dangerous jobs, ten times more kids getting hurt — is this the kind of reputation he thinks should make B.C. noteworthy? What is he going to do about it, and when is he going to end this?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, every injury on a job in this province is important — and, I would hope, to both sides of this House. I know it is to WorkSafe B.C.

We wanted to make sure that parents were involved with employers, that employers knew they had a responsibility for supervision and for safety. This occupational safety regulation has not changed. The age at which a young person can work has not changed. WorkSafe has improved many of the programs that it has for people who are working at a young age, and they'll continue to do that.

M. Karagianis: It does not look like this government is taking this report seriously at all. The reality, the bottom line, is that child injuries are up. What is this minister going to do about it?

Hon. M. Coell: The member might want to go back and look at some of the years when the NDP were government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: I can tell you that WorkSafe has publications and promotional material in all schools. There is a planning 10 mandatory program for students approximately age 15 on safety. School-based programs and programs for employers are all in place and continue to evolve.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: The reality is that injuries are up tenfold here in the province of British Columbia. This is an indictment against this government. They changed the legislation that has now endangered children here in the province of British Columbia, and we want to know: what are they going to do about it?

[1415]

Are they going to take the recommendations and put them in place or not? What is the minister going to do to stop the injuries to children in the province of British Columbia?

[ Page 1144 ]

Hon. M. Coell: I have read the report, and I'll be meeting with First Call next week to discuss the report. But I can tell you — and I think the member should know — the great work that WorkSafe has done in the past decade on developing programs for young workers. Actually, young workers' accidents have gone down in the province over the last eight years and will continue to do that.

We need to work with WorkSafe. We need to work with employers and employees to make sure that our workplaces are safe.

S. Simpson: The report tells us: 70 percent of kids working without adult supervision, over 58 percent of employers employing kids without written approvals. The result: a tenfold increase in the number of kids — 12-, 13- or 14-year-olds — injured on the job. What is the minister going to do to protect these kids?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, the occupational and safety regulation applies to all workers. It has been strengthened. WorkSafe B.C. continues to look at new avenues to help the workplace safety, and they will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The minister continues to talk about WorkSafe and what they do. We are not talking about adults here. We're talking about 12-year-olds. These kids are at risk on the job. That's what this report tells us. What is the minister going to do to protect these children that he put to work?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said earlier, the NDP's work permit — which had been in place, actually, a decade before they were in government — did not track the number of people working. There were literally thousands and thousands of young people who were working in the province not being tracked.

We wanted to make sure that parents and employers had a written agreement if a young person was going to work for them. We have made sure that WorkSafe has enhanced their safety programs for schools, for individuals and for employers in the province, and they'll continue to do that.

PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES

AUTHORITY CONTRACT

WITH JONATHAN BURNS

A. Dix: We've seen in the last 24 hours how the lack of administrative control has damaged the e-health project in the Ministry of Health. Yesterday I asked the….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The page-turner has woken up, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Health….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Members, let's listen to the questions, and then we can listen to the answer.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Health about a contract that the PHSA, the Provincial Health Services Authority, gave to Dr. Jonathan Burns. Now, he's had 24 hours. Can he answer a very simple question about those contracts? Were they tendered, what were they for, and does he think they were a good idea?

Hon. K. Falcon: It would have been helpful if the member referred to the fact that he was referring to an incident from two years ago. I'd be happy to inform the member that those contracts are the subject of an RCMP investigation, as the member well knows.

I would also advise the member that there is a special prosecutor overseeing those investigations, as is appropriate. I'd also let the member know that the RCMP were very clear and specifically made clear to the Ministry of Health and the employees in the Ministry of Health not to discuss the incidents around the investigation in order to not jeopardize the investigation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

[1420]

A. Dix: It's a supplementary question to the Minister of Health. Presumably, we're not going to have to wait three, four or eight years to get answers about what's gone wrong with the government's e-health program. It's a very simple question. It's a very specific contract. The issue is untendered health contracts. He's responsible in this House for those contracts right now.

My question to the minister is very simple. It's a contract. Was it tendered, what was it for, and why did the Ministry of Health, while they were holding the same contractor under contract for $30,000 a month…? Why did the Provincial Health Services Authority engage in this contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is so typical of the Health critic to engage in reckless allegations and turn this into a Star Chamber as opposed to allowing an investigation to

[ Page 1145 ]

take place, which is underway. These are allegations — and they are serious allegations — involving a handful of public servants…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …from 2007.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: These are allegations with respect to a handful of public servants who are no longer with government that are being investigated by the RCMP under the purview of a special prosecutor. For that member to suggest that this should be the Star Chamber, where we act as judge and jury on those allegations, is reckless and irresponsible.

LABELLING OF B.C. WINES

AND WINES WITH OLYMPIC LOGO

L. Popham: Yesterday we heard about the 2010 games being used to sell knockoff Cowichan sweaters. Today let's talk about fake B.C. wine. For example, Jackson-Triggs Esprit wine has the Vancouver 2010 logo plastered on the front of the bottle even though it's nothing more than cheap foreign plonk.

Can the Minister of State for the Olympics tell me why this government is allowing phony wine to be sold under our B.C. Olympic logo?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two issues in the member's question. One was how wine is positioned as cellared in Canada in our liquor stores, which we are changing right now, as the member may be aware, because the discussion came up recently and came to our attention.

The second piece, though, is let's remember that the company that has signed an agreement for Olympic sponsorship is an international company. When they signed that agreement for sponsorship, they don't put it on wines they sell just in British Columbia but anywhere else in the world, if they wish, or on any apparel or whatever they want, because they have a licensing agreement with VANOC.

The reality is that there is an issue with regards to the blended wine versus B.C. 100 percent grape wine. That issue is being addressed and fixed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: I think that's quite interesting, because last week the minister was quoted as saying: "I'm not totally dissatisfied with the way it is now."

"We are showcasing our ability to deceive customers." That's what David Bond, the executive director of the B.C. Wine Growers, is saying about the Olympics.

Again to the Minister of State for the Olympics: why is she putting the reputation of our world-class B.C. wines at risk by allowing cheap foreign plonk to be sold under the B.C. Olympic logo?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, VQA wine is 100 percent grape wine. British Columbia's is probably the best wine in the world, and it's made in British Columbia.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member might also look at where Mr. Bond's bias is with the organization he represents and his long commitment to having arguments with regards to that premium wine in British Columbia through the wine industry in B.C.

In addition to that, let's recall this. An issue came to us that came across Canada with regards to blended wines in Canada. We said that we would look at the issue. We are looking at the issue. We're dealing with it in our stores. Across Canada that's also going to be done.

Labelling of this wine, by the way, Member, is not a responsibility of the provincial government. We don't have jurisdiction over labelling federally, but we are addressing the issue with the industry, who have agreed to find solutions with us so this issue can be dealt with and bring back the consumer confidence with regards to blended wines in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: My question is for the Minister of State for the Olympics, and we really hope she'll get up and prove she deserves to be a minister today.

If spinning Olympic knockoffs was a sport, this government would win a gold medal. Today tourists and locals alike are buying a cheap Olympic impostor wine under the misconception they are buying one of our fine B.C. wines. This is leaving a decidedly sour taste in the mouth of B.C. wine producers.

To the Minister of State for the Olympics: will she explain why this government has done nothing to ensure our Olympic wines are actually made in B.C.?

[ Page 1146 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: There's the VQA label in British Columbia that represents 100 percent pure B.C. grape wine. In B.C. it is the premium product, and everybody knows that in British Columbia who knows anything about wine.

There is an issue with regards to some blended wines that we're dealing with. It's amazing. This is an international company that sells wine all over the world, has wineries all over the world, and they have an Olympic sponsorship which is international.

I suppose the next thing the members are going to get up and say is: "You know what? Coca-Cola is a sponsor, but they better make all of the Coca-Cola they sell at the Olympics in the province of British Columbia." Get a grip, Member.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Get a grip, Members.

We're welcoming the world to an international event. We have international sponsors, and the B.C. wine that will be at the Olympics with Vincor and Jackson-Triggs will be 100 percent B.C. grapes, where we'll show the best wine in the country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: This government promised the Olympics were going to be an opportunity to show off B.C., but unfortunately, it's very clear from the answer that we just received that the government has absolutely no interest in using the Olympics to showcase local vineyards and wineries — absolutely no interest whatsoever.

Again to the Minister of State for the Olympics….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Corrigan: Will she commit right now to stop…?

Mr. Speaker: Member, just wait a second so we can hear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: Will she commit right now to stop the misleading and damaging practice of selling foreign wine under our B.C. Olympic label today?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I explained to the members opposite, we had a consumer issue. We're dealing with the consumer issue right now within our stores and with the relationship with the wine industry with regards to the consumer issue on blended wines.

[1430]

But make it very clear that they've made it very clear at the Olympic sponsorship site that they are going to use 100 percent B.C. VQA wine at the Olympics.

Just so you understand, that will be wine from a company named Vincor, owned by Constellation, because they have paid millions of dollars to have the opportunity to have a sponsorship to support the Olympics in British Columbia, which we're proud that they're prepared to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just wait.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Now that we've had the commentary from binder boy over there, perhaps we can get to the real issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: The public of British Columbia expects that when wine is sold bearing the Olympic logo of British Columbia, it is B.C. grapes and B.C. wine that's in the bottle. That's what they expect — nothing less.

When they buy that wine right now…. You pick up Naked Grape. It has the B.C. Olympic logo on it, and it says that it doesn't hide itself. Well, it is.

Can the minister stand in this House and guarantee that the wine that is sold with the B.C. Olympic logo on it, that represents our province, contains only B.C. grapes and only B.C. wine?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess we're lucky some French wine company didn't buy the Olympic sponsorship and support the B.C. Olympics. The fact of the matter is, a company that has wineries in British Columbia who make some of the best wines in the world here in British Columbia with 100 percent B.C. grapes has sponsored the Olympics. That's what the people of the world are going to see when they come to British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 1147 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2008-2009.

Hon. P. Bell: I rise to table the 2008 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission.

J. Horgan: I would like to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery is a good friend of mine from Sooke. He travelled on the treacherous Highway 14 to get here. His name is John Beauquest.

Stay right there. I'll come and get you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands — and in this chamber second reading of Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

Mr. Speaker: Members attending to other duties, could they do so quietly.

[1435]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Labour mobility act

Hon. M. Stilwell: I move that Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act, be read a second time.

This legislation reflects the leadership of our province and our commitment to help workers in the trades and professions. TILMA — our agreement with Alberta on trade, investment and labour mobility — has helped awaken leaders in every province to the opportunities and benefits to be had from collaboration across our country.

British Columbians can be proud of our efforts to give all Canadians the opportunity to live and work wherever they choose within our nation. Labour mobility is an important piece of our labour market strategy, affecting our ability to find and attract the people with the skills we need.

Many British Columbians may ask why we need labour mobility, why this legislation is necessary. Our province is confronted with a rapidly aging population. Our median age now exceeds 40, and by 2015 almost a third of B.C.'s population will be 55 years or older. In some sectors, retirements are expected to hit close to 75 percent of the present-day workforce. We must take action today to ensure that we can attract the human resources we need for tomorrow.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This bill is a significant leap towards ensuring that we have the labour resources necessary to lead Canada's economic recovery. While this bill supports a new-found level of labour mobility, it has precedence among the nationally recognized Red Seal–certified trades workers and their ability to practise anywhere in the country.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this bill is also about families and workers. For many years individuals have been challenged, forced to make tough career decisions because of their chosen professions when they could not move easily from one province to the next. These barriers to their movement, when based on small differences in terminology or academic course descriptions, have no place in our present economy.

Through the recently ratified agreement on internal trade, we now have the commitment from leaders in every jurisdiction — a commitment to families and individuals that brings certainty, where a professional or tradesperson knows that they will be able to fully use the advantages of their skills and experiences no matter where they have chosen to move in Canada.

This bill does not diminish the important role of provincial governing bodies responsible for oversight of key professions like doctors, nurses, lawyers and engineers. In fact, with the advent of full labour mobility ensured by the AIT, we anticipate these professional organizations will achieve new levels of open dialogue with their provincial counterparts.

We have had extensive discussions with regulators and have carefully considered their input into our legislation. I am confident that this legislation will enhance the economic foundations of our province and will ensure that we are ready to meet our commitments.

Our present economy demands that governments, employers and workers be adaptable, flexible and responsive to change. That is why a new national agreement on labour mobility is great news for all Canadians, giving them the ability to take full advantage of their talents and training, anywhere in the country.

With the introduction of Bill 11, our province is laying a solid foundation for our future. We must ensure that we are ready to capture new opportunities that are certain to emerge when the global economy rebounds. To do that, we need a skilled workforce.

I ask that all members lend their support to this worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation. With that, I am pleased to move second reading.

[ Page 1148 ]

D. Black: Well, I am pleased to rise today to start debate for the official opposition, on Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

What we see in this bill is an implementation of

chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade, as the minister said a moment ago.

Chapter 7 was rewritten in December of '08 and states that provinces must harmonize their occupational standards and certification requirements. It requires that a worker certified in one province must be granted certification in any other province without requirement for additional training, examination or assessment.

Bill 11 says that

chapter 17 of the AIT will govern the resolution of disputes arising from

chapter 7, and changes to

chapter 17 are currently being renegotiated with different provinces across the country.

[1440]

So it appears that this bill will put into law a provision for dispute resolution that is still being negotiated by many of the provinces, and actually, this has had no public discussion or consultation.

Trade Expert Steven Shrybman wrote a report in March of this year. It was called State of Play: Canada's Internal Free Trade Agenda . Mr. Shrybman, who is a noted trade lawyer, notes that 20 percent of Canadian workers are employed in regulated occupations or trades across the country. Provinces decide what standards are needed to ensure that workers are properly qualified and to ensure that people or public safety is not placed at risk.

Provinces have already established programs to reconcile competing standards, to ensure that provincial standards don't unduly impede labour mobility. We all agree that Canadians, no matter where they live in this country, should be able to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and work. That's not in question. It's how it's done that's important.

The changes made to the AIT in December of last year substantially expanded labour mobility provisions. I think it's important to get on the record what it states in that agreement. "Any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of a party" — which means the authorities and the provinces — "shall, upon application, be certified for that occupation by each other party which regulates that occupation without any requirement for any material…training, experience, examinations or assessments as part of the certification procedure."

I believe what that means is that a worker certified for occupation by any provincial regulator is entitled to work anywhere in Canada. We understand that people move. A spouse may be transferred. People need to be able to relocate and work in other jurisdictions without any undue hardship or financial costs, but the devil is in the details. The concern is that standards may be reduced across the country to the lowest common denominator.

I want to just for a moment look at the situation for social workers in British Columbia. Here in B.C. the College of Social Workers has a minimum standard of a bachelor of social work. But in Alberta they have a minimum standard of a two-year diploma only, not a university degree.

So unless this government and the minister put through a notice of exemption to ensure that people working in British Columbia as social workers have attained a bachelor of social work, we'll have people working in British Columbia alongside our social workers who have a bachelor's degree, as social workers, working with vulnerable people when they haven't achieved the same level of education or training that B.C. social workers have. That's a concern, one of the concerns that we want to hear addressed when we do the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill.

B.C. has experienced some very terrible child deaths, and the only good that comes from these tragedies is when we learn from the tragedies how to make our system a better one, a safer one. There appears to be no provision to raise standards in this bill. Our worry is that what we will see is a movement to the lower common denominator across all occupations and training. When we get to committee stage we'll be watching carefully to see what provisions the government has made to prevent a downward spiral.

Mr. Shrybman's report concludes that TILMA, other similar agreements currently in development and the recent changes to the AIT will only further deregulate provincial policies that protect communities and the environment and threaten public services.

It's quite possible that Bill 11 isn't needed at all. Virtually all the significant labour mobility issues have already been addressed through interprovincial cooperation. Impediments to labour mobility are now addressed through mutual recognition agreements in the Red Seal program. There have only been 23 labour mobility complaints, only 23 from 1996 to August of 2009, according to the AIT website, and only two of those complaints were upheld. It doesn't indicate a huge problem across this country with labour mobility.

We're concerned that Bill 11 may well make it impossible for B.C. regulators to establish or maintain higher occupational standards, as in the case that I mentioned earlier around social workers.

[1445]

The bill means that regulatory authorities will have the power to certify out-of-province workers without examination or assessment. Only the minister will be able to give exemptions to protect a higher standard.

The bill also allows the minister to rewrite the bylaws of a regulatory authority and allows out-of-province workers to sue authorities and force them to recognize their certification.

It appears that under Bill 11 only the jurisdiction with the higher standard can be challenged and penalized.

[ Page 1149 ]

There doesn't appear to be a way to challenge a lower standard or a standard that is inadequate. If this is the case, the bill then would undermine the Red Seal program, forcing every province to recognize workers certified under any other province's standards.

There's another concern that needs to be addressed, and that's around the dispute resolution. Knowledgable critics have said the AIT

chapter 7 amendments raise the potential for totally deregulated trade certifications across our country. It may mean that every province will be forced to recognize the lowest certification requirements, and the dispute resolution that accompanies the labour mobility amendment would bring an administrative process to enforce lower standards.

The full impact of the

chapter 7 amendments won't be known until every province passes legislation similar to Bill 11, which we're debating today. So here we have the government introducing legislation without any really clear idea of how the legislation will impact on our province. Again, like TILMA, without any public consultation.

The fear is that the result of Bill 11 will be to further weaken national standards for construction trades. Red Seal is currently the de facto national standard, but it's not obligatory. Red Seal only sets out the minimum requirements, but without any national measure, Red Seal does at least set a standard.

The apprenticeship training community, the instructors, the employers, labour and academics have lobbied for years to support the Red Seal standard. We're concerned that under Bill 11, Red Seal will mean less and less, and national standards will be subject to a downward spiral, a downward spiral with no bottom and no minimum standards.

What we need here in British Columbia is a government that's committed to encouraging fully qualified and trained journey-level workers and professionals.

To conclude, it doesn't appear at this point, in looking at the bill, that Bill 11 is necessary. It's not clear which process supersedes. Is it AIT? Is it TILMA? Is it Bill 11?

We look forward to the committee stage of Bill 11, where we can examine the bill clause by clause — hopefully, get answers to these questions and concerns that we have. We will be articulating other concerns and questions during the second reading debate.

It's possible that Bill 11 is not necessary to resolve mobility issues. This government has done no public consultation. In fact, in some of the phoning around that we've done to affected regulatory organizations in British Columbia, some of them are totally unaware of this bill.

It's important that British Columbians can move across the country and work, but we have to ensure that this is not done at the expense of professional care or trade quality. We'll be watching carefully to see how this government protects the interests of all British Columbians under Bill 11 as we go through the debate and the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill.

Thank you very much for your time.

D. Barnett: With many British Columbians nearing retirement age, labour mobility is vital for British Columbia's economy. With our legislation, we are supporting B.C. businesses, giving them the ability to attract the kind of skilled trades and professions that we need, removing outdated barriers that prevented these people from easily moving between provinces. The provincial government is taking action to ensure that British Columbians share in the opportunities created by freedom of labour mobility throughout Canada.

[1450]

B.C. has been a national leader in the move towards a labour mobility accord and has clearly demonstrated the mutual benefits of professional and trades recognition through the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement in place between British Columbia and Alberta and the subsequent improved labour mobility between the two provinces.

I have sons, and I can tell you that my sons are tradespeople. Without this act, my sons would not be able to come back to British Columbia for their trades. I'm proud to stand here today and support this act.

I understand the need in the business world today, what is happening to our economy and how we know that when this recession is over, we are going to have to act fast and have many tradespeople and people who are skilled labourers in this province. This gives us the opportunity to once again be first in Canada with our business community and our labour community and to support families.

R. Chouhan: I appreciate this opportunity to speak about Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act, 2009. I want to make it clear that nobody is against labour mobility. All we are concerned about is how it is done.

I am concerned about the standards that this bill talks about. It seems like, if you look at it carefully, there aren't any standards set out in the bill to ensure, to protect the jobs in B.C.

I'm concerned about the number of jobs that we have lost in British Columbia already under this government. Thousands upon thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Now, with Bill 11, when other workers are allowed to come here without any standards, what happens to those jobs? Those are the kinds of questions we need to ask. We will be asking more detailed questions at the committee stage.

In the meantime, I just want to make sure that the government understands that bringing this kind of bill without any public consultation does not serve any purpose, does not serve the needs of British Columbians. We have spoken to all the stakeholders. We have found

[ Page 1150 ]

out that none of them were consulted with. That's what we are concerned about.

It seems like, under Bill 11, it's a race to the bottom. For example, as my colleague has talked about, for social workers, we have a four-year-degree requirement in British Columbia. At the same time, in Alberta they have only a two-year course. So what happens? Would they come here and get the job? Our British Columbians spend four years at the university level and work hard and get those credentials, and then they're replaced by somebody with less training, less qualifications. Those are the kinds of concerns that we have.

We promote labour mobility. We need that, but at the same time, we must make sure that we do it in a way that workers' rights are not jeopardized, that the public is consulted, so that we have all those measures in place to make sure that when people come here, they meet the same standard.

Some provinces, I think, have higher standards for certain jobs. That's good. So why don't we set a national standard to have the same standards for all provinces under AIT? Then we can have Bill 11. I think that will work then.

Those are the kinds of concerns we have. I hope the government will listen when we ask those questions at the committee stage and ask for those changes or amendments — whatever is necessary — and they will pay attention.

K. Corrigan: This act has been put forward to implement an agreement on labour mobility that British Columbia and all the other provinces and territories entered into in December 2008 to expand the provisions of the agreement on internal trade, or the AIT.

I have some real concerns about this bill, so I'll have a lot of questions about its application when we get to the committee stage. I certainly support labour mobility and don't want to do anything to thwart labour mobility in this province, but I think we have to be very careful about how we do it.

[1455]

That's why I think it's going to be important, when we get to the committee stage, to ask a lot of really specific questions and pointed questions about what the application of the bill is going to do.

The reality is that the vast majority of workers can move from province to province without any barriers at all, so the need is not clear. There are certainly some situations that need to be addressed, but most significant mobility issues have been, over the last several years, addressed in recent years through other mechanisms — mechanisms with interprovincial cooperation, voluntary initiatives, recognizing the importance of the Red Seal program for skilled trades.

I would prefer that we go the route that we address issues of labour mobility through negotiation. That is certainly a method that has proven successful to date.

I think that we have to recognize the very real concern that international workers have. There are many immigrants that are coming into our country, and they're having real troubles having their skills recognized, their credentials recognized when they come to Canada.

I certainly think we need to work hard in that area and address some of those concerns, but that's a separate issue. Once somebody gets into Canada — that is what we are talking about with the agreement on internal trade and Bill 11.

I'm also concerned that this bill is tied up with the agreement on internal trade, which it is applying, which it is enabling, but also that the agreement on internal trade is tied to international trade agreements. I think you have to think of all of these — the bill, the agreement on internal trade and the international trade agreements — as a package.

I think we have to be very careful when we are dealing with this bill. As positive as it is in some ways, I think we have to remember that it's all tied together. We certainly have been, now, tied up in knots in this country with international and interprovincial trade agreements that I think are compromising the ability of governments to operate in the public interest — again, another reason why, when it gets to the committee stage, I'm going to have a lot of questions about the application. But I want to be very clear that I and, I believe, all my colleagues support labour mobility.

You can't look at this as a piece of stand-alone legislation. I referenced international trade agreements a minute ago. International trade agreements signed by the federal government obligate the federal government to also then make sure that the provincial governments comply.

Since Ottawa signed, first of all, the FTA and then NAFTA in 1993 and the WTO in 1998 — international trade agreements — the provinces have been pressured to establish interprovincial trade agreements so that Canada is on side with its international commitments. The AIT is certainly the flagship of these domestic efforts.

I think my colleague pointed out earlier that these international and interprovincial commitments were made without any consultation with the people of British Columbia, just as this government negotiated and signed the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, TILMA, behind closed doors and without any consultation with the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to compare that with the process in the 1990s, when the NDP government was looking at trade agreements. The provincial government had hearings across the province on the MAI, or multilateral agreement on investment. They had hearings that had dozens and dozens of submissions and people appearing before the committee.

[1500]

[ Page 1151 ]

I'd just like to go back. I had the real pleasure today of being able to go to this wonderful library that we have, and within minutes I had all the documents, the reports, the submissions and so on for the MAI in the 1990s. I have been a bit of a wonk in terms of trade agreements, so it was really great to have that great facility here and to be able to go and use it and enjoy it.

I'm just going to read a little bit from what that process was like in the 1990s. This is from the submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on future international trade and investment negotiations, presented by Joan Smallwood, as the Chair, to the House of Commons in April of 1999. It's just a little bit of a

summary of the work that had been done in B.C.

B.C. had a special committee on the MAI, and this is what they said.

"The multiparty special committee on the MAI was appointed by a unanimous vote in the B.C. Legislative Assembly on April 27, 1998, to review the MAI and related international issues and to increase public awareness about them.

"The committee has conducted its work in two stages. During the first stage, held last fall, the committee heard from over 70 expert witnesses, not only from British Columbia but from across Canada and the United States, as well as from France and the European Union. Copies of the committee's first report, which was issued in January, are being provided to each of you today. Additional copies are available at the back of this room.

"The second stage of the committee's work involved engaging British Columbians in a dialogue about the MAI and related international investment issues. The committee was privileged to have very thoughtful presentations from citizens in Terrace, Prince George, Nelson, Courtenay, Surrey, Kelowna, Kamloops, at UBC in Vancouver and Burnaby. The committee's second report will be tabled in the Legislature later this spring."

Then, of course, there's a website that people could go to, and the report goes on.

I think the important point is the comparison between the approach that British Columbia took when they were considering whether or not they wanted to be part of, and support, the MAI and what we are dealing with now, with the way not only this government but the federal government is making these commitments without consultation and behind closed doors.

I've got to say that at the end of the day, when the people were consulted, they opposed the agreement. They decided that it was against their own best interests, and they opposed it, and the provincial government of the time approached it….

Again, compare that with what happened with TILMA — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. It was negotiated with Alberta entirely behind closed doors, with absolutely no public consultation.

After the fact, there was a two-year implementation period for local governments, and during that time the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the UBCM, expressed grave concerns about a number of the provisions in the agreement but, essentially, were shut down on almost every single one of their concerns. They were ignored.

With the expansion of the agreement on internal trade and labour mobility provisions, which has triggered the need for this enabling legislation which we are talking about today…. The agreement was negotiated behind closed doors, without any public consultation.

In fact, there is another piece of this which has to do with enforcement, and there have been small pieces of information — on a federal website, I believe — that indicate that like TILMA there will be penalties of up to $5 million per incident. In other words, you could have millions and millions of dollars if you added up more than one person bringing a claim with regard to certification. But that part of it we haven't seen at all.

I think it's just a question of the government trying to coordinate and do this in a way that they think will get the least attention and that they can slide it in without public discussion. This is not what I call a democratic process.

Not only is the primary purpose of this agreement to fulfil commitments made by the province, but I would certainly argue it is part of a larger commitment made by this country under international trade agreements.

[1505]

I want to reiterate that just because this ties us to some international trade agreements or ties us to the commitments under AIT, that in and of itself is not reason to say that we will not support it. But I think it's important to have that context and that framework and to say that if we are going to enter into any kind of agreement that is tying us, up the ladder, to both federal and international trade agreements, we have to look carefully at it and make sure that we evaluate it very carefully.

Canada has negotiated several international trade agreements. We've made commitments in NAFTA — that's the Northern American Free Trade Agreement — in GATS, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and in a number of other multilateral or bilateral agreements.

About the same time as NAFTA and GATS were being negotiated was when the Canadian provinces were negotiating the agreement on internal trade, or AIT, which entered into force on the 1st of July, 1995. While NAFTA and the various WTO agreements deal with external trade, the AIT applies many NAFTA-style rules to trade within and between provinces.

I don't think anybody disagrees with the idea of trade. We certainly have made it clear that we are supportive of labour mobility. But these trade agreements have raised some serious concerns about national sovereignty, democracy and the ability of governments to regulate activities within their respective territories, the ability of governments to decide what they believe is in the best interests of their citizens.

Uncertainty about the implications of trade liberalization has been further heightened by the reliance upon dispute resolution panels to interpret the intricacies and

[ Page 1152 ]

ambiguities of these complex treaties.

Interpretation can certainly vary from case to case.

One of the things that we were pondering yesterday and trying to figure out when we were sitting down and taking a look at this bill, and some of the questions that we need to ask about it, is that the TILMA and AIT disputes are resolved by way of tribunals. Those are trade tribunals.

We have real concerns about some of those tribunals as well, because they are held behind closed doors. One of the concerns we had about TILMA is that the governments which may be affected, the local governments, will not be allowed to represent themselves. They have to rely upon the province that they are in. When an issue is taken by one province and raised against another, then they have to rely on the province.

Frankly, I know that in the case of the UBCM, they expressed real concern. They felt that the province had imposed this agreement upon them, this B.C. government, without real consultation and without listening to their very real concerns about the impact that it could have on issues like zoning and so on. They felt that if this was the government that was imposing it upon them, how could they rely on this government to represent their interests as municipalities in any kind of dispute that came up before a tribunal?

That was a real concern, and I think we have to remember that concern. Although this bill says that the way that you resolve disputes is through the courts, TILMA dispute resolution, as I've just said, is done through panels. It's very unclear — and, again, we'll have to ask these questions in committee — what the mechanism is going to be and what reigns and how the two are going to fit together.

Can somebody from another province — particularly Alberta, and perhaps any other province — come to British Columbia and make a claim that their credentials should be accepted? Do they use the TILMA? Do they use the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement? Do they go through the courts because of Bill 11? Or do they do some combination of the two? It's very unclear.

What is also unclear about the implications of TILMA, which is a much harsher trade agreement in terms of what is imposed upon us, is whether or not the provisions of TILMA will actually be superimposed or laid over the provisions of Bill 11. This is very unclear.

[1510]

I am very concerned that we don't want to take a look at the Labour Mobility Act without taking into account how these agreements, both here and federally, and internationally, all fit together.

I mentioned earlier that I'm a wonk for this stuff. I'll tell you, if anybody ever wants to have a good piece of non-fiction work that can put them to sleep at night, I encourage them to buy, because there are a few copies left still, a copy of a book called Whose Canada? published by McGill–Queen's University Press, in which I wrote a

chapter entitled — the scintillating title — "The Impact of Trade Agreements on Subnational Governments."

For anybody who has trouble sleeping, I highly recommend that book. I think there are a few around still. It will cure your inability to sleep.

One of the problems with agreements that deal with trade, labour mobility and investment, right from the international agreements and however they fit together down locally, is that the area is so complex and the rules are so arcane that it's often very difficult for people to get their heads around it.

I should mention, by the way, that I'm the designated speaker. I forgot to do that.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Am I going to go for two hours? We'll see. I'm very new at this.

One of the problems with international trade agreements and internal trade agreements and the legislation that flows from them is that the area is so complex and the rules are so arcane that it's very difficult for people to get their heads around it. Even those that write the legislation of the agreements are, so often, not fully conversant with the potential impact that they may have.

When TILMA was being inked by this government, a very well-recognized authority on trade agreements spoke to one of the B.C. negotiators, asked some very specific questions about the bill and related to me later that it was not clear to her that this negotiator knew all of the nuances of international trade law and some of the decisions and rulings that had been made. That concerns me a little bit.

Another area of concern is that all of these trade agreements are untested in many respects. We simply do not know what the impact is going to be until after we've had challenges under the AIT or TILMA or NAFTA or WTO.

Why should we be mentioning the international agreements and our concerns about them when we're dealing with the agreement on internal trade? Well, as highly respected trade lawyer Steven Shrybman points out, while the AIT and its offshoots are agreements among and between Canadian governments, it's important to appreciate that this domestic trade agenda is mandated by the federal government's commitments under NAFTA and the WTO, for under both treaties Canada is obliged to ensure compliance by provincial governments.

Canada promises that provinces and municipalities will comply with the agreement. However, constitutionally, provinces have no obligation to comply with these international agreements. As Shrybman says, in signing on to NAFTA and the WTO, the federal government's reach exceeded its grasp.

[ Page 1153 ]

How does the federal government get provinces to follow or comply with the international agreements that they're not obliged to follow? Well, it needed a mechanism that would directly bind the provinces to the international commitments it had undertaken, and this was the impetus for the agreement on internal trade. The obligations that the province took on in the agreement on internal trade triggered the need for the legislation that we are dealing with now.

I would point out that this bill references and specifically ties us to our

chapter 7 obligations of the agreement on internal trade, the obligations that have to do with labour mobility.

[1515]

I want to again stress that I am very supportive of labour mobility. I've come from labour. I've worked in the labour movement for years, and it's very important that we support labour. But there are some real flaws in this bill. I think that in this route to labour mobility, we need to explore them further before we decide whether we want to support it.

I want to get to some of the specifics now. This bill implements

chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade, and

chapter 7, as has been mentioned before, was rewritten in December 2008 by a conference of labour ministers from across Canada.

Chapter 7 states, among other things…. It essentially provides that parties to the agreement — i.e., the provinces and territories — must work to harmonize their occupational standards and certification requirements.

Article 701 says:

"The purpose of this chapter" —

chapter 7 on labour mobility — "is to eliminate or reduce measures adopted or maintained by the parties that restrict or impair labour mobility in Canada and, in particular, to enable any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one party to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other parties."

The

article which is of the greatest, most salient importance in this, related to Bill 11, is

article 706, which has to do with certification of workers. It reads:

"Subject to paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6 in

article 708, any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of a party shall, upon application, be certified for that occupation by each other party which regulates that occupation without any requirement for any material additional training, experience, examinations or assessments as part of that certification procedure."

Then it goes on to talk about how the Red Seal is an automatic qualification, and the Red Seal program certainly has been a strong program in Canada.

However, on the Red Seal program, I would point out that while it generally provides for high standards, there are some provinces that have standards higher than the Red Seal program, so there could continue to be concerns from some provinces about that. But certainly, the Red Seal program has been a good program.

When you read 706, it's very clear what the obligations of each of the provinces are: that one jurisdiction must accept the certification of a worker of another jurisdiction.

I read that before looking at the Labour Mobility Act because when you read the Labour Mobility Act, it sounds like the regulator in the province will have the opportunity to deny the certification of a worker when they come to British Columbia and when they hold an extraprovincial certification. Bill 11 says, with regard to the application of the agreement.... This is

section 3(1):

"Subject to subsection (2), a worker who holds a certification in relation to an extraprovincial occupation may, if there is a BC equivalent occupation in relation to which certification may be issued" — may — "(

a) apply to the applicable BC regulator for certification in relation to that BC equivalent occupation, and (

b) practise the BC equivalent occupation in British Columbia (

i) after obtaining that certification, and (ii) in accordance with the governing Act and applicable regulations, bylaws, rules, resolutions and measures under that Act."

It sounds, at first blush, if you just read Bill 11 by itself, that it's possible that a regulator in British Columbia could turn down this certification of a worker from another province if it doesn't meet the same standards of training.

[1520]

I think the example was given earlier about a four-year versus a two-year training for a social worker. There would be lots and lots of trades and lots of workers in lots of different areas that could have different certification requirements.

When you read

section 3 of the bill, it sounds like that has been put in reserve, but you also have to read that in the context of the fact that the bill very clearly says that this bill is subject to the provisions of

chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade. It defers to

chapter 7. And

chapter 7,

article 706, was the

article that I just read out.

To me, it's very clear in

article 706 that somebody must be certified — unless they meet a couple of exceptions, they must be certified — and that the regulatory authority will not have the ability to turn down anybody if they have certification in another jurisdiction.

I have real concerns about that and want to know how it is that we are going to ensure that our standards and standards of other provinces are held up, instead of having what could become a race to the bottom as workers and jurisdictions realize that you could go and get certification in another province, perhaps, where it's easy to get certification. Or somebody from another province will come here. It's easier to get certification, go to another province, get certification in two years and then come back to British Columbia and practise.

Another feature of this bill which concerns me is the fact that the ratcheting down that is there, potentially, is just that — ratcheting down. There is no ratcheting up, because the complaint that's being brought under this bill is the complaint by the party that feels they should be able to qualify when they don't have high enough qualifications from another jurisdiction.

I assume that if the other provinces enact legislation in order to comply with an agreement that they have all agreed to — and all have agreed to

article 706; that's

[ Page 1154 ]

what every single province signed on to in late 2008 — they're all going to have to put in similar legislation.

I simply don't know how, if they're complying with that which they signed up for, they're going to avoid that same problem. So across the country we're going to have jurisdictions potentially having the certification requirements ratcheted down, but there is no ability to ratchet up.

That's why I talk about how I would prefer to see a system, such as has happened in the past, where the harmonization of their certification requirements has been done by way of negotiation between provinces. Sometimes you may find that the certification requirement of one province is a little higher or a little lower, and you end up somewhere in the middle.

But you get people who understand sitting down and talking about it. You have input from people who are experts. Hopefully, you have input from the workers who are involved. Instead, this defaults to a court procedure, where somebody comes in and it's decided by a judge.

I think the better way to do it would be to have people who are knowledgable about a particular occupation sitting down interprovincially, discussing this and coming up with appropriate levels of certification. So that's certainly one of my concerns.

I'd also like to point out that it's a difficult process, and handing it over to the courts, I think, undervalues the importance of the process. With TILMA there was at least this two-year process where there were negotiations that went on between B.C. and Alberta in terms of harmonizing the requirements for some of the trades.

[1525]

Now, that was not done publicly. I'm not aware of how it was done, exactly, but at least that did happen. The fact that it took a couple of years of hard work to harmonize some of those tricky ones, where the levels were higher or lower between B.C. and Alberta…. The fact that it took two years to do that, to me, indicates that it is not giving enough…. It's not respecting the importance of understanding that certification and the certification process enough if you hand it over to a judge.

A judge, frankly, is not qualified, I don't believe, to make decisions about that. Then you end up in a court situation where each of the parties is making their submissions. It's expensive, and who is going to pay for it? Is it going to be that regulatory authority?

That's what happens. The person goes to the regulatory authority. They make their application. They are turned down in British Columbia — or in another province, if it's going to be in several provinces.

If they're turned down by the regulatory authority…. I suspect that there will be many cases when they are, because we are hearing back from some of the regulatory authorities that they're concerned. If that happens, then they're turned down. The next step is for them to go to court. That, of course, would mean that the expenses of the court process would be borne by whom? Would it be borne by the regulatory authorities?

I know that these various regulatory authorities are certainly not made of money. I was involved once working with a group that was looking to be regulated in the province of British Columbia, and it was simply a question of money. It was too expensive for the members, because it's the members who have to support that.

What you're going to end up having are these professional workers, some who are in professions where they don't make a lot of money, being asked to pay for court challenges by workers in other provinces.

I want to reiterate that this is not to say that I am opposed to labour mobility. I'm absolutely supportive, but we've got to make sure that we're doing it in an appropriate way. I think the costs and the bureaucracy associated with this process…. That is certainly another legitimate concern that I have.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I want to talk, also, just for a minute or two about the issue of legitimate objectives. It certainly is true that

article 708 of the agreement on internal trade — which of course will then be incorporated into and is, I believe, specifically referenced in Bill 11 — does provide some scope for governments to say that they can oppose the certification of a worker because there is a good reason why they should not be able to do that.

There are several legitimate objectives that are mentioned in the legislation: public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal, plant life or health; protection of the environment; consumer protection and protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; provision of adequate social and health services to all its geographic regions; and programs for disadvantaged groups — which is good, that we have some legitimate objectives that can be used.

Unfortunately, I've read some of the decisions that have been made under trade law that consider whether or not the standards that need to be met for establishing these legitimate objectives have been met. In the past those standards have been very narrowly construed.

[1530]

If we think we can take comfort from looking at the legitimate objectives, then I think we should be very concerned about that. Again, this points to the problem that we have with this bill. It references all sorts of complex terms and other agreements that then necessarily bring in a whole body of trade law, which is arcane and thrilling to only very few of us — like me. I find it really interesting. I think that there are many concerns that I have about it, and we will bring up several of them at the committee stage.

I don't know that I've got that much more to talk about with Bill 11 right now. I look forward to being

[ Page 1155 ]

able to actually ask some really specific questions, and perhaps we will have some suggestions at the committee stage.

J. McIntyre: I would like to take a completely different tack, I think, from the speaker before me who wanted to give us a history lesson and sort of a treatise on labour and the history of labour in this country. I think there is a little bit of revisionist history going on and a little bit of what I would call typical NDP hypocrisy.

The speakers before me from the opposite side of the House have all wanted to reassure us that they're in favour of labour mobility. I've been here in the House, entering my fifth year. I haven't seen any signs of that in the entire time that I've been here. I would just like to put some of this into the record because they say they support it, but there's been a huge anti-TILMA campaign for the last few years since we introduced it — fearmongering.

The speakers before me, they all alluded to "race to the bottom." It seems to be the little mantra. They supported the very active CUPE campaign against TILMA when it was first introduced two years ago. They were fearmongering at the school board level, at the municipal level. It was all about: "We will never have any control over environmental regulation. All the things that we stood for here in British Columbia were going down the drain."

Then, going back to the '90s, the member before me tried to give us a history lesson about what a wonderful job was done in the '90s, partly under then Premier Glen Clark and quotes from Joan Smallwood, etc. My recall is that the reason we're dealing with labour mobility as late as we are — in almost 2010 — is because the NDP opposed what was going on, on a national level.

I was not in politics then. I was an average citizen who saw the wisdom of labour mobility across our country and the barriers that were up at the time. In fact, we had better relations through NAFTA with our international agreements with the U.S. than we had across our country, but my recall is that the NDP totally opposed it.

All of a sudden, we're hearing about how the NDP really support this, and this is so important, but…. It's a big fat but. So I would like to just contrast our record for a few moments at a very high level, not going into all the details and the minutiae that the speaker before me said. British Columbia — in direct contrast to anything that I recall — has taken a lead through this whole AIT process.

The fact that the provinces and territories just signed on to

chapter 7 on labour mobility is, I dare say, due to the Premier's lead and our government's lead on making sure that all of the Premiers and jurisdictions across the country understood the importance. And TILMA, the work that we did on TILMA with Alberta, was and is the role model for just what the member before me was talking about.

The fact that we did spend two years with professional organizations going back and forward between the provinces, people who know what the profession is about and are knowledgable about the strict requirements and the credentials that are necessary to make sure that we're engaging in best practices — those people spent two years. That's why there was a two-year lead-up before April 1, 2009, before TILMA was implemented. It was for exactly those reasons.

The member before me cited UBCM and all their uproar. In fact, we took those two years. We dealt with municipalities. We worked with UBCM, and we came up with a deal — in fact, some changes, actually; it was very good — that UBCM chose with the back-and-forth. We actually improved TILMA before it officially came in, thanks to the work we did with municipalities.

[1535]

So I really believe that the speaker before me doesn't exactly have her facts straight, and I'd like to put some of this on the record.

Our arrangement with TILMA, let me tell you…. One of the reasons I wanted to speak on this topic today was because I spent four years, my first term…. I was one of the government's representatives to PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. We dealt with very important issues like labour shortage. Our government had economic policies that had this economy on fire. We had shortage issues not just in our province but in the region, between the strength that B.C. and Alberta economies in this country…. We had very distinct issues. It was extremely important.

Labour mobility is critical, certainly, to the success of B.C. businesses and individual workers. We were taking on those issues in the whole region.

I'm telling you that jurisdictions like Washington and others, and Saskatchewan, were looking at the model that B.C. and Alberta developed through TILMA. All regions were looking at the importance, the leadership and the best practices that we were engaging in between two provinces to create, essentially, a free trade zone and labour mobility for workers so that they had all the tools to pursue every opportunity and gain every advantage. The legislation that we're discussing today does that. We are delivering on the needs of both businesses and workers.

I was very proud, if I can go back to March '09, earlier this year, when we had an event here, on the steps of the Legislature, actually, as I recall, when we first introduced Bill 9. We were, I believe, the very first province to enact this across the country. We had, I think it was, Economic Development Minister Jim Kenyon from the Yukon, whom I had the pleasure of working with in PNWER, who came all the way down to support B.C.'s introduction of this bill that we're now reintroducing in this session, because there is recognition across this country, in different provinces and territories, that this is essential and critical.

[ Page 1156 ]

We cannot be dealing in a global economy and dealing with the U.S., Europe, Asia and all the partners that we have to reach out in the world when we have restrictive barriers within our own country. So no, we need to be moving forward on this.

B.C. has had amazing leadership on this file. The fact that we are now reintroducing it to meet our obligations under AIT and on

chapter 7 is a great thing, and it's very important that we're able to do this. We want to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, the barriers to the movement of persons, goods, services and investments within this country.

You even think on the very anecdotal level of, let's say, a couple in Ontario or something, where one of the partners has got a promotion or an opportunity to move to another part of this country. Then let's say his wife or somebody is a teacher and cannot move with him or cannot practise a profession in her own country. Those kinds of things to me seem so outdated, like from 50 years ago. We live in a modern global economy, and the fact that we're even having to do these things in this day and age is amazing.

For the member before me to talk about all the wonderful work that was done by the previous NDP government on labour mobility, when in fact she admitted they opposed it, is to me the height of hypocrisy.

Anyway, with that, I just wanted to make some sort of high-level view in comments because of the importance of this issue in our whole region and across our country. I couldn't be prouder of B.C.'s leadership on this file. I'm very proud that other jurisdictions will be looking at the work that we have done through all sorts of professional organizations to set up best practices and go forward on that basis. With that, I'll take my place.

M. Mungall: Well, I have to say, it's again disheartening but not surprising to hear a member from across the way approach a very important, very complex piece of legislation with such a small amount of analysis and a small amount of clear understanding, delivering statements that are clearly incongruent with the facts and then, of course, just declaring such inappropriate remarks, in my estimation, about colleagues here on this side of the floor — who are clearly well-knowledged, very well-researched, offer a very in-depth analysis and who shared it with this House about the Labour Mobility Act that we are here talking of today.

[1540]

What we are saying on this side of the House, if she cared to actually listen, was that we believe in labour mobility. We like the idea of somebody living in Ontario being able to come to British Columbia and apply their skills and their talents here in this province. We like being able to share our residents with other provinces as well. Labour mobility is critical in this country.

What she's not hearing is that we have just an incredible amount of concerns with this bill, because it is so in-depth. It could have wide-reaching applications that are just not listed in this bill, because it's pulling in from so many international trade agreements that we have in Canada and, of course, other provincial trade agreements that we have. It needs a very complex, detailed analysis, and we have a lot of concerns because of that.

I think it's also very fair to say that we on this side of the House have a lot of concerns. Labour Mobility Act: it sounds very good. It sounds wonderful. When we talk about trade and increasing trade throughout the country, who would be opposed to that? Who would be opposed? It sounds wonderful, but we know this government is quite Machiavellian in its approach to politics — that is, that they say one thing, and it sounds good, but they're actually doing something quite, quite different on the other hand.

That's why we have quite a lot of concerns over here on this side. This looks good. It sounds good in the title of the bill, but is it going to be good? We're not too sure. In fact, I would dare say that it may not at the end of the day, and that's why it needs an incredible amount of analysis. That's why our concerns need to be addressed.

So what is this bill about? Well, it requires that occupational regulatory authorities must not discriminate against non-B.C. residents, as defined by

chapter 7 of the AIT — the agreement on internal trade. That means that we cannot discriminate against non-B.C. residents.

Right now discrimination only occurs based on skill standards that we have in this province — are people coming from other provinces meeting the standards that we require here in British Columbia? — and other provinces do the same thing to British Columbians. It's quite normal. If somebody meets the test, the standards that we have, they're more than welcome to work in British Columbia.

We're changing that so that occupational organizations no longer have the right, but it's actually going to government. Now government is the one that's going to be choosing, and everything that occupational groups do to ensure standards are met must be congruent.

It must be congruent with this Labour Mobility Act, which of course, defines

chapter 7 in the AIT. That means that the government is allowed to order regulatory authorities to change their certification requirements to come in line with the AIT, even though Alberta's certification, as it is in the case of social workers, is less. It requires less education and less training than we require here in British Columbia.

When we look at what this bill is — and we know that people can move across the country and maintain their occupation as long as they meet the requirements in the province in which they're living in and working — the question is: do we need this bill? And if we ask that question — "Do we need this bill?" — it's a fair question, and it's one that many experts in this field are asking.

[ Page 1157 ]

I think that because they're asking that question, we need to answer. We need to really determine if that is accurate, if we really need this bill. We need to identify the need for this, and that's why we're concerned. When experts are saying that this is a bill that we likely don't need in British Columbia, we need to answer that question, and we're going to be asking those questions when we go to committee stage.

Indeed, if we prioritize in this province — not only labour mobility but the high standards, high standards of occupations, and working with dignity — then we need to identify what is in this bill that allows for that and what would take away from that and how we can move forward with labour mobility ensuring that we maintain good, high standards, quality standards, in this province as well as making sure that workers and professionals are working with dignity.

[1545]

That's exactly what Steven Shrybman is saying. He's saying that we need to determine whether this type of bill is needed. In fact, he says in a paper he wrote: "In reality, there are few barriers to interprovincial trade, investment and labour mobility." When someone like Steven Shrybman — again, an expert in this field of labour and trade agreements — puts that forward, it's worth listening to. It's absolutely worth listening to. So we need to determine: is this bill going to do what it needs to do?

The speaker before me talked about skills shortages. We have some skills shortages in this province, and in fact we have skills shortages all across the country. By 2015 the government's own studies say those skills shortages are going to be even greater as the baby boomer generation retires, where we actually see more than 50 percent of our population over the age of 55.

We're facing some significant skills shortages in this province, but we're facing that right across the country. Again, a concern that I have and that we need to know whether this bill is going to address. How is it going to address it?

Right now, as I read it, it seems to me that provinces are going to be able to lower their standards and pillage from different provinces, from our brothers and sisters across the province, and that we're going to be able to pillage to make sure that our own skills labour shortage is met. Is this going to further drive our skills standards to the bottom because we are competing with other provinces to fill our skills labour shortage?

This is a huge concern. We want to reach for the top, not reach for the bottom. Is this systemically going to cause us to start sinking and sinking further down as we compete with other provinces to meet our skills labour shortage, yet losing standards in the process as we do that? Again, a large concern. We want to be working with other provinces. We want to be working with our neighbours throughout this country, not competing with them. Canada is much stronger when we work together, rather than when we compete.

Another point that I find very concerning about Bill 11, hon. Speaker, is that it establishes that

chapter 17 of the AIT will govern the resolutions of disputes arising out of

chapter 7. But the funny thing is that

chapter 17 is currently being negotiated so that it gives it more teeth, but the public actually doesn't get to see

chapter 17.

This is something that nobody gets to really look at and analyze to determine whether what they are negotiating is something that we can support in this bill. Again, that's why this bill needs a clause-by-clause analysis, because we don't know what

chapter 17 is going to be saying for British Columbia and whether it's going to be benefiting residents here in this province.

I have to say that the secretiveness of

chapter 17 doesn't allow us to feel confident about this bill. It gives us great concern. It gives me great concern and shows to me that this detailed analysis is extremely needed, particularly when we take into consideration the growing secrecy around freeing trade.

If we take into consideration that in 1988 the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada was put forward in an election. People talked about it all across the country. It was of huge debate. People even called that election a referendum on free trade, and 52 percent of Canadians actually voted against it by choosing either the NDP or the Liberal Party of Canada, but the Conservatives won, and we ended up with free trade. The Conservatives brought in NAFTA in 1992, and it has remained ever since.

[1550]

Then in the late 1990s, in 1997, we see the protests against more free trade, the Asia-Pacific economic council, the APEC and the MAI that my colleague brought up.

Again, as these processes to further the free trade agenda were put out to the public, the public was saying, "No, we don't want this," and having very large demonstrations, incredible public education around what free trade means and what free trade will do for workers, our environmental standards, our social services, health care and so on — what they will do for us as members of the public.

The opposition was growing, and then we saw massive opposition where it even shut down a free trade discussion. That was at the WTO, the World Trade Organization, in 1999 in Seattle, where people who were demonstrating against free trade were able to shut down the discussions. The result was that the WTO moved to Qatar, where protests are against the law — again, closing things behind closed doors to make the discussion on free trade more secretive.

We saw the same thing again in the free trade area of the Americas discussions in Quebec City, where they built a perimeter fence to keep anybody in the public away from the private discussions being held. We see

[ Page 1158 ]

massive protests against the G8, where conversations are about free trade. We're seeing incredible outcry all across the world, concerns about free trade. The way in which it's being implemented, as a result, is getting more and more and more secretive.

That's exactly what happened with the most recent free trade agreement here in British Columbia, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, TILMA. Following suit with TILMA, we see, again,

chapter 17 being done quite secretively. Consequently, we have great concern around that, as I mentioned several times. We have a huge concern that this is being done in secret.

It doesn't allow us much confidence in this bill when this bill is actually what lets

chapter 17…. We don't know the details of

chapter 17, but it makes

chapter 17 the

chapter that's going to govern the resolution and dispute process. Again, we don't know the details of that, so how can we have confidence in this bill? We will need to ask a considerable amount of questions during that committee stage.

That sums up some of the concerns I have. I know I have colleagues who have a considerable amount of concerns as well. As we go through this act clause by clause, we're seeing a lot of opportunities where there is going to be a race for the bottom in this country and that B.C. and British Columbians aren't going to benefit. We want to mitigate that. We want to make sure that British Columbians do benefit from labour mobility, because it's not that labour mobility is the problem. Labour mobility is great. It’s a good thing.

It's about how we do it. We need to do it with thought. We need to do it with analysis. We need to do it with planning and not shooting from the hip. We need to be authentic, and we need to be honest about it. When a government can, time and time again, put forward things to the people of this province that look good on the surface but aren't in practice, it is our duty on this side of the House to do everything we can so that whatever they do on that side of the House is good for British Columbians. I guarantee that that is exactly what we will be doing with this bill.

G. Gentner: I rise to speak regarding Bill 11. I have to start by saying, you know, relative to labour mobility, it is a reality. There's no question there. I mean I was coming here today looking at my tie, and I was wondering if this was a free trade tie. It's actually made in Italy — good craftsmanship.

I was wondering if maybe it would be a tie from British Columbia. Maybe there's a tie factory here that's been protected, but not so. I love Italian quality, and I do admit that there are some wonderful attributes to that of trade. Canadian ties are something in my closet as well. I try to pull them out, and today, for whatever reason, I just happened to pull out my blue and brown tie — all the way from Italy.

[1555]

I think the test will be in the pudding on this one. We will be going through a committee stage, and hopefully it will be quite extensive. We have a lot of questions on this one to fully understand and ascertain what the purpose of Bill 11 is. We have to really begin to start the discussion by what happened relative to consultation with various groups.

We know that a couple years ago the Premier went around with something called the Conversation on Health. He spent a lot of time and acumen and money to try and ascertain or find out what the opinion was of those and all of us in this province who would be affected by new measures of health. In the end, the Premier came up empty-handed because of that consultation.

It was well attended by many, and here we are again. We're running into a very comprehensive trade agreement, an agreement that has various layers, whether it be the AIT…. It is related to the agreement of NAFTA — H2O. You're looking at TILMA as well. You know, that consultation has got to be far-sweeping.

Hopefully, during the third reading stage or the committee stage, we will hear what that consultation inveighed, whether or not the accountants in the province were fully talked to and had their day in court, so to speak. The same has to be said to those of the applied sciences — technologists, the engineers and geophysicists, the environmental guides.

You know, the environmental guides are regulated in this province, and it's interesting to know what the standards are there. With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the Rockies, yes, they do have fish. But are those standards the same as some of the standards for our guides up here, with sports fisheries, etc., relative to knowing there are different species of fish? Salmon comes to mind, of course, and sturgeon or others.

Those are interesting questions, and I'd like to know whether or not the environmental sports community or the sports community guides have been talked to on this. Do they know fully what the extensions are, and will it have an impact?

Another one, of course, is the forestry act. I don't want to be too facetious, but do we hire a faller from Saskatchewan, knowing full well that they know what cutting a tree is like here in British Columbia? I mean, I'm being a little facetious here. I understand that. But these are some of the questions we are going to have to ask.

The podiatrists — have they been fully talked to? Do they fully understand the implications of this bill, and will it impact them? The land surveyors…. These are conversations that hopefully…. Hopefully, it's been quite extensive, and the homework has been done. We will certainly find out soon, when we reach the committee stage.

Now, I do have to suggest to you that this bill implements

chapter 7 of the AIT, the Agreement on International Trade.

Chapter 7 was rewritten in December

[ Page 1159 ]

2008 and quite recently again by a conference of labour ministers from across Canada.

But

chapter 7 states that parties to the agreement, i.e., the provinces, must work to harmonize — there's that word "harmonize" again; it's the word of the 21st century here — their occupational standards and certification requirements.

We know what the HST is, and we know that there is, I believe, a sellout of the responsibility of the province relative to the taxation and that the province has had the ability to not tax certain entities. This harmonization, the same way, is relative to

chapter 7. It lets go a lot of responsibilities from this province. Those are questions I'm hopeful that we'll be able to ask during committee stage.

It sets out a requirement that a worker certified in one province must be granted certification in any other province without any requirement for additional training, experience, examinations or assessment. This is worrisome. This is extremely worrisome. It is a race to the bottom. We're going to have to thoroughly investigate this during committee stage, because it does lower the bar.

I'm very much concerned with that because it goes on to say that exceptions to this provision can only be made if the measure which limits a worker's labour mobility seeks to meet a legitimate objective. That is an interesting word — "legitimate objective." We'll thoroughly examine that — I won't say cross-examine — during the committee stage, as defined by the agreement.

[1600]

The provinces themselves, and not the regulatory authority or anyone else, must defend these exceptions and resolve them within a period of time. You know, I really believe we're opening the door for a new industry, or we're going to enlarge the industry for lawyers. We're going to find when this agreement comes up, I believe…. We're going into a whole new realm, a whole new ground. We will have to check what the clauses mean, the challenging that they're going to mean.

And we're going to also have to wonder: if it's good, why change it at all? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Those are some of the questions we want to have answered here today, or certainly during our committee stage.

Let's back up for a while here and understand what this is all about. I mean, there are those who look at the wealth of labour, what it means, the productivity, the ability to create labour, which is yours, and the fact that you're able to sell it. Labour is seen in today's modern workplace or economy as a commodity. You can suddenly sell it. You can buy it. But there's also a lot of room for exploitation and the need for regulation.

We've seen what's happened when labour has been treated as a commodity, particularly with farmworkers. We've seen the abuses that have happened, not only in this country, but in Mexico and other places — in developing nations. We've seen the standards now being decreased relative to seasonal workers in this province, workers who come up here, migratory, and they're living in substandard housing — housing standards that are not up to par. That's occurring too.

So when we look at opening this whole new Pandora's box, if you will, relative to new agreements, and these agreements are, layer upon layer, relative to international agreements, we really have to understand or examine how much labour is seen as just strictly a commodity to exploit.

This is something that comes to the very essence of what in this legislation we have to address. There are means and ways to protect people from abuse, and o