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)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401 — Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009

K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Livable community award for Gibsons

N. Simons

Cheakamus community forest agreement

J. McIntyre

Gay and Lesbian Business Association of B.C.

S. Herbert

Grouse Mountain wind turbine project

R. Sultan

Rain forest protection and oil tanker traffic in B.C.

G. Coons

Addiction treatment facility in Keremeos

J. Slater

Oral Questions

Funding for mental health services in Lower Mainland and Sunshine Coast

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

N. Simons

S. Hammell

S. Simpson

Funding for mental health services in northern B.C.

R. Austin

Hon. K. Falcon

Funding for repairs at Johnston Heights Secondary School

J. Brar

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Manufacturing of Olympic Games flags

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. McNeil

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner

Hon. M. de Jong

Petitions

H. Bains

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Labour Mobility Act

K. Corrigan

Hon. M. Stilwell

M. Sather

D. Black

R. Chouhan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Labour Mobility Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport

Hon. I. Chong

J. Brar

D. Donaldson

N. Simons

A. Dix

[ Page 1297 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today is Judy Reimche. Accompanying her are a number of students from the Western Academy of Photography class. They come annually, and I trust they're going to watch an interesting question period. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm delighted to welcome one of my brothers, Andrew MacDiarmid, who is here visiting with his family from Winnipeg. Like everyone else here, I really wouldn't be here without the support of wonderful family, so I would like the House to join me in making him warmly welcome.

E. Foster: Visiting today from Toronto we have Mr. Larry Moore, who is the vice-president of Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association; and my brother-in-law, Mr. Vaughn Crofford, president of the Canadian Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association. They're in Victoria this week to promote a recycling stewardship program within their industry. I would ask that the House make them welcome.

M. Mungall: It's my great pleasure to introduce the House to Adrienne Smith, Timothy Chu and Blake Frederick.

They're here from the Alma Mater Society at UBC. May the House make them very welcome.

[1335]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill P r 401 — VERIGIN MEMORIAL

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

K. Conroy presented a bill intituled Verigin Memorial Park Amendment Act, 2009.

Motion approved.

K. Conroy: This private bill was initiated by the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ, more commonly known as the Doukhobor community. The Doukhobors' original spiritual leader was Peter V. Verigin, Peter the Lordly. He is interred at Verigin's tomb in Brilliant just outside of Castlegar. Over the years other family members have also been laid to rest in this beautiful and spiritual site.

It has come to the attention of the community that there needed to be an amendment to the original act allowing for the interment of these descendants. This amendment simply ensures that all who rest there now and in the future do so with the proper authorization.

The Doukhobors with their current leader, John J. Verigin Jr., more affectionately known as J.J. Jr., are respected and acknowledged throughout our province and indeed Canada and internationally. Their history spans over a hundred years in this province. I welcome the opportunity to sponsor this bill, which would allow the suitable interment of the leadership of these industrious people who truly live their philosophy of toil and peaceful living.

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

Bill Pr401, Verigin Memorial Park 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

livable community award for gibsons

N. Simons: On Monday of last week the town of Gibsons was awarded a gold in the Whole City category of the thirteenth annual UN-sanctioned LivCom livable communities award in Pilsen, Czech Republic.

The award was designed to encourage best practice, innovation and leadership in providing a vibrant environmentally sustainable community that improves quality of life. I'd like to congratulate Mayor Barry Janyk, his council and of course the staff and residents. So I wrote a poem.

Mr. Speaker, it's with much pleasure that I report this news for us to treasure.

The town of Gibsons has won a prize that says it's special for its size.

The UN-sponsored nominators chose the home of the Beachcombers as the world's most livable community in the under-20,000 category.

They also won, it should be noted, in addition to the category quoted, for being best overall at planning ahead against 26 countries, it must be said.

For lifestyle and for sustainability, not to mention their geothermal energy, Gibsons was seen to reach perfection for its smart growth and its heritage protection.

The seaside town of Molly's Reach, where J.S. Woodsworth learned to preach, is a perfect place to go retire, to start a business or join a choir.

Sure, our big smoke neighbour is big and pretty.

I'm not talking about the mayor; I'm referring to his city.

[ Page 1298 ]

But Vancouver will try with futility to match the town of Gibsons' livability.

So here's to the town that protects its past, that knows its water has to last, that its scenic views are there to share, and for the future, we must all prepare.

CHEAKAMUS COMMUNITY

FOREST AGREEMENT

J. McIntyre: I rise today to pay tribute to all those involved in the successful launch of the Cheakamus community forest limited partnership. I was privileged to attend the recent opening ceremony at the Squamish cultural centre in Whistler where community members and partners gathered to celebrate and mark the significance of the partnership among the resort municipality of Whistler — or RMOW — and the Squamish and Lil'wat First Nations in achieving the first 25-year tenure licence with the province.

Cheakamus community forest is one of the first operations on the B.C. coast to employ a new ecosystem-based management approach, which will allow for timber forest harvesting without compromising the forest ecosystems or undermining other tourism, recreation or cultural forest values.

Community forest agreements are a mechanism by which the province transfers decision-making to communities that wish to more fully participate in the stewardship of their local land base. They support new options in economics, recreation, wildlife and watershed management.

In this case, it provides a great opportunity for the RMOW, Squamish and Lil'wat Nations to further strengthen their ties through an equal economic partnership that honours cultural traditions and manages resources in a manner that protects the wild spirit places, now known as conservancies, that were recognized in the Sea to Sky land and resource management plan.

[1340]

This agreement offers the partnership the right to an annual harvest of 20,000 cubic metres of the 30,000 hectares in the surrounding Whistler area. The region encompasses the Callaghan and Brandywine valleys to the south, the Wedge, 16-, 19- and 21-Mile valleys to the north, and Cheakamus valley to the southeast.

More than three-quarters of this land are alpine lands that will contribute to the management of forest values other than a productive working forest, which makes this community forest agreement unique.

This agreement represents a dream come true for many in the community, such as forester Don MacLaurin; Peter Ackhurst, the inaugural chair; and former Whistler mayors going back to Terry Rogers, Ted Nebbeling, Hugh O'Reilly and current Mayor Melamed.

Congratulations to Heather Beresford and her team from RMOW, and importantly, congratulations to the three equal partners for their vision, their spirit of cooperation and mutual respect in making this a reality.

GAY AND LESBIAN BUSINESS

ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

S. Herbert: I rise today to speak about love and business. As fellow members will know, starting and running a business takes a lot of work and usually involves a love or a passion for the product or service you are providing.

Someone who knows that well is a constituent of mine, a humble man who prefers to go unnamed. This summer he shared with me how, in the 1980s, he was fired because of love. You see, he loved a man. He loved the business he did, but he was fired because of the love for his partner.

I asked him what he did at that point. First, he said that he kept on loving his partner. Then he said he got engaged — politically engaged — since marriage wasn't allowed then, so he joined the party I represent. It was the only party at that time that stood for his right to love, and he fought for equal rights. He did that, but equally important, in my view, he wouldn't let the love for his business die, so he started his own company.

He loved the business, and he prospered. He could only dream at that time that there would be an organization like the GLBA, the Gay and Lesbian Business Association of British Columbia, which now represents nearly 1,000 business and business professionals across B.C.

The GLBA would have helped him immeasurably. It's an association crucial for many gay, lesbian, trans and bi entrepreneurs in B.C. today, whether it's networking, marketing, member services or education. In addition, the GLBA has formed the Loud Foundation, whose focus is support for queer youth and queer seniors.

Whether it's setting up a meeting that leads to a crucial business deal, supporting high school students with a scholarship, marketing a service to new audiences or working to ensure our seniors, when entering a retirement home, don't have to end up back in the closet because of homophobia, the GLBA and the Loud Foundation are working on all our behalf, including my constituent.

I'm glad to be a member and thankful to the Gay and Lesbian Business Association of B.C. for bringing love and business together so well.

GROUSE MOUNTAIN

WIND TURBINE PROJECT

R. Sultan: If you were in Vancouver this month, you would probably have noticed the shiny addition to our North Shore skyline, the Grouse Mountain wind turbine, otherwise known as the Eye of the Wind.

This highly visible green power initiative was conceived four years ago. Its implementation involves several hundred experts and workers from all around the world. Parts were sourced from Canada, the United States,

[ Page 1299 ]

France, Austria, Denmark, Mexico, Italy, Finland and Korea. These modules were assembled in a mere two days in late September.

The completed tower is 65 metres tall. The diameter of the sculpted blades is about 77 metres. Those blade tips will swish by at full power at about 260 kilometres per hour.

Over the next few months electrical systems will be hooked up, a seven-passenger elevator will be installed and finishing touches put on a 35-person view pod at the top of the turbine. It will be completed just in time for the arrival of guests for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games. The entire project is privately funded. From just this single turbine, Grouse Mountain will generate approximately one quarter of its total energy requirements.

A quiet revolution is clearly underway on Grouse Mountain. I encourage everyone to get out their skis, ride the spectacular gondola up to the top, have a gourmet meal at their fine restaurant and then be inspired by a view which goes all the way up to the Chilcotin from the top of the tower — the best view this side of Kicking Horse.

Eye of the Wind is a demonstration of Grouse Mountain Resort's continued commitment to sustainability. CEO Stuart McLaughlin hopes that this iconic structure will challenge how we approach our other abundant green energy opportunities.

[1345]

RAIN FOREST PROTECTION

AND OIL TANKER TRAFFIC IN B.C.

G. Coons: The rain forest coast of British Columbia is the largest remaining intact temperate rain forest left in the world. While it is often the beauty of our rain forest which captivates visitors, it is the productiveness of these forests that makes them so vital. They feature the highest biomass per hectare of any ecosystem on earth. They provide critical habitat for diversity of wildlife and provide spawning and rearing habitat for five species of Pacific salmon.

Last week was World Rainforest Week. Every year the Rainforest Action Network takes this opportunity to highlight rain forest destruction around the world. Usually we think of the rape and pillage of the Amazon rain forest, but this year the network highlighted a little-known threat that tar sands development poses to the temperate rain forests in British Columbia.

Our rain forest, the Great Bear that stretches the entire central coast all the way to the Alaskan border, is being threatened by the most destructive project on the planet, the tar sands of Alberta. Despite the illogical push from all governments to expand tar sands and strip mining, many comprehend the implications. Spills along the 1,000-kilometre pipeline are certain, but the real threat to B.C.'s rain forest is a shipping route that will carry tar sands by supertankers through 100 kilometres of narrow inlets.

The people of British Columbia aren't fooled. A recent poll found that 72 percent of British Columbians want oil tankers banned, and first nations are very clear where they stand. The Haida "will certainly not accept tanker traffic in our waters." The Gitga'at: "There is nothing but risk in this whole process." The Wet'suwet'en: "We don't want it." The Haisla: "We will not allow any project including Enbridge to proceed if it illegally infringes on our constitutionally protected rights."

Last month northwest residents dodged a bullet when a boat freighter ran aground at full speed outside Kitimat, luckily with no environmental damage. Had this been an oil tanker with full payload, it could have been catastrophic. Last week World Rainforest Week helped strengthen my resolve to protect our Great Bear rain forest.

ADDICTION TREATMENT FACILITY

IN KEREMEOS

J. Slater: The official opening of the Crossing at Keremeos took place on July 7, 2009. This marked the launch of British Columbia's first long-term treatment centre for youth who are battling the challenges of drug and alcohol problems.

The creation of this world-class facility could not have happened without the support of the Ministry of Health Services along with the following organizations: the Interior, Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health associations, community organizations, Central City Foundation and From Grief to Action society.

Prior to the opening of this facility, our youth had to leave the province for this type of treatment, but now youth are able to stay in British Columbia for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. They will now be given the opportunity to rebuild their lives and reconnect with their families and communities.

The Crossing at Keremeos is a 42-bed facility set on 58 acres in beautiful Keremeos. Eligibility for the program is open to teens and young adults aged 14 to 24, upon referral. The youth are able to stay in the facility for up to a year, learning self-respect and coping skills which are pivotal in the transition to adulthood. They will receive group and individual therapy sessions as well as access to high school and vocational courses.

This project has created 30 full-time positions, and the first graduates will be sometime in February 2010. Through the Vancouver Coastal, Fraser Health and Interior Health Authorities, $2 million has been dedicated to the capital of this project and $2.4 million annually for operating costs.

Each year more than a billion dollars is spent to support mental health and addiction services throughout

[ Page 1300 ]

the province. This centre is an example of the province's continued effort for health promotion and prevention. I would like to thank everyone who helped make this facility possible. By investing in our youth, we are investing in our future. This is an example.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

IN LOWER MAINLAND AND SUNSHINE COAST

A. Dix: This week mental health and addiction agencies contracted by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority received letters detailing deep cuts in their funding. We already know in Vancouver Coastal that on the North Shore, agencies like West Coast Alternatives saw all their funding disappear. In Richmond, agencies like Richmond Addiction Services saw all their funding disappear in an agency that serves a community of 174,000 people. Now agencies in Vancouver Community are dealing with dramatic cuts as well.

[1350]

Can the minister explain why, during what everyone recognizes is a mental health and addictions crisis in the Lower Mainland, the minister is slashing evidence-based mental health and addiction programs?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member is wrong when he characterizes it like that. The member should know — and we actually had this discussion some weeks ago — that what is happening is that as we learn more about addiction services, we find there are concurrent disorders. People no longer just have mental health issues; they also have addiction issues. Both of those concurrent disorders need to be treated differently.

There are mental health contracts out there that were providing mental health services and, in many cases, very good mental health services. What Vancouver Coastal is doing, in looking at what best practices say, is that we have to look at how we treat those folks, particularly with concurrent disorders, to ensure we're providing them the treatment they need. Sometimes that means that the old ways didn't work, and you've got to do it differently. That's what they're doing, and it's the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Without consultation, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the minister cancelled programs — without consultation. This was a budget-driven process. Dozens of agencies this week have got letters substantially cutting their funding. There's nothing evidence-based about this.

Yesterday he called cuts "changes." Today I think cuts are repatriation. Cuts are cuts, and people are going to feel them in Vancouver Coastal Health.

Now, my supplementary is this. While mental health and addiction agencies — dozens of them — are dealing with these cuts today, Vancouver Coastal mental health and addiction services staff on the Sunshine Coast are holding a golfing event at the Sechelt Golf and Country Club. It's not the staff's fault. Attendance is mandatory. To quote from the Vancouver Coastal Health internal document: "This a regular work day for everyone, so you need to come."

How can the minister defend, on the very day that clients and service providers are seeing dramatic cuts in their services, having staff taking

part in a work-mandated golf tournament?

Hon. K. Falcon: There goes the member again, completely mischaracterizing and trying to misrepresent what's actually taking place. I said this yesterday. It's amazing to me that in the NDP world, nothing should ever change. Doesn't matter what information you have, doesn't matter what evidence you discover, you should never change a service or do anything differently. That goes against the very core of that member's belief system — that nothing can ever change.

The fact of the matter is the world does change. We know, for example, that when we opened up the Burnaby facility, we discovered that 55 to 60 percent of the people that were presenting in the Burnaby facility for mental health and addictions had concurrent disorders. That means you have to treat them differently. It means you have to do things differently.

It doesn't mean, by the way, Member, that you just continue to fund every single service that's out there. You don't change a thing. You don't look at all the evidence. You don't try something different based on the evidence and what it tells you to do.

That's what he would do. That's why they ran deficits every year. That's why they had a mental health plan that they introduced, which had zero dollars attached to it. That was the chief of staff that signed off on it.

We're not doing that. We're funding real services to protect real people and make sure they get the right services.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Across-the-board cuts to respected agencies providing mental health services that are needed in Vancouver Coastal Health. It's not just me that says it. It's the chief of police that says it. It's every respected mental health group that says it. There's a lack of services, and the Minister of Health is cutting those services.

My question to him is a question of priorities. Why is it okay for the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority to be authorizing a golf tournament on the very day — the

[ Page 1301 ]

very day — that he's cutting services for mental health patients in Vancouver Coastal Health?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll get information on this tournament. It's a typical political cheap shot of that member to attack staff, and it's probably based, as we always find out every time, on partial information or misinformation. So I'll get that information for the member.

[1355]

But the fact of the matter is that what that member doesn't understand — what the NDP do not understand — is that when we are making changes in health care delivery, it doesn't mean it's just a cut. What happens is they may stop providing a service that isn't meeting the needs of clients over here, but they open up a different service that is meeting the needs of those clients over there and making sure they get the service they need.

You know, I'm looking forward to the next number of weeks. I can promise the member this. There will be lots of opportunities for him to jump up and down like a little bug every time we introduce the changes. You know what? These changes are important. They're important because they're actually making sure that we follow the evidence and deliver the services people need where they need it. We're not afraid to make those changes.

N. Simons: Residents in the Sea to Sky corridor, as well as those on the Sunshine Coast, have seen reduction in mental health and addiction services. The Sea to Sky community services contract for youth mental health outreach and all out-patient services were so-called changed — redesigned into oblivion. Programs for seniors and adults with mental illness were also cut.

How can the Minister of Health justify such broad and profound cuts to services that keep families together, that keep people from despair and divert people from acute care services?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know the Vancouver Coastal, like all health authorities, are receiving budget increases of about 20 percent over the next three years — 20 percent. It's important to start out my answer explaining that to the members opposite, because they are confused and don't seem to understand that when you are increasing a budget over three years by $2.4 billion, that is more money. It is not less.

Now, that does not mean that in all the world of all the services being delivered by the health authorities, there are not going to be changes. There will be.

The member talks about senior services. There are many very good senior services being delivered out there that were publicly funded. I acknowledge that. Socialization programs, sometimes advice on transportation options were provided. That's all true.

What the health authorities are doing is saying: "We are focusing on core services, delivery of actual health care needs." That is the priority that the public recognizes — that even with 20 percent budget increases, they need to focus their dollars on direct care. That's what they're doing, and it's appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: However the minister wants to characterize it, the effects are dramatic on the residents that we represent. On the Sunshine Coast the Arrowhead community drop-in was forced to close its doors because after 20 years, funding was no longer available, despite it being the only community-based mental health program on the Sunshine Coast.

The minister has also stood by and watched Vancouver Coastal cancel a program called the lunch bunch, which was a program that had volunteers bringing secluded seniors together once a month for social interaction. Why has the minister directed Vancouver Coastal to make such sweeping cuts to programs that are essential to community health?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I tried to explain this in my last comment. Even in a world with a 20 percent funding increase in health care, there are still pressures in health care. We've acknowledged that to the member. So what the health authorities are doing is recognizing that even with 20 percent budget increases, what they need to do is make sure they focus all their dollars to delivering direct care, particularly for seniors.

That's care like food programs, bathing programs, adult day care programs that are important for those seniors. The socialization programs and some of those other programs that are important programs — we acknowledge that. But they are not direct health care provisions.

What we have done last year is provide the United Way with a grant of $700,000 to work with community-based programs to deliver those kinds of programs from a community setting. They are not direct health care programs.

They are focusing on delivering direct health care programs to seniors, and they will continue to do so with the 20 percent funding increase over the next three years.

[1400]

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, the change that people of B.C. want is a government that when they say they're going to protect health care, they do it. Families on the Sunshine Coast aren't the only ones hurting because of this government's neglect.

Late last month Vancouver Coastal terminated its contract with Richmond Addiction Services — cancelled not some but all of their funding. Now hundreds of families with concurrent and non-concurrent disorders will be left without critical supports like counselling, assessments, referrals and detox.

[ Page 1302 ]

To the Minister of Health: can he tell those families in need in Richmond why they have been abandoned by the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that statement is absolute nonsense. It is absolute nonsense. I will happily put our record of mental health care and support against the record of your government while you were in power any day of the week.

I am not going to take any lessons to a group that promised a $125 million mental health plan and delivered zero dollars — zero dollars. The fact of the matter is…. I want the member to hear this, because I know in the NDP world, every change is a cut. So I want them to hear this. It's important.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: Richmond Addiction Services were not providing concurrent disorder counselling, which is exactly the kind of counselling we need. So a new program has been provided under Coastal Health in Richmond, providing the kind of concurrent disorders support that those folks need. That is the right decision. That's making the right decision with taxpayer dollars to ensure the people are getting the kind of care they need.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: Expert after expert has spoken out against these cuts. They've told the government that taking away supports for mental health patients will cost everyone in the long run. It means that some of our most vulnerable will go without care, and it is inevitable that some others will end up on the streets. Yet organizations like Richmond Addiction Services are losing their funding for critical services because the Liberals don't have their priorities straight and because this is a government in total chaos.

To the minister: when will the B.C. Liberal government get its priorities right? And when will it stop failing the most vulnerable — like youth, seniors, adults and new immigrants that rely on organizations like Richmond Addiction Services?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, it is classic NDP. They always say the right words. They always pretend that they're doing something. They always want to pretend….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: You might not like the next part. In spite of the fact that they'll say the right thing, they never do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: What they never figured out is that actually it takes more than just saying the right thing. You have to do the right thing. One thing we know about the opposition is they're never really comfortable with facts and numbers because that actually tells the real story.

[1405]

Let me give them a fact that they might find interesting. We have increased the number of adult community mental health beds by 64 percent. It was this government that actually opened up the 100-bed Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions — this government that opened it up.

It is this government that is spending record amounts in mental health and addictions, when that government promised it and didn't deliver a dollar.

S. Simpson: More than 80 agencies who deliver mental health services in the Vancouver area received word in the last few days that their budgets are being cut dramatically. This involves millions of dollars that are lost in services. This was done with no consultation with these groups about the impacts, and these cuts come into force December 1, leaving the groups with no time to plan for these changes and these impacts. One executive director called the cuts staggering and incomprehensible.

Can the minister tell the House why there was no consultation with these organizations about the real impacts of these cuts before they were introduced?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, if I understand what the member is talking about…. What Vancouver Coastal has done is said to all of their contract service providers that they expect them to have an administrative cost structure of no more than 10 percent. That is exactly what Vancouver Coastal has done. That's the leadership Vancouver Coastal has done — by wringing out over $30 million of administrative costs to make sure that they bring down their admin cost to no more than 10 percent.

They're asking the exact same thing from contract service providers. I support them in that decision. Everyone has to do their best to make sure that all dollars are going towards front-line service and not being lost in overhead and administration.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 1303 ]

S. Simpson: The minister should know that he's not building bridges anymore. He's dealing with vulnerable people in British Columbia, and he should treat his file with a little bit more seriousness when it comes to these people. The cavalier attitude of this minister might work with bulldozers; it doesn't work with the mentally ill.

Mental health services are more than an accounting exercise. This is more than an administrative adjustment. This has been reinforced. Police, mental health experts, his own officials have all said that these cuts are flawed, and they will be devastating to our most vulnerable citizens. Does the minister think these groups are making it up, and if so, can he produce one credible independent analysis that supports his position that these cuts won't hurt the mentally ill?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what Vancouver Coastal is doing is responding to what we know in the public, for example, is a very strong desire to make sure that they are minimizing the dollars that go into administration and overhead in our health authorities. Occasionally I sometimes think I hear the NDP supporting that, but I'm not sure. What they are doing is applying that same standard to all of their contract service providers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll tell you this. I think it is completely and entirely appropriate, because they want to ensure that every available dollar is going into front-line care, and they're holding everyone to the same standard of minimizing administrative and overhead costs. I can tell you that they're willing to work with all of the contract service providers to help them get there, but they will need to get there to ensure that every available dollar is going towards front-line care, and that is appropriate.

FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

IN NORTHERN B.C.

R. Austin: This minister is not only cutting addiction services on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland but in northern British Columbia as well, where substance abuse among youth is a significant health concern.

[1410]

Terrace is home to the ATLAS Youth Treatment facility, B.C.'s only 30-day youth addictions treatment program. They have recently learned that they are losing their funding. As of December, ten full-time and ten part-time staff will be gone — front-line staff, by the way, not administrators. Why is the minister dismantling B.C.'s only 30-day youth addictions treatment program?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I want to emphasize to the member opposite that as we discover and learn things about mental health and addiction, we are making sure that we change the way we deliver the program to respond to what we know the best evidence tells us.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Now, just a minute. I know the members are very eager to talk about cuts, but the fact of the matter is that there are some services that have been provided by very good organizations providing good service. They don't cover the continuum of care that is required or the fact that the nature of the discoveries is that they have concurrent disorders. That means we have to provide the right service.

I'm sorry to say this, Member, but it means you actually don't continue every single service you've been providing till infinity. That's actually not the way it works. It may work in the NDP world; it doesn't work in the real world. We're trying to make sure — thoughtfully, carefully — that the health authorities are looking at the programs and ensuring the programs are meeting the needs of the people they're trying to serve.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Minister, this program is one of a kind. It should be replicated, not decimated. All of British Columbia will be affected by its closure. This facility helps not only youth with serious substance abuse problems from northern British Columbia but also youth from across the province, and 495 kids have gone through this facility in the last nine years.

Again to the minister: how does closing the province's only short-term youth addiction facility assist our youth who are at risk?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's always worthy at this time to remind the member that Northern Health has actually seen an increase in their mental health and addiction budgets of 43 percent. I think it's important to remind the member, because they often forget that the budget for mental health and addictions in Northern Health is going up every year for the next three years — up every year. So what has changed?

What has changed is that how they deliver the service is changing because they realize they're dealing with people with concurrent disorders. The program that was delivered through the agency which that member talks about is now being delivered directly through Northern Health to ensure they provide the right service for the folks who need it, and that's exactly what they're doing.

Interjections.

[ Page 1304 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FUNDING FOR REPAIRS AT

JOHNSTON HEIGHTS SECONDARY SCHOOL

J. Brar: After being embarrassed in this House for breaking their promise to fix a leaky Surrey school, this government has changed its mind again. Doug Strachan of the Surrey school board has confirmed that "there will be additional costs" because of the way this government has handled this file.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Will the Minister of Education tell this House how much money was wasted because of this government's post-election decision to cut the funding to fix the leaky school?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm really pleased to get up and speak about this issue today, the Johnston Heights Secondary School, where we did in fact exactly what we said we would do. We spoke with the school district. We had consultation with them. We talked about the project. In the end we agreed with them that this project will go ahead, and we're pleased.

In fact, I've had conversations with the vice-chair of the school district and today had a message from the chair of the school district, who tells me how pleased they are that they're going to be able to go ahead with this project.

We said from the outset that if there were issues of student health and safety that needed to be addressed, we would work with each individual school district where that was the case, and that's exactly what we've done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1415]

J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, it is simply unbelievable. This minister knows very well that the funding to fix the leaky school was approved before the election, that the funding was cancelled after the election without any consultation and that the funding is being given back now, when it became a full-blown embarrassment for this minister and for this government.

This government cuts the entire $130,000 grant to B.C. School Sports, then turns around and flushes hundreds of thousands of dollars down the drain because they cannot decide whether fixing a leaky school is a priority or not.

Again to the Minister of Education: can the Minister of Education confirm that taxpayers are on the hook for at least an additional half a million dollars because of this government's mismanagement of the Johnston Heights School situation — enough to pay for B.C. School Sports several times over?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite is somewhat mistaken, and I'm happy to review this. We absolutely again are delighted that the Johnston Heights remediation project is going ahead, as are the school district, the students and the teachers, and we've heard that. We've also heard…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …from the school board chair today that they are looking at re-tendering this, because they believe they may be able to achieve some savings.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, this really is a good-news story, a government that said it would work with school districts and has done that. Let me remind the members opposite and all of us about the over $186 million that we've invested in Surrey since 2001.

MANUFACTURING OF

OLYMPIC GAMES FLAGS

K. Corrigan: Well, first it was knockoff Cowichan sweaters, then the fake B.C. Olympic wine. Now we've learned that instead of using local manufacturers, B.C.'s Olympic flags will be made in China. B.C. manufacturers have made it clear that they can make the flags here at home.

My question to the Minister of State for the Olympics: why has this government done nothing to ensure that B.C. workers and businesses get the full benefit of the Olympics?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. McNeil: I've been advised by VANOC that actually 92 percent of all contracts by value have been awarded in Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

[ Page 1305 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: Of these, 86 percent were awarded to firms in British Columbia. When it comes to VANOC licensees, I'm pleased to say that 90 percent are Canadian companies.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move a motion that a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to the Public Service Act, the appointment of an individual to hold the office as Merit Commissioner for the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT A MERIT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the said special committee is to have the powers of a select standing committee. They are enumerated in the motion that I've provided to my friend, the Opposition House Leader.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to

section 5.01 of the Public Service Act (RSBC 1996, c. 385), the appointment of an individual to hold office as the Merit Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee, and is also empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to conduct meetings by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to telephone and videoconferencing;

(

d) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(

e) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment of the House, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner be comprised of John Rustad (Convener), Douglas Horne , Norm Letnick , Dawn Black and Leonard Krog .]

Motion approved.

Petitions

H. Bains: I have a petition to present by one homeless person, Morgan Trent Forrie — 429 signatures asking this House to eliminate homelessness.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport; in Committee B, in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 11 — LABOUR MOBILITY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

section 1.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to make a couple of comments generally about some of the questions I'm going to ask today and some of the concerns that I have expressed in the past. I certainly said in second reading that I was going to ask some very specific questions in the committee stage, and I'm looking forward to doing that.

I also want to reiterate that we're very supportive of labour mobility but do believe that the vast majority — and we know that the vast majority — of workers can move from province to province without any barriers at all.

So going specifically…. Oh, sorry. I also wanted to point out that the commitments that have been made under trade agreements — the agreement on internal trade, which is referenced in many, many sections of this act — were made without any consultation with the people of British Columbia, just as the government negotiated and signed the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement behind closed doors without consultation with the people of British Columbia. So I do have some concerns about deferring to the agreement on internal trade.

With that, going specifically to the

definitions, I have some questions. In the first definition of "Agreement," it says it "means the Agreement on Internal Trade, signed in 1994 by the governments of Canada, the provinces, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as amended from time to time."

I want to ask the minister…. I just want to be clear that this includes the amendments agreed to most recently at the end of 2008 and then finalized in 2009 around labour mobility,

chapter 7 of the AIT.

[ Page 1306 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes, I confirm that the AIT has been amended by nine protocols of amendment. The most recent of which relating to labour mobility was signed by the jurisdictions' first ministers in January 2009.

K. Corrigan: I also wanted to inquire about the amendments to

chapter 17, which I understand were also agreed to in the same time frame. They've been referenced on websites, federal websites, but have not yet been publicized or released. These are the amendments around the dispute resolution process.

Am I to understand that when we are referring to the agreement on internal trade, we are also including the signed but not publicized amendments to

chapter 17?

Hon. M. Stilwell: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: So under the next definition, we have "'applicable BC regulator,' in relation to an occupation, means the regulatory authority that is authorized to issue certification in British Columbia in relation to that occupation." I'm wondering if the minister could tell me how many authorities there are.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Before I answer the question, I neglected to introduce the people who are here, so if you'll just give me a second. Mark Gillis, executive director of labour market development, on my left; to the left of him, Bruce Macallum, legal services branch, Attorney General; to my right, Tony Loughran, executive director of governance; and to his right, Katherine Thiessen-Wale — who are here to help me.

The answer to the question was 59.

K. Corrigan: In the next definition — sorry, two

definitions on from there — the "BC equivalent occupation," it says: "in relation to an extraprovincial occupation, means an occupation in British Columbia that consists of a set of jobs that is the same as or is substantially similar to the set of jobs that constitutes the extraprovincial occupation."

[1430]

My question to the minister on this one is: who decides what is an equivalent set of jobs?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer to the question is it would be the regulatory body closest to that occupation who was consulted with and helped to articulate those

definitions and standards.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that unless, of course, there is a challenge under the act, in which case it would be the regulatory body and then, if it goes through all the appeal processes, the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Stilwell: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: Under "measure," it says it "includes a practice, policy, standard and procedure." I just wanted to clarify that when we're talking about measures taken perhaps by a regulatory authority — to make it very clear — it doesn't just mean something that's in their regulations or written requirements for certification and so on. It's very wide-ranging and includes essentially everything that a regulatory body would require — whether they do it by writing or they do it in a policy book, or whatever manner they require something from an applicant.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The act defines "approved measure" with reference to

section 2 of the act. These measures are inconsistent with

chapter 7, which have been approved by the province on the basis of the measure constituting a legitimate objective. In specific limited circumstances, the AIT permits jurisdictions to impose measures such as requirements for additional education, training, experience, examination or assessments that must be satisfied for a worker to be granted certification to practise his or her occupation in B.C. In other words, it can be any of those but, obviously, within the context of the certification.

K. Corrigan: I must admit I'm still learning the procedures. So that is all the questions I have on the

definitions.

M. Sather: On

section 1,

definitions. This Labour Mobility Act is, I think, the strangest piece of legislation I have ever seen presented to this House. It reminds me of Seinfeld , which was a story about nothing. This is a bill about nothing in and of itself. It's a bill about another act.

As we go through the discussion of this bill, the

definitions of terms, as vague and amorphous as they are, must be examined. So the "BC equivalent occupation." Can the minister give a couple of examples of a B.C. equivalent occupation?

[1435]

Hon. M. Stilwell: B.C. equivalent occupation is defined further to the principles that there will be automatic certification only when the occupation for which one is certified in another jurisdiction is substantially the same as that in British Columbia. An example would be potentially a podiatrist or possibly a nurse practitioner.

M. Sather: Well, we've got an example that we can perhaps go back to.

I don't understand the wording of "measure" under the

definitions. Measure is defined as "a practice, policy, standard and procedure." Now, is a measure a practice and the procedure related to it, or is it a policy and the procedure related to it? Or is it a standard and the procedure related

[ Page 1307 ]

to it? Or is a measure a practice, policy and standard and the procedure related to it?

This is really unclear wording. Could the minister please elucidate what is meant by that definition?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that it can include any or all of those things in the context of certification.

M. Sather: In that case, I would submit that it should say "'measure' includes a practice, policy, standard or procedure." Would she not agree?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think the answer is that it could include any or all of them.

M. Sather: Obviously, it's misworded. It's certainly not simply a housekeeping matter, because none of these words — practice, policy, standard or procedure — are defined in Bill 11. This bill is all about deregulating "measures," and we really need to know what these measures refer to.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think the answer is that this is a drafting style that is meant to cover any or all of those particular aspects within the context of certification by a particular regulatory body.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

D. Black: This is, as one of my colleagues said previously, a very complex piece of legislation, because it underlays or overlays the AIT and TILMA, which in fact relate back to NAFTA and international trade agreements that Canada has taken obligations under. So it is complex, and one

section leads back to another section. It really takes a fine-tooth comb to try to figure out exactly what's going on here.

section 2, as we understand it, it makes it law that a B.C. regulator cannot propose or apply measures that restrict labour mobility, and only the minister can approve measures which are allowed, because the measures seek to meet a "legitimate objective." We know that legitimate objectives also have been very narrowly defined in other matters. So we have some concern about that.

[1440]

We understand this means that regulatory authorities must recognize out-of-province workers' certifications, but that if they believe the qualifications required from out of province are not good enough for whatever reason in British Columbia, they're not allowed to deny the worker their certification unless the minister specifically allows them to do that.

I want to refer to the situation for social workers, because a person is allowed to practise as a social worker in the province of Alberta if they have a two-year certification from a community college,

whereas in British Columbia a social worker must have a four-year degree to practise as a social worker.

I think

section 2 also relates to the notice of exemptions.

Article 708 of the AIT allows parties to provide notice to the other parties that an inconsistent measure, as I've mentioned about social work, is still permissible when the purpose of the measure is to achieve a legitimate objective and requires that the party imposing the additional requirement demonstrates a difference in skill, knowledge, ability.

Article 711 defines the legitimate objectives.

In the process, again as an example for social work, would the minister be considering bringing in an exemption? We know that in British Columbia we've had a number of very tragic cases of child deaths in this province. True, the only, I suppose, positives that have come out of those tragic situations have been that we've brought in procedures to attempt to ensure that that doesn't happen.

So my specific question to the minister: is she considering an exemption for social workers that would ensure that people with certificates in social work would have to come up to meet the traditional B.C. standard of a four-year degree?

Hon. M. Stilwell: With respect to any specific case, I have no specific plans at this moment. Obviously, each case is going through a similar process where the professionals and regulatory bodies have been working together and collaborating on trying to articulate as best they can these qualifications across Canada.

Both I, as minister responsible for this act, and the minister responsible for that regulatory body could examine anyone on a case-by-case basis. The exceptions would obviously be where there is persuasive reason to think that health, safety or consumer protection is an issue.

D. Black: I would ask the minister then…. This is not the first time the issue of the differences in social work qualifications has been raised in the Legislature. Has she given thought to and will she be bringing in an exemption for social work?

Hon. M. Stilwell: With respect to any particular regulatory body, I don't have anything specific to say except to emphasize that the goals are twofold really. And that is, as you know, to grant qualified workers entitlement to practise their occupations — I think there has been general acceptance of that as a principle — and that exceptions would be considered with a regulatory body not on a case-by-case basis of a particular worker but of a particular occupation or work category when there is concern that health, safety or consumer protection is at risk.

[ Page 1308 ]

K. Corrigan: Since the previous member has brought up a question of different occupations, I'd also like to mention at this point — although it could be mentioned at several points — an example that I read about in the last couple of days, which was actually brought up by a Conservative member in Ontario in reference to the similar legislation that is being considered — Bill 175 in Ontario.

[1445]

The comment made by that Conservative member was that there is a real concern in their jurisdiction being brought forward by the optometrists of that province who were feeling that the lower standards in British Columbia for certification in many, many different occupations was problematic in that there could be a race to the bottom.

The particular occupation of optometrist was mentioned. I can't verify whether this is true or not, but what that member said was that the requirements were for four years to be certified as an optometrist in Ontario and that it was less than a year to be certified as an optometrist in British Columbia.

Following up on the question that was just raised with regard to social workers, is it being suggested that a person who has a certification as an optometrist in British Columbia, if it was reversed in terms of requirements, would be able to pass without any further certification required?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Rather than sort of exhausting the 228 occupations, I think the main point is that the intention is to allow a clear and transparent and fair way for people with like credentials to have them assessed into practice across Canada. I think all of the regulatory bodies that have collaborated and worked together on this have come to points of scope of practice and training that can be complicated, particularly because it represents a transition to a more competency-based framework. So over time there will be these discussions. I can't answer specifically for optometrists at this time.

K. Corrigan: You're right. We can't go through all of them. I won't bring up any more. I don't know about any of my colleagues.

Perhaps to demonstrate with a rather stark example, I would like, though, to see if I can get a response on that — whether it is possible that somebody could apply with that much of a disparity in training time, and if they are practising….

I'm jumping ahead a little bit, to be honest here. But since we're on it…. If there is that much of a disparity in training time, if they are practising the same competencies, is it possible that they could apply and that the regulatory authority could eventually be forced to recognize that certification? I think that's the nub of what this is about.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, I think that a move to basing requirements on competency is the real point of this, so time spent is not likely to be a primary consideration. The actual competency of what the person is able to do well and that exceptions would be based on health, safety and consumer protection, rather than specific time, is probably the answer to that.

[1450]

K. Corrigan: With regard to

section 2 again, I just want to clarify something, because

section 2 references paragraph 1 of

article 708 of the agreement on internal trade, which is the labour mobility

chapter of the agreement on internal trade. I just want to make it really clear that what is happening is that this bill that we're dealing with today is therefore deferring, in many ways, to

article 708. Included in that is the reference in that paragraph 1 to

article 401, 402, 403 and

article 705 and parts of 706.

I just want to clarify. Does that mean, therefore, that through this

section — and generally — those provisions that I've just mentioned govern or are included in this act?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that those are incorporated by referencing

article 708 of the agreement, which effectively prevents B.C. regulators from maintaining or creating new barriers such as training, working experience, examinations and residence requirements for extraprovincial workers who wish to be certified in B.C.

K. Corrigan: I just want to reiterate something that one of my colleagues has already said. I want to clarify that when we are talking about legitimate objectives, we are also incorporating then — I would assume — the various decisions, the rules, the decisions that have been made by tribunals, and so on, in terms of how a legitimate objective has been interpreted.

I would also make the point that in my estimation, they've been very narrowly construed. We can take a look at it and say, "Oh, a legitimate objective. That sounds quite reasonable," but in fact, they've been very narrowly construed.

I just want confirmation that that body of tribunal decisions and law that is attached to that very specific phrase is therefore being incorporated into this act.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer, I think, is that although not directly incorporated, obviously when making the decision about a legitimate objection, one would have to be guided by those things.

M. Sather: On

section 2, approved measures, it says: "An applicable BC regulator must not propose or apply, in relation to an occupation or an application for certification in relation to an occupation, a measure that

[ Page 1309 ]

constitutes an inconsistent measure referred to in paragraph 1 of

Article 708 of the Agreement…." That's the agreement on internal trade.

The agreement I'm looking at,

article 708, says: "Subject to

article 709, each party undertakes to mutually recognize the occupational qualifications required of workers of any other party and to reconcile differences in occupational standards in the manner specified in annex 708." There's no mention there in

article 708 of inconsistent measures. Can the minister comment on that, please?

[1455]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I just have to say this experience has certainly killed any idea that I might have enjoyed a career in law. [Laughter.]

I am advised that

article 708 deals with exceptions to rules. So if the measure is otherwise inconsistent with

chapter 7, you could seek legitimate objection.

I want to say that as a matter of policy, there will be few, if any, such measures approved by the two ministers. The

section is intended to clarify that the proposal or application of such measures by regulators themselves is not permitted and that in practical fact we have found that the regulators have worked very well across the country and have not found huge difficulties or differences when they actually tried to articulate the like standards.

M. Sather: Well, the minister's esteemed legal counsel will know that every word in law has to have meaning. Here we have a phrase, "inconsistent measures," that is not defined in the agreement on internal trade. It's not defined in Bill 11. So can the minister tell this House: what is an inconsistent measure?

[1500]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm not sure if this is helpful, except to partly reiterate what I said. If the measure is otherwise inconsistent with

chapter 7, you therefore have grounds, as I understand it, to seek a legitimate objection. The word "inconsistent" basically refers back to and is parroted in

article 708.

M. Sather: Well, we need to talk a little bit about legitimate objectives. So that the viewing public understands, a legitimate objective in essence says that you have this piece of legislation that prescribes certain things. But if you have a legitimate reason to go beyond the scope of that legislation, you can do so. It's been widely quoted already.

What we're talking about in this case is

article 709 of the agreement on internal trade. I'll just quote one part of that article. Maybe I'll have to say a little bit more. It says: "Where it is established that the measure is inconsistent…the measure is still permissible…if it can be demonstrated that (

c) the measure is not more mobility restrictive than necessary to achieve that legitimate objective."

In other words, one has to indicate, one has to demonstrate that going outside of the parameters of this agreement, although it might restrict mobility of labour, is not more restrictive than necessary. Now, "necessary" is a very qualitative word. It's not a definitive word. One can have one's own

interpretation of what necessary means.

I'd like to ask the minister if she can tell me under what circumstances…. Has it ever occurred, and under what circumstances, within the agreement on internal trade, which has been around since the '90s, that a measure has been defeated, shall we say, using that

article (c)? In other words, has anyone ever been able to demonstrate the strength of that — that the mobility…? The AIT, of course, is more than labour mobility, but we're sticking to labour mobility.

Has anyone ever been able to use this

section to circumvent or go outside the provisions of the agreement on internal trade?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is: not to our knowledge. I won't say "not to my knowledge."

M. Sather: Precisely. That's the case. No one has ever been able to use legitimate objectives, because it's fatally flawed. You cannot possibly prove that the measure is not more labour restrictive than necessary. So we're dealing with a real house of cards here, and I know what the intention of the government is with this legislation. It's certainly not built on sound principles of law, and that's maybe the way it was intended.

[1505]

K. Corrigan: Just in picking up what the member was speaking about in referencing

section 708, paragraph 2 specifies that for greater certainty, for the purposes of the application of 1(

b) of

article 708 — in other words, talking about legitimate objectives or reasons to not have this bill apply — "a mere difference between the certification requirements of a party related to academic credentials, education, training, experience, examination or assessment methods and those of any other party is not by itself sufficient to justify the imposition of additional education, training, experience, examination or assessment requirements as necessary to achieve a legitimate objective."

Again, I appreciate what the minister is saying about everybody working together, but the reality is that we have different regulatory frameworks, different levels of regulation and different levels of education for good reason. These regulatory authorities have made a decision, in the best interests of the education of their residents and for the health and safety of their residents, that a certain level of training is necessary.

[ Page 1310 ]

This reference in paragraph 708 makes it very clear that that ability to decide in a province what the appropriate level of training is going to be — or experience or examination or assessment methods…. They're all subject to challenge under this act. Have I got it right? That's my question.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think the answer relates again to one of the primary goals of the act, which is to move to a more competency-based system recognizing that while, of course, training, experience and so on feed into and are related to competency, of themselves, they don't necessarily prove competency.

In practical reality, when the regulating bodies from these occupations got together, they were able to figure that out themselves and assess around the margins of what might be different in reference to actual competency. So it's meant to be, I think, ultimately a more fair and equitable way to assess whether people are competent to do something.

K. Corrigan: The minister has more than once said that when various regulatory bodies have gotten together, they've been able to work these things out. My question for the minister is: if that is the case and it's worked in the past, why do we need such an onerous provision that leaves out the regulators in

an act before this House?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I actually meant in reference to the work that was done in response to this mobility agreement across the country.

K. Corrigan: I was under the impression that earlier the minister had said that there was…. In reference earlier when we were discussing how it has worked in the past, I was under the impression that the minister had said that given the chance, regulatory authorities or provincial institutions, ministers or whatever had been able to work out some of these differences in the past. Did I misinterpret what the minister said?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I apologize. I should have been more clear. I meant in response to the prospect of implementing this act.

K. Corrigan: Maybe I could, just as an aside, ask the minister what her opinion is on the efforts in the past for various regulatory authorities either acting as regulatory authorities or through umbrella bodies — how they have done in terms of harmonizing credentials, education, training, experience and so on in the past.

[1510]

Hon. M. Stilwell: You know, I wouldn't necessarily comment or use my own personal experience as a reference point. I think certainly in the past there have been lots of regulatory bodies who have been able to. What we're trying to do is enshrine it more so that all regulatory bodies aspire to that level of collaboration and working together across the country. That is, I think, what my answer is.

If the question is, are there any trades or professions where full labour mobility may be difficult to implement…? Then there are a couple of exceptions — the legal profession, of course, with the issue of Quebec civil law being one of them. All provinces, including British Columbia, have a temporary exception around nurse practitioners, which is a new field and new scope of practice, but they will work towards articulating that.

K. Corrigan: The minister mentioned one occupation where there could be some differences or some difficulties, but I guess I haven't quite been convinced by the suggestion that this is going to encourage regulatory authorities. If there is an ability to do this, again I just would like further clarification. Why do we need to impose this act, these provisions in this act, if it can be done a different way which is more collaborative?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I hope I have a definitive response. The province is accountable for compliance with AIT and therefore requires its regulatory bodies to do this work for them. So I think it relates back to what we have undertaken through the AIT

M. Sather: The minister has referenced the essential nature of

article 708 of the agreement on internal trade to this bill.

Article 708 says that "Subject to

article 709, each party undertakes to mutually recognize the occupational qualifications required of workers of any other party and to reconcile the differences in occupational standards in the manner specified in annex 708."

Then it's made clear that annex 708 is of the same essential quality or importance to this bill. I wanted to ask the minister about

part 1,

section 2 of annex 708, which talks about undertaking an assessment of occupations, identifying occupations, finding commonality. Then it says: "Parties also agree to invite other regulatory bodies to do the same."

[1515]

How does this work? Can the minister explain? You have two provinces, let's say, that undertake an assessment. They would consult with regulatory bodies, I would have thought. What are the other bodies, and where do they fit into this process as outlined in that part of the annex?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Sorry, if I could just ask the member opposite to expand on his question, because I am not sure what exactly he would like to know.

M. Sather: It was more of a process question. But I could continue on with

part 1, then, to ask the minister,

[ Page 1311 ]

looking at sections 3 and 5, which talk about a high level of commonality…. "Where a high level of commonality has been determined to exist in the territories of two or more parties" — at

section 3. What occupations in B.C. have been found to have a high level of commonality of occupational standards? Can the minister tell me about some of those?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Two significant examples would be all of the Red Seal trades and professional engineers.

M. Sather: Well,

section 5 talks about occupational analysis, comparing the standards and "assess and measure the extent of the differences, both in terms of scope and of required level of performance. Thresholds will be defined for comparability. By way of example only, 80 percent similarity might be considered a high level of commonality while 60 to 80 percent might be considered a moderate level of commonality."

We're trying to assess the commonality of occupations, but how do we assess it? I mean, it says here that 80 percent might be considered a high level of commonality. So 60 to 80 might be considered a moderate level.

How can we determine the degree of commonality, which is essential to this bill? How can we determine that based on these exceedingly loose guidelines?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Without getting into a specific occupation, I would just say that the regulating bodies basically will work to articulate standards to the best that they can. If the discordance related to the reasons for legitimate exceptions — namely, health, safety or significant consumer protection — then there would be a process to resolve it.

M. Sather: I think we're going to be completely swimming in the dark here if we try to apply these measures, if you will, to occupations and trades in British Columbia.

[1520]

Still under

part 1 of annex 708,

section 4 says: "If the parties" — that's a couple provinces we're talking about here — "determine that there is insufficient information currently available on which to make an initial assessment of comparability…."

How many occupations are we talking about here in terms of insufficient information currently available to make an assessment of comparability? Have we got huge numbers? Have we just got a couple in British Columbia where we don't have this kind of information? It seems to me that if we don't have that information and we can't assess comparability, we get further…. How are you going to decide who's who in the zoo if you have no way to determine whether they're comparable?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think the practical answer is that out of 225 defined occupations, four or five have not yet come to agreement. Practically speaking, this has not been as difficult as it might seem.

M. Sather: Thank the good Lord for that — that there aren't more. Thank you to the minister for giving me a number there.

Continuing on to

section 6 of

part 1 of annex 708, it says: "The occupational analysis will not consider differences in training methods since it is recognized that competencies and abilities can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience."

If I look, for example, at registered massage therapists in British Columbia — and they, as the minister will know, are regulated under the Health Professions Act — a registered massage therapist in British Columbia has to have taken 3,000 hours of training, including 330 hours of clinical practice. That's seven semesters, 28 months of straight education with not more than a three-week break anywhere. In my eight years of post-secondary education, I never kept up a pace like that. They go to school nine to five every day, four to eight classes per day.

They are saying that competencies and abilities can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience. In the three other provinces that are considered to be comparable — Newfoundland, Ontario and Alberta — there's a reciprocal agreement now with those provinces, and there are considerable differences. Before I ask specifically about the differences for that profession, I wanted the minister…. Could she confirm for me whether there actually is a reciprocal agreement for registered massage therapists in place with Newfoundland, Ontario and, recently, Alberta?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is I don't know. I don't know if there's an agreement between those two provinces on massage therapists.

M. Sather: Well, the registered massage therapists understand that there is, but it hasn't been really confirmed to them.

Alberta, which is now part of this reciprocal agreement that we can't really confirm but registered massage therapists tell me is out there, can be certified with 2,200 hours of training. That's more than one-quarter less than in British Columbia.

[1525]

According to

section 6 of this part of the AIT, it says that it is recognized that "competencies and abilities can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience." Here we have one group that has only 75 percent of the training of the other group, yet they're being harmonized apparently.

So what does that mean? What are we saying — that the training that the registered massage therapists of British Columbia took, which is certainly more in-depth than that which those folks in Alberta did, has no mean-

[ Page 1312 ]

ing, has no significance? So we can just wash it out and say, as it says here: "What the heck. Competencies can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience"?

We can't have it both ways. Either training means something and we value it — I mean, certainly those students paid big money for it, worked really hard for it — or it has no meaning at all.

Can the minister comment on that? This is a significant part of this bill. Here's a group of professionals who are mighty upset right now that they're seeing people moving in from Alberta and going to take the same jobs that they got, with less than three-quarters of the amount of training that they have. Can the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I actually think that example you just gave me is arguing my point that competency is not measured by hours. However, what I think we're really doing here is saying that it's up to the regulatory bodies to apply AIT. If they are certified to be a massage therapist in Ontario, then they will be certified here. Those two regulating bodies have worked that out or are working that out.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

M. Sather: Well, with all due respect, what the minister just said is very troubling to me. She said I made her point that the amount of training doesn't matter, that hours don't matter. So what we are saying to this group of professionals and to others in the province of British Columbia is: "The training you took — that you worked hard for, that you paid big money for — doesn't matter a whit because somebody else can come in and take the same job you've got, with a lot less training."

In fact, the minister might want to know — based on the information I have, and she can tell me and correct me if I'm wrong — that registered massage therapists in Alberta, some of them, have 700 hours of training. I mean, they have been grandfathered with 700 hours. So are these folks with 700 hours of training going to be considered equivalent to our registered massage therapists with 3,000 hours of training?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think we're getting sidetracked. That is not exactly what I am saying. What I am saying is that competency has to be measured in more than hours and that for me to stand and discuss any particular occupation, outside of what the regulatory bodies themselves have collaborated on and articulated, doesn't make sense.

All I'm saying is that to move to a competency-based framework allows anyone who thinks they are trained and has certification in Canada to practise to move to the province they wish to.

M. Sather: That's the problem. So the high level of commonality, then, that we're talking about…. Given everything the minister has said so far, it must in fact be dependent on ignoring significant differences in training. Is that not so?

[1530]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that if a person is certified by a regulatory body in another province, B.C. will accept that certification.

M. Sather: Notwithstanding any differences in training that they may have then?

Hon. M. Stilwell: That is correct.

M. Sather: That's worse than preposterous. It's downright dangerous. What message is that sending to the professionals and the tradespeople of our province? It's saying that your advanced education is meaningless. It's saying that you don't have to go out and get a good education because what the heck, why should you have to?

Somebody in Saskatchewan, somebody in Alberta, can come in with way, way lower qualifications and, as the minister said, walk right into your job. That's what she said, in essence. That's why we're so concerned about this bill.

The last thing I want to ask the minister under

part 1 of annex 708 is under

section 9. It says:

"In cases referred to in paragraph 8, each party shall also seek to make accommodations to its licensing, certification or registration requirements to give appropriate recognition to the training, skills, experience and education of out-of-province workers. Such accommodations may involve the development and implementation of alternate systems for the assessment of their qualifications, such as systems that allow workers of another party to reach the required qualifications through additional modular training or supervised work experience."

I can understand saying that you have to bring up your qualifications through additional — what they're calling here — "modular training," but it says "or supervised work experience." So in other words, all you have to be is supervised at work, and you become equivalent with the other occupation. Could I please have comment from the minister on that one?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I don't think I have a complete answer, but I will say that I don't interpret this as saying that there's no value of education.

As a physician who trained in one province and moved to British Columbia, I see it as a way for me to take my qualifications to work where I want to work.

As for whether supervising somebody's work is adequate, the fact is in medical residencies, that's exactly what happens. So in my experience, that's understandable.

To me, it just reinforces the point that this is the regulatory bodies that have the responsibility to apply the AIT. They have been able to work this out. For me to

[ Page 1313 ]

stand and talk about whether it's massage therapy or another occupation, I don't feel that we're getting to where we want to get.

It's up to the regulatory bodies to apply the AIT. They get together and try to articulate the standards, which so far, approximately 220 out of 228 have been able to do. The other ones continue to work on it. My understanding is they're making progress, and if they can't do it, there's a way of resolving it.

[1535]

M. Sather: Well, that's simply not the case. The minister can't simply say that it's up to the regulatory bodies. Because as we'll see as we look into this legislation further on, the minister and the government can override those bodies with considerable authority.

But it's legislation — how badly construed and drafted — that's being brought forth by this government and this minister. So to stand up and wash their hands of it and say that it's up to the regulatory bodies, and that they're getting along not too bad, really. I'd have to say that it's quite missing the mark if we refuse to or don't address those very considerable issues that are at play here.

One thing on

part 2 of, again, the annex 708 of the agreement on internal trade, which says — and this is "Development of new occupational standards and changes to existing standards":

"If occupational standards have not been established in the territory of a party" — a province — "in respect of a particular occupation but exist in the territory of any other party" — to the agreement — "the party without the standards will develop its standards in a manner that will facilitate future reconciliation, taking into account the existing standards in the territories and the other parties."

So they're to reconcile their differences "in a manner that will facilitate future reconciliation." I would like the minister to explain to me how this one works. "In a manner that will facilitate future reconciliation" doesn't say anything to me. How exactly will they do that?

They have to take into account the existing standards. Okay. But the bottom line, it seems to me, is that this is a Wild West show and that trades, occupations are really being given no significant direction here. Can the minister please comment on

part 2 and on how these bodies are supposed to proceed with their business?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I just want to clarify that we're reading off the same document. I have final text,

chapter 7, "Labour Mobility," approved December 5, 2008. I think I heard you refer to 708, subsection 9, and I don't see one. Did I mishear?

M. Sather: Annex 708.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm still not sure that we're reading off the same document. Do you have the document approved December 5, 2008?

M. Sather: I'm not sure. Can the minister tell me when that became public?

Hon. M. Stilwell: It was ratified January '09 at the first ministers meeting.

The Chair: Member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, on

section 2. We are talking about paragraph 1 of

article 708. It's what we're referring to.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will complete my comments there.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to clarify something with the minister before we go on. Originally, when I asked about the number of applicable B.C. regulators that there were, the response was that there were 59.

[1540]

Now I'm hearing that we're talking about 220 of 228 regulatory bodies that have, essentially, harmonized. Is one of them federal, across the country, and one…? No? Can I get clarification on that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is: the 228 refers to defined occupations; the 59 refers to regulators. So for instance, the Industry Training Authority would have in excess of 70 occupations within it.

K. Corrigan: So I just want to be really clear that it is the understanding of the minister that of the 228 occupational groups that this act would apply to…. That is the total, first of all, at this time. I understand that there could be a new regulatory body or a newly regulated occupation, but as it is now, there are 228 occupations, and 220 of those 228 occupations, or the regulatory bodies that govern them, have harmonized, to their satisfaction, the requirements across the country.

Hon. M. Stilwell: So my advice is that there are 228 occupations. I believe there are four or five that have not currently harmonized with British Columbia.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

D. Black: On

section 3, when we look at subsection 4, it says that a regulatory authority must consider and issue certification in accordance with

chapter 7 of the AIT. So again, we're going back to the AIT, which basically means, almost automatically, that they will be certified.

Article 706, in paragraph 1, says that "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,

[ Page 1314 ]

experience, examinations or assessments as part of that certification process."

This appears to mean that a B.C. regulatory authority cannot deny an extraprovincial — a worker who comes from out of province — a certificate if the training and certification standards in the other province were lower than in B.C., unless there's a specific exemption approved by the minister, which we spoke about a little bit earlier.

So the minister has been talking about, several times today, that she views this bill as bringing in a level of competency-based approval for certification across the country and here in British Columbia.

My question is one that I think some of my other colleagues have been concerned about, and that is that we worry that standards are going to be lowered — not just in British Columbia but even in other parts of the country — because of this provision.

So I want to ask the minister: when she talks about competency-based, is she talking about a high level of competency, or are we, perhaps, going to enter into a situation where competency levels are reduced?

[1545]

Hon. M. Stilwell: This bill does not make reference to levels or specific standards. What it does is refer to certifications to practise or perform the work in every province in Canada being acceptable in B.C.

D. Black: But that doesn't give me much comfort because the concern is that standards will get lowered across the country. That's the concern we're hearing from people in different occupations and different professions in British Columbia.

So I ask the minister again: isn't there a concern? We fear that there is a situation promoted through this bill and the other trade agreements that will reduce the level of certification and the competency of workers.

Hon. M. Stilwell: The assertion that this bill will cause decreased standards is an

interpretation that I don't think is built into this bill. The bill refers to adopting national and international standards. So I can't see anything in this bill that requires me to believe that there will be a diminution of standards.

K. Corrigan: In

section 3, the process by which an application would be made and, then, the follow-up process and so on…. The regulatory framework and the requirements, and so on, are included in that section.

But this issue that has been raised by my colleague in terms of the lowering of standards, I want to ask the simple question. Who is going to be applying? Is it not always the person who has had a lower level of training applying to challenge when they are not being certified by a B.C. regulatory authority?

Is that not where the conflict is going to happen — when you have somebody who has received a lower level of training? Is it also not true that we won't have any cases where somebody who has a higher level of training is going to be challenging under this act?

Hon. M. Stilwell: Again, I think that to frame the question in terms of higher standards and lower standards is subjective. The reason we have certifications of workers in any province is to have a simple and clear statement that the person is able to practise that occupation. That is basically what has happened. The regulatory bodies, as I said, for most of the defined occupations in Canada have been able to articulate those standards for those certificates across the country.

[1550]

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, and I've got to say that I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that we received assurances today that of the 228 occupations in this province that would be covered by this act, only four or five have not harmonized their requirements and that everybody's happy. It surprises me, but I'm honestly saying that I'm comforted by that.

But I do want to just ask the question again — the very small point but, I think, important — about who the applicant would be. My understanding is that the only time there would be a need for an application is if somebody is challenging the regulatory authorities' ability to deny them certification. My understanding would be that maybe there will be no applications. Maybe there's no need for this bill at all because it's all been worked out.

But if there are challenges, will it not always be somebody who has a lower level of training, a lower standard of training? Those will be the only people challenging under this section.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Going back to the initial part of your statement about the 228 occupations. I just want to clarify that those are agreements between B.C. and another province. It doesn't mean, necessarily, that all two hundred and X occupations have agreed across Canada, but B.C. has agreements with other provinces.

With respect to the legitimate objections, that does not depend on a test case. In fact, at the moment we have an objection — it is time-limited — around nurse practitioners. That's at the ministerial level. It doesn't require a challenge to make that exemption.

K. Corrigan: This harmonization. Is that…? Those agreements have been made, I would assume. Maybe you could clarify. How many of those harmonizations are with the province of Alberta?

Hon. M. Stilwell: My advice is: all of them.

[ Page 1315 ]

K. Corrigan: There's a lot that I don't like about the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, but it does have provision for a process of negotiation with regard to occupations. It gets back to our comments, or many of our comments, that we are concerned that we are using, essentially, a sledgehammer, and we're using the courts where a process which could work is to have discussions and negotiations.

[1555]

The minister has confirmed that it's where…. My understanding is that it's been a very difficult two-year process to go through that, and that type of process has been abandoned with this legislation. I'm wondering if the minister has any comment on that.

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is that the labour mobility protections are replicated or similar in TILMA and AIT.

K. Corrigan: It brings me to another question about the relationship between TILMA and this bill. If a worker wanted to challenge a decision of a regulatory authority under this act, would they have the ability if they were from B.C. or if they were from Alberta…?

Let's just use the example of Alberta, because it's the most obvious one. If they were from Alberta, would they have the ability to challenge either under TILMA or under this act? And how are the two going to fit together?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm advised that they could select their remedy.

K. Corrigan: Okay, thank you for that. They could select their remedy.

Are there any circumstances where one would be layered on top of the other? The reason I'm asking that is that TILMA has some pretty stringent provisions in it, and my concern would be that TILMA provisions would be layered on top of Bill 11. I just want to be really clear that the remedy would be one or the other.

If that is the case and they couldn't mesh the two together in any way…. Just a little bit, perhaps, of legal explanation of that. I'd like some comfort in that the two would not be meshed together and that the more stringent application of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility would not be layered on top of and meshed with this act.

[1600]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The court or the panel would decide that.

K. Corrigan: Is there anything in this act or in the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement that it would be your understanding that would prohibit an individual who did not receive satisfaction in one forum going to the other forum to seek relief?

The Chair: Just to remind the member to speak through the Chair.

Hon. M. Stilwell: My advice is that, practically speaking, that wouldn't happen because the court or panel would sort that out.

K. Corrigan: The court or the panel would sort that out. Okay. I'm just trying to get my head around this. There are two different forums, and if somebody decided that they wanted to challenge through Bill 11, and they were somehow unsuccessful, at what point…? Would it be in the second challenge?

Are you suggesting that if they then challenged under the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement…? This would be a different type of forum. It would be a tribunal, not the court. Are you saying that that person would be refused the opportunity to bring their challenge by that tribunal, or vice versa, if they were to attempt to do that? I just haven't seen where that would be the case in either this act or in the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

Hon. M. Stilwell: There would be nothing to stop a person from challenging under the other act.

The Chair: Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, bear in mind we're discussing

section 3 here, not

section 4 of the bill.

K. Corrigan: Yes, thank you very much.

I want to talk a bit about

section 3(2), which says: "A worker who holds a certification in relation to an extraprovincial occupation may, if there is a BC equivalent occupation, practise the BC equivalent occupation in British Columbia without obtaining the certification referred to…if" — I'm concerned about subsection (b), the B.C. equivalent — "the BC equivalent occupation is a prescribed occupation or an occupation within a prescribed class of occupations."

I just want to be clear that what is being referred to here is that the minister responsible will have the ability, through regulation, to designate certain occupations or full classes of occupation as being exempt from the requirement that somebody seek approval for their credentials through the regulatory body.

[1605]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Using the Industry Training Authority as an example, this would continue the seamless recognition of certifications granted extraprovincially in respect of the trade certified by ITA. Workers having a trade certification from another province will be automatically recognized as qualified in B.C. with their current certification. They will not be required to reapply for a B.C. certificate. I'm sorry; I'm not sure if that answered your question.

[ Page 1316 ]

K. Corrigan: Madam Chair, through you again to the minister. It partially does. But I want to tie it down just a little bit more. I could see that as being an example, but is it also not possible through this provision that the minister could, or through regulation there could be a provision that where there hasn't been harmonization, where there hasn't been a process of harmonizing the requirements, that there is the power to regulate, to bring in a regulation that would say this occupation is not subject to the certification process through the regulatory authority?

I understand that there are some cases where you're talking about cases where you could see it applying in an appropriate way. I'm just wondering about what the limits to that authority are.

Hon. M. Stilwell: My advice is, practically speaking, that that would not happen. The intent is purely to recognize certification from other provinces in British Columbia, not to change the establishment and operation of regulatory bodies.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, but I just want to clarify, though, that it could be used, and I'll give you an example of a case that would be slightly different. What if there was a continuing tension between two provinces about qualifications, about certification and the education and so on that goes into that certification? Could not the minister, by regulation, then prescribe an occupation and theoretically say, essentially, "I've had enough of this. We are simply going to recognize this occupation and prescribe it by regulation," and end the difference of opinion between the two — the difference of opinion with the regulatory body?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The

section and subsection you're describing are not designed for that, although later on in the act, there are provisions that we can talk about around that.

The Chair: I would like to remind the minister to speak through the Chair.

[1610]

K. Corrigan: Through you to the minister, now we've both been reminded to speak through the Chair. We're learning.

I want to ask another question along the same lines. What is there in this to stop a province…? Let's say if all the provinces were to enact similar legislation…. They are in the process of doing it in some provinces right now. What if a province decided that they would be able to start an industry, have a substantial industry in churning out certifications? This is all theoretical, and I don't suspect any province of going so low as to do it.

But let's say a province was to decide that a good way to get students and training schools in their province was to just slightly lower the bar and make it a little bit easier for somebody to get what would then be a nationally recognized, almost in a pro forma way, certification. Could that province not, at any time, lower the standards without consultation with any other province and certify individuals? Those individuals, as long as the work that they were doing was not significantly different in any other provinces…. Is there anything to stop a province from going in that direction?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think we're getting into a speculation world now. I mean, I guess the ultimate answer is: all of these agreements are based on interprovincial cooperation agreements that have been signed at the level of first ministers and working for many years. The answer is: anything could happen, in which case we have the remedy of legitimate objection based on health, safety and consumer protection.

K. Corrigan: But the legitimate objectives only apply to a very narrow scope of provisions. If it is not within the legitimate objectives and is simply because a provincial regulator or a provincial government — whoever has the power to lower the standards — makes a decision, then the legitimate objectives will not help and will not apply. That would be my understanding.

Hon. M. Stilwell: First of all, I stand corrected. I thought it should be limited objection, but…. The answer is that those kinds of things would have to be settled at an interprovincial political level, if you will.

K. Corrigan: We have in these sections referenced

article 707, the occupational standards. With regard to these applications and the provisions that will apply when an application is being made, 707(2) says:

"Each party shall, to the extent possible and where practical, adopt occupational standards based on common interprovincial standards, including occupational standards developed for the interprovincial standards Red Seal program, or international standards.

[1615]

"The parties acknowledge their continued commitment to the interprovincial standards Red Seal program, including the use of national occupational analyses, as a well-established means of establishing common interprovincial standards for trades."

It's nice to see that recognition of the importance of the Red Seal program. But I just want to clarify that apart from a nice statement that we all recognize that it's valuable — and I appreciate that — is there anything in this agreement that requires the parties to live up to the standard of the Red Seal program?

Hon. M. Stilwell: I think that, again using the Red Seal, this bill is predicated on the previous agreement that those are the standards to which all parties agreed. I

[ Page 1317 ]

think we're getting into…. Are we not getting into talking about if one party or another abuses the agreement? Then that is a totally different…. It seems to me, at least, that that is a different situation.

It sort of seems to be referring back to

section 2 — that the

section prohibits British Columbia, for example, regulators from proposing or applying measures that are substantially different from what has already been agreed to.

K. Corrigan: I'm mentioning this because we're talking about the application of the agreement and how the decision is going to be made and what the framework is and how — not yet appeal — the decision has to be made. It does specifically talk in subsection (4) about if a regulatory authority is authorized to issue certification, they must consider and determine the application in a manner consistent with the government's obligations under

chapter 7 of the agreement.

That's why I'm mentioning

chapter 7 of the agreement at this point. I think we are now talking about the process that will occur when an application is being made and what the framework is for that.

So I just want to reiterate. I agree that there is a certain amount of allegiance to and agreement on the Red Seal program — a certain amount. But it is a little bit lukewarm in that where they say where it's possible and practical to adopt occupational standards on common interprovincial standards including the Red Seal program….

[1620]

The reality is that in British Columbia the Red Seal program is being left behind in many occupations. Despite that commitment, the reality is that what we have in British Columbia for training is the lowest standards in many cases. In many cases, we have an abandonment of the Red Seal program.

Perhaps the minister can address that as well as a question about the national occupation analyses.

It is my understanding from talking to various people in various trades that the province of British Columbia is now reconsidering and exploring the national occupational analysis as perhaps not being appropriate and even setting standards that are too high.

I guess why I'm mentioning all this is that if the spirit is there for everybody to cooperate and for everybody to reach a standard, then yes, it will work. But there's nothing that seems to me that binds people to work. If we abandon the Red Seal or we abandon the national occupational analyses, then we do have that downward trend.

I guess you're asking us to believe that nobody across this country would want to do that. Maybe we could get a response on that.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I can't speak to the preliminary conversation about standards other than Red Seal, except to say the point and intent of this act is recognition of established certification. Clearly, we all understand that if you're Red Seal in Ontario, you're accepted in B.C.

With respect to the national occupation classification, I am not aware of any substitute or developed substitute for that.

K. Corrigan: It's my understanding that in introducing enabling legislation in Ontario, that Ontario has, in fact, included a requirement that occupations live up to the Red Seal program standard in that province. They've protected occupations in that way.

To be honest, I'm not absolutely positive about that, but that is my understanding. If that were the case or whether it's not the case, I'm wondering why we in British Columbia did not take that step to protect the important Red Seal program by enshrining it within the legislation.

[1625]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I'm advised that, first of all, Ontario has a different legislative scheme and, therefore, a different starting point in terms of the relationship to the regulatory bodies — for what that's worth — but secondarily that our act obligates the regulatory authority to recognize the AIT so that the end result is similar.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not sure why — whether there's anything in the AIT in the obligations we've undertaken, despite the fact that we have a different framework — there's anything in this that would prevent us from requiring that occupations live up to the Red Seal standard.

Hon. M. Stilwell:

Article 706.2, subject to paragraph 3, 4 and

article 708: "Each party shall recognize any worker holding a jurisdictional certification bearing the Red Seal endorsement under the interprovincial standards Red Seal program as qualified to practice the occupation identified in the certification."

K. Corrigan: I recognize that what it's saying is that we have to recognize the Red Seal program, but that wasn't my question. My question is: is there anything that would prevent us from having included in this legislation a requirement that the occupational standard be the Red Seal program?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The Industry Training Authority Act is the act that deals with the Red Seal program, and it's not the intent of this act to do so.

[1630]

R. Chouhan: Subsection (3) and subsection (4) of

section 3 — they're talking about regulatory authorities and requiring them to publish, on a website, information about how workers from other provinces can apply and are granted certifications.

[ Page 1318 ]

Similarly in subsection (4), regulatory authority is required to do things like background checks, verifications, etc. So who would pay for this extra cost, this work taken up by the regulatory authorities?

Hon. M. Stilwell: My understanding is that…. Well, first of all, the regulatory bodies will be required to post the information on their websites, and they all have websites.

R. Chouhan: This is the extra work — not only the information that they have to put on their website. They also have to do background checkups before they issue certification. That will require extra time of the staff. So would the government be…? Is it the ministry who is going to pay them extra funding to make up for that extra cost that they will have to bear?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that the applicant will pay for whatever work needs to be done, as long as it is within the scope of what's required to get the certification. The applicants will pay the fees, as they would now.

R. Chouhan: Just arising out of that…. If there's a dispute, if it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, would the regulatory authority be required to pay for legal expenses for that, or is the province responsible?

Hon. M. Stilwell: As is the current case, the applicant would pay his or her costs of the appeal, and the regulatory body pays their share of the cost of the appeal.

R. Chouhan: So that's an additional cost that these regulatory authorities will now be incurring because of Bill 11. That extra cost…. Are they going to get additional funding to pay for that?

Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that the situation will be unchanged. Regulatory bodies are self-financed, usually through membership fees. Right now when an applicant applies, they pay a fee, and the regulatory body bears those costs.

M. Sather: On

section 3(5). "A worker who holds a certification in relation to an extraprovincial occupation and who is authorized to practise the BC equivalent operation in British Columbia in accordance with this

section may use, in British Columbia, the occupational title, designation or abbreviated title or designation applicable to the BC equivalent occupation."

Does that mean, then, that a worker who was, basically, task-trained — as it's called in the vernacular of current practices in labour in British Columbia — as a roofer could call himself or herself a journeyman carpenter?

[1635]

Hon. M. Stilwell: The short answer is no, but since I have these lovely notes, I will expand.

This subsection confirms that workers who obtain a British Columbia certification and are authorized to practise their occupation in B.C. are permitted to use, within B.C., the occupational title — for example, professional engineer designation — or related abbreviated title or designation — example, P.Eng. — that accompanies certification for that profession or occupation in B.C. If the occupational title differs in other jurisdictions, workers would not be entitled to use that title in B.C.

K. Corrigan: I want to go back to

section 3(4) and just clarify what the progress would be with an applicant.

Section 3(4) makes it really clear that a regulatory authority must consider the application "…in a manner consistent with the government's obligations under

Chapter Seven of the Agreement" and "…must issue any certification required by

Chapter Seven of the Agreement…"

I just want to ask the minister…. I just want to get clarification that that means that the regulatory authority, even if they have differing opinions on whether or not that worker should be certified, is required because of that provision,

section 3(4), to certify that person, whether or not that would be what they necessarily would want to do.

Hon. M. Stilwell: This subsection sets out the key obligation for a British Columbia regulator to accept the certifications granted to workers by a regulator in another Canadian jurisdiction in respect of a particular occupation. This requires B.C. regulators who receive applications from workers certified in another jurisdiction to apply the labour mobility provisions of

chapter 7 of the AIT when considering the applications and to issue any certification required according to those provisions.

K. Corrigan: I want to go to subsection (5) again. It's been touched on a little bit, but I wanted to ask a question.

If somebody came from another jurisdiction where a title was not used in their practice, in their certification…. I just want to be clear that whether or not they had that designation and that title in their home province, if they came to British Columbia, they would then be allowed to use that designation.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Once the worker is certified, it is intended that the workers would have the same rights and would be subject, therefore, on the flip side, to the same restrictions and obligations as members of that profession or occupation who are certified under the usual qualifications or admission processes in B.C.

So the short answer is: once certified in B.C., there would be no distinction between them or workers qualifying under a different stream, and therefore would use the B.C. title.

[ Page 1319 ]

K. Corrigan: I actually think that I don't have any more questions at this point.

D. Black: In light of much of the dialogue that's taken place over this section, I would like to propose and move an amendment.

[1640]

That would be to add the following paragraph:

Section 3:

(

a) by adding the following paragraph to

section 3(4):

(

d) may require the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of matters applicable to the practice of the regulated occupation in British Columbia.]

On the amendment.

D. Black: Part of the rationale for this has been evident in the questions that have been asked by my colleagues here today, in particular my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake. But also, this amendment arises from a similar provision in the Ontario act that the B.C. act is lacking — an exception to the prohibition against imposing material additional training, experience, examinations or assessments.

An Ontario regulator may require an out-of-province applicant to "demonstrate knowledge of matters applicable to the practice of the regulated occupation in Ontario, as long as this does not involve material additional training, experience, examinations or assessments." That's

section 9(5)3.

This seems like an important provision, considering that many occupations that we will be certifying require knowledge of, for example, the B.C. building code, workplace safety or other provincial regulations. In

chapter 7 it is

article 706, paragraph 4, which states that "regulatory authorities may still refuse to certify a worker if they have such things as professional complaints against them or if they haven't practised the occupation in a certain period of time or if they have practice limitations on them in their own province."

For the reasons that we've articulated here today and the example from Ontario, I hope that the government will give serious consideration and support this amendment.

K. Corrigan: I'm rising up to speak in support of the amendment. I appreciate the comments that have been made and the forthright answers that the minister has given to us on the many questions that we have asked today. I think that those answers rest upon an assumption and a belief and maybe a hope that all the provincial players across the country will want to rise up to a high level of certification.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that that will always happen. Therefore, I think we need to put some provisions into this bill that will allow a regulatory authority to have some independent ability, not hampered by

chapter 7, that will allow them to require demonstration of the knowledge of the matters, as the amendment suggests.

For that reason, I am certainly supportive of the amendment that has been proposed.

M. Sather: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to

section 4 of Bill 11, which adds: "(

d) may require the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of matters applicable to the practice of the regulated occupation in British Columbia."

A couple things I'd like to say about this amendment. It's clearly a flexible amendment, and I know the government is fond of flexibility. It says, simply, that there may be a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate knowledge. So if the government chooses, I suppose, not to invoke — the regulator or the government, whoever the case may be — that subsection, they could do so.

[1645]

Clearly, this is a commonsense amendment suggesting that an applicant should be able to demonstrate knowledge of matters applicable to the practice of the regulated occupation in B.C.

Surely we can all agree that we want to have labour standards, labour practices, in our province that lead to not only higher productivity…. As I tried to allude to earlier in my comments, productivity is determined considerably by education and training. We want to know that our workforce is going to be productive; that when they get on the job, they do have knowledge of what they're doing; and that, at least at a base level, they can demonstrate that knowledge to those who would want to and need to regulate it, if you will.

I know that regulation is a bit of a dirty word with this government, but I think it's foolhardy to simply suggest that anybody can do various occupations. It's a basic mistake, and I hear the government making this mistake, whether it's about a professional authority or whether it's a trade. I've heard horror stories from folks that train individuals to operate cranes on construction sites — about the lack of training that some of those individuals have.

We know, too, that we've suffered a lot of casualties in this province recently, over the last number of years, and that safety has to be a concern always when we engage someone in an occupation, when we ask them to do a job. It's incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that we take great care to ensure that our workforce is not only trained but that they're going to be safe.

So this is a very commonsense, not in any way heavy-handed, amendment to a piece of legislation that is…. Well, let's say that it has a tremendous amount of flexibility. I would tend to call it weak and ineffective. Nonetheless, I think that the government side could help not us but the people of British Columbia, the workers of British Columbia, to pass this amendment so that

[ Page 1320 ]

there can be some greater level of protection for them than is encompassed in this bill as it is.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I just wanted to say that the amendment is not required, as in fact, flexibility is provided on

interpretation by 706(3)(f). As well, there is a provision for conditional licenses.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

D. Black:

Section 4 allows a worker who is denied certification or who's granted "certification on terms, conditions or requirements" to appeal. The worker must first use any administrative review and appeal process normally available under the regulatory authority in question. If they're not happy with that outcome, they can appeal for review to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, if they believe that the decision reached on their application is not in accordance with this act and with

chapter 7 of the AIT.

The case to the Supreme Court needs to be argued in reference with the government's obligations under

chapter 7 of the AIT, and the court must determine whether the decision under review was consistent with

chapter 7. If it was inconsistent, it must refer the application back to the applicable B.C. regulator, with directions. The applicable B.C. regulator must reconsider the application in accordance with those directions.

[1650]

The question that arises out of that is…. This is a significant change, we believe, in this

section as compared to the earlier introduction of the Labour Mobility Act, Bill 9, in the spring of 2009.

In this bill, subsection 4(3) states:

"Each person or body conducting an administrative review or appeal referred to in subsection (2) (

a) must consider and determine the administrative review or appeal in accordance with the obligations imposed on the government and the regulatory authority under the following: (

a) t