British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, October 7, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (H1007pm-11) (H1007pm 11)

H1007pm-11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 7, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 16, Number 11 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 7, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... .............................................. 7215 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7215 Israel Harold Asper Hon. R. Coleman J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Cheema Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7216 Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65) Hon. G. Plant Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7216 Canadian mountain guides W. McMahon Addiction services in Victoria J. Bray Maa-Nulth agreement-in-principle G.

Trumper Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7217 Work of public relations firm on government energy plan J. MacPhail Hon. S. Santori J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray Management of Fort Steele Heritage Town B. Bennett Hon. G. Abbott National sex offender registry I. Chong Hon. R. Coleman Future of Louis Creek sawmill J. MacPhail Hon.

M. de Jong Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7220 S. Orr Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 7220 Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act (Bill 68) (continued) J. Kwan J. Bray Hon. G. Plant Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act (Bill 70) Hon. R.

Coleman Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7223 Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 62) Hon. S. Hawkins Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7225 Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 62)

Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7225 Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 62) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7226 Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7226 Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7226 Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37) Hon.

G. Bruce J. Kwan

7215 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Cheema: In honour of Mental Illness Aware- ness Week, I would like to welcome two guests to the gallery today. It's my pleasure to introduce Gail Simpson, executive director of the Capital Mental Health Associa- tion, and Ken Beattie, president of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Victoria branch. Ken is also a facilita- tor for the Mood Disorder Association of Victoria. I would like to mention that in 1993, Gail brought B.C.'s first de- pression screening test site to Victoria.

In honour of the National Depression Education and Screening Day, which is occurring this Thursday, would the House please make them both very welcome. P. Wong: Joining us in the gallery today are some wonderful people from the Philippines-Canada Trade Council. They are Mr. Ron Benoit, president; Elena Agala, adviser; directors Carmelita Tapia and Bob Rai; and Mr. Andy Jagpal. All members are from British Columbia, and they are meeting with the President of the Philippines sometime this month. They are here today to watch the proceedings. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome. [1405] B.

Penner: T o d a y i t ' s m y h o n o u r t o w e l c o m e a delegation from Washington State in what may be something of a historic occasion. For the first time in living memory the co-chair of the joint Washington State House and Senate Transportation Committee is here: Senator Jim Horn, along with committee mem- bers Senator Joyce Mulliken, Representative Beverly Woods, Representative Doug Ericksen and Representa- tive Fred Jarrett. Representative Jeff Morris, you'll be pleased to know, has just landed at the Victoria airport — I just spoke to him a moment ago — and he's on his way in.

He's my predecessor as president of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. In addition, Andrew Johnsen, transportation ad- viser to Governor Gary Locke, is here, as is Jim Troyer, chief of staff to the Senate Republican caucus.

There are a number of other individuals here, as well, that I would like to acknowledge: Brian Volkert and Mike Thorn from Washington State Ferries; Darrell Bryan, Jim Boldt and Robin Appleford, all from the Victoria Clipper; as well as Elmira Forner and Jennifer Ziegler from the Washington State Transportation Commis- sion; Kevin Cooke from the Canadian consulate office in Seattle; as well as Matt Morrison, PNWER's execu- tive director and a hard-working gentleman known throughout the Pacific Northwest; and Mike Groesch, coordinator of the Senate Transportation Committee.

We've been assisted in arranging a number of valu- able meetings today by Dr. Sukumar Periwal, an ad- viser with the intergovernmental relations office asso- ciated with the Premier's office. They are here today to meet with a number of people. They've already met with our Transportation minister and our Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. I believe this may be the first meeting of its type, at least in living memory, and the first time I'm aware of that any group like this has come to Victoria to meet with elected representatives here.

It's another good sign of our growing relationship with Washington State, and I ask the House to please make our visitors welcome. Tributes ISRAEL HAROLD ASPER Hon. R. Coleman: Today we mourn the passing of Israel Harold Asper, affectionately known as Izzy. Izzy Asper died this morning at age 71 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mr. Asper was referred to as a media mogul, and for good reason. He truly was a giant in Canadian broadcasting and print journalism. He entered broadcasting in 1974 with a small Winnipeg TV station under the CanWest banner.

The company has since grown to become Can- West Global and includes TV stations from coast to coast, as well as outlets in Australia and New Zealand. The fam- ily also owns dozens of Canadian newspapers. As founder and former chairman of CanWest Global Communications, Izzy Asper retired as execu- t i v e c h a i r m a n t h i s p a s t J a n u a r y . H e h a s r e c e i v e d n u - merous awards, most notably the Canadian Associa- tion of Broadcasters gold ribbon award for broadcast excellence in 1992.

In 1995 he was inducted into the Canadian Broadcast Association Hall of Fame, and that same year he was named an officer of the Order of Canada. Prior to making his mark in Canadian broadcasting and journalism, Izzy Asper served Canadians in legal and political arenas. A law graduate of the University of Manitoba, he was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1975, and from 1970 to '75 he was a leader of the Lib- eral Party in Manitoba and was elected twice to the Manitoba Legislative Assembly.

Izzy Asper was also known as a philanthropist and, in fact, in 1993 established his own charitable founda- tion, the Asper Foundation. We offer sincere condolences to his wife, Babs; his two sons, David and Leonard; and his daughter, Gail. J. MacPhail: W e i n t he o p p o s i t i o n ri s e t o g i v e o u r condolences to the Asper family, to Manitoba and to Canada. There is never, ever an easy time to lose a loved one, and that is true of the Asper family, even though the contribution is, as the Solicitor General has said, a great contribution to Canada.

He was also a spiritual man, a deeply religious man, and for that he should be remembered as well. We join with the government in sending condolences — I hope through you, Mr. Speaker — to the Asper family. Hon. G. Cheema: I would also like to express my sincere sympathy to the Asper family on the passing of

7216 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 Izzy Asper, a great Manitoban and exceptional Cana- dian. I had the good fortune of knowing him during my time in Manitoba. I knew him to be a very compas- sionate, personable, community-oriented and very committed person. His contribution to the Jewish community, minority groups and to our country is enormous. His legacy will not be forgotten. On behalf of my constituents and my family, I would like to send my prayers to the Asper family on this sad occasion. [1410] Introduction and First Reading of Bills LOCAL GOVERNMENT BYLAW NOTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT Hon.

G. Plant presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 65, the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. This new act will create a new model to resolve local gov- ernment bylaw disputes. It will establish local govern- ment dispute adjudicative systems to deal with minor bylaw disputes such as parking tickets.

This model gives local governments more authority to deal with local issues and avoids the time- consuming court processes associated with disputing minor bylaw tickets in the Provincial Court. There will also be more rigorous penalties for serious bylaw breaches, and they will continue to be heard in Provin- cial Court. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 65 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements (Standing Order 25

B) CANADIAN MOUNTAIN GUIDES W. McMahon: Today I have the pleasure of recog- nizing a very dedicated group of individuals, the Ca- nadian mountain guides. Last winter was a very diffi- cult one for many mountain guides in my region and around the province. As we all remember, a series of avalanches resulted in a number of deaths, reminding us how powerful Mother Nature can be and how frag- ile life is when exploring our back-country mountains. Those avalanches were obviously beyond anyone's control.

While we were in the middle of one of the worst avalanche seasons ever in this province, I was extremely impressed with the professionalism of the guides. These are dedicated people who put safety first and risk their own lives to save others. If there is one thing I learned last year, it is that we have the best, most knowledgable guides anywhere in the world. While I have thanked many guides personally for their professionalism and dedication to safety in the back country, I want to thank them again today pub- licly.

The guides in our back country allow people from all over the globe to come and explore our back coun- try in as saf e a manner as possible, and we should be extremely grateful. They also play an important role in our local economies. Tourism in our back country is growing, and it is absolutely critical that we have ex- perts such as the Canadian mountain guides to assist those with a spirit for adventure. In 1963, with the encouragement of Parks Canada, the Association of Canadian Mountain Guides was formed. It now has over 500 members, and Canadian guides can be found working around the world.

They are perhaps best known for having developed helicop- ter skiing and setting the acknowledged standard for safety and client care in ski-guiding. They are a self- regulating board that assesses their training and their skills. They meet accepted standards and as an interna- tionally recognized body are regulated worldwide. We should be proud of the work that they do. I ask all my colleagues here today to join me in wishing the Canadian mountain guides a safe and adventurous year in our back country. ADDICTION SERVICES IN VICTORIA J.

Bray: Two weeks ago I, along with the member for Victoria-Hillside and the mayor of Victoria, had the opportunity to tour the Vancouver downtown east side's newly opened supervised injection site. This was another result in the ongoing cooperation between the province, the city of Victoria, the Vancouver Island health authority and the Victoria city police on looking for short-, medium- and long-term solutions to issues affecting downtown Victoria. The tour was good, the services great, and the need is greater. However, the question comes forward: does Victoria need a supervised injection site?

The city of Victoria will be completing an extensive needs analy- sis. My educated estimate is that this analysis will de- termine that we do not need a supervised injection site. H o w e v e r , I b e l i e v e V i c t o r i a n e e d s t o b e o p e n t o new services that may be needed in our community. One may be what is often referred to as wet shelters. Wet shelters offer shelter to homeless persons also suf- fering from chronic alcoholism.

Having done walk- abouts in downtown Victoria, I know this is a particu- lar need. [1415] Most shelters and hostels ban alcohol consumption or intoxicated clients from staying. For safety purposes

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7217 this makes sense. A separate shelter that deals with those who are drinking and will drink ensures their safety but also an increased sense of community safety by providing a safe place for these persons to go. Downtown needs to ensure services that provide alternatives to this small population from simply being on the streets. It would help make everyone feel safe. Do wet shelters condone alcoholism? No. Do they lend to increased homelessness or alcoholism? No.

Wet shel- ters do recognize a need, provide individual and public safety, and perhaps can serve as the first intervention that deals with those suffering chronic alcoholism on their terms and for some lead to further treatment. Controversial? Maybe so. But let us be open to ex- ploring wet shelters as another step in developing a made-in-Victoria continuum of care for the most vul- nerable in our community. MAA-NULTH AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE G. Trumper: Cooperation is a simple word that means big things, something residents of the Alberni- Qualicum riding are seeing on a regular basis.

This past Friday the Maa-Nulth first nation signed an agreement-in-principle with the province and federal government. We have reached this stage because our govern- ment and the Maa-Nulth people know cooperation will benefit all of our communities, aboriginal or non- aboriginal. The chiefs have told me this is about build- ing a strong economic future for their communities, about moving forward together with their neighbours. I t ' s b e e n e x c i t i n g w o r k i n g s i d e b y s i d e w i t h m y f i r s t nation friends to build these partnerships.

First nations must be our partners if our local and provincial economies are going to move ahead to the benefit of all British Columbians. The Maa-Nulth AIP is just the latest sign of part- nerships in action. The Eagle Rock Quarry, a business partnership between the Hupacasath first nations, the Ucluelet first nations and the Polaris Minerals Corp., has won approval. The Tseshaht first nations, thanks to provincial ten- ure award, have signed a deal with Coulson Manufac- turing to mill 75,000 cubic metres of timber.

Forest ten- ure has gone to the Ditidaht, Pacheedaht first nations and the Huu-ay-aht–Ka:'yu:t'h/Chek:k'tles7et'h' first nations. These tenures are an economic opportunity. Across Alberni-Qualicum, first nations and our govern- ment are leading the way, building bridges, building partnerships, and building a bright economic future for aboriginals and for our mid-Island communities. On the west coast of Vancouver Island, we are building a template for a new era of partnerships, and we are showing that cooperation works.

Many years from now, when we look at a B.C. where all first na- tions and their neighbouring communities are working together to build strong, vibrant communities and a strong, vibrant province, they will say that the first nations of the west coast and this provincial govern- ment led the way to making that new era happen. Oral Questions WORK OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM ON GOVERNMENT ENERGY PLAN J.

MacPhail: The Premier's office gave National Public Relations an untendered contract to help it spin its communications plan for the government's energy plan, a plan that rewards big oil and big mining in an unprecedented way. We now know that National Public Relations was also working for precisely the same industry interests that benefit from that government energy plan. We also know that National Public Relations gave the Liberal Party more than $8,000 in a donation in 2002, the same year that they were handed the untendered contract.

That donation was more than three times the average donation they'd contributed over the previous six years. Can the Minister of Management Services, who has responsibility for government procurement, please explain what controls are in place to stop Liberal insid- ers from playing both sides of the fence, and can he explain why the controls aren't working? Hon. S. Santori: This government made a commit- ment two years ago that we were going to restore open tendering and procurement in this province. We are committed to the whole theory around openness and accountability and how we procure it.

We have done that, there are safeguards in place, and we will con- tinue to meet that commitment. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plementary. [1420] J. MacPhail: I expect that some ministers will wish they had gone to Calgary today, because that didn't answer the question. It was an untendered contract — untendered. The National Public Relations contract was for a maximum of $22,000. The government — not a tendered contract; untendered — paid them $37,000 — $15,000 more than the contract was worth. That's a 60 percent overrun.

Again to the Minister of Management Services: why did the government pay National Public Relations $15,000 more than the signed contract allowed, and could he explain what the taxpayers got for the extra money? It's his job to know. Hon. S. Santori: My ministry is responsible for the overall governance of procurement in British Colum- bia. I am not totally aware of all of the details sur- rounding this particular matter that the member rises to speak on in the House today. I do understand that on some procurement practices there are thresholds in terms of what can and cannot be let out.

I will get that information and make that information available to the member opposite on this particular tender process that did go out.

7218 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 J. MacPhail: Maybe I should be asking the ques- tion, "What value are the taxpayers getting for this m i n i s t e r ? " b e c a u s e h e s h o u l d k n o w t h i s k i n d o f s t u f f . That's his sole job. It's an untendered contract. Here's what National Public Relations themselves admitted to. They were given the government's energy plan before it was made public.

That gave National Public Relations special access to inside information on the contents of the en- ergy plan at the same time that they were registered lobbyists for the Coal Association, the Mining Associa- tion, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and for an umbrella group that represents energy in- terests that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Liberals.

Can the Minister of Management Services now please explain why his government contract proce- dures would allow for energy industry and Liberal insiders to have access to the government's energy plan before it was finalized and before it was made public? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Man- agement Services has the floor. Order, please. Hon. S. Santori: In order to provide some briefness to my reply on this, the same answer I provided to the member opposite still stands.

The member opposite knows that through my ministry and through govern- ment, I do not see every procurement or tender that goes out throughout the ministries. As I said earlier, I will find out the details around this process, and we will get back to the member opposite, but I remain confident…. J. Kwan: The Premier yesterday said that the cabi- net ministers left behind would be able to answer any questions that might arise, so let's put that to the test. We know that National Public Relations was on con- tract with the Premier's office to manage the govern- ment's energy policy rollout.

We also know that Na- tional Public Relations was retained at the same time to lobby this government on behalf of big oil and coal. We also know that the finalized energy policy rewarded those oil and mining interests with a plan to increase pollution and greenhouse gases. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection assure this House that the energy plan was not shared with the corporate interests represented by National Public Relations before it was released to the public? [1425] Hon. J.

Murray: My ministry was not in the lead with the energy policy, but I can tell you that we have an energy policy that we are exceedingly proud of. We have the greenest energy policy in the country, and we have a 50 percent renewable energy policy that no other jurisdiction in North America can match. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: You know what? It's not only the ministry that's not in the lead on this file; it's the minister who's not in the lead of protecting the environment. Well, that doesn't surprise me.

The minister is clearly not given the same access to inside information as energy lobbyists. Right now one-third of the cabinet is in Cal- gary, and I suspect that more than a few energy lobby- ists and insiders have been invited to the party. But the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection won't know what is being promised to the industry, because she's not allowed to go on the trip. How are British Colum- bians to have any faith in her ability… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: …to protect our environment when she has less… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J.

Kwan: … a c c e s s t o g o v e r n m e n t t h a n e n e r g y i n - dustry lobbyists and insiders? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for East Kootenay. MANAGEMENT OF FORT STEELE HERITAGE TOWN B. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the member for East Kootenay has the floor. Interjections. B. Bennett: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, if I could be allowed to ask it. J. MacPhail: And I bet you the minister will be able to answer it. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Op- position, please come to order. B. Bennett: Thank you.

I have an issue that I'd like to raise with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services on behalf of my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke and myself. Fort Steele Heritage Town is located just outside of the city of Cranbrook and is very important to the people of the East Kootenay, both as a tourist attraction and as an important part of our regional heritage. Not long ago

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7219 the minister announced that an AIP was agreed to by the Friends of Fort Steele, which is a local community group, and the provincial government. Can the minister tell the people of the East Kootenay how Fort Steele will be managed by this community group so that our area maintains this im- portant tourist attraction and the heritage site well into the future? Hon. G. Abbott: I think the memorandum of agreement is great news for British Columbia — cer- tainly great news for Fort Steele.

I think what we're going to have as a final agreement is concluded is the Friends of Fort Steele bringing new energy, vision and imagination to the operation of the Fort Steele site. I know some people are drawn to the proposition that only government should operate things. I think, for example, since the fast ferry fiasco, about four million British Columbians might question that proposition. Actually, I think this is great. Having a non-profit, community-driven group in control of the Fort Steele site is, I think, just great news for that site.

It's great news for heritage in British Columbia, and I think it's a good-news story and a win-win for the province and for the region. NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY I. Chong: I understand that just last week the Solici- tor General met with the federal and all of the provin- cial justice ministers to discuss the national sex of- fender registry. Well, I have heard from many con- cerned parents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head who are still wanting to know about the status of this national regis- t ry . T hi s s e x o f f e nd e r re g i s t ry i s a n i m p o rt a nt t o o l f o r preventing and fighting crime.

In light of these discus- sions, can the Solicitor General tell us the status of the sex offender registry? [1430] Hon. R. Coleman: At the federal-provincial justice ministers meeting, we made it pretty clear — all prov- inces made it clear — that we were not in favour of a sex offender registry that did not include retroactivity or photographic images on the system when the en- h a n c e m e n t s t o C P I C w e r e d o n e .

W e m a d e t h a t v e r y clear to the federal Solicitor General, who has agreed to take it back and try and work out the issues with re- gard to retroactivity, which is an important aspect of this. The geomapping we think we can actually apply through a relationship between CPIC and back into our PRIME system that we're putting into British Columbia today. Those are the three aspects that we really had a concern about with the sex offender registry.

I think it's important to remember that we also need to track sex offenders when they come out of incarceration when they have different aspects to their release that are conditions to the release, because we know that they will reoffend or break their conditions within 72 hours. The package is that we have to have the integrated response to sex offenders in British Columbia at the pre- vention side and also at the geomapping and at the site, where we can actually keep track of the people that we have. Frankly, one is an investigative tool, and the other is a preventive tool, and they both have to go together.

FUTURE OF LOUIS CREEK SAWMILL J. MacPhail: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson seems to have trouble keeping his stories straight. First, he said that forcing companies to process raw logs in local mills was akin to communism. Then he said that he and the government were doing all they could to save the jobs at Louis Creek, and when Tolko pulled the plug on Louis Creek, he said he was angry and suggested that the company misled him. To the Minister of Forests: what caused him to abandon the workers in Louis Creek? Was it (

a) saving local jobs is communism, (

b) incompetence by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson or (

c) sneaki- ness by the company? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Minister of Forests has the floor. Hon. M. de Jong: I hardly think something as seri- ous as what we are dealing with is an issue that the member would want to use her terms to be cheeky or cute about. No one…. Interjections. Hon. M. de Jong: The…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order! The Minister of Forests has the floor. Hon.

M. de Jong: In the days following the tragic events that we are all so familiar with, it is true that I and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson met with officials from Tolko, the operator in the area, and made it clear to them that our preference and our belief that it was in the best interests of the people in Louis Creek, in Barriere and in the North Thompson Valley for that facility to be reconstructed in the North Thompson Valley…. In fact…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there were requests from the company to change things like the points of ap-

7220 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 praisal that would have made it easier to relocate the mill, which sadly is what is actually taking place, and we said no. We said no…. Interjection. Hon. M. de Jong: We can adopt the stance of the opposition, which seems to be that in the aftermath of a tragedy, government can simply come along and say to a company that has been burned out of its premises, "We order you to do something that the government doesn't have the power to do," and…. Interjection. [1435] Hon. M. de Jong: The member makes these claims about certain regulatory provisions.

Well, maybe she hasn't figured this out yet. The provisions in place that allow for this decision to be made are the ones that have been in place for years and years and years and were in place under her government, Mr. Speaker. Maybe instead of pointing fingers, this member would join with everyone who wants to do what's in the best interests of the people of the North Thompson, do what's in the best interests of the people of Louis Creek and Barriere, and deal with them as they should be dealt with, which is as casualties of B.C.'s worst fire season ever. [End of question period.] Petitions S.

Orr: I would like to present a petition with 2,000 signatures from the business people and concerned citizens of this region about the proposed closure of the Victoria land titles office. Orders of the Day Hon. R. Coleman: I call continuation of second reading of Bill 68. Second Reading of Bills ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS APPOINTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ACT (continued) J. Kwan: To continue on, on second reading of Bill 68, Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Ad- ministration Act, I now want to turn to the issue of independence. Just prior to the lunch break, I was talk- ing about the issue of accountability.

I now want to turn to the issue of independence. Within its report on independence and accountabil- ity, the administrative justice project authors high- lighted the importance of independence. They wrote: "When deciding cases, administrative tribunals are part of the overall system of justice, and public confidence in the integrity of the justice system is essential in a fair and democratic society.

Ensuring such confidence re- quires a public perception that decisions are based on the merits of cases and are made in a fair way, free from outside interference by the government" — or other groups, for that matter. Furthermore, the AJP commented: "A common reason for creating a tribunal is so that a particular task can be carried out at arm's length from government." The changes brought in by the Liberals in 2002 clearly reduce the distance between the commission and the government. That's the Agricultural Land Commission. The arm has been shortened.

The result is a reduction in the Agricultural Land Commission's independence. First of all, the ability to delegate au- thority to other groups could undermine the long- standing mandate of the agricultural land reserve by introducing the potential for inconsistent decision- making. For example, former Central Saanich mayor Wayne Hunter expressed concerns that municipalities would be incapable of adequately protecting lands in the reserve.

Mayor Hunter's concern was that munici- palities "used to count on the commission to be the consistent body saying no, we don't think that's appro- priate; now you have to get the local political flavour." [1440] This is very significant, because it goes to the heart of the commission and its role. Since its inception, the commission has been the body charged with protecting the agricultural land base as well as agricultural devel- opment. Allowing political bodies like municipalities to approve non-farm uses within the ALR could open up the process to political interference.

For example, a particular council that values development more than preservation could remove valuable agricultural land in an unbalanced approach. The traditional impartiality that the commission has operated under is absent from municipalities. Further- more, the consistency of a single body is lost. As a result, it is likely that a body other than the commission can impact the results of decisions. This is a clear violation of the principle of independence. The commission's ability to function as an independent body operating at arm's length from the government has also been greatly re- duced by

section 58 of the Agricultural Land Commis- sion Act. This

section grants the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council the ability to establish "policies and proce- dures to be followed by the commission in conducting its affairs, performing its duties and functions and ex- ercising its powers." These new regulatory powers reduce the inde- pendence of the commission by giving the government the ability to introduce changes that can supersede decisions made by the commission. It opens up the process to potential political interference.

In combina- tion with the changes to the delegated authority dis- cussed earlier, these new powers give the government significant leeway with the commission. On this very issue, the administrative justice project states: "A decision-maker should not only be impartial but also be perceived by a reasonable person as being

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7221 impartial. There is a direct link between the amount of independence enjoyed by a tribunal and its members and whether the institutional arrangements create a perception of reasonable apprehension of bias." While critics are not concerned with the individ- ual members of the tribunal, since new appointment processes ensure accountability, the institutional ar- rangements established by this government do not create a perception of reasonable apprehension of bias.

Several of the changes allow direct political inter- ference and allow other bodies with conflicting man- dates to make decisions. All of this adds up to a distinct perception that government bias will influence the tri- bunal at an institutional level. Looking at the overall picture, it is clear that the Ministry of Attorney General's principles described by the administrative justice project and Bill 68 have not been met in the changes to the Agricultural Land Commission. The balance between accountability and independence has not been met. The potential result is a lack of public confidence in the tribunal.

The government should revisit the Agricultural Land Commission Act and ensure that the principles of independence are more adequately considered. If the government is actually committed to the principles laid out by the administrative justice project, the commis- sion's enabling legislation should be revised to remove the government's new overriding authority. This will remove the perceived influence. The legislation should also be amended to remove the ability to delegate authority to other bodies with conflicting mandates.

At the very least, transparent guidelines should be developed to ensure the Oil and Gas Commission cannot violate the purpose of the ag- ricultural land reserve. J. Bray: It is my pleasure to stand up in support of Bill 68, the Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act. I'm also pleased that the opposi- tion has chosen to see the wisdom of this particular act and the changes that the Attorney General is bringing in.

I thought the Attorney General did an excellent job during debate of outlining the genesis of this act as well as the reasons why it's so necessary now. [1445] I thought that I perhaps could add to the debate from the perspective of somebody who has worked in the public service and, therefore, has had a lot of in- volvement with administrative tribunals, their impor- tant role in our society, and the way in which govern- ment services and other services are provided and why these changes are so critical. I think one of the first areas I want to focus on is tribunals.

The 29 administrative tribunals covered un- der this act really do form the basis of significant issues of administrative justice and fairness to citizens seeking services from government and other bodies. There is a need for those individuals seeking that justice to feel confident that the tribunal members and the chairs to which they're addressing their concerns are actually skilled and knowledgable in the area in which they're adjudicating.

Because their decisions are often critical in the lives of individual appellants and individual citizens, they really must be based on knowledge and technical skill as well as other skills that one who is an adjudicator must have. One of the areas of Bill 68 that I think is so impor- tant is the

section that deals with merit-based ap- pointments. Now, nobody argues with that as a con- cept, but it is sometimes a little bit harder to put into place when you're appointing positions — how you actually go about doing that on merit. I think over time the politicization of some administrative tribunals and the ability to pick people for a variety of reasons has impacted, if nothing else, the confidence of the public in those tribunal members and chairs but also could have an impact on the actual decisions made by those tribunal chairs and those individuals.

Moving back and actually putting it in legislation that government wants those arm's-length administra- tive tribunals to be filled by people based on merit, their skills and their knowledge is, I think, absolutely critical. Just as we have placed merit back as an impor- tant hiring factor in B.C.'s public service — in fact, we now have a merit commissioner whose sole task is to ensure that, from the lens of merit, that's how people enter into the public service or move up in the public service — so too should that carry over to administra- tive tribunals.

I certainly, for one, am very pleased to see that as being a significant focus in Bill 68. There's another issue that is critically important for citizens seeking services of administrative tribunals, and that's the area of fairness. We want to make sure there is consistency with which these tribunals deal with matters from an administrative law perspective. We want to make sure there's a fairness with respect to how these tribunals are staffed and how people are on there so that the decisions they make at the end of the day are felt to be fair by those receiving services.

It doesn't mean that they always agree but that they feel the process has been fair and that the members are well trained and knowledgable — and to ensure that the process by which these tribunals are staffed starts first with merit and second with fairness. The third area I think is critically important is that because these tribunals deal with individuals often in distress, often dealing with very complex personal is- sues that are monetary or health related, the effective- ness of these administrative tribunals has to be upper- most.

What Bill 68 allows us to do as government and allows those bodies to do is maximize their effective- ness in dealing with their general scope of review so that they perform their task with a cost-effective and decision-effective process. That, to me, is critical and something you don't know about. The general public, if they've never gone to one of these tribunals, may or may not realize how critical it is. Those who have been before some of these bodies know that the effectiveness of those decisions, the fairness of those decisions and the people who make those decisions…. It has a life- altering impact.

The effectiveness we will be able to

7222 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 achieve on these administrative tribunals through Bill 68 is critical. It's also time, as part of the administrative justice review project, to look at the governance structure with respect to administrative tribunals. We want to make sure that they can function independently, that they can function effectively. Quite frankly, some of the rules around their governance hindered that and actu- ally created obstacles for those individuals to do the job to which they were appointed. I think the Attorney General did an excellent job of addressing that.

This bill will help a long way towards that. [1450] Another area I think is also critical is that because there was a concern as to whether or not some of the appointments were based on merit or other reasons, the fact that there were not independent time limits that ensured the independence of people once they were appointed further eroded some people's confi- dence in the impartiality and independence of the ad- ministrative tribunals.

By putting in time limits, we clearly signal in this act that once you're appointed in a fair process based on merit, you are there to do the job because you have the skills, you have the ability, you have the technical knowledge and you have the under- standing of administrative justice to then go forth and do your job. We aren't going to interfere with you, whether we like your decisions or not. You're there to do the job. That time limit really is a cornerstone of enhancing that independence.

By the same token there are very, very skilled peo- ple who end up on tribunals, and through the merit process, we'll see that talent pool increase. We want to m a k e s u r e t h a t a m o n g s i m i l a r t r i b u n a l s , i f w e h a v e a talented person who is properly qualified to be there, they can move across tribunals based on their skills so that we ensure that we keep that talent pool there. Time limits make them independent, but cross- appointments ensure that we keep the best, based on merit and based on a fair process, to ensure they con- tinue to serve the public through this process.

The 29 administrative tribunals that are affected are critical to the services British Columbians receive. Bill 68 ensures one thing above all else, and this is really what the Attorney General highlighted that's impor- tant. These 29 tribunals, through Bill 68, will be better able to serve the community, the individuals that come before them, the agencies to which they are adjudicat- ing decisions and the province of British Columbia. I congratulate the Attorney General on another step as we go through the administrative review project.

I think Bill 68 is an excellent example of good consulta- tion and good public policy. Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 68, the Attorney General closes debate. Hon. G. Plant: I rise to close debate. I appreciate the comments of the members who participated in the de- bate. I think that for the most part, the comments of the opposition member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke to policy issues. I assume they are of interest to her, because of the time she took to speak to them, but they are really outside the scope of the provisions of the bill that we have before us today.

I'm certain that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management will look at her comments as he continues his work to en- s u r e t h a t t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l L a n d C o m m i s s i o n i s d o i n g the best it can to protect the public interest of British Columbia in respect of agricultural land issues. I look forward to dealing with any specific issues that mem- bers may have concerning the legislation in committee stage debate. Motion approved. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 68, Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 70. COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION REPEAL ACT Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be read a second time now. I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 70, which demonstrates this government's commitment to a core service review and to the elimi- nation of unnecessary bureaucracy.

This bill repeals the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, dissolves the commission and replaces the current appeal mecha- nism with more direct, more appropriate and more accountable processes. The core review recommended t h i s c o u r s e o f a c t i o n b a s e d o n f i n d i n g s t h a t g i v e n i t s extremely low level of activity, the commission repre- sents an unnecessary level of review. The Commercial Appeals Commission was estab- lished by enactment of the Commercial Appeals Com- mission Act in 1982.

It provides an appeal mechanism for those impacted by administrative decisions, typi- cally related to licensing made pursuant to a variety of statutes. On average, only 25 appeals are made to the commission annually, even though there is no fee for launching an appeal. This repeal should not be viewed as a negative judgment on the commission., which has faithfully and properly addressed its mandate throughout its history.

As mentioned, the recommendation to dissolve the commission is reflective of the number of appeals be- ing insufficient to justify continuation. [1455] The nature of the appeals in question means that the consumer will not be adversely affected by this repeal. Decisions that may be appealed to the commis- sion relate primarily to licensing of businesses or indi- viduals, not to disputes arising between consumers

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7223 and suppliers. The low number of appeals to the com- mission demonstrates that the impact to the business community by repeal will be minor. First level administrative decisions made in relation to the statutes amended by this bill are solid, yet we are committing to further improve this decision-making process to reduce any potential for negative impacts. Judicial review will remain for anyone aggrieved by a decision formally within the commission's jurisdiction.

The types of administrative decisions that were subject to appeal to the commission were quite varied. In the consequential amendments of this bill, we recognize this fact and have tailored the new processes appropri- ately. Consequential amendments to eight statutes will repeal sections that reference the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, leaving persons aggrieved by admin- istrative decisions with the option of seeking judicial review.

These eight statutes include six consumer pro- tection statutes that I am responsible for — cemetery and funeral services, consumer protection, credit re- porting, debt collection, trade practices and travel agents — as well as the Homeowner Protection Act and the Motor Dealer Act, which are the responsibili- ties respectively of my hon. colleagues the Ministers of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

Each of the offices making these administrative decisions follow the principles of natural justice, ensur- ing that those impacted will be heard before any final decision is made. The processes inherent to these prin- ciples of natural justice will be further strengthened within the policies of each decision-making office. Ju- dicial review will ensure administrative compliance with these principles. Persons aggrieved by decisions pursuant to the eight statutes mentioned will be able to access the courts to have decisions reviewed on the basis of administrative fairness.

Eight additional statutes are the responsibility of my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance. Of these eight, five are within the mandate of the Financial Insti- tutions Commission, or FICOM. Rather than relying solely on judicial review, the Minister of Finance and FICOM, with the administrative justice office, have decided to continue a form of tribunal review for these five statutes. This is appropriate in the context, given the nature of the decisions made under these statutes and given that the bulk of appeals made to the com- mercial repeals commission were decisions under these statutes.

A new financial services tribunal is therefore estab- lished by the consequential amendments to this statute. This tribunal will be staffed from within FICOM and funded through the existing FICOM budget. Judicial review will remain an option for appellants following the ruling of this tribunal. The remaining three Ministry of Finance statutes have appeals to the commission for decisions more like those under the consumer protection statutes. As a result, persons aggrieved by decisions on these stat- utes, as under the consumer protection consequential amendments, will have recourse to the courts.

How- ever, requests for review under the three Ministry of Finance statutes will be wider than judicial review, as it will allow review of the merits of the specific decisions as well as enabling the hearing of new evidence. Other consequential amendments update statutes which reference the Commercial Appeals Commission Act without using the commission for appeals. For example, the consequential amendment to the Land Act brings provisions of the Commercial Appeals Commission Act that were previously only referenced for the purpose of providing fair process directly into the Land Act.

The dissolution of the commission will save the government approximately $250,000 annually. This repeal also demonstrates a broader commitment of government to remove unnecessary bureaucracy. Those aggrieved by administrative decisions will now have more direct access to a final appeal rather than being faced with a multi-tiered appeal process that stretches the final resolution of the issues into months. I move second reading of the bill. Motion approved. Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 70, Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 62. Committee of the Whole House HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 62; H. Long in the chair. [1500] The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to sec- tion 2 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 2, by deleting the proposed paragraph (

a) and substituting the following: (

a) by adding the following subsections:

(2.1) A designation under subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2) may recognize that 2 or more health professions are included in the designation.

7224 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003

(2.2) If subsection (2.1) applies to a college, this Act, the regulations or the bylaws of the college may be applied to (

a) each health profession separately, or (b) 2 or more health professions jointly., and.] On the amendment. Hon. S. Hawkins:

Section 2 is basically a technical amendment. It's basically removing the phrase "classes of registrant" from the act so as to remove any potential overlap with classes of registration, which is estab- lished by a board of the college in the bylaws. It's basi- cally a clarification. Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved. Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved. On

section 7. I move the amendment to

section 7 that is in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 7, in the proposed

section 17.2 (2) by deleting "one third of the members of the board" and substituting "one third of the members of the executive committee".] Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved. On

section 9. Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to sec- tion 9 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 9, (

a) by adding the following paragraphs: (b.1) by repealing paragraph (

g) and substituting the following: (

g) provide for the appointment, removal, functions and duties of officers of the college; , (b.2) by repealing paragraph (h), (b.3) by repealing paragraph (

i) and substituting the following: (

i) establish classes of registrants and specify if members of a class are eligible to vote in an election referred to in

section 17 (3) (

a) or to be elected under

section 17 (3) (a);, (

b) in paragraph (

e) by adding the following paragraph: (1.8) provide that non-registrants described in paragraph (1.2) may be appointed or elected as members of the board with or without voting rights on the board;, and (

c) in paragraph (

h) by deleting the proposed paragraph (x.1) (ii) and substituting the following: (ii) creation of health care records containing personal health information, and .] Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved. On

section 10. Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to sec- tion 10 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 10(a), by deleting the proposed subsection (1.1) and substituting the following:

(1.1) A board may only do the things described in subsection (1), except subsection (1) (k), (

l) or (z), by bylaw.] Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved. Sections 11 to 16 inclusive approved. On

section 17. Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to sec- tion 17 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 17, (

a) by deleting the proposed

section 25.5 (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) providing a program for registrants who prescribe methadone so that they have the education, guidance and ability to become authorized to prescribe methadone under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) and including in this program the criteria under which the college may recommend to the federal minister responsible for that Act (

i) the registrants who should be authorized to prescribe methadone, (ii) the restrictions, if any, which should be placed on the authorization of a registrant to prescribe methadone, and (iii) the registrants who should not be authorized to prescribe methadone or that should have their authorization to prescribe methadone suspended or cancelled;, and (

b) by adding the following section: Medical examination to assess whether curtailment of practice should be ordered 25.6

(1) In this section: "medical examination" means a medical examination ordered under this

section to assess whether the continued practice of medicine by the registrant may constitute a danger to the public; "report" means a report referred to in subsection (2) (a).

(2) If the registrar or the executive committee has reasonable grounds to believe that a registrant may be suffering a physical or mental ailment, an emotional disturbance or an addiction to alcohol or drugs that impairs his or her ability to practise medicine and causes the continued practice of medicine by the registrant to constitute a danger to the public, the registrar or executive committee may (

a) appoint one or more other registrants to conduct a medical examination respecting the registrant and to report, as soon as practicable, their conclusions, with reasons in writing, to the executive committee, (

b) require the registrant to undergo the medical examination referred to in paragraph (a), and (

c) for the period necessary to allow the registrar or the executive committee to make an appointment under paragraph (

a) and to allow the executive committee to receive, consider and act under this

section on the report,

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7225 (

i) set limits or conditions on the practice of medicine by the registrant, or (ii) suspend the registration of the registrant.

(3) Section 26.2, except

section 26.2 (3) (c), applies (

a) to each person involved in the preparation and receipt of a report as though the person were a quality assurance committee, and (

b) to a report as though it were a record described in

section 26.2 (4).

(4) If the executive committee receives a report concluding that (

a) the continued practice of the registrant constitutes a danger to the public, (

b) the registrant is prepared to take remedial measures, and (

c) there is a reasonable prospect that these remedial measures will allow the registrant to resume practice and not constitute a danger to the public, the executive committee may (

d) set limits or conditions on the practice of medicine by the registrant, or (

e) suspend the registration of the registrant and the limits, conditions or suspension apply until the registrant satisfies the executive committee that it should act under subsection (6) (a).

(5) The executive committee must not act under subsection (4) (

d) or (

e) unless it has first given the registrant an opportunity to respond to the proposed limits or conditions on practice or suspension of registration.

(6) If action has been taken under subsection (4) concerning a registrant, the executive committee may (

a) cancel or amend a limit or condition or cancel the suspension to allow the registrant to resume practice if satisfied on the registrant's application that the registrant can resume practice without constituting a danger to the public, or (

b) order that the inquiry committee cease or delay undertaking an investigation under

section 33 of a complaint arising out of the same circumstances that resulted in the action under subsection (4) being taken.

(7) The executive committee may act under

section 35 respecting a registrant if it considers this necessary to protect the public and (

a) it has received a report concluding that (

i) the continued practice of the registrant constitutes a danger to the public, and (ii) subsection (4) (

b) or (

c) does not apply to the registrant in the circumstances, or (

b) the registrant has refused to undergo a medical examination ordered under subsection (2) (b). (8) for the purpose of subsection (7), (a)

section 35 (1), (2), (4) and (5) applies as if the executive committee were the inquiry committee, and (

b) it is not necessary that an investigation is being conducted under

section 33 or that a hearing of the discipline committee is pending concerning the registrant.] Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved. Sections 18 to 28 inclusive approved. On

section 29. Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to sec- tion 29 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 29, in the proposed

section 39 (4) by deleting "and concludes" and substituting "on the basis".] Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved. Sections 30 to 33 inclusive approved. On

section 34. Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to sec- tion 34 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 34, by deleting the proposed

section 50.2 (1) (

a) and (

b) and substituting the following: (

a) the person is a registrant of a college for a health profession that is authorized by a regulation under

section 12 to provide a service that includes the provision of the reserved action, (

b) the person is delegated to perform the reserved action by a registrant described by paragraph (

a) and the delegation is consistent with

section 50.3 and any regulations made under

section 50.3,.] Amendment approved.

Section 34 as amended approved. Sections 35 to 59 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Hawkins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:05 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 62, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read? Hon. S. Hawkins: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker. Leave granted. Bill 62, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

7226 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 42. Committee of the Whole House PROVINCIAL REVENUE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 42; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 3:08 p.m. Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:09 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 42, Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete without amend- ment, read a third time and passed. Hon. R. Coleman: I call a five-minute recess. Mr. Speaker: The House will recess for a few min- utes.

The House recessed from 3:10 p.m. to 3:11 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 37. Committee of the Whole House SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37; H. Long in the chair. The committee met at 3:12 p.m. Hon. G. Bruce: I would just like to introduce Jan Rossley, who is the director of policy for the ministry. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. J. Kwan:

Section 3 of Bill 37 is a very telling section. It replaces a

section called "No hiring of children under 15 without director's permission," and replaces it with a new

section called "Hiring children." This is a

section that relaxes the rules by allowing parental consent alone. This

section also states that a person may not employ a child under 12 without the consent of the director and that the director will continue to set the conditions of employment for children under 12. Here are some of the questions that I have for the minister. Could the minister please advise: are there any i nstructions as to what types of work the di rector would not permit a child under the age of 12 to per- form? [1515] Hon. G. Bruce: I j u s t w a n t t o b e c l e a r . Y o u w e r e talking about a child under 12? J. Kwan: Yes. Hon. G. Bruce: No, that can and still would be un- der a case-by-case basis. J.

Kwan: Yes, the minister says that it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But are there overall gen- eral instructions, guidelines, that are being given to the director so that one will have a general sense of what will be permitted and what's not permitted? Hon. G. Bruce: There's no change to what the legis- lation currently is in this particular instance.

The direc- tor of employment standards is still required to do the permitting for children under 12, so as is the current situation for under 12, they would still have to go and get a permit from the director of employment stan- dards, and the director at that time would make the determination — just as is currently the case. J. Kwan: I love it when the minister…. It's a habit of this government for the minister to say: "Hey, there's no change; things are the same." No, things have changed, Mr. Chair, and the provision here under this

section changes significantly. "No hiring of children under 15 without director's permission" is being re- placed with a new

section called "Hiring children." Now we have a new threshold being applied for chil- dren in terms of who could perform work and who couldn't. The age limit has changed significantly. So now, more specifically for the people under 12, the minister is saying there are no guidelines. I actually saw the minister's staff shaking her head when the question was asked. The minister in his response also corresponds to say there are no guidelines.

What conditions would the director impose on the employment of children under the age of 12 concerning the type of work, the hours of work, the time work is performed and adult supervision? Hon. G. Bruce: I think we want to be careful about body language, because sometimes a different conver-

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7227 sation can be had. Why one is shaking their head or not shaking their head can be for an altogether different reason. I think what you're trying to ask me…. I'll rephrase this, if I can, so I can explain what you were coming to me about. I did ask you very clearly whether or not you're referencing children under 12, and I thought I got the nod that that, in fact, is what you were referenc- i n g . S o m y a n s w e r t o t h a t w a s t h a t a s i s t h e c a s e f o r children under 12 today, so will it be tomorrow with this legislation.

Now, if we're actually talking about children be- tween the ages of 12 and 15, then in fact there is a change. Indeed, this government actually likes to talk about change, if you want to go down that road, and I know the member opposite doesn't want to go down that road because we had far too much of the wrong way of going in this province during the past ten years. But there indeed is change happening in many differ- ent areas in this government.

If we want to get to the fact of things and we don't want to be pretending there are conspiracies and we don't want to be pretending that, in fact, children are going to be more vulnerable under this legislation, then I'll be happy to answer your questions in a reasonable and concise manner. But I will not put up with the con- stant of the fact that people in today's workplace are actually more vulnerable than what they were before in the administration of the NDP government for the past ten years.

I actually take this part of my job very, very seriously about the statutory responsibility of the Min- ister of Labour to protect vulnerable people, including children. Because of the fact that I saw time and again that there was no protection for children under the current legislation, we've changed it to make sure that young people are protected. Be clear about this: under 12, all permits still have to go to the director of employment standards with respect to the type of work and hours and eve- rything that goes along with that.

Between 12 and 15, it's now required that the employer must have written consent from the parent . The employer must have written consent from the parent — very clear, very concise. Failing to have that written consent from the parent can result in a mandatory $500 fine. If it was a second offence, $2,500; if it was a third offence, $10,000. There are now actually teeth in all of what we're talking about. I want to be very clear on this. That's what, in fact, we are talking about with this legislation. [1520] J. Kwan: It is unbelievable what this minister just stated.

I have here a document from someone who re- signed from that ministry after the changes were known to this individual, and this individual cannot stomach what is being proposed. And the government and this minister go, "Hurray for us. This is change. This is positive for people." Child labour with the low- est standards across the country, and somehow that's something to brag about. For the minister to suggest that there were no rules or regulations under the previous NDP government…. He is wrong, dead wrong. Let me enlighten the minis- ter with this information. It is shocking.

It is absolutely shocking — the arrogance of this government and this particular minister. Let me just enlighten the minister about the rules that do apply. Permits were granted where it appears that the health, welfare and safety of the child would not be compromised. These permits do not relieve the employer, the parent or the guardian of their responsibilities. The director has the authority to control the working conditions of children. It is impor- tant the child be old enough to understand the nature of an employment relationship.

Only under exceptional circumstances would an application for a child under 12 years of age be approved. Under (1) it goes on to deal with the employment of children under the age of 15, which is prohibited with- out the director's approval. The requirement for the director's approval enables the director to ensure that the child's welfare is considered. The director takes into consideration the child's schooling, health and safety on the job. The director may, after an investigation, decline to permit the employment of a child.

Under (2) the director will not grant child employ- ment permits without receiving written consent from the child's parents or guardian and the child's school. These consents should be included with the applica- tion. The director will conduct an investigation by con- sulting with the child's parents or guardian, school and a prospective employer before granting a permit. If the application is made during a school vacation period, no school consent is required. Permits granted without such consent automatically expire during the first week of school. Subsection (3).

The director has the right to set cer- tain conditions of employment for the child. These may include restricted hours of work, transportation, adult supervision, additional safety standards, type of work performed, limited locations of work, school's permis- sion and tutoring in certain circumstances. These directions are not just a formality. They did not not exist, minister. They existed under the previous government, and it's under this administration that they're actually being done away with. That is the real- ity here.

Maybe the minister would actually like to learn of what actually happened before he gets up in his seat to accuse and point fingers erroneously. You know what? The minister writes off these rules and conditions that apply as just formalities that weren't really important anyway. They were important. It stopped some employment in some cases where it put children at risk. Let's just be clear and be on the record with respect to what was in place and what is now not in place. I want to ask the minister further questions. Obvi- ously, the minister is suggesting, then, that there are no rules that apply.

There are no rules that apply? Would the director impose any conditions about how the child travelled to and from the workplace?

7228 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 Interjection. J. Kwan: I'll repeat it very slowly for the minister, Mr. Chair. Would the director impose any conditions about how the child travelled to and from the work- place? Hon. G. Bruce: The director of employment will have the authority to impose that for children under 12 — all right? And just going back to what you were ref- erencing was the fact that, as I mentioned to you last night, all's well and good for the 300 permits that were issued, but there wasn't much in respect to anybody else that was out there.

We know there are well over 300 young people working in the province of British Columbia today between the ages of 12 and 15. J. MacPhail: Prove that. The Chair: I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that she must be in her chair to speak in this House when she is recognized. Interjections. The Chair: Order. [1525] J. Kwan: It is outrageous that this minister makes a mockery of this bill. You know what we're debating about, Mr. Chair?

In the second reading comments last night, the opposition raised severe concerns about this government's decision to open up wide child labour in B.C., the decision to give B.C. the weakest child labour laws in the country. In response to the concerns from last night and consistent with today, not only is the minister not willing to listen and to answer the ques- tions — the valid concerns that have been put to him — he mocks it and he belittles it. I just want to share this information first with the minister.

The minister and, I think, especially the pub- lic who may be watching this debate may be interested to know that next week there will be a vigil for the child labour legislation being held by the Anglican Church of New West. On October 15 the justice and peace unit of the Anglican Church is holding a vigil at Robson Square at noon and inviting people of all faiths to join to show their concern about the B.C. Liberal government's child labour law. The process that was in place is far from being a formality. The ESB took its mandate seriously.

The employment standards branch procedure required industrial relations officers to inspect the workplace to identify potential dangers, to visit where the child was to work, to review arrangements for the child getting to and from the workplace, to verify the arrangements were safe, to interview the parents — long trips by public transit at night with transfers, for example, would be unacceptable — to direct that the child had immediate and constant adult supervision with the view of better ensuring the child's safety and compli- ance with workplace rules, and to interview the em- ployer and/or the manager.

The industrial relations officers were instructed to say no to many employment situations, including but not limited to the following: construction sites, work- ing near moving machinery or equipment, going door to door, being responsible and accountable for cash, and working alone. The IROs restricted when work could begin, its length and when it had to end — the hours that could be worked in a day or in a week. Those were some of the provisions that were in place. The minister said yesterday that no child applica- tions were ever turned down. Well, I want to ask the minister that question again.

I challenge the minister to provide proof of that. I have a case here that says to the contrary. Maybe the minister can explain the contradic- tion from his point of view. We know the industrial licensing officers turned down applications for permits with parental and school approval. As one example, a permit was sought for a child ice cream vendor along the seawall in Stanley Park. This was rejected on the basis that having children carry money and goods without adult supervision would make them a target for robbery. For the minister to say those systems in place were useless, perhaps that they were never used….

How is that so? Why is there an inconsistency with this fact versus what's in the minister's head? Hon. G. Bruce: I'm a very imaginative guy. I'm not sure where the member is getting her facts from. Maybe she's getting them from the BCTF website. I'm not sure if that's the case. That's full of erroneous in- formation. J. Kwan: From someone who resigned in the minis- try after you took office. Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, that gentleman or two…. I think there were probably a couple there that did. We actually know of that. We actually, though, have very, very good staff in the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour.

Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: No, no, this is very important. The Chair: Order, members. Let the minister re- spond to the question, please. [1530] Hon. G. Bruce: This is very, very important. What you're actually saying, in a sense, is casting some as- persions because of one individual or two that left the ministry — and so what they say is all correct. Now, I didn't sit down in the dark of night and write all this stuff.

I actually turned to my very competent staff, the people that are in the field, the people that run the min- istry offices, and with what has come through to us, this legislation has been drafted. Those are, in fact,

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7229 people employed by the province of British Columbia on behalf of the taxpayers of this place to make sure we have employment standards and laws in this province which do protect the vulnerable. I t ' s g r e a t t h a t y o u h a v e a n i n d i v i d u a l o r t w o w h o would like to throw out things, and that's fine.

I would also remind the member, though, that when you are kind of trying to castigate me — and you're quite wel- come to do that; I'm a little thick and a little stupid, anyway, so none of it really bothers me very much — you're actually casting aspersions on some very compe- tent staff. J. Kwan: It's your policy that's the issue. Hon. G. Bruce: That's exactly what you're doing. J. Kwan: Own up to it. Answer the question. Hon. G. Bruce: Well, then let's talk about the pol- icy. Let's talk about the policy, and let's not talk about the individual that's feeding you erroneous informa- tion. J.

Kwan: Those cases are somehow not relevant? The Chair: Will the member please let the minister answer the question. Hon. G. Bruce: Let's speak to the cases, then. On average for the past three years we have had some 300 applications to the director of employment standards — okay? — for the current legislation required for in- dividuals under the age of 15 who would like to go to work. Of that, we have for the most part found that those permits have been accepted, apart from about 3 percent.

In that 3 percent there were refusals because of several instances — first of all, that applications were made for young people over 15 and they didn't have to, so that permit was refused. Then we had incidences where they had been made and the individual, I be- lieve, turned 15 during the course of the application, and so they were refused and not dealt with. Then we had several incidences where in fact the director of employment standards rejected the application. Usu- ally there are other mitigating aspects in there.

The point, I think, that's really important is that rather than holding up the mantle that the current regulations that were in place were there to protect young people…. The rules and the regulations that you have all read out and through really didn't do the job to protect young people in the workplace. I think the member opposite would be undertaking a different t a c k t o m a k e s u r e t h a t w h a t w e a r e b r i n g i n g i n w i l l apply to not only the 300 people but to the many, many more young people who are in the workplace today.

We've stated what we are doing in the first part here — o f h o w i t i s t h a t t h e y a r e g o i n g t o b e l o o k e d after, the onus that is now on the employer, and the responsibility of parents. I know you'll beg to differ, but I'll accept that I believe parents have a responsibil- ity in this issue. I appreciate that you, through your administration of the past, did not. That's the first part, really, that we're talking about in the

section we're currently addressing. If you want to move on to the other sections as we go — and when- ever you want to go, I'm happy to go with you…. If you want to move on, we'll get into more of the detail of how in fact it is that young people will have other parts through regulation that will make sure they are working in a safe worksite. Ultimately, that's what we come down to. There's not a person in this House, regardless of their political l e a n i n g , w h o d o e s n o t w a n t t o m a k e s u r e t h a t y o u n g people are properly protected in the workplace.

It really comes down to the aim and the goal of how you go about achieving that in the broadest context, not just simply for 300 young people. J. Kwan: So the minister suggests that the rules and regulations that were in place earlier were of no conse- quence. The number of permits that were disallowed under the former rules were 350 or so, and he says it's really of no consequence. First, I challenge that num- ber. Second, even if it was true with the 350 cases, it still applied to 350 cases of individuals where it was not appropriate for that child to be in the workforce.

So it matters; it does matter. [1535] For the minister to use the argument that somehow — he says — because the regulations and rules weren't used that much, let's throw them away anyway…. Then not only that. Let's reduce the bar with the age limit to 12. Let's dive to the bottom with respect to child labour. Then the government says: "But it's not our responsibility. It's the parents' responsibility with respect to that." I would agree to a certain extent. The parents do have a responsibility, but so, too, does gov- ernment. Government cannot simply walk away on this issue.

I want to bring to the attention of the minister, and I'd like to seek his response to this particular parent who , I h av e no d o u b t , c are s v e ry m u c h — cared very much — for her child. I'd like the minister's response. "On May 12, 1995, my 15-year-old nephew made headlines, becoming the youngest person in province of B.C. to ever die in an industrial accident. Luke Ryan McIver was only five days into his first summer job when he was killed, buried under a mountain of garbage while working for Wastech Services Ltd. of Coquitlam.

My brother, Luke's dad, also worked for Wastech and assumed because he worked there that Luke would be safe. It wasn't until the coroner's inquest that we discovered that Wastech had previously been fined for other safety infractions. Like any big business, they pay the fine and move on. In the case of Luke, his death hopefully made them more cautious for a few more years. "This morning while watching CTV, I listened to your Minister of Labour" — she names the minister — "try and justify why he feels the labour law should be changed to include 12-to-15-year-olds. I can give him a hundred reasons why it shouldn't.

7230 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 "On May 1, I travelled to Toronto for the official unveiling of the LifeQuilt. For anyone who may not have heard about LifeQuilt, it is a project of love that was designed by Laurie Swim in conjunction with the Workers Health and Safety Centre to commemorate the lives of children between the ages of 15 and 24 who were killed or seriously injured working in Canada. Each of the 100 quilt blocks represents a child who lost his life, while the centre panel contains the names of 33 young people who were seriously injured while trying to earn a day's wage.

"In Luke's case, he was hoping to get enough money to buy his first car when he turned 16 that September. Anyone who has had the privilege of seeing the LifeQuilt as it travelled across Canada last year will probably agree with me when I say this is not the time to be relaxing labour laws. The only people that are going to benefit from this are the businesses, who we can guarantee will not have to pay the same wages for a 12-year-old as a 16- year-old. "At a time when our governments are cutting back the number of inspectors they hire, who is going to oversee that these new employees are indeed safe?

At six feet tall and over 200 pounds, Luke, like us, thought he was invincible. He also wanted to please his new employer, and as a mature 15-year-old, we assumed we could trust his judgment. We later found out that he had been injured early in the week and was told by a fellow employee not to report it. Had he reported it, maybe he would still be alive. Does anybody really believe a 12- year-old can avoid being exploited? "My understanding is this bill has yet to be passed.

I urge all MLAs to see that this labour bill does not get approved and Luke keeps his title of being the youngest child in B.C. to ever be killed. I can assure you that this is a title that no one else wants to win." A story put forward by a real person — not made up; a real incident. In fact, even under the previous rules, accidents happened. So where is the justification to relax the rules even more in situations like this? What's the minister's response to this individual's letter? [1540] Hon. G.

Bruce: I think it's very sad and tragic when- ever a young person is killed, be it at a workplace or in life, and I think it's very sad and tragic when anybody in the workplace is killed. I'm glad the member opposite acknowledged the fact that these are under the current rules and regulations. I suspect, not knowing all the de- tails of this particular incident, that…. Accidents, as the member opposite mentioned, do happen.

The categorization of what we're talking about here is that what we are bringing forward under Bill 37 means that there are fewer rules and regulations or that the workplace will be more dangerous, not as well po- liced or less safe, when in fact we believe the changes that we're making, because of the onus, because of the fines that go with it, because of the regulations that will come in behind this, the workplace will indeed be safer and that children — the children between the ages of 12 to 15 — will actually see more protection today than what is currently under the legislation in effect in Brit- ish Columbia.

I know it's a good emotional ring from the stand- point of what has been put and described here. Again, I've got some notes from the BCTF website, some of which…. I'm not sure if it's that particular incident. It's very tragic when an incident like that occurs and a young person is killed. These changes that we're mak- ing, I'm not suggesting for a moment are going to eliminate death in the workplace of any group. Now, with respect to occupational health and safety and the actual safety component through WCB, that is there.

We're working hard to try and find ways to reduce serious accidents and death in the workplace. We've embarked in the one sector, the forestry sector, which is deemed to be one of the most dangerous voca- tions. Certainly from the standpoint of the number of deaths, with all the additional rules and regulations that we have put in place in the forestry sector, we can actually stand up and say today that we still have the same number of men and women killed in the forestry industry today as there were three and five years ago.

What that would say to me is that maybe we all better be a little bit more serious about what it is we're bringing in place, take a look at how it is that some companies have safer regimes than others and go about trying to bring about an effective change so that we save lives. It isn't just a question of written-down paper rules and regulations. It's about how they're adminis- tered, and it's about how people live with them.

What the member perhaps is not acknowledging, doesn't know or is forgetting, or whatever, is that in behind all of this are some very stiff financial penalties that will add a great deal to the aspect of what takes place in the worksite for young people. J. Kwan: The minister would have you believe that just because we have rules and regulations in place, it does not make the workplace safer. The minister would have you believe that to take away those rules and regulations will make the workplace safer. That's what the minister's argument is based on. Now, I'm not suggesting, Mr.

Chair, that by having rules and regulations in place it's 100 percent risk-free for the people in the workplace. I'm not suggesting that at all, but I sure am challenging the government and this minister when he suggests that by having rules and regulations in place and by doing away with them, somehow a workplace would be safer. The current act protects child workers by ensuring that a staff member of the employment standards branch reviews applications made by the employers who want to hire children under the age of 15.

The current act enables the branch to examine the worksite where the child will be employed and to stipulate con- ditions upon the terms of the child's employment. For example, a child worker employed in the film industry may need transportation to and from a worksite, an educational plan that enables the child to maintain his or her studies, or limitations upon the number of hours that the child can work. [1545] Those things took place under

an act where those regulations were in place. There was a system where routine inspections were in place. There was a system

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7231 to check for child hand harvesters, as an example, in the agriculture compliance team, and it was kept off of the fields. There would be a system involving WCB and reporting of hours worked and taxes remitted in- volving CCRA. Those are some of the things that regu- lations can address with respect to safety in the work- place. The minister would like to claim that the larger fines would be a sufficient deterrent, but at the same time there is much evidence that for large employers fines are often viewed as a cost of doing business.

Even given that the current system — and I'll grant the minister that — is in need of reform, and others have identified that…. Not just the BCTF, and I thank the BCTF for caring enough to actually look at this legislation and put forward their comments. But others have as well. A York University child labour expert, Judy Fudge, has also observed: "Just because people are not follow- ing the law, it doesn't mean that's a good reason to get rid of it. You have to ask: what are the pros and cons of this? I don't think there was this kind of discussion in British Columbia." You know what, Mr. Chair? She's right.

There has been no consultation, no discussion of the pros and cons — typical of this government. We are now forced to have this discussion here in the Legisla- ture where — I know the minister knows very well — he has the majority to ram the legislation through. The minister's argument is flawed — to say that to do away with the regulations will somehow make the workplace safer.

If enforcement was not sufficient pre- viously, then instead of laying off more staff, one would have assumed that the government would actu- ally ensure that there's more enforcement in place to better ensure that the workplace is safe for children 15 and under — not lower the age limit, which is what this government is doing, what this minister is doing. I want to ask the minister these questions. He didn't answer the question with respect to conditions around the child travelling to and from the workplace. Are there any conditions at all that would apply? Hon. G. Bruce: Okay.

If you are a child — all right? — between the ages of 12 and 15, the regulations, first of all, say you cannot work during school hours on a school day. Anybody have a problem with that one? The School Act is the overriding act that applies. A child does not work more than four hours on a school day or 20 hours in a week when school is in session. The child does not work more than eight hours in a day or 35 hours in a week — actually, I believe that's going to be seven hours in a day and 35 hours in a week — when school is not in session.

So in the summertime, summer holidays, we're talking about now — children between the ages of 12 and 15…. We're thinking about July and August. We're thinking about spring fairs — you know, summer fairs. We're thinking about kids that might go pick some corn on the farm. They might have an after-school job that allows them to work a little bit more during the summertime when they want to. Maybe it's a tourist job in a campsite that they're working at. When school is not in session, a young person between the ages of 12 and 15 can work a maximum of 35 hours in the week and seven hours a day.

When the school is in session, they can work a maximum of 20 hours in the week and only four hours in the day. The child is under the supervision of an adult. In t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t o f t h i n g s … . M u c h o f t h a t i s r e - flective of making sure they are well protected from the standpoint of being exploited in the case, of course, of working through extra hours and that sort of thing. [1550] Now, in respect to film — and we want to under- stand the difference here; those are the general regula- tions — the film industry along with the province is very concerned.

With the way film is, you actually have some very young people involved in film. When we talk about film, we often think of the big major productions, but there are commercials and little shorts that are done. Commercial production may involve a very young baby. If you're trying to sell baby diapers in a commercial, you actually have to use a baby.

So what we have done there is wrote the regulations with the film industry who also, because of the nature of this, want to make sure that their industry is well protected by the right type of regu- latory regime so that they're not in a position of looking like they're exploiting young people. They don't want that happening at all. The ministry has been working through with the film industry. As I mentioned last night, we want the film industry and the movie sector to grow for the area.

Next to Hollywood — that's Hollywood, Los Angeles — we will have the strongest child regulations for chil- dren in film of any country — okay? I wanted you to know that. We have, in that respect, the minimum age, the limits on daily hours, what a junior child means, what a school day means, no split shifts and maximum limit on breaks. Time before an actual recording device, be- cause this can be very onerous for…. It can be particu- larly tough on very small babies when you've got the lights and the things that go with that when you're trying to do a commercial.

We actually have in that, depending on the age, how many minutes you can be before a recording de- vice. For instance, if you're less than three years of age, for a moment, you can only be 15 consecutive minutes in front of a recording device, and then you need 20 consecutive minutes of breaks. If you're three years to less than six years of age, you can have 30 consecutive minutes before a recording device and then 15 consecu- tive minutes of breaks. If you're six years to less than 12 years of age, you can have 45 consecutive minutes in front of a recording device and then ten consecutive minutes of break.

If you're 12 years to less than 15 years of age, you can have 60 consecutive minutes in front of a recording device, and you are then required to have ten minutes of consecutive break. Hours free from work. This is a challenge too, par- ticularly more in the production of major films where you've got cameras and sets and everything all set up and the industry wanting to move ahead. There can be

7232 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 pressures then, because either the climate or the envi- ronment, for the moment, is just right. Some of it re- volves around nighttime; some around daybreak. It depends what the movie is at. The employer of a child in this business must ensure that the child has at least 48 consecutive hours free from work each week de- pending on what that child is working through. Chaperons. There's a d

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1007pm-11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1007pm 11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fdb1818a356e8f4f35d2f50c6e45ea9fcc29fc1a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).