Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 23 -- Tuesday, August 21, 2001

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1400

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 23). Hon. G. Plant
	Introduction and first reading	1410

Crime Victim Assistance Act (Bill 24). Hon. R. Coleman
	Introduction and first reading	1415

Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 10). Hon. S. Santori
	Introduction and first reading	1415

Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr401). T. Christensen
	Introduction and first reading	1420

Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001 (Bill Pr402). T. Christensen
	Introduction and first reading	1420

Oral Questions
	Status of student employment programs	1420
	J. MacPhail
	Representation by student associations on provincial education committee	1425
	H. Bloy
	Government task force on energy policy	1430
	J. MacPhail
	Food safety and quality standards	1430
	J. Les
	Bulk water exports	1435
	K. Krueger

Reports from Committees		1435
	Special Committee of Selection

Petitions		1435
	Smithers residents' concerns regarding medicare and health care for seniors

Lobbyists Registration Act (Bill 20). Hon. G. Plant
	Committee stage	1440
	J. MacPhail
	M. Hunter
	Third reading	1520

Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act (Bill 22). Hon. G. Bruce
	Committee stage	1520
	J. MacPhail
	Third reading	1545

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today I have the pleasure to introduce Dermot Nesbitt, Minister in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the government of Northern Ireland. He is accompanied by his wife, Oriel. They are visiting British Columbia. They came through the Rockies on the Rocky Mountaineer train, have been to Whistler and are now here in Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

Secondly, I'd like to advise the House that I have some other guests from Penticton, Holly and Scott Gannon, who are here in Victoria celebrating their tenth wedding anniversary. Would the House please wish them all the best.

Hon. G. Plant: We have, I believe, in the visitors' gallery three visitors from the United Kingdom. They are employees of the court services department, which is an agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department of the U.K. government. They're here to learn about how our court services sheriffs system works. The three individuals are Mark Stewart, Gillian Wheeler and Jeremy Oliver, and I hope that all members of the House will make them welcome to the House and to the province of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to say that today we have in our galleries members of the Alliance of American Consumers for Affordable Homes. These are friends of British Columbia, friends of British Columbia's workers, friends of British Columbia's forest industry.

Susan Petniunas is the chief adviser for American Consumers for Affordable Homes. Michael Fritz is the president-elect of the National Lumber and Building Dealers Association. Bobby Rayburn is the vice-president and secretary of the National Association of Home Builders. Barry Rutenburg is the national vice-president of the National Association of Home Builders. Steve Conwell is the senior vice-president of Home Depot. Scott Cameron is the co-Chairman of the Reusable Pallet and Container Coalition. Donald Ferguson is the senior adviser for American Consumers for Affordable Homes.

They're all there to fight for free and open access to American markets and for free trade for Canadian lumber.

H. Bloy: Today I have the esteemed privilege to announce some very special people that are joining us in the gallery. The group is the B.C. Young Liberals campus club from Simon Fraser University, in my riding. Although the club is in my riding, the group's members come from across the lower mainland. The group at SFU has well over 300 members and is the largest club at Simon Fraser University. I would like to introduce them.

We have Mark Acosta, Richmond East; Janet Almond, Surry-Newton; Dan Bjorkdahl, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain; Andrew Danneffel, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain; Kelly Dirksen, Burquitlam; Chris Ferronato, Burquitlam; Andrew Haskell, Burquitlam; Ed Hsu, Vancouver-Burrard; Don Kapac, Burnaby North; Miles Lunn, Burquitlam; Chad Pederson, who is the president of the club and the driving force, from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain; Adam Picotte, Surrey–Green Timbers; Rick Sousa, Coquitlam-Maillardville; Christopher Steinbach, Burnaby-Edmonds; Brock Stephenson, Burnaby-Willingdon; Bryan To, Vancouver-Quilchena; Shaun Webb, Burquitlam; Sophia Wong, Port Moody–Westwood; David Yau, Surrey-Newton; Kim Yee, Vancouver–Point Grey; and Jack Chang, Burquitlam.

I would like to ask the House to welcome these extraordinary individuals to the gallery today and join in applauding Chad and his group from Simon Fraser University. The B.C. Young Liberals have played an active role. They are indeed taking a stand for what they believe in and in very high numbers in their group. If the House would please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Santori: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House four people from my constituency. We have, from the silver city of Trail, Mr. Tullio Esposito, a prominent businessman in our community, along with his wife, Sheila, and their two children, Dimitria and Tullio Jr. Please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm pleased to introduce four people visiting with us in the gallery today: Brandi Allott, Leander Vanderbijl, Quinn Daly and Nikki McCallum. Brandi and Leander are both co-op students from Camosun College in the applied communications program. Leander is working as our website developer, and Brandi does all of our desktop publishing. Quinn is the team leader for the ministry's resource inquiry unit, responding to public inquiries regarding the ministry's programs. Nikki is the issues media relations officer for communications in my ministry. She does a wonderful job. She's soon to be leaving us, though, to have a baby. She will be missed, and we wish her all the best. Please make them welcome in the gallery today.

Hon. G. Campbell: I would also like to introduce to the House today Ms. Elaine Wright and her daughter Linda Morton. Ms. Wright, who lives in Toronto, is visiting with her daughter and with her favourite son-in-law, Mike, who some of you know as my press secretary. I hope you'll make Elaine welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the minister responsible for tourism, I'm pleased to announce to the House that we had some visitors here from the United States last year. They liked it so much that they've come back to British

Columbia again this year, and I'd ask the House to please welcome Irving and Robb Stolberg back to British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant, Ms. Hayley Gordon, who is visiting here from Vancouver. Hayley did not work on my campaign as a young Liberal, but she did work for the good member for Vancouver–Point Grey. If the House would please make Hayley welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to introduce to you a new member of the Legislative Assembly staff. Ms. Karen Aitken, who is joining us in the gallery this afternoon, has recently begun her work as our new coordinator of public education and outreach. I know Karen is looking forward to working with us to develop new and innovative public programs about the parliamentary process. She will assist members in explaining to their constituents the work that we undertake here on behalf of our communities, as well as the role and functions of the Legislature. She brings enthusiasm and experience to this new position and will undoubtedly be a strong asset to our Legislative Assembly team. Would all members please make Karen welcome.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001.

Hon. G. Plant: Bill 23 amends a number of statutes. I will try to give a brief overview. Bill 23 honours the government's new-era commitment by doubling the First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million over four years. It also honours a new-era commitment by increasing the physical fitness and amateur sports fund from $22 million to $44 million over four years.

As part of the government's new-era commitment to support B.C.'s bid to host the 2010 Winter Olympics, the bill also establishes a $5 million Olympic arts fund to support artistic and cultural activities to promote the games. This fund will increase to $20 million over four years.

Bill 23 also amends the Budget Measures Implementation Act to implement a temporary freeze on B.C. Hydro rates up to March 31, 2003, to allow the government's energy policy task force to develop a comprehensive long-term energy policy for British Columbia. The bill also amends provisions of the Constitution Act and the Financial Administration Act to correct past unlawful practices with respect to the use of ministerial vehicles.

The legislation implements cabinet's decision to reduce the industrial development incentive fund by $103 million to $497 million and to prohibit any new business loans under the program. The legislation also amends the Members' Conflict of Interest Act to strengthen that act to ensure that so-called blind trusts are, in fact, truly blind.

In order to assist the core services review of the Pacific National Exhibition corporation, the government will be using Bill 23 to create some changes in the composition of that board.

Finally, further to cabinet's decision on August 15, this bill will repeal the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. There are other housekeeping amendments which we will discuss further in second reading.

With that, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23 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.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Crime Victim Assistance Act.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to introduce the Crime Victim Assistance Act. This act will replace the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

Three major changes are reflected in this legislation. First, this legislation removes non-pecuniary benefits to bring the B.C. program in line with programs in other Canadian jurisdictions.

Second, the new legislation will restructure the existing benefits program, which is viewed as inconsistent, unfair and discretionary and will be replaced by benefits that are more directly appropriate to victims' needs. All other current benefits will remain. The replacement benefits will include expanded counselling services, protective measures to enhance safety of victims, vocational rehabilitation for dependent spouses and travel assistance to attend legal proceedings and medical appointments.

Third, the new act will transfer the administration of the criminal injury compensation program from the labour-focused Workers Compensation Board to the victims services delivery division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This move will align financial services for victims with other services for victims, streamline administration, improve response time and increase accountability.

Changes to make this program more responsive have long been advocated by victims groups and stakeholders. This new legislation will allow the ministry to provide a program that effectively responds to victims of crime while being fiscally accountable to government. Even after these changes, the B.C. program will still be among the most generous in Canada.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24 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.

Hon. S. Santori presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. S. Santori: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Service (Merit Employment Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001. This bill establishes a merit commissioner. It provides that the merit commissioner will monitor the application of merit by conducting random audits of public service appointments made after June 5, 2001. Under the act a special committee of the Legislative Assembly must unanimously recommend the individual. The bill provides that the commissioner of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission also holds the office of merit commissioner.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10 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.

T. Christensen presented a bill intituled Fumertons Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001.

T. Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

T. Christensen: This bill will restore the company Fumertons Limited to the register of companies and deem it to have continued in existence.

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

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

T. Christensen presented a bill intituled Fumerton Holdings Limited (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2001.

T. Christensen: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

T. Christensen: This bill will restore Fumerton Holdings Limited to the corporate registry and deem it to have continued in existence. I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday we learned that the Minister of Finance had cut funding for youth jobs protecting the environment. He didn't bother to tell British Columbians that he had done that. He refused to say if he had any plans to cut other youth programs. Today the opposition has learned that another group of young people are about to be notified that their youth employment program, which they were counting on, has been cancelled by the Minister of Finance.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this: will he come clean today and tell British Columbians, particularly the youth in British Columbia, how many more youth jobs are going to be cut and in what programs?

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, that was what I answered the member yesterday in question period. I advised her that there was a program in place through PSEC where the government provided subsidies to public sector organizations to hire people for summer work, etc., and that I had decided that we could make a better use of those funds. I announced that yesterday in the

There should be no one who currently has been hired…. That funding had not been issued. It's for 2002. That funding had not been issued, and so there should be nobody who has been hired who will subsequently have to be unhired. I have just been providing notice of that to the various public bodies in the last day or so.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday it was jobs for youth protecting the environment, and today it's for jobs for students who are actually trying to get an education. These are not jobs that were cut in Summer Works. These are jobs that students rely on to pay their way through university and college for the upcoming student year. Post-secondary institutions are about to notified that their funding to hire students has been cancelled — absolutely. It's not funding that was occurring so that people could have a summer job. It's so that they can continue their education.

Students, as recently as this morning, were counting on those jobs so that they could continue their education and could do so in a way that the institutions weren't penalized for that, for this fall. They're returning to college in a couple of weeks. They've got no coverage, no provision for jobs whatsoever.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, who took such great pride in confirming a tuition fee freeze for this year alone: how many students will not have jobs as a result of the Finance minister's decision, and what is she doing to make sure that the Minister of Finance doesn't cut more youth jobs?

Hon. G. Collins: Government always has to look at these programs on an ongoing basis. We are trying to get our economy going again so that young people will have real jobs, not just when they're going to school — in the private sector and in the public sector as well, but more importantly in the private sector — but also after they graduate, so they're able to work and stay in British Columbia.

It's a little hard to take from that member, when she sat in cabinet year after year, sat at Treasury Board, was the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for a whole bunch of things; when we saw the youth unemployment rate in British Columbia skyrocket — double — under their mandate to the point where it was the highest in Canada west of Quebec.

If we took the logic of the previous administration, this government would go out and hire every single British Columbian, give every one of them a job, and there would be no private sector at all. What we're trying to do is stimulate the private sector economy, and I know we'll create way more jobs for young people in this province looking forward not just while they're going to school but after they've finished school, so they can stay, live and raise their families here in B.C.

J. MacPhail: It's all very well and good for the Minister of Finance to stand up and obfuscate when his real agenda is to give away everything he possibly can to the corporate CEOs and take it away from the youth in our province.

This job program was not a make-work program. These are students trying to get a post-secondary education. They benefited from the tuition fee freeze, and they benefited from the fact that there was a job they could work on, in a co-op way, while they were getting their education. The Minister of Advanced Education refused to commit to students of this province that she would continue the tuition fee freeze, that she would continue to reduce tuitions. Now she's taking away the job opportunities. In her estimates she did that. Now she's taking away the job opportunities so that students who don't come from rich families…

J. MacPhail: …have an ability to get a post-secondary education. What did she do when the Minister of Finance said he was going to cut all of these youth programs? How did she stand up and defend the students of this province?

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is the number one priority of this government, and we were elected on it, and that is to get British Columbia's economy going so young people will have jobs year after year after year in British Columbia. The member opposite thinks the only one that can provide a job for a young person in British Columbia is the government of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Collins: We are creating the environment right across British Columbia today, tomorrow and the next day to make sure that young people are going to get a job in the private sector as well, continue their education, be able to build their future, create jobs and opportunities for themselves right here in B.C. and not have to leave British Columbia in order to do that.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. The British Columbia chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students was, in the past, maintained to represent thousands of students across this province. Until recently, however, the Canadian Federation of Students had an assured position representing post-secondary students on provincial

educational committees. Will the minister tell us why this is no longer the case?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to make it clear that the decision about student involvement in providing advice to government is critical to us. I view this decision as being inclusive, not exclusive. Up to this point in time, the Canadian Federation of Students has provided advice to government. It has been the only student association that has been able to do that. The B.C. Liberal government is committed to equality of opportunity. For example, there is a student association named CASA, which represents the entire student body at the University of British Columbia. We're simply opening up the process to all students in British Columbia. It will not exclude students from the CFS, but it will include opportunities for all students in this province.

H. Bloy: The provincial education committee makes important decisions, from regarding student loan reviews to distributing federal scholarships funds and providing policy recommendations for improving the quality of post-secondary education in British Columbia. It is essential that students from post-secondary institutions across the province have a voice on this committee. Can the minister tell us what she is doing to ensure that these students are involved in the decision-making process?

Hon. S. Bond: Our ministry has sent out letters to 28 institutions inviting applications from students across the associations in this province. We believe that listening to students on a formal and informal basis is absolutely important. One of the first places that we're going to listen to students is in the area of the tuition freeze, which we honoured and fully funded this year to the tune of more than $14 million. We intend to include students in those processes, and we certainly intend to include them in advice to government in meaningful ways.

J. MacPhail: There's more good questioning to the Minister of Advanced Education, which she's got a 50 percent record on answering now.

British Columbia is concerned that this Premier is pursuing a hidden agenda with B.C. Hydro. They don't want to see what happened to consumers in California and Alberta happen to British Columbians. Yesterday, though, the Premier heightened the concern by refusing to stick to his election promise to not deregulate B.C. Hydro's transmission line.

The Premier has named a number of energy consultants to his new energy review task force, and virtually all of them are from the industry. Can the Premier tell British Columbians today…?

J. MacPhail: …that he has done his homework and ensured that none of the members of the task force owns shares in energy companies that may stand to gain as he proceeds to deregulate or privatize B.C. Hydro?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to say that this government intends to carry out its new-era commitment. As this member knows, there was no energy policy under the former government. Everything was done behind closed doors. We intend to change that. An energy task force has been appointed. That task force will include the public in discussions as they move towards a report at the end of January. The member opposite should know this: B.C. Hydro will be reregulated. The B.C. Utilities Commission will have the opportunity to do that. There will be a public energy policy that every single British Columbian benefits from.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll repeat my question, because it wasn't answered. The Premier has appointed energy consultants to review the public policy around B.C. Hydro. He has also heightened the concerns of British Columbians that he's going to proceed to deregulate — break up — B.C. Hydro and sell it off to independent energy companies. Has he done his homework? Have all of these energy consultants that he's appointed to review B.C. Hydro divested themselves of all their shares in private energy companies? Just a simple yes or no.

J. Les: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. British Columbians are increasingly concerned about the quality and safety of the food that is sold and eaten in this province. This is due to recent food contamination scares that seriously undermine the confidence people have in the safety of the food available to them. Can the minister tell the House today what steps he is taking to ensure the quality and safety of the food that's available in our province?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue of food safety is a critical one for the public in B.C. This ministry works together with the Ministry of Health Services in this province on food safety issues. We have regulatory responsibilities. Together we also work very closely with the federal agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which has the primary responsibility for food safety in Canada. We've worked closely in the past three years to review all of our systems and regulations. I think it's fair to say that Canada has one of the best food safety systems in the world. It has a good reputation for that, and we're continuing to work to make it better.

J. Les: The safety of food in British Columbia begins at the source — that is, on the farms of British Columbia. If there aren't acceptable standards of sanitation on the farm, then our food quality is going to be compromised. Can the minister tell us what he is doing to ensure appropriate standards of cleanliness and sanitation on British Columbia farms?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, the member is correct that food safety begins on the farm and that farmers do have the primary responsibility for that. But I can say that we as a ministry do have some very well qualified technical staff to work with farmers on health and environmental issues. The spinach incident involved some environmental issues.

We also have a very modern lab that has qualified staff dealing with fish health, animal health and plant health issues. As I said, we're working together with the federal government on some new food safety programs that include HACCP, which is a more modern approach, and two regulatory systems, and we will continue to enhance those as time goes on.

K. Krueger: A question for the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Roger Grimes, the Premier of Newfoundland, has expressed his support for bulk water exports to the United States. There is concern that under the provisions of NAFTA, it would take only one province selling its water to the Americans to open the floodgates requiring other provinces to do the same. What is the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection doing to ensure that we retain control of our freshwater resources?

Hon. J. Murray: We were very clear before the election that we are against bulk water exports. That is uncategorically our position now, and it will be in the future. The Premier has been very clear on that and has spoken out in public on that issue. I will be taking that issue to a joint meeting of ministers in September.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the first report from the Special Committee of Selection for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

Hon. G. Collins: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

D. MacKay: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 32 constituents of mine from Smithers concerned about the perceived changes to medicare that will have a dramatic effect on health care for all the senior citizens. They ask that the government consider the health care provided to all seniors.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 20.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I want to use this opportunity under section 2, which is a restriction on the application of the act, to ask the minister whence this bill came. I read in the media that it's modelled on a federal bill, but my understanding is that the federal bill has a lot fewer restrictions on its application than does this piece of legislation. So perhaps this is an opportunity for the Attorney General to explain whence this came, what problem he is trying to resolve and how it differs from

the federal piece of legislation in terms of its application or its restriction from application.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not going to provide much assistance in terms of a detailed comparative analysis. The member is as able as am I to undertake that. The member referred to the federal legislation. There is also an act in Ontario, and when we put this bill together, we looked at both the federal act and the Ontario act and drew from them what we thought was appropriate, given our objectives in British Columbia. In terms of section 2, for example, the restrictions on the application of the act, I think that the enumerated restrictions in section 2 are similar — broadly speaking, at any rate — to the restrictions that are found in the Ontario legislation.

As to the problem that we are trying to fix, I spoke to that in second reading debate both during my initial remarks and also in closing debate. We are trying to achieve our goal of making government more open, transparent and accountable. This bill, if enacted, would help achieve that goal. It's just one part of a comprehensive package of ideas and a commitment, I might say. It includes a commitment to listening to people who have other ideas about how we can make government more open and accountable.

The primary objective here is to ensure that the public can see who is dealing with the government as lobbyists, by ensuring that there is a registry that discloses those dealings and that the registry is open for public inspection.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I was asking…. I fully appreciate that we all pay attention to the second reading debate, but I was hoping for a little bit more substance on the problem, on what's trying to be achieved.

If the Attorney General wants to continue down this line, I also raised some concerns about the exclusions from coverage. Today in question period I raised the issue of the Premier's appointment of a council to review public energy policy. Those energy consultants who are on this council are either part of or represent companies that stand to gain from any change in the way that public energy is derived or paid for by consumers in this province. But they've been asked to provide advice.

Are they excluded, either as individuals or as the companies that they represent or are part of, from having to register as lobbyists?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I think the member may be now into the exemptions or restrictions in the second half of section 2. It's important to note the way that these restrictions are expressed. You don't get a lifetime exemption because you happen to fall into a certain category of person. You get excluded from the operation of the act if you are doing the specific things that are described in, for example, subsection 3(2). Those include circumstances where someone has made an oral or written submission in proceedings that are a matter of public record to a committee of the Legislative Assembly or to any body or person having jurisdiction or powers conferred by or under an act.

So if, for example, there is a committee of the Legislature that goes out and does public hearings, as the committee that looked at the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did…. We did hearings around the province. People came to the committee and made submissions, sometimes orally, and sometimes they sent them in writing. They were made in proceedings that were a matter of public record to a committee of the Legislative Assembly. That being the case, the act would not apply to those submissions. That's an example of the basic point that the exemption applies to the issue, not to the person.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps we could focus specifically, then, on the energy council that was just appointed. They've been asked to, over a period of a year, I think — perhaps longer — provide advice on public energy policy. Some of them will have in the past performed duties of lobbying the government for change in that specific area. Let's just look at that council. How do they comply with this act?

Hon. G. Plant: I want to resist the urge to make this a partisan debate, although…. Well, I will for the time being.

Here is something the government of British Columbia is doing that I think is a bit new, or at least I think it's a good step. The Premier has asked some people to help make energy policy, and there is a task force. I think the head of the task force is in fact a deputy minister. That process is quite different, in my view, from what you might call classic lobbying, which is when someone who works for a government relations firm is hired by a client to undertake a campaign to attempt to persuade ministers of the Crown to engage government in a project to change some legislation. They are really quite different projects.

It's the second project, the business of lobbying, that is the subject matter of this legislation. Yes, it's drafted in terms of application and restrictions, and people are going to have to work their way through the categories to determine whether the activity that they're engaged in falls within the scope of the act or is excluded by it. I don't mind testing the limits of it, but I don't think we're going to get a long way down the road by asking questions where we're attempting to fit square pegs into round holes. This is a bill where the round hole, essentially, is the business of lobbying.

Now, it may be that there are people on one or another of these task forces who have in the past undertaken activities which, were they undertaking them today, would meet the definition of lobbying. Again, it's not the person; it's the activity. It may be, in fact, that some of those people who are involved in those projects, like the Progress Board or the council on technology or the energy task force…. I mean, I'm just speculating, but I'm doing so in the spirit of attempting

to assist the member to understand this. It may be that some of those individuals, when they're doing something other than fulfilling the terms of reference for the project that we talked about, undertake activities that would be called lobbying. If that's so, then in respect of those activities, they may well be required to register under the act.

J. MacPhail: I'm trying to understand the act in conjunction with the other activities of the provincial government. There's been a flurry of new appointments and new task forces set up by the Premier. That's his history of doing things that way: having everybody working and giving him advice, and then he chooses amongst that advice. But if you're not included in his circle of people that he's asked advice from, then you have to register as a lobbyist. That's exactly what this act says: lobbying is making recommendations for change. That's what it is.

People who are not being asked directly by the Premier or a minister to give their advice have to register as lobbyists. Someone who's actually making a presentation to the energy council, the task force on energy, will have to register as a lobbyist. They'll have to put forward their name as a lobbyist. Those receiving the information, who have perhaps the same interests by virtue of what their business is but have been asked by the Premier to give advice, don't have to register as lobbyists.

Today we heard that the government is expanding the influence of various student bodies. That's great, but they could also undercut other student representative societies by picking someone they specifically asked for advice from. That society then is excluded from having to register as a lobbyist, but the other organization doesn't get asked for their advice, and they have to register as a lobbyist. It's a loophole that needs to be explained.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, it's not a loophole. Most of the member's analysis I disagree with at the deepest possible level.

Here is another way of coming at the issue of what's addressed by this act. There's a lot of business done by people who are lobbyists, who are paid to lobby government, that the public doesn't know about. This act will in fact reveal to public inspection the work being done by those lobbyists — not volunteers, not members of task forces who don't get paid, but paid lobbyists who do work without that work being exposed to public scrutiny.

Contrast that, if you will for a moment, with the Premier's council on technology. Well, let me make the contrast if it doesn't occur to the member already. We know who's on the Premier's council on technology. We know exactly what they're doing. The terms of reference of the council are established. The people who are on the council are identified. Their background and history are known. The work they will be doing is known. None of that is hidden from view.

There are others, though — people who, in the day-to-day business of their lives doing their business, contact government to lobby for change. The focus of this bill is on those people so that all members of the public get to see what that work is.

The member's challenge is this: we're doing something a little bit different compared to her experience. We are actually, in addition to doing this initiative, opening up the processes of government so that more of what government does will in fact be open to public view. The fact that the Premier wants and needs advice on issues relating to the industry and the ideas and the challenges around technology in British Columbia — the fact that the Premier is getting that advice — is known. We know who he's getting it from. He's not closeted in some room with people that we don't know about. The identity of those people is known. They're not getting paid for the work they do, I don't believe. The head of the council may be. I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure that these people are getting, at most, some allowance in respect of their expenses. They're not being paid by the organizations that they work for to lobby governments for change. They're there to serve in a capacity that I know the member will find difficult to believe. They're there, generally speaking, as volunteers to serve the public interest to try to make sure that we make good public policy in British Columbia.

The energy task force is differently constituted. It includes some public servants as well as people from outside government, but it's actually not about lobbying. This bill is about lobbying. And this bill is about that part of lobbying, in particular, which is done by people, many of whom are highly qualified and very reputable professionals, but they do it out of sight of the public. They do it out of the range of public scrutiny.

Our view is that we can make some progress towards making government more accountable, more responsible and more transparent by, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, creating a process whereby those people will have to file with a registry their undertakings, who they're working for and who they want to contact so that the public gets a little better sense of how government is done in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Through innuendo, the Attorney General takes a cheap shot suggesting that this is something that would come as enlightenment for me. Frankly, I had a policy, which I tried to put in place over and over again, not to meet with lobbyists. I never understood why people had to pay to see a minister. Sometimes there was no way around it. The client of the lobbyist insisted that the lobbyist be present. But wherever possible I also suggested directly to the person who wanted to speak to the minister that they just come in themselves. Why bother paying anybody? So the practice is not foreign to me whatsoever — to make sure that lobbying doesn't have ill effect on government operations.

The Attorney General brings up the current Premier's council on science and technology. Well, let's look at that. There was a Premier's council in place with the previous government. That was all disbanded, and the new council is in place. Well, that new council, amongst them, donated $78,000 to the Liberal Party for the election. Clearly, they have a vested interest. They didn't donate to any other political party. The group of people on the Premier's council on science and technology donated almost $78,000 to the Liberals.

One thinks: well, they have a relationship which they want to support there with the government. Now they've been asked to give their advice. Isn't that what this is all about: to limit undue influence on public office holders? I think that's what we're called. What's wrong with the Premier's council on science and technology having to register their intent? That's all. What makes it any different? Why are they precluded from having to do that just because the Premier has asked for their advice? There are people that I assume have very specific intentions which they wish to pursue with this government, and by virtue of being on a council, they shouldn't have to be limited in acknowledging those intentions.

Hon. G. Plant: I think that if the member looks at the announcements with respect to some of these bodies which are the subject or focus of her questions, she'll see that we know what their intent is. Their intent is publicly stated in the documents announcing the creation of these councils and boards. So I don't know what more one could do to assist the member in what she thinks are the objectives we should be after here. With respect to those organizations, we do have to achieve the same kind of accountability, openness and transparency that this bill seeks to achieve in respect to the profession of lobbying.

If I may say so, I think that the first part of the member's comments with respect to dealings with at least some lobbyists is actually not bad practice for members of this assembly to follow. If you don't need to speak to an intermediary, you should speak to the person who has the concern directly. As the member knows, of course, that's often a constituent. I think that the more of us who spend more time with our constituents, the better informed we'll be about the issues on their minds.

The Attorney General asks what more he could do. Well, I offer this advice. I understand that my advice won't be taken forthwith, but I ask for consideration, as a monitoring device, that section 2, "Restrictions on application of Act," sub-subsection (2)(c) should be monitored very, very carefully — perhaps even go to eliminating that restriction. I will be watching to see how many people with overlapping duties perhaps, who are asked for their advice but also play a role in the broader public domain of lobbying, do not have to register as lobbyists because of this restriction.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name on the orders of the day.

This is an omission that was discovered, in the area of reporting contacts that the lobbyist must disclose, after the bill had been introduced and read a first time. The intent of the amendment is to ensure the naming of all of the public office holders who will be contacted or are being contacted by the lobbyist.

M. Hunter: On section 4, I have a couple of observations which arise out of my career as a lobbyist — which I don't admit very often because, as the Attorney General has suggested in his discussion with the Leader of the Opposition….

M. Hunter: Well, the Attorney General used the words "highly qualified and very reputable people" in the lobbying industry, and I hope I meet both of those descriptions. Out of my experience have come a couple of questions and observations with respect to section 4 and the amendment just accepted by the committee.

On a practical matter, as a lobbyist, given the six-month reporting periods for in-house lobbyists proposed in this bill, I believe that issues can change quite rapidly. On January 1, when a person might register for the next six-month period and report the name of the ministry or the name of the office holder with which the person expects to lobby, it is quite possible — and it is certainly within my experience — that within seven days of that expectation and a filing of that information, things can change quite seriously. You find that there are different people in different ministries who have an interest in a particular file that is of importance.

In passing this bill, which I think is a very important initiative in British Columbia, one that I think improved the life of those of us in the lobbying business, certainly with the federal government after the Lobbyists Registration Act was introduced there, I want to be sure that the provisions of the registration section — section 4, content of return — are indeed practical for those who carry out the reputable job of trying to influence government on an in-house or consulting basis.

Maybe I can add my second observation while I have the floor, Mr. Chair, with respect to section 4(4), which refers to the time period within which an individual who ceases to be an in-house lobbyist or an employee of the employer named in the return within 30 days…. I query whether or not that is a punitive timeframe, given the potential penalty section of the bill which the committee will consider, particularly in light of the fact that in section 3, in the requirement to file the return, organizations are given two months or 60 days in which to file information with the registrar.

There are two practical issues that I think people in the business of lobbying, certainly in-house lobbyists with which I have some familiarity, would find some difficulty with in technically complying to the letter of the law — without any suggestion that there is malice aforethought in not advising the registrar. It's simply that, practically speaking, when you're dealing with issues with governments, things can change, do change and have changed quite quickly. I wouldn't want to see this bill put reputable, qualified people afoul of the law unintentionally.

Hon. G. Plant: I am grateful to the member for his comments, and I can assure you that the general intention of the legislation is in fact to create a scheme that will be practical. Having said that, I'm not sure I completely understood his questions. So my answers may not be responsive, in which case I encourage him to try again. The fault is more likely mine.

There are, of course, different filing obligations according to the nature of the activity and who is doing it. Consultant lobbyists have a set of filing obligations, and that is provided for broadly by section 3(1)(a). The senior officer of an organization that employs in-house lobbyists will have to make a filing, and that is provided for in 3(1)(b). And then the in-house lobbyists employed by any person other than an organization will have to make certain filings, depending on the circumstances.

I think the intention is to ensure that there is a filing in respect of each undertaking and to impose timelines in respect to the filings for undertakings that are short-term and therefore realistic within what I understand to be the context of the member's concerns. I think the longer-term filing that is going to be required of the senior officers of organizations employing any in-house lobbyists is probably going to be more in the nature of disclosing the fact of the relationship in general terms rather than a specific requirement to file each and every single undertaking.

I want to be sure I've understood, if my response is on point or not. I'll take some more advice on this issue while I listen to the member's further comments.

M. Hunter: I'm not sure that the Attorney General did answer the point I made. Let me try and restate it. I'm trying to determine whether or not the provisions that the Attorney General explained, with which I think I agree, reflect themselves in the practical day-to-day life of somebody who has the job of communicating a particular position on behalf of an organization as an in-house lobbyist, which is my personal background.

When I looked through section 4(1)(g) and now the amendment to (f), it wasn't clear to me which undertaking would be referred to in the requirement to file a return. Going back to section 3, if I may, section 3(2) says that only one return needs to be filed under subsection (1) for each undertaking even though the consultant lobbyist may, in connection with the undertaking, communicate with one or more public office holders.

My point was that in any lobbying activity, which tends to take place over a period of time that would at least match and probably exceed the annual filing required for in-house lobbyists, there is a likelihood that the name of the ministry which I had filed with the registrar with good intentions on day one of that period may be quite different from my actual experience on day 365. So, I want to be assured that it is not the intent of this bill that the flexibility which a lobbyist needs to conduct his or her trade would put that person afoul of the law. That's my major concern.

Hon. G. Plant: I think I can give the member that assurance. This registry is not intended as a vehicle for requiring lobbyists to keep track of name changes of ministries. I think in the former government there was a one-year period where some ministries changed names significantly three times. I think that the registrar, seeing that a registration was made in respect of attempts to lobby the Ministry of Human Resources on a date when that was the name of the ministry…. If the registration is still active in a meaningful sense a year later when the ministry has changed names twice, I don't think there's going to be any attempt to be punitive about this.

If the member looks ahead at section 5, you'll see that the obligation on those who submit documents is to certify that to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief, the information contained in the document is true. I don't think there's a standard of unbelievable perfection that is going to be applied in that context.

M. Hunter: I think that the Attorney General's explanation of the intent is clear. The record shows that is the intent. I think that's helpful.

I did have another point with respect to the time period within which an in-house lobbyist who ceases to be an employee, section 4(4) of the bill, the 30-day requirement to file changes with the registrar…. Again, based on my own experience as a lobbyist, when the organization for which I worked terminated, there was, frankly, nobody left in the organization to file the record. I'm not suggesting for a moment that records not be required to be filed, but it just appeared to me that a 30-day period, when organizations might be changing or when employees change, is somewhat restrictive.

I'm not quite sure I understand how important, how critical, a 30-day period might be. It just seems to me that in terms of businesses meeting the intent, the spirit and the letter of the law, a period of perhaps 60 days might be a little more appropriate, given that we are trying to be business friendly. I don't think the Attorney General is intending to have this bill impose another requirement on a company that is really — again, if I'm wrong, please correct me, Attorney General — not a critical provision. I just think it's a little punitive.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the question. I think that in some circumstances, where an individual named in a return ceases to be an employee of an employer, there will probably be a new name filed on the registry. I don't think it's an overly onerous burden to require the employer to make sure that the record is kept up to date.

I will say that's at least a legitimate question and an issue that ought to be monitored. I think that the focus of the act, in terms of the public policy objectives here, is more likely to be on the startup date of relationships and the startup date of undertakings to know who has gotten underway on projects. There would probably be a little bit less attention placed on the issue of the timeliness of the kinds of requirements that are included in section 4(4). That isn't to say that they're not there. They'll become the law, as the law is written.

We're going to spend some time over the fall and winter developing the regulations that go along with this. I invite the member to participate with his views on that. We can look at that issue as we develop the practices and protocols that will go along with it. I will certainly welcome the member's continuing input on that specific issue, and we'll look at it.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: This is the time that I want to explore with the minister some thoughts I put to him for his consideration during second reading, which was not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He may recall the discussion.

One area that I want to refer to specifically in the legislation that is now being repealed, the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act — I think it's gone in its entirety, but I'll ask later about the consequential amendments — is part 2 of the bill that's being repealed, called project requirements. What it says is:

We know there is a skills shortage in the province, particularly in the area of trades. It's a skills shortage in this province that, again, is replicated across the country. British Columbia had a spotty history about apprenticeship training. There have been times when governments have pursued apprenticeship training with a vigour through their role as government or through their role as the operator of Crown corporations. Then there have been other times when the government has not pursued apprenticeship training with any vigour whatsoever.

There are circumstances facing British Columbia that are immediate and of great concern. The average age of a tradesperson in this province, I think, is approaching 55. I may be wrong about that, but certainly mid-fifties in age. Within the next decade the number of tradespeople that will be leaving the workforce consists of well over half of our trained tradespeople now.

There has been a lot of effort put into encouraging young people and equity groups to go into trades training. This was actually one way of really making employers responsible and encouraging them to train apprentices. This is the section I was referring to with the minister earlier this week in second reading that he shouldn't throw out the

baby with the bathwater. I'm wondering whether the minister can actually answer what his plans are for ensuring that trade qualifications are exemplary on publicly funded projects. What is he doing to ensure that publicly funded project dollars are going to expand the training of tradespeople?

Hon. G. Bruce: The hon. member brings up a good point. There is definitely a very serious concern relative to our skills in the workplace and the fact that there is a need for a good, comprehensive apprenticeship program. I don't believe the way that it was envisioned here in fact got us the results that we were hopeful for or that the former government was hopeful for. From my standpoint and the standpoint of my ministry, I take this part very, very seriously and am looking forward to getting, in very short order, on with the whole aspect of not only public sector but private sector apprenticeship programs.

Now, this one here I think provided under this a one-for-one, and I personally don't believe that's feasible. I also happen to believe that the employers and the contractors and the like, right across the spectrum, not just relative to the contractors' part of this…. In all aspects of the workplace it's clearly in the employer's best interest to have good apprenticeship programs. I don't think we've really met the test when we've looked at what the output has been by the dollars that have gone in. I may stand to be corrected on this, but I think, just in my very preliminary review of federal and provincial dollars, that I've discovered some half a billion dollars in apprenticeship and skills training dollars throughout all of the province. I want to be clear on this. These are federal and provincial dollars and a number of other programs.

When I see that, and I know firsthand the skills training because of members in my own family going through apprenticeship programs and the requirements that they're faced with to achieve that end result…. In other instances people may just say: "I can't afford to do it that way." I believe we need to tackle it in a different way, and I think that with the proper encouragement by government and the proper structure put in place, we will find a very serious uptake by both the public sector and the private sector in training people.

Clearly, as this economy starts to take off — and it will — we are going to have to be very cognizant of the fact that we need skilled, trained people in our economy here in British Columbia. Although I don't have a one-two-three to provide to you here right now, I can tell you with all earnestness that I am working on it.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I think that one of the areas — and there were others — where the Business Council of B.C. really excelled was in their approach to education, both post-secondary and apprenticeship and technical trades training. The Business Council of B.C. was well aware of the need for trades and technical training, and they had some very good thoughts on how to proceed in pursuing that both in the public sector and in the private sector. So, firstly, I would encourage the minister to continue to work with the Business Council of B.C. on that.

Secondly, the minister has an excellent group of people in the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. The government may wish to make changes in terms of appointments, but it is a group assigned specifically to deal with the issue of apprenticeship and technical training. Whether the minister's thoughts prove right in terms of the investment not paying off well — whether there's a more efficient use of dollars — I wait. I don't in any way suggest that he could be wrong in that area, but I do know that the group ITAC, for short, has been examining the changing nature of work and how that should affect trades training and technical training as well.

There's also a role for the Minister of Advanced Education, who I assume still shares responsibility with the Minister of Labour for trades training. I don't know whether there's been any change in that area. I also think there's a huge role for the minister responsible for K-to-12 education. In my own neighbourhood, children have parents who can't immediately afford a post-secondary education for people graduating from high school, but there has been a huge increase in the opportunities to start apprenticeship training for those students in high school. Often what they do is carry on with their apprenticeship training post K-to-12, and then they use that as a source of income to get even further post-secondary training.

So I would ask the minister for his comments on who he is consulting with in terms of his own executive council for addressing the issue of apprenticeship training. I would also ask the minister what…. I assume, because there's no consequential amendment to the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Act, that it is status quo.

Hon. G. Bruce: In respect to ITAC, if that's sort of what we're talking about in that regard, it is under core review. I'm looking at that from a number of different points of view — the output, what we've achieved. I think the point of ITAC in its first formation certainly had all the right ingredients. I'm not so sure that even all of those that are part of ITAC right now would hold fast, that through the process they've achieved the results they wished to achieve.

But through ITAC, which sits there today as a group, I have had some discussions with members of the board on ITAC. They're aware of my interests in trying to improve the situation. Whether ITAC remains ITAC or whether it changes or formulates differently, I can't answer that right now. It is under core review.

The bottom line is the fact that as a responsibility invested in this ministry for the apprenticeship program and skills development, it is clearly something that requires attention by government, and there may be two or three different ways in which to deliver it. ITAC may be able to be modified in such a

form or reshaped in a way that we get greater outputs or it's broader in its application, and then again, it may not be. It's still too early for me to be able to report back on that.

It isn't just simply a question of ITAC is gone. That's not what I'm looking at. But it is truly under review from the standpoint that we want to get the apprenticeships up in the province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could also just enlighten me about the involvement of the Ministry of Education in apprenticeship. Is that remaining status quo?

Hon. G. Bruce: At this point, yes, the Ministry of Advanced Education is still involved with ITAC. Whether or not we decide that should be jointly handled by ministries or whether it should just be placed in one ministry and carried on with…. That's part of what we're looking at too. I've had some conversations with members of the board as to whether they see that as beneficial, and the jury, if you like, is still out on that one at this point.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think the member opposite brings up a good point. There's room, definitely, for exploratory work in that regard. I think for a while we kind of were encouraging and thinking that everybody who went through grade 12 would end up in a high-tech industry. Suddenly we don't have the people who really know how to run a bulldozer or a grader, who've got the eye to do the job, and there are skills that we truly, truly need.

I'm only talking there about one particular sector. I could go into small retail; I could go into good deli managers and good produce managers and all the like, which are very, very important. More of that can be achieved through the upper end of K-to-12 and the grades 10 to 12 area of job training through small business as well. I think there's a true appetite in respect of the employers' interest to achieve something along those lines. There's definitely an incredible need, and I think there are ways that we could certainly involve, in some of that regard, the smaller business sector or the retail side as well, in which there are some definite skill shortages.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I agree. In fact, that is some of the work that ITAC was doing: expanding trades and technical training to be certified in exactly the areas that the minister raises — the retail side, the tourism side, the hospitality industry. Certainly in the food industry, as well, there's a great necessity for trades and technical training and certification.

I leave the minister with this, though. With the repeal of this act, I'm not sure what the government's responsibility is for the provision of apprenticeships, of using public dollars to provide for apprenticeship. Believe you me, I know how difficult it is to get Crown corporations to provide apprenticeship programs.

Actually, the Social Credit government had an excellent program in place in the late seventies and early eighties about government-trained apprentices. That ended in the mid-eighties and was never restored.

There is much work to be done. But with the removal of this, the link is removed from expenditure of tax dollars and apprenticeship and technical training.

I will take the minister's word that this is a high priority for him, and I would encourage him to work broadly with all interests, both employers and people who are being trained as well as their bargaining agents, to try to become the leader in the area of apprenticeship and technical training.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to assure the member opposite that it's my intent that we work with all parties — union, non-union, big business, small business, medium-sized and the employee group itself — in bringing about a much more highly trained and skilled group of people in the province. It is in everybody's best interests that we achieve that result.

J. MacPhail: I have another question on the repeal of the act. It's under part 3. Enforcement will be repealed because there's nothing to enforce in terms of the collection of fair wages. But there are staff that are responsible for the enforcement of this act, who are, I think, currently employed in the employment standards branch. What is their future?

Hon. G. Bruce: Some of the folks move on through attrition. Many will be redeployed, just as we were talking about in another act in regards to certification and decertification and the requirements of votes. I don't foresee a huge disruption of people's personal lives in that instance.

J. MacPhail: So do construction workers or trades workers now become subject to the law of the LRB and the employment standards branch?

J. MacPhail: The other concern I have — I just put it for the minister's consideration; it doesn't even actually require a reply unless he wishes — is in the area of health and safety. A large part of the apprenticeship training on a worksite is really about training workers how to be safe. My understanding is that the enforcement aspect of the Fair Wage Act, through specially assigned officers of the employment standards branch, often brought to the attention of an employer health and safety issues that needed to be corrected as well. I only bring that to the minister's attention.

I expect there's going to be a review of WCB, as well, someday under this government. I'm just waiting for the announcement. I would urge the minister to pay particular attention to the construction industry,

knowing now that what was an unintended but very positive consequence of the Fair Wage Act is now gone in terms of the enforcement of proper health and safety on a worksite.

J. MacPhail: I just need explanation for sections 2 and 3, which are consequential amendments, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a consequential amendment under the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act. It included in there that the determination of the lowest bidder under subsection (1) is subject to the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act. Of course, if the act were no longer in effect, that would have to be removed. That's the case in both instances.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, it's the same only because it applies to a different act. This is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act — under (5) "subsection (4) does not apply to a case where the minister does not let the work to the lowest bidder because the lowest bidder fails to comply with the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act." Again, it's clarification.

J. MacPhail: I think this is straightforward, but are there any contracts that the minister may think would be in a fuzzy area pursuant to section 4?

Hon. G. Bruce: All those contracts that have been already awarded — they're about ready to go, and they've been awarded; they've been properly tendered, and the tender's closed; they went through the tendering process and selected a contract and then awarded that — will carry on. Anything before that will be re-tendered.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 22, Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.