Hansard -- Thursday, May 8, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 15, No. 6 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Petitions		6599
	S. Orr

Committee of the Whole House		6599
	Safety Standards Act (Bill 19) J. Kwan Hon. G. Abbott

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6609
	Safety Standards Act (Bill 19)

Committee of the Whole House		6609
	Safety Authority Act (Bill 20) Hon. G. Abbott J. Kwan J. Bray

Reporting of Bills		6611
	Safety Authority Act (Bill 20)

Third Reading of Bills		6611
	Safety Authority Act (Bill 20)

S. Orr: I would like to present a petition with 5,000-plus signatures from the Building the Case for Public Education Coalition for the capital region. This is expressing their concerns over education funding.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Section 1 deals with the definitions of the act. Could the minister please advise, under the definition for equivalent standards agreement, what is meant by "an alternative approach"?

Hon. G. Abbott: An alternative approach is an approach which would meet the same safety objective but with a different or alternative approach.

Hon. G. Abbott: Each equivalent safety standard would be negotiated separately each time. Over time some practices may be deemed equivalent. Initially, at least, each would be separately negotiated.

Hon. G. Abbott: Any regulated person under the act or regulated company could come forward with a proposal. The negotiation, at least at this point in time, would be between that person or company and the province of British Columbia through its safety services or safety standards branch.

J. Kwan: How would this act ensure that there's a minimum standard? If negotiation takes place with different companies and different individuals, where's the baseline to ensure that there's a minimum standard?

Hon. G. Abbott: The same technical experts that provide advice to the branch now would be providing advice to us in terms of the equivalent standards agreements.

J. Kwan: Will that be put in regulation? I don't think it's in the text of the legislation. I looked for it, and it is not there. Do we anticipate that we will see, then, a list of minimum standards that would be utilized by the staff when they go out there to negotiate, so that the public knows and has the certainty that there is a level of minimum standards that would be applied?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question. The equivalent standards would have to be at least as strong as the existing standards in place that govern that work. We are doing some pilot work with industries now to develop regulations in this area.

J. Kwan: How will safety standards be regulated if inconsistencies develop between existing requirements and the alternate agreements?

Hon. G. Abbott: There's a regular reporting and auditing procedure that is put in place to ensure that the standards are met.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that it depends on the operation. As those regulations are in development, they'll be appropriate to the circumstance within a given industry.

J. Kwan: Why is there no definition of "qualified workers" or "qualified persons" in the legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Because the term "qualified worker" is not used in the legislation.

J. Kwan: Well, precisely. It's not in the legislation. The question is: why is that? One would assume that for people to ensure that safety standards are met, they need to be qualified people. In the previous legislation there are standards that apply to whether a person is deemed to be qualified, to ensure that safety is met and that they can perform those duties. Now that definition is taken away. Why is that? How do we know that the people who are engaged in the job, which performs a very important role — that is, to ensure safety for the public — actually have the qualifications to do so?

Hon. G. Abbott: The qualified worker would be defined in each regulation. Because of the rapid pace of technological change today, it's important that the opportunity to change rests in regulation rather than legislation, because legislation is rather more onerous, cumbersome and timely to alter.

J. Kwan: Is it the minister's intention that in regulation, then, the qualified person or qualified worker would be someone who has earned a certificate in their particular trade?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is: in most cases, that is so, but not in all cases. We will be assessing whether people are qualified to do regulated work. In most instances, certification would be the basis on which that would occur. In some cases, experience and knowledge, tested by alternative means, may be used to determine that as well.

J. Kwan: What process will the minister be utilizing to determine in what instance certification is required and in what instance it is not?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that a restricted certificate may be issued in some instances for specific components of broader trades. That restricted certificate is, again, based on standards as previously noted. An example of this might be a plumber or a gas fitter doing low-voltage electrical work.

J. Kwan: What I meant was — and maybe I wasn't clear in my question: in the process of determining what trade would be required to have certification and what trade would not, and what worker would meet their standards, how will the minister set out to determine that process? Will the minister be consulting with industry?

The concern is that…. People fear that people who are not qualified will end up performing tasks that have a fundamental impact on people's safety. Certainly, we don't want to see that happen. If, formally, we know that person's been certified and been trained in the trade, then we know that person's got the basic training. Then you don't have to worry about whether or not that person can perform those tasks.

Now, because the definition of a qualified worker or qualified person is no longer there as an ultimate means of being used to determine whether or not a person is qualified, then I think it's very important that we engage in a proper process to make sure there are no gaps jeopardizing safety for the public.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The most important elements, obviously, in that kind of determination are the elements of public safety and worker safety. Almost invariably, the processes are among or between industry, training institutions and the safety engineering services branch of my ministry. We use — I think, as the member probably knows — safety advisory committees as a critical part of that.

J. Kwan: Would those bodies be determining what the process would be and therefore, as well, the definition applying to who is a qualified person or qualified worker?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is nothing new in this act in terms of new opportunities for restricted certification. That may occur over time. The opportunities for that qualification exist in regulation, as we have today. Again, the process is one in which there is collaboration between the industry, the training institutions and the safety advisory committees, as represented in our safety engineering services.

J. Kwan: Is it safe to assume that the trade unions would also be involved in the discussion with the minister? Are they also involved and invited to the table — not just through the body of the advisory committee, because there's only one representative there?

This notion of qualified workers or qualified persons has many different trades. I want to make sure that the different trade union representatives are at the table to ensure that those concerns are met in terms of safety concerns and skill level.

Hon. G. Abbott: The trade unions are well represented on the safety advisory committees.

J. Kwan: That was one of the points I made in my question. That is, I know there are representatives in the advisory committee. But qualified persons or qualified trades come from very different trades throughout. When the determination is being made as to whether or not that person is qualified and has the minimum standards, will each of the trades involved be invited to the table for that discussion and not just through the advisory committee? The advisory committee cannot have and does not have all the representatives from all the different trades.

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor staff can think of an instance where advice would be tendered from a safety advisory committee where there wasn't a full representation of all of the trades that would be integral to that particular committee. A good example would be the Electrical Safety Advisory Committee, which is certainly trade specific and based on expertise. We're not aware of any situation where the Electrical Safety Advisory Committee would tender advice that didn't have the full spectrum of workers involved in that committee.

J. Kwan: Perhaps my memory is faulty, because from the days when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, it appeared to me that while there was broad representation from each of the different sectors and the trade unions, there wasn't — as far as I can recollect —

representation from each of the trades and each of the trade unions at the table. There are just far too many to have an advisory body with that many trade unions represented at the table. But maybe my memory's faulty. If the minister assures me in this House that, in fact, each of the trades will be represented by their respective trade union in the discussion of this matter, then I'm satisfied with that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Hopefully, this will assist the member in respect of this area. The safety advisory committees are in the areas of electrical, gas, elevating devices, boilers, pressure vessels. Each of those contains the appropriate trade union representation that one would expect. Where, for example, there might be a cross-committee issue, a subcommittee that comprised elements of both of those committees could be created to consider the issue.

J. Kwan: Section 8 deals with the regulations that would be brought forward for this act. Why are the regulations the minister is empowered to make through this legislation not included in the legislation? Formerly, the regulations were included, so people would know clearly what regulations would be attached and therefore apply under this act. But now they're gone. Why is that?

Hon. G. Abbott: I just want to ensure that I understand the member's question correctly. As I understand it, it is: why does the legislation, as contained here in Bill 19, not also include the detailed regulations, which will ultimately accompany this bill?

The short answer is that the regulations are very lengthy and very technical. What we have in Bill 19 is the legislative structure, which we'll later see the very lengthy and technical regulations attached to. The first round of the development of regulations has been completed. We're moving into a second round, but it's important to have the kind of superstructure in place which this legislation provides.

J. Kwan: The regulations used to be attached to the bill, and they aren't now. What is the time line the minister anticipates for the regulations to be completed, and what consultation process is the minister engaging in the development of the regulations?

Hon. G. Abbott: The existing regulations remain in place until a new set of regulations is developed to take their place. In terms of the process, a very full round of consultations has occurred, which has been completed. We've heard from a large range of stakeholders and members of the public with respect to that regulation. The second round will commence at the end of the current month of May. As well, there will be a stakeholder process to ensure that all those whose interests are or may be affected by the regulation are directly consulted. We anticipate that the new regulations will be ready for implementation in the fall.

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, the elements that would be integral to a safety officer under this act are very similar to those that would come into play with the current safety inspectors we have in the province — in short, knowledge, skills, ability and obviously technical fluency in one or more of the areas of safety we regulate.

J. Kwan: I'm assuming the safety officers are employees of the province. They would not be employees of the private sector who would then be appointed as safety officers to perform the tasks required of a safety officer.

Hon. G. Abbott: The safety officers will be the equivalent of our safety inspectors currently in the province or the equivalent of those safety inspectors who are now and will continue to be employed in some 11 municipalities that do electrical and other safety work in local governments. If and when Bill 20 receives approval, the safety officers will be the employees of the new safety authority.

J. Kwan: Same questions for section 12, which applies to the safety managers and the criteria for their appointment. Also, would they fall under the new authority in terms of employees and accountability?

Hon. G. Abbott: To respond to the member's question about the provincial safety managers as opposed to the safety officers we've been discussing, the managers would be the equivalent of our current chief inspectors. Again, the elements of knowledge, skills and ability are central to the role of the chief inspector, and of course, as managers we require managerial expertise as well as technical expertise in one or more technical areas. They are now employees.

J. Kwan: The authority that would govern the safety managers would be under Bill 20. Is that the right assumption?

J. Kwan: The provincial safety manager appears to have been given very broad powers. What sorts of checks and balance, if any, are there?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope I have captured the intent of the member's question appropriately. Again, in terms of the constraints around the operational authority of a manager, concerns are typically aired in the way of a complaint.

In most cases where a party feels aggrieved by an administrative decision, the complaint to the manager is resolved at the management level, but it may go to an administrative review, or it may go to appeal to the safety systems appeal board and be considered there. That will remain a function of the province, and I suppose, if the issue remained unresolved, it might ultimately find its way to the courts in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Who assumes liability? Is it the safety manager, or is it another body? Is it the Safety Authority — on issues around liability?

Hon. G. Abbott: Staff are indemnified whether — as they do today — they work for the safety engineering services branch of my ministry or, as is likely in the future, they are employed by the Safety Authority of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: So the province would be liable for any liability then? No one individual staff person would have to assume liability.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I hope I've captured the member's question correctly. Unless it happened to be some criminal breach on the part of the employee, certainly the employee is indemnified against legal liability. That's carried either by the province or the authority.

J. Kwan: Is there an appeal mechanism through which to question, I guess, the decisions of the safety manager? The minister mentioned that it goes to the managerial level. Who would that be? Is that the assistant deputy within the ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll just put a little bit more flesh around the previous answer I made. When complaints are launched in respect of the decision or the action of an employee or a manager, the first effort, obviously, is to seek an informal resolution of that rather than engaging other processes.

In some cases — again depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint that's tendered — it may find its way up, for example, to the assistant deputy minister, who would give consideration to the issue. I should also note that the Ombudsman Act applies currently to decisions of the safety engineering services branch employees and managers. The Ombudsman Act will continue to apply when the new authority is in place as well. That's an alternative source of a remedy for an aggrieved party if they choose to proceed with it.

Again, the emphasis is always on early and formal resolution of these things. In theory they can move up to the ADM, they can move on to the appeal board, they can move on to the ombudsman or they can move on to the courts, depending on the character and nature of the concern.

J. Kwan: Does the minister envision that complaints through the different levels may arrive at the minister's desk, or is there no opportunity for complaints to be forwarded to the minister and for the minister to review those complaints?

Hon. G. Abbott: As the member knows from her years on this side of the House, the complaints can arrive at one's desk without request or notification. That having been said, the minister's office is not the best place to resolve issues that are typically of a technical nature. In all probability the complaint would be referred on to the ADM, who might try to resolve the complaint informally through the managers.

J. Kwan: Previously, when we canvassed under the definitions section for qualified persons and qualified workers…. I see here under section 15 that part of the role of the safety manager is also to determine whether or not a person is qualified under subsections (i) and (j) particularly and then, of course, to look at the training issues under (k).

Would there be a standard test that would be established for each worker who wants to work in a particular trade, for them to perform these tests and see whether or not they meet a minimum standard? Is that the intent here? How would the safety manager go about determining whether or not a person is actually qualified to have their licence renewed, etc.?

Hon. G. Abbott: On the advice I have in respect to how one would proceed to resolve the questions the member poses, there are a couple of scenarios. One would be an individual who was seeking certification. That might be based on the test of experience, skills and knowledge for that individual. If the issue is around a broader class of individuals, then the safety engineering services branch would create a certification standard. That would be done through the same process I outlined earlier, which embraces the advisory committees and the expertise contained in them.

J. Kwan: Under subsection (1) of section 18, paragraphs (c) and (g), what do the words "reasonable grounds" and "reasonable notice" mean?

Hon. G. Abbott: Reasonable, I guess, is ultimately what a court might determine to be reasonable. Reasonable would depend on the circumstance; it would depend on the degree of risk associated with the process in question.

J. Kwan: But it is the safety officers who will get to determine what reasonable grounds or reasonable notice would be. It wouldn't be the courts; it would be the safety officers — right? — who would make that determination.

Hon. G. Abbott: The circumstances envisioned under Bill 19 are the same — identical to what is currently in place. That is, the safety officer makes a determination based on what they see as the degree of risk. Again, the time frame involved in an emergency situation obviously is going to be much shorter than in a situation where it's a longer-term, technical kind of question. What's reasonable and short will vary with the circumstance and degree of risk, and that's what's envisioned under this act. But it's also what's in place today and has been in place for some time.

J. Kwan: Under section 18(1)(h) where it requires the names and addresses of the licensed contractors, etc., to be provided, could the minister please advise what measures are being put in place to ensure that confidentiality is secured?

Hon. G. Abbott: All of the provisions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act apply today and also will apply tomorrow after the passage of this act. So that, ultimately, is the protection involved here.

J. Kwan: Under section 18(1)(j), if a worker is asked to answer written or oral questions in front of a safety officer, will they be permitted to bring legal counsel or a shop steward of some sort to such inquiries?

J. Kwan: Under paragraph (k), which refers to any…. It states: "…require that a person produce any record for inspection." It appears that is very broad and vague, actually. What's the intent behind that?

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe that, read in the full context, there is an appropriate circumscribing of the power. So if 18(1) is read as this: "For the purposes of this Act and in the course of performing their duties, safety officers may exercise any or all of the following powers and any other powers assigned to them under the regulations…." Then we go to (k): "…require that a person produce any record for inspection." It would only be in respect of the necessity for fulfilling their role as a safety officer that they would be able to require any record. Obviously, they would not, for example, be authorized under this act or any other act to request information of a personal nature which was irrelevant to the pursuit of the safety role of the safety officer.

J. Kwan: Under (p) of section 18, could the minister advise what "variance" means and under what conditions a safety officer can issue a variance as described under 18(1)(p)?

Hon. G. Abbott: The notion or concept of a variance is in place today for safety inspectors, and it will be in place after the passage of this bill, as well, for safety officers. A variance typically involves a minor — underline "minor" — deviation from a regulation. The safety officer or the safety inspector, as is the case today, would permit those on a one-off basis where they made sense, where they didn't compromise either worker or public safety in doing so.

J. Kwan: That's helpful. When I looked at the notion of variance, I was concerned that it might be applicable for any area in terms of safety inspections and standards. It's good to know that it is only restricted to very minor variances. Thank you to the minister for that answer.

J. Kwan: Section 20 deals with the information that may be recorded in the registry. As it pertains to the proposed registry, how will the ministry ensure that private information, again, is kept private? I understand that the freedom-of-information act will apply, but what other measures would be in place, if any?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think there are several ways in which the member's concern can be allayed. I want to outline those. First of all, staff only collect the information that's needed for the purposes anticipated in this section. There's no, for example, request for extraneous information that's beyond the scope of what's contemplated in the act for public and worker safety. There also are all of the appropriate firewalls operationally to protect information.

The act creates a registrar, who will obviously have overall responsibility for the protection of the information contained in the registry. As the member noted, over and above all of that, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies, so all of the constraints and protections around the use and dissemination of information would apply here as well.

J. Kwan: Will the privacy commissioner be consulted before information is released? When the system is set up, will the privacy commissioner be consulted?

Hon. G. Abbott: The commissioner has been consulted with respect to this legislation.

Hon. G. Abbott: The information that will be required is itemized in the act. I'm happy to try to provide more detail with respect to that, but perhaps I've missed the substance of the member's question.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can refer me to what section of the act actually itemizes the information that is to be disclosed by the contractor. Perhaps I missed it.

Hon. G. Abbott: The information required — at least, the basic information — is defined in 20(1)(a) to (e). For example: "…record the names of licensed contractors and former licensed contractors…." Then (a) to (e) go on and request information with respect to status of their licences, compliance orders, monetary penalties, discipline orders and so on.

Again, if I've missed the intent of the question, I apologize, and I'm happy to provide more information if that's needed.

J. Kwan: No, the minister hasn't missed the intent. I thought there might be more than what was prescribed in the act, so I asked the question to see what other information might be required. It appears that if it's just what it is — the name, etc., — then I'm satisfied with that question.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't expect there to be a new cost associated with the registry as laid out in this bill. We are already undertaking that function, except in a dispersed kind of way, across the different technologies that we regulate and manage. The registry will be combined, and I think there probably will be some efficiencies provided by that. It won't be a great cost saving, but at worst it will likely be pretty much equivalent to what it is today.

J. Kwan: Will a contractor be notified if they're removed from the registry?

J. Kwan: Will they be able to appeal that decision, and to whom do they appeal it?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes. Typically, the aggrieved contractor would be appealing the decision of a manager, and it would embrace the process as we talked about earlier. But yes, certainly the decision would be appealable to the Safety Standards Appeal Board.

J. Kwan: On section 21, I'm assuming that if the registrar does release information pertaining to a specific contractor, that contractor will also be notified and will have consented to the release of such information. Am I right to assume that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I apologize if I may have missed some element in the member's question. Basically, I think the best way to answer this question is that the responsibilities and the constraints that apply from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in respect of this statute are the same as they would be in relation to any other statute across government — that is, there are constraints around release of personal information and sensitive business information. All of the elements that would apply in the exercise of the FOIPPA Act in relation to this statute would apply to any other statute of government or any other agency of government.

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a current fee, and it's the anticipation of my staff that those fees, which have been static for some time, will likely remain pretty much that way. There's no reason why, in short, the introduction of this act would bring about any particular variation up or down in respect of those fees.

J. Kwan: Will there be both application fees and certification fees? The minister says — I'm assuming, then — there won't be more fees that current workers or new workers would have to pay and he's not anticipating any new fees to be introduced.

Hon. G. Abbott: The safety engineering services today and the Safety Authority tomorrow will deal with the contractors rather than the individual workers, but the staff are not aware of any new fees that would be necessitated as a result of the passage of this bill.

J. Kwan: Would the criteria for the safety manager to examine worker qualifications under this section in determining the scope of the contractor's licence be the same criteria that would be used in determining the qualified workers that we discussed previously, or would there be a different set of standards that would apply?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is: the same standard and qualifications will remain in place. The qualifications that the contractor

J. Kwan: Sorry. When the minister says the same standards, does he mean the same standards we discussed earlier or the same standards as the current act?

J. Kwan: Section 26 deals with the certificate of qualification, so the questions are similar — along the lines that I've been asking earlier. What criteria will the safety manager use to examine the worker's qualifications? The tests that will be utilized for the examinations will be what sort of tests, if those tests will be used?

Hon. G. Abbott: The sorts of tests, as the member asked, are standardized. As an example, for power engineers or boiler operators, the concern, obviously, is to measure things like skills, knowledge and experience. In the case of the power engineers, there's a rigorous examination process to determine that qualification.

J. Kwan: Are those the same tests that are now being used under the previous act, and so there will be no change?

J. Kwan: Section 29 deals with the discretion whether to inspect after an issue of a permit. How will a safety manager judge whether or not to inspect a site after a permit has been issued?

The issue of when discretion would be used is largely experience-based. The staff, again, either in the current instance or the future instance…. Under the Safety Authority, discretion would be based on a rigorous risk-assessment model, where things like the type of device that was in question would come into play. Is it high voltage? Is it low voltage? Obviously, the issue of discretion would vary in relation to that.

We would also look at the kind of work involved. Was worker safety something that might come into question as a consequence of the use of discretion? I think that over time, the kind of safety record, and so on, that contractors might have would also be an important part of the experience-based risk model.

J. Kwan: Section 32 deals with variances. Can the minister explain in what sort of situation a variance might be issued?

Hon. G. Abbott: An example would be the routing of an underground cable from a pole into a building. The standard is three feet. If there were some concrete or something that was in the way and there needed to be a variance of a couple of inches off that three-foot standard, that would be the kind of variance contemplated in this provision.

J. Kwan: Once a variance is made, does it put forward a precedent in terms of future applications for variances, or is it issued on a case-by-case basis?

Hon. G. Abbott: No. It only varies with the specific instance rather than the standard itself. Again, I know the member has some experience in this. It's rather like the board of variance municipally. You might be able to vary a setback by perhaps 10 percent without moving too far away from the spirit and intent of the sideyard setback. This the same case here, where the standard remains in place. It is only varied in the specific instance and circumstances surrounding that variance.

J. Kwan: Will variances be trade-specific, or do they apply to all the different trades?

Hon. G. Abbott: A typical variance would be along the lines that I described, where physical characteristics might produce some reasonable and minor deviation from the standard. It might also be an instance where, in a process, some deviation from the normal process might be contemplated. It's difficult, in the abstract, to answer that question, but I think that gives a sense of it.

J. Kwan: The reason I'm asking these questions is that I'm aware of a case in Ontario, a legal proceeding taking place in Ontario, where variances are being applied. Without going into all of the details around it, the issue is that there is concern around the health and safety of the workers for particular gas-fired industrial air heaters that are to be installed under the ground. I see the staff nodding, so they're aware of that case.

The issue is the health and safety of the workers, where airborne contaminants might pose a risk. That's before the courts right now. The reason why I'm going after the variance questions here is that I want to

make sure the variances that would be allowed are really of a minor nature and do not actually deviate from minimum standards that apply, in terms of safety for the public as well as for the workers that are involved.

Hon. G. Abbott: Standards are in place because, through processes, that has been determined to be the appropriate minimum necessary to ensure both public safety and worker safety in the process involved.

A minor variance is contemplated where it has been established to the satisfaction of the safety officer or the safety manager that the minor variance would not in any way add risk to either worker safety or public safety. Then such a variance might be reasonable.

It's, again, rather like the municipal situation with the sideyard setback. The standard prevails. The standard remains in place, but the variance has been contemplated because there is no identified risk to either public safety or worker safety in making that minor variation from the norm.

J. Kwan: Is it the safety worker who gets to decide whether or not a variance is approved? How do we know and have the assurance that public safety as well as worker safety are protected?

Hon. G. Abbott: I presume that when the member used the term "safety worker," she meant "safety officer." It is the responsibility of the safety officer to make that determination, to ensure that if the three-foot standard is varied to a standard of 2 foot 10 inches for a specific circumstance, both worker safety and public safety are contemplated in making that variance.

J. Kwan: In the case of the Ontario situation where the approved use of direct gas-fired industrial air heaters were allowed on the ground, would that be deemed to be a major variance? Something like that would not happen here in British Columbia. Am I right?

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor my staff are as familiar with the Ontario case as we need to be to make an informed comment in respect of it. We'd be happy, if the member would provide that information, to provide an opinion. Of course, it is an Ontario issue, and neither I nor my staff are immediately seized of that issue.

J. Kwan: I'd be happy to provide the information — the Ontario case — for the minister and his staff to review. The matter is before the courts. I'm not sure whether or not that would be considered a minor variance, a major variance or other things like that.

I see the minister's staff shaking their heads. Oh, they don't know. Sorry, I thought they meant that cases like that would not take place.

Hon. G. Abbott: Not that I'm terrified of the member voting against the section — that's fine and obviously her right to do it — but just so she knows, a variance could not and would not counter WCB regulations for worker safety. The WCB regulation forms the basis for worker safety, and a variance could not and would not breach that regulation.

J. Kwan: What sort of application process will be entailed in asking a safety manager to authorize the use of equivalent standards?

Hon. G. Abbott: Although the term "equivalent standards agreements" is new, the process and content of these are similar to what exists now in safety management plans. The object, currently, is for safety engineering services and, in the future, the Safety Authority and safety managers to work with industry to develop appropriate equivalent standards so that the appropriate level of expertise, knowledge and training goes into whatever process is in place. Obviously, in simple, rudimentary kinds of processes, the level of expertise required would be less than in a more complex operation.

J. Kwan: How will the safety manager measure equivalence? Furthermore, how can we be sure that safety standards would not at some point be compromised and therefore result in injury or damage?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, in working towards equivalent standards agreements, we use the existing expertise that's within the ministry to do that. Additionally, to ensure that the spirit, intent and letter of the equivalent standards agreements are being followed, there are regular audits to ensure that, indeed, those standards are being met. In some instances there may be on-site technical inspections to ensure that, again, the standards are being met. The ministry — in future, the Safety Authority — will track accidents, incidents, and so on, to identify where an ESA is not being appropriately followed. We do have the ability to end an equivalent standards agreement and revert to the norm if the terms and standards of the agreement are not being met.

J. Kwan: Under an equivalency agreement, will all workers on site be required to be registered or licensed contractors?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this will answer the member's question. If not, I'm happy to entertain any follow-up that she may have on it.

The decision about an equivalent standards agreement, which takes the place of the ongoing cross-industry standards that they would otherwise have to work with, is a professional judgment on the part of a safety manager. It's a difficult thing to appeal, in that sense.

Again, what we do through ESAs in a specific industry or a specific shop within an industry is try to work with that industry to ensure that there's an appropriate marriage of public safety, worker safety and skills to needs. Each is unique, and each is based on the best judgment that the safety manager can bring forward based on their professional experience. That's the reason why it is not appealable.

The Chair: Hon. member, before we proceed, I just want to clarify section 32. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I understand….

J. Kwan: On section 32, I wanted to actually vote against it on division, and I forgot to do that. My apologies. Perhaps we could call the vote on sections 32 and 33 together and then register that vote accordingly.

I only have one more question on section 33, and then we can move on to the vote.

J. Kwan: Sorry. I was expecting the minister to rise and…. Anyway, okay. The issue I take on the equivalency matter here is that because it is on the basis of personal judgment, it is very subjective to the individual's experience, I suppose, and is therefore their call on the matter. This gives the potential for inconsistencies, if you will, in terms of standards which I think, when it comes to public safety and worker safety, need to be clearer than that — rather than just allowing for decisions that could vary from safety manager to safety manager. I have some concerns around that and concerns around inconsistencies.

I know from the minister's website, as well, that this is a contentious issue in the industry which may result in a ministerial policy down the road. I would actually feel a lot more comfort if we know what the standards are and how they are being applied and if it's set across the board so there is no variation. This is why the opposition will be voting against section 33 as well as on the question around variance. Because of the Ontario case, I worry that we may somehow inadvertently or advertently, actually, allow for a situation that may compromise worker safety.

The last question I have for the minister on section 33: is the minister intending to continue consultation with stakeholders regarding the equivalency standards issue?

Hon. G. Abbott: The monetary penalty provisions are currently being developed through consultation with stakeholders and interested parties, and those will ultimately be set out in regulation.

Hon. G. Abbott: The level was a product of both consultation and advice of legal counsel in respect of what would be appropriate.

J. Kwan: So then I take it it's the minister who will make the final decision on the different levels of fines.

Hon. G. Abbott: Sorry, my apologies. Could I ask the member to repeat her question? We just weren't sure what was being….

J. Kwan: Maybe I didn't understand or hear the minister's earlier answer properly. Am I understanding correctly that it is the minister who will make the final decision on the different levels of fines?

Hon. G. Abbott: The minister, whoever that may be at that time, will not make that decision.

J. Kwan: So it is just on the basis of all the different stakeholders — committees and what have you — and they will make that decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member is referencing the monetary penalty set out in section 40(4), which reads, "The total amount imposed on a person under this section for a contravention must not be greater than $100 000," that $100,000 was a product, as I noted earlier, of consultation plus the advice of legal counsel.

In terms of the level of the monetary penalty, which is a phrase noted in 40(1), that again is being developed additionally through a consultative process. It is probable that the penalties subject to that consultative process and the embodiment of that in regulation would reflect the type of contravention, whether there had been previous contraventions, and the nature and severity of it. Those are the things that are apt to come into play as an appropriate monetary penalty is developed.

J. Kwan: The safety manager can suspend the application of a daily penalty under sub (3). What infor-

mation would he utilize to make the decision to suspend the application of a daily penalty?

Hon. G. Abbott: The kind of things that the safety manager would consider would, in all likelihood, include the speed and dispatch with which the person out of compliance attempted to remediate their situation. That might be a good example of why a fine might be suspended.

J. Kwan: Last question on section 40. The maximum fines of $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for companies — how did the minister arrive at that figure?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted earlier, this level is the product of consultations, plus the advice of legal counsel.

J. Kwan: Under sub (3), why is the safety manager's decision to refuse a request for a review not appealable? Is it, again, because it's his own judgment, and therefore it's too subjective for it to be reviewed and appealed?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question, because I had to move through various stages of puzzlement in arriving at an appropriate answer to her question as well. Section 49(3) needs to be considered in the context of sub (1) and sub (2) as well. I'll use the example which my staff provided to me, because I think it probably best explains the situation.

A safety officer makes a determination in a specific case against a contractor. There is a third party — namely, a building owner — also affected in this hypothetical case. The decision of a safety manager under subsection (2) is around the third party appealing rather than the contractor appealing. But again, I guess there are also mechanisms that engage that will allow the third party to appeal as well — just not that specific decision.

Hon. G. Abbott: Persons qualified to do regulated work are, obviously, going to have to be qualified. We talked about this earlier in terms of the kinds of elements that would come into play and the determination of qualification, which is still in process. We have done, as I noted earlier, that first round of consultations. The second round will commence shortly. Ultimately, the product of those consultations will be, through regulation, a determination of who is qualified and who is not.

Again, there is going to be some variation, depending on the nature of the work and the kind of issues of public safety or worker safety that might be engaged in the work. Again, qualified persons might be an objective test. It might also embrace issues like experience or knowledge, depending on the character of the work which is in question.

J. Kwan: Again, out of an abundance of caution I am going to vote against this section, mostly because the regulations are not before us and I don't know what it means for a person to be qualified. More importantly, I don't know who is going to be disqualified. So again, from a public safety point of view I'm concerned about that, and until I see the regulations, I'm not comfortable voting for this section. Formerly, the regulations were attached with the act so that we could see clearly what would apply. For that reason, I'm going to vote against this section on division, and then I'm ready to move on to section 88.

J. Kwan: Section 88 deals with the minister's ability to make regulations, and it is quite extensive. There are some 23 paragraphs associated with it. The minister has the power to change definitions and terms, to prescribe fees and to establish codes or standards respecting regulated work, amongst other things. Once this legislation is passed, the minister will be able to change pretty much anything else he wants without bringing these changes before the House. Once again, I want to have it on record that the minister will continue to have public consultation during the development of these regulations and that no regulations will be changed without the consultation process.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this can provide some comfort in respect of the member's concerns. The ministerial authority in respect of this extends only to issues of a technical or administrative nature, not a broader nature. In terms of the processes that are engaged prior to those kinds of regulatory changes being made, there is a well-developed and extensive process which involves consultations with affected stakeholders, the public and, importantly, our advisory committees, which, again, are technical and expertise-based.

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

Bill 19, Safety Standards Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise why the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the Document Disposal Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Business Corporations Act do not apply to the Safety Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Safety Authority will be a not-for-profit corporation operating at arm's length from government. We have built many of the measures that would be embraced by those provisions into the act.

J. Kwan: So the new authority, when this bill passes, is not a government enterprise but is a not-for-profit entity run by a non-profit society. Is that the intention here? Could the minister please explain what this entity would look like more specifically?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is a corporation, incorporated by statute and operated by a board.

J. Kwan: How will accountability be ensured, and will the FOI act be applicable to the authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The issue of accountability will be addressed in a number of ways. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will apply. The Ombudsman Act will apply. As well, later on in this statute we have external accountability requirements, which will also ensure that this corporation is accountable.

J. Kwan: Why has the government decided to make this entity not an agent of government?

Hon. G. Abbott: The aim of the bill is to see the Safety Authority operate on the same footing and with the guidance of the people that the authority will regulate. As a corporation that's separate — arm's length — from government, it will have its own insurance. The permit fees, and so on, will be set by the stakeholders as represented on the board, appropriate to their circumstance. It will operate with the flexibility and efficiency that I think will be enjoyed and that is not possible as an immediate government entity.

J. Kwan: Will they still have to report to the minister, sort of like Crown corporations? While they are a separate entity, if you will, Crown corps still have to report to the minister. Would this authority still have to report to the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: There will be a service level agreement that will be instituted between the ministry and the Safety Authority, and there will have to be a report from the authority to the minister and the ministry in respect of that. As well, there are public recording requirements which are actually detailed later in the bill. For example, an annual report must be provided, and a business plan must also be provided to ensure there is accountability on both those sides.

J. Kwan: Will the Safety Authority be hiring more inspectors to assist them in carrying out their regulatory duties?

Hon. G. Abbott: Existing staff in safety engineering services will have the option of moving over to the authority. We expect that in most cases, that option would be pursued. We don't have any reason to believe, given that safety engineering operates essentially on a cost-basis now, that there would be any dramatic increase or decrease in the number of inspectors, but we don't propose to be prescriptive in respect of that. Obviously, there will be decisions made in months and

years to come by the Safety Authority in respect of what they believe to be appropriate.

J. Kwan: The operation of the authority…. Where will they get their funding from? Is it a grant by government, or is it recovered through fees? Where would they get their operating funds from?

Hon. G. Abbott: The costs in safety engineering services are currently about 90 percent or better covered by permit fees, and so on. The new authority will be on a cost-recovery basis as well — not-for-profit but cost-recovered.

J. Bray: Just one quick question. I've had some correspondence with a licensed electrician who has had some frustration that in the past, non-licensed people were doing regulated work and that the previous safety standards act didn't really cover that. So all the licensed people were subject to penalty; with non-licensed there was actually less scope. I'm very pleased that Bill 19 addresses that in two areas with respect to offences and penalties.

My question to the minister is: in section 5, among other things, is the purpose of the authority to become the active base with which those new provisions in Bill 19 will be enforced so that regulated work is overseen and there is the opportunity for people to do reporting with respect to non-licensed individuals contravening Bill 19, the Safety Standards Act?

J. Kwan: On section 24, as to the employees of the authority, am I correct in assuming that they will not be public servants and that this is the reason why the Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act would not apply to them?

J. Kwan: So this authority is responsible for protecting public safety, yet it is not a public company, and it is not a government-run company. The difficulty I have here is: how do we really ensure it is accountable to the people and therefore its employees as well, because they are not public servants? Complaints, and so on and so forth…. Where do they go, and how is it being dealt with?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that the authority will operate under the standards, the parameters, the legislation and the regulation as set out by government. The freedom-of-information act will apply, the Ombudsman Act will apply, and so on. So there are a variety of accountability measures which will ensure the effectiveness of the board in relation to its responsibilities.

J. Kwan: Will the employees — who are under the terms of the collective agreement, I assume — also be transferred to the non-profit society that will run the authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: The employees will have the option of moving from government to the new Safety Authority. The new Safety Authority will have to negotiate a collective agreement with those employees.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 28 standing in my name on the order paper.

J. Kwan: This section deals with appointing an independent auditor as authorized in the Business Corporations Act. How would this section change now that the Business Corporations Act now longer applies to the Safety Authority? How will the independent auditor be appointed, and why were these changes made in such a way?

Hon. G. Abbott: We could still cross-reference to the Business Corporations Act.

J. Kwan: Then the procedures for appointing an independent auditor, etc., would still follow the Business Corporations Act. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY