Hansard -- Tuesday, October 7, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 11 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7215

Tributes		7215
	Israel Harold Asper
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Cheema

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7216
	Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act (Bill 65)
	Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7216
	Canadian mountain guides
	W. McMahon
	Addiction services in Victoria
	J. Bray
	Maa-Nulth agreement-in-principle
	G. Trumper

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

Petitions		7220
	S. Orr

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

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

Reporting of Bills		7225
	Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 62)

Third Reading of Bills		7225
	Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 62)

Committee of the Whole House		7226
	Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7226
	Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 42)

Committee of the Whole House		7226
	Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 37)
	Hon. G. Bruce
	J. Kwan

Hon. G. Cheema: In honour of Mental Illness Awareness Week, I would like to welcome two guests to the gallery today. It's my pleasure to introduce Gail Simpson, executive director of the Capital Mental Health Association, and Ken Beattie, president of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Victoria branch. Ken is also a facilitator for the Mood Disorder Association of Victoria. I would like to mention that in 1993, Gail brought B.C.'s first depression screening test site to Victoria. In honour of the National Depression Education and Screening Day, which is occurring this Thursday, would the House please make them both very welcome.

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

B. Penner: Today it's my honour to welcome a delegation from Washington State in what may be something of a historic occasion. For the first time in living memory the co-chair of the joint Washington State House and Senate Transportation Committee is here: Senator Jim Horn, along with committee members Senator Joyce Mulliken, Representative Beverly Woods, Representative Doug Ericksen and Representative Fred Jarrett. Representative Jeff Morris, you'll be pleased to know, has just landed at the Victoria airport — I just spoke to him a moment ago — and he's on his way in. He's my predecessor as president of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region.

In addition, Andrew Johnsen, transportation adviser to Governor Gary Locke, is here, as is Jim Troyer, chief of staff to the Senate Republican caucus. There are a number of other individuals here, as well, that I would like to acknowledge: Brian Volkert and Mike Thorn from Washington State Ferries; Darrell Bryan, Jim Boldt and Robin Appleford, all from the Victoria Clipper; as well as Elmira Forner and Jennifer Ziegler from the Washington State Transportation Commission; Kevin Cooke from the Canadian consulate office in Seattle; as well as Matt Morrison, PNWER's executive director and a hard-working gentleman known throughout the Pacific Northwest; and Mike Groesch, coordinator of the Senate Transportation Committee.

We've been assisted in arranging a number of valuable meetings today by Dr. Sukumar Periwal, an adviser with the intergovernmental relations office associated with the Premier's office. They are here today to meet with a number of people. They've already met with our Transportation minister and our Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. I believe this may be the first meeting of its type, at least in living memory, and the first time I'm aware of that any group like this has come to Victoria to meet with elected representatives here. It's another good sign of our growing relationship with Washington State, and I ask the House to please make our visitors welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: Today we mourn the passing of Israel Harold Asper, affectionately known as Izzy. Izzy Asper died this morning at age 71 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mr. Asper was referred to as a media mogul, and for good reason. He truly was a giant in Canadian broadcasting and print journalism. He entered broadcasting in 1974 with a small Winnipeg TV station under the CanWest banner. The company has since grown to become CanWest Global and includes TV stations from coast to coast, as well as outlets in Australia and New Zealand. The family also owns dozens of Canadian newspapers.

As founder and former chairman of CanWest Global Communications, Izzy Asper retired as executive chairman this past January. He has received numerous awards, most notably the Canadian Association of Broadcasters gold ribbon award for broadcast excellence in 1992. In 1995 he was inducted into the Canadian Broadcast Association Hall of Fame, and that same year he was named an officer of the Order of Canada.

Prior to making his mark in Canadian broadcasting and journalism, Izzy Asper served Canadians in legal and political arenas. A law graduate of the University of Manitoba, he was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1975, and from 1970 to '75 he was a leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba and was elected twice to the Manitoba Legislative Assembly.

Izzy Asper was also known as a philanthropist and, in fact, in 1993 established his own charitable foundation, the Asper Foundation.

We offer sincere condolences to his wife, Babs; his two sons, David and Leonard; and his daughter, Gail.

J. MacPhail: We in the opposition rise to give our condolences to the Asper family, to Manitoba and to Canada. There is never, ever an easy time to lose a loved one, and that is true of the Asper family, even though the contribution is, as the Solicitor General has said, a great contribution to Canada.

He was also a spiritual man, a deeply religious man, and for that he should be remembered as well. We join with the government in sending condolences — I hope through you, Mr. Speaker — to the Asper family.

Hon. G. Cheema: I would also like to express my sincere sympathy to the Asper family on the passing of

Izzy Asper, a great Manitoban and exceptional Canadian. I had the good fortune of knowing him during my time in Manitoba. I knew him to be a very compassionate, personable, community-oriented and very committed person. His contribution to the Jewish community, minority groups and to our country is enormous. His legacy will not be forgotten. On behalf of my constituents and my family, I would like to send my prayers to the Asper family on this sad occasion.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 65, the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. This new act will create a new model to resolve local government bylaw disputes. It will establish local government dispute adjudicative systems to deal with minor bylaw disputes such as parking tickets.

This model gives local governments more authority to deal with local issues and avoids the time-consuming court processes associated with disputing minor bylaw tickets in the Provincial Court. There will also be more rigorous penalties for serious bylaw breaches, and they will continue to be heard in Provincial Court.

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

Bill 65 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

W. McMahon: Today I have the pleasure of recognizing a very dedicated group of individuals, the Canadian mountain guides. Last winter was a very difficult one for many mountain guides in my region and around the province. As we all remember, a series of avalanches resulted in a number of deaths, reminding us how powerful Mother Nature can be and how fragile life is when exploring our back-country mountains.

Those avalanches were obviously beyond anyone's control. While we were in the middle of one of the worst avalanche seasons ever in this province, I was extremely impressed with the professionalism of the guides. These are dedicated people who put safety first and risk their own lives to save others. If there is one thing I learned last year, it is that we have the best, most knowledgable guides anywhere in the world.

While I have thanked many guides personally for their professionalism and dedication to safety in the back country, I want to thank them again today publicly. The guides in our back country allow people from all over the globe to come and explore our back country in as safe a manner as possible, and we should be extremely grateful. They also play an important role in our local economies. Tourism in our back country is growing, and it is absolutely critical that we have experts such as the Canadian mountain guides to assist those with a spirit for adventure.

In 1963, with the encouragement of Parks Canada, the Association of Canadian Mountain Guides was formed. It now has over 500 members, and Canadian guides can be found working around the world. They are perhaps best known for having developed helicopter skiing and setting the acknowledged standard for safety and client care in ski-guiding. They are a self-regulating board that assesses their training and their skills. They meet accepted standards and as an internationally recognized body are regulated worldwide.

We should be proud of the work that they do. I ask all my colleagues here today to join me in wishing the Canadian mountain guides a safe and adventurous year in our back country.

J. Bray: Two weeks ago I, along with the member for Victoria-Hillside and the mayor of Victoria, had the opportunity to tour the Vancouver downtown east side's newly opened supervised injection site. This was another result in the ongoing cooperation between the province, the city of Victoria, the Vancouver Island health authority and the Victoria city police on looking for short-, medium- and long-term solutions to issues affecting downtown Victoria.

The tour was good, the services great, and the need is greater. However, the question comes forward: does Victoria need a supervised injection site? The city of Victoria will be completing an extensive needs analysis. My educated estimate is that this analysis will determine that we do not need a supervised injection site.

However, I believe Victoria needs to be open to new services that may be needed in our community. One may be what is often referred to as wet shelters. Wet shelters offer shelter to homeless persons also suffering from chronic alcoholism. Having done walkabouts in downtown Victoria, I know this is a particular need.

Most shelters and hostels ban alcohol consumption or intoxicated clients from staying. For safety purposes

this makes sense. A separate shelter that deals with those who are drinking and will drink ensures their safety but also an increased sense of community safety by providing a safe place for these persons to go.

Downtown needs to ensure services that provide alternatives to this small population from simply being on the streets. It would help make everyone feel safe. Do wet shelters condone alcoholism? No. Do they lend to increased homelessness or alcoholism? No. Wet shelters do recognize a need, provide individual and public safety, and perhaps can serve as the first intervention that deals with those suffering chronic alcoholism on their terms and for some lead to further treatment.

Controversial? Maybe so. But let us be open to exploring wet shelters as another step in developing a made-in-Victoria continuum of care for the most vulnerable in our community.

G. Trumper: Cooperation is a simple word that means big things, something residents of the Alberni-Qualicum riding are seeing on a regular basis. This past Friday the Maa-Nulth first nation signed an agreement-in-principle with the province and federal government.

We have reached this stage because our government and the Maa-Nulth people know cooperation will benefit all of our communities, aboriginal or non-aboriginal. The chiefs have told me this is about building a strong economic future for their communities, about moving forward together with their neighbours. It's been exciting working side by side with my first nation friends to build these partnerships. First nations must be our partners if our local and provincial economies are going to move ahead to the benefit of all British Columbians.

The Maa-Nulth AIP is just the latest sign of partnerships in action. The Eagle Rock Quarry, a business partnership between the Hupacasath first nations, the Ucluelet first nations and the Polaris Minerals Corp., has won approval.

The Tseshaht first nations, thanks to provincial tenure award, have signed a deal with Coulson Manufacturing to mill 75,000 cubic metres of timber. Forest tenure has gone to the Ditidaht, Pacheedaht first nations and the Huu-ay-aht–Ka:'yu:t'h/Chek:k'tles7et'h' first nations. These tenures are an economic opportunity. Across Alberni-Qualicum, first nations and our government are leading the way, building bridges, building partnerships, and building a bright economic future for aboriginals and for our mid-Island communities.

On the west coast of Vancouver Island, we are building a template for a new era of partnerships, and we are showing that cooperation works. Many years from now, when we look at a B.C. where all first nations and their neighbouring communities are working together to build strong, vibrant communities and a strong, vibrant province, they will say that the first nations of the west coast and this provincial government led the way to making that new era happen.

J. MacPhail: The Premier's office gave National Public Relations an untendered contract to help it spin its communications plan for the government's energy plan, a plan that rewards big oil and big mining in an unprecedented way.

We now know that National Public Relations was also working for precisely the same industry interests that benefit from that government energy plan. We also know that National Public Relations gave the Liberal Party more than $8,000 in a donation in 2002, the same year that they were handed the untendered contract. That donation was more than three times the average donation they'd contributed over the previous six years.

Can the Minister of Management Services, who has responsibility for government procurement, please explain what controls are in place to stop Liberal insiders from playing both sides of the fence, and can he explain why the controls aren't working?

Hon. S. Santori: This government made a commitment two years ago that we were going to restore open tendering and procurement in this province. We are committed to the whole theory around openness and accountability and how we procure it. We have done that, there are safeguards in place, and we will continue to meet that commitment.

J. MacPhail: I expect that some ministers will wish they had gone to Calgary today, because that didn't answer the question. It was an untendered contract — untendered. The National Public Relations contract was for a maximum of $22,000. The government — not a tendered contract; untendered — paid them $37,000 — $15,000 more than the contract was worth. That's a 60 percent overrun.

Again to the Minister of Management Services: why did the government pay National Public Relations $15,000 more than the signed contract allowed, and could he explain what the taxpayers got for the extra money? It's his job to know.

Hon. S. Santori: My ministry is responsible for the overall governance of procurement in British Columbia. I am not totally aware of all of the details surrounding this particular matter that the member rises to speak on in the House today. I do understand that on some procurement practices there are thresholds in terms of what can and cannot be let out. I will get that information and make that information available to the member opposite on this particular tender process that did go out.

J. MacPhail: Maybe I should be asking the question, "What value are the taxpayers getting for this minister?" because he should know this kind of stuff. That's his sole job.

It's an untendered contract. Here's what National Public Relations themselves admitted to. They were given the government's energy plan before it was made public. That gave National Public Relations special access to inside information on the contents of the energy plan at the same time that they were registered lobbyists for the Coal Association, the Mining Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and for an umbrella group that represents energy interests that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Liberals.

Can the Minister of Management Services now please explain why his government contract procedures would allow for energy industry and Liberal insiders to have access to the government's energy plan before it was finalized and before it was made public?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Management Services has the floor. Order, please.

Hon. S. Santori: In order to provide some briefness to my reply on this, the same answer I provided to the member opposite still stands. The member opposite knows that through my ministry and through government, I do not see every procurement or tender that goes out throughout the ministries. As I said earlier, I will find out the details around this process, and we will get back to the member opposite, but I remain confident….

J. Kwan: The Premier yesterday said that the cabinet ministers left behind would be able to answer any questions that might arise, so let's put that to the test. We know that National Public Relations was on contract with the Premier's office to manage the government's energy policy rollout. We also know that National Public Relations was retained at the same time to lobby this government on behalf of big oil and coal. We also know that the finalized energy policy rewarded those oil and mining interests with a plan to increase pollution and greenhouse gases.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection assure this House that the energy plan was not shared with the corporate interests represented by National Public Relations before it was released to the public?

Hon. J. Murray: My ministry was not in the lead with the energy policy, but I can tell you that we have an energy policy that we are exceedingly proud of. We have the greenest energy policy in the country, and we have a 50 percent renewable energy policy that no other jurisdiction in North America can match.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: You know what? It's not only the ministry that's not in the lead on this file; it's the minister who's not in the lead of protecting the environment. Well, that doesn't surprise me. The minister is clearly not given the same access to inside information as energy lobbyists. Right now one-third of the cabinet is in Calgary, and I suspect that more than a few energy lobbyists and insiders have been invited to the party. But the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection won't know what is being promised to the industry, because she's not allowed to go on the trip. How are British Columbians to have any faith in her ability…

J. Kwan: …access to government than energy industry lobbyists and insiders?

B. Bennett: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, if I could be allowed to ask it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition, please come to order.

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

the minister announced that an AIP was agreed to by the Friends of Fort Steele, which is a local community group, and the provincial government.

Can the minister tell the people of the East Kootenay how Fort Steele will be managed by this community group so that our area maintains this important tourist attraction and the heritage site well into the future?

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

I. Chong: I understand that just last week the Solicitor General met with the federal and all of the provincial justice ministers to discuss the national sex offender registry. Well, I have heard from many concerned parents in Oak Bay–Gordon Head who are still wanting to know about the status of this national registry. This sex offender registry is an important tool for preventing and fighting crime. In light of these discussions, can the Solicitor General tell us the status of the sex offender registry?

Hon. R. Coleman: At the federal-provincial justice ministers meeting, we made it pretty clear — all provinces made it clear — that we were not in favour of a sex offender registry that did not include retroactivity or photographic images on the system when the enhancements to CPIC were done. We made that very clear to the federal Solicitor General, who has agreed to take it back and try and work out the issues with regard to retroactivity, which is an important aspect of this. The geomapping we think we can actually apply through a relationship between CPIC and back into our PRIME system that we're putting into British Columbia today.

Those are the three aspects that we really had a concern about with the sex offender registry. I think it's important to remember that we also need to track sex offenders when they come out of incarceration when they have different aspects to their release that are conditions to the release, because we know that they will reoffend or break their conditions within 72 hours.

The package is that we have to have the integrated response to sex offenders in British Columbia at the prevention side and also at the geomapping and at the site, where we can actually keep track of the people that we have. Frankly, one is an investigative tool, and the other is a preventive tool, and they both have to go together.

J. MacPhail: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson seems to have trouble keeping his stories straight. First, he said that forcing companies to process raw logs in local mills was akin to communism. Then he said that he and the government were doing all they could to save the jobs at Louis Creek, and when Tolko pulled the plug on Louis Creek, he said he was angry and suggested that the company misled him.

To the Minister of Forests: what caused him to abandon the workers in Louis Creek? Was it (a) saving local jobs is communism, (b) incompetence by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson or (c) sneakiness by the company?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hardly think something as serious as what we are dealing with is an issue that the member would want to use her terms to be cheeky or cute about. No one….

Hon. M. de Jong: In the days following the tragic events that we are all so familiar with, it is true that I and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson met with officials from Tolko, the operator in the area, and made it clear to them that our preference and our belief that it was in the best interests of the people in Louis Creek, in Barriere and in the North Thompson Valley for that facility to be reconstructed in the North Thompson Valley…. In fact….

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there were requests from the company to change things like the points of ap-

praisal that would have made it easier to relocate the mill, which sadly is what is actually taking place, and we said no. We said no….

Hon. M. de Jong: We can adopt the stance of the opposition, which seems to be that in the aftermath of a tragedy, government can simply come along and say to a company that has been burned out of its premises, "We order you to do something that the government doesn't have the power to do," and….

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

S. Orr: I would like to present a petition with 2,000 signatures from the business people and concerned citizens of this region about the proposed closure of the Victoria land titles office.

J. Kwan: To continue on, on second reading of Bill 68, Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act, I now want to turn to the issue of independence. Just prior to the lunch break, I was talking about the issue of accountability. I now want to turn to the issue of independence.

Within its report on independence and accountability, the administrative justice project authors highlighted the importance of independence. They wrote: "When deciding cases, administrative tribunals are part of the overall system of justice, and public confidence in the integrity of the justice system is essential in a fair and democratic society. Ensuring such confidence requires a public perception that decisions are based on the merits of cases and are made in a fair way, free from outside interference by the government" — or other groups, for that matter. Furthermore, the AJP commented: "A common reason for creating a tribunal is so that a particular task can be carried out at arm's length from government."

The changes brought in by the Liberals in 2002 clearly reduce the distance between the commission and the government. That's the Agricultural Land Commission. The arm has been shortened. The result is a reduction in the Agricultural Land Commission's independence. First of all, the ability to delegate authority to other groups could undermine the longstanding mandate of the agricultural land reserve by introducing the potential for inconsistent decision-making. For example, former Central Saanich mayor Wayne Hunter expressed concerns that municipalities would be incapable of adequately protecting lands in the reserve. Mayor Hunter's concern was that municipalities "used to count on the commission to be the consistent body saying no, we don't think that's appropriate; now you have to get the local political flavour."

This is very significant, because it goes to the heart of the commission and its role. Since its inception, the commission has been the body charged with protecting the agricultural land base as well as agricultural development. Allowing political bodies like municipalities to approve non-farm uses within the ALR could open up the process to political interference. For example, a particular council that values development more than preservation could remove valuable agricultural land in an unbalanced approach.

The traditional impartiality that the commission has operated under is absent from municipalities. Furthermore, the consistency of a single body is lost. As a result, it is likely that a body other than the commission can impact the results of decisions. This is a clear violation of the principle of independence. The commission's ability to function as an independent body operating at arm's length from the government has also been greatly reduced by section 58 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. This section grants the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to establish "policies and procedures to be followed by the commission in conducting its affairs, performing its duties and functions and exercising its powers."

These new regulatory powers reduce the independence of the commission by giving the government the ability to introduce changes that can supersede decisions made by the commission. It opens up the process to potential political interference. In combination with the changes to the delegated authority discussed earlier, these new powers give the government significant leeway with the commission.

On this very issue, the administrative justice project states: "A decision-maker should not only be impartial but also be perceived by a reasonable person as being

impartial. There is a direct link between the amount of independence enjoyed by a tribunal and its members and whether the institutional arrangements create a perception of reasonable apprehension of bias."

While critics are not concerned with the individual members of the tribunal, since new appointment processes ensure accountability, the institutional arrangements established by this government do not create a perception of reasonable apprehension of bias.

Several of the changes allow direct political interference and allow other bodies with conflicting mandates to make decisions. All of this adds up to a distinct perception that government bias will influence the tribunal at an institutional level.

Looking at the overall picture, it is clear that the Ministry of Attorney General's principles described by the administrative justice project and Bill 68 have not been met in the changes to the Agricultural Land Commission. The balance between accountability and independence has not been met. The potential result is a lack of public confidence in the tribunal.

The government should revisit the Agricultural Land Commission Act and ensure that the principles of independence are more adequately considered. If the government is actually committed to the principles laid out by the administrative justice project, the commission's enabling legislation should be revised to remove the government's new overriding authority. This will remove the perceived influence.

The legislation should also be amended to remove the ability to delegate authority to other bodies with conflicting mandates. At the very least, transparent guidelines should be developed to ensure the Oil and Gas Commission cannot violate the purpose of the agricultural land reserve.

J. Bray: It is my pleasure to stand up in support of Bill 68, the Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act. I'm also pleased that the opposition has chosen to see the wisdom of this particular act and the changes that the Attorney General is bringing in. I thought the Attorney General did an excellent job during debate of outlining the genesis of this act as well as the reasons why it's so necessary now.

I thought that I perhaps could add to the debate from the perspective of somebody who has worked in the public service and, therefore, has had a lot of involvement with administrative tribunals, their important role in our society, and the way in which government services and other services are provided and why these changes are so critical.

I think one of the first areas I want to focus on is tribunals. The 29 administrative tribunals covered under this act really do form the basis of significant issues of administrative justice and fairness to citizens seeking services from government and other bodies. There is a need for those individuals seeking that justice to feel confident that the tribunal members and the chairs to which they're addressing their concerns are actually skilled and knowledgable in the area in which they're adjudicating. Because their decisions are often critical in the lives of individual appellants and individual citizens, they really must be based on knowledge and technical skill as well as other skills that one who is an adjudicator must have.

One of the areas of Bill 68 that I think is so important is the section that deals with merit-based appointments. Now, nobody argues with that as a concept, but it is sometimes a little bit harder to put into place when you're appointing positions — how you actually go about doing that on merit. I think over time the politicization of some administrative tribunals and the ability to pick people for a variety of reasons has impacted, if nothing else, the confidence of the public in those tribunal members and chairs but also could have an impact on the actual decisions made by those tribunal chairs and those individuals.

Moving back and actually putting it in legislation that government wants those arm's-length administrative tribunals to be filled by people based on merit, their skills and their knowledge is, I think, absolutely critical. Just as we have placed merit back as an important hiring factor in B.C.'s public service — in fact, we now have a merit commissioner whose sole task is to ensure that, from the lens of merit, that's how people enter into the public service or move up in the public service — so too should that carry over to administrative tribunals. I certainly, for one, am very pleased to see that as being a significant focus in Bill 68.

There's another issue that is critically important for citizens seeking services of administrative tribunals, and that's the area of fairness. We want to make sure there is consistency with which these tribunals deal with matters from an administrative law perspective. We want to make sure there's a fairness with respect to how these tribunals are staffed and how people are on there so that the decisions they make at the end of the day are felt to be fair by those receiving services. It doesn't mean that they always agree but that they feel the process has been fair and that the members are well trained and knowledgable — and to ensure that the process by which these tribunals are staffed starts first with merit and second with fairness.

The third area I think is critically important is that because these tribunals deal with individuals often in distress, often dealing with very complex personal issues that are monetary or health related, the effectiveness of these administrative tribunals has to be uppermost. What Bill 68 allows us to do as government and allows those bodies to do is maximize their effectiveness in dealing with their general scope of review so that they perform their task with a cost-effective and decision-effective process. That, to me, is critical and something you don't know about. The general public, if they've never gone to one of these tribunals, may or may not realize how critical it is. Those who have been before some of these bodies know that the effectiveness of those decisions, the fairness of those decisions and the people who make those decisions…. It has a life-altering impact. The effectiveness we will be able to

It's also time, as part of the administrative justice review project, to look at the governance structure with respect to administrative tribunals. We want to make sure that they can function independently, that they can function effectively. Quite frankly, some of the rules around their governance hindered that and actually created obstacles for those individuals to do the job to which they were appointed. I think the Attorney General did an excellent job of addressing that. This bill will help a long way towards that.

Another area I think is also critical is that because there was a concern as to whether or not some of the appointments were based on merit or other reasons, the fact that there were not independent time limits that ensured the independence of people once they were appointed further eroded some people's confidence in the impartiality and independence of the administrative tribunals. By putting in time limits, we clearly signal in this act that once you're appointed in a fair process based on merit, you are there to do the job because you have the skills, you have the ability, you have the technical knowledge and you have the understanding of administrative justice to then go forth and do your job. We aren't going to interfere with you, whether we like your decisions or not. You're there to do the job. That time limit really is a cornerstone of enhancing that independence.

By the same token there are very, very skilled people who end up on tribunals, and through the merit process, we'll see that talent pool increase. We want to make sure that among similar tribunals, if we have a talented person who is properly qualified to be there, they can move across tribunals based on their skills so that we ensure that we keep that talent pool there. Time limits make them independent, but cross-appointments ensure that we keep the best, based on merit and based on a fair process, to ensure they continue to serve the public through this process.

The 29 administrative tribunals that are affected are critical to the services British Columbians receive. Bill 68 ensures one thing above all else, and this is really what the Attorney General highlighted that's important. These 29 tribunals, through Bill 68, will be better able to serve the community, the individuals that come before them, the agencies to which they are adjudicating decisions and the province of British Columbia.

I congratulate the Attorney General on another step as we go through the administrative review project. I think Bill 68 is an excellent example of good consultation and good public policy.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 68, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: I rise to close debate. I appreciate the comments of the members who participated in the debate. I think that for the most part, the comments of the opposition member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke to policy issues. I assume they are of interest to her, because of the time she took to speak to them, but they are really outside the scope of the provisions of the bill that we have before us today. I'm certain that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management will look at her comments as he continues his work to ensure that the Agricultural Land Commission is doing the best it can to protect the public interest of British Columbia in respect of agricultural land issues. I look forward to dealing with any specific issues that members may have concerning the legislation in committee stage debate.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 68, Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be read a second time now. I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill 70, which demonstrates this government's commitment to a core service review and to the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy. This bill repeals the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, dissolves the commission and replaces the current appeal mechanism with more direct, more appropriate and more accountable processes. The core review recommended this course of action based on findings that given its extremely low level of activity, the commission represents an unnecessary level of review.

The Commercial Appeals Commission was established by enactment of the Commercial Appeals Commission Act in 1982. It provides an appeal mechanism for those impacted by administrative decisions, typically related to licensing made pursuant to a variety of statutes. On average, only 25 appeals are made to the commission annually, even though there is no fee for launching an appeal.

This repeal should not be viewed as a negative judgment on the commission., which has faithfully and properly addressed its mandate throughout its history. As mentioned, the recommendation to dissolve the commission is reflective of the number of appeals being insufficient to justify continuation.

The nature of the appeals in question means that the consumer will not be adversely affected by this repeal. Decisions that may be appealed to the commission relate primarily to licensing of businesses or individuals, not to disputes arising between consumers

and suppliers. The low number of appeals to the commission demonstrates that the impact to the business community by repeal will be minor.

First level administrative decisions made in relation to the statutes amended by this bill are solid, yet we are committing to further improve this decision-making process to reduce any potential for negative impacts. Judicial review will remain for anyone aggrieved by a decision formally within the commission's jurisdiction. The types of administrative decisions that were subject to appeal to the commission were quite varied. In the consequential amendments of this bill, we recognize this fact and have tailored the new processes appropriately.

Consequential amendments to eight statutes will repeal sections that reference the Commercial Appeals Commission Act, leaving persons aggrieved by administrative decisions with the option of seeking judicial review. These eight statutes include six consumer protection statutes that I am responsible for — cemetery and funeral services, consumer protection, credit reporting, debt collection, trade practices and travel agents — as well as the Homeowner Protection Act and the Motor Dealer Act, which are the responsibilities respectively of my hon. colleagues the Ministers of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

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

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

A new financial services tribunal is therefore established by the consequential amendments to this statute. This tribunal will be staffed from within FICOM and funded through the existing FICOM budget. Judicial review will remain an option for appellants following the ruling of this tribunal.

The remaining three Ministry of Finance statutes have appeals to the commission for decisions more like those under the consumer protection statutes. As a result, persons aggrieved by decisions on these statutes, as under the consumer protection consequential amendments, will have recourse to the courts. However, requests for review under the three Ministry of Finance statutes will be wider than judicial review, as it will allow review of the merits of the specific decisions as well as enabling the hearing of new evidence.

Other consequential amendments update statutes which reference the Commercial Appeals Commission Act without using the commission for appeals. For example, the consequential amendment to the Land Act brings provisions of the Commercial Appeals Commission Act that were previously only referenced for the purpose of providing fair process directly into the Land Act.

The dissolution of the commission will save the government approximately $250,000 annually. This repeal also demonstrates a broader commitment of government to remove unnecessary bureaucracy. Those aggrieved by administrative decisions will now have more direct access to a final appeal rather than being faced with a multi-tiered appeal process that stretches the final resolution of the issues into months.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 70, Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 62; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to section 2 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Section 2 is basically a technical amendment. It's basically removing the phrase "classes of registrant" from the act so as to remove any potential overlap with classes of registration, which is established by a board of the college in the bylaws. It's basically a clarification.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to section 9 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to section 10 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to section 17 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to section 29 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move the amendment to section 34 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 62, Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendments.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 42; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 42, Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 37; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. G. Bruce: I would just like to introduce Jan Rossley, who is the director of policy for the ministry.

J. Kwan: Section 3 of Bill 37 is a very telling section. It replaces a section called "No hiring of children under 15 without director's permission," and replaces it with a new section called "Hiring children." This is a section that relaxes the rules by allowing parental consent alone. This section also states that a person may not employ a child under 12 without the consent of the director and that the director will continue to set the conditions of employment for children under 12.

Here are some of the questions that I have for the minister. Could the minister please advise: are there any instructions as to what types of work the director would not permit a child under the age of 12 to perform?

Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be clear. You were talking about a child under 12?

J. Kwan: Yes, the minister says that it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But are there overall general instructions, guidelines, that are being given to the director so that one will have a general sense of what will be permitted and what's not permitted?

Hon. G. Bruce: There's no change to what the legislation currently is in this particular instance. The director of employment standards is still required to do the permitting for children under 12, so as is the current situation for under 12, they would still have to go and get a permit from the director of employment standards, and the director at that time would make the determination — just as is currently the case.

J. Kwan: I love it when the minister…. It's a habit of this government for the minister to say: "Hey, there's no change; things are the same." No, things have changed, Mr. Chair, and the provision here under this section changes significantly. "No hiring of children under 15 without director's permission" is being replaced with a new section called "Hiring children." Now we have a new threshold being applied for children in terms of who could perform work and who couldn't. The age limit has changed significantly. So now, more specifically for the people under 12, the minister is saying there are no guidelines. I actually saw the minister's staff shaking her head when the question was asked. The minister in his response also corresponds to say there are no guidelines.

What conditions would the director impose on the employment of children under the age of 12 concerning the type of work, the hours of work, the time work is performed and adult supervision?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we want to be careful about body language, because sometimes a different conver-

sation can be had. Why one is shaking their head or not shaking their head can be for an altogether different reason.

I think what you're trying to ask me…. I'll rephrase this, if I can, so I can explain what you were coming to me about. I did ask you very clearly whether or not you're referencing children under 12, and I thought I got the nod that that, in fact, is what you were referencing. So my answer to that was that as is the case for children under 12 today, so will it be tomorrow with this legislation.

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

If we want to get to the fact of things and we don't want to be pretending there are conspiracies and we don't want to be pretending that, in fact, children are going to be more vulnerable under this legislation, then I'll be happy to answer your questions in a reasonable and concise manner. But I will not put up with the constant of the fact that people in today's workplace are actually more vulnerable than what they were before in the administration of the NDP government for the past ten years. I actually take this part of my job very, very seriously about the statutory responsibility of the Minister of Labour to protect vulnerable people, including children. Because of the fact that I saw time and again that there was no protection for children under the current legislation, we've changed it to make sure that young people are protected.

Be clear about this: under 12, all permits still have to go to the director of employment standards with respect to the type of work and hours and everything that goes along with that. Between 12 and 15, it's now required that the employer must have written consent from the parent. The employer must have written consent from the parent — very clear, very concise. Failing to have that written consent from the parent can result in a mandatory $500 fine. If it was a second offence, $2,500; if it was a third offence, $10,000. There are now actually teeth in all of what we're talking about.

I want to be very clear on this. That's what, in fact, we are talking about with this legislation.

J. Kwan: It is unbelievable what this minister just stated. I have here a document from someone who resigned from that ministry after the changes were known to this individual, and this individual cannot stomach what is being proposed. And the government and this minister go, "Hurray for us. This is change. This is positive for people." Child labour with the lowest standards across the country, and somehow that's something to brag about.

For the minister to suggest that there were no rules or regulations under the previous NDP government…. He is wrong, dead wrong. Let me enlighten the minister with this information. It is shocking. It is absolutely shocking — the arrogance of this government and this particular minister. Let me just enlighten the minister about the rules that do apply. Permits were granted where it appears that the health, welfare and safety of the child would not be compromised. These permits do not relieve the employer, the parent or the guardian of their responsibilities. The director has the authority to control the working conditions of children. It is important the child be old enough to understand the nature of an employment relationship. Only under exceptional circumstances would an application for a child under 12 years of age be approved.

Under (1) it goes on to deal with the employment of children under the age of 15, which is prohibited without the director's approval. The requirement for the director's approval enables the director to ensure that the child's welfare is considered. The director takes into consideration the child's schooling, health and safety on the job. The director may, after an investigation, decline to permit the employment of a child.

Under (2) the director will not grant child employment permits without receiving written consent from the child's parents or guardian and the child's school. These consents should be included with the application.

The director will conduct an investigation by consulting with the child's parents or guardian, school and a prospective employer before granting a permit.

If the application is made during a school vacation period, no school consent is required. Permits granted without such consent automatically expire during the first week of school.

Subsection (3). The director has the right to set certain conditions of employment for the child. These may include restricted hours of work, transportation, adult supervision, additional safety standards, type of work performed, limited locations of work, school's permission and tutoring in certain circumstances.

These directions are not just a formality. They did not not exist, minister. They existed under the previous government, and it's under this administration that they're actually being done away with. That is the reality here. Maybe the minister would actually like to learn of what actually happened before he gets up in his seat to accuse and point fingers erroneously.

You know what? The minister writes off these rules and conditions that apply as just formalities that weren't really important anyway. They were important. It stopped some employment in some cases where it put children at risk. Let's just be clear and be on the record with respect to what was in place and what is now not in place.

I want to ask the minister further questions. Obviously, the minister is suggesting, then, that there are no rules that apply. There are no rules that apply? Would the director impose any conditions about how the child travelled to and from the workplace?

J. Kwan: I'll repeat it very slowly for the minister, Mr. Chair. Would the director impose any conditions about how the child travelled to and from the workplace?

Hon. G. Bruce: The director of employment will have the authority to impose that for children under 12 — all right? And just going back to what you were referencing was the fact that, as I mentioned to you last night, all's well and good for the 300 permits that were issued, but there wasn't much in respect to anybody else that was out there. We know there are well over 300 young people working in the province of British Columbia today between the ages of 12 and 15.

The Chair: I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that she must be in her chair to speak in this House when she is recognized.

J. Kwan: It is outrageous that this minister makes a mockery of this bill. You know what we're debating about, Mr. Chair? In the second reading comments last night, the opposition raised severe concerns about this government's decision to open up wide child labour in B.C., the decision to give B.C. the weakest child labour laws in the country. In response to the concerns from last night and consistent with today, not only is the minister not willing to listen and to answer the questions — the valid concerns that have been put to him — he mocks it and he belittles it.

I just want to share this information first with the minister. The minister and, I think, especially the public who may be watching this debate may be interested to know that next week there will be a vigil for the child labour legislation being held by the Anglican Church of New West. On October 15 the justice and peace unit of the Anglican Church is holding a vigil at Robson Square at noon and inviting people of all faiths to join to show their concern about the B.C. Liberal government's child labour law.

The process that was in place is far from being a formality. The ESB took its mandate seriously. The employment standards branch procedure required industrial relations officers to inspect the workplace to identify potential dangers, to visit where the child was to work, to review arrangements for the child getting to and from the workplace, to verify the arrangements were safe, to interview the parents — long trips by public transit at night with transfers, for example, would be unacceptable — to direct that the child had immediate and constant adult supervision with the view of better ensuring the child's safety and compliance with workplace rules, and to interview the employer and/or the manager.

The industrial relations officers were instructed to say no to many employment situations, including but not limited to the following: construction sites, working near moving machinery or equipment, going door to door, being responsible and accountable for cash, and working alone. The IROs restricted when work could begin, its length and when it had to end — the hours that could be worked in a day or in a week. Those were some of the provisions that were in place.

The minister said yesterday that no child applications were ever turned down. Well, I want to ask the minister that question again. I challenge the minister to provide proof of that. I have a case here that says to the contrary. Maybe the minister can explain the contradiction from his point of view. We know the industrial licensing officers turned down applications for permits with parental and school approval. As one example, a permit was sought for a child ice cream vendor along the seawall in Stanley Park. This was rejected on the basis that having children carry money and goods without adult supervision would make them a target for robbery.

For the minister to say those systems in place were useless, perhaps that they were never used…. How is that so? Why is there an inconsistency with this fact versus what's in the minister's head?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm a very imaginative guy. I'm not sure where the member is getting her facts from. Maybe she's getting them from the BCTF website. I'm not sure if that's the case. That's full of erroneous information.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, that gentleman or two…. I think there were probably a couple there that did. We actually know of that. We actually, though, have very, very good staff in the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour.

The Chair: Order, members. Let the minister respond to the question, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is very, very important. What you're actually saying, in a sense, is casting some aspersions because of one individual or two that left the ministry — and so what they say is all correct. Now, I didn't sit down in the dark of night and write all this stuff. I actually turned to my very competent staff, the people that are in the field, the people that run the ministry offices, and with what has come through to us, this legislation has been drafted. Those are, in fact,

people employed by the province of British Columbia on behalf of the taxpayers of this place to make sure we have employment standards and laws in this province which do protect the vulnerable.

It's great that you have an individual or two who would like to throw out things, and that's fine. I would also remind the member, though, that when you are kind of trying to castigate me — and you're quite welcome to do that; I'm a little thick and a little stupid, anyway, so none of it really bothers me very much — you're actually casting aspersions on some very competent staff.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, then let's talk about the policy. Let's talk about the policy, and let's not talk about the individual that's feeding you erroneous information.

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's speak to the cases, then. On average for the past three years we have had some 300 applications to the director of employment standards — okay? — for the current legislation required for individuals under the age of 15 who would like to go to work. Of that, we have for the most part found that those permits have been accepted, apart from about 3 percent. In that 3 percent there were refusals because of several instances — first of all, that applications were made for young people over 15 and they didn't have to, so that permit was refused. Then we had incidences where they had been made and the individual, I believe, turned 15 during the course of the application, and so they were refused and not dealt with. Then we had several incidences where in fact the director of employment standards rejected the application. Usually there are other mitigating aspects in there.

The point, I think, that's really important is that rather than holding up the mantle that the current regulations that were in place were there to protect young people…. The rules and the regulations that you have all read out and through really didn't do the job to protect young people in the workplace. I think the member opposite would be undertaking a different tack to make sure that what we are bringing in will apply to not only the 300 people but to the many, many more young people who are in the workplace today.

We've stated what we are doing in the first part here — of how it is that they are going to be looked after, the onus that is now on the employer, and the responsibility of parents. I know you'll beg to differ, but I'll accept that I believe parents have a responsibility in this issue. I appreciate that you, through your administration of the past, did not.

That's the first part, really, that we're talking about in the section we're currently addressing. If you want to move on to the other sections as we go — and whenever you want to go, I'm happy to go with you…. If you want to move on, we'll get into more of the detail of how in fact it is that young people will have other parts through regulation that will make sure they are working in a safe worksite.

Ultimately, that's what we come down to. There's not a person in this House, regardless of their political leaning, who does not want to make sure that young people are properly protected in the workplace. It really comes down to the aim and the goal of how you go about achieving that in the broadest context, not just simply for 300 young people.

J. Kwan: So the minister suggests that the rules and regulations that were in place earlier were of no consequence. The number of permits that were disallowed under the former rules were 350 or so, and he says it's really of no consequence. First, I challenge that number. Second, even if it was true with the 350 cases, it still applied to 350 cases of individuals where it was not appropriate for that child to be in the workforce. So it matters; it does matter.

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

I want to bring to the attention of the minister, and I'd like to seek his response to this particular parent who, I have no doubt, cares very much — cared very much — for her child. I'd like the minister's response.

A story put forward by a real person — not made up; a real incident. In fact, even under the previous rules, accidents happened. So where is the justification to relax the rules even more in situations like this? What's the minister's response to this individual's letter?

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

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

I know it's a good emotional ring from the standpoint of what has been put and described here. Again, I've got some notes from the BCTF website, some of which…. I'm not sure if it's that particular incident. It's very tragic when an incident like that occurs and a young person is killed. These changes that we're making, I'm not suggesting for a moment are going to eliminate death in the workplace of any group.

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

What that would say to me is that maybe we all better be a little bit more serious about what it is we're bringing in place, take a look at how it is that some companies have safer regimes than others and go about trying to bring about an effective change so that we save lives. It isn't just a question of written-down paper rules and regulations. It's about how they're administered, and it's about how people live with them. What the member perhaps is not acknowledging, doesn't know or is forgetting, or whatever, is that in behind all of this are some very stiff financial penalties that will add a great deal to the aspect of what takes place in the worksite for young people.

J. Kwan: The minister would have you believe that just because we have rules and regulations in place, it does not make the workplace safer. The minister would have you believe that to take away those rules and regulations will make the workplace safer. That's what the minister's argument is based on.

Now, I'm not suggesting, Mr. Chair, that by having rules and regulations in place it's 100 percent risk-free for the people in the workplace. I'm not suggesting that at all, but I sure am challenging the government and this minister when he suggests that by having rules and regulations in place and by doing away with them, somehow a workplace would be safer.

The current act protects child workers by ensuring that a staff member of the employment standards branch reviews applications made by the employers who want to hire children under the age of 15. The current act enables the branch to examine the worksite where the child will be employed and to stipulate conditions upon the terms of the child's employment. For example, a child worker employed in the film industry may need transportation to and from a worksite, an educational plan that enables the child to maintain his or her studies, or limitations upon the number of hours that the child can work.

Those things took place under an act where those regulations were in place. There was a system where routine inspections were in place. There was a system

to check for child hand harvesters, as an example, in the agriculture compliance team, and it was kept off of the fields. There would be a system involving WCB and reporting of hours worked and taxes remitted involving CCRA. Those are some of the things that regulations can address with respect to safety in the workplace.

The minister would like to claim that the larger fines would be a sufficient deterrent, but at the same time there is much evidence that for large employers fines are often viewed as a cost of doing business. Even given that the current system — and I'll grant the minister that — is in need of reform, and others have identified that…. Not just the BCTF, and I thank the BCTF for caring enough to actually look at this legislation and put forward their comments. But others have as well.

A York University child labour expert, Judy Fudge, has also observed: "Just because people are not following the law, it doesn't mean that's a good reason to get rid of it. You have to ask: what are the pros and cons of this? I don't think there was this kind of discussion in British Columbia." You know what, Mr. Chair? She's right. There has been no consultation, no discussion of the pros and cons — typical of this government. We are now forced to have this discussion here in the Legislature where — I know the minister knows very well — he has the majority to ram the legislation through.

The minister's argument is flawed — to say that to do away with the regulations will somehow make the workplace safer. If enforcement was not sufficient previously, then instead of laying off more staff, one would have assumed that the government would actually ensure that there's more enforcement in place to better ensure that the workplace is safe for children 15 and under — not lower the age limit, which is what this government is doing, what this minister is doing.

I want to ask the minister these questions. He didn't answer the question with respect to conditions around the child travelling to and from the workplace. Are there any conditions at all that would apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: Okay. If you are a child — all right? — between the ages of 12 and 15, the regulations, first of all, say you cannot work during school hours on a school day. Anybody have a problem with that one?

The School Act is the overriding act that applies. A child does not work more than four hours on a school day or 20 hours in a week when school is in session. The child does not work more than eight hours in a day or 35 hours in a week — actually, I believe that's going to be seven hours in a day and 35 hours in a week — when school is not in session.

So in the summertime, summer holidays, we're talking about now — children between the ages of 12 and 15…. We're thinking about July and August. We're thinking about spring fairs — you know, summer fairs. We're thinking about kids that might go pick some corn on the farm. They might have an after-school job that allows them to work a little bit more during the summertime when they want to. Maybe it's a tourist job in a campsite that they're working at. When school is not in session, a young person between the ages of 12 and 15 can work a maximum of 35 hours in the week and seven hours a day. When the school is in session, they can work a maximum of 20 hours in the week and only four hours in the day.

The child is under the supervision of an adult. In that particular aspect of things…. Much of that is reflective of making sure they are well protected from the standpoint of being exploited in the case, of course, of working through extra hours and that sort of thing.

Now, in respect to film — and we want to understand the difference here; those are the general regulations — the film industry along with the province is very concerned. With the way film is, you actually have some very young people involved in film. When we talk about film, we often think of the big major productions, but there are commercials and little shorts that are done. Commercial production may involve a very young baby. If you're trying to sell baby diapers in a commercial, you actually have to use a baby. So what we have done there is wrote the regulations with the film industry who also, because of the nature of this, want to make sure that their industry is well protected by the right type of regulatory regime so that they're not in a position of looking like they're exploiting young people. They don't want that happening at all.

The ministry has been working through with the film industry. As I mentioned last night, we want the film industry and the movie sector to grow for the area. Next to Hollywood — that's Hollywood, Los Angeles — we will have the strongest child regulations for children in film of any country — okay? I wanted you to know that.

We have, in that respect, the minimum age, the limits on daily hours, what a junior child means, what a school day means, no split shifts and maximum limit on breaks. Time before an actual recording device, because this can be very onerous for…. It can be particularly tough on very small babies when you've got the lights and the things that go with that when you're trying to do a commercial.

We actually have in that, depending on the age, how many minutes you can be before a recording device. For instance, if you're less than three years of age, for a moment, you can only be 15 consecutive minutes in front of a recording device, and then you need 20 consecutive minutes of breaks. If you're three years to less than six years of age, you can have 30 consecutive minutes before a recording device and then 15 consecutive minutes of breaks. If you're six years to less than 12 years of age, you can have 45 consecutive minutes in front of a recording device and then ten consecutive minutes of break. If you're 12 years to less than 15 years of age, you can have 60 consecutive minutes in front of a recording device, and you are then required to have ten minutes of consecutive break.

Hours free from work. This is a challenge too, particularly more in the production of major films where you've got cameras and sets and everything all set up and the industry wanting to move ahead. There can be

pressures then, because either the climate or the environment, for the moment, is just right. Some of it revolves around nighttime; some around daybreak. It depends what the movie is at. The employer of a child in this business must ensure that the child has at least 48 consecutive hours free from work each week depending on what that child is working through.

Chaperons. There's a definition of workweek. Chaperons in relation to children in this section that we're talking about as to who looks after the child on the set.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, you actually, hon. member, did mention the film industry. I've been trying to be nice about this. You're actually taxing my better nature, because as I mentioned to you, I actually take this very, very seriously.

I happen to think that in fact the children weren't well protected in the workplace in this province prior to…. I can understand that perhaps during the course of the ten years of your administration, you didn't have time to pay attention to this, or you thought that by simply adding more rules and regulations, you would add more protection, but in fact you weren't.

What I'm trying to do is get across to you that on the basis of the legislation that's in place that we're proposing, which we're debating here, behind that will come some very specific regulations. I know you didn't want me to read this all out, because it's much easier to just talk in general terms, but if you're trying to make the case that young people….

Hon. G. Bruce: Hon. member, I'm giving you some very specific answers, and in fact I gave you very specific answers to begin with. You tend to ignore the fact that only 300 permits per year, on average, were applied for. Now, I'm going to say that again. For the last three years….

Would the member please refer her questions through the Chair, not directly to the minister.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to state this again, because I think it's very important that the general public…. And I'm sure there are thousands at this moment that are taking in every single scintillating minute of this discussion and debate. Certainly, my wife will be.

I would just like to make it very, very clear that on average, during the course of the last three years we have had some 300 permits applied for, for children up to the age of 15, and virtually all were granted.

I'm going to state again that we all know there are well over 300 young people in that age category working in British Columbia today. I just want to be careful on this one. I'd have to check in detail, but I'm pretty sure that there has been very little in the way of determinations that have been actually filed in regard to penalties. I'll get that number for you as to how many determinations were ever filed.

I would also like to remind the member opposite that for penalties that were filed before, the first penalty was discretionary. It was zero to, I think, $150 — a discretionary penalty. They were all discretionary. Then the second offence was, I think, $150 to $250. The third was $350 to $500 or something along that line. They were all discretionary and very, very small. We have changed that. That was under Bill 48 in the springtime, when in fact we brought in mandatory penalties for people that did not subscribe and follow the rules and regulations of employment standards. They are now mandatory penalties, and they consist of the first being a fine of $500, the second time — I'll repeat this — being a fine of $2,500 and the third being a fine of $10,000.

I just want to state this again, because it is important, and perhaps what we're missing in all this discussion is this thought that by having all of the rules and regulations that you thought you had by virtually going through to the director of employment standards and requiring permitting, young people then were looked after in the province of British Columbia, but in fact they weren't.

In essence, what we have changed here is simply, really, the aspect of going to the director of employment standards for a permit. We're talking about children between the ages of 12 to 15. Now what we're saying is that it's up to the parent to provide a letter, but the onus is on the employer to have a letter from the parent that agrees, under the regulations which I had earlier stated, to the hours of work and whether that is during school hours or that is during holiday hours. The employer must have that on file. All employers, as of the passage of this legislation, have to have that on file.

If a complaint is lodged by a parent, the child, a family member or a third-party individual, and the employer is found not to have that letter on file, there's an automatic mandatory penalty of $500. If it were to be a second time, it would be an automatic mandatory penalty of $2,500. If it were a third time, it would be an automatic mandatory penalty of $10,000.

J. Kwan: The minister is obviously proud of this piece of legislation. He's obviously proud of previous

legislation and actions of the government, where they gutted the Employment Standards Act.

Let's just review for a moment what this government has done with respect to the Employment Standards Act. They've abandoned the investigation of compliance with the Employment Standards Act. They've severely restricted investigation of compliance with the act by farm labour contractors in hand-harvested berry and fruit crops, introduced onerous self-help prerequisites for filing complaints — prerequisites that result in a 75 percent reduction in the number of complaints filed. They've refused to act against bankrupt employers, and they're placing a branch employee in the offices of an industry lobbyist to facilitate complaint resolution.

This government says this will make it better and give better protection for children in the workforce. He says that before, rules that staff were to investigate and visit worksites to ensure that there was a schooling plan, a health plan and a safety plan on the job; to restrict hours for 15 and under, including 12 and under; transportation issues, adult supervision issues, safety standards, types of work performed, limited locations of work-school permission, tutoring even in some circumstances…. Those rules, the minister says, are no good. Instead, let's look at what a great job we've done with the Employment Standards Act. We say it's only on a complaint basis, and by the way, we've made the complaint process so onerous that it's going to be even harder for people to go through the complaint process. But that's a better standard for protection of children in the workforce.

We're going to lower the age limit to 12 instead of 15. That's better protection for children in the workforce. If that's not good enough, let's cut some staff as well, because enforcement was no good to begin with. Let's get rid of the staff who are doing the enforcement, and that will give better protection for children in the workforce — well, only in the minds of this minister and this government. Nobody else I've spoken with agrees with it.

There are many individuals and organizations that are concerned: religious groups, teachers, individuals, youth advocates, children's advocates, First Call!! The list goes on with respect to this government's action on the change that they are bringing forward.

When I asked the minister the question about what conditions would apply for the employment of children under the age of 12…. Basically, so far what I've gotten from this minister is that there are no conditions that would apply. Formerly, there were a set of rules that were laid out in a director's interpretation guideline manual that would apply, and I listed all of those rules before. But the minister says: "No. Doesn't matter — gone, unimportant, irrelevant."

With respect to permitting children under the age of 12 to be fruit or berry hand-harvesters, are there any regulations around that? Are there any guidelines for children under 12 to be garment workers? Any rules and regulations for children under 12 to be janitors? Would the director seek input from teachers of children under the age of 12 whose parents had permitted to be employed? Would the director visit a worksite where a child under the age of 12 would be employed before deciding the merit of the child employment permit application? These are just some of the concerns. These concerns, by the way, are not just the opposition's; they're from other folks as well. These questions have been put forward by the industry workers of the world, who are generally concerned with this bill and the direction this government is going. So, that's for age 12, and I would expect that the government, the minister, would not…. Actually, we already know what the answer is, because there are no rules that would apply.

Turning to 12-to-15-year-olds, let me explore these questions with the minister. First, must both parents approve in consenting to work for a 12-to-15-year-old?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think we do a real disservice to the people of the province when we kind of carry on in this type of back and forth, so I'm going to try changing directions here a little bit, and I don't know whether you'll want to come along with me or not. But I want to be really clear, because I think it's important. I'm a parent. I've actually got four children, and I now have three grandchildren, and like every member in this House I'm sure, regardless of political stripe, I want to make sure that the workplace is safe.

Let's be clear. The rules and legislation that apply to children from birth to 12 years of age are exactly today, in this new legislation, what they currently are, in effect, in the old legislation. There is no change.

I've said that one way, and now I'm going to say it another way. Any child under the age of 12 will follow the same process to have work in British Columbia in the new legislation as they did in the old legislation. That's two ways of trying to actually put it across to people. The third way is that there is no change in respect to children under 12. There is no change. No, we're not talking about janitors and all the different work and all the rest of the things you've mentioned. There is no change.

Now, there is a change for children between the ages of 12 and 15, where the member thinks she wants to talk about now. And that's fine. I'm happy to talk about that, but I want to be really clear that the people of the province understand that for children from birth to 12, there is no change in any of the legislation that we're talking about here today. I would hope that the member opposite could at least acknowledge that, because I believe that if there is anybody watching, they would at least like to know that in fact that's the case. I've stated it. It's there. It's black and white. That is the case.

From the age of 12 to 15 we have changed, because what was happening in the past was that it was required for a young person that would like a job to first of all get a letter from their parent. They required a letter from their school, and they then required a permit from the director of employment standards. That was all there. It sounds wonderful, eh? We're going to create this perfect utopia where all will be looked after.

Of course, what happened, because there's so rigmarole in that particular instance…. Many parents didn't

even know that. I would suspect, quite frankly, that there are many, many good parents out there today who have children doing some sort of job between the ages of 12 and 15 and who didn't know they had to go through that whole regulatory regime. Their child is probably doing very well, developing, learning some responsibility for a job. The parent is probably very concerned and knows the employer and who it is they are working with and makes sure that the young person is developing in a proper way and understands the importance of school. They have their child in school and understand the importance of being able to concentrate on their school work without being laboured with additional work hours but also understand how you develop character and how you build people and that part-time jobs….

I would suspect that if we asked around this room, virtually all had a job somewhere in the age group between 12 and 15. The older you are, the earlier you probably actually started. You may have been well below that. However, society changes, we bring in rules and regulations, and that's great.

In fact, what we have here now…. Between the ages of 12 and 15 we're saying that instead of all those other steps that you had to take, it is now the onus of the employer to have on file a letter from a parent of the child. It doesn't have to be both parents — a parent of the child. This, again, is the child between 12 and 15, because there are no changes to young people under the age of 12. Between the ages of 12 and 15 they have to have on file a letter with permission from a parent that the young person can work for that employer.

The employer not having that letter on file is open to any complaint from a third party or a family member or the particular young person and to a mandatory fine of $500, which did not exist under the legislation which we're faced with today. I've mentioned that that ramps up to $2,500 and then $10,000, so it's pretty onerous. They have to have that on file.

We also want to be clear — and I'm going to state this again — that the School Act takes precedence. A child cannot be working during school hours. If a child has a job…. These will be the regulations we'll bring in with this as well. I want to make this very clear to the member in case she didn't hear that I was talking about the general regulations when I was also mentioning the regulations that apply to children in film. A child that is in school and has a job during school hours is only allowed to work a maximum of four hours per day — that's not during school hours; that's after school — to a maximum of 20 hours per week while school is in session. I'll state it again, because I think it's really important that people understand this. A child between the ages of 12 and 15 who has a job when school is not in session, such as the summer holidays, can work a maximum of seven hours per day up to a total of 35 hours per week.

In all instances the employer must have a letter on file from the parent indicating it's okay with the parent that the child is at work there. Failure of that employer to have it on file results in mandatory penalties. Now, that's all of how the system is working with these regulations that come in behind this legislation. I just want to restate it again, because I think it's very important that people understand this. For children from birth to 12, there is no change in anything we're talking about here today in this legislation from what currently is in the legislation that's in effect.

J. Kwan: It's simply not true when the minister says there's been no change. Let me just put this on the record once again. Bill 37 replaces a section called "No hiring of children under 15 without director's permission." That is being replaced with a new section called "Hiring children" — full stop. This provision relaxes the rules by only allowing parental consent alone to be required to be in place. This section that the minister says is not different from previous…. When asked the question of what rules and guidelines are in place for children under 12, he said that nothing's changed. There are no rules and guidelines. I read off earlier — and I won't repeat it again — the list of rules and guidelines that were in place. The whole range of issues around the subsections that I stated earlier — the restrictions around work, transportation, supervision, etc…. I won't belabour this issue again. The minister is wrong in stating there's been no change. There's a major fundamental change, and the minister knows it.

Coupled with that, with the issue around ensuring that these worksites are checked and that there will be inspections, etc., the minister says, "Don't worry; things are fine," when we know very well things are not fine. The employment standards branch has been gutted by this ministry, by this minister, because the approach to look at, review and investigate these matters has been changed fundamentally, and the resources have been changed fundamentally. For the minister to just sit there and say: "Hey, don't worry; nothing's changed…." It's simply not true.

I want now to turn to the 12-to-15-year-olds. I'll ask the minister a very specific question. We can belabour these arguments over and over again, and I have many questions, so I want to move on. With 12-to-15-year-olds, must both parents approve?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm going to try one more time, and I'm actually going to try to keep myself under control. What you're almost implying is that I'm misleading this House. Now, you're almost implying that. I'm going to ask you to take a look at the bill, and I want you to read the words with me. Okay? I actually want you to look at the bill and read the words with me. Do you understand what I'm actually saying here? It says right there: "A person must not employ a child under 12 years of age without the director's permission." That's in the bill. It was in the bill before; it's in the bill today.

Hon. G. Bruce: Listen. Go ahead. You can go on all night, if you want, with this thing.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's pretty clear that this piece of legislation relative to young people under the age of 12 is the same today as the legislation that's currently in effect. It's actually in black and white; it's right there.

To stand — and if there is anybody watching this — and imply that I am personally misleading this group and the rest of the people in British Columbia…. I happen to take pretty serious exception to that. I fully appreciate and understand that you might not like what this government does. That's fine, because in the same manner that you don't like what this government does, I detested what you and your types did to the province during the past ten years.

Hon. G. Bruce: Absolutely. Build the regulation. Build the rules. Never mind actually making sure that what you're trying to do has any end effect for people.

Hon. G. Bruce: Exactly. The type is that which continues to stand up when it's right there in black and white. Just acknowledge it. Just stand up in this House and acknowledge that that line is there in the legislation today. Stand up in front of the province and read the very words that I read. Just stand up and read them; they're there. Then we can move on. They are there.

Now, you asked me, and I already answered the question. I'd be happy to answer it again. In respect to whether it is one parent or two parents: no; it's "a parent."

J. Kwan: You know, Mr. Chair, perhaps the minister wants to take his misplaced anger in a more positive direction and translate it into rewriting this bill in a way that is consistent with the UN convention. Perhaps the minister would like to take his misplaced anger and put it towards consulting British Columbians who share the concerns that the opposition has with respect to this bill. Perhaps the minister would like to take his misplaced anger and look into the words that are being deleted, the section that's being repealed, and the changes that this minister and this government have brought in place.

You know, it was not the opposition who made child labour wide-open. It was not the opposition who decided that we will now put in the weakest child labour laws in the country for British Columbia. It is this minister and this government who are doing that.

So as much as the minister would say, "I am fed up with the opposition and those types…." I'm not quite sure what he's referring to when he says "those types." Maybe the type that he's referring to are people who would actually care about the negative impacts of this government's policies on many British Columbians. Maybe I'm the type who cares about child labour in the workforce and am concerned about the guidelines that were in place and that the minister, when asked the question earlier on, said don't exist — that somehow there's no change. Yet I put forward a list of restrictions that do apply for 15 and under — not just 12-year-olds and under but for 15 and under. Those restrictions apply, and they were in place under the previous government.

For the minister to suggest that those were, of course, onerous regulations, so we can do away with them…. It's unimportant, he says. There were only 300 or so applications that were put through, and I think earlier on he said that to the best of his knowledge none were turned down. Well, it simply is not true. I put forward the information on the record to challenge the minister on that. To somehow suggest that all the people who share these concerns — for the opposition to have these concerns — and that somehow they're not relevant, is shocking.

I don't know why I'm shocked, but I am. I suppose it just shows the arrogance of this government and this particular minister. Just write off the opposition's concerns: "Not valid. They're just fearmongering." I'm sure; I've heard that over and over again. Unfortunately for many British Columbians, all of the opposition's predictions and the fears and concerns that we have are materializing. I wish I was wrong; I really do. I wish that I was. It's too bad that I'm not.

I want to ask the minister questions for children, 12 to 15, in the workforce. What will the director do if one parent approves and the other parent does not?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important to know that actually everybody does care. I wasn't sure if I understood that in your comments, but I'm hopeful now that you understand that there is a distinct difference between children from birth to age 12 and…. The changes we're talking about are around children of ages 12 to 15. I think I heard you say that. I'm not absolutely positive, but I'm pretty sure I heard you say that.

So now we're actually talking about what this bill focuses on, and that is children from the ages of 12 to 15. For children under 12, there are no changes. What was there in the past is still there today and will be in the future. So between the ages of 12 to 15, the first question, I believe, that was asked of me was: "As a parental signature, is one signature good enough?" The answer is yes.

J. Kwan: The question was: what will the director do if one parent approves and the other one does not?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll state it again. If the employer has a letter from a parent of a young person that's working for them that it is acceptable — from that parent, with that employer — and it's on file, then that's acceptable.

J. Kwan: In other words, nothing. Basically, if one approves and the other doesn't, the ministry won't intervene. They'll just let it go. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He says, "We have one letter on file, and that letter is good enough," but even if the other one does not approve, the director will do nothing. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I presume that is the case.

Hon. G. Bruce: One letter is good enough. I've said that five times now, and I'll say it again.

J. Kwan: The minister says, "I said it five times." In other words, the minister will do nothing. I just want to be clear in terms of what rules and regulations will be in place, what kind of protection will be in place. If you have a two-parent situation, and one disagrees and one says the child should work, as long as the one letter that approves is on file, then everything is hunky-dory. Well, what about foster parents? In the situation of foster parents, how would that work?

Hon. G. Bruce: A foster parent can only permit a young person working if they are and have been appointed the legal guardian.

Hon. G. Bruce: To be clear, either the parent approves or it is the legal guardian, as I just had read out.

J. Kwan: If one parent has sole custody, is that the only parent who will have a say then?

Hon. G. Bruce: If a parent signs a letter that says their child can work at this place of business, then that is good enough. If the child is a foster child and where they are staying the person looking after them is a legal guardian, then that signature is good enough.

J. Kwan: On the question around sole custody, if the parent who — let's flip it around — does not have sole custody authorizes the child to work, is that good enough?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's an interesting line of questioning. Even under the current rules and regulations, we haven't had any known circumstances of that to exist, because at this point you still require a letter from a parent. We haven't had any instances that we know of.

It's a pretty interesting line of questioning. It would apply equally today under the current legislation as it would under the new legislation, because in both instances you're requiring a parent to sign. The types of suggestions or problems that would come up would apply the same as they do in the current legislation as they will in this new legislation. Just quickly reviewing, to the best of our knowledge, we haven't had that situation occur, but it's an interesting question.

J. Kwan: Under the previous legislation — or the current legislation, because the legislation has not yet changed — there was no hiring of children under 15 without the director's permission. That is now being replaced. It's being replaced with a provision that says "Hiring children" and that the rule that applies would be parental consent, so it's different.

The minister fails to see the difference, and he consistently says everything is the same, but it isn't. It isn't. That's why we're debating this bill. The section of the bill where there's a fundamental change says "No hiring of children under 15 without director's permission" and is being replaced with "Hiring children." The minister doesn't know the answer to the question. I can only surmise that, then.

The issues relating to 12-to-15s, the minister says: "But the School Act would apply, so don't worry. Everything will be fine." Then the minister goes on to further say: "Don't worry. We have regulations that we'll be bringing into place." Why aren't the restrictions, if you will — at least on the age-limit factor — being written in legislation instead of relying on the School Act?

Hon. G. Bruce: Actually, it's because they aren't now, either, under the current legislation. The director of employment standards has the authority through the act to bring in those regulations, similar to what we're going to do in this particular instance. So they're not there. They're not there in legislation. They're done by the permission that's granted through the legislation to the director of employment standards, as will be the case.

J. Kwan: With the exception of the threshold, the age has changed significantly. Formerly it was 15, and now it's 12 to 15. There is an age difference, and the application is different, so the threshold has been lowered. I would argue that again for child labour, for a child to enter into the workforce, that threshold age limit has been lowered, and it lowers the standards for British Columbians. The UN has actually stipulated that….

The Chair: Order. I'd like to remind the members that each member has a right to speak when they're standing, and the minister will have his opportunity as well as the member.

J. Kwan: The UN stipulated that there should be restrictions on hiring of children. The opposition agrees.

To that end, I'd like to move an amendment standing in my name, of which I've given you a copy, Mr. Chair, to amend section 3. The amendment reads: "Section 3 is amended by amending the title and adding the text highlighted by the underlined: Restrictions on" — adding those two words in front of — "hiring children." A copy, I believe, has been given to the Clerks, and a copy will be given to the minister.

J. Kwan: On the amendment, the aim here is to provide for protection for children aged 12 to 15. This

provision is similar to that of other provinces and is in line with the UN convention on the rights of the child. In other jurisdictions they have put in stipulations, and the UN convention asks and suggests that there should be restrictions with respect to the hiring of children.

Hon. G. Bruce: We had a quick cursory view of this. I'm not even sure that it's actually truly in order, but at any rate, even if it is or whatever, our view of it is that this doesn't have any legal effect. If I understand what the member is trying to get at, in fact, the member should find some comfort in section 14 of the bill, where we are adding the ability for cabinet to bring in regulation for children that are less than 15 years of age. Obviously, from our standpoint, we would not be prepared to accept or support this amendment.

J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, I find no comfort whatsoever when the minister says that we'll bring in regulations. The minister has promised such things in a number of other areas — well, not this particular minister, but other ministers in terms of other debates and other bills that have been tabled. They say: "Don't worry. Everything will be fine. We'll bring in regulations, and you'll see later that everything will be fine."

The most notable piece, of course, is around the income assistance, where the minister says, "Don't worry, because everything is the same as under the previous administration" — with the exception that things have changed significantly. Upcoming this spring, income assistance recipients will be kicked off of income assistance if they've been on the assistance for more than two years. There are significant changes.

I get no comfort whatsoever, with all due respect to this minister and this government, when they say, "Trust us," because every promise they have broken has hurt British Columbians significantly. When they said they will protect the most marginalized, the people who are most vulnerable, they have done exactly the opposite, so I have no comfort whatsoever when he says not to worry. I worry a great deal, and I share those concerns, I know, with many British Columbians.

The amendment is to ensure that there would be restrictions on the hiring of children and that it is consistent with the UN convention, to which B.C. and Canada are signatories and which other provinces have in place as well.

I have another amendment that I'd like to move relating to section 3. This amendment — again, just to put it in context — is what I would call the Alberta amendment No. 1. It puts on certain conditions on how it should apply with respect to hiring of children, and this is what's in place in Alberta.

The ministers that are there now would likely not ask the question around the child labour laws, but this minister may want to raise these questions. The amendment that I'm moving, Mr. Chair, is as follows:

J. Kwan: To add this in, I think, would provide the conditions so that we know at least some of the conditions that ought to apply with respect to hiring of children.

As I stated, I know this government and this minister are great admirers of Alberta and Ralph Klein. This is what they have in place. This is the amendment, the Alberta amendment No. 1.

J. Kwan: Well, let me try another amendment, consistent with Alberta once again: amendment No. 2, the Alberta amendment No. 2.

J. Kwan: Just for the members' information, in Alberta here's what they've got. Alberta requires that for children aged 12 to 14, a permit be required if they are to be working unless they're working as a clerk or delivering newspapers or flyers. They cannot work more than two hours on a school day or more than eight hours on any other day and cannot work between 9 p.m. and 6 p.m. If it's good enough for Alberta, from this government's point of view, it ought to be good enough for B.C.

J. Kwan: I just want to correct myself. I think I might have misspoke. I said p.m. instead of a.m. It should be 6 a.m.

J. Kwan: The next amendment that I would like to move is to amend section 3 by adding the text highlighted by the underline, which reads:

J. Kwan: For the information of the House, this is what I call the Manitoba amendment. Those are the rules — conditions, if you will — that Manitoba has in place relative to employment of children. Further to that, for the information of the members of this House, these amendments that I have put forward are consistent with the international precedence and particularly consistent with the convention on the rights of the child, which I will put on the record for the members' information.

Article 32 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child clearly establishes a set of guiding principles regarding the responsibility of government to protect children in the workplace with the emphasis placed on specifying the conditions of employment in legislation and regulation. Article 32 states:

Further to that, the Hon. Landon Pearson, Canada's adviser on children's rights, states: "Canada firmly believes that our actions must be guided by the convention on the rights of the child. The convention remains the instrument of reference, the essential legislative basis for the achievement of children's rights. The primacy of this approach needs to be strongly reflected in our words and actions to improve the lives of children."

It is in that spirit, in the lines of the convention, that this amendment is moved.

Hon. G. Bruce: Just briefly, as I referred the member to before — and I know she doesn't have any comfort, but I'll just for the record state…. Section 14 of this bill will allow for regulation-making through cabinet. There are a number of regulations that I have already spoken about earlier on in debate — which will be coming through and will of course be able to be achieved through section 14 of this bill — which will take into account some of that which has been mentioned in all these amendments.

I accept the amendments in the spirit that they have been offered, but the government will be voting against.

J. Kwan: To section 4, the original section that requires the employers to pay minimum wage, Bill 37 adds a subsection that prohibits an employer from deducting an employee's wages in one pay period to recover an amount the employer is required by minimum-wage requirements to pay the employee in another pay period. This sounds good. It seems to protect the employees so that the employers can't withhold pay for another pay period. Is it for all employees, or is it just for commissioned employees?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is specific to commission, where you have both the minimum and commission sales, because in respect to those….

Hon. G. Bruce: This is in respect to commission sales people that have to have a baseline minimum, but then there has been the opportunity for claw backs, so we're trying to eliminate that opportunity of averaging wages. In reference to the specifics of the question, all people must be paid minimum wage, so this particular section doesn't apply to that. It's where you could have that discrepancy….

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, a commission employee. You could try and vary it between high commission sales of one week or two weeks in a pay period versus the minimum wage amount that would have been paid.

Hon. G. Bruce: In a sense, it is for all employees. In the practical term, the only way it works is where there are commission sales. As a commission sales rep, you have a minimum wage that you have to be paid. You have a particularly good week, and perhaps at a later time an employer tries to claw back some of that excess that was achieved by good minimum sales to just keep that employee at a minimum wage. We're saying, no, that's not on. The employee was there. You had the minimum wage. The extra that was paid as commission sales is part of the package. Just because two weeks hence it may not have been such a good week for sales, and the employer is still paying the minimum wage not based on sales but based on hours…. In effect, you can't claw back what the employee earned two weeks prior. There is no room for that to be juggled through in respect to the straight minimum wage aspect, and so what we're trying to do is virtually close that off.

J. Kwan: Well, if the argument is that for commission employees…. What I heard from the minister is that primarily because commission employees may have a bad week and so therefore their wages might be lower, and therefore would have a clawback, it would impact them very significantly. The same argument could also be made, then, for part-time employees or for people who work fewer hours. So would this provision apply, then, to part-time employees as well?

Hon. G. Bruce: No. Even if the part-time employees — a reduced number of hours, not a full week…. They're still paid on the full minimum dollars per hour. It's all based on the minimum wage.

J. Kwan: Is there any change planned for the regulations that affect the minimum wage paid to child labourers?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's not usual that in government you start to forecast what you might or might not be doing or that sort of stuff, but this minister doesn't have any changes in mind.

J. Kwan: Section 5 amends section 22 of the act by removing the power of the director to authorize an assignment of wages. As a result of Bill 37, the director may no longer assign some of an employee's wages for a purpose the director considers beneficial to the employee. Can the minister outline the situations when the director may have this done?

Hon. G. Bruce: We don't have any record of it ever being used. That's why we're deleting it.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know whether or not this has any impact for children in the labour force?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just for the record, so that the House understands, under assignments of the act, which still stays in effect under section 22, an employer must honour an employee's written assignment of wages (a) to a trade union in accordance with the Labour Relations Code; (b) to a charitable or other organization, or a pension or superannuation or other plan if the amounts assigned are deductible for income tax purposes under the Income Tax Act; (c) to a person to whom the employee is required under a maintenance order as defined in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to pay maintenance; (d) to an insurance company for insurance or medical or dental coverage; and (e) for a purpose authorized under section 2.

It's subsection (2) of section 22 that is the point that's being deleted — that the director may authorize an assignment of wages for a purpose that the director considers is for the employee's benefit. It's our belief that we have pretty much all of that covered, and this would apply as a general application through the Employment Standards Act.

J. Kwan: Under Bill 37 an employer will be able, with 30 days' notice, to close an employee's time bank. Within six months of closing this time bank, the employer must do one of the following: pay out all of the overtime wages in the bank, allow the employee to take time off with pay, or a combination of the two. The employer is no longer obliged to pay the overtime within a six-month window, nor must it set out a common date for paying out the employee's overtime wages. What was the problem identified that this amendment is intended to solve?

Hon. G. Bruce: The actual problem was in the tracking. The employee doesn't lose the amounts due to the individual. What we're looking to do is trying to close up that situation quicker.

J. Kwan: As I understand it, the employer is no longer obliged to pay the overtime within the six-month window, nor must it set a common date for paying out the employee's overtime wages. How is that making the employee receive their pay more quickly? It seems to me that it would actually lengthen the time period. Or am I misreading the section?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just to be clear — perhaps I wasn't clear, and I apologize if I wasn't — what we're doing is

closing…. What we're actually allowing is the employer and the employee to work out how they want to take those overtime wages when they're earned. It doesn't have to be within six months. It can be shorter, or it can be longer. We're taking that tracking aspect out and requiring the two parties to decide how it is they best want to deal with it.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, it's kind of the administrative role from our end. If the employee and the employer want to do it in three months, they can. If they want to finish it off in six months, they can. If they want to take nine months to do it, they can. We're just taking that six-month definitive out of there to allow them to work out what's best for both of them.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. There was consultation with the employers, and they indicated they didn't like the time frame. Since there was no impact on the employees, we're making that adjustment.

J. Kwan: The minister says there's no impact on the employees, but there are impacts on the employer, because under this provision the employer must, within a six-month period…. Even if there were no agreement on when the payout would be, they would have to pay it out within the six-month period. Is that what the minister is saying? And because the employee would just get their payout in any event, therefore they weren't consulted?

Hon. G. Bruce: Part of it was that the employer had to track each of the transactions during the course of the six months. What we're saying is: "Look, the two of you can work this situation out. If you want to do it within six months, that's fine. If you want to do it shorter, that's okay too." With the definitive in there, it was six months, and if you wanted to do it longer, that's up to the two parties to agree to.

Hon. G. Bruce: The branch hasn't ever heard of any young people banking time. These are general provisions. It's not to say it would never, ever happen, but we haven't, to this point, had any experience in that respect. But they are general provisions, which do affect all.

J. Kwan: Section 7 repeals section 86 of the Employment Standards Act, which states, "The director may vary or cancel a determination," and it places a 30-day window for the director to overturn a determination. Previously, there was no time limit on reconsideration of determinations. Could the minister please clarify whether the director still has the power to vary or to cancel a determination? Is this merely providing a time limit under this section?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, this just provides for that, as was stated by the member.

J. Kwan: I would assume that the intention is to speed up the process. Is that the idea?

J. Kwan: Section 8 extends the number of days before a due sum begins to accrue interest after determination from 23 to 38 days. Why is this changed?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is consequential to section 112(2), and it changes the days from 23 to 38 so that the interest accumulates on unpaid wages.

J. Kwan: Sorry. The minister said it's a consequential amendment to which section?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's subsequent to section 112(2) of Bill 48. This actually is an improvement. It's how it's calculated, and so it changes the days from 23 to 38. It increases the number of days that interest can be paid.

J. Kwan: On section 10. Presumably, this is consequential to the change in section 9. The stated purpose, according to the act, is to clarify that the liability for unpaid wages extends to a director or officer of an associated firm, syndicate or association under section 95 of the Employment Standards Act. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is a change that business would not like.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yup. This is just part of the balanced approach that we're bringing through, in that we want to make sure that people are properly looked after.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise: if there's a violation to this section of the act, what action would the ministry take?

Hon. G. Bruce: This applies to unpaid wages, so direct action would be as a result…. Really, what we're

doing here, if I understand it correctly, is clarifying who all is covered in this by definition and adding clarity to this section so that you can't hide behind definitions or lack of clarity to a definition when there are unpaid wages. So this allows for that, and the actions of the branch would be similar, as in any case of unpaid wages that people file with right now, to expedite the process and to get on with the payment of the wages. If the unpaid wages truly were there, there would then be a penalty for unpaid wages.

J. Kwan: When the minister says there would be a penalty for the unpaid wages, who would impose that? Is it the employment standards branch?

J. Kwan: What procedures would one then have to follow through? The reason I ask this is that, actually, I've had a couple of cases from individuals, constituents of mine who have come in, and they were not able to collect their rightful wages from their employer. They went through to the employment standards branch, and it was over a year in terms of the process in trying to get this through to no avail — to the last resort, which was that basically the person was advised to go and file a claim in small claims court against the employer.

I was expecting from the minister's answer that the employment standards branch would actually impose or ensure that there's a way for the individual to collect their unpaid wages. That's what I understood the minister's answer to be. What course of action would be available for people who are faced with the situation whereby they are not able to get their wages, and what kind of action would the employment standards branch impose?

Hon. G. Bruce: To the specifics of your own case that you have, I'd be interested in the example, if you would feel inclined to give it to me. We're trying to expedite processes so that people who are in a situation where they have not been paid are paid in a timely fashion. All of that is the impetus of the branch. Where there are case examples, and I'm sure there are, we're trying to improve on that. If you can help me with that, I would appreciate it.

This is a clear example of what we're trying to have come about: to not allow for someone to hide behind it. They would still go through that initial process. We would try, through phone calls or whatever, to clear the thing up. But failing that, then the action would be taken, a complaint filed, a case heard, a determination written — if in fact that's what was to come about — to have wages paid and a penalty applied. We are trying to shorten the period of time that that takes effect.

J. Kwan: Does the employment standards branch advise individuals who are trying to go through this process through the branch without success that they should go to a collection agency to collect their unpaid wages?

Hon. G. Bruce: That's certainly not a policy of the ministry. Again, if you have a specific case around that, which you feel has occurred, I'd like to know about it, if you felt inclined, so that we can deal with it.

J. Kwan: Could the minister advise how many staff he has in the employment standards branch who are targeted towards this task? I would assume — fair enough — that this particular job provision would extend beyond into other areas, so I'm not suggesting that's all that the individuals do. But how many staff does the minister have available in dealing with these kinds of situations?

Hon. G. Bruce: There are approximately 50 IROs in this particular field, and as you were mentioning, they're not specific to this all of the time. One of the things we are really trying to hammer through and focus on, in respect to employment standards, is the payment of wages.

As I've mentioned before around Bill 48 and that aspect of things, we are really trying to make it very, very clear that non-payment of wages is not on in British Columbia. If it's found to be the case, it isn't good enough that one simply pays, then, the wages that were due in the first instance. There will be a penalty applied as well.

We're trying to drill down on that in the most expeditious manner possible, with quick determinations and turnaround, so people who are duly owed wages and salaries are paid in a timely fashion.

J. Kwan: What's the turnaround time, generally speaking, for actually getting paid for someone who files a complaint? I should also put forward the notion of the projected turnaround time as well.

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't have a definitive on all the cases. We are seeing a faster turnaround. We're seeing a lot of cases resolve much quicker than was the case in the past. At this moment, sitting right before you, I can't give you a definitive number and time line — is it like two weeks or one week or whatever?

There's a real impetus on the basis that a person who has filed in respect to non-payment of wages should be treated in the most expeditious manner possible and that there should be a very quick resolve between the two parties. If it then takes it to that next step, determinations ought to be dealt with and issued as quickly as possible. We are seeing improvement to that, but if you would like me to say it's now one week or two weeks or four months or six months, I can't give you the definite….

J. Kwan: I'll just put it on record: what's reasonable? I'm not asking for a definitive date for any par-

ticular case but for what's reasonable in terms of expectations for individuals who file a case. Are we looking at one month, two months?

This is not a trick question. I'm just trying to get information for constituents I know who have come to my office struggling on this issue.

Hon. G. Bruce: I know the member would agree that the issue of non-payment of wages is just unacceptable, so it's a timely thing. It's one week, two weeks. A month is not acceptable.

As they're coming through, we are finding that some of the cases which are very clear and not very complicated are resolved as quickly as we possibly can. As a priority, if you were looking at the caseload, non-payment of wages is right up as the highest priority. Some of them are resolved almost on a daily coming through, and others would take a little bit longer depending on the complexity that was there.

Relative to that non-payment of wages, the impetus is to try and get that done as quickly as possible. People have worked, they've committed their time, and they're due their wages, regardless of whatever other mitigating circumstances the employers may find themselves in.

J. Kwan: If the employer has closed their business and opened another business in another name, but we know who the employer is and you're able to provide evidence that this individual, the employee, did work for this particular employer even though the employer might have shut down their business and moved on to another business venture…. In that instance, is it safe to assume that this provision would still apply and that the employment standards branch would also provide the assistance required for the person to collect the unpaid wages?

Hon. G. Bruce: To the extent that we can legally, as they say, pierce the corporate veil. What we're trying to do in part of this is diminish, to a greater extent, the ability for one to hide behind other types of definitions.

J. Kwan: Section 12 allows for the tribunal to send a letter back to the original panel or a different panel. This amends, as I understand, section 116. Could the minister please advise how the panel would be formed and what the composition of the panel is?

Hon. G. Bruce: The chair would decide that, but it can be a single-person panel.

J. Kwan: Is it done, then, on a case-by-case basis in terms of what the composition of the panel would look like and who appoints, etc.?

J. Kwan: What sort of guidelines, or are there any guidelines that would apply for different cases? I understand that it's on a case-by-case basis, but are there general guidelines that would apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: The chair would be the one who would determine if there are case precedents for this type of thing. Is it new? Is it different? Does it require more minds to it? The chair is the one that determines the makeup, the composition, and has a pretty good idea of the complexity of the issue that's going to be dealt with.

J. Kwan: This is the section the minister refers to that says: "Don't worry; everything is well in hand. Regulations will be in place, etc." However, as we debated earlier, the legislation around child labour is being weakened, and we now have the weakest child labour laws in the country.

In terms of the regulations, the minister says: "Don't worry; everything is well in hand." When does the minister expect the regulations will be in place?

Hon. G. Bruce: Not to be argumentative, but we actually think these regulations will strengthen and protect young people in the workplace. As I mentioned last night, the regulations are to come into effect on December 14.

J. Kwan: Not to be argumentative myself, but I think we've already established the different points of view with respect to this minister and the opposition. From the outset, changing and lowering the threshold, the age provision on child labour, has already weakened the standards now in B.C. with respect to child labour. I won't go through all of the arguments again. I'm sure that was exciting for the minister, because he tends to…. Anyway, I'll just leave it at that; I won't rehash those arguments.

The minister says the regulations would be in place by December 14. Would the regulations be available to the public for their review and for input prior to December 14?

Hon. G. Bruce: We're pretty clear on all this. Our view is to make sure young people are protected in the workplace. I've given you a pretty good overview of what those regulations would be. You heard how extensive they were in film, and I only touched on a very little part of the film aspect — on how complicated that gets to be.

I've been pretty clear in respect to the regulations as they would apply generally — the general application for 12-to-15-year-olds. We think that with what we're got there, we will strengthen substantively the employ of young people 12 to 15 in British Columbia compared to the situation as it is today.

We think it's important that we get on. This bill was brought forward in the springtime to the House, and we're now debating it. We think it's time to get on with getting this legislation passed and the regulations in effect so that young people are properly protected in the workplace.

J. Kwan: We disagree, as established earlier from the opposition, in terms of what this government deems to be protection and the weakening of that protection for children in the labour force. Once again, I won't rehash that. It remains to be seen what regulations will be brought forward.

We certainly wouldn't give blind trust to this government. As I mentioned, in many instances they simply have failed to do what they said they would do and actually ended up hurting the people who are most vulnerable in our society. Those are the facts as we know them. It remains to be seen.

The fact remains that the regulations would not be made public, and there would be no input. So much for an open and accountable government.

J. Kwan: Section 15 is interesting. The change here is that it repeals section 64(b) regarding who the written notice of group terminations must be given to, eliminating the notification of the unions. Why did the government bring forward this change?

What we're doing is repealing section 9 of Bill 48. The new regulations will come into effect. They will deal with the employ of children under 15 years of age.

J. Kwan: Sorry. My understanding was that it repeals section 64(b) of the Employment Standards Act, but the minister says it repeals section 9. Perhaps the minister can explain. I'm sorry. I'm confused.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is an administrative change, so let me try and get my way through this for you as well. It's a two-step. What we were doing was amending Bill 48. That was what sections 4 and 64 did, and the changes we're making here amend — I've got this right — section 9 of Bill 48, the Employment Standards Act. So it's a two-step thing, and we've now got it focused in and through on Bill 37. Sorry.

J. Kwan: Just so that I'm clear, section 15 reads: "Sections 4 and 64 (b) of the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002…are repealed." So then I go to "Group terminations," section 64(1)(b), and it reads: "a trade union certified to represent or recognized by the employer as the bargaining agent of, any affected employees." That's the line I'm reading. As I understand it, the government is repealing this section, and so under group terminations on the notification question, the employer would thereby not be required to notify the bargaining agent of a union.

Perhaps to make it more clear, I should read section 64(1), because 64(1) goes to talk about what section 64(1)(b) is connected to. Section 64(1) states that if the employment of 50 or more employees at a single location is to be terminated within any two-month period, the employer must give written notice of group termination to all of the following: each employee who will be affected under sub (a), and (b) a trade union certified to represent, or recognized as the bargaining agent of, any affected employees.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's confusing for me, and I've got all the team around here. We have two bills here. One is the Employment Standards Amendment Act, and the other is the Employment Standards Act, and we're not taking that provision which you were referencing. It's an amendment to an amendment in the bill here that we're now faced with.

Hon. G. Bruce: No. I apologize for the confusion. I've got it sort of sorted, but it does actually technically flow so that the legislation comes home as it was meant to be.

J. Kwan: Thank you for that clarification. I don't have in front of me, or at least I can't find it quickly in my binder…. In terms of the amendment act, maybe the minister can explain to me, then: what does the act on the amendment act say on section 64(b)? Then I can determine whether or not this is of any significance.

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 64(b)(1): "Establishing conditions that must be met before a person may employ a child under 15 years of age, and establishing different conditions for different industries or classes of industries," and (b)(2) was delegating authority to the director to impose on the basis of prescribed criteria conditions of employment in relation to children under 15 years of age.

J. Kwan: I was slightly distracted by the Solicitor General when the minister was reading that provision out. My apologies. So I didn't catch all of it. Noting the time, in any event — I do have a series of more questions to ask in this bill, and I don't think we're going to finish tonight — perhaps the committee can rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Then I can actually take a look at that amendment.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 56

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Bruce	Santori	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr		Hunter

	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 56

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Bruce	Santori	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr		Hunter

	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 56

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Bruce	Santori	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr		Hunter

	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 48

Falcon	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Plant
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Hunter

	YEAS — 46

Falcon	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Plant
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Hawes	Kerr
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY