2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 30, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number 5

[ Page 14751 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

ABBOTSFORD HAWKS BANTAM
TRIPLE-A HOCKEY CHAMPIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: For the second time in their illustrious history, the Abbotsford bantam triple-A Hawks have secured hockey supremacy in British Columbia by winning the provincial championships. That qualifies the team to travel to Weyburn, Saskatchewan, on Wednesday, where they will compete in the western championships against teams from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

For Coach Troy Campbell and his charges, this is, of course, a very exciting time. We're very proud of them, and I know each member of this House will want to convey our best and send them good luck wishes as they compete for the western championship in triple-A bantam hockey.

aman virk

N. Macdonald: On Thursday, March 26, the community of Golden was deeply shocked and saddened to learn of the sudden death of our mayor, Aman Virk. Aman Virk was a close personal friend. We served together on Golden council during his first term. Aman served 12 years as councillor before being elected our mayor just last fall.

One of the most appealing things about politics is the people that you meet, and you do have a chance to meet some very special people. Certainly Aman was one of those special people. He was wonderfully articulate, incredibly hard-working and always a lot of fun to be around. Aman was dedicated to Golden. While he could have chosen any number of opportunities that were available to him, he instead chose to serve the community that he was raised in and that he loved.

My heart goes out to Aman's wife Sharan and his children. He was a devoted and involved father. He was also a devoted son, and I know how proud Aman's father and mother were of him.

Aman Virk is going to be deeply missed by the community, and I ask the Speaker to send his condolences on behalf of all members of the Legislature.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Cantelon: Today with us in the House are the First Cedar Venture Scouts. These young adults, these young men and women, have camped out throughout our beautiful province summer and winter, in the snow. Last night they had a very trying camping-out experience in my bachelor condominium — all ten of them up there. It was quite an experience.

I'd like to introduce them today: Ryan Rangno, Braeden Rangno, Mike Mullholland, Aurthor Cantelon — if he bears a resemblance, it's because he is my son — Katie Corpella, Douglas Burke, Wes Turl, Matt Mullholland, Mike Leigh, Mike Newman and David Odo. Would you please make them very welcome in our chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

An Hon. Member: Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

Mr. Speaker: Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Sorry. They keep moving you.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. Clearly you haven't been talking to me lately.

I've been scanning the galleries, and I see up above us the former member for North Coast, who was perhaps the best Premier we've had in the last century because of the good staffing decisions he made. Would the House please welcome Dan Miller.

Hon. L. Reid: We have two wonderful women visiting us in the gallery today. Zaina Barry, who is married to my ministerial assistant, Jonathan Barry, has joined us, and Jonathan's mother, Diane Barry, is visiting from Drayton Valley, Alberta. I would ask the House to please make them both incredibly welcome.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, paying a return visit because last week it was clearly so enjoyable and informative, we have students from Archbishop Carney Secondary School. They're accompanied by Mr. Jerome Francis, Ms. Brygida Reis and Mr. Dave Wihak. Would the House please make welcome the students from Archbishop Carney Secondary School, from my riding.

D. MacKay: There are two people in the chamber today that I'd like to introduce. One I see every time that I'm in Victoria, and that is Michael Dieleman, who is the legislative assistant at the Whip's office. With him today, from the community of Houston, is his brother, Jonathan Dieleman. So I'd ask the House to please make them both welcome.

[1340]

Tributes

Energy conservation in PEMBERTON

Hon. J. McIntyre: I was hoping that the members of the House and others today would join me in congratulating the residents of Pemberton, which I found out this
[ Page 14752 ]
morning was the top community of 84 communities in British Columbia because they cut their power consumption by 4.6 percent during Earth Hour on Saturday night. That was four times higher than the average level of 1.1 percent for the province.

So I just thought Pemberton should be acknowledged today in the House for their great work and their concern about energy conservation.

Introductions by Members

S. Herbert: I rise today to thank my partner, Romi Chandra, for putting up with me for nine years today. It's been nine great years of love and a fabulous relationship.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'd like to introduce a constituent from the University of Victoria who is on a co-op placement with a strategic communication firm here in Victoria, where she's learning about public affairs and public relations. So I would ask the House to please welcome Lauren Holland.

Hon. T. Christensen: I was joined today for lunch by six guests from around the province. All six are involved in early childhood development, and while they had actually purchased this lunch at a charity auction, it was really I that should have paid for lunch, or purchased it with them, because it was a very constructive discussion to hear about what is happening in early childhood development in communities around the province — some of the challenges, some of the opportunities and some of the successes.

I would hope that the House would join me in thanking them all for the work that they do. I'll name all six. Only three have been able to join us for question period, but the six are Sue Khazaie, Gail Brown, Deb Frolek, Marianne Drew-Pennington, Sue Rossi and Darby Wilkinson. Many of those names will be familiar to members of this House because many of these women have been involved in early childhood development for a long time, making strong contributions to future generations of British Columbians. Would the House please join me in welcoming them all.

Hon. M. de Jong: I too would like to welcome former Premier Dan Miller into the chamber. Again, he served here for many years with great distinction and, I can say, is someone from whom I learned a thing or two about deportment and conduct in this chamber. I am relatively certain that those are things I never told him when we sat in this chamber together. But I am pleased to do so today.

Tributes

KANWALJIT SINGH

Hon. M. de Jong: I regret that I have further sad news for members of the House emanating from India, and the Punjab in particular. A friend of British Columbia's and an individual who has played a prominent role in the governing of the state of Punjab, Capt. Kanwaljit Singh, presently a minister in the government of Punjab, sadly passed away yesterday, I am advised, in a tragic car accident. He was only 66.

He was a prominent member of the assembly there, a former Minister of Finance, presently the Minister for Cooperation within the Punjab government, had been Home Minister as well, and a good friend of British Columbia. He had visited here frequently. I know there are other members of the chamber who have had the occasion to meet and benefit from Capt. Kanwaljit Singh's hospitality.

He will, of course, be missed by his wife, by his son, by his entire family, by those he represented so well in the state legislature in the Punjab, and he will be missed by all people who value the close relationship that has evolved between the state of Punjab and British Columbia and Canada. I hope that this assembly will convey via the appropriate channels our sadness at his passing.

Introductions by Members

R. Thorpe: In 1949 two young adults migrated from Holland to Canada. Cora and Paul Vander Velden joined family and friends to celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary this past weekend at the home of Edna Barisoff and Mr. Speaker. I ask all members to join me in wishing Cora and Paul all the very best in the celebration and achievement of their 60th wedding anniversary.

[1345]

In addition, at this very festive family gathering, I understand that the news was made that Edna Barisoff and Mr. Speaker are going to be blessed with an additional grandchild from Hilary and Glen Barisoff later this year. So I'd ask the House to wish Hilary and Glen all the best and to grandpa.

Tributes

KANWALJIT SINGH

H. Lali: I, too, would like to join the hon. House Leader, the Government House Leader, in giving my condolences to Capt. Kanwaljit Singh's family as well. I knew the man personally. When I was a cabinet minister in an NDP government, he came up and visited me personally, and then I had a chance to visit with him a couple of times in India. One time was actually in 1999 when the House Leader and myself were both guests of honour at Captain Kanwaljit's house during the 300th year celebration of Khalsa Day in Chandigarh in Punjab. I would like to pass on my condolences, as well, to Mr. Singh's family.
[ Page 14753 ]

AMAN VIRK

H. Lali: I would also like to join the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, as he has mentioned earlier about Mayor Aman Virk from Golden who passed away of a heart attack in India. Aman Virk was a personal friend of mine, as well, and it came as a complete shock to myself and my family as, indeed, to my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

I would also like to pass on my condolences and those of my family as well to Aman Virk's family. It is really, really sad to have seen this happen to such a — and I guess I can say that — young man. He was a lot younger than I am — just in the prime of his career to have this happen. I would like to join in passing my condolences as well.

KANWALJIT SINGH

D. Hayer: I would like to include my comments on the passing away of Capt. Kanwaljit Singh. He was a very good friend of my father. Every time he was here, he visited our home and also my dad's newspaper, the Indo-Canadian Times. When two years ago I went to India with my wife for our 25th anniversary, he was the only politician we had dinner with, because he was a personal family friend.

When I talked to the media and the community members, he was very well respected. He was considered one of the hardest-working and one of the most honest politicians in Punjab. I want to add my condolences to his family, also to the state of Punjab in India.

AMAN VIRK

D. Hayer: At the same time, I also want to add my condolences to Aman Virk, because I met Aman in Golden in 2001. He took me around to show me how back in 1880 when the first Sikhs arrived in British Columbia, they were in Golden. He had a lot of plans, a lot of dreams, and he was a very hard-working and well-respected councillor at that time.

Later on he became a mayor and was well-respected, and I was able to help his family by getting some visa arrangements to India the day they found out he had passed away. He will be dearly missed, and I want to add my condolences from my family and my constituency for him and on behalf of my other colleagues.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

MLA MEETINGS WITH
NORTH BURNABY CONSTITUENTS

R. Lee: I rise today to tell the House about a great event I've been holding in my riding since 2003. One Saturday every month from nine to 10:30 a.m., my constituents are welcome to my office, where we have a round table discussion focusing on what's important in Burnaby North. This Saturday, April 4, is the next "Coffee with Richard," and I look forward to the discussions that will take place.

I would like to thank the member for Surrey-Tynehead for suggesting this great idea and sharing his success in "Coffee with Dave" with me. Everyone in the community is welcome to attend this open meeting with me. They can discuss community events, activities and opinions on issues of importance to the people of Burnaby North. It is also a chance for constituents to discuss activities and issues with each other to help foster networks and relationships.

[1350]

We work hard to make sure that it is an open environment, and if I can answer questions they have, I get back to them and help with any problems along the way.

Over the last six years I've been really pleased with the outcome of these discussions. On some occasions I bring issues back here to the House to a ministry and/or to the Premier. Through these coffee meetings, residents have helped established a fair, recognizing the work of volunteers and non-profit organizations in Burnaby. I'm honoured to co-fund this annual festival with Volunteer Burnaby.

I want to say thank you to my constituents for their help in my riding and to suggest to those MLAs who don't yet embrace all the opportunities they have to get closer to their constituents that this is just one quick way I found helpful in connecting to the people of Burnaby North.

IMPORTANCE OF B.C. FORESTS

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about the lungs of the planet — the lungs of the planet being the forests of British Columbia. As we examine this world that we face, a world of climate change, many of us ask very heartily: "What can we do?" People look around themselves, and they search for a solution. They search for their own role. "How can we make a difference? How can B.C. make a difference?"

The comparative value of cutting emissions in this province versus absorbing emissions for the rest of the world is a very open question and a discussion we all need to have. We need to look at our forests not as just a revenue source but also as the great lungs of the planet, that carbon sink that they represent.

What should our forests be? What is their full value? Yes, wood products of all sorts, pharmaceuticals, energy, but also a carbon sink. In order to realize that great potential and that great addition to the world's struggle against climate change, we need to look at things like our waste-wood regulations, as we see such great amounts of
[ Page 14754 ]
wasted wood rotting into the atmosphere from the forests of Vancouver Island.

Tree planting. I spent five seasons as a tree-planter. Dollars invested pay back to the whole world. Different species for different markets and different products. Those are the questions that B.C. needs to ask itself.

Climate change and the post-beetle forest. What is it going to look like? What species? What products? What goals do we have for our forests? We need a full-value extraction from our forests.

We need to answer the question: why Ikea? Why not "B.C.ea?" We need to take less to make more, and that's not meant as a campaign slogan for Chilliwack-Sumas. But we need to take less and make more. We can retrofit a home. We can turn out a light. Most of all, we have to benefit the whole world with the lungs of the planet.

CAPILANO RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB

R. Sultan: This year Capilano Rugby Football Club is celebrating 75 years on the North Shore, making this probably the oldest rugby club in North America and certainly the largest and most successful.

The concept of the scrum was borrowed from rugby by the jostling reporters and cameras trying to push back our ministers in the hall every day. I sometimes wonder why hundreds of my constituents so eagerly charge into the rucks and mauls of this contact sport. But then I remember my predecessor, MLA and rugby player of some distinction Jeremy Dalton, and realize they're all practising for careers in politics.

Klahanie Park, a few hundred metres from my office, is home to the Caps — three seniors men's teams; two seniors women's teams; boys' teams and the under-20, -19, -17, -16, -15, -14, and -13 age categories; mini-rugby; and for those over 40, the fittingly named Snowcaps. All of these teams regularly bring home the silver.

The Brits are fond of saying that football — soccer, as we know it on this side of the pond — is a gentleman's game played by ruffians, and rugby is a ruffian's game played by gentlemen. We salute these Capilano gentlemen and ladies for the vigour and fitness they bring to the North Shore.

[1355]

COMMUNITY SPIRIT IN
VANCOUVER'S WEST END

S. Herbert: I am pleased today to be able to rise to speak about some of the things that I believe we can all learn from my community, the West End. It's a community where we all, for the most part, live in apartments the size of some of your garages. We live close to each other without back yards for the most part. Our back yard is English Bay, the seawall and Stanley Park, and what a backyard it is. Or, if you're lucky, you might have a little balcony where you can try to grow some veggies or look out into the great blue yonder.

This closeness leads to a great connection between people. People from all backgrounds get to know each other. We also learn that we need to share and that all the wealth in the world won't buy happiness if you don't get along with your neighbour or if we, as a society, continue to ignore the mentally ill person sleeping in the park behind our home.

We know we need to share if our society is to work as a whole. We share our neighbourhood with the world, whether it's the fireworks, the pride parade, numerous conventions, triathlons, charity runs, what have you. It all takes place in our back yard. The West End shares.

It's an area that's probably the most urban riding in the province, but it's also one where you can get out into the forest of Stanley Park in just a few minutes. A West End success story, the Stanley Park Ecology Society advocates for conservation and educates us all about the wild creatures, and I'm not talking about my constituents. I'm talking about the heron rookery, the incredible diversity of bats, coyotes, skunks, eagles, seals and even, once in a while, marmots living close by.

My neighbours are environmental leaders. That's right, Mr. Minister: 40 percent of us walk to work; 10 percent of us bike to work; and another 25 percent of us take public transit. That's fully 75 percent of my constituents in the West End who don't drive. It's a perfect example of what happens when you plan for density.

The closeness of my community leads to great engagement. We've got the West End Residents Association, the English Bay Leaseholders, GLBT Centre — it goes on — working together to build a great neighbourhood.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN
NORTHERN AND RURAL B.C.

J. Rustad: We all know about the global economic uncertainty. We know that families, particularly in rural B.C., are concerned about paying their bills and staying in the part of the province that they love. But there's some good news out there. In my riding of Prince George–Omineca, Conifex recently reopened a sawmill in Fort St. James, employing 135 people. It's a great example of the workers and the employer working together to get the wood going through the mill by agreeing to an innovative contract which ties salaries to market prices.

As well, Terrane Metals has been given the environmental approval for its proposed Mount Milligan copper-gold mine in northern B.C. The mine would cost an estimated $917 million to build and provide 400 full-time jobs annually over its 15-year life span.

Another exciting project in northern British Columbia is the multi-billion-dollar Enbridge northern pipeline project. With an estimated 4,000 construction jobs and
[ Page 14755 ]
many more jobs to operate the pipeline and the marine terminal facility, this project will have a huge positive impact. Just like the expansion of the Port of Prince Rupert that was vital for the expanding trade and jobs, so is the ability to move petroleum from Kitimat to world markets.

It's about creating jobs. It's about creating stability for families across the north. It's about saying yes to investment.

I've travelled extensively throughout the north. Whether it's forestry workers, hunters and fishermen, small business people, local governments and many others, we share one common theme. We're excited about the opportunities in northern British Columbia. It's our time. The north is well-positioned to experience a significant economic boom in the coming years. I urge all members of the Legislature to support these projects that create jobs and growth in rural and northern B.C.

WASHINGTON STATE FERRY SERVICE TO
SOUTHERN VANCOUVER ISLAND

R. Fleming: For decades Washington State Ferries has operated the Sidney-Anacortes sea link between the state's mainland and the U.S. gulf islands and Vancouver Island. This international ferry brings 140,000 visitors annually to this part of our province. It is a vital link for commerce, for tourism between our two countries, and it has operated for over 90 years. Both countries have benefited from this active seagoing link across the Strait of Juan de Fuca through Puget Sound.

[1400]

Here on the south of this Island, below the 49th parallel, this international gateway has formed an incredible bond of friendship between our communities, and that is why we saw such tremendous outpouring of support when the service was targeted for cancellation by the state's budgeting process.

Rather than accept this fate, citizenry on both sides of the border organized with determination to save this ferry link. Canadian and U.S. business owners, tourism operators, mayors on both sides and political leaders have been speaking out and building the business case for keeping this incredible economic generator.

Mayor Dean Maxwell of Anacortes and Mayor Larry Cross of Sidney have worked tirelessly. The chambers of commerce and the business improvement groups have been writing letters. They've been making submissions and working both sides of the aisle in the state Legislature. State Senator Mary Haugen and Representative Jeff Morris have been instrumental in standing up for Skagit County residents and businesses.

This afternoon, when the House of Representatives submits a final budget proposal, we will know if all of this incredible, hard work has paid off to keep this link between our nations open for business. At a time when U.S. travel is down 10 percent to our province, losing this ferry service would be unforgivable. Hundreds of businesses, thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars of economic activity depend on it.

The inscription at the famous Peace Arch crossing reads "Brethren dwelling together in unity." That's how my community feels about our shared history, our shared geography with our American friends, and we hope this ferry service will last forever.

Oral Questions

MEDICAL LABORATORY SERVICES
IN OKANAGAN AREA

C. James: The former clinical director at the Okanagan health service area's labs has stated that he was instructed not to raise concerns about deficiencies at those medical labs. Dr. Kirk Ready warned Interior Health about outdated labs, serious staff and facility gaps, and substandard testing for breast cancer between May 2005 and October 2006.

Here's the response he got. Interior Health responded: "He was explicitly advised that there should be no noise about the medical laboratories in the run-up to the May '09 election."

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he hold an independent review into those Okanagan labs, including all of the concerns that have been raised by Dr. Ready?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. Certainly, we've been following this with considerable interest. I want to first advise the member that British Columbia has an excellent laboratory system. When it comes to cancer testing, control, treatment, post-operative rehabilitation, British Columbia has the best cancer control system on the face of the earth.

Interior Health was, as you might expect, very concerned about the comments that they saw in that letter. They have followed up on each and every one of those concerns. In every case, the allegations have either been found unsubstantiated, or the issues have been addressed. But with respect to the most serious of those, around the estrogen receptor testing, all of the work that IH has done points to those accusations being entirely unfounded. No inaccuracies have been found.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: People have heard reassurances over the last eight years from this government around health issues before. I'm sorry, but those assurances have not, for the people in British Columbia, given them any assurance
[ Page 14756 ]
that the health care system was following up on their issues. It wasn't independent.

The public wants assurance. These were serious concerns. Dr. Ready states that there are many jaw-dropping practices in the Okanagan health services labs. He had serious concerns. He raised those issues with the health authority, but he was told to stay quiet until after the election.

[1405]

Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. These are serious concerns around breast cancer testing. Will he call right now for an independent — not the health authority — investigation into what went on?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have been seeing in recent days an absolutely shameless and irresponsible attempt by the opposition Health critic to try to piggyback on the tragedy that occurred in Newfoundland with respect to testing.

The Interior Health Authority, as I said in my previous answer, has looked very thoroughly, very comprehensively, at the allegation, the concern, that was raised. They have reviewed all of the files. They have found no irregularities.

For this opposition leader to be fearmongering in this extraordinarily irresponsible way in this chamber I find reprehensible. I find it absolutely spectacularly unfortunate that they would raise concerns in the minds of those who have been tested when there is no basis for that concern.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I would remind this minister that the reason these questions come up is because a well-respected doctor and the public aren't getting answers from this government, so we're going to raise their concerns in this Legislature.

Dr. Ready has publicly stated he was instructed that there be no noise from him on these issues. He resigned his position. This is a well-respected doctor who took these issues very seriously.

Noise — that's what the Interior Health Authority called his concerns. Concerns about woefully outdated labs, the practice of sending surgical specimens out of B.C. because of inadequate resources, autopsies being transferred to other hospitals because of unsafe conditions, and a failure to follow proper procedures in breast cancer tests — these are very serious concerns. These are genuine issues brought forward by a well-respected doctor. The public deserves answers, not from the health authority investigating itself but an independent investigation.

My question is again to the Minister of Health. Doesn't the public deserve an answer? Doesn't he see these as serious concerns, and won't he today call for an independent investigation with what went on?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I did discuss with Interior Health Authority this suggestion about Dr. Ready not speaking out. Interior Health has looked into it. They find absolutely nothing to suggest that at any point, never mind a year ago, Dr. Ready was instructed by anyone to do anything in respect of these concerns. I believe that the suggestion that the member has made is baseless.

Again, let's return to the most important thing here, and that is around the quality and availability of cancer testing and other pathology testing in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry the members don't want to hear this. They're going to hear it anyway. British Columbia has the best, most comprehensive cancer testing not only in Canada but in the western world.

A. Dix: Dr. Ready was brought in….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Dr. Ready was brought in, as the minister well knows, because of the chaos in those very labs in 2005, when all the pathologists resigned. That's why Dr. Ready was brought in.

[1410]

What does he say that the minister describes as excellent? "When I arrived at Kelowna General Hospital, I found a laboratory system which was behind in facilities, processes and procedures. There were many jaw-dropping practices in the OHSA labs. For example, the OHSA labs were discarding formalin and other chemicals in the sanitary sewer system. The autopsy suite was filthy. The autopsy table leaked."

Dr. Ready says explicitly to the minister that he was explicitly advised "that there should be no 'noise' about the medical laboratories in the run-up to the May 2009 election because the government did not appreciate the controversy in the OHSA labs which occurred prior to the last provincial election in 2005."

What is wrong with having an external review, an external investigation, into very serious charges brought forward by the former clinical director?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not surprised to hear words like "chaos" from this member. He, at every turn, denigrates,
[ Page 14757 ]
criticizes, diminishes the contribution that agencies like the B.C. Cancer Agency and the health authorities make each and every day of the year in one of the very best health care systems on the face of the earth.

Whether you look at the incidence of a variety of cancers…. But most importantly, we look at the outcomes. When people have been affected by cancers, British Columbia almost invariably has the very best record in the nation of Canada.

For this member to suggest that somehow Interior Health contemplated and allowed the range of concerns which has been raised is wrong. In each and every case, the concerns that were raised have either been found unsubstantiated or have been remediated and corrected.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Unsubstantiated? This is the minister's former director of clinical services. This is what he says: "Labs woefully outdated. Contravention of environmental laws. Autopsies transferred to other hospitals because of the unsafe conditions." He says that the IHA, for over four years, has been sending surgical pathology specimens to Ottawa because of the lack of staff and facility space.

Is that what the Minister of Health calls excellent? Will he not today have an external review so that the people of the Okanagan can have confidence, after these very serious charges — not brought forward by me, not brought forward by the opposition but by his former director of clinical services?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member references lack of staff, and it's true that in the letter from Dr. Ready he does reference a shortage of pathologists. So how would one account for a shortage of pathologists at Kelowna General Hospital? It would be accounted for by the complete failure of the NDP government in the 1990s to invest one single extra dollar in medical training — 128 medical spaces in 1991; 128 medical spaces in 2001.

They failed to invest in new health human resources. They failed to invest in Kelowna General Hospital. We're investing over half a billion dollars in renewing, expanding and redeveloping Kelowna General Hospital.

K. Conroy: Let's bring it back to current issues, current problems that are happening out at OHSA. Dr. Ready's documents show that it is because of inadequate resources locally.

[1415]

Is it true that after four years of initiating a contingency plan to send specimens to Ottawa, this practice still continues? Four years for a contingency plan? There has to be a problem there. How long will the minister continue to allow the contingency plan to carry on in the IHA?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue with specimens going to Ottawa for analysis, which is a completely appropriate thing to be done…. The turnaround time is just as quick as going anywhere else. But that was a short-term issue, and it was a result of a shortage of pathologists at the time. I'm not sure what conspiracy the member might be envisioning here, but in fact, the Ottawa lab is entirely capable of managing that.

If the member is concerned about a shortage of pathologists, she should have a discussion with some of the veteran members of the NDP, who failed so miserably in adding a single medical education space to the universities of British Columbia in the 1990s. If she wants to find the source of that issue, she should look at the failure, the pathetic failure, of the former NDP government to invest a single incremental dollar in medical education in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: It's interesting. When this minister has no answer, he tends to reminisce about past history. Let's bring him back to current situations once again.

These documents show that the Interior Health knew as early as May 2007 about the concerns that Dr. Ready had raised, concerns about potentially serious medical implications for patients, but he was told not to make noise. Now the minister is making it worse by saying that he won't be investigating these concerns.

To the minister. A senior, well-recognized and experienced health care professional was raising concerns about inadequate equipment, outdated and inefficient practices and a lack of proper guidelines for conducting medical tests — serious medical tests. Why won't the minister give the agreement, say we need to have a full review of the issues happening in the Okanagan?

Hon. G. Abbott: IHA has done a full review of all of the concerns that were raised by the former director. Dr. Ready will have to, I believe, explain himself to the public.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can tell the member definitively and unequivocally that in each and every one of the concerns that was raised, in every case, the concern has either been already addressed — and in fact, in some cases years ago — or in the case of the estrogen receptor testing, IHA has done a comprehensive review of that.

Obviously, that is an enormously serious concern to be raising. Interior Health has been looking at that.
[ Page 14758 ]
They have found no irregularities in that testing. For the members opposite, I really wish they would sometimes think through these things before they do their reckless, partisan politicking on these matters. They are raising concerns in the minds of people inappropriately.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. I just want to remind the members. I'll let the question go on as long as I want, and I'll let the answer go on. It's my decision to make.

ROLE OF PATRICK KINSELLA AND
PREMIER'S OFFICE IN B.C. RAIL SALE

L. Krog: For years we've known the B.C. Rail deal was about selling off a public asset to benefit Liberal friends and insiders. Now the tracks of this corruption scandal lead right into the Premier's office.

[1420]

In May 2004 the deal to privatize B.C. Rail was falling apart, so Patrick Kinsella said he would work with the Premier's chief of staff, Martyn Brown, to salvage the deal.

Tell us today: what exactly did the Premier's office do to save this tainted deal?

Hon. W. Oppal: The sub judice rule is there for a very good purpose. It is there to protect the independence and the integrity of our courts. It is improper — it would be wrong — for anyone in this chamber to comment on whatever is taking place in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, last week Justice Bennett made it pretty clear that that avenue of retreat isn't available to the government anymore. So maybe they could actually step up to the plate and start to answer the questions that everyone in British Columbia is asking.

There's a stain in the Premier's office, and there's a stain in this government. The public deserves answers, but the minister continues to shield the Premier. This is a serious issue that goes to the very integrity of the Premier's office — the highest office in the province. What did the Premier's office promise CN in order to salvage the B.C. Rail deal?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, what is a particular concern here is that that member is a member of the bar. He should clearly know better. He attends in a courtroom, comes outside, holds press conferences and comments on matters that are before the court, thereby….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: That applause indicates to me that they have absolutely no respect for the courts — none. It's totally irresponsible for that member to run with whatever ill-founded submissions or baseless allegations they may have and ask people to comment on them. It's wrong to do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: The government agreed in negotiations to extend the lease that was a central part of the privatization deal with CN to 990 years. Will the Minister of Transportation confirm that this was done to secure for CN $250 million in tax benefits?

Hon. W. Oppal: That member well knows that this matter is before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The Premier's friend Mr. Kinsella was working for B.C. Rail, as we know, and the Liberal lobbying firm Pilothouse described Mr. Kinsella as "CN's B.C. political adviser." So what solution did Patrick Kinsella and the Premier's office cook up to save the deal? Was the 990-year lease part of that deal?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not going to answer that question.

ROLE OF PATRICK KINSELLA IN
ACCENTURE CONTRACT

J. Horgan: Well, let's try a privatization scheme that's not yet before the courts. In 2003 Patrick Kinsella's organization, according to their own resumé, did the following: "Did a survey of the landscape and interviewed a number of stakeholders in the British Columbia government and B.C. Crown corporations and determined that the best opportunity for Accenture was B.C. Hydro."

Now, the minister of defence took this question on notice last week. So I'm hopeful that the Minister of Energy has been prepared for this, and he's able to stand in this place today and advise this House what role Mr. Kinsella, what role Mr. Martyn Brown from the Premier's office, had in the privatization to Accenture.

Hon. W. Oppal: Those questions, I expect, will be answered by Madam Justice Bennett.

Interjections.
[ Page 14759 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

[1425]

J. Horgan: It's curious to me how the Attorney General can stand in this place and tell us that B.C. Hydro is now before the courts. For every activity….

Mr. Kinsella was involved with the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Does that mean we can't ask questions about the Lottery Corporation? Is everything that Mr. Kinsella touched now off-limits to the people of British Columbia?

Again, a simple question to the Minister of Energy. I know he's anxious to get to his feet. What role did Patrick Kinsella and Martyn Brown have in the privatization of one-third of B.C. Hydro, a $1.45 billion deal to the friends of the government, Accenture?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm sure these questions are asked for the purposes of getting a sound bite on the six o'clock news.

I'm not going to answer the question. The question is before the…. All of those matters are before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and everybody here knows that it's inappropriate to talk about matters that are before the court.

M. Farnworth: That is the most ridiculous excuse for an answer that we've ever heard in this House.

The question is very simple. What role did Patrick Kinsella play in the privatization deal that resulted in Accenture getting a significant part of B.C. Hydro? That's not before the courts, and if it is, the Attorney General should tell this House, so we can all know just how far things have spread. The question is simple. What role did Mr. Kinsella play in the Accenture deal?

Hon. W. Oppal: The matter of B.C. Rail, the matter of Patrick Kinsella, is before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That may be political fodder for these people, who have absolutely no respect for the process, no respect for the courts, no respect for the independence of the courts. I'm not going to answer that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Will the Attorney General then confirm to this House that the Accenture deal is now before the courts?

Hon. W. Oppal: I know nothing about that deal, but I do know that the matter….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: I do know that all the other matters that the member refers to are before the courts, and I'm not going to answer them.

EDUCATION FUNDING

J. McGinn: Last week, when the Minister of Education was asked about the $7 million cuts that the Vancouver school board was going to be forced to make, she said: "We also would like the member opposite go and perhaps have a chat with the Vancouver school board about the accumulated surplus they have in their school district."

Well, the minister obviously knew then, or at least she should have known, that that surplus has already been applied to the budget to get it down to the $7 million in cuts.

Once again, will the minister tell this House where she thinks those cuts should be made? Minister, should they be made to special ed…

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

J. McGinn: …music, history, math? What's it going to be, Minister?

Hon. S. Bond: What it's going to be is that the members on this side of the House are going to continue to vote to add to the record levels of funding to education that we have every single year for eight years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: We're talking about a school board that since the beginning of this government's mandate has had an increase of $78 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

J. McGinn: The minister is completely missing the point here. What we're talking about is $7 million in cuts to the Vancouver school board — a $7 million deficit.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. McGinn: What this is going to mean is this minister is forcing the Vancouver school board to make cuts that are going to hurt children and hurt families.
[ Page 14760 ]

Will the minister today meet with the Vancouver school board and give her suggestions as to how those cuts are going to be made? Is it going to be ESL? Is it going to be special ed? Is it going to be history? Is it going to be science?

What's it going to be, Minister?

Hon. S. Bond: The facts are this. This school board has seen a reduction in the number of students by over 3,000 over the last number of years. In fact, despite that and ongoing declining enrolment, this year they will see over a million additional dollars.

Maybe we should just look at the track record of the Leader of the Opposition. Let's listen to a quote that she made in 1997. "In my district…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, this is important to actually have on the record. "In my district we have cut $18 million over the last six years. We no longer have elementary librarians because we cut those three years ago." That's the record of the NDP government in the 1990s.

N. Macdonald: The reality is, and the minister knows…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …that in each and every district in this province, rural or urban, there are going to be cuts. The minister knows that — each and every district.

If you look at the cuts that are going to be made…. Let's look at some of the school districts, because it's not just Vancouver. There are going to be $2.5 million worth of cuts made in Vernon. There are going to be $500,000 in Victoria and $3.5 million worth of cuts in Central Okanagan. There are going to be $3.2 million worth of cuts in North Vancouver. It goes on and on.

Instead of addressing the issue, what the minister chooses to do is try to distort the reality that trustees face. The question is: where do you want these boards to make cuts? Do you want it in ESL? Do you want it in special ed? Where do you want it? Each one of those cuts is going to be hurting kids. So where are you making the cuts? Where do you suggest they do that?

Hon. S. Bond: This is a government that has actually added over a billion dollars to education funding. If the members opposite are so interested in British Columbia's view, then maybe it's time they laid out their platform and let British Columbians see what exactly they're going to do in education in British Columbia. It's about time.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 10, the Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2009.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

Public Safety and Solicitor General
Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; K. Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On section 1.

R. Fleming: I wanted to just have the Solicitor General at the outset describe the definition changes here to vehicle indebtedness and the purpose behind that, for the benefit of committee stage debate this afternoon. If he could just begin there and explain how these amendments will, in effect, work to change this act.

[1440]

Hon. J. van Dongen: I just want, for the benefit of members of the House, to introduce staff. To my right is Devon Windsor, policy analyst with the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles, and to my left is Ann Preyde, director of policy and legislation in the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. To her left is David Thickens, policy adviser for the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

In answer to the member's question, the only change to the Insurance Act that these two amendments make — these two references to sections in the Criminal Code — is that it makes offences of impaired driving collectable through the normal channels that we have in the act for collecting fines for various offences. So it adds two federal Criminal Code offences to the list of offences that are collectable under this act by the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Farnworth: Under section 2 it also says that it allows other Criminal Code provisions to be added to the definition by regulation. Could the minister give us some example of what type of Criminal Code offences they may think are going to be added?
[ Page 14761 ]

Hon. J. van Dongen: This clause, section (f), was added to ensure that in the future, when there are amendments to the federal Criminal Code, we are able in British Columbia to add those offences to the list of collectable fines in our legislation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

This is so that we don't have to, as we're doing today, go through the Legislature to add these offences to our provincial legislation. We can do it by regulation in the future. So it ensures that the current situation, where we've got federal amendments that were made in July of 2007…. There isn't that lag time, or there isn't as much lag time in adding those to the provincial legislation. So we're trying to make it all parallel.

M. Farnworth: I just wanted to know if the minister had an example of other types of offences that they think might potentially be added to the list.

Hon. J. van Dongen: This provision would allow the provincial government to add any motor vehicle–related offences, any new offences that are created in the Criminal Code. So it's motor vehicle–related, and I should add that it's not just to be able to collect the fines.

It can be to ensure that the superintendent of motor vehicles could impose things like the responsible driver program and the ignition interlock program so that those can be imposed on drivers who commit Criminal Code offences of a wide variety of possibilities under the Criminal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act.

[1445]

M. Farnworth: So it's anticipated that the offences that would be added here in the future by regulation are those that are only related to traffic and vehicular and impaired driving and those sorts of offences, not outside of that realm.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct. Any motor vehicle–related Criminal Code offence would be eligible for inclusion by regulation under this section.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Farnworth: This section allows or adds the ability for the Insurance Corporation to retain or seize documents that are submitted to it as part of a driver's licence or identification card application that is submitted in order to maintain the files kept by the corporation relating to the driver's licence or identification card, and specifies what the corporation may do with these documents.

I would assume that this is to deal with fraudulent documents or a fraudulent effort to obtain a driver's licence or identification. My question is, though: is there a time limit in which you can seize the documents? Does there have to be written notification? Is there an appeal process? How do we guard against the potential for abuse or for mistaken circumstances, which, as we all know, do crop up from time to time?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The section under 25.01(3) does set out that the Insurance Corporation has to make certain decisions within 30 days. Under (3)(a) they would return the record to the individual, or (b) they have to make a determination to retain or seize the document for a longer period. The Insurance Corporation of B.C. has a number of options as set out in 25.01(2), but (3) sets out that they have to do so and make some decisions within 30 days.

Secondly, any decisions by ICBC at the front counter are reviewable by supervisors, and they're also reviewable by the fair practices liaison person that works within ICBC.

M. Farnworth: I agree with what the section is trying to do, but I just want to explore a little further and make sure we don't have unintended consequences. If an individual presents their documents and they are seized, ICBC has 30 days to decide what to do with them or return them. If they are investigating the documents to determine if they're fraudulent, is it possible for them to take more than 30 days?

[1450]

If they're having an investigation and haven't, for example, made a determination, but they think there are reasonable grounds to say that said documents are fraudulent, do they have the ability to go beyond that 30 days? If so, what avenue does the individual have in terms of their recourse around being dealt with in a timely fashion?

Aside from the 30 days, if there's a process in place, what happens to that individual? Is there also a final time line that any investigation has to be completed by before any ultimate decision is made?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It is anticipated that in a very, very high percentage of cases, the Insurance Corporation would be making a decision well within 30 days. The only scenario where that might not be the case is where they are working to authenticate a document, say, with a foreign country where there are some time issues.

Under normal circumstances they would virtually all be dealt with within the 30 days and in a manner that may include ICBC simply withholding the document if it's found to be in any way fraudulent, which is the intent of this section, or returning it to the person who offered it or to the issuer who issued the document.

I understand the member's concern, but again, any decision around this…. There would be communications through the process. If it's going beyond 30 days,
[ Page 14762 ]
certainly there would be communications to the person who tendered the document, and any decisions by ICBC are subject to the fairness review by the manager of the fairness office.

M. Farnworth: I just want to follow up in terms of if there is a fraudulent document, let's say. It could be a fraudulent birth certificate or, perhaps even more disturbingly, a fraudulent passport.

What does the Insurance Corporation do? What procedures are in place once they determine that something is fraudulent — not just in terms of saying no to the driver's licence but saying: "Wait a sec here. We have an individual that is using fraudulent documents"? It could be a passport or a birth certificate. What steps follow from that to ensure that there's follow-up from law enforcement agencies? Does it just stay on ICBC's desk, or is it pursued as a criminal matter?

[1455]

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question, these documents would be turned over to the special investigation unit within ICBC. Those officers, the officers who work within that unit, are all peace officers. That document would become evidence in an investigation under the act, and once the investigation is completed, there would be charges sought against the person who tendered that document.

M. Farnworth: I understand the internal investigation inside ICBC, but I'm also concerned about communication between ICBC and their internal investigation units and agencies and police forces outside that.

For example, in the case of a fraudulent passport, would the federal immigration department, the agency that's issuing passports, be notified as well? Clearly, if an individual comes in and has fraudulent documents, quite often this may be the key to a much bigger chain of events. I want to make sure that if it's investigated internally, whether or not there's a decision to make charges, that information is also going to the appropriate agencies outside of ICBC, who look at a much broader law enforcement picture and are working on cases that may be much broader in nature than just the focus that's occurring within the ICBC investigation unit.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In most cases the Insurance Corporation would inform the issuer of the document or the alleged issuer of the document of a possible fraud. They are in regular communication with various issuers of identification documentation — for example, the Canadian Border Services Agency and Immigration Canada. So they would inform them of that.

They're also in regular communication with the RCMP so that if there are any cases or any evidence, whether by way of documents or alleged possible criminal activity, that information would be turned over to the RCMP. The RCMP would make the decision as to whether or not there may be criminal fraud involved, in addition to what is possible under the Motor Vehicle Act in this section.

[1500]

B. Ralston: The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has a unit called the special investigations unit that is, as I understand it, designed to investigate fraud — usually insurance fraud against the corporation, fraudulent claims. But it would seem to me that impersonation or presenting a false document…. They're all indictable offences under the Criminal Code and are serious.

I'm wondering what the process of referral is. It would seem to me that generally in the special investigations unit, you have former police officers and some real investigative expertise there. Are those inquiries or concerns of individual members of the Insurance Corporation or agents of the corporation sent to the special investigations unit for proper and thorough investigation and then liaison with the appropriate police agency so that there is a real deterrent to those few members of the public who might be tempted to attempt this crime?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct that the special investigations unit does communicate regularly with the RCMP in any case that may in any way indicate a possible Criminal Code offence. The information and the evidence would be passed on to the RCMP.

I think the member makes a valid point that the whole objective of the exercise is to reduce fraud and identity theft. That is the objective of these amendments. In fact, by having the strengthened ability to retain documents and set out more specifically the authority for that, ICBC is in a position to provide the best possible information to the RCMP for potential Criminal Code investigation. He is correct that we want to maximize the deterrent value of possible charges under the Criminal Code in addition to what is possible under this act.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that comprehensive answer.

I guess my follow-up question would be: does he, through his staff, have any statistics available to suggest that this is more than a notional concern on the part of the Insurance Corporation and that there are actually prosecutions that follow the detection of the production of a false identity?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This would be a good opportunity for me to confirm that these amendments are really to clarify and detail authorities that the Insurance Corporation of B.C. already has under this act.

I am not able today to provide statistics of the nature that the member requests, but certainly we'll undertake
[ Page 14763 ]
to him to ask the Insurance Corporation to review its own work in terms of fraud cases under this act and also what they can produce in the way of statistics of cases that have been turned over to the RCMP for possible Criminal Code investigations. We'll get whatever date is available for the member.

M. Farnworth: Following up on that, I want to thank the minister for his answer, because identity theft is a real issue for an awful lot of members of the public. It's one that we're seeing an explosive growth in, particularly with the change in technology and the fact that we're constantly having to update the best efforts of government and agencies to counteract increasing sophistication, when it comes to technology and identity theft, of criminals and criminal organizations.

The minister said he's willing to table what information we have around statistics. So once this legislation passes, one of the things I'm hoping we will have that we will keep is a thorough set of detailed records as to how often this happens — how often we have a fraudulent attempt to obtain a driver's licence, the type and the nature of the documents that are used in fraud cases, the results of the investigation, the results of charges and the results of prosecutions.

[1505]

I'm asking the minister: are those types of details going to be kept? And will those types of details be made available to the public and to members of the House without necessarily having to resort to an FOI request to get them? I do think that will be a very important set of statistics and tool in terms of being vigilant against the growth of identity theft in particular.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Insurance Corporation does collect statistics on fraudulent cases, and we will attempt to get the historical numbers. Certainly, they will be continuing to maintain those records as we go into the future, based on these amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act. But I should also say that the Insurance Corporation — the government — has a great interest in publicizing cases.

When there are cases of alleged fraud that come to fruition where the proof of fraudulent activity is established in court, then those cases are publicized by the Insurance Corporation to ensure that the necessary deterrent effect of this legislation is communicated to the public. That is very, very important to assist in achieving the intent of the legislation.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer because a driver's licence, for all intents and purposes, is like a passport within the province of British Columbia and within the rest of the country. It's a very important piece of identification.

It is the key to so many things, along with a credit card. You literally then can get most of the information about an individual from financial personal records, health — all those things. So it's crucial, I think, that not only are we doing everything we can to ensure against the fraudulent obtaining of a driver's licence through…. That's why we're supporting these amendments.

I also think we do need to publicize the cases when they come up, but equally important is that we keep those statistics on the types of fraud being perpetrated, the types of documents being used. If something comes to our attention — you know, in subsequent years down the road it was found that somehow something slipped — I think we need to watch this every step of the way. I think it's crucial in ensuring that we as a society remain on top of…. This is one of those ways in which we remain on top of the issue of identity theft.

I offer those words for the minister and ICBC because I think this is a very important issue that's not going to go away.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the member's support on that. Really, that is the intent of this legislation, these amendments. The B.C. driver's licence and enhanced driver's licence card and identification cards are very important picture identifications that are being used in many, many different situations. We want to make it as fraudulent-proof as possible, and that's the objective of this exercise.

[1510]

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Farnworth: This section seems pretty straightforward. It allows the Insurance Corporation of B.C. to cancel a driver's licence if fraud has been involved in the application for the licence or in the provision of information to maintain a licence.

You know, sometimes mistakes happen. How does an individual, whose licence they may think has been unfairly cancelled, go about appealing that decision, and what steps and what time period do they have available to them?

Hon. J. van Dongen: If the Insurance Corporation decides to exercise its authority under this section to cancel, it will not be a surprise to the driver's licence holder. In fact, that driver's licence holder would have been contacted by the Insurance Corporation. They would have been given notice. They would be given the opportunity to comment on the notice to cancel.

In fact, the cancellation decision by the Insurance Corporation may well be part of a larger enforcement action under this act, which would be appealable in
[ Page 14764 ]
court, in which case they could appeal both the offence, if an offence is alleged, plus the cancellation of the driver's licence.

M. Farnworth: So this particular section in essence is an end-of-process result and does not change any of the existing processes or practices in place to deal with the impending loss of a driver's licence or the likelihood or the avenues that an individual has to be able to either fight or appeal a decision to revoke a driver's licence.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct. This amendment is really detailing a provision that's already here and a process that's already in place. Certainly at any point in the process, once the notice is given and it's clear that it's moving forward, the holder of the driver's licence could appeal to a supervisor or to the manager of fair practices for the corporation.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Farnworth: This section deals with a change of address for a Canadian citizen. Does it also, I would assume, apply to landed immigrants who are not yet Canadian citizens in terms of the change-of-address requirements?

[1515]

Hon. J. van Dongen: This section deals with someone who holds an enhanced driver's licence card. That is the only driver's licence that will denote that the holder is a Canadian citizen. It deals with the provisions that have to be followed if someone who has such an enhanced driver's licence card changes their residential address, their place of residence.

What the section says is that if they're denoted a Canadian citizen and have qualified for an EDL, they will actually have to go through the process of bringing in the card to ICBC and having a new card issued with a new address. That is to ensure there are not cards out there that are no longer valid and where the holder is denoted as a Canadian citizen. That is part of our agreement with the Canadian Border Services Agency for the issuance of the enhanced driver's licence.

To get back to the member's direct question, I'm not able to answer with certainty whether a landed immigrant would qualify for the Canadian citizenship designation on a driver's licence, but the Canadian citizenship designation would apply for anyone who has fully qualified through the EDL application process. The Insurance Corporation will have been authorized by CBSA through our agreement to do the verification for that. So this section is really dealing with the change-of-address issue and having to bring in the card if it has that EDL designation on it.

M. Farnworth: This actually raises some interesting questions. There was just something that occurred to me. Let me deal with the first one that comes to mind, on the basis of what the minister said.

As a Canadian citizen, if I make a change in my driver's licence…. I have not applied for an enhanced driver's licence, but as a Canadian I go and move. I'm supposed to change my address to keep my licence up to date. That requirement is still there. Do I have to go in and surrender the old licence?

Let's put it this way. How is this different from the current practice that I as a Canadian citizen right now have without an enhanced driver's licence?

[1520]

Hon. J. van Dongen: First, I want to be sure that we're on the same page here in the sense that the decision to request qualification for an enhanced driver's licence is voluntary. The Canadian citizenship designation on the enhanced driver's licence simply confirms that the holder has qualified under the full verification process set out in the agreement between ICBC and CBSA. I just want to be clear about that.

This section says that if that holder of that EDL moves to a different address, they have to turn in their enhanced driver's licence card as part of the change-of-address process, as opposed to a Canadian citizen — or possibly a Canadian citizen — who has not opted for the enhanced driver's licence portion of the driver's licence. In that case, I'm advised, if they change their address, they don't have to bring in their driver's licence card. They can change their address with a sticker that goes on the existing card. That is considered adequate from the Insurance Corporation's point of view.

M. Farnworth: So this section applies only if you've qualified for the enhanced driver's licence previously. Okay.

Now this brings it to the question about landed immigrant status. I would appreciate the minister looking into this particular issue, because the idea on the enhanced driver's licence is that it works on this side of the border but also works on the other side of the border.

We have a significant number of Americans who emigrate to Canada, and they're not yet Canadian citizens but are living here as landed immigrants. They still have U.S. citizenship. So all that information works on the other side of the border. But how would it work on this side of the border, as a landed immigrant?

Say you wanted to apply for the enhanced driver's licence because you may very well continue to do a lot of travel, a lot of work and a lot of business between your new home in Canada and Washington State or Oregon, for example. How would that work in those circumstances? I think you will find quite a few individuals in that set of circumstances where they're
[ Page 14765 ]
landed immigrants but will want the enhanced driver's licence.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'll try and answer the member's question this way. The issuance of enhanced driver's licence in British Columbia is governed by two agreements basically. An agreement between Canada and the United States on the enhanced driver's licence program…. This is part of the security and prosperity agreement between the two countries and what has evolved under that agreement as a result of the western hemisphere travel initiative legislation in the United States.

[1525]

It is the result of a delegation of authority by the Canadian Border Services Agency, the province of British Columbia and specifically ICBC, which empowers and enables them — the technical term is, as I understand it, the legal term — to verify whether or not an applicant for an enhanced driver's licence would qualify. There are very specific details to that agreement, which is intended to parallel an application for a passport.

Having said that, there will be more complex or difficult cases where an individual may come in and apply for an enhanced driver's licence. The Insurance Corporation may not be in a position to issue, in which case they would have the opportunity to apply to Immigration Canada or whoever issues the passports for a passport.

This is intended to be a convenient, verifiable and officially recognized, legally recognized document that is recognized by both countries for travelling either way across the border — travelling from Canada into the United States or from the United States into Canada at any point between our two boundaries. It's intended to be a recognized alternative to a passport.

I think it is actually outside the intent of this legislation to discuss this question, but in the spirit of trying to respond to the member's question cooperatively, that would be my answer to it.

I'm not in a position to answer specifically the details of what might be approved and what would not be approved. But it's important to recognize this is voluntary. It is not imposed on anyone. It never will be imposed on anyone, any B.C. citizen, because it is a voluntary program and not everyone is going to qualify, in which case they can apply for a passport in the normal manner.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I recognize that the question is somewhat outside the scope of the legislation. But given my initial question, I somehow think that in the future we will be back amending this legislation to deal with just that circumstance as we find that there are a number of Americans, particularly, with landed immigrant status who may in fact like the idea of the driver's licence as opposed to necessarily having the passport.

That being said, we can move on to the next section.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm that this section is also in line with the enhanced driver's licence in terms of if a licence is lost, mutilated or destroyed. Again, this applies to only those who have been approved for the enhanced driver's licence. Is that correct?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is yes.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm that this section is in place as a result of the federal legislation regarding street racing and the increased stiffer penalties and the ability of ICBC to collect those fines and surcharges that result from that legislation.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, the member is correct.

[1530]

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

M. Farnworth: Actually, in fact, the following sections — 12, 13 and 14 — flow out of the changes in federal legislation to street racing. They respond to the considerable public outrage at the way in which street racing was being dealt with not only here in British Columbia but in other provinces across the country.

This will not only result in stiffer penalties but enhances the ability of ICBC and, in fact, the province and the Crown to deal with street-racing offences in a much more targeted and, hopefully, effective way than we have seen in the past.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, the member is correct that the purpose of these transition sections is to ensure that any of the offences by drivers that may have occurred subsequent to the timing of the federal amendments…. There were different dates when the amendments to the Criminal Code came into effect for street racing and for impaired driving.

In any event, it is intended to ensure that any offences that occurred after the effective dates of the federal Criminal Code amendments but before the full enact-
[ Page 14766 ]
ment of these Motor Vehicle Act amendments would be caught and recorded and would trigger any provincial fines, programs, remedies — virtually any implications for drivers from those offences. So this is a transition section to catch those offences that occurred in the interim period and where convictions occurred under the Criminal Code.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that these provisions are transitional. There's a reference in the section to a prohibition from driving for 12 months. Has the minister, in the review of the legislation, considered the possibility of deciding that an automatic prohibition under the Motor Vehicle Act for offences of this type might be longer than the minimum 12 months?

I appreciate that under the Criminal Code, a judge is given a separate independent discretion pursuant to the criminal law power, but under the provincial powers, which are incorporated in the provincial Motor Vehicle Act, there is a separate discretion, as well, to pass laws that would allow for a further prohibition from driving.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Could the minister advise if that has been considered in this review of these sections?

[1535]

Hon. J. van Dongen: The purpose of the amendments in this legislation is simply to ensure that new offences under the Criminal Code can be included in considerations under the provincial penalty system and programs for impaired drivers. The 12-month prohibition from driving is part of a very comprehensive set of penalties, a responsible-driving program and ignition interlock programs that the province has, but we did not make any changes in that or consider any changes as part of this legislation.

I should mention, I think, in partial response to the member's question, that we do have a progressively more onerous penalty system for repeat offenders with impaired-driving convictions so that a one-year prohibition on a second offence can be extended to significantly longer prohibitions in a third offence in a similar fashion.

B. Ralston: As I recall, the driving prohibition upon a second conviction for impaired driving or driving with a blood alcohol exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is three years. I appreciate that this is slightly outside the scope of the legislation, but in this review or in a future review will the minister entertain the possibility with a first-time conviction for a street-racing offence of a further prohibition beyond the 12 months that exists now?

It seems to me, and certainly the input that I've received in recent years in my legislative duties suggest, that the community believes that street-racing offences are aggravated, even in comparison to other motor vehicle offences, because the risk of serious harm or death to other innocent members of the public is highly elevated. Indeed, many of the recent cases confirm that the fear of a death being caused is a real one, because that's what happens in aggravated cases.

It seems to me, as part of the program of deterrence and a message being sent to those who would consider street racing, that the ministry might wish to consider, in the case of this particular offence, revising its view that 12 months for an automatic prohibition upon conviction might be revisited. Will the minister consider making that commitment?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As the member indicated, this really is outside the scope of this legislation, but just to confirm, there are very serious Criminal Code penalties and prohibitions ranging from ten years to a lifetime for causing a death or a serious injury by street racing. But we also are, within the province, applying the Civil Forfeiture Act to any street-racing situation where it's appropriate, in which case the vehicle will also be permanently seized under order by the B.C. Supreme Court as an additional penalty.

As I would indicate to the member, we are always reviewing our penalties to ensure that the very serious offence of street racing is dealt with appropriately. It is an illegal practice that we take very, very seriously, and the public has a right to expect serious penalties to deter that kind of illegal conduct. We will continue to review our whole mix of penalties, along with Criminal Code penalties, to ensure that the public interest in this issue is protected.

[1540]

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Public Safety and Solicitor General
Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Bill 10, Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 14767 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I now call Bill 11, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009.

Committee of the Whole House

Pension Benefits Standards
Amendment Act, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 11; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: The explanatory note for section 1 says that various definitions are being amended "in relation to a multi-employer plan that has characteristics different from those currently required or described under the Act." Yet, unless I've missed it, the definition of a multi-employer plan isn't revised. That's set out in the definition section of the Pension Benefits Standards Act.

Can the minister explain what is meant in the explanatory note, if it's accurate, and what kind of multi-employer plan is contemplated that would be different from those required or described under the act, yet the definition of the multi-employer plan is not being changed.

Hon. C. Hansen: The purpose of this legislation is to provide the framework for the new multi-employer pension plan that is being contemplated. This is a new type of pension option for British Columbians and, hopefully, for Canadians, because we do expect other provinces to also sign on to this kind of an approach.

What this specific amendment does in terms of the changes to the amendments is to provide for things such as the ability for self-employed individuals to be able to participate in this plan as well.

[1545]

B. Ralston: In the discussion or the speeches at second reading I did reference some submissions that have been made to the B.C.-Alberta review of pension standards. There are what are described as negotiated-cost multi-employer pension plans. I think it's recognized that they have different characteristics, obviously, than single-employer plans or standard defined-benefit or defined-contribution plans. Is that definition intended to incorporate those negotiated-cost multi-employer pension plans?

Typically, they're plans in construction, where there'll be, as the name suggests, a number of employers and a separate plan that draws contributions from different employers based on the employment of the potential pension holder, based on the hours that they work with each company over the years. They have different characteristics, and I think there is a wish that that be recognized more precisely in the legislation. Since the legislation has been opened up by these amendments, I'm wondering if it was intended that this definition would include those types of pension plans.

Hon. C. Hansen: These amendments have been specifically drafted to be applicable just to the new plan. There's nothing in terms of these amendments that would have any kind of a direct impact on any existing multi-employer negotiated plans.

B. Ralston: Having reviewed to some extent the Saskatchewan standards…. As the minister and I both commented at second reading, they have a plan, set up in the '80s in Saskatchewan, which offers these kinds of benefits — ability of an employer to join, to make contributions, depending on their financial status; self-employed individuals to join. It is quite flexible, although in Saskatchewan it doesn't appear to have grown to be a huge plan.

In that plan, then, is it contemplated that the B.C. Investment Management Corporation would manage the fund and that it would be subject to the same regulation by, I think, the Financial Institutions Commission or by the same regulator as other pension plans that are headquartered in the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: To the two points that the member raised. First of all, yes, this new plan would be regulated in the same way that existing pension plans are regulated, and no, it would not necessarily be BCIMC. That is certainly something that the plan would have to negotiate and determine the best fund manager that it would deem appropriate for managing these funds in the future.

B. Ralston: The B.C. Investment Management Corporation does have funds under administration of, I think, around…. It was $90 billion before some of the market meltdown. I'm not sure. They haven't reported on it recently, as far as I'm aware.

[1550]

Their expertise is vast. Their record is good. Is there any particular reason why the minister wouldn't be contemplating B.C. Investment Management Corporation managing this pension fund?

Hon. C. Hansen: I share the member's high regard for the work that BCIMC does, but in this case, this is not a government-run pension plan. This government will facilitate the establishment of this new multi-employer plan, but it will be a privately run plan in accordance with the rules and the structure that will be set out. It is the plan administrators that must determine how best to fund their investments or to manage their investments.

I share the member's high regard for BCIMC, as I say, and I am sure that that would be one of the fund man-
[ Page 14768 ]
agers that they would certainly contemplate, given the success that BCIMC has had today.

B. Ralston: Then perhaps I've misunderstood the legislative intent of the amendments, because I had understood this to be at least a government-sponsored or government-guaranteed plan which, in these times, has a certain attractiveness to potential investors.

Is it just that the stage at which this proposal is developed is very preliminary and full thought hasn't been given to that? Is it then contemplated that this would go out to tender to investment managers to manage the fund at the very outset? I think if the minister is prepared or if it's available…. Is the minister prepared to share his thoughts of how this plan might go forward more fully?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that right from the outset, at the time that the Premier first announced our intention to go down this road — the announcement that he made last October — it was very explicit that this pension plan would be arm's length from government, but because it is a new type of pension vehicle for Canadians, there is a lot of work that has to be done.

We feel it's appropriate for government to take the lead in helping to structure and provide the regulatory framework for this — a regulatory framework that will give all British Columbians confidence in participating in this kind of a new pension option. But it is and always has been the intention that this would be managed arm's length from government.

B. Ralston: I do recall in debates with the minister's predecessor that she stressed that B.C. Investment Management Corporation was at arm's length from government. Although the Minister of Finance appoints three members to the board, the majority of the board are not direct government appointees. Certainly, the argument was made, particularly in view of questions about the investment strategy or specific investments of B.C. Investment Management Corporation when that came up, that B.C. Investment Management was at arm's length.

Is that a change in position, or is it simply the wish or the desire of the government not to have B.C. Investment Management — even though it is at arm's length from government, according to the previous Minister of Finance — manage it?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member is confusing two things. Many pension plans in British Columbia today…. Those funds are managed by B.C. Investment Management Corporation, and BCIMC does a very good job of that.

What we are talking about here is the establishment of a new pension option. So just as there are numerous pension plans that have their funds invested and managed with BCIMC, this new pension plan will be arm's length from government. It'll be independent. They may choose to vest their money and have it managed by BCIMC, just like many other existing pension plans have today, but that would be a decision that would be made by that body once it's established.

[1555]

B. Ralston: Maybe just a question of definition here. Does the minister mean, by pension plans that are at arm's length, the general public sector pension plans — whether it's the municipal employees or the broad public sector pension plans that are, I think, clearly jointly trusteed by government and by representatives of the unions that are involved and managed by B.C. Investment Management? Is that what he's referring to in terms of independent pension plans that are then agreed to have B.C. Investment management?

That's certainly as I understand it. Looking at their website and reviewing their annual reports, the bulk of the funds under management by the B.C. Investment Management Corporation are housed in those particular pension plans.

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, nothing is being contemplated that would prevent BCIMC from managing these funds. Because this pension plan is going to be operated and administered arm's length from government, it is that pension plan that must make those decisions.

B. Ralston: Just so that I more fully understand this, would the minister agree that one option, then, would be that one of the major life insurance companies that provide fund management and typically manage RRSP plans might be in a position…? Should the trustees of that plan choose to make that decision, might they be an option as managers of such a pension plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: It would be up to the trustees of this plan to make those decisions. They would have to determine…. Recognizing their fiduciary responsibilities, they would have to make their decisions that they would deem would be in the best interests of the plan participants.

B. Ralston: Again, just one further question of clarification. Is it the intention of the minister that this plan would have any restrictions or guidelines about where investments might be made? Typically, some pension funds might prefer to invest in British Columbia or in Canadian securities or Canadian real estate as opposed to foreign real estate or foreign securities. Is there any contemplation at this early stage of what that might look like, or would that be a decision to be made later on?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's contemplated that this plan would be subject to the same kinds of restrictions that existing pension plans are subject to. My understanding is that those flow primarily from the Income Tax Act of
[ Page 14769 ]
Canada to ensure that issues around conflict, for example, are addressed.

B. Ralston: If I might turn to subsection (b) of section 1 that's proposed, there's an amendment proposed in the definition of "employee" or at least an addition to the definition. My sense from reading it is that that is designed to contemplate the self-employed individuals and that that's the purpose of the wording "includes an individual performing work or providing a service on a prescribed basis." I'm assuming that that amendment is designed to capture individuals who are not strictly employees but are self-employed and that that's the purpose of that particular amendment.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that is correct.

[1600]

B. Ralston: Similarly, following in subsection (c), which is proposed in section 1 to repeal the definition of "employment," can the minister, then, explain the reason for repealing the paragraph (a) definition of employment? I'm again imagining that that's for the same purpose, but I just wanted the minister to confirm that.

Hon. C. Hansen: The only substantive change that is made as a result of that section is to provide for self-employed individuals, and the only other non-substantive change was in the first subsection (a), really just to ensure that the references were appropriate. So the second component of that is purely technical.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: This would appear to be driven by the eye of a drafter, so I'm just wondering what the difference is between the words "imposed by this Act" and "imposed under this Act." I'm sure there's some legal consequence that flows. I'm just not able to discern it.

Hon. C. Hansen: I gather this goes to a drafting initiative that was started in 2007 to standardize the wording across all legislation. In some statutes it talked about "by this act." In others, it was referred to as "under this act." A decision was made to standardize all of those references to "under the act." So it is probably the most technical and minor of any amendment I could ever contemplate.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to section 40. It seems to me, and maybe I'm incorrect…. But it does raise the issue of what are called viaticals, or life insurance settlements.

A viatical is the ability of a person who is suffering a debilitating illness and contemplating death, where their life expectancy is drastically reduced, to access the cash value of their life insurance policy. Rather than having it paid to their estate, it's paid to the person in order to give them the access to that cash and make their life more enjoyable or to use it to help them in contemplating the serious nature of their illness and giving them access to the kind of medical devices or comforts that that kind of settlement might be able to buy.

So am I right in thinking that it's designed to focus on that? If that's the case, I have some other questions.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member made reference to accessing life insurance benefits. This would not have any impact on life insurance benefits but solely would apply to pension benefits, including RSP benefits.

One other thing I should note, only because when I gave my second reading remarks, I don't think I was as clear as I would have liked to have been, is that this particular section of this bill is separate from the new multi-employer pension option.

So if you think about it, this bill really has a couple of different components to it, and this does not flow from anything to do with the proposal for the new pension option. But it is to provide for more flexibility and a broader range of circumstances whereby an individual can access their pension, including RSP benefits.

B. Ralston: Clearly, I misspoke in the sense that I referred to life insurance benefits. It seems to me it encompasses the same principle where a person…. The language proposed is "has a disability or terminal illness that is likely to considerably shorten the person's life."

[1605]

They would be able, under section 40, to have access to permitted variations and benefits, including, I guess, the commuted value of the pension to which the former member or surviving spouse is entitled. First, is that the purpose?

Secondly, can the minister explain why the change in language that's contemplated in 40(a) that I just referred to? Is that the result of a legal decision that has made that language necessary?

Hon. C. Hansen: This wording change is to ensure that the legislation is consistent with the Human Rights Code. Specifically, what it does is to broaden the unlocking provision to cover any disability as well as a terminal illness if the disability or terminal illness is likely to considerably shorten that person's life.

B. Ralston: Could the minister give an example of where that wording would effect a change? I can read the
[ Page 14770 ]
words, but I'm having difficulty imagining the situation that would result where the change would become real.

Hon. C. Hansen: In the case, for example, where a doctor was to sign off on a circumstance where, let's say, a patient had terminal cancer and that in the doctor's opinion, to which he would be prepared to attest, that patient's life would be considerably shortened as a result of that illness. What this provision provides for is that the individual who is suffering from that illness could get access to their locked-in pension benefits in a much more flexible way than might otherwise be the case.

B. Ralston: Then I think I'm beginning to understand the purpose here. Is the crucial change taking out the words "has a physical disability" and then "has a disability or terminal illness"? Is that what provides the further flexibility, then? Is it that the words "physical disability" were unduly restrictive?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

B. Ralston: As far as I can tell, this change is merely designed to line up this section with the other previous amendments. If there's anything beyond that, could the minister advise?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:09 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Pension benefits standards
amenDment act, 2009

Bill 11, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I now call second reading of Bill 9, the Labour Mobility Act.

[1610]

Second Reading of Bills

LABOUR MOBILITY ACT

Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 9, the Labour Mobility Act, now be read a second time.

Bill 9 will fulfil British Columbia's commitment, supporting a historic agreement on labour mobility between Canada's first ministers. I am proud to say that our province has led the nation on the issue of labour mobility.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

TILMA, our agreement with Alberta on trade, investment and labour mobility, has helped awaken leaders in every province to the opportunities and benefits to be had from a collaboration across our country.

The introduction of Bill 9 also marks a new beginning for our province, laying a solid foundation for future success. While we all recognize the challenges of our present world economy, we must not forget to look to the future as well. Government must act now to ensure that B.C. is ready to capture new opportunities that are certain to emerge when the global economy rebounds. To do that, we will have to have a skilled and well-educated workforce, and because British Columbia is confronted with a rapidly aging population, we will need to attract people from across our country.

Our median age now exceeds 40, and by 2015 almost a third of British Columbia's population will be 55 years of age or older. With retirements in some sectors expected to hit close to 75 percent of the present workforce, we must take action today to ensure that we can attract the human resources we need for tomorrow. This bill is a significant step towards ensuring that we will have the labour resources necessary to lead Canada's economic recovery.

While this bill supports a new-found level of labour mobility, it has strong roots in proven efforts and precedents set by others. The Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship and the widely recognized Red Seal certification of trades established under their direction have been the pioneers in labour mobility. Under this bill, Red Seal apprentices will still continue to enjoy the ability to employ their skills anywhere in our country.

Additionally, the important role of provincial governing bodies responsible for oversight of key professions like doctors, nurses, lawyers and engineers is also maintained. In fact, with the advent of full labour mobility, we anticipate that British Columbia's professional organizations will achieve new levels of open dialogue with their counterparts in other jurisdictions. We have
[ Page 14771 ]
had extensive discussions with these organizations and have been encouraged by their support that we have received.

Leaders in these organizations in labour, in government, are in agreement that we need to bring this legislation forward. Now more than ever, the world economy demands that governments, employers and workers be adaptable, flexible and responsive to change. Families, professionals and tradespeople all want a future where they will be able to use to the best advantage their skills and expertise. That is why a new national agreement on labour mobility is great news not only for British Columbians but for all Canadians, giving each the ability to take full advantage of their talents and training.

I am confident that this legislation will enhance the economic foundations of our province and will ensure that we are ready to meet our commitments. I ask that all members lend their support to this worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation, and with that, I am pleased to move second reading.

[1615]

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the debate on Bill 9, the labour mobility agreement. It's a rather interesting piece of legislation and appears very much to be a son of TILMA — which is, for those listeners who haven't heard, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — or some sort of relative thereof.

We're hearing across the country, not only in British Columbia — of course, TILMA is an agreement between Alberta and British Columbia — the efforts of governments, particularly this government, to extend the kind of trade agreement that's epitomized by TILMA. We're hearing lots of the same kinds of concerns that we heard before. And off the top, one of the main concerns, again repeated, is the lack of consultation with stakeholders and with the population at large.

With TILMA, we know that government consulted with business — a fairly narrow range of business — but not many, if any, others. So that agreement was tainted by that lack of consultation and that lack of openness to hearing the needs and concerns of all British Columbians.

I'm afraid that we're going down the same path here, with full steam ahead on another piece of legislation that not a lot of consultation has gone into and not a lot of feedback has been had on.

Certainly municipalities have expressed concerns around legislation of this nature. They are concerned about their autonomy and their ability, being the government most closely connected, in many ways, to their constituents. They want to know that they can determine the future, help their community and work with their community to determine the future of that community. There are impediments on these kinds of pieces of legislation that have them concerned, such as their inability to pursue local incentive programs like a tax break for local businesses of their choosing.

I'll be looking for more elucidation from the minister about the nature of this bill because it escapes me somewhat. We'll talk more about that later.

This bill, as I said, is related to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — certainly the intent — although this one is focusing on the labour mobility aspect of it.

Local governments want to know that they have the right and the ability to have influence over procurement of contracts that they let for services in their jurisdictions, and strong concerns were expressed to the Union of B.C. Municipalities about their ability to do that. So this kind of concern and related concerns are pervasive with this type of legislation and are not, in essence, different — as I'll talk about as we go along. They are related.

[1620]

There are also concerns about this kind of legislation with respect to Crown corporations and what sort of autonomy they have, as public entities, to carry out the needs of the people through the provincial government, and concerns of legal challenges, in fact, of Crown corporations — about them being unfairly subsidized.

Today we see, most recently in the independent power producer sector, concerns expressed — legal challenge perhaps forthcoming — that B.C. Hydro is in a conflict as they try to carry out the mandate of the people to bring power to British Columbia, as opposed to the needs of independent power producers.

Various professional bodies have expressed concerns about labour mobility within their jurisdiction, such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. They have expressed concerns about trade deals like Bill 9 envisions.

They have expressed concerns that in cases where foreign-trained doctors may have a lesser accreditation, these doctors will move more readily from rural to urban areas, which exacerbates the pervasive problem of recruiting and retaining rural doctors. Of course, we know that in British Columbia that's a problem also — keeping our doctors in smaller rural areas. There's a concern that's been expressed that this form of labour mobility could, in fact, exacerbate that problem.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has also expressed, I think, a problem or an issue that's kind of fundamental to Bill 9 — and to TILMA, for that matter. With regard to Bill 9, they have expressed concerns about having to prove that the lack of accreditation makes one unfit to practise. It's kind of an assault, in a sense, on trades training and educational programs.

The way we have traditionally looked at certification, the way we've looked at degrees, is that if you have that certification, if you have that degree, if you have that technical diploma, it really means something. People recognize and society recognizes that it stands for cer-
[ Page 14772 ]
tain skills that you have obtained and that we value those skills in our society. They give us a measure of confidence that when a person says, "I have this training; I have this accreditation," it means something.

Legislation like Bill 9 — and Bill 9 itself — puts the shoe on the other foot. So instead of saying that your training means something and we recognize that, you have to prove that if someone comes along with lesser training, they don't have the same qualifications as someone with greater training. That's kind of the essence of this legislation, as I read it.

That's troubling, I think. As I say, we certainly put a lot of faith in…. Certainly, with surgeons, of course, one wants to know that if you're accredited as a surgeon, you have specific skills and that that needn't be, can't be, questioned in any way really. So that's a concern that they've expressed, and I think it flows through the trades as well.

This month at the B.C.-Alberta-Saskatchewan joint cabinet meeting, a statement was released saying: "A comprehensive trade agreement would mean full labour mobility so workers can choose where they want to live and work without the burden of proving skills and abilities in other provinces."

[1625]

It's an interesting word — the "burden" of proving skills and abilities in other provinces. Yes, it can be an additional task for one to upgrade, to prove, to show that you have the skills and abilities. But the use of the word "burden," I think, is indicative of the direction that this legislation is going — that somehow to be able to show that you have the qualities, the capabilities of a journeyman carpenter or whatever is a negative. It's a burden.

The purpose of this bill is not clear, and I'm looking forward to further discussion with the minister in committee stage about that. The bill is based entirely on chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade, or AIT, which is a national agreement on trade. It has been found unsatisfactory by this government, certainly, and that's why they launched into TILMA and brought it forward. This Bill 9, although it's based entirely on the AIT, doesn't make the AIT law in any sense. So just what it does I'm eager to talk more to the minister about.

Clearly, this government is trying to take the lead on this piece of legislation, this type of legislation — the agreement on internal trade — because TILMA hasn't been received as well as they had hoped. It has not been extended to any other province across the country at this point, and this is another way to try to achieve the same ends.

Although the AIT deals also with trade and investment, the government is choosing to focus — first, at least — on labour mobility. Certainly, on our side of the House we've noticed that the discussion for many months now from this government has focused on labour mobility as opposed to trade and investment. But I don't think too many doubt that after the government feels they have dealt with labour mobility and have achieved what they want to achieve, trade and investment would come next.

With regard to labour mobility, there's no doubt that some changes need to be made. I talked to a teacher not too long ago who had come from Alberta. She had taught in Alberta, was fully qualified in that province, but she was…. I say "temporarily," but sometimes getting the courses you need, when these days they're not as readily available as they were when I was in university, can hold you back by months or a year. She was one course short of being able to teach in British Columbia. I doubt very much that that was sufficient reason to have denied her the right or postponed her ability to teach.

There is some tweaking that needs to be done, but is it…? The concern we have on this side of the House is that the government is determined to do a lot more than tweak in terms of labour. It's quite all-encompassing — the scope of the agreements that they're bringing forward. The concern here is that there's going to be a weakening or doing away with entirely for certification for trades.

[1630]

The minister mentioned in his opening that tradespersons with the Red Seal approval, which has been recognized across the country, will still be able to practise anywhere. But what will that Red Seal mean after passage of this bill, if in fact the bill has much meaning in a legal sense? Notwithstanding that, it's the direction that the government is going in here that leads to some concern.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Now, this is a government that previously did away with the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, or ITAC, which in our view was functioning very well to ensure that trades training was adequate, was complete and was taking in the needs of workers as well as business. ITAC was replaced with the business-based Industry Training Authority as carried out by industry training organizations, or ITOs.

The Auditor General, in a recent report from November 2008, has expressed some concern about the ITA and the ITOs. His report is entitled A Major Renovation: Trades Training in British Columbia. I think the title says quite a lot about some of the concerns he had. He indicated that this government has overhauled the system without listening to stakeholders like unions. That is a recipe for, if not disaster, certainly less than a full functionality because workers…. If they're not consulted, how can we expect the system to work as best it should?

He indicated that the result is a training system that ignores the needs of workers, apprentices and post-secondary institutions, the latter of which have been
[ Page 14773 ]
more heavily depended upon in recent years to carry out the training that we need for our workforce. He went on to indicate that the ITOs were set up with poorly formed policies and without proper risk assessments.

Those are some of the concerns that the Auditor General expressed. This bill, if it becomes real law at some point, will further weaken national standards for the construction trades. In my community the operating engineers joint apprenticeship and training plan…. They have a facility where they train heavy equipment operators.

I've been there a number of times and talked to them about their very able programs, and they've expressed to me their concerns, particularly when the economy was going very strongly, but I don't know that in actual fact it's different now. They expressed concerns that a person could operate one of these huge cranes that we see on construction buildings with minimal training. The safety factors alone should give cause for reconsideration about not having properly trained people operate heavy equipment.

As I mentioned earlier, the Red Seal standard across the country will mean less and less with this and related types of legislation. That's a real concern for working people in this province and across the country.

[1635]

Bill 9 opens up so-called task training versus full-scope certification — task training being where you're trained to do a specific task on the job. You might be a framer, say, as opposed to being trained as a fully certified carpenter who would have many skills. So task training has become kind of the modus operandi in recent years.

With this change, the workforce is less flexible and less able to adapt to new changes such as the economy we have today. People are being thrown out of work, and they need to look for new jobs. The better trained they are, the better chance they have of getting new employment.

They're going to be hurt by the lack of training or the lesser training that they've received under the regimen that this government has undertaken. In fact, ironically, labour mobility is reduced because they don't have the ability to move to new occupations that may be a stretch from what they were trained to do before.

We see that the parameters of a lot of things have changed with the new economy, the new harder economy, the recession that we're in. Labour mobility is indeed important — the ability to be flexible in the workforce, be able to move from one job to another. Those folks, those workers, are not as mobile as they could be and as they were in the past.

The government talks about us having a skill shortage, and I think the minister mentioned the aging population. A lot of people are retiring. We need new workers to move into their positions.

That's true. We do. But we're actually deskilling workers instead of improving their educational standard. We're making it easier, through various instruments under this bill that we'll talk about more later — B.C. equivalent occupation and the like. But it's counterproductive to be deskilling at a time like this.

Is it really a skill shortage that the government is concerned about, or is it a lack of readily available individuals, pieces in the machine to fit into the needs of the friends of government? I think it's the latter. I don't think that the best interests of the workers are foremost with Bill 9, and I don't think it's actually in the best interests of British Columbia in terms of productivity either.

But lots of things happen under the auspices or suggestions of other agendas, and skill shortages should not be in any way used as a reason to deskill the workforce or to make their certifications less significant. In reading this bill, I'm sure that's what it would in fact.

It's interesting, too, to note that business does not particularly seem to be universal in its satisfaction with the direction of the government. The construction industry task force had a questionnaire not long ago. I'm not sure, actually, the time of it, but it's interesting to note some of the findings.

One of their questions was: "Thinking about the specific needs of your company, would you prefer to employ individuals whose technical training supports multiple skills or specialized skills?" As I mentioned earlier, that's full certification versus task training. Under multiple trade skills, 65 percent said that was their preference as opposed to only 34 percent for the focus on specialized trade skills.

[1640]

Another question was…. There are a number of components to each trade. Some think apprentices should be required to learn all the facets of the trade in school and practise all facets on the jobsite before being granted journeyperson status. This is known as the full-scope-of-the-trade approach.

Others believe that individuals should be given formal recognition for mastering each component of a trade, both in the classroom and in the field. If the individual mastered all the components, then he would receive a master craftsperson designation. This is termed the task-training approach.

The question was: which approach do you prefer? The response was: full scope of trade, 73 percent; task training, 26 percent.

I'm sure there are varying responses to the government approach, but they know that skilled workers are essential to their business and to getting the work done correctly. When you see some of the work that is done these days — buildings that are…. Pieces are falling off of them.

There's one in our community now, just recently — well, a couple of years ago — completed. It's actually part of our hospital. It's the hospice facility. There's a rolling floor. Pieces of the counter have fallen off. In bathtubs, the thing that they pull on pull themselves up came right
[ Page 14774 ]
out of the wall. It was just attached to Gyproc, not even to a stud.

You wonder: what on earth kind of oversight was there and what kind of training was there to allow that to happen? Certainly, that's going to cost us a lot of money in the end just in our community alone.

It's very important, I think, that businesses recognize that. I hope they do. If they're looking at the long term, which we hope they are — I think most businesses are — they will want to have fully trained workers.

Just to finish off, a few other points on this questionnaire from the construction industry task force. You could, in this part, rate your question from "very supportive" to "very unsupportive." They were asked what they thought of a totally voluntary apprenticeship training program, and 38 percent were very unsupportive. In total, 58 percent did not support that.

With regard to mandatory preapprenticeship training, 36 percent supported that, which was double any other category. With regard to mandatory apprenticeship training, 54 percent were in favour. Finally, with regard to mandatory certification of individuals, again, 54 percent were in favour.

I mentioned safety before. Safety, of course, is an essential part of a well-trained workforce and of an employer that's concerned about its workers. The deregulation agenda that this government has pursued has led to less safety on the worksite. We certainly think of that in the forest industry, where it's resulted in less training and more accidents.

One would truthfully hope that no one would come to look at this kind of result as just the cost of doing business. It cannot be, if we're going to have not only a fair and just society but a productive province. We have to be sure that safety is first. Of course, we also saw the horrific accidents with regard to farmworkers that happened.

[1645]

D. Routley: I'm pleased to rise to speak against this change to the requirements for labour mobility in B.C. I think it would do well to go back and look at the record of what's happened in B.C. over the last seven or eight years in terms of trades training.

This government came to power and, with haste and ideological fury, wiped out the former trades apprenticeship program, ITAC. At that time, they were warned by several stakeholders in the training sector and in industry that there were great perils that might befall our province should this system just be wiped out with no adequate replacement in sight. In fact, the replacement was essentially an 8½-by-11-inch sheet of paper that loosely described the new system and promised that the free market approach would solve everything.

The history of what came about from that, the ITA, has been one of pushing out the stakeholders in training and in industry. Labour was pushed away from the table. Industry became the narrow definition of "business only," and business-only interests were pursued. When the government and its representatives visited New Zealand to look at the model that was in place there, they adopted many of its components — the compartmentalized system and the modular approach to training.

They were warned at this time that the biggest threat through that type of system was a threat to standards. If the system was implemented carefully and standards were protected, if there was adequate funding and adequate oversight, it could work, but there hasn't been. In fact, B.C. — a similar-sized economy with similar training requirements — introduced their system with one-third the commitment of resources that New Zealand had committed, and New Zealand found those resources to be inadequate.

Standards have slipped. ITOs, the industry training organizations led by industry — the narrow definition of industry being businesses only — have been in a state of chaos. There is no clear idea how many people are actually being trained, how many completions are actually being attained and what those completions mean anymore, because so many standards have differed from one training organization to another.

They introduced a competition model that disadvantaged our colleges, which had made significant investments in trades training. There was the capital investment and the investment in human infrastructure, the instructors, that couldn't be maintained. Colleges set about reducing the length of time their programs took and reducing the depth of those programs in order to compete with private sector training organizations that were not delivering the standards that B.C. had expected in the past.

Then along came the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General's report confirmed all this. It pointed to absolute chaos in the system, a loss of oversight, and that we are flying blind when it comes to training in B.C. — that we don't know what the real requirements of the future are and how well we're meeting them.

We can see that if the steps recommended by the Auditor General…. The Auditor General gave the province six months to bring this system into order. If they're not taken, we can see a very chaotic future when it comes to training, and training standards mean safety standards. If training standards slip, then safety standards on jobs slip. Then the standards that buildings are built to slip. Things happen in the province that can only be easily forecast, and they're quite disastrous. They involve threats to public safety and threats to worker safety.

Now the latest development is that the work and business of the ITOs is being contracted out. Through B.C. Bid, there is an effort underway to have the running of the ITOs contracted out. That would completely remove any public oversight over those bodies, and then that would mean a loss of any connection and any standards
[ Page 14775 ]
maintenance that the province could impose on a training system.

[1650]

All the way through this history, this government hasn't been listening. All the way through this, they've been making deals behind closed doors, shutting out the people affected, shutting out the public interest and listening only to the largest business interests and their biggest donors.

They cut out stakeholders. That was a huge mistake, and it was forecast when they visited New Zealand and when the whole system started. That was mistake number one, and it's never been dealt with. It's only been augmented by further loss of public interest.

In 2002 this government eliminated compulsory trades. Compulsory trades meant that trades training in certain areas had to meet the Red Seal standard, and that was a minimum national standard. The investment in Red Seal training had been developed over generations, and it ensured labour mobility. It ensured that a Red Seal–trained tradesperson could travel throughout this country and work wherever Red Seal was recognized.

That person was called a journeyman, a journeyperson. The phrase comes from the fact that they have portable skills; they can journey from job to job. That's what it means. A journeyman could move from one sector of an industry to another sector, from one province to another province, from one community to another community.

Take, for example, the construction trades. There are seven sectors in the construction trades. There's residential. There's ICI — institutional, commercial and industrial. There are hydroelectric dams. There's the civil construction sector, which is roads and bridges; utilities, which is water and sewage; pipelines; and nuclear.

A Red Seal–trained journeyman could travel from any one of those sectors to another and expect to be able to work seamlessly, without threat to the public's interest, without threat to their own safety and without threat to the ultimate completion of the job. This made for a flexible workforce and a flexible economy.

Take, for example, the residential construction crash that we're witnessing now. A journeyperson can move from residential construction to commercial construction flawlessly, without pause, without retraining and without threat to the safety on the subsequent jobsite. A journeyperson isn't trapped in the one menial job that they have been trained for, for the use of one company.

There are people now working in our residential construction industry who are trained in steel framing but have no other training and can't move to another sector of the industry. They are left behind, and our economy suffers. Full-scope journeyman, full-scope Red Seal training, was a standard that allowed the kind of flexibility that this bill and TILMA pretend to seek.

Modularization of trades has been the catchphrase. The former system of Red Seal training has been downgraded and referred to as lockstep training, as though somehow it's a great inhibition and a great hindrance. In fact, once a tradesperson is Red Sealed, they have the greatest flexibility that the country can offer or that industry can offer. This serves the workers, the economy, the industry they work in and the companies that participate in those industries.

But some narrow interests in our province and in our country are pushing for a different version, a different future. The agreement on internal trade, clause 7, points to a different kind of future for workers. The government's friend Phil Hochstein, one of the main architects of this system, has a different idea when it comes to the freedom and mobility of workers. This government would like to see workers indentured to their employers, and we will pay for that.

[1655]

The elimination of compulsory designations affected industries like electricians, plumbers, refrigeration mechanics, roofers, sheet metal workers, sprinkler system installers, and steamfitters and pipefitters. Those are trades where, if standards slip, there's a great risk to the workers and a great risk to public safety. Others were automotive collision repairmen, automotive painting and finishing technicians, automotive service technicians and power line technicians.

All of this is being celebrated by the Premier and those who support this agenda as some sort of end to restrictions on labour mobility. Well, in fact, what would have ended any restriction on labour mobility would be to expand the Red Seal certification system. What they're actually celebrating is the dilution of standards as one sector competes with another sector, as one deliverer of training competes with another to downgrade what they offer and increase profit and lower the cost in a private competitive market at the expense of the economy and of workers.

B.C. is leading that deregulation charge. This industry-led model in B.C. relies on companies, defined as industry, to set the qualifications to best meet their business model. They set up the ITOs to reflect that, and they allowed whatever dilution was required. There is very little oversight. The Auditor General has pointed to this. Again, they're not listening. The deals are being made behind closed doors. The stakeholders are being cut out.

These were the things that the government was warned about when they visited New Zealand and looked at this system. It's also in place in Australia. In both those places the system, if properly delivered to the interests of the public and the workers — which is possible — costs more than the previous model. So what we've seen is the government's attempt to introduce a model that deregulated and that downgraded skills, and they did it without the proper investment.

The Auditor General catalogues all of those problems. Deregulation itself is a discredited philosophy. We look
[ Page 14776 ]
to the banking system in the United States, and we compare it with ours. We see that regulation works very well in Canada for the banking system. Look at the forest industry — deregulation in the forest industry. What did it do there? Well, it caused death, and it caused the death of an industry.

The coroner in Duncan, looking into the death of faller Ted Gramlich, ordered the WCB to reinstate many of the regulations that had been stripped away in the deregulation push of this government.

TILMA, the agreement on internal trade, and this bill contribute to that agenda to move B.C. away from high-level training standards, away from Red Seal certification, away from compulsory trades and away from involving stakeholders in the process of training, the system of training in this province — exactly the opposite direction from what needs to be taken in B.C.

In B.C. we need to reinvest in the Red Seal program. We need to expand it. We need to reinstate compulsory trade certification. We need to bring unions and other stakeholders to the table again. You look at trades programs that are being successful in this province, which still have very high levels of completion and maintain standards. They're operated and managed by our unions in this province.

They have avoided this deregulation mantra and so far are delivering well-trained workers who have mobility, not because somebody is downgrading the skill requirements throughout this country, but because they're well trained because they're Red Sealed, because they are trained to the highest level. No matter where they go, their training is premium.

[1700]

This bill, Bill 9, fuels that greed-driven approach where industry, defined as companies, merely states: "This is what we need today. We don't care about tomorrow. This is what we need today. Deliver it at the lowest cost."

There was not enough planning put into the system, so now we're in a place where the building trades describe these years as six lost years. They call the ITA period six lost years. We have a situation where we have a skills shortage, where demography is driving a retirement rate that can't be sustained within the skilled trades. We are losing the mentors it will take to catch up with that drain.

Bill 9 pushes us further down that road. Bill 9 is a short-term fix in the cheapest way, which participates in a national scheme to downgrade standards. It is not what it should be.

What we should do in this province is invest in developing human beings for lifetime careers, develop human beings who have transferable skills, who can work, who can raise their families and support them, because they are well trained and can move from job to job, as the phrase describes them: "journeypersons." Journey. They can journey from one sector to another, from one job to another. That was what it used to mean. But now they're modularized, they're compartmentalized, and their skills are fragmented.

Full-scope training produces workers who are imaginative, who can solve problems and who can reach into their toolbox of skills and pull out a solution to a problem that's creative, that is made in B.C. Instead, what we end up with are people who are barely able to complete a task outside the narrow training they're being offered, and then Bill 9 participates in a scheme to make that a countrywide standard, a nationwide phenomenon of the dilution of skills.

The government put out to tender the administration of TILMA so that we'll have a private company administering the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — a private company helping decide who gets charged with breaking its rules, which could have a $5 million penalty for any business or jurisdiction that chose to do that, chose to set a different standard. At the same time, they contract out the management and operation of the industry training organizations.

So we lose our grasp. We lose any public control over those standards. More chaos. That's what the Auditor General pointed to as the main problem here: a lack of vision. It's a lack of vision in the original plan and a lack of the vision that can show us where we stand.

The minister stands up and brags about the number of registrations. Well, how did they achieve that? They went from having one-year people on the books, as registered for one year, to 18 months before they slip off the registration if they stop their training. They included high school training programs in that registration number, vastly increasing the number, but the percentage who actually go on to complete a Red Seal certification is very, very small.

This was pointed to by the Auditor General as the reason that we don't have the vision it takes now to plan for the future. It was taken by this government in an effort to…. A political advertisement. "Look how well we're doing: 45,000 new registrations." It doesn't matter. Pick a number, because the number is meaningless. The number is meaningless because they don't have any idea what that means for the end result, and I don't think they care.

[1705]

In the end, TILMA, this bill and the AIT are merely mechanisms to dilute the standards in this country, to dilute the standards of training, to bring down the mobility of workers — true mobility, mobility based on their skill set rather than based on a diminishing set of standards.

What are other people saying about this? Let's look at what the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons had to say about it. "The agreement could make it more difficult to keep foreign-trained doctors in rural areas after they become accredited. Once accredited to work in this country, it will be easier for
[ Page 14777 ]
physicians to take their limited accreditation, pack up and head for more lucrative urban settings elsewhere in the country."

Chartered accountants. Chartered Accountants of Canada said:

"It is the CA profession's view that the new certification rules under the agreement on internal trade could trigger 'a race to the bottom' in Canada's public accounting qualification standards. In this scenario the lowest standards in any one province would become the minimum acceptable standards in any other. Among other impacts, this poses a significant risk to the legislated mandates currently in place in Ontario and Quebec, which are home to the largest of Canada's capital markets. This in turn threatens to diminish Canada's reputation internationally and does so at a time when confidence in the world's economies and markets is already at its lowest ebb in decades."

Quebec federation of labour president Michel Arsenault: "The AIT looks increasingly like a present to big business at the expense of citizens and government's ability to regulate."

All of these are pieces of a puzzle. Thankfully, at least with this narrow piece, Bill 9, which just addresses one piece of TILMA, we're actually having a debate. When the enabling legislation for TILMA came to this House, I think we had eight minutes to debate it because the government brought down closure on that bill, along with others. So at least we're having some kind of a debate over this small component piece.

On the bigger piece, the public have never had a chance to have a voice. The bigger piece, TILMA and the AIT, are done without our approval, are done out of our sight, are done behind the closed doors of big business with governments that would choose to surrender their jurisdiction to those interests.

What suffers? We do. The people of Canada and the people of B.C. suffer, the future suffers, and our children suffer because of lowered standards — because of a country that gives up its jurisdiction, its ability to govern.

The former Education Minister, when she met with the school trustees five years ago, before TILMA was introduced, said to those people: "Oh, don't worry. Don't worry about things like healthy food initiatives in the vending machines of schools. Don't worry about a challenge from the soft drink companies and the candy companies, because we think that Coca-Cola and others will voluntarily comply with an effort to remove their products.

How naive is that? It's just an acknowledgment of the fact that this is an agenda that's trying to be swept under the door while no one's looking, an agenda that will sweep with it the standards that we hope for, for our children, for our public services, for our community safety and for workplace safety generally.

Bit by bit, the ability of us as citizens to determine our future, to determine what our communities will look like, to determine the direction our economies should develop in, is being removed with the willing participation of governments like this B.C. Liberal government.

They voluntarily surrender our jurisdiction over our future, and this is one more component part of that agenda. That is a terrible tragedy, and it will be a tragedy played out over generations. It will be a tragedy that becomes more and more irreversible as these measures are adopted. It will become a tragedy more expensive to clean up as the penalties mount to any government that should take the audacious decision to actually govern in the public interest. That's what we're left with.

[1710]

While the people aren't looking, this government does its work. Where the people can't see, behind the closed doors of corporations, people surrender their ability to govern and our ability to determine our future.

We come to this place with the hope of representing our communities, speaking — and in the government's case, legislating — the future. What do we do here? We regulate. Legislation is a regulating function.

What does this government do? It surrenders that. It closes this place down with regularity. It removes the mechanisms of governance. It does so with innocuous-sounding pieces of legislation like this.

Hopefully, the people affected will tell their friends what this means, and those people will tell this government that no, we want a say in our future, that we don't want them to surrender our ability to govern, that we don't want them, through this bill and others like it, to surrender our ability to set our own standards. That's what they're doing. They're willingly giving it up to a system that would impose huge penalties on us if we ever try to reimpose that control.

That, I think, is about all I have to say on Bill 9. I would encourage the government members to think twice about supporting this bill and about supporting this agenda of deregulation and dilution of standards. I would encourage them to think of the people that they represent, about the future, about their own role here. They're legislators. We have a desk. We're MLAs. We represent our communities.

We have party affiliation. But will they be driven by their party's agenda to vote for a bill that will help disarm the ability of British Columbians to legislate their own future, to set their own standards? Is that what you'll do, Members of government?

Will you give up our jurisdiction with TILMA with Bill 9? Will you ram through legislation like the TILMA enabling act with eight minutes of debate? Is that sticking up for the public interest? Those are the questions that I hope every member asks themselves when they vote on this bill. I know I have my answer to it.

K. Conroy: I, too, rise to raise some concerns with this bill. This legislation will effectively implement chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade, the AIT that's been referred to, and requires all regulatory bodies that govern occupations in B.C. to recognize the qualifica-
[ Page 14778 ]
tion of workers holding certification and/or registration in good standing in an equivalent occupation in another Canadian jurisdiction.

Applicants for certification and registration in B.C. will still be required to provide their evidence of good character, to demonstrate knowledge of measures that are specifically applicable to the practice of the professions in B.C. and to meet certain other requirements permitted under AIT — the payment of an applicable fee, obtaining insurance, undergoing a criminal record check, providing a letter of good standing from other regulatory bodies.

However, under AIT, a regulatory body will not be permitted to impose any additional training, experience, examination or assessment requirements for applicants. And although AIT contemplates that a province may impose certain measures that are otherwise inconsistent with AIT to achieve a legitimate objective, Bill 9 will prohibit any measures in B.C. unless they are approved both by the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development and by the minister responsible for the act regulating the particular occupation — a concern that puts an incredible amount of pressure on the ministers.

Also, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have the authority under Bill 9 to make regulations prescribing occupations or classes of occupations for which workers certified or registered in another Canadian jurisdiction will automatically be able to practice in B.C., without ever having to apply to the B.C. regulatory body for separate registration here in B.C.

[1715]

Now, we know that all provinces will have to draft and pass legislation to enact these changes for labour mobility across Canada, but it's interesting that B.C. is the province that is trying to be first to introduce this legislation, that is rushing to introduce this legislation.

I want to talk a bit about Ontario, for example. The government of Ontario is looking at introducing the same legislation. However, they are only going to introduce it after they have completed their review of matching qualifications. They are not planning to allow for full mobility in all the trades and professions without making sure that they review several of the trades and professions that they have concerns with — the concerns with the lowering of standards, concerns that should be an issue in this House, which aren't addressed with this bill.

We all know that the concerns about the lowering of standards are something that's been addressed already by my colleagues, but it's something that has been addressed by other people that are concerned. We're looking at the possibility of lowering of standards nationally.

Another concern is with the enforcement of this legislation. Provinces have said they agree to the full mobility, but that won't necessarily happen. Again, several jurisdictions like Ontario won't accept workers from all provinces for certain trades and professions. I think there's an example that we found where…. It's an example of crane operators, for instance. The province of Ontario is considering only accepting workers from provinces who match or have similar requirements to Ontario's scope of practice, and that is their legal right to do so under this legislation, under the agreement on internal trade.

For argument's sake, say that Ontario would only accept crane operators from B.C., Alberta and Quebec, and not from any other province. So if you were a crane operator from Manitoba, you could not go and work in Ontario under this agreement. But the province of B.C. will accept crane operators from all the provinces. That means the same person that couldn't work in Ontario could actually come and work in B.C.

Under this regulation, the crane operator could actually get recognized under B.C. So this person would have their certificate under the B.C. regulation, and then they could go back and work in Ontario because Ontario would recognize B.C.'s legislation. It means that, somehow or other, a crane operator from Manitoba who wouldn't be allowed to work in Ontario could go to B.C., get recognized in B.C. and now could go and work in Ontario.

Does this legislation allow this to happen? It just seems preposterous that this loophole could be a legal loophole, done here in B.C., that would allow people to work at lower standards in other provinces.

Right now we know that the province of Ontario is concerned about this problem, and I think other provinces would also be really concerned about this, because the last thing that provinces want to see happen is the lowering of trade recognition, the lowering of the scope of practice.

I think it's odd that B.C. seems to be the only province that is rushing this legislation through, that is trying to ensure that this is going to happen prior to the House adjourning shortly. This legislation doesn't seem to protect workers from the lowest common denominator of a scope of practice across the country.

Both of my colleagues have referred to the Red Seal, and the Red Seal is an incredibly important standard. It's a national standard that needs to be recognized.

Now, we know that the provinces have the provincial jurisdiction over trade certification, and Red Seal is not obligatory, but in fact, it has become, in de facto, a national standard. The last thing people want to see is minimum standards set up to achieve certification across the provinces. So we need to ensure we have that Red Seal, that we have people that have the Red Seal, that they have the standard — that they are actually full journeymen, full journeypersons working in trades.

We've heard about the issues that have happened with trades training in this province, the fact that it seems that trades have gone from full scope to task training. There is a real concern in other provinces about the Red Seal. When you don't have the full scope of train-
[ Page 14779 ]
ing, then what happens when you go to other provinces? What happens when you go and work in other areas?

I think it's time that we ensure that the qualifications are more than adequate. They're not minimal. We need to ensure that the standards are such that anybody that's working in B.C. can be proud to go and work anywhere else in the country because they have some of the highest standards and not some of the lowest standards in this province.

[1720]

I think, again, it's interesting to note that the provinces aren't rushing it through, that we're one of the few provinces that seems to see the need to rush it through.

We've seen here the deregulation for trades training. We need to ensure that that deregulation isn't occurring across the country and stemming from this province, which would be an incredible, I think, embarrassment to people working.

I think we want to ensure that we have really highly skilled tradespeople in this province. I know that we do. They want to carry that on and ensure that that continues.

I know that there's concern with this legislation that B.C. regulatory bodies are feeling pressured to accept lower standards so that people from across the country can come and work here. They're feeling that pressure. They also are feeling that the B.C. standards of practice for the professions and trades were adopted to provide practices that are in the public interest — not as barriers to protect tradespeople or professionals in B.C., but actually in the public interest to protect everyone, including the workers that this legislation supposedly is there for.

Some of the other provinces and other jurisdictions have expressed concerns. Already the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan was mentioned. One of the things that wasn't…. One of their concerns was that the agreement may force all provinces to adapt lowered standards as a common interest.

Also, their concern is that it may well result in a sort of race to the bottom in the sense that minimal credentials anywhere becomes a standard that has to be applied everywhere. That's just not good enough when you're talking about the college of physicians and surgeons. That would be across Canada, a standard that's not acceptable.

In Nova Scotia the concern was that labour mobility and trade deals remove power from local governments and ordinary citizens as well as downgrading labour standards. A concern from Nova Scotia, one of our provinces in this country — concerned about the lowering of labour standards.

In New Brunswick: a bilateral agreement on trade and labour gives too much power to private interest and reduces the right of taxpayers and the strength of government in relation to corporations. Again, concerns, real concerns from people across the country. I think the concern is: "Why is this province pushing it through?"

Another concern we've had from people throughout rural B.C. when talking about apprenticeships is the concern about young people securing apprenticeships in communities. I know that young people in my community are desperately trying to find apprenticeships because they want to stay in the community. They want to live in the community. They've gone to school there, their families are there, and they want to stay there and enjoy the benefits of living in rural B.C. However, they can't secure apprenticeships.

This bill would actually allow tradespersons from outside of B.C., from outside of the community, to come in and take those positions so that our young people would be denied the right to ensure that they can get an apprenticeship. I'm hoping that's not what this legislation will, in fact, ensure happens, but there seems to be real concerns.

I know that people in our area are leaving. They're going to Alberta to get their journeyman tickets. They're not getting apprenticeships here in B.C. That's a real concern for young people in this province. We are seeing people leaving to go and get apprenticeships because they aren't getting them here. I think we need to be looking at that and making sure it's not going to impede the ability for young people in B.C. to ensure that they get their apprenticeships here.

It's also interesting that when the minister was introducing the bill, he referred to the support of labour. It would be interesting if he would comment on which labour he was referring to, because we got information from many different trades and labour bodies across the province and across Canada definitely expressing concern — expressing real concern about the deregulation of the trades, the race to the bottom, the elimination of compulsory designations.

There are a number of issues that labour bodies across the province and across Canada all express concern about. So it would be interesting, when the minister referred to labour, exactly which labour he was talking about because the many, many different people that we discussed this bill with had real concerns about it and didn't seem nearly as excited as the minister seemed to intimate they were in his comments.

I think that our colleagues have mentioned a number of issues that are of real concern with this bill. We need to make sure we get those questions answered during committee stage, and I'm sure we will look forward to the committee stage to ensure that the questions are answered.

[1725]

I think there are some very, very real concerns that are not only expressed here in this province but across the country about what this bill will do. We also want to know why the minister seems to feel that they need to
[ Page 14780 ]
rush this legislation through when it doesn't seem that there has been a full examination and full consultation with all the parties that will actually be impacted by this bill.

With that, I'm going to pass it on to my next colleague, who I think is ready to speak.

R. Fleming: The bill before us has some puzzling aspects to it. There are a number of legitimate questions and concerns being raised by stakeholders, professional regulatory bodies — people that are the guardians for unique sets of skills and occupational training that are required for a variety of occupations across British Columbia.

One of the reasons why they have so many questions is because there was no consultation done by this government in the drafting of this legislation before it was presented to this House. There is obviously a tremendous amount of interest in the topic of labour mobility for Canadian workers, for British Columbians — whether they be in the construction sector, whether they be teachers, social workers or any other profession that is governed by a college or a regulatory body.

Not every province, historically, for a number of reasons — because the responsibility has been devolved provincially for some time — has chosen to have the same set of standards for their tradespeople and for their professionals. That is why so few provincial jurisdictions took an interest when the Premier of Alberta, Premier Stelmach, and this Premier began to discuss TILMA.

They ran into a number of problems and into a distinct lack of interest from other western Canadian jurisdictions and other jurisdictions across Canada, who wish to focus on other aspects of their economy. So that diverted the discussion onto looking at what could be brought, I suppose, into a bill like this today that was already part of other internal agreements that Canadian provinces have been signatories to. Section 7 of the agreement on internal trade is what is almost lifted word for word and brought into the bill that we have before us.

This bill will bring into force a labour mobility regime that is unknown for a number of occupations. They wonder which standard — where they differ — will be upheld. Will it be the British Columbian standard for various building trades, where a set number of hours or thousands of hours of on-the-job training are required and thousands more hours of in-class instruction are required to receive a trade certificate?

Will it be a lower standard of somebody applying from another province or territory to come to British Columbia? They take out an ad in the Yellow Pages, hang their shingle, start a business and call themselves a person with an equivalent trade to the one that studied, graduated and completed their studies here in British Columbia — when that person has nowhere near the amount of training, background and expertise that will ensure that consumers here in British Columbia pay for services of the equivalent quality.

[1730]

How does that make things more fair for British Columbians, where we train people to the higher standard? British Columbians can already go to a neighbouring province and pursue work and practise their trade or their profession. Now others from other jurisdictions can come to British Columbia, not having completed what British Columbia has decided is the industry standard.

That's not fair, and that's not working in any kind of equivalency both ways. It's going to hurt British Columbia workers, who may be in a situation where they're competing with people who have an inferior skill set and an inferior training and background in an occupation, who can set up shop here.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I tell you that it's not good for employers either. Large-scale employers have followed with interest the policy debate in British Columbia around — again, I'm talking about building trades primarily — full-scope training and apprenticeship versus the modular skill set, narrowed certificate model that B.C. has pursued through the Industry Training Authority in a number of areas.

Employers have favoured on an almost 3-to-1 basis, in industry polling, the full-scale apprenticeship model. They have said that. In some cases in recent years they have stepped in and demanded more autonomy, through the ITO system, to ensure that training standards are improved in British Columbia, that apprentices actually can have self-resilience and comprehensive training so that the quality of the work they provide on jobsites across B.C. is the best that it can and should be.

That is the context for questions and concerns that a number of organizations that represent trades and professions in British Columbia are asking. These are questions that should have been answered long ago, long before Bill 9 was drafted. Even though it is mostly a cut-and-paste piece of legislation from the AIT agreement, which is over ten years old, these are questions outstanding as to what the significance will be of bringing into effect this act.

As has been mentioned by some of my colleagues, no other province is doing this. British Columbia is. This government is putting this through its Legislative Assembly now in the absence of a common direction from other jurisdictions. We have to ask why that is the case. What are the supposed benefits of doing that?

The other question that I think has been alluded to and examined by my colleagues is: what will happen to the de facto but critically important Red Seal trade certification program that has evolved federally? Red Seal is the gold standard for quality for a number of trades in this country because it has done the hard work of look-
[ Page 14781 ]
ing at curriculum and skills that must have competencies measured before somebody can call themselves a plumber or an electrician or what have you.

[1735]

The Red Seal actually has no particular bearing in terms of the provinces. Provincial regulatory bodies are the ones that issue trade certificates. But for employers and for workers themselves who want to be self-reliant and want to have a measure of labour mobility already in this country, the Red Seal, though informal in terms of its recognition and its officiality, has been the benchmark to judge whether that person can in fact take the skills they learned in British Columbia, for example, and practise them in Ontario, or Prince Edward Island for that matter.

The Red Seal's importance is critical. Employers have relied on it before they've made hirings. Apprentices have been judged in terms of whether their skills are current and contemporary — and complete, most importantly.

Now with this agreement, thinking post–Bill 9, we have to ask ourselves what the Red Seal will mean for British Columbia. Because now a worker who comes to B.C. and who claims to possess a trade or to be trained for certain skills will be able to say under your rules, under your new legislation: "I have the right to be trade A, B or C."

This removes the ability — or the concern is that it will — for B.C. to say no, for B.C. to say, as they have in the past, "Show us your Red Seal certificate," because that is what many employers and trades used as the guardian for those skills and for that particular apprenticeship program.

Are we going to lose that ability? I think that is probably the best question that can be made in this debate at second reading on this bill today, because we haven't had very many assurances so far. In fact, in terms of government's approach on TILMA in general, there have been some very large questions that have remained outstanding.

To give you an idea of the concerns, there was recently a tender put out on the government's website to determine interest and attract bidders — if that's the proper word — for administrators of the legislation. In other words, government's direction on this legislation, on this act — and this is just one part of the agreement that the government already signed, which they never debated in the Legislature — has been an instinct to outsource the administration of its own legislation.

That's a tender that's active right now. We don't know who it will be awarded to or whether it has been awarded, but it will be a private entity, presumably, that wins that award and becomes the arbiter of disputes under the TILMA agreement.

These will be very interesting disputes, potentially. These will be between contractors on the Alberta side and contractors on the British Columbia side looking at work and projects in this province. Where allegations of unfairness are made, there will be complaints, and they will be lodged to this presumably private sector entity that will receive the complaints and adjudicate on them.

This, to me, is a pretty major detail of how government plans to enforce the agreements it signed and now legislation that it is presenting under Bill 9. Those details aren't clear in everyone's mind. Those are details that weren't made available to industry associations and to labour unions and to contractors and other interested stakeholders in B.C. before this bill made it here this afternoon for second reading discussion.

[1740]

It's incredible that that's how it has evolved, although not atypical under this government that legislation should make it this far without such consultations. But we know from countless examples throughout history — and, in particular, very recent history — that legislation that doesn't have the benefit beforehand of consultation, of receiving feedback and questions from the stakeholders that I have just mentioned in this debate, that that legislation is made the poorer for it. I think that's a real and legitimate concern that is part of what we're discussing this afternoon.

It's interesting. One of the criticisms from those who have looked at this bill from a legal perspective is that this bill is quite unrestricted in terms of who can be considered to be covered by the legislation, in terms of their professional backgrounds and whatever regulatory body may have authority over them. In other words — who this legislation applies to.

It's my understanding that the province of Ontario is taking a very different approach. They're actually prescribing what section 7 of the original AIT, the agreement on internal trade, can apply to. In other words, they're making some significant exemptions from that agreement and taking basically the opposite course of what this government is taking.

Instead of throwing it all open for interpretation by new, untested oversight organizations that have yet to materialize, Ontario is saying: "We govern this now. We would like to have oversight into the future, and we have concerns that there are significantly lower standards, for example, for social workers, for tradespeople, for professionals in other Canadian jurisdictions. We do not want to have a race to the bottom and seek the lowest common denominator." I'm speaking in third person here as the government of Ontario.

The government of Ontario wants to ensure that consumers there are protected in the housing market, for example, by having the best-qualified tradespeople allowed to be accredited and recognized and certified in that province and to work there. The concern here is that British Columbia is just saying that anyone can come and work and live and open a business and call themselves a trade of any kind and that we are reducing our
[ Page 14782 ]
ability to say no to that, to uphold regulatory standards in this agreement.

Very interesting that, in a tale of two provinces, British Columbia is casting caution aside and opening things up in this manner, while Ontario is saying: "Wait a minute. Where there is an Ontario interest to uphold, a provincial interest, a consumer interest, an interest for quality of construction trades, for example, and the products that they build, the Ontario government is going to retain a significant role in seeing whether those skills are, in fact, transferable from another province to that province."

I think that's a pretty major difference. It's maybe one that perhaps this legislation could be improved upon and fixed at committee stage of debate. It's one that should have been done on the front end, though, before a bill like this was presented to the Legislature, and it wasn't.

That's not surprising because, as has been mentioned by me and others this afternoon, labour unions, industry associations, contractors and professionals weren't given the courtesy of a heads-up and involved in a process to evaluate and respond to this bill. We are potentially paying the price for that course of action that has been taken by the government.

[1745]

I have some questions and concerns, too, about how the legislation will work, how it will actually implement chapter 7 of the AIT. As I've mentioned a few minutes ago, I've tried to think about how the recognition of qualification for workers holding certificates and registration elsewhere will be undertaken in B.C. After this bill is passed, what will B.C.'s ability be to intervene and say no, where we have concerns that have been found to be valid and where complaints have been made, for example, about certain people from other provinces working here?

One of my colleagues mentioned the example of crane operators from Manitoba who may not have the hours of training and the demonstrated skills — the safety training, for example — that is equivalent to what we have in British Columbia. If it is a significant concern in terms of safety on a worksite that a regulatory body like WorkSafe had, for example, what can we do about it after this legislation is passed?

Well, according to one reading of this bill, the answer is: not very much. The equivalency that the worker in the example that I have given needs to fulfil is that they only need to provide, apparently, evidence that they're a person of good character and that they have certain knowledge that is applicable to a trade — and we're using the example of crane operator — to practise in a basic way that occupation in B.C. That's really about it.

So while we've tied our hands, under this legislation, to be able to intervene where we need to, to ensure that workers have the skills and knowledge to provide quality workmanship, we've given the ability for those who wish to challenge our regulatory requirements for trades and professions the upper hand.

That's an untenable situation. There's a general interest that government needs to intervene, not just specific groups of workers, where there are concerns about quality of work and safety and other things that override the importance of somebody from another province being able to come here and, without much hassle, open up shop and make a living.

I mean, we all sympathize and support the principles of labour mobility, and in fact, Canada has a very high degree of labour mobility. Provinces have been obliged, and professions have taken the lead in all kinds of cases, to make sure that there is something that approaches a Canadian standard, even if it is a province that has the regulatory authority to certify that individual. That means that in most cases people can travel and relocate their families and work out of province without much difficulty. But there are a number of occasions where provinces see things differently for different professions and trades.

For example, Alberta. A teacher there does not require a post-degree professional program like they have as an education degree program here in British Columbia. The same thing for social work, where in B.C. it's a comprehensive four-year degree. In Alberta, it is a three-year program. Now, there is going to be a difference in curriculum. There is going to be a difference in competencies that are achieved at graduation between those two different approaches that the post-secondary systems have in these cases. In B.C. we've decided on a higher standard — and for very good reasons, I assume, that are historic — that social workers could speak to much better than I.

The point is that we make British Columbians achieve a credential of a higher standard, and we've chosen to do that. The profession has governed itself and moved in that direction.

[1750]

Now we are overriding them, in essence, with this bill and saying: "If you come from a province with a significantly lower standard, with less training, with less competencies that need to be demonstrated upon completion of your profession and your certificate, then that's okay. You can come into B.C."

It basically will put the question back on our professions and say: "Well, why are you doing this? You're just punishing students and your professional, registered members here in B.C." They're not getting anything out of it if anybody can come in here with lower qualifications and work the same job just the same.

I think this is a significant departure, what we're talking about here this afternoon, from where we have evolved as a province. Those are good questions, again, that really should have been answered long before we got here this afternoon.
[ Page 14783 ]

I mentioned the Red Seal, and I think that's critical. We have apprenticeship administrators. We have an entire training community involved with apprenticeship. By that, I mean instructors, employers who are heavily involved with and truly believe in the apprenticeship system. Labour unions and academics instructors at the college level have lobbied for years to support the Red Seal standard. They encourage all of the registered apprentices in whatever trade to pursue that as the end goal of their training.

Now, the concern here this afternoon is that, in effect, Bill 9 will end all of that, that the chapter 7 amendments of the agreement on internal trade will do away with this, and that the Red Seal option — because it will become an option and not something that is incredibly coveted and, in fact, part of the curriculum that is taught to most apprentices — will be diminished. It will mean less under these new amendments, and that will not serve anyone.

It will not serve British Columbians who want to improve their mobility and work in other parts of the country with few barriers in the way to be able to do that. It will not do anything for B.C. consumers who regularly hire and pay for the services of gas fitters, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, sprinkler installers or any of those kinds of certified trades, because they will have a lower assurance that the person they're hiring from a referral or out of the Yellow Pages — or whatever means they're using to do that — has what has been a very consciously deliberated-upon set of national skills and curriculum and agreed-upon outcomes of the apprenticeship system.

That's at risk of being diminished here this afternoon, and I mean, that is an incredible leap to be making late in the session. A government is forging ahead alone on this legislative initiative. Nobody else in the country is interested in this or is doing it. The only other province we know of that is contemplating it is taking a completely different approach on this question around surrendering their ability to have regulatory oversight and controls for their professional bodies.

It begs the question. Why B.C.? Why are we doing this? What is the benefit? We've certainly talked about, this afternoon, the risks to consumers. We've talked about the possibility for the lowering of standards for professionals and for skilled workers. We don't have a good reason to be proceeding in this manner here and now. We certainly don't have a pent-up demand to do this either.

We don't even have an interested group of stakeholders and people who work in professions and skilled trades across British Columbia who have been invited to give their thoughts and participate in this debate at all before it got to this place, and that's wrong.

[1755]

That's not the way governments produce good legislation. Those aren't questions that should be answered now at this stage of debate or even posed for the first time to the minister and to the government. They are things that should have been decided upon and answered long ago.

I think this is probably symptomatic of something else — what we're talking about this afternoon. I think this is the continuation of an approach that has been wrong-headed, that this government has been looking at and imposing in a variety of areas of government. That is a deregulation agenda, and it is wrong for B.C.

Hon. I. Chong: I wanted to ensure that I had an opportunity to also offer remarks on Bill 9, the Labour Mobility Act, because I think it's important to discuss and to talk about this particular piece of legislation, which I had a small part in ensuring that it had success in terms of the implementation in the agreement on internal trade.

I think many will know that earlier last year the Premier had joined with other provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister at a first ministers' meeting where they, in fact, did sign off on an agreement ensuring full labour mobility in Canada. That was agreed to at a meeting last summer at the Council of the Federation. So it comes as no surprise to anyone — or should come as no surprise to anyone — here in these chambers on the development of what was to be proceeding.

It was last year that the Premiers discussed labour mobility. In fact, it was our Premier, and we should be proud of that fact, that our Premier led the discussion that would ensure that labour mobility occurs across Canada.

Why is that important? Because labour mobility is about ensuring that if you're a Canadian, you have the right to work in any province or territory in Canada, but also ensuring that the credentials that you bring, the certification that you have, the authority upon which you have received your occupation, your trade is reconciled and recognized across Canada. That is what is happening.

For members opposite to suggest otherwise and to talk about going to the lowest common denominator is absolutely untrue. I have to put that on the record, and I know they'll get up one after another and state otherwise. But when you take a look at a professional, certified individual who has gone through the training — perhaps practised for years in their province — and they want to move to British Columbia, and they're told that they cannot just because we have some barrier, because we have not acknowledged their credentials, it's not applicable in today's day and age.

In case they haven't noticed, we are going through some difficult economic times. People need to move where they can find work. Provinces need to fill vacancies where they exist, and they still exist.

Imagine if you're in Ontario and you're an engineer. We need engineers because we have a stimulus package, a $14 billion infrastructure stimulus package, going on here in British Columbia. We need professionals. We
[ Page 14784 ]
need engineers, and we need architects. Imagine if you want to move here, and you bring your wife who is a nurse or a teacher, and you're told that one of you can work but the other cannot just because we put up a barrier. Now, how does that make sense?

If you have been trained as a teacher or a nurse in Ontario, are you telling me — and you've practised for 20 years, and you might have even won awards at it — that suddenly you don't have the ability to do the same in British Columbia? How does that make any sense? And while we may need the professional services of that person, you're telling us that, by moving from one province to another, only one of you in a two-person family may be allowed to work?

[1800]

I hear the members talking about this labour mobility as a bad thing. Well, I can tell you that it's not. There are people in every province who want to be able to relocate. They want to relocate their entire families, but they also want the opportunity to work. That opportunity should be given to them.

Fundamentally, on this side of the House we believe in labour mobility. We believe that as a Canadian you are allowed to work in whichever province you are, but that's not what I'm hearing from the NDP. It sounds to me like the NDP say: "Well, if you're a British Columbian, you only get to work in British Columbia. If you're an Ontarian, you only get to work in Ontario. If you are an Albertan, you only get to work in Alberta."

That doesn't unite our country. That divides us, and that's not what this legislation is about. It is about recognizing all of us as Canadians.

What we've also done, which the members opposite have failed to acknowledge, is when the Premier signed on to labour mobility, there was an agreement that they were reconciling any differences that exist. In fact, there is the greatest expectation that those provinces or jurisdictions will look to the highest standards and ensure that that takes place. But to suggest that people don't have the opportunity to relocate is a very sad commentary on the NDP.

When I rose to speak, it was because I wanted to share with members my participation in this legislation. It was in December of last year. I had the honour of chairing, as British Columbia's representative, a special meeting on the Committee on Internal Trade. That committee is made up of ministers, our counterparts across the country who have responsibility for the agreement on internal trade.

The agreement on internal trade was established in 1994. It was an agreement that was designed to reduce barriers to trade and labour. Has it succeeded? Well, there have been some challenges, and it required someone to be a catalyst to put in some of those changes.

That catalyst, I'm proud to say, was our Premier. He was the one able to share with other Premiers the importance of labour mobility, and he was able to have those Premiers agree to commit to make changes and ask the ministers responsible to ensure that the chapter in the agreement on internal trade would, in fact, be implemented.

So in December when I was meeting with the representatives across the country, we were able to give approval to full labour mobility as negotiated under the agreement on internal trade. Then the Premiers along with the Prime Minister earlier this year signed that agreement ensuring full labour mobility.

Given that it was our Premier's leadership on this file, I'm extremely gratified to see that British Columbia was the first jurisdiction that took the step necessary to introduce implementation legislation for full labour mobility. We're the first province to introduce the legislation to ensure that this takes place. Other provinces will do so, but we're the first. That's something we should be proud of.

I want to share with members opposite. I've received letters from other jurisdictions, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Yukon — I believe others are coming from Ontario — again, stressing that they applaud our work. They applaud our leadership. So when members opposite speak against this, thinking that other jurisdictions are not on board, they're wrong. They're just wrong. It's important to put the facts on the record, and the facts are every province and territory under which the AIT applies has agreed to changing chapter 7 of the AIT.

I am pleased that my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development, who has responsibility for the labour mobility side, has brought forward this legislation. He has clearly stated the significant benefits that full labour mobility will provide to British Columbia.

[1805]

I want to note as well how we are very blessed in this province here in British Columbia with an abundance of accomplished, enterprising and entrepreneurial people. While we are blessed with that abundance, it's not absolutely certain that they might want to stay in British Columbia. They might want to travel to other jurisdictions to see what's happening there. We may have others wanting to come to British Columbia.

By implementing full labour mobility across the country, we are really helping to empower British Columbians, empowering them to make decisions and to make choices for the benefit of their families, to ensure that their abilities are used in the best possible way to fill job opportunities that exist not just here in British Columbia but that might exist across the country.

When we offer full labour mobility, British Columbia being the province that we are — being leaders in so many ways, whether it's in research, whether it's our small business entrepreneurial spirit, whether it's in our life sciences — I know that there will be people who want to come to British Columbia, and we should not be
[ Page 14785 ]
stopping them at the border. We should be welcoming them. Without labour mobility, we are actually costing the economy more dollars by hindering projects, by not allowing them to be completed, because we have vacancies, and they are still existing.

By leading the way for full labour mobility across Canada, we are really helping to establish a level playing field for skilled, trained people. I know people…. The NDP members who have risen have projected, as I say, the inappropriate — I guess is the best way to describe it — thought that this will be allowing people to go to this lowest common denominator.

Again, I reject that, because what it ensures is that if you are certified in one province and regulated and if you are certified in another province and regulated, then we can allow for reconciling of differences to ensure that the highest standards are available — but most importantly, recognize that because you have been certified, you have gone through a rigour of training. You have gone through a rigour of work life, as well, and you should be able to practise.

Imagine if you had been working for 20 years as a plumber or welder in Ontario and suddenly you were told in British Columbia that you are no longer qualified. That doesn't make any sense, and that's what the members seem to be implying. That's what is so wrong about that, because if in fact you're qualified and you're able to work, then you should be allowed to go and choose the province of your choice.

I really would hope, as members speak to this bill, that they'd do so with a full understanding of what this means to Canadians, what that means to British Columbians. British Columbian individuals today need the flexibility to adapt to our global economic conditions. These are changing dramatically, and they are changing very suddenly, as we all know.

Without full labour mobility, we are only adding to the challenges that exist. Full labour mobility will help enterprising and talented people to build a prosperous and fulfilling future. We want that to happen here in British Columbia, as well, and here in British Columbia we're taking a major step toward making that future possible.

As I said at the very beginning of my remarks, on this side of the House we believe that Canadians should be permitted to work in any province or territory in Canada, and this labour mobility legislation will allow that to take place. It's most disconcerting to hear members opposite say that we're deskilling, as the member opposite had mentioned. It's very disconcerting to hear the NDP implying that you are not welcome in British Columbia and saying that to workers when, in fact, we still have positions vacant and which we need workers for.

I just want to close with one example. It was interesting that that example came from the Minister of Economic Development from the territory of Yukon, who himself is a veterinarian. He indicated to me some time ago that he was asked to come to British Columbia to one of the rural parts of the province to perform some veterinary skills or services.

[1810]

It was because it was in the rural part of British Columbia that it only took perhaps an hour and a half to attend. It was actually in Atlin. From the Yukon to the Atlin area was about an hour and a half. I presume that he's correct on that. There were no veterinarians close enough by that would travel to Atlin, who might have to travel a day if they came from the Lower Mainland or elsewhere.

He has been a veterinarian for, I would imagine, at least 20 years — all his life, he indicated to me. He was prepared to provide those services, but when he was told that there was not full labour mobility, when he was told that for only the reason that he was not licensed to come into British Columbia, he was not able to perform those services, he denied that community valuable services they had wanted.

Strangely enough, if those citizens in Atlin wanted to take their animals to the Yukon, they could have had those services provided. But what sense did that make? It was easier for him to travel the hour and a half, which is one of the reasons why he came out to British Columbia the day we introduced the Labour Mobility Act. He wanted to give a real example of the importance of labour mobility.

He wanted to share with us and with me in particular how he knew this was going to open up an opportunity — not just, as I say, for tradespersons, as the members opposite have been speaking about, but for professionals and other occupations. It could be in the health services. It could be technicians. It could be architects. It could be engineers. It could be tradespeople. Yes, it could be just about anyone. Hard to believe — anyone who wants to work.

I'm proud of the fact, first and foremost, that our Premier led in the role, took the lead in making sure that labour mobility has taken place; that other Premiers saw his vision; that other Premiers understood the value of it and agreed to it so that the ministers responsible would ensure that this would take place. I'm very, very satisfied that we have that kind of vision here in British Columbia. More importantly, I am gratified to know that we are the first province to bring in the legislation and that other provinces are going to follow shortly.

Contrary to all the naysaying by the NDP — their negativism on this and every other piece of legislation because they cannot see the good in them…. I just hope that when they go back to their constituents and talk to them, they explain why they don't think they deserve the right to work in other provinces or in a province of their choosing. I hope that they really do not mean to close the border and say, "You are not welcome in British Columbia," because on this side of the House workers are welcome in British Columbia.
[ Page 14786 ]

C. Wyse: It is indeed my responsibility to get up in the House and discuss Bill 9, the Labour Mobility Act. I'm sure that my colleague who is giving order here to the House recognizes that the Labour Mobility Act forms a portion of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

For the record, it should be mentioned that that was an agreement. It never was debated. It never was in front of the House. Therefore, there wasn't the opportunity, in actual fact, to discuss the broader aspects around the full legislation that is in front of us. That's the first observation I make.

The second observation I make is that the chance that was provided to this House to discuss this was the implementation of the TILMA Act, which was subject to closure. I believe we spent eight minutes on it. That particular piece of legislation from the government side, under closure, required a series of amendments from their own party in order to correct the difficulties that existed there.

[1815]

The strength of our parliamentary system is that by debating the legislation, the legislation may be improved, and things that may have been overlooked by the government are in actual fact fixed. There are examples, even during this session, where that has happened, where amendments were agreed upon with legislation — such as the safety around firefighters and the diseases that were associated with it. That would be an example where unanimously that legislation was amended and put into place.

However, until now we have not had any opportunity to debate any portions of an agreement. Contrary to what has been mentioned in the discussion to date, including by the previous speaker, is the lack of scrutiny that has been applied to this very, very important piece of legislation, the Trade, Investment Labour Mobility Agreement, and all the various components that are contained in it.

The provinces are not lined up to sign on to this practice. When we begin to look at this piece of legislation, B.C. is out all by itself. The concerns that have been raised and the questions that have been brought up around the legislation, contrary to my honourable colleague from the other side, are the concerns raised by organizations — concerns about the effects of this legislation, remembering that when you look back over an eight-year period of time, this was a government whose mantra was deregulate, deregulate, deregulate.

We've had ministers stand up and talk gleefully to the regulations that were thrown out. Then lo and behold, as time passed, what was discovered? "Whoops. Man, we should have had those regulations in place, because they looked after the safety and well-being of British Columbians." When you look at the broader area, if you want to talk about the economics, which my colleagues from the other side have brought up, look at the effect of deregulation upon the forest industry as an example and where it has ended up.

Coming back more specifically to the legislation that is in front of us, this bill does require the scrutiny of this House. It does require answers to the questions as we move through it at the third reading stage. There are reasons why this bill should be subject to scrutiny, and then British Columbians will have a look at the value that it has. Remember that regulations, when they are set aside…. It is in the future that the effect of those regulations not being there becomes obvious.

I've already pointed out no discussion on the overlying principle. That was signed off. The implementation — no time. Eight minutes — closure. What also is in my mind: would we even have this limited time to look at just one portion of this if the reconciliation act had not fallen off the table?

When you put it into that context, this is part of a general aspect of the secrecy that has been in place in this House through the period of time that I've been here. Put legislation in front of the House, allow limited time to do it, and allow the cabinet to set up the regulations in privacy outside of the scrutiny. That has been the practice. That is what has come out.

[1820]

One aspect that has been forgotten, in my judgment, is the responsibility in this House to look after the safety and well-being of the people that are here. That is part of what labour mobility is about. That is part of where the concerns that are being raised right across the province…. Those are part of the reasons why, in actual fact, British Columbia is out here all by itself.

Once in a while you end up with a situation like the Charge of the Light Brigade. You're out there all by yourself, and there's a reason why you're out there all by yourself. There's good reason why you should have been sitting back, looking at this and having questions asked and answered. There is good reason why we are here carrying on with this particular debate.

Now, coming back more specifically to the labour mobility aspect of it, the intent of this is to ensure full labour mobility across Canada, and that requires changes, agreement, on the internal trade aspect. So what we have is a bill that is a cut-and-paste to allow this to be the case. Similar trade and labour agreements in Canada have prompted opposition due to concerns over the lack of public consultation and negative effects for municipalities, Crown corporations, the environment, labour standards and professional certifications.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Those are concerns that have been raised over this type of legislation. Those are reasons why there are questions that have developed and that require answering as we move through the discussion and debate on this
[ Page 14787 ]
bill. Now, when we look at other particular provinces around this aspect, some of the organizations…. There is a cross-section of them, both from professional as well as from the labour portion of it.

Being from rural British Columbia, the first example I would like to discuss and put on record here is of concerns raised by the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons, when you're looking at this portion under labour mobility. My colleagues have raised the concerns about contributing to a doctor shortage in the province. However, there's another concern that has been raised by this particular body:

"A regulatory body will have to show that the lack of credentials renders someone unfit to practise, requiring the college to prove a negative" — relatively more difficult to do in this line of work. "A college may have to automatically accept someone even if there are concerns that the person is unfit to practise."

This particular group goes on:

"It concerns us that the agreement will downgrade standards for physicians across the country, with possible significant effect on the supply and distribution of physicians, who may shop around to pick the best place to obtain a restricted licence."

Now, from the registrar is a more practical, down-to-earth aspect of it, with concerns that are there:

"We had raised concerns about something we referred to as 'fitness to practise,' which means that a physician who comes with a mental health problem, an addiction problem, a blood-borne disease that affects the procedures they are going to use…. If you look to the wording of the agreement, it seems to me it would be difficult to say the college doesn't automatically have to accept that kind of person.

"The agreement may force all provinces to adopt lower standards as common interest, and our concern is that it may result in a sort of a race to the bottom, in the sense that the minimal credentials anywhere become the standard that has to be applied somewhere."

Now, I recognize the time that is here. There are many more questions that I do wish to pursue around this act, but noticing the time, I move adjournment of the debate, reserving my right to pick up.

C. Wyse moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175