2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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)

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 5

[ Page 1137 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: On behalf of myself and the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and — I think in fairness — the member for Parksville-Qualicum, I want to recognize in the gallery today the chair of school district 68, Donna Allen; vice-chair David Murchie; Nelson Allen, school trustee; Andrea Bonkowski, school trustee; and Dot Neary, school trustee.

As we all know, those at the bottom of the political chain — the least paid and heavily worked and dedicated to public education…. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: A constituent in the gallery today, Mr. Steve Hammer, is a financial adviser from Salmon Arm and a constituent of mine from the Shuswap. He is visiting the Legislature today with a number of other financial advisers who are part of the Financial Advisers Association of Canada, otherwise known as Advocis.

Today at the lunch hour members from both sides of the Legislature, in a typically non-partisan process so typical of the proceedings here in this chamber, enjoyed both a very nice lunch with Advocis and also the opportunity to learn a little bit more about the business of financial advisory services and how they might be improved.

I'll just mention the leaders of the organization who are joining us in the gallery today. David Webb is the chair of the B.C. political advocacy committee, Greg Pollock is the president and CEO of Advocis, and Kris Birchard is the chair of the Advocis board. I would like all members to please make them welcome.

[1335]

V. Huntington: It is my pleasure today to introduce two individuals who have been in Victoria to attend the Gathering and Sharing Wisdom Conference sponsored by the University of Victoria and the Indigenous Child Welfare Research Network.

In the gallery are Miss Trish Naziel, Wet'suwet'en, a member of the Moricetown band and the community family support worker in Moricetown. With Miss Naziel is my great friend and mentor Miss Bonita Danes, Gitxsan, a member of the Gitanmaax band and the house of Wii Gaak — which is my house, I'm proud to say — and the social development program manager at Moricetown.

I would like to add that our hon. Deputy Speaker recalls meeting both women during a trip to Moricetown as minister and passes on her regards. Would the House make my friends feel welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm very pleased today to welcome to the gallery guests from Elsie Roy Elementary School in Vancouver–False Creek. I would like to introduce teachers Doug McMillan, Melissa McCleary, Kelly Egilsson and Avril McLachlan, along with parents Marnie and Gilda, who have come with their students in grade 5. I had the pleasure of meeting with them at their school last week, and I'm really pleased that they're able to be here this week. I would like you all to make them feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: I'm very proud today to welcome to the House 25 officers from Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt. They are currently involved in the professional military education program. They include navy, air force and army officers. They're here with their teacher Mona Brash. I would like the House to give them a very good welcome.

L. Reid: Today I have two guests in the chamber. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Dr. Dana Brynelsen and Judith Oldfield. True leadership deserves our thanks. I rise today to extend a heartfelt thank-you to both these women who have devoted their careers to the babies of British Columbia — Dr. Brynelsen as provincial adviser and Judith Oldfield as the adviser for Vancouver Island.

There have been Canadian firsts under Dr. Brynelsen's leadership — the first infant development program in Canada since 1975 — and the first aboriginal infant development program in Canada was founded in British Columbia. Today Dr. Brynelsen is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. I would ask every member of this House to join with me in thanking her and offering every possible encouragement as her treatment proceeds.

B. Ralston: I too want to join with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations in welcoming the members of Advocis, who are the Financial Advisers Association of Canada. I'd also like to extend the greetings and the welcome of this side of the House to their leaders: David Webb, who's the B.C. chair; Greg Pollock, the president and chief executive officer of the national organization; and Kristan Birchard, the chair of the national board.

And if I might say, Mr. Speaker, I was particularly moved by the conversion — very recent, admittedly — of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations to non-partisan status.

D. Hayer: I also wanted to say thank you and welcome to two special guests from the same lunch we enjoyed today. One is Mrs. Gail Sidhu, and the other one is her husband, Charanjit Sidhu. He is a community leader in Surrey and Lower Mainland of the greater Vancouver area, and he is also the president of the Vancouver Financial Advisers Association of Canada. He often
[ Page 1138 ]
goes on radio stations in the Punjabi language — and also TV stations — to explain the government policies in Punjabi and does a great job of it.

He's a great friend of the community and a great leader. Could you please make them very welcome.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome two women who have made great contributions to the communities of the Cowichan Valley over many years and continue to do so.

The first is Ann Andersen. Ann is the chair of the Cowichan Valley school district. She has a long history in the valley. She's been a columnist and a reporter and currently still does that work from time to time. She is very community-connected as a community leader and maintains friends on all sides of the political spectrum. I have great respect for Ann.

Joining her in the gallery is Diana Gunderson, who is a great friend. She's the vice-chair of the Cowichan Valley school board.

[1340]

She's a retired high school teacher, and — not wanting to betray too many advantages to our opposition — I'll tell you, you have to campaign door to door with a retired high school teacher, because they open the door and say: "Hello, Ms. Gunderson. How are you?" And she says: "This is my friend Doug."

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

And then they go: "Yeah, well, that's fine. How are you, Ms. Gunderson?" So it definitely breaks down barriers when you campaign with a retired high school teacher.

I'd like to thank both of them for all their contributions to the communities of the Cowichan Valley and for their longstanding friendship.

P. Pimm: I'd also like to stand and welcome a constituent of mine to the House today. Mr. Brad Brain is a member of the Advocis group.

N. Simons: I'd like to welcome today to the House Allen Cummings, who I've worked with in the area of child welfare. I'm pleased to see him here working on behalf of the Wet'suwet'en Nation as they set up their own child welfare agency. Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: Also as part of the Advocis group here today, a good friend and constituent of mine, Mr. Bob Cowan. I hope the House will make him welcome.

M. Mungall: I'd like the House to make welcome a constituent of mine, Sheryl Anne Kennedy. She's a young mom, a nursing student. It's very rare that constituents from Nelson-Creston make it all the way to Victoria, so please make her welcome.

H. Bloy: I would like to make two introductions today. I had the privilege of having lunch with two students, from close to my area, from Mediated Learning Academy. I had lunch with Victoria Hitchen and Michelle Stein, and they challenged me on the future of British Columbia.

This group has been over many times, and I would like to record their names for history in Hansard. I would like to read out the names of the students that are visiting today. Fisal Khan is the teacher — Jennifer Pritchard, Peter Woods, Krista Wuensche, Kristina Wilson, Steven Chang, Kelly Hill, Ashley Secrest.

The students are Jose Yanez, Jonathan Giang, Sheldon Hillman, Jacob Comin, Qahir Hirani, Safeer Jivraj, Mathew Tom-Wing, Chantal Martin, Kayla Logan, Charis Hughes, Nahim Bhatia, Pearl Yang, Forest Graves, Victoria Tai, Anthony Shum, Stephanie Cruz, Marisa Cannon, Mary Ann Saunders, Sam Lai, Sung Min Yang, Celine Poulin and Willy Tan. I ask the House to make these young people truly welcome today.

I have the privilege of introducing a group from China from Jiangsu Community Health and Women and Children Services. I look forward to meeting them here later today: Mr. Shen Zhihong, Mr. Qin Cheng, Mr. Yu Guosheng, Mr. Xia Xianquan, Ms. Zhuge Moyi and Ms. Wu Shanfeng.

S. Herbert: Myself and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country had the pleasure of a good discussion and lunch with Ronald Russell and Vic Scarpe and the president of the Greater Vancouver area for Advocis, Charanjit Sidhu. I want to welcome them to this House and thank them for their financial advice, since we certainly all could use some.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, 20 years ago one of your predecessors occupying the high office of Speaker lent his title to a trophy that is awarded annually in a tennis tournament that takes place between members of this assembly and members of the press gallery. Since 1989 the gallery and members of this assembly have gathered on the grass court field of battle and done battle.

[1345]

I have to tell members that in the aftermath of the election, numbers were down on both sides. The press gallery fielded the top-seeded players Les Leyne and Keith Baldrey; the assembly, the unseeded Clerk of the assembly and me.

However, modesty precludes me from disclosing the actual outcome, except to tell members this. When the tournament began, this assembly had won 18 of 19 tournaments. By the conclusion of the tournament, this assembly has won 19 of 20 tournaments.

I thank the gallery, I thank the Clerk, and I invite all members next year — around June — to be aware of the tournament and to come and have a good time in this annual event.
[ Page 1139 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill Pr403 — Victoria foundation
amendment act, 2009

R. Sultan presented a bill intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009.

R. Sultan: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Sultan: The Victoria Foundation is in many ways a core philanthropic institution of this community, hosting some 72 other societies and philanthropies, and each year giving away millions of dollars to causes ranging from autism to Alzheimer's, to aboriginal scholarships and to the Pacific Opera.

This rather longstanding organization, an act going back some 73 years, has encountered some technical difficulties and requires amending at this time.

In the financial meltdown, the general guideline by which most foundations operate — namely, "Thou may disburse income but never capital" — has in this case forced the foundation to consider ceasing all donations until capital markets improve. Given the wide scope of impact of this foundation, the directors have decided to seek relief from that particular provision in its charter.

A second issue has arisen in terms of some ambiguity in language as currently interpreted by the Canadian Revenue Agency. They seek clarification to ensure that there's absolutely no doubt as to their standing as a charitable organization.

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

Bill Pr403, Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402 — Trustee Board of the
Church of God, Richmond
Municipality, B.C. (Corporate
Restoration) Act, 2009

R. Howard presented a bill intituled Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009.

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

Motion approved.

R. Howard: This is simply to restore the society to the registrar of companies, as it has been over ten years that an unintentional omission to file caused the society to be struck from the registrar.

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

Bill Pr402, Trustee Board of the Church of God, Richmond Municipality, B.C. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2009, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

DOWNTOWN VICTORIA
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

C. James: As we celebrate Small Business Month in B.C., I rise to recognize an organization that represents many small businesses in my community. Victoria is regarded as one of the top downtowns in North America. No doubt one of the reasons that it receives such a high rating is because of the work being done by the Downtown Victoria Business Association.

The association represents hundreds of businesses in downtown Victoria. It collaborates with many partners to reinforce and enhance the wonderful attributes of Victoria's downtown, while making important contributions to our community.

The association is a voice and an advocate for a vibrant and prosperous downtown. Every September it provides an opportunity to local artists to come downtown and sketch and profile their work.

[1350]

By funding and supporting projects like the retail theft prevention project, the greater Victoria commission to end homelessness, the clean team or grants for the purchase and installation of lighting for buildings, the downtown association plays an incredible role and serves in so many different ways.

Today I'd like to applaud the work that Downtown Victoria Business Association is doing to ensure we have a healthy, safe and welcoming downtown in Victoria. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for all they do.

INFANT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it's about the babies. If you are concerned about your child's development, the infant development program can help. For more than three
[ Page 1140 ]
decades now, the infant development program has been serving families whose little ones, birth to three, either have or are at risk for developmental delays or disabilities.

The infant development program continues to focus on the home life of these young children and on giving parents and other family members the support they need to provide loving environments that will encourage the development of their children.

Infant development consultants are expert in parent-child attachment. The wide range of family-centred services provided by the dedicated staff and volunteers includes play groups, parent-infant interaction groups and family support services.

The infant development program recognizes that a child's early years are of critical importance and that identifying developmental challenges early is crucial so that appropriate services can be accessed.

Every year an estimated 8,000 children are helped by this wonderful organization. Many live in Richmond East, where we have an outstanding program which serves 450 families each year. The extraordinary diversity of Richmond is also honoured by the fact that service is provided in English, Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi and Korean.

I'd like to recognize the infant development program staff in Richmond: Carolyn Keith, Annie Hung, Ramnik Ahluwalia, Michelle Bulthuis, Stella Wong, Grace Yip, Jenny Shin and Ann McCormick.

All children flourish when they're supported by welcoming family members, peers and professionals. I ask this House to recognize the outstanding services that the infant development program continues to provide. Congratulations on 3½ decades of service to the babies of B.C.

More than 80,000 infants and their families have been served by this program over its lifetime, with approximately 40,000 home visits each and every year.

Dr. Brynelsen, you have built an amazing legacy, and we thank you.

LABOUR DISPUTE AT EXTRA FOODS

M. Sather: There's some light at the end of the tunnel for a long, ongoing labour-management dispute in my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

The workers at the Extra Foods store located in downtown Maple Ridge have been on strike for over nine months now, manning the picket lines rain or shine and, if anyone remembers our last winter, snow. I talk to the workers regularly, and I can tell you that they are a determined lot — something one can understand considering that they have been without a contract since 2004.

Though this dispute is between management and the workers, the seniors of Maple Ridge have been greatly affected. The store is located close to a number of seniors homes, and these seniors were able to walk to Extra Foods to do their shopping. Many of these seniors are unable to drive, and this location allowed them to get their groceries independently and conveniently.

Having Extra Foods nearby with reasonable prices has become even more important recently. Due to discontinuation of the seniors outreach program, it is more difficult for many of our seniors to get assistance for shopping as well as to obtain their medications and attend medical appointments.

The workers did not want this dispute and had requested mediation months ago, but the company refused, and the work stoppage has dragged on and on. Thankfully, I hear that the company has come back to the bargaining table, agreeing to mediation. Hopefully, this means the store will be open soon, employing people and filling its invaluable role in our community.

HOMELESSNESS ACTION WEEK

S. Cadieux: Next week from October 11 to October 17 we recognize the fourth annual Homelessness Action Week in B.C. Homelessness is an issue we must address, and this is an opportunity to identify the men and women who live on the streets and the people who help them in their daily lives.

This year local communities around B.C. are taking action by hosting local events, allowing those in need to benefit from services like haircuts, veterinary care, acupuncture, resumé writing and, as well, backpack drives at community schools for warm clothes and hygiene products. In Surrey the Surrey Urban Mission is hosting multiple events, including a Thanksgiving lunch.

[1355]

This is about taking action. Through initiatives like the homelessness intervention project, which has successfully housed 102 people in just Surrey alone, we can help people like Lorne. Lorne lived in a Surrey park, supported himself by picking up pop bottles and eating at soup kitchens. With the help of outreach workers, he now has secure accommodation.

We must work with partners at all levels to create supportive housing. These successful partnerships have built 702 units in Surrey in the last eight years.

Fighting homelessness is also about connecting people with health care, addiction services and stable homes — a stable foundation on which to build independence. Taking action against homelessness is now more important than ever during a global economic turndown.

I would like to acknowledge the Surrey Urban Mission and all of the organizations and communities that support Homelessness Action Week. Let's also take this opportunity to recognize those British Columbians who find themselves without a home and to taking the steps necessary towards ending the cycle of homelessness.
[ Page 1141 ]

REPORT ON QUALITY
OF LIFE IN VICTORIA

R. Fleming: Today I'd like to recognize in this House an innovative and important process that tells us how well our communities are doing in terms of their quality of life.

Vital Signs is an annual community checkup conducted by community foundations across Canada to measure the vitality of our cities; to identify demographic, social and economic trends; and to assign grades based on these performance indicators in areas that measure our quality of life.

The use of indicators and report cards to assess community needs and opportunities is a growing trend in Canada for policy-makers, for community organizations and for citizens wanting to make a difference where they live, where they work and where they raise their families.

Embarking on their fourth year of publication, the Victoria Foundation is utilizing this report card to make connections between issues and trends that at first glance sometimes seem unrelated. Victoria's Vital Signs report card measures the health of our city and evaluates 11 areas critical to Victoria's vitality. It presents information in key areas such as learning, health, housing, the environment and affordability in the community.

Data included in this annual report has been gathered in cooperation with a number of institutions in our community. It is analyzed and interpreted by the Victoria Foundation to then evaluate the capital region as a place to live, learn, work and grow.

As our community's oldest and largest philanthropic foundation, the Victoria Foundation is very well suited to this kind of initiative because of the broad role it plays in working with and funding a wide range of community organizations, not just one charity or sector.

Across Canada Vital Signs report cards are giving each community foundation, its donors and the community at large valuable insights into the strengths, challenges and opportunities that exist in our community. Measuring the vitality of the capital region and other Canadian communities through Vital Signs helps to make this happen.

I wish to thank all of the volunteers that have put together this fourth annual report.

RESPONSE TO FOREST FIRES
IN CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN AREA

D. Barnett: To date in the Cariboo-Chilcotin there have been over 460 forest fires. Some are still active. Natural causes account for over 325 of these fires, and 135 human-made. The estimated cost in my area: over $40 million to fight these fires; 500 firefighters, many of whom are volunteers; homes lost, five, and one historic post office.

I would like to thank today the B.C. Ministry of Forests, the forest fire fighters from all walks of life, volunteers, the Cariboo regional district board and staff whose authority under the Local Government Act work with all agencies and citizens to ensure safety of life and limb of humans and animals.

I would like to thank the provincial emergency program staff, the RCMP and the search and rescue — to the many volunteers who gave of their time so unselfishly in my region to ensure that the comforts and safety of all citizens were met.

[1400]

I am proud to announce that in my area, where most of our firefighters are volunteers, on Saturday there will be two new fire halls opening — one in memory of a pioneer by the name of Shorty Horn and the other in the memory of a firefighter, Sonny Johnson. These halls were built by volunteers, volunteer firefighters and their wives, local citizens, through the industrial community's and businesses' donations and support from the B.C. gaming branch.

I ask this House today to thank the volunteers, the firefighters and the agencies for their great work during the forest fire season in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON CHILD LABOUR
REGULATIONS IN B.C.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia woke up today to a shocking report. It shows that since this government rewrote the child labour laws in 2004, ten times more children are getting injured working in British Columbia — children as young as 12, 13 and 14. This report is an indictment of this government and their direction.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will he admit today that his government was wrong to change child labour laws, which has put children in British Columbia at risk?

Hon. M. Coell: I think members on both sides of the House take reports like this very seriously. Any injury is one too many, I know, for all members of this House.

I can remind the member, though, that when the changes took place in 2003, the age of children able to work did not change. The employment standards did not change, and the occupational safety programs did not change. What changed was a permit system that wasn't working. A few hundred permits were taken out per year, and government knew that there were literally thousands of young people working.

What we've done is allow parents and employers to be involved in their children's work, while allowing children to be protected by all of the same protections that are there for all workers.
[ Page 1142 ]

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

C. James: This minister should be ashamed. He should be ashamed for standing up and trying to defend this government's failure to protect children in the workplace. There were warnings well before this government brought in their changes. People across this province warned that the changes would be damaging for children, and they pushed ahead anyway. Today we have the weakest rules on child labour in this country, here in British Columbia.

This is what the report says: "Since the new law came into force in 2004, B.C. is the only province that does not place legislative or regulatory restrictions on the type of occupations, tasks or time of day that a child can work."

Again, my question is to the minister. Whether it's the shocking increase in work-related injuries, the worst child poverty rate in this country or more homeless kids, why do B.C. children always come last with this government?

Hon. M. Coell: I needn't remind the member that during the years of the NDP government, there also were large numbers of people who were injured in the workforce. That does not make that right — now or in those days. We want to make sure that we are working to protect children if they choose to work in the workforce.

WorkSafe B.C. has increased regulations. It has increased the number of times they're in schools with programs to talk directly to students. It has a number of programs it has initiated in our term of office that deal directly with employers, telling them what rights they need to look for and how they need to supervise young people who are working for them. WorkSafe is doing an excellent job on protecting young people. They can, of course, do more, and we will do more.

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

C. James: How can the minister stand and say that an excellent job is being done when there's a tenfold increase in the injuries for children in British Columbia?

[1405]

This government was warned before they brought in the changes. A 2003 report said that the new rules would take away kids' ability to finish high school and leave them vulnerable to exploitation, but the government ignored all the warnings and stripped the rules down.

We now have the worst labour laws for children in this country, ten times more children being injured, and they're being hurt in jobs that include construction, manufacturing and the oil and gas sector. These children that are getting hurt aren't being monitored. They don't have a voice, and they certainly don't have a say.

So my question is again to the minister. Will he admit today in this House that the government was wrong to rewrite those child labour laws, and will he put in place protections for children in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: The member seems to prefer a regime that had a permit system that a few hundred people took out permits, and literally thousands of people were working. Young people were working and not having the protection they needed. WorkSafe in the last ten years has done a great deal of work to educate employers, to educate parents, to educate school boards and individuals on safety. They will continue to do that.

R. Chouhan: The report also says: "When B.C. abandoned the permit system overseeing the employment of children, it also abandoned keeping track of how many children are working…. Due to a lack of data, it is very difficult to estimate the number of children participating in the workforce."

My question is to the Minister of Labour. How does he explain not having a system to collect child labour data when we are seeing a record high increase in child labour injuries?

Hon. M. Coell: I hope the member isn't suggesting that their permit system was actually keeping track of those young people who were working in the system. It certainly wasn't. There were literally thousands and thousands of young people working in the system that weren't tracked by the NDP government. We have brought in the fact that parents and employers need to agree that the employment of an individual is important.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members. Members, we've got somebody that's asked a question. We've got somebody that's going to answer the question.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said to the previous speaker, the age of children working did not change. The protection of workers has actually increased. WorkSafe has increased their programs to deal with parents and employers so that they work together. Any injury on the job in this province is one too many, and I would hope that all members of this House agree.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: The question is then: what has this government done in the last eight years to protect the children? You have miserably failed to protect the children in B.C.

Under the current rules, all an employer needs to hire a child as young as 12 is the permission of only one
[ Page 1143 ]
parent or guardian. Here is what the report says: "While the new law required the written consent for their children to work, 58.3 percent of 12- to 14-year-olds with jobs reported that their employer did not receive written approval from their parents."

So my question again to the minister: why aren't even the most minimal laws being followed?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that the occupational health and safety regulation applies to all workers in this province equally, no matter what age they are. The member also knows that having parents and employers working with children who want to work is a good thing. Increasing the number of programs that WorkSafe has for children, for employers and for parents is a good thing. WorkSafe is continuing to develop programs and continuing to work with employers and children and parents.

[1410]

M. Elmore: Worst child poverty rate in Canada for six years, kids of homeless working parents living on the streets, $6 training wage and now ten times more 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds getting injured working. To the minister: what does it take for this government and this minister to take steps to protect B.C.'s kids?

Hon. M. Coell: The member seems to be looking back to the days when we had the highest youth unemployment rate in this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: I think everyone in this House wants to make sure that we have safe workplaces for the workers of this province. I think that WorkSafe has done an excellent job in the last ten years of looking to what they can do, what programs they can put in place for young workers. They have done that. They're continuing to do that. They're continuing to look at the statistics that they get and build on those programs, and they'll continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Today under this government, we see the highest injury rate for kids. The report says B.C. is noteworthy as the only province that does not set out in law or regulation the occupations, tasks or time of day for children to work.

This government was warned for years about the deficiencies of the new rules, and they pushed ahead anyway. Today B.C. has become a national shame on child labour conditions.

So my question is to the minister. Twelve-year-olds working in dangerous jobs, ten times more kids getting hurt — is this the kind of reputation he thinks should make B.C. noteworthy? What is he going to do about it, and when is he going to end this?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, every injury on a job in this province is important — and, I would hope, to both sides of this House. I know it is to WorkSafe B.C.

We wanted to make sure that parents were involved with employers, that employers knew they had a responsibility for supervision and for safety. This occupational safety regulation has not changed. The age at which a young person can work has not changed. WorkSafe has improved many of the programs that it has for people who are working at a young age, and they'll continue to do that.

M. Karagianis: It does not look like this government is taking this report seriously at all. The reality, the bottom line, is that child injuries are up. What is this minister going to do about it?

Hon. M. Coell: The member might want to go back and look at some of the years when the NDP were government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: I can tell you that WorkSafe has publications and promotional material in all schools. There is a planning 10 mandatory program for students approximately age 15 on safety. School-based programs and programs for employers are all in place and continue to evolve.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: The reality is that injuries are up tenfold here in the province of British Columbia. This is an indictment against this government. They changed the legislation that has now endangered children here in the province of British Columbia, and we want to know: what are they going to do about it?

[1415]

Are they going to take the recommendations and put them in place or not? What is the minister going to do to stop the injuries to children in the province of British Columbia?
[ Page 1144 ]

Hon. M. Coell: I have read the report, and I'll be meeting with First Call next week to discuss the report. But I can tell you — and I think the member should know — the great work that WorkSafe has done in the past decade on developing programs for young workers. Actually, young workers' accidents have gone down in the province over the last eight years and will continue to do that.

We need to work with WorkSafe. We need to work with employers and employees to make sure that our workplaces are safe.

S. Simpson: The report tells us: 70 percent of kids working without adult supervision, over 58 percent of employers employing kids without written approvals. The result: a tenfold increase in the number of kids — 12-, 13- or 14-year-olds — injured on the job. What is the minister going to do to protect these kids?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, the occupational and safety regulation applies to all workers. It has been strengthened. WorkSafe B.C. continues to look at new avenues to help the workplace safety, and they will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The minister continues to talk about WorkSafe and what they do. We are not talking about adults here. We're talking about 12-year-olds. These kids are at risk on the job. That's what this report tells us. What is the minister going to do to protect these children that he put to work?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said earlier, the NDP's work permit — which had been in place, actually, a decade before they were in government — did not track the number of people working. There were literally thousands and thousands of young people who were working in the province not being tracked.

We wanted to make sure that parents and employers had a written agreement if a young person was going to work for them. We have made sure that WorkSafe has enhanced their safety programs for schools, for individuals and for employers in the province, and they'll continue to do that.

PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES
AUTHORITY CONTRACT
WITH JONATHAN BURNS

A. Dix: We've seen in the last 24 hours how the lack of administrative control has damaged the e-health project in the Ministry of Health. Yesterday I asked the….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The page-turner has woken up, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Health….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Members, let's listen to the questions, and then we can listen to the answer.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Health about a contract that the PHSA, the Provincial Health Services Authority, gave to Dr. Jonathan Burns. Now, he's had 24 hours. Can he answer a very simple question about those contracts? Were they tendered, what were they for, and does he think they were a good idea?

Hon. K. Falcon: It would have been helpful if the member referred to the fact that he was referring to an incident from two years ago. I'd be happy to inform the member that those contracts are the subject of an RCMP investigation, as the member well knows.

I would also advise the member that there is a special prosecutor overseeing those investigations, as is appropriate. I'd also let the member know that the RCMP were very clear and specifically made clear to the Ministry of Health and the employees in the Ministry of Health not to discuss the incidents around the investigation in order to not jeopardize the investigation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

[1420]

A. Dix: It's a supplementary question to the Minister of Health. Presumably, we're not going to have to wait three, four or eight years to get answers about what's gone wrong with the government's e-health program. It's a very simple question. It's a very specific contract. The issue is untendered health contracts. He's responsible in this House for those contracts right now.

My question to the minister is very simple. It's a contract. Was it tendered, what was it for, and why did the Ministry of Health, while they were holding the same contractor under contract for $30,000 a month…? Why did the Provincial Health Services Authority engage in this contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is so typical of the Health critic to engage in reckless allegations and turn this into a Star Chamber as opposed to allowing an investigation to
[ Page 1145 ]
take place, which is underway. These are allegations — and they are serious allegations — involving a handful of public servants…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …from 2007.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: These are allegations with respect to a handful of public servants who are no longer with government that are being investigated by the RCMP under the purview of a special prosecutor. For that member to suggest that this should be the Star Chamber, where we act as judge and jury on those allegations, is reckless and irresponsible.

LABELLING OF B.C. WINES
AND WINES WITH OLYMPIC LOGO

L. Popham: Yesterday we heard about the 2010 games being used to sell knockoff Cowichan sweaters. Today let's talk about fake B.C. wine. For example, Jackson-Triggs Esprit wine has the Vancouver 2010 logo plastered on the front of the bottle even though it's nothing more than cheap foreign plonk.

Can the Minister of State for the Olympics tell me why this government is allowing phony wine to be sold under our B.C. Olympic logo?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two issues in the member's question. One was how wine is positioned as cellared in Canada in our liquor stores, which we are changing right now, as the member may be aware, because the discussion came up recently and came to our attention.

The second piece, though, is let's remember that the company that has signed an agreement for Olympic sponsorship is an international company. When they signed that agreement for sponsorship, they don't put it on wines they sell just in British Columbia but anywhere else in the world, if they wish, or on any apparel or whatever they want, because they have a licensing agreement with VANOC.

The reality is that there is an issue with regards to the blended wine versus B.C. 100 percent grape wine. That issue is being addressed and fixed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: I think that's quite interesting, because last week the minister was quoted as saying: "I'm not totally dissatisfied with the way it is now."

"We are showcasing our ability to deceive customers." That's what David Bond, the executive director of the B.C. Wine Growers, is saying about the Olympics.

Again to the Minister of State for the Olympics: why is she putting the reputation of our world-class B.C. wines at risk by allowing cheap foreign plonk to be sold under the B.C. Olympic logo?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, VQA wine is 100 percent grape wine. British Columbia's is probably the best wine in the world, and it's made in British Columbia.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member might also look at where Mr. Bond's bias is with the organization he represents and his long commitment to having arguments with regards to that premium wine in British Columbia through the wine industry in B.C.

In addition to that, let's recall this. An issue came to us that came across Canada with regards to blended wines in Canada. We said that we would look at the issue. We are looking at the issue. We're dealing with it in our stores. Across Canada that's also going to be done.

Labelling of this wine, by the way, Member, is not a responsibility of the provincial government. We don't have jurisdiction over labelling federally, but we are addressing the issue with the industry, who have agreed to find solutions with us so this issue can be dealt with and bring back the consumer confidence with regards to blended wines in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: My question is for the Minister of State for the Olympics, and we really hope she'll get up and prove she deserves to be a minister today.

If spinning Olympic knockoffs was a sport, this government would win a gold medal. Today tourists and locals alike are buying a cheap Olympic impostor wine under the misconception they are buying one of our fine B.C. wines. This is leaving a decidedly sour taste in the mouth of B.C. wine producers.

To the Minister of State for the Olympics: will she explain why this government has done nothing to ensure our Olympic wines are actually made in B.C.?
[ Page 1146 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: There's the VQA label in British Columbia that represents 100 percent pure B.C. grape wine. In B.C. it is the premium product, and everybody knows that in British Columbia who knows anything about wine.

There is an issue with regards to some blended wines that we're dealing with. It's amazing. This is an international company that sells wine all over the world, has wineries all over the world, and they have an Olympic sponsorship which is international.

I suppose the next thing the members are going to get up and say is: "You know what? Coca-Cola is a sponsor, but they better make all of the Coca-Cola they sell at the Olympics in the province of British Columbia." Get a grip, Member.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Get a grip, Members.

We're welcoming the world to an international event. We have international sponsors, and the B.C. wine that will be at the Olympics with Vincor and Jackson-Triggs will be 100 percent B.C. grapes, where we'll show the best wine in the country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: This government promised the Olympics were going to be an opportunity to show off B.C., but unfortunately, it's very clear from the answer that we just received that the government has absolutely no interest in using the Olympics to showcase local vineyards and wineries — absolutely no interest whatsoever.

Again to the Minister of State for the Olympics….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Corrigan: Will she commit right now to stop…?

Mr. Speaker: Member, just wait a second so we can hear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: Will she commit right now to stop the misleading and damaging practice of selling foreign wine under our B.C. Olympic label today?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I explained to the members opposite, we had a consumer issue. We're dealing with the consumer issue right now within our stores and with the relationship with the wine industry with regards to the consumer issue on blended wines.

[1430]

But make it very clear that they've made it very clear at the Olympic sponsorship site that they are going to use 100 percent B.C. VQA wine at the Olympics.

Just so you understand, that will be wine from a company named Vincor, owned by Constellation, because they have paid millions of dollars to have the opportunity to have a sponsorship to support the Olympics in British Columbia, which we're proud that they're prepared to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just wait.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Now that we've had the commentary from binder boy over there, perhaps we can get to the real issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: The public of British Columbia expects that when wine is sold bearing the Olympic logo of British Columbia, it is B.C. grapes and B.C. wine that's in the bottle. That's what they expect — nothing less.

When they buy that wine right now…. You pick up Naked Grape. It has the B.C. Olympic logo on it, and it says that it doesn't hide itself. Well, it is.

Can the minister stand in this House and guarantee that the wine that is sold with the B.C. Olympic logo on it, that represents our province, contains only B.C. grapes and only B.C. wine?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess we're lucky some French wine company didn't buy the Olympic sponsorship and support the B.C. Olympics. The fact of the matter is, a company that has wineries in British Columbia who make some of the best wines in the world here in British Columbia with 100 percent B.C. grapes has sponsored the Olympics. That's what the people of the world are going to see when they come to British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 1147 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2008-2009.

Hon. P. Bell: I rise to table the 2008 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission.

J. Horgan: I would like to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery is a good friend of mine from Sooke. He travelled on the treacherous Highway 14 to get here. His name is John Beauquest.

Stay right there. I'll come and get you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands — and in this chamber second reading of Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

Mr. Speaker: Members attending to other duties, could they do so quietly.

[1435]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Labour mobility act

Hon. M. Stilwell: I move that Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act, be read a second time.

This legislation reflects the leadership of our province and our commitment to help workers in the trades and professions. 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 collaboration across our country.

British Columbians can be proud of our efforts to give all Canadians the opportunity to live and work wherever they choose within our nation. Labour mobility is an important piece of our labour market strategy, affecting our ability to find and attract the people with the skills we need.

Many British Columbians may ask why we need labour mobility, why this legislation is necessary. Our province is confronted with a rapidly aging population. Our median age now exceeds 40, and by 2015 almost a third of B.C.'s population will be 55 years or older. In some sectors, retirements are expected to hit close to 75 percent of the present-day workforce. We must take action today to ensure that we can attract the human resources we need for tomorrow.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This bill is a significant leap towards ensuring that we have the labour resources necessary to lead Canada's economic recovery. While this bill supports a new-found level of labour mobility, it has precedence among the nationally recognized Red Seal–certified trades workers and their ability to practise anywhere in the country.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this bill is also about families and workers. For many years individuals have been challenged, forced to make tough career decisions because of their chosen professions when they could not move easily from one province to the next. These barriers to their movement, when based on small differences in terminology or academic course descriptions, have no place in our present economy.

Through the recently ratified agreement on internal trade, we now have the commitment from leaders in every jurisdiction — a commitment to families and individuals that brings certainty, where a professional or tradesperson knows that they will be able to fully use the advantages of their skills and experiences no matter where they have chosen to move in Canada.

This bill does not diminish the important role of provincial governing bodies responsible for oversight of key professions like doctors, nurses, lawyers and engineers. In fact, with the advent of full labour mobility ensured by the AIT, we anticipate these professional organizations will achieve new levels of open dialogue with their provincial counterparts.

We have had extensive discussions with regulators and have carefully considered their input into our legislation. 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.

Our present economy demands that governments, employers and workers be adaptable, flexible and responsive to change. That is why a new national agreement on labour mobility is great news for all Canadians, giving them the ability to take full advantage of their talents and training, anywhere in the country.

With the introduction of Bill 11, our province is laying a solid foundation for our future. We must ensure that we are ready to capture new opportunities that are certain to emerge when the global economy rebounds. To do that, we need a skilled workforce.

I ask that all members lend their support to this worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation. With that, I am pleased to move second reading.
[ Page 1148 ]

D. Black: Well, I am pleased to rise today to start debate for the official opposition, on Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

What we see in this bill is an implementation of chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade, as the minister said a moment ago. Chapter 7 was rewritten in December of '08 and states that provinces must harmonize their occupational standards and certification requirements. It requires that a worker certified in one province must be granted certification in any other province without requirement for additional training, examination or assessment.

Bill 11 says that chapter 17 of the AIT will govern the resolution of disputes arising from chapter 7, and changes to chapter 17 are currently being renegotiated with different provinces across the country.

[1440]

So it appears that this bill will put into law a provision for dispute resolution that is still being negotiated by many of the provinces, and actually, this has had no public discussion or consultation.

Trade Expert Steven Shrybman wrote a report in March of this year. It was called State of Play: Canada's Internal Free Trade Agenda. Mr. Shrybman, who is a noted trade lawyer, notes that 20 percent of Canadian workers are employed in regulated occupations or trades across the country. Provinces decide what standards are needed to ensure that workers are properly qualified and to ensure that people or public safety is not placed at risk.

Provinces have already established programs to reconcile competing standards, to ensure that provincial standards don't unduly impede labour mobility. We all agree that Canadians, no matter where they live in this country, should be able to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and work. That's not in question. It's how it's done that's important.

The changes made to the AIT in December of last year substantially expanded labour mobility provisions. I think it's important to get on the record what it states in that agreement. "Any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of a party" — which means the authorities and the provinces — "shall, upon application, be certified for that occupation by each other party which regulates that occupation without any requirement for any material…training, experience, examinations or assessments as part of the certification procedure."

I believe what that means is that a worker certified for occupation by any provincial regulator is entitled to work anywhere in Canada. We understand that people move. A spouse may be transferred. People need to be able to relocate and work in other jurisdictions without any undue hardship or financial costs, but the devil is in the details. The concern is that standards may be reduced across the country to the lowest common denominator.

I want to just for a moment look at the situation for social workers in British Columbia. Here in B.C. the College of Social Workers has a minimum standard of a bachelor of social work. But in Alberta they have a minimum standard of a two-year diploma only, not a university degree.

So unless this government and the minister put through a notice of exemption to ensure that people working in British Columbia as social workers have attained a bachelor of social work, we'll have people working in British Columbia alongside our social workers who have a bachelor's degree, as social workers, working with vulnerable people when they haven't achieved the same level of education or training that B.C. social workers have. That's a concern, one of the concerns that we want to hear addressed when we do the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill.

B.C. has experienced some very terrible child deaths, and the only good that comes from these tragedies is when we learn from the tragedies how to make our system a better one, a safer one. There appears to be no provision to raise standards in this bill. Our worry is that what we will see is a movement to the lower common denominator across all occupations and training. When we get to committee stage we'll be watching carefully to see what provisions the government has made to prevent a downward spiral.

Mr. Shrybman's report concludes that TILMA, other similar agreements currently in development and the recent changes to the AIT will only further deregulate provincial policies that protect communities and the environment and threaten public services.

It's quite possible that Bill 11 isn't needed at all. Virtually all the significant labour mobility issues have already been addressed through interprovincial cooperation. Impediments to labour mobility are now addressed through mutual recognition agreements in the Red Seal program. There have only been 23 labour mobility complaints, only 23 from 1996 to August of 2009, according to the AIT website, and only two of those complaints were upheld. It doesn't indicate a huge problem across this country with labour mobility.

We're concerned that Bill 11 may well make it impossible for B.C. regulators to establish or maintain higher occupational standards, as in the case that I mentioned earlier around social workers.

[1445]

The bill means that regulatory authorities will have the power to certify out-of-province workers without examination or assessment. Only the minister will be able to give exemptions to protect a higher standard.

The bill also allows the minister to rewrite the bylaws of a regulatory authority and allows out-of-province workers to sue authorities and force them to recognize their certification.

It appears that under Bill 11 only the jurisdiction with the higher standard can be challenged and penalized.
[ Page 1149 ]
There doesn't appear to be a way to challenge a lower standard or a standard that is inadequate. If this is the case, the bill then would undermine the Red Seal program, forcing every province to recognize workers certified under any other province's standards.

There's another concern that needs to be addressed, and that's around the dispute resolution. Knowledgable critics have said the AIT chapter 7 amendments raise the potential for totally deregulated trade certifications across our country. It may mean that every province will be forced to recognize the lowest certification requirements, and the dispute resolution that accompanies the labour mobility amendment would bring an administrative process to enforce lower standards.

The full impact of the chapter 7 amendments won't be known until every province passes legislation similar to Bill 11, which we're debating today. So here we have the government introducing legislation without any really clear idea of how the legislation will impact on our province. Again, like TILMA, without any public consultation.

The fear is that the result of Bill 11 will be to further weaken national standards for construction trades. Red Seal is currently the de facto national standard, but it's not obligatory. Red Seal only sets out the minimum requirements, but without any national measure, Red Seal does at least set a standard.

The apprenticeship training community, the instructors, the employers, labour and academics have lobbied for years to support the Red Seal standard. We're concerned that under Bill 11, Red Seal will mean less and less, and national standards will be subject to a downward spiral, a downward spiral with no bottom and no minimum standards.

What we need here in British Columbia is a government that's committed to encouraging fully qualified and trained journey-level workers and professionals.

To conclude, it doesn't appear at this point, in looking at the bill, that Bill 11 is necessary. It's not clear which process supersedes. Is it AIT? Is it TILMA? Is it Bill 11?

We look forward to the committee stage of Bill 11, where we can examine the bill clause by clause — hopefully, get answers to these questions and concerns that we have. We will be articulating other concerns and questions during the second reading debate.

It's possible that Bill 11 is not necessary to resolve mobility issues. This government has done no public consultation. In fact, in some of the phoning around that we've done to affected regulatory organizations in British Columbia, some of them are totally unaware of this bill.

It's important that British Columbians can move across the country and work, but we have to ensure that this is not done at the expense of professional care or trade quality. We'll be watching carefully to see how this government protects the interests of all British Columbians under Bill 11 as we go through the debate and the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill.

Thank you very much for your time.

D. Barnett: With many British Columbians nearing retirement age, labour mobility is vital for British Columbia's economy. With our legislation, we are supporting B.C. businesses, giving them the ability to attract the kind of skilled trades and professions that we need, removing outdated barriers that prevented these people from easily moving between provinces. The provincial government is taking action to ensure that British Columbians share in the opportunities created by freedom of labour mobility throughout Canada.

[1450]

B.C. has been a national leader in the move towards a labour mobility accord and has clearly demonstrated the mutual benefits of professional and trades recognition through the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement in place between British Columbia and Alberta and the subsequent improved labour mobility between the two provinces.

I have sons, and I can tell you that my sons are tradespeople. Without this act, my sons would not be able to come back to British Columbia for their trades. I'm proud to stand here today and support this act.

I understand the need in the business world today, what is happening to our economy and how we know that when this recession is over, we are going to have to act fast and have many tradespeople and people who are skilled labourers in this province. This gives us the opportunity to once again be first in Canada with our business community and our labour community and to support families.

R. Chouhan: I appreciate this opportunity to speak about Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act, 2009. I want to make it clear that nobody is against labour mobility. All we are concerned about is how it is done.

I am concerned about the standards that this bill talks about. It seems like, if you look at it carefully, there aren't any standards set out in the bill to ensure, to protect the jobs in B.C.

I'm concerned about the number of jobs that we have lost in British Columbia already under this government. Thousands upon thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Now, with Bill 11, when other workers are allowed to come here without any standards, what happens to those jobs? Those are the kinds of questions we need to ask. We will be asking more detailed questions at the committee stage.

In the meantime, I just want to make sure that the government understands that bringing this kind of bill without any public consultation does not serve any purpose, does not serve the needs of British Columbians. We have spoken to all the stakeholders. We have found
[ Page 1150 ]
out that none of them were consulted with. That's what we are concerned about.

It seems like, under Bill 11, it's a race to the bottom. For example, as my colleague has talked about, for social workers, we have a four-year-degree requirement in British Columbia. At the same time, in Alberta they have only a two-year course. So what happens? Would they come here and get the job? Our British Columbians spend four years at the university level and work hard and get those credentials, and then they're replaced by somebody with less training, less qualifications. Those are the kinds of concerns that we have.

We promote labour mobility. We need that, but at the same time, we must make sure that we do it in a way that workers' rights are not jeopardized, that the public is consulted, so that we have all those measures in place to make sure that when people come here, they meet the same standard.

Some provinces, I think, have higher standards for certain jobs. That's good. So why don't we set a national standard to have the same standards for all provinces under AIT? Then we can have Bill 11. I think that will work then.

Those are the kinds of concerns we have. I hope the government will listen when we ask those questions at the committee stage and ask for those changes or amendments — whatever is necessary — and they will pay attention.

K. Corrigan: This act has been put forward to implement an agreement on labour mobility that British Columbia and all the other provinces and territories entered into in December 2008 to expand the provisions of the agreement on internal trade, or the AIT.

I have some real concerns about this bill, so I'll have a lot of questions about its application when we get to the committee stage. I certainly support labour mobility and don't want to do anything to thwart labour mobility in this province, but I think we have to be very careful about how we do it.

[1455]

That's why I think it's going to be important, when we get to the committee stage, to ask a lot of really specific questions and pointed questions about what the application of the bill is going to do.

The reality is that the vast majority of workers can move from province to province without any barriers at all, so the need is not clear. There are certainly some situations that need to be addressed, but most significant mobility issues have been, over the last several years, addressed in recent years through other mechanisms — mechanisms with interprovincial cooperation, voluntary initiatives, recognizing the importance of the Red Seal program for skilled trades.

I would prefer that we go the route that we address issues of labour mobility through negotiation. That is certainly a method that has proven successful to date.

I think that we have to recognize the very real concern that international workers have. There are many immigrants that are coming into our country, and they're having real troubles having their skills recognized, their credentials recognized when they come to Canada.

I certainly think we need to work hard in that area and address some of those concerns, but that's a separate issue. Once somebody gets into Canada — that is what we are talking about with the agreement on internal trade and Bill 11.

I'm also concerned that this bill is tied up with the agreement on internal trade, which it is applying, which it is enabling, but also that the agreement on internal trade is tied to international trade agreements. I think you have to think of all of these — the bill, the agreement on internal trade and the international trade agreements — as a package.

I think we have to be very careful when we are dealing with this bill. As positive as it is in some ways, I think we have to remember that it's all tied together. We certainly have been, now, tied up in knots in this country with international and interprovincial trade agreements that I think are compromising the ability of governments to operate in the public interest — again, another reason why, when it gets to the committee stage, I'm going to have a lot of questions about the application. But I want to be very clear that I and, I believe, all my colleagues support labour mobility.

You can't look at this as a piece of stand-alone legislation. I referenced international trade agreements a minute ago. International trade agreements signed by the federal government obligate the federal government to also then make sure that the provincial governments comply.

Since Ottawa signed, first of all, the FTA and then NAFTA in 1993 and the WTO in 1998 — international trade agreements — the provinces have been pressured to establish interprovincial trade agreements so that Canada is on side with its international commitments. The AIT is certainly the flagship of these domestic efforts.

I think my colleague pointed out earlier that these international and interprovincial commitments were made without any consultation with the people of British Columbia, just as this government negotiated and signed the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, TILMA, behind closed doors and without any consultation with the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to compare that with the process in the 1990s, when the NDP government was looking at trade agreements. The provincial government had hearings across the province on the MAI, or multilateral agreement on investment. They had hearings that had dozens and dozens of submissions and people appearing before the committee.

[1500]
[ Page 1151 ]

I'd just like to go back. I had the real pleasure today of being able to go to this wonderful library that we have, and within minutes I had all the documents, the reports, the submissions and so on for the MAI in the 1990s. I have been a bit of a wonk in terms of trade agreements, so it was really great to have that great facility here and to be able to go and use it and enjoy it.

I'm just going to read a little bit from what that process was like in the 1990s. This is from the submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on future international trade and investment negotiations, presented by Joan Smallwood, as the Chair, to the House of Commons in April of 1999. It's just a little bit of a summary of the work that had been done in B.C.

B.C. had a special committee on the MAI, and this is what they said.

"The multiparty special committee on the MAI was appointed by a unanimous vote in the B.C. Legislative Assembly on April 27, 1998, to review the MAI and related international issues and to increase public awareness about them.

"The committee has conducted its work in two stages. During the first stage, held last fall, the committee heard from over 70 expert witnesses, not only from British Columbia but from across Canada and the United States, as well as from France and the European Union. Copies of the committee's first report, which was issued in January, are being provided to each of you today. Additional copies are available at the back of this room.

"The second stage of the committee's work involved engaging British Columbians in a dialogue about the MAI and related international investment issues. The committee was privileged to have very thoughtful presentations from citizens in Terrace, Prince George, Nelson, Courtenay, Surrey, Kelowna, Kamloops, at UBC in Vancouver and Burnaby. The committee's second report will be tabled in the Legislature later this spring."

Then, of course, there's a website that people could go to, and the report goes on.

I think the important point is the comparison between the approach that British Columbia took when they were considering whether or not they wanted to be part of, and support, the MAI and what we are dealing with now, with the way not only this government but the federal government is making these commitments without consultation and behind closed doors.

I've got to say that at the end of the day, when the people were consulted, they opposed the agreement. They decided that it was against their own best interests, and they opposed it, and the provincial government of the time approached it….

Again, compare that with what happened with TILMA — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. It was negotiated with Alberta entirely behind closed doors, with absolutely no public consultation.

After the fact, there was a two-year implementation period for local governments, and during that time the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the UBCM, expressed grave concerns about a number of the provisions in the agreement but, essentially, were shut down on almost every single one of their concerns. They were ignored.

With the expansion of the agreement on internal trade and labour mobility provisions, which has triggered the need for this enabling legislation which we are talking about today…. The agreement was negotiated behind closed doors, without any public consultation.

In fact, there is another piece of this which has to do with enforcement, and there have been small pieces of information — on a federal website, I believe — that indicate that like TILMA there will be penalties of up to $5 million per incident. In other words, you could have millions and millions of dollars if you added up more than one person bringing a claim with regard to certification. But that part of it we haven't seen at all.

I think it's just a question of the government trying to coordinate and do this in a way that they think will get the least attention and that they can slide it in without public discussion. This is not what I call a democratic process.

Not only is the primary purpose of this agreement to fulfil commitments made by the province, but I would certainly argue it is part of a larger commitment made by this country under international trade agreements.

[1505]

I want to reiterate that just because this ties us to some international trade agreements or ties us to the commitments under AIT, that in and of itself is not reason to say that we will not support it. But I think it's important to have that context and that framework and to say that if we are going to enter into any kind of agreement that is tying us, up the ladder, to both federal and international trade agreements, we have to look carefully at it and make sure that we evaluate it very carefully.

Canada has negotiated several international trade agreements. We've made commitments in NAFTA — that's the Northern American Free Trade Agreement — in GATS, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and in a number of other multilateral or bilateral agreements.

About the same time as NAFTA and GATS were being negotiated was when the Canadian provinces were negotiating the agreement on internal trade, or AIT, which entered into force on the 1st of July, 1995. While NAFTA and the various WTO agreements deal with external trade, the AIT applies many NAFTA-style rules to trade within and between provinces.

I don't think anybody disagrees with the idea of trade. We certainly have made it clear that we are supportive of labour mobility. But these trade agreements have raised some serious concerns about national sovereignty, democracy and the ability of governments to regulate activities within their respective territories, the ability of governments to decide what they believe is in the best interests of their citizens.

Uncertainty about the implications of trade liberalization has been further heightened by the reliance upon dispute resolution panels to interpret the intricacies and
[ Page 1152 ]
ambiguities of these complex treaties. Interpretation can certainly vary from case to case.

One of the things that we were pondering yesterday and trying to figure out when we were sitting down and taking a look at this bill, and some of the questions that we need to ask about it, is that the TILMA and AIT disputes are resolved by way of tribunals. Those are trade tribunals.

We have real concerns about some of those tribunals as well, because they are held behind closed doors. One of the concerns we had about TILMA is that the governments which may be affected, the local governments, will not be allowed to represent themselves. They have to rely upon the province that they are in. When an issue is taken by one province and raised against another, then they have to rely on the province.

Frankly, I know that in the case of the UBCM, they expressed real concern. They felt that the province had imposed this agreement upon them, this B.C. government, without real consultation and without listening to their very real concerns about the impact that it could have on issues like zoning and so on. They felt that if this was the government that was imposing it upon them, how could they rely on this government to represent their interests as municipalities in any kind of dispute that came up before a tribunal?

That was a real concern, and I think we have to remember that concern. Although this bill says that the way that you resolve disputes is through the courts, TILMA dispute resolution, as I've just said, is done through panels. It's very unclear — and, again, we'll have to ask these questions in committee — what the mechanism is going to be and what reigns and how the two are going to fit together.

Can somebody from another province — particularly Alberta, and perhaps any other province — come to British Columbia and make a claim that their credentials should be accepted? Do they use the TILMA? Do they use the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement? Do they go through the courts because of Bill 11? Or do they do some combination of the two? It's very unclear.

What is also unclear about the implications of TILMA, which is a much harsher trade agreement in terms of what is imposed upon us, is whether or not the provisions of TILMA will actually be superimposed or laid over the provisions of Bill 11. This is very unclear.

[1510]

I am very concerned that we don't want to take a look at the Labour Mobility Act without taking into account how these agreements, both here and federally, and internationally, all fit together.

I mentioned earlier that I'm a wonk for this stuff. I'll tell you, if anybody ever wants to have a good piece of non-fiction work that can put them to sleep at night, I encourage them to buy, because there are a few copies left still, a copy of a book called Whose Canada? published by McGill–Queen's University Press, in which I wrote a chapter entitled — the scintillating title — "The Impact of Trade Agreements on Subnational Governments."

For anybody who has trouble sleeping, I highly recommend that book. I think there are a few around still. It will cure your inability to sleep.

One of the problems with agreements that deal with trade, labour mobility and investment, right from the international agreements and however they fit together down locally, is that the area is so complex and the rules are so arcane that it's often very difficult for people to get their heads around it.

I should mention, by the way, that I'm the designated speaker. I forgot to do that.

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: Am I going to go for two hours? We'll see. I'm very new at this.

One of the problems with international trade agreements and internal trade agreements and the legislation that flows from them is that the area is so complex and the rules are so arcane that it's very difficult for people to get their heads around it. Even those that write the legislation of the agreements are, so often, not fully conversant with the potential impact that they may have.

When TILMA was being inked by this government, a very well-recognized authority on trade agreements spoke to one of the B.C. negotiators, asked some very specific questions about the bill and related to me later that it was not clear to her that this negotiator knew all of the nuances of international trade law and some of the decisions and rulings that had been made. That concerns me a little bit.

Another area of concern is that all of these trade agreements are untested in many respects. We simply do not know what the impact is going to be until after we've had challenges under the AIT or TILMA or NAFTA or WTO.

Why should we be mentioning the international agreements and our concerns about them when we're dealing with the agreement on internal trade? Well, as highly respected trade lawyer Steven Shrybman points out, while the AIT and its offshoots are agreements among and between Canadian governments, it's important to appreciate that this domestic trade agenda is mandated by the federal government's commitments under NAFTA and the WTO, for under both treaties Canada is obliged to ensure compliance by provincial governments.

Canada promises that provinces and municipalities will comply with the agreement. However, constitutionally, provinces have no obligation to comply with these international agreements. As Shrybman says, in signing on to NAFTA and the WTO, the federal government's reach exceeded its grasp.
[ Page 1153 ]

How does the federal government get provinces to follow or comply with the international agreements that they're not obliged to follow? Well, it needed a mechanism that would directly bind the provinces to the international commitments it had undertaken, and this was the impetus for the agreement on internal trade. The obligations that the province took on in the agreement on internal trade triggered the need for the legislation that we are dealing with now.

I would point out that this bill references and specifically ties us to our chapter 7 obligations of the agreement on internal trade, the obligations that have to do with labour mobility.

[1515]

I want to again stress that I am very supportive of labour mobility. I've come from labour. I've worked in the labour movement for years, and it's very important that we support labour. But there are some real flaws in this bill. I think that in this route to labour mobility, we need to explore them further before we decide whether we want to support it.

I want to get to some of the specifics now. This bill implements chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade, and chapter 7, as has been mentioned before, was rewritten in December 2008 by a conference of labour ministers from across Canada.

Chapter 7 states, among other things…. It essentially provides that parties to the agreement — i.e., the provinces and territories — must work to harmonize their occupational standards and certification requirements.

Article 701 says:

"The purpose of this chapter" — chapter 7 on labour mobility — "is to eliminate or reduce measures adopted or maintained by the parties that restrict or impair labour mobility in Canada and, in particular, to enable any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one party to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other parties."

The article which is of the greatest, most salient importance in this, related to Bill 11, is article 706, which has to do with certification of workers. It reads:

"Subject to paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 6 in article 708, any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of a party shall, upon application, be certified for that occupation by each other party which regulates that occupation without any requirement for any material additional training, experience, examinations or assessments as part of that certification procedure."

Then it goes on to talk about how the Red Seal is an automatic qualification, and the Red Seal program certainly has been a strong program in Canada.

However, on the Red Seal program, I would point out that while it generally provides for high standards, there are some provinces that have standards higher than the Red Seal program, so there could continue to be concerns from some provinces about that. But certainly, the Red Seal program has been a good program.

When you read 706, it's very clear what the obligations of each of the provinces are: that one jurisdiction must accept the certification of a worker of another jurisdiction.

I read that before looking at the Labour Mobility Act because when you read the Labour Mobility Act, it sounds like the regulator in the province will have the opportunity to deny the certification of a worker when they come to British Columbia and when they hold an extraprovincial certification. Bill 11 says, with regard to the application of the agreement.... This is section 3(1):

"Subject to subsection (2), a worker who holds a certification in relation to an extraprovincial occupation may, if there is a BC equivalent occupation in relation to which certification may be issued" — may — "(a) apply to the applicable BC regulator for certification in relation to that BC equivalent occupation, and (b) practise the BC equivalent occupation in British Columbia (i) after obtaining that certification, and (ii) in accordance with the governing Act and applicable regulations, bylaws, rules, resolutions and measures under that Act."

It sounds, at first blush, if you just read Bill 11 by itself, that it's possible that a regulator in British Columbia could turn down this certification of a worker from another province if it doesn't meet the same standards of training.

[1520]

I think the example was given earlier about a four-year versus a two-year training for a social worker. There would be lots and lots of trades and lots of workers in lots of different areas that could have different certification requirements.

When you read section 3 of the bill, it sounds like that has been put in reserve, but you also have to read that in the context of the fact that the bill very clearly says that this bill is subject to the provisions of chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade. It defers to chapter 7. And chapter 7, article 706, was the article that I just read out.

To me, it's very clear in article 706 that somebody must be certified — unless they meet a couple of exceptions, they must be certified — and that the regulatory authority will not have the ability to turn down anybody if they have certification in another jurisdiction.

I have real concerns about that and want to know how it is that we are going to ensure that our standards and standards of other provinces are held up, instead of having what could become a race to the bottom as workers and jurisdictions realize that you could go and get certification in another province, perhaps, where it's easy to get certification. Or somebody from another province will come here. It's easier to get certification, go to another province, get certification in two years and then come back to British Columbia and practise.

Another feature of this bill which concerns me is the fact that the ratcheting down that is there, potentially, is just that — ratcheting down. There is no ratcheting up, because the complaint that's being brought under this bill is the complaint by the party that feels they should be able to qualify when they don't have high enough qualifications from another jurisdiction.

I assume that if the other provinces enact legislation in order to comply with an agreement that they have all agreed to — and all have agreed to article 706; that's
[ Page 1154 ]
what every single province signed on to in late 2008 — they're all going to have to put in similar legislation.

I simply don't know how, if they're complying with that which they signed up for, they're going to avoid that same problem. So across the country we're going to have jurisdictions potentially having the certification requirements ratcheted down, but there is no ability to ratchet up.

That's why I talk about how I would prefer to see a system, such as has happened in the past, where the harmonization of their certification requirements has been done by way of negotiation between provinces. Sometimes you may find that the certification requirement of one province is a little higher or a little lower, and you end up somewhere in the middle.

But you get people who understand sitting down and talking about it. You have input from people who are experts. Hopefully, you have input from the workers who are involved. Instead, this defaults to a court procedure, where somebody comes in and it's decided by a judge.

I think the better way to do it would be to have people who are knowledgable about a particular occupation sitting down interprovincially, discussing this and coming up with appropriate levels of certification. So that's certainly one of my concerns.

I'd also like to point out that it's a difficult process, and handing it over to the courts, I think, undervalues the importance of the process. With TILMA there was at least this two-year process where there were negotiations that went on between B.C. and Alberta in terms of harmonizing the requirements for some of the trades.

[1525]

Now, that was not done publicly. I'm not aware of how it was done, exactly, but at least that did happen. The fact that it took a couple of years of hard work to harmonize some of those tricky ones, where the levels were higher or lower between B.C. and Alberta…. The fact that it took two years to do that, to me, indicates that it is not giving enough…. It's not respecting the importance of understanding that certification and the certification process enough if you hand it over to a judge.

A judge, frankly, is not qualified, I don't believe, to make decisions about that. Then you end up in a court situation where each of the parties is making their submissions. It's expensive, and who is going to pay for it? Is it going to be that regulatory authority?

That's what happens. The person goes to the regulatory authority. They make their application. They are turned down in British Columbia — or in another province, if it's going to be in several provinces.

If they're turned down by the regulatory authority…. I suspect that there will be many cases when they are, because we are hearing back from some of the regulatory authorities that they're concerned. If that happens, then they're turned down. The next step is for them to go to court. That, of course, would mean that the expenses of the court process would be borne by whom? Would it be borne by the regulatory authorities?

I know that these various regulatory authorities are certainly not made of money. I was involved once working with a group that was looking to be regulated in the province of British Columbia, and it was simply a question of money. It was too expensive for the members, because it's the members who have to support that.

What you're going to end up having are these professional workers, some who are in professions where they don't make a lot of money, being asked to pay for court challenges by workers in other provinces.

I want to reiterate that this is not to say that I am opposed to labour mobility. I'm absolutely supportive, but we've got to make sure that we're doing it in an appropriate way. I think the costs and the bureaucracy associated with this process…. That is certainly another legitimate concern that I have.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I want to talk, also, just for a minute or two about the issue of legitimate objectives. It certainly is true that article 708 of the agreement on internal trade — which of course will then be incorporated into and is, I believe, specifically referenced in Bill 11 — does provide some scope for governments to say that they can oppose the certification of a worker because there is a good reason why they should not be able to do that.

There are several legitimate objectives that are mentioned in the legislation: public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal, plant life or health; protection of the environment; consumer protection and protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; provision of adequate social and health services to all its geographic regions; and programs for disadvantaged groups — which is good, that we have some legitimate objectives that can be used.

Unfortunately, I've read some of the decisions that have been made under trade law that consider whether or not the standards that need to be met for establishing these legitimate objectives have been met. In the past those standards have been very narrowly construed.

[1530]

If we think we can take comfort from looking at the legitimate objectives, then I think we should be very concerned about that. Again, this points to the problem that we have with this bill. It references all sorts of complex terms and other agreements that then necessarily bring in a whole body of trade law, which is arcane and thrilling to only very few of us — like me. I find it really interesting. I think that there are many concerns that I have about it, and we will bring up several of them at the committee stage.

I don't know that I've got that much more to talk about with Bill 11 right now. I look forward to being
[ Page 1155 ]
able to actually ask some really specific questions, and perhaps we will have some suggestions at the committee stage.

J. McIntyre: I would like to take a completely different tack, I think, from the speaker before me who wanted to give us a history lesson and sort of a treatise on labour and the history of labour in this country. I think there is a little bit of revisionist history going on and a little bit of what I would call typical NDP hypocrisy.

The speakers before me from the opposite side of the House have all wanted to reassure us that they're in favour of labour mobility. I've been here in the House, entering my fifth year. I haven't seen any signs of that in the entire time that I've been here. I would just like to put some of this into the record because they say they support it, but there's been a huge anti-TILMA campaign for the last few years since we introduced it — fearmongering.

The speakers before me, they all alluded to "race to the bottom." It seems to be the little mantra. They supported the very active CUPE campaign against TILMA when it was first introduced two years ago. They were fearmongering at the school board level, at the municipal level. It was all about: "We will never have any control over environmental regulation. All the things that we stood for here in British Columbia were going down the drain."

Then, going back to the '90s, the member before me tried to give us a history lesson about what a wonderful job was done in the '90s, partly under then Premier Glen Clark and quotes from Joan Smallwood, etc. My recall is that the reason we're dealing with labour mobility as late as we are — in almost 2010 — is because the NDP opposed what was going on, on a national level.

I was not in politics then. I was an average citizen who saw the wisdom of labour mobility across our country and the barriers that were up at the time. In fact, we had better relations through NAFTA with our international agreements with the U.S. than we had across our country, but my recall is that the NDP totally opposed it.

All of a sudden, we're hearing about how the NDP really support this, and this is so important, but…. It's a big fat but. So I would like to just contrast our record for a few moments at a very high level, not going into all the details and the minutiae that the speaker before me said. British Columbia — in direct contrast to anything that I recall — has taken a lead through this whole AIT process.

The fact that the provinces and territories just signed on to chapter 7 on labour mobility is, I dare say, due to the Premier's lead and our government's lead on making sure that all of the Premiers and jurisdictions across the country understood the importance. And TILMA, the work that we did on TILMA with Alberta, was and is the role model for just what the member before me was talking about.

The fact that we did spend two years with professional organizations going back and forward between the provinces, people who know what the profession is about and are knowledgable about the strict requirements and the credentials that are necessary to make sure that we're engaging in best practices — those people spent two years. That's why there was a two-year lead-up before April 1, 2009, before TILMA was implemented. It was for exactly those reasons.

The member before me cited UBCM and all their uproar. In fact, we took those two years. We dealt with municipalities. We worked with UBCM, and we came up with a deal — in fact, some changes, actually; it was very good — that UBCM chose with the back-and-forth. We actually improved TILMA before it officially came in, thanks to the work we did with municipalities.

[1535]

So I really believe that the speaker before me doesn't exactly have her facts straight, and I'd like to put some of this on the record.

Our arrangement with TILMA, let me tell you…. One of the reasons I wanted to speak on this topic today was because I spent four years, my first term…. I was one of the government's representatives to PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. We dealt with very important issues like labour shortage. Our government had economic policies that had this economy on fire. We had shortage issues not just in our province but in the region, between the strength that B.C. and Alberta economies in this country…. We had very distinct issues. It was extremely important. Labour mobility is critical, certainly, to the success of B.C. businesses and individual workers. We were taking on those issues in the whole region.

I'm telling you that jurisdictions like Washington and others, and Saskatchewan, were looking at the model that B.C. and Alberta developed through TILMA. All regions were looking at the importance, the leadership and the best practices that we were engaging in between two provinces to create, essentially, a free trade zone and labour mobility for workers so that they had all the tools to pursue every opportunity and gain every advantage. The legislation that we're discussing today does that. We are delivering on the needs of both businesses and workers.

I was very proud, if I can go back to March '09, earlier this year, when we had an event here, on the steps of the Legislature, actually, as I recall, when we first introduced Bill 9. We were, I believe, the very first province to enact this across the country. We had, I think it was, Economic Development Minister Jim Kenyon from the Yukon, whom I had the pleasure of working with in PNWER, who came all the way down to support B.C.'s introduction of this bill that we're now reintroducing in this session, because there is recognition across this country, in different provinces and territories, that this is essential and critical.
[ Page 1156 ]

We cannot be dealing in a global economy and dealing with the U.S., Europe, Asia and all the partners that we have to reach out in the world when we have restrictive barriers within our own country. So no, we need to be moving forward on this.

B.C. has had amazing leadership on this file. The fact that we are now reintroducing it to meet our obligations under AIT and on chapter 7 is a great thing, and it's very important that we're able to do this. We want to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, the barriers to the movement of persons, goods, services and investments within this country.

You even think on the very anecdotal level of, let's say, a couple in Ontario or something, where one of the partners has got a promotion or an opportunity to move to another part of this country. Then let's say his wife or somebody is a teacher and cannot move with him or cannot practise a profession in her own country. Those kinds of things to me seem so outdated, like from 50 years ago. We live in a modern global economy, and the fact that we're even having to do these things in this day and age is amazing.

For the member before me to talk about all the wonderful work that was done by the previous NDP government on labour mobility, when in fact she admitted they opposed it, is to me the height of hypocrisy.

Anyway, with that, I just wanted to make some sort of high-level view in comments because of the importance of this issue in our whole region and across our country. I couldn't be prouder of B.C.'s leadership on this file. I'm very proud that other jurisdictions will be looking at the work that we have done through all sorts of professional organizations to set up best practices and go forward on that basis. With that, I'll take my place.

M. Mungall: Well, I have to say, it's again disheartening but not surprising to hear a member from across the way approach a very important, very complex piece of legislation with such a small amount of analysis and a small amount of clear understanding, delivering statements that are clearly incongruent with the facts and then, of course, just declaring such inappropriate remarks, in my estimation, about colleagues here on this side of the floor — who are clearly well-knowledged, very well-researched, offer a very in-depth analysis and who shared it with this House about the Labour Mobility Act that we are here talking of today.

[1540]

What we are saying on this side of the House, if she cared to actually listen, was that we believe in labour mobility. We like the idea of somebody living in Ontario being able to come to British Columbia and apply their skills and their talents here in this province. We like being able to share our residents with other provinces as well. Labour mobility is critical in this country.

What she's not hearing is that we have just an incredible amount of concerns with this bill, because it is so in-depth. It could have wide-reaching applications that are just not listed in this bill, because it's pulling in from so many international trade agreements that we have in Canada and, of course, other provincial trade agreements that we have. It needs a very complex, detailed analysis, and we have a lot of concerns because of that.

I think it's also very fair to say that we on this side of the House have a lot of concerns. Labour Mobility Act: it sounds very good. It sounds wonderful. When we talk about trade and increasing trade throughout the country, who would be opposed to that? Who would be opposed? It sounds wonderful, but we know this government is quite Machiavellian in its approach to politics — that is, that they say one thing, and it sounds good, but they're actually doing something quite, quite different on the other hand.

That's why we have quite a lot of concerns over here on this side. This looks good. It sounds good in the title of the bill, but is it going to be good? We're not too sure. In fact, I would dare say that it may not at the end of the day, and that's why it needs an incredible amount of analysis. That's why our concerns need to be addressed.

So what is this bill about? Well, it requires that occupational regulatory authorities must not discriminate against non-B.C. residents, as defined by chapter 7 of the AIT — the agreement on internal trade. That means that we cannot discriminate against non-B.C. residents.

Right now discrimination only occurs based on skill standards that we have in this province — are people coming from other provinces meeting the standards that we require here in British Columbia? — and other provinces do the same thing to British Columbians. It's quite normal. If somebody meets the test, the standards that we have, they're more than welcome to work in British Columbia.

We're changing that so that occupational organizations no longer have the right, but it's actually going to government. Now government is the one that's going to be choosing, and everything that occupational groups do to ensure standards are met must be congruent.

It must be congruent with this Labour Mobility Act, which of course, defines chapter 7 in the AIT. That means that the government is allowed to order regulatory authorities to change their certification requirements to come in line with the AIT, even though Alberta's certification, as it is in the case of social workers, is less. It requires less education and less training than we require here in British Columbia.

When we look at what this bill is — and we know that people can move across the country and maintain their occupation as long as they meet the requirements in the province in which they're living in and working — the question is: do we need this bill? And if we ask that question — "Do we need this bill?" — it's a fair question, and it's one that many experts in this field are asking.
[ Page 1157 ]

I think that because they're asking that question, we need to answer. We need to really determine if that is accurate, if we really need this bill. We need to identify the need for this, and that's why we're concerned. When experts are saying that this is a bill that we likely don't need in British Columbia, we need to answer that question, and we're going to be asking those questions when we go to committee stage.

Indeed, if we prioritize in this province — not only labour mobility but the high standards, high standards of occupations, and working with dignity — then we need to identify what is in this bill that allows for that and what would take away from that and how we can move forward with labour mobility ensuring that we maintain good, high standards, quality standards, in this province as well as making sure that workers and professionals are working with dignity.

[1545]

That's exactly what Steven Shrybman is saying. He's saying that we need to determine whether this type of bill is needed. In fact, he says in a paper he wrote: "In reality, there are few barriers to interprovincial trade, investment and labour mobility." When someone like Steven Shrybman — again, an expert in this field of labour and trade agreements — puts that forward, it's worth listening to. It's absolutely worth listening to. So we need to determine: is this bill going to do what it needs to do?

The speaker before me talked about skills shortages. We have some skills shortages in this province, and in fact we have skills shortages all across the country. By 2015 the government's own studies say those skills shortages are going to be even greater as the baby boomer generation retires, where we actually see more than 50 percent of our population over the age of 55.

We're facing some significant skills shortages in this province, but we're facing that right across the country. Again, a concern that I have and that we need to know whether this bill is going to address. How is it going to address it?

Right now, as I read it, it seems to me that provinces are going to be able to lower their standards and pillage from different provinces, from our brothers and sisters across the province, and that we're going to be able to pillage to make sure that our own skills labour shortage is met. Is this going to further drive our skills standards to the bottom because we are competing with other provinces to fill our skills labour shortage?

This is a huge concern. We want to reach for the top, not reach for the bottom. Is this systemically going to cause us to start sinking and sinking further down as we compete with other provinces to meet our skills labour shortage, yet losing standards in the process as we do that? Again, a large concern. We want to be working with other provinces. We want to be working with our neighbours throughout this country, not competing with them. Canada is much stronger when we work together, rather than when we compete.

Another point that I find very concerning about Bill 11, hon. Speaker, is that it establishes that chapter 17 of the AIT will govern the resolutions of disputes arising out of chapter 7. But the funny thing is that chapter 17 is currently being negotiated so that it gives it more teeth, but the public actually doesn't get to see chapter 17.

This is something that nobody gets to really look at and analyze to determine whether what they are negotiating is something that we can support in this bill. Again, that's why this bill needs a clause-by-clause analysis, because we don't know what chapter 17 is going to be saying for British Columbia and whether it's going to be benefiting residents here in this province.

I have to say that the secretiveness of chapter 17 doesn't allow us to feel confident about this bill. It gives us great concern. It gives me great concern and shows to me that this detailed analysis is extremely needed, particularly when we take into consideration the growing secrecy around freeing trade.

If we take into consideration that in 1988 the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada was put forward in an election. People talked about it all across the country. It was of huge debate. People even called that election a referendum on free trade, and 52 percent of Canadians actually voted against it by choosing either the NDP or the Liberal Party of Canada, but the Conservatives won, and we ended up with free trade. The Conservatives brought in NAFTA in 1992, and it has remained ever since.

[1550]

Then in the late 1990s, in 1997, we see the protests against more free trade, the Asia-Pacific economic council, the APEC and the MAI that my colleague brought up.

Again, as these processes to further the free trade agenda were put out to the public, the public was saying, "No, we don't want this," and having very large demonstrations, incredible public education around what free trade means and what free trade will do for workers, our environmental standards, our social services, health care and so on — what they will do for us as members of the public.

The opposition was growing, and then we saw massive opposition where it even shut down a free trade discussion. That was at the WTO, the World Trade Organization, in 1999 in Seattle, where people who were demonstrating against free trade were able to shut down the discussions. The result was that the WTO moved to Qatar, where protests are against the law — again, closing things behind closed doors to make the discussion on free trade more secretive.

We saw the same thing again in the free trade area of the Americas discussions in Quebec City, where they built a perimeter fence to keep anybody in the public away from the private discussions being held. We see
[ Page 1158 ]
massive protests against the G8, where conversations are about free trade. We're seeing incredible outcry all across the world, concerns about free trade. The way in which it's being implemented, as a result, is getting more and more and more secretive.

That's exactly what happened with the most recent free trade agreement here in British Columbia, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, TILMA. Following suit with TILMA, we see, again, chapter 17 being done quite secretively. Consequently, we have great concern around that, as I mentioned several times. We have a huge concern that this is being done in secret.

It doesn't allow us much confidence in this bill when this bill is actually what lets chapter 17…. We don't know the details of chapter 17, but it makes chapter 17 the chapter that's going to govern the resolution and dispute process. Again, we don't know the details of that, so how can we have confidence in this bill? We will need to ask a considerable amount of questions during that committee stage.

That sums up some of the concerns I have. I know I have colleagues who have a considerable amount of concerns as well. As we go through this act clause by clause, we're seeing a lot of opportunities where there is going to be a race for the bottom in this country and that B.C. and British Columbians aren't going to benefit. We want to mitigate that. We want to make sure that British Columbians do benefit from labour mobility, because it's not that labour mobility is the problem. Labour mobility is great. It’s a good thing.

It's about how we do it. We need to do it with thought. We need to do it with analysis. We need to do it with planning and not shooting from the hip. We need to be authentic, and we need to be honest about it. When a government can, time and time again, put forward things to the people of this province that look good on the surface but aren't in practice, it is our duty on this side of the House to do everything we can so that whatever they do on that side of the House is good for British Columbians. I guarantee that that is exactly what we will be doing with this bill.

G. Gentner: I rise to speak regarding Bill 11. I have to start by saying, you know, relative to labour mobility, it is a reality. There's no question there. I mean I was coming here today looking at my tie, and I was wondering if this was a free trade tie. It's actually made in Italy — good craftsmanship.

I was wondering if maybe it would be a tie from British Columbia. Maybe there's a tie factory here that's been protected, but not so. I love Italian quality, and I do admit that there are some wonderful attributes to that of trade. Canadian ties are something in my closet as well. I try to pull them out, and today, for whatever reason, I just happened to pull out my blue and brown tie — all the way from Italy.

[1555]

I think the test will be in the pudding on this one. We will be going through a committee stage, and hopefully it will be quite extensive. We have a lot of questions on this one to fully understand and ascertain what the purpose of Bill 11 is. We have to really begin to start the discussion by what happened relative to consultation with various groups.

We know that a couple years ago the Premier went around with something called the Conversation on Health. He spent a lot of time and acumen and money to try and ascertain or find out what the opinion was of those and all of us in this province who would be affected by new measures of health. In the end, the Premier came up empty-handed because of that consultation.

It was well attended by many, and here we are again. We're running into a very comprehensive trade agreement, an agreement that has various layers, whether it be the AIT…. It is related to the agreement of NAFTA — H2O. You're looking at TILMA as well. You know, that consultation has got to be far-sweeping.

Hopefully, during the third reading stage or the committee stage, we will hear what that consultation inveighed, whether or not the accountants in the province were fully talked to and had their day in court, so to speak. The same has to be said to those of the applied sciences — technologists, the engineers and geophysicists, the environmental guides.

You know, the environmental guides are regulated in this province, and it's interesting to know what the standards are there. With all due respect to my friends on the other side of the Rockies, yes, they do have fish. But are those standards the same as some of the standards for our guides up here, with sports fisheries, etc., relative to knowing there are different species of fish? Salmon comes to mind, of course, and sturgeon or others.

Those are interesting questions, and I'd like to know whether or not the environmental sports community or the sports community guides have been talked to on this. Do they know fully what the extensions are, and will it have an impact?

Another one, of course, is the forestry act. I don't want to be too facetious, but do we hire a faller from Saskatchewan, knowing full well that they know what cutting a tree is like here in British Columbia? I mean, I'm being a little facetious here. I understand that. But these are some of the questions we are going to have to ask.

The podiatrists — have they been fully talked to? Do they fully understand the implications of this bill, and will it impact them? The land surveyors…. These are conversations that hopefully…. Hopefully, it's been quite extensive, and the homework has been done. We will certainly find out soon, when we reach the committee stage.

Now, I do have to suggest to you that this bill implements chapter 7 of the AIT, the Agreement on International Trade. Chapter 7 was rewritten in December
[ Page 1159 ]
2008 and quite recently again by a conference of labour ministers from across Canada.

But chapter 7 states that parties to the agreement, i.e., the provinces, must work to harmonize — there's that word "harmonize" again; it's the word of the 21st century here — their occupational standards and certification requirements.

We know what the HST is, and we know that there is, I believe, a sellout of the responsibility of the province relative to the taxation and that the province has had the ability to not tax certain entities. This harmonization, the same way, is relative to chapter 7. It lets go a lot of responsibilities from this province. Those are questions I'm hopeful that we'll be able to ask during committee stage.

It sets out a requirement that a worker certified in one province must be granted certification in any other province without any requirement for additional training, experience, examinations or assessment. This is worrisome. This is extremely worrisome. It is a race to the bottom. We're going to have to thoroughly investigate this during committee stage, because it does lower the bar.

I'm very much concerned with that because it goes on to say that exceptions to this provision can only be made if the measure which limits a worker's labour mobility seeks to meet a legitimate objective. That is an interesting word — "legitimate objective." We'll thoroughly examine that — I won't say cross-examine — during the committee stage, as defined by the agreement.

[1600]

The provinces themselves, and not the regulatory authority or anyone else, must defend these exceptions and resolve them within a period of time. You know, I really believe we're opening the door for a new industry, or we're going to enlarge the industry for lawyers. We're going to find when this agreement comes up, I believe…. We're going into a whole new realm, a whole new ground. We will have to check what the clauses mean, the challenging that they're going to mean.

And we're going to also have to wonder: if it's good, why change it at all? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Those are some of the questions we want to have answered here today, or certainly during our committee stage.

Let's back up for a while here and understand what this is all about. I mean, there are those who look at the wealth of labour, what it means, the productivity, the ability to create labour, which is yours, and the fact that you're able to sell it. Labour is seen in today's modern workplace or economy as a commodity. You can suddenly sell it. You can buy it. But there's also a lot of room for exploitation and the need for regulation.

We've seen what's happened when labour has been treated as a commodity, particularly with farmworkers. We've seen the abuses that have happened, not only in this country, but in Mexico and other places — in developing nations. We've seen the standards now being decreased relative to seasonal workers in this province, workers who come up here, migratory, and they're living in substandard housing — housing standards that are not up to par. That's occurring too.

So when we look at opening this whole new Pandora's box, if you will, relative to new agreements, and these agreements are, layer upon layer, relative to international agreements, we really have to understand or examine how much labour is seen as just strictly a commodity to exploit.

This is something that comes to the very essence of what in this legislation we have to address. There are means and ways to protect people from abuse, and one of the many sectors, of course, is labour. That's why we have legislation, and that's why we have good legislation. For many years we had very good legislation here in British Columbia. I think it was implemented well under the NDP government.

The alternative, of course, to not wanting to sell your labour is to be unemployed, and that certainly is something that people don't want in today's world. Regardless of however downtrodden one may be, they do want a good job. The question is: are we going to retain that standard here in the province — good standards for labour? And will this agreement downgrade those standards? It's going to be an interesting debate, because it's a very subtle discussion, and as I said before, it's a very comprehensive bill before us.

We have to look at labour mobility and employment stability. Do you have a right to have a good job? Do you have a right to have some type of security? Many people in this province believe that no, it is strictly a commodity. It could be exploited. Labour mobility, of course, has existed for some time, but labour mobility must ensure employment stability, public safety, safety measures and not abuse.

The other question about labour mobility that we have to talk about, I think, is in the context of the community. If this is going to be a free-flying society where you're going to now have to shop your labour from one border to another, one boundary to another, what does that do to the sense of community?

You know, my daughter lives in the United States. It's amazing, with young people. I'm aging myself here; I understand that part. But the jet sets — how they have to fly around the world in order to find jobs…. We're losing that connection to the community because of it.

The average age or time spent living in my community is about 19 years per family. I guess the empty-nesters lose their children, and they decide to move on or whatever — but 19 years.

[1605]

In that 19 years there is a sense of community. Whether you coach a soccer team or girl's soccer, you are committed to your community.
[ Page 1160 ]

We should really step back and think about where we're going here in the global world. We can't stop it. I understand that part. But certainly, what's happening to our communities — the transient nature of it, and the lack of community — I think is something that we seem to underestimate, and I think it's also something that we should be cognizant of always, when we talk about treating labour as strictly a commodity.

You know, trade and labour mobility have been with us from the very beginning of time. I think it earmarks the beginning of civilization — the ability to trade, the mobility, the nomadic nature of humankind years ago. When you look at today and talk to anthropologists, they study trade mobility in order to decipher what the society was all about.

It's that interchange of thought and goods and technology which continues to make us grow as communities, and we're not, certainly, opposed to that kind of mobility. But it does change societies; it does change communities.

We know that if one tribe has something that another one needs, you negotiate. You trade it; you sell it. But unfortunately, there's also war that erupts through that kind of mobility.

I think we certainly have come a long way with our negotiating skills and the ability for nations to come together in jurisdictions, and here's an example whereby Alberta and British Columbia did so under TILMA. There are a lot of questions still to be answered for that one, but it's the nature of how we've progressed as a society.

I want to talk about how trade and labour mobility, in the context of the history of British Columbia, really occurred. With the indigenous societies, it was here for many, many years. It's quite interesting that Chinese coins were found in the middle of the Interior before there was any contact with the Europeans.

You know, trade and labour, I think, in many ways…. I talked earlier about communities. I think labour mobility and trade actually destroyed indigenous communities.

The first example of contact where we can apply the principles of trade and, particularly, labour mobility was Alexander Mackenzie. An interesting story there. Alexander Mackenzie was the first European to actually reach the Pacific. He found his trade route, of course, through Alberta, the Rockies, down the Fraser. When he finally came to the west coast….

If you ever take the Bella Coola highway, you'll find out, just as you go over the last ridge and start going down to the Pacific Ocean, there is a…. I think it was the Nuxalk First Nation that were there to greet him at the…. I don't know if it's the Atnarko River or if it's the Bella Coola River. It quite slips my memory.

Here was an instance where there was trade, and there was labour mobility whereby Alexander Mackenzie's people had a celebration with a first nation upon contact. Interestingly enough, the guides, the Europeans, saw a deer, and they killed it. They had a feast, and the first nations people didn't eat meat. They ate salmon.

But the guides took the meat, or the bones, and they threw it into the Atnarko River. They threw it in the river. Contact, trade. Consequently, the first nations people…. One member dove into the river to retrieve it because it was…. For the first time in the journals, the first time ever entered in history in British Columbia in Alexander Mackenzie's journal, was the word "polluting." They were polluting the river. That's how they felt.

Why I bring it to you is this. If there was the proper labour skill and knowledge of that guide, who fully understood what he was about to do and the disrespect he had for that community, which had been protected…. If he had had those skills, we would never be in the fix we are today in this province where we're talking about pollution and destruction of rivers.

[1610]

Here's just a small, but the first, example of the white community meeting the indigenous peoples relative to trade and labour mobility, the ability to move from one part of the country to the other but at the same time not respect the laws of the land. And the laws were good laws, particularly from an environmental perspective.

I know that seems a relatively simple perspective, but I think it's a clear one that shows that when we step into this new age of total free trade, we're also going to lose our communities and we're going to lose a lot of things dear to us.

On top of that, as you moved along, the Northwest Company and then the Hudson's Bay Company began to trade furs. They also redefined labour. Labour now was free labour, and there's no cooperative, necessarily. The communal trade and barter system broke down, and everything was based on a price.

The indigenous nations fell apart because of it. They had to survive. The only way they could survive in the colonial world was to sell their labour, and their communities broke down. Their communities were in contact. Disease ensued because of this type of contact. Labour mobility certainly changed the face of British Columbia.

Then came the fur traders. After the fur traders, with their labour attributes, came the gold rush — free trade, if you will, from the United States. We saw complete destruction in many parts of our Interior because of it. Some would call it, of course, prosperity. The free trade, the free movement of labour included the exploitation of our agriculture, our fisheries.

You know, labour costs were determined by surplus, and surplus depends on mobility. In order to keep the price of labour down and in order to keep standards down in benefit of the employer, you need that surplus. That surplus is based on migration, which is really quite the history of this province.

So access or labour mobility did create exploitation. With such a large resource base in the province,
[ Page 1161 ]
the demand of labour was very high. Because of the increased migration, the price of labour continued to decrease.

Subsequent resource extraction by large firms was somewhat, I believe, predatory on labour. It was somewhat barbaric and very crude, and it was exploitive. We saw what happened in the area where the member from…. I won't say Cumberland, but I guess it's Courtenay-Comox that could attest to what happened there when it was exploited. Labour mobility affected that community. We saw riots, we saw mining incidents, and we also saw untimely deaths because of it.

But you know, through all of that, the province, through its own authority, was able to regulate employment and labour standards. It was a hard-fought struggle. Probably no other province endured such a labour struggle as the province of British Columbia. Why? Because it's a resource-based community. It's a very, very different type of frontier here, as opposed to the manufacturing industries back east.

They fought for those standards. They mobilized. I think the first union in the province was the typographical union, way back in 1884, I believe — somewhere around there, nevertheless. That was also based on the supply of labour that was being exploited. They had enough.

They had enough, and here we are today, after a long, long list of accomplishments, now with a bill that may seem quite useful in streamlining the opportunities by the independent contractors association and others, but we have to really understand what it means relative to protection of a person's job.

[1615]

Now, very briefly, when you look at what the record of this government is regarding labour policy…. This all leads up, of course, to where we are today, the significant changes in legislation and regulation — 2002, Bill 48, the Employment Standards Amendment Act; 2003, the Industry Training Authority Act, which now could be very much unravelled by this bill. Of course, we also had the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, and here we are with the labour mobility agreement as well.

I bring this to your attention because they all overlap. They are, in fact, part and parcel of where we are here today.

When we dealt with, particularly, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, we saw the withering or the erosion of long, hard-fought employment standards. We saw, of course, that a director from the employment standards branch no longer had to ensure that a child's work environment was safe and appropriate. That happened.

Now we're talking about labour mobility of children. Yes, we are. Labour mobility of children. There's a question we should ask. If we have different standards for child labour in Alberta and different standards here in British Columbia, will we see mobility standards shifted? Will we find it a lower standard?

Or maybe Alberta or another jurisdiction has a higher standard. Will it mean that we will have to follow theirs? Or will we continue down the road where we will find the lowest standard applicable?

I can go on quite at length relative to Bill 48, but it has fundamentally changed British Columbia. Again, it was the independent contractors and business associations that benefited.

The long-awaited second round of changes to the Employment Standards Act came into effect November 30, 2002. It allowed greater flexibility around hours of work, overtime, statutory holiday pay requirements. That change was the beginning of a long series of changes, to where we are today. The quid pro quo, however, is that employers who violated the act would face higher penalties than ever before, ranging from $500 to $10,000.

Again, here we go. We're now looking at overtime qualifications versus what will be offered somewhere else. Will this act impede and infringe upon long-established rules of overtime standards in one province versus another in order to make it palatable to the employer?

Who was impacted by and who opposed this bill? Well, we know the B.C. Federation of Labour opposed it, and we also know that the contractors association applauded it.

Now, 2003 was an important part. I do want to speak, if time permits, about it. That's the Industry Training Authority Act. That completely dismantled the training system and also imperilled the Red Seal program in British Columbia. The province adopted the modular-based training units, they introduced new credentialing systems, and they broke down multi-year training and apprenticeship programs into component modules.

That's the lead-up to where we are today. The question I have to ask is: are we going to adopt the Red Seal standard? Alberta, strangely enough, in this negotiation, made sure that at least they kept their bar high. Are we going to subscribe to that? I don't see that in this bill.

Now, there is some mention, I know, in the AIT that the Red Seal will be protected, but there's no guarantee that British Columbia will go back to those wonderful 1990s and reassemble itself and recognize what a wonderful thing the Red Seal program was. I don't see that here.

We've had nothing but problems with the industry training organization, the ITOs. They were to be given the authority by the ITA to…. It was basically industry-driven. Is that a standard that Alberta will certainly adhere to? I don't think so. There's not a level playing field here at all.

We also saw the cuts to the Industry Training Authority, which also lowered the bar here in British Columbia.

[1620]

When the B.C. Liberals dismantled the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, they also
[ Page 1162 ]
cut back on provincial funding for the class-based portion of the apprenticeship training. Under the NDP, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission paid for the school-based portion of apprenticeship training. The B.C. Liberals moved this cost onto apprentices.

So are we going to re-fund it in order to find an equal bar with that of other jurisdictions? I don't think this is the intent at all. It's to lower the bar here.

Of course, I can go on about the registered apprentices that had not taken in any school training and the percentage of apprenticeships that have been declining — training levels. This has been going on and on. I think now we're down to somewhere between 15 percent and 18 percent in the province who actually come out of Red Seal training from B.C. It's deplorable. We're so substandard in this. It's really quite deplorable.

Who benefited from it? The independent contractors association. The ICBA's training manager, Gordon Stewart, was among nine directors appointed to the Industry Training Authority. That's what drove that, and what's going to drive any tribunal here relative to the Labour Mobility Act or the AIT. You know, it will be a fair day in May when we see that members of the B.C. Federation of Labour will be appointed to that board and try and bring some balance to it.

Of course, when we get into the forerunner to where we are today, TILMA, it also weakened the Red Seal program. It was Bill 9, which we saw before and we see today. It will require mutual recognition of certifications.

Amendments on the agreement on internal trade…. The results of the amendments will be to further weaken national standards for construction trades. Currently Red Seal is a de facto national standard. Red Seal is not obligatory, and trade certification is a provincial jurisdiction.

So there's language in the AIT and there's suggestive language in this bill that somehow we'll reach that standard. But there's no dear proof here at all that that's what's going to be the case.

The harmonization? The harmonization will not be to improve labour standards, apprenticeship training or even to look at preventive or proper safety training on the jobsite. I'm afraid that's going to go by the dodo bird.

Now the main objective of the bill, like the AIT and TILMA, is to, I believe, promote an agenda to privatize and deregulate — deregulation that will handcuff governments of the future.

Just like the HST. We had the ability to forego taxing certain entities that we believed was in the best interests of the province. This harmonization of labour is going to do the same thing. It's going to handcuff us to make decisions which are in the best interest of regulating labour and jobsites.

A second objective is to facilitate Canada's international trade commitments, NAFTA, the WTO and other bilateral agreements. And some simplistic philosophy of what this government always employed, always comes up with, says, basically: markets are good; government is bad.

You know, we've come to the point where we've seen so much deregulation…. It's peeling away the old onion. You know, you keep peeling away the layers and layers, and there's nothing left. There's no core in this government. So if we keep peeling away at the onion, we're pretty well getting down to the empty centre. Because with all this deregulation — we've seen, again, what happened to child labour, farmworkers — we are going to be in trouble.

I look forward to discussing this during committee stage.

Hon. R. Hawes: Man, Karl Marx is alive and well and living in this chamber. I tell you. What a lesson here. I have no idea what the last speaker was talking about, and I think most of us in the chamber here had absolutely no idea as we went on this journey down the rivers of time.

[1625]

We were talking, though, here about TILMA, the importance of TILMA and how TILMA actually builds economy, puts people to work. You know, it never ceases to amaze me that the members from the other side don't seem to grasp that a healthy economy means jobs for people, and it's people like your neighbours and your friends and your family that are holding those jobs down.

In a weak economy or in an economy that can't compete, there are no jobs for our families. There are no jobs for our neighbours and our friends and the people that we represent. So TILMA is something that helps our province keep competitive by breaking down the barriers.

I've heard the members on the other side. It's like the boogeyman under the bed. You know, anything to do with free trade, and we should be building a moat around our province. Gosh, there might be invaders coming from Alberta or Saskatchewan or some other part of the world. Oh, it's just horrible. It's horrible to think that we might be moving into and are living in a global economy.

I don't know if the members on the opposite side get at all that we live in a global economy, and to have an economy here that's healthy, we have to compete on a national and an international stage. That's what we have to do, and when there are barriers, big barriers to trade between provinces, and between provinces as far as the mobility of people and professionals, we need to break those down.

Let me just first give you a little bit of a history. This is from the National Post. Just some history: "The agreement on internal trade, the AIT, between all Canadian jurisdictions that came into effect in 1995 was specific-
[ Page 1163 ]
ally aimed at reducing and eliminating barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services and investment in Canada."

The other side applauds the AIT. They were, in fact, the government when it came into effect, and they signed on to it. However, as this article says: "Unfortunately, AIT failed on many fronts, leaving many interprovincial barriers still in place."

It goes on to say that frustrated by this, "the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia signed the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, TILMA, in 2006 with a goal of creating a seamless economic region between the two provinces by eliminating many of the existing interprovincial barriers."

We recognized that there were interprovincial barriers that somehow the folks on the other side don't seem to grasp, which I just can't believe. But when that happened, as the article says, the onset of TILMA inspired the federal government to change the mechanisms within the AIT to be more like TILMA. They tried to make the AIT more like TILMA with a number of moves, but as it says here: "Despite the positive steps with the changes in the AIT, there are numerous laws and regulations, regardless of how minor they might seem, that are reducing Canada's productivity and making its business less competitive internationally."

Interprovincial barriers are and will remain a major roadblock. That's what the Financial Post says, and I agree with that, under the AIT. TILMA aims to reduce and eliminate those barriers. They talk about who…. People can move back and forth, according to some members on the other side. Well, try moving back and forth between the two provinces if you're a lawyer or a doctor or a nurse.

We all know what's going on in our medical system when people — our own kids — who have left and been educated in other parts of this country try to come back here to practice as nurses, and they've got to go through an exam regimen and all kinds of other stuff when they've been trained at the same standard as here in British Columbia. I don't get it, and none of us do get it. TILMA aims to knock down those kinds of barriers.

They talk about tradespeople. Oh gosh, we're lowering the barrier. In Alberta, to be quite honest about it, the NDP there are saying: "We shouldn't go into TILMA with British Columbia, because it's lowering the bar. We've got a much higher standard here in Alberta than British Columbia." Right?

Let's face it. A welder is a welder, and the Red Seal program is a national program that's not going to be abandoned. The Red Seal program is a strong program across the country. It remains, and I can tell you that a Red Seal welder from Alberta or a Red Seal welder from British Columbia — both can get the job done.

[1630]

Frankly, I'm kind of happy that we're going to be able to trade with our neighbour in a way that's just as easy as we can with the United States, because TILMA has made it more easy to trade in some areas with the United States than it is between our neighbours in Alberta. It's just incredible, and you oppose that. I can't believe it. It says here….

Well, I'll give you another quote here. This is Carole Presseault. She is the vice-president of government and regulatory affairs at the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. "Under the AIT provincial governments have access to a dispute…mechanism, but 'it's not enforceable, it's costly, and it's inaccessible.'"

The CGA, the Certified General Accountants of Canada, had two previous rulings from the AIT. They took Ontario and Quebec to court — or to the AIT — with a complaint because they weren't allowed to practise. Their practice regulations wouldn't allow CGAs from other parts of the country to cross the border.

The rulings went against Quebec and Ontario, but as she says, the two provinces still have not implemented the findings of the AIT, even though it's been almost seven years. The AIT is not effective. Yet on the other side they seem to be saying — and there have been speakers there that applaud the AIT: "Why would we need TILMA when we've got the AIT?" The AIT does not work.

The Select Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce conducted a study between June 2006 and March 2008 on Canada's internal trade barriers. So let me just give you a couple of things here. Paul Jenkins, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, said that we have "a shared responsibility among companies, workers and policy-makers," and that's to make this work.

"Estimates of the cost of internal trade barriers presented to the committee varied from 0.2 percent of the GDP" — that's $2 billion to $3 billion a year — "to as high as 3.8 percent of the GDP, amounting to about $50 billion a year." That's real money, folks. That's money that the silly barriers between our provinces cost all of us in our economy.

When I hear the members opposite — and when this was introduced some years ago and we began talking about it, speaker after speaker on the other side in the previous Legislature and some still today — saying the same things: that this is going to lower all of the standards, that social services will go out the window, that our environmental laws here will be gone because Alberta companies can come here and operate under a different set of laws…. All of that is nonsense.

TILMA requires that a company…. If a company from Alberta does work in British Columbia, they will follow the same laws as a British Columbia company doing the same work in British Columbia. If a British Columbia company, though, goes to Alberta, they will follow the
[ Page 1164 ]
same laws as the Alberta company in Alberta. It doesn't mean the laws have to harmonize. It doesn't mean that your environmental standards have to be exactly the same. What it means is that an Alberta company coming to British Columbia to work will be treated exactly the same as a British Columbia company working in British Columbia and vice versa.

An Alberta company is free to compete in Alberta against an Alberta company. A B.C. company can go to Calgary and bid on a contract and get the contract, but they will be forced to abide by exactly the same Alberta laws as that Alberta company. What's wrong with that? That just makes sense.

But for anyone to imply that an Alberta company will come here, take the Alberta laws and apply them in our province is ridiculous. That's not at all what TILMA is about. I wish the members opposite would stop the fearmongering. If they haven't taken a look at what this means, they should go for a briefing to the minister's office. I'm sure that she'd be glad to accommodate them. They would come out perhaps more educated than some of the stuff that I've heard here today.

Having done that, I think they might even start thinking that this is a good thing for the workers of our province, that this is a good thing for investment, that this is a good thing for building an economy. That's what it's about.

I know, after hearing what's been going on here — all the talk in the budget — the folks on the other side don't seem to get that a job is provided by an employer who writes the cheque, and what's good for that employer actually is also good for the employee. Strong companies make strong jobs, secure jobs. That's what we're trying to build here.

[1635]

I heard the member opposite, and we heard it earlier today at question period, talking about the change that we made in labour laws to allow children between 12 and 15 to work with the permission of their parents as long as the employers are notified and are aware that there is a signed agreement from the parents saying they can work. They think somehow that this is a terrible decision on the government's part.

Prior to that change, we all know what was happening. Under the law, if your 12-year-old was going to have a paper route, you had to take an application in to employment standards for a bureaucrat to go through it and give you approval. No one did it. No one even knew that law existed.

As the minister said earlier today, 200 people in British Columbia, 200 kids, were registered under the program out of the thousands that were working on paper routes and in their dad's grocery store and wherever. But was there approval from the registrar at employment standards? No. So why would we carry on with something like that?

We now have a thing where the people who should make decisions about their kids make decisions. That's parents. Who should make decisions about their children's welfare other than the parents of those children? Gosh, what a terrible thing that is, but what a revolutionary idea. Parents are going to make a few decisions for the kids rather than somebody in Victoria who has never met the kids, don't know anything about their circumstance under a law that no one in the country has ever read. Absolute foolishness, yet the members even here, talking about TILMA, bring that stuff up.

I do have to say that TILMA is one of the most progressive bits of trade legislation that this province has ever seen. It's going to build an economy for us. It's going to provide jobs.

It's not going to do all of the horrible things that the people on the other side continually talk about. Clearly, the NDP in Alberta talk about it. They never like free trade of any kind. They continue to talk about our national trade agreements, although they're the best things that ever happened to business in this country, which again means jobs for our people.

Gosh, I guess they're just afraid that British Columbians can't compete outside of British Columbia. I'm not afraid of that. I know our companies aren't afraid of it, and I know that it's going to build a better British Columbia.

So thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity, and I hope some of the folks on the other side will take the time to get a briefing so they do understand what's going on here.

Deputy Speaker: If I might ask members who are having separate conversations to keep their voices down a little bit so we can hear the speakers.

M. Karagianis: I'm actually glad I have a chance to rise here and speak to Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act. In particular, I have a number of concerns about the act, and I will look forward to some clarifications as the process continues here.

I do want to get on the record, because I know I've heard some extreme sort of rhetoric from the other side of the room on where this side of the House stands. Certainly, I think that members here in my caucus have made it quite clear today that we are supportive of the labour mobility concept. In fact, it's as old as time, as one member put it. So I want to be on the record as well saying that I do support this labour mobility concept.

I know that there are many pros and cons to this, and I want to at this point voice a number of my concerns in the questions that I have about this. If they are satisfactorily answered, that will make a huge difference on how I view this bill.

I want to particularly talk about four different areas of it, but first and foremost, I want to talk about the basic
[ Page 1165 ]
concept here that this will mean that all workers will have the opportunity to have their qualifications recognized in all provinces, whether they're in the trades, professions and occupations.

Now, one of the shortcomings of the bill that I see immediately is that it certainly leaves a large amount of interpretation as to exactly which trades, professions and occupations this applies to. Is it all? Is it only some? There are certainly several spelled out very clearly in the bill, but there are many that are not. It is to some of those that I most specifically would like to direct my comments and my questions.

[1640]

A couple of points here which speak to that — that this bill will allow the government to designate occupations where workers are almost automatically granted authority to work in B.C. and use professional designations. It will allow the government to order regulatory authorities to change their certification requirements, and it will give workers the right to appeal to the Supreme Court if they feel that the regulatory authority is not granting them certification. So those, in particular, I have some questions about.

You know, one of the things that occurred here under this current government is that a few years ago there was, in fact, a decertification and delicensing of barbers and hairstylists and hairdressers. That has caused a great deal of concern within the industry, for the kind of professional regulatory oversight that was provided previously to that industry.

As soon as that certification was removed, and the hairdressers and barbers were all delicensed…. It has actually left that entire industry without the same kinds of designations, titles and certifications that show and demonstrate the professionality of their industry.

I'm not entirely sure, as we move through this Labour Mobility Act and look at ways of recognizing certification and qualifications from other provinces, where that leaves us in the case of, for example, this delicensing and decertification of hairdressers and barbers. What happens to them? Is this the same kind of qualification and regulatory process that they have to undergo in other provinces?

If stylists or barbers come here, that are looking to set up a business, we require no oversight, no certification. Does that mean that we're going to have to review this? I think that the government needs to answer….

It will be a question I'm going to ask in committee stage, because I'm not sure what the implications are, either way, to those who were already stripped of their licensing and professional qualifications and the claims that they could, therefore, make — that they were certified. What does it mean for that particular aspect of the trades — for them to move back and forth across the country?

So I will be looking for some answers to that from the government, and I certainly haven't heard anything so far that talks very specifically about the details of what may or may not be the implications to some of the trades.

I did note, very interestingly, that a part of this talks about an agreement — that the provinces will work to harmonize their occupational standards and certification requirements.

I think one of the biggest concerns that we have had and that anyone who is critical of TILMA has had about this is: what does this harmonization actually look like? Where do we harmonize to — the lowest or the highest standard — as we reach across different provinces? Certainly, there are considerable differences, as you move from province to province, in the level of certification and the requirements for certification and qualifications in various provinces.

I talked just briefly here about barbers and hairdressers, but certainly, there are many other trades, occupations and professions that would be caught up in this. And because the bill doesn't spell those out, I think the government is going to have to be very clear on what their intentions are on this.

I'm very curious, when we discuss the idea of harmonizing these standards and certification requirements, what the timeline is for this. Is there an expectation that this kind of harmonization will take place immediately upon enactment of the bill? That certainly doesn't seem realistic to me — that we would be able to harmonize all of the provinces across the country and that we would be able to look in depth at all of the trades and various occupations that might be covered in any jurisdiction by this.

What exactly is the timeline? What are the expectations of this, and what are the implications for this harmonizing of standards? I think that that's an important question that needs to be answered by the government, if they've even looked into that and discussed that with other provinces — what kind of moves they're making.

[1645]

Is this kind of legislation being passed simultaneously, right across the country? If not, then when are other provinces doing this? If we're the first or we're in the middle or we're the last, what in fact does that mean? Are we setting the standards by which this harmonization will occur, or are we following existing harmonization procedures that are already taking place elsewhere in Canada?

It's not clear to me from this. Certainly so far, from any of the debates I've heard, I'm not clear on what the answer is to that question.

I would like, then, to talk a little bit more in depth about this concept of who is or is not included in the scope of this bill. It says here that the government will set a requirement that a worker certified in one province must be granted certification in any other province, without any requirement for additional training, experience, examinations or assessments.
[ Page 1166 ]

Again, this kind of speaks to what I've been saying all along. What exactly are the implications? Who is setting the basis line for the harmonization? Has that already been established in other provinces, and we're going to simply follow suit with what they've established? Or are we going to be the first and create kind of the benchmark for these requirements?

In the case of some of the examples that I listed here around barbers, hairdressers or any of the other trades or occupations that might be included in this — I think about things like New Age medicine, naturopathic medicine, a fairly broad scope; they certainly consider themselves to be professional occupations — I don't see them listed here, particularly, in any of the specific trades that have been outlined here as part of the act or referenced in this act.

In the case of social workers, we do know that across the border in Alberta the qualifications for a front-line social worker are considerably different than they are here in British Columbia. You know, in Alberta you can train for two years and be qualified as a front-line worker, and here we require four years of education before we give the same standard qualifications to an individual. What in fact are the implications of that?

As we move through this process of both harmonizing and accepting, without any requirement for additional training, the qualifications of these trades that are mobile, what exactly is the benchmark that we are establishing in this?

If we're not going to question the requirements of those who are coming into the province, are we then saying that our social workers, who have four years of education, versus a social worker from outside of this province, who only has two, are treated equally in the same manner both for credentials and for the purposes of salaries or anything like that? How do we determine the difference between our higher qualifications and other provinces' lower qualifications?

Frankly, Madam Speaker, it seems that we're not exactly doing a stellar job here in British Columbia in child protection at the best of times. This really does raise a huge amount of questions about exactly what the long-term implications of this act are and of the language in this act, because as always, it's the interpretation of this language that lives long after those of us in this House have an understanding about it.

We may all go into this process assuming some specific expectation of what it means, but in reality, you know, the devil is always in the details. How is this actually going to play out in the future? What are the implications, what is going to happen with this, and why, in fact, has that not been addressed in any specific language in the bill?

They talk about health care professionals, Industry Training Authority, land surveyors, podiatrists, engineers and geoscientists, but it seems to me that there are a lot of people missing off this list.

In particular, I am concerned about the implications for us with social workers. You know, if we were doing a stellar job here, and we had…. We're unable to even follow the recommendations that have been given to us over the last seven or eight years — objective recommendations that have come from studies or things like the Hughes report, from Judge Ted Hughes, or the Children and Youth Representative, an independent body of the House here, of government.

[1650]

We haven't been able to follow many of those recommendations, because we have either not the willpower or the resources or some barrier to that.

As soon as we begin to have implications where we could have front-line workers with vastly different levels of training, how do we, then, as legislators and as a government responsible for child protection here in the province, guarantee that we are not watering down our front-line capacities to the point that we're further endangering children in the province?

It's a topic that's been much debated here in this Legislature in the last few weeks — protecting children in the province. So it concerns me greatly when we talk about this idea of harmonizing qualifications. What exactly does that mean, and how far is government prepared to go in spelling that out for us?

Secondly, this concept that a worker certified in one province must be granted certification in another province without any requirement for additional training. I mean, it would seem to me that that is a huge loophole that is going to be a problem in the future. Especially because some of this language here spells out that workers have the right to appeal to a Supreme Court if they are not satisfied with the determination on their certification.

I would say that it does look like we are opening up a bit of a can of worms here in so many aspects of this. Until I hear satisfactory answers from the government on this, then I can't have any confidence in this bill. That's too bad, because as I said earlier, I fundamentally believe in the idea of labour mobility. But we need some assurances here about what this means.

The language is pretty wide open, and the things that are prescriptive in here don't protect us from some of the things that I think we need most protection from, like a reduction in the training and qualification and capacity of front-line workers in the child protection end of this province. But certainly there are all kinds of other implications here as well to this.

So I expect and hope that government is going to be able to satisfy these answers at committee stage. I think that's really important. In order to get any kind of support for any aspect of the bill, they've got to be able to take a clear look at what is missing here and what the implications are and what the long-term implications are to the province as well.
[ Page 1167 ]

One other aspect of this that concerned me a little bit was the idea that if a worker is authorized to practise an occupation in B.C. with or without certification, and if they hold a certification in another province, then they may use the official occupational title or designation while working in British Columbia. I really want some clarification on what that means. I think, again, it opens a huge number of questions on what the implications are to that and what it really means in real terms out in the working world.

You know, we've always been very careful in this province and all across Canada to have great concerns about immigrant professionals who have come into this country or into this province and who have been denied work permits because their training is not seen to be on par with that in this country. I think everyone in this House will have a story or two about cab drivers who are practising professionals in other countries but are unable to use those skills here in this country because of the barriers that have been put up around their training, their qualifications and their professionality.

If we are going to view the trades as a bit of a wide-open Wild West show, where you could come from any other province where you had got certification…. In the case of social workers, where I talked earlier, whether you've trained for two years, you now have a designated title or qualification that is only half of what we expect out of our own qualified professionals here in this province. Where do we then have a lens, a bit of a monitoring device, through which we make these judgments on what their designations and titles are worth and what their values are here?

[1655]

New Age medicine itself has a vast number of possibilities around what I believe many naturopaths and new medicine practitioners believe are very sound, viable and professional approaches to medicine. But you know, here in British Columbia we have many qualifications and procedures you have to go through before you can call yourself a professional or even a lay doctor or any of those other potential occupations that the government has alluded to here.

So I don't see in here enough language that says to me that this particular mobility act has thought of all of the various ways that the word "occupation" may be applied in a professional or a non-professional way. I am concerned greatly about that as well.

I think at this point I won't belabour the point, but I will be expecting to ask the government many questions in the committee stage and see if they have thought through all of the implications of the language within this bill; the long-term effects that this will have; what, in fact, the harmonization means in real terms; whether we're taking the highest level, the lowest level; who's leading the harmonization charge on this and who's set the baseline that we will follow; and how government will guarantee that in the future we're not going to see less qualifications out in the marketplace rather than more.

We have a habit here in British Columbia of really kind of polishing our chest and saying: "You know, this is the most beautiful, the greatest, the most wonderful province to live in." We actually, then, have to be very careful — and, certainly, government has to be very careful — that we are not, by our own regulatory actions in this House, reducing front-line qualifications for social workers or any of the other trades, occupations and professions that will be captured under this.

It would be, I think, a sad statement for us to look back in a few years and say: "You know what? This was the worst move we ever made. We now have the lowest standards for professional qualification anywhere in the country."

We have many titles here in British Columbia of which we are not proud. I would hate to see this government add yet one more straw to the camel's back here that goes along with worst child poverty and many of the other worst titles that we have here. Having the worst-qualified professionals in the country, I think, would be really sad.

So I want to hear from the government that they have found a benchmark that's high and lofty and sets us at a place of superiority rather than inferiority.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

Bill 11, which was re-introduced…. Its first appearance was this past March, when it was introduced as Bill 9. I certainly had hoped that it could have been passed last spring, where we could have engaged in the kind of debate we're having now and gone through the committee stage. We would be in a place now where we could say that we actually were able to move forward in fully implementing it.

It's clear that I want to speak in support of this bill, and from the speakers that I've heard this afternoon, it appears that, in general, there is, I guess, a concept of understanding or an agreement to the concept of labour mobility. So I hope that when the time arises they, in fact, will stand up and support second reading of the bill and then certainly well-intended questions at committee stage.

I want to really reflect back about the Labour Mobility Act and what this initiative is all about and to be very clear that this initiative is enshrining in legislation a right of all Canadians to live and to work where they want to in Canada. The national labour mobility provisions are enabled through chapter 7 of the agreement on internal trade. I'll speak a little bit more about that later, because I know it has been referenced time and time again.

[1700]

I have to say, Madam Speaker, that this legislation is really critical to ensure that barriers to mobility are
[ Page 1168 ]
eliminated. So what are we talking about when we talk about the idea of labour mobility? Well, I'll take you back to almost a year ago, when I happened to have the honour of chairing at that time, as the British Columbia representative, a special meeting on the Committee on Internal Trade. It was in December. That's when the labour and trade ministers throughout Canada came together and gave their approval to full labour mobility as negotiated under the agreement on internal trade.

This is not just one province or two provinces or even three provinces. This is where all provinces and territories that are signatories to the agreement on internal trade agreed to full labour mobility.

That happened in December 2008, and then about a month later, on January 14…. That was the date where, at a first ministers meeting in Ottawa, our Premier along with the other Premiers across the country and the Prime Minister together signed an agreement ensuring that full labour mobility in Canada would take place. So there has been, I believe, a significant and substantive amount of thought that has gone into this initiative and why we want to see this legislation certainly supported and passed and to see that British Columbia is taking this step forward.

When we introduced this legislation back in March, we actually were the first province — in British Columbia. I don't know if we still are the first province, to be quite honest, because in the last six or seven months other provinces may have also introduced the legislation. But we were actually the first in the country to introduce it. We were very proud of that fact because we were the province that really, through the leadership of our Premier, initiated the idea of full labour mobility.

There has been talk about TILMA. TILMA was an agreement just between ourselves and Alberta, but this is beyond that. This is across the country. By implementing full labour mobility, we are really helping to empower British Columbians to make the most of their abilities and to fill job opportunities. And by leading the way for labour mobility across Canada, we really are helping to establish a level playing field for skilled, trained people.

It's interesting. I was listening to some of the comments made by members opposite about ensuring that this was going to be fair and equitable, and it is. That's what this is all about, this level playing field, because it isn't currently level.

The restrictions on labour mobility do not work in today's world. We have seen drastic unprecedented changes in the economy around us. Individuals and businesses today need the flexibility to adapt to global economic conditions. They are changing dramatically. They haven't stopped changing, and I'm certain they're going to continue to change, but I believe we've weathered some of the worst of that.

However, none of us can predict the future, but what we do know — what we've learned in the past number of months — is that individuals and businesses need that kind of flexibility. Full labour mobility could not come at a better time, as British Columbians and Canadians cope with these economic challenges that are amongst them and their businesses.

I want to take this opportunity, as well, to thank the labour regulators for all the hard work they have done in support of bringing full labour mobility to British Columbia. The regulators in fact have been behind the scenes working across the country, ensuring that we reconcile these differences — or harmonize them, as others have said. It is about ensuring that those professions and occupations that are regulated in one province to another province have reconciled any differences, that they can harmonize them so people understand there is a standard that is applied and one that is acceptable.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Let me be clear to those who may be listening to this debate. All ten Canadian provinces and two of the territories — I say two as opposed to three because there is one territory that was not a signatory to the agreement on internal trade, the AIT — have approved full labour mobility after many years of negotiation.

Why was it necessary? Well, the reference again to the AIT — this is where I'll provide some more information to some of the members opposite who want to do a bit more research. The AIT, the agreement on internal trade, was signed in 1994. It's helpful to understand that when the AIT was passed, it was done so based on the federal and provincial governments' intention.

It was their intention to promote an open, efficient and stable domestic market for long-term job creation, economic growth and stability. This is to be done through the elimination of barriers to the free movement of persons, goods and services and investments within Canada and through the promotion of equal economic opportunity for Canadians and the enhancement of competitiveness of business.

[1705]

That is what chapter 7 of the AIT is all about. People have made reference to chapter 7. Well, the purpose of chapter 7 is to eliminate or reduce labour mobility barriers.

When it was determined that they were in existence, obviously, the necessity to change chapter 7 through the agreement that was made necessitated the obligation for provinces and territories to bring in pieces of legislation in their province to ensure that labour mobility would occur.

These barriers that did exist were created as a result of residency requirements for workers. That was often a condition of access to employment and employment opportunities. So the AIT aims to ensure that any worker certified to perform a profession or occupation by a regulator in any Canadian province or territory will
[ Page 1169 ]
in fact be granted a certification in respect of the same profession or occupation in any other province without the need for additional training, work experience or examinations.

This legislation essentially imposes the obligation on regulators within the province that confer occupational certifications to operate in a manner that is consistent with the province's obligations relating to labour mobility throughout the agreement on internal trade. That's why we have to bring in legislation. Without the legislation, the province would be less able to hold those regulators to account for labour mobility.

I want to assure the members that as self-governing entities, these regulators…. It is they who have the power to make decisions regarding certification, not the province. We are not certifying. The regulators will still continue to do that.

I think sometimes what is helpful is to present examples of why this is necessary. I would like to go back to March of this year when the Hon. Jim Kenyon, who is the Minister of Economic Development, was here in support of legislation when we introduced it, not only as the Minister of Economic Development and trade. He had responsibility for the portfolio of internal trade as well.

He happens to be a veterinarian in the Yukon, and there were some issues concerning the ability to service the population in the Atlin–Dease Lake area, I believe it was. He wanted to provide that service and once a week, on a weekend, come into the area and provide the services that the community needed and wanted, but he was restricted to do so.

He was restricted to do so simply because of his residency requirements. Although he had all the training and for 25 years or more had been a veterinarian — had practised his profession, had no issues concerning his ability or capabilities to do so — he was simply not able to provide the services in the Atlin–Dease Lake area because of the residency.

What it meant was that the community had to pay for someone to travel from the Lower Mainland area — that's all they were able to find because veterinarian is a scarce occupation and profession — to come and service the area. The cost was much more exorbitant. So the community…. Some went without those services that they needed for their animals, for their pets.

Minister Kenyon shared that example and said how great labour mobility will be, how important it will be to allow for that free flow of people.

As well, that day — it was March 12 — we had a number of regulators from the self-governing bodies of trades and occupations and professions who appeared with us as we introduced the legislation because they, too, recognized how important it was. They were the ones working behind the scenes over the number of years to ensure that we had the ability to bring forward this legislation and ensure that British Columbia at that time was showing the leadership that was needed across the country to have labour mobility.

I also want to share another example, and this is a little more personal. It was 2003. My constituency assistant, who had worked for me for two years at that time, as a clerical person was able to work just about anywhere. Her husband, however, was a teacher who had actually worked in the Northwest Territories and in other provinces.

[1710]

When he came to British Columbia, he had all the credentials and had been a teacher for a number of years but could not find any work here in British Columbia without going through more rigorous testing, more rigorous certification and examination. But for some reason, he was able to find work in Ontario. So he packed up his wife — my constituency assistant — and their child and moved to Ontario because that's where he was able to immediately find work without going through the additional burden and cost and the time and training required here in British Columbia.

Why? I don't know. Were Ontario standards lower? I don't think so. It was an issue of residency. It doesn't make sense.

I just wanted this opportunity very briefly to share with members opposite, because I can appreciate they want to ask some questions at committee stage. Certainly they should for the purposes of clarification. But I do hope they will at least acknowledge that this is not an issue that has just surfaced. It is something that has been discussed over a number of years, especially with the discussions that took place with TILMA.

That got everyone thinking about investment and labour mobility across the country. We were able to bring in that landmark legislation between ourselves and Alberta. But the fact of the matter is that it enabled others to think about the issue of labour mobility.

It allowed the Premiers across the country to acknowledge that we needed to make a change to the agreement on internal trade and, therefore, allowed the ministers responsible for labour to bring forward the legislation. As well, it ensured that the Prime Minister, along with the Premiers, signed that agreement to allow this to take place.

Full labour mobility is important to British Columbia's economy — make no mistake. We will need some of those professions and tradespersons that perhaps do not have work in their own home province. This province, when we come out of this economic recession, will have jobs once again looking for people. We need to ensure that those people, when they arrive here in British Columbia — those people who are Canadians, in particular — have the right to live where they want, anywhere in Canada, to practise their profession, to practise their occupation.

Full labour mobility will help enterprising and talented people build a prosperous and fulfilling future not
[ Page 1170 ]
only for themselves but certainly for our province. Today here in British Columbia we are taking a major step forward once again in making that future very possible.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the time, for allowing me to speak on this important piece of legislation.

H. Bains: When you look at the title of this bill, who could disagree with it? Labour mobility within the provinces and territories — who could disagree with that? I fully agree that labour mobility makes sense across provinces. There's no question about that.

But I've been in this House for almost 4½ years now. I have seen how this government works. They bring legislation in a nice…. Very good titles. When you really sift through them and look at the details, they are not what they are actually showing on the front page.

They wrap these things in nice covers. When you really examine them and ask those questions in detail, what actually is in that package…. Normally, what I have seen is that every policy change and legislation that they've brought in here is usually to help their friends. They're not to help the ordinary people in this province.

The workers usually pay the price every time they bring in any change to the legislation. The seniors, the students and those who, through no fault of their own, are weak and sick — those are the people who end up paying for their bad policies. But they like to come up with very nice, good statements and titles.

I have many questions on this particular bill myself. In particular, I would like to see this government actually move on some of the things and some of the initiatives that I personally have taken in this House.

[1715]

I've seen foreign professionals come to this country with a promise by different levels of government that their skills are needed in this country and this province. But as soon as they land at the airport, they're told that their credentials, their degrees, are not good enough.

Madam Speaker, you have heard the phrase that the doctors are driving taxis and the engineers are doing janitorial work. Nothing wrong with driving taxis or janitorial work, but this is not the profession that they've taken on. They have skills. They acquired those skills in the hope that they will be utilizing those skills not only to help promote themselves in their careers but also to help the society and the province and the country.

For 4½ years we've been raising that issue here in this House. No one from that side has raised a finger. No one raised a finger to do anything to deal with the foreign professionals who are, right now, basically coming to an end and deciding that this government isn't going to help them at all. They are basically resigned to the fact that they will be doing whatever they have to do to survive.

The members opposite think this is funny. This is a serious issue.

The issue is that we made promises to many of those foreign workers to come to this country with the promise that their skills will be utilized and that we need them. If you talk to many of the professional organizations out there, they will tell you that those people feel betrayed by us as a society, by this government in particular and the federal government alike. They haven't done anything. That's why I have my suspicions that when they bring in legislation like this, a bill such as this…. What is behind this?

One reason could be…. My friend Phil Hochstein probably picked up the phone one day and said to the Premier: "I need to make these changes because the changes that you gave me before, by destroying the apprenticeship program that we had…. My workers are still being paid too much. I need to have a piece of legislation that will allow other people to come in and take over the jobs and compete for those jobs." You know, the race to the bottom, as you've heard in this House before.

I think that's what happened. I'm not sure, but I think that is a real possibility. Just like what the forest industry did in 2003. They picked up a phone, talked to this Premier and said: "Look, if you make all these changes, we will invest a billion dollars in this province to modernize our mills." And you know what? This government, just like this bill…. They brought it in, in a nice, really eye-catching title they call the forest revitalization program.

What a disastrous piece of bill that happened to be. Some 50,000 jobs are gone as a result of that piece of legislation — 50,000. Over 60 sawmills have been shut down. You know why? You know what happened? Industry said to the minister at that time: "Get rid of the appurtenancy clause that we have in the Forest Act. We will create more jobs as a result of that. Get rid of the cut control that you have in there. Get rid of the justification for plant closures. If you do all of that, we will invest a billion dollars in this industry to create jobs."

[1720]

What happened as a result of that? The Minister of State for Mining probably should listen to this so that he understands. What was the effect of the Forestry Revitalization Act? No requirement to process those logs in the communities, to create jobs for those communities from logs that belonged to those communities. That's gone. The minimum cut — 50 percent or 150 percent — gone.

The promise was a billion dollars. Guess where they spent a billion dollars. Guess where they invested that money. The money was in Washington, in Oregon and on the east coast of the United States. So our logs and our Premier, putting in legislation to please the industry, created jobs in Washington, Oregon and on the east coast of the United States.

This is why I'm coming back to this bill again. Nice title. Very nice title. Who could disagree with the title? But I have so many questions.
[ Page 1171 ]

If they were serious about having labour mobility between the provinces, they would have done something to deal with the foreign professionals who have been crying for help for years from this government. They didn't raise a finger to deal with that issue.

I think they need to sit down and talk to the people who are working in the industry.

An Hon. Member: Which industry?

H. Bains: The plumbers, the pipefitters, the millwrights. Pick up a phone. Instead of listening to your friends, the bosses in the industry, pick up a phone and talk to the building trades people. They'll tell you what they need.

They'll tell you that the Red Seal program that existed in this province works. Why not create a national standard such as Red Seal? It is such a huge success. Who could deny that? I ask any member from that side of the House to stand up and say that the Red Seal program doesn't work. It works.

That's the model before you. You don't have to reinvent the wheel. Just use that model, talk to our counterparts all across the country and say, "Look, let us put those people together and come up with a program such as a Red Seal program," so that there's a national standard in every trade, in all of the industries so that we don't have to worry about the concerns that are shown by many members in here and many members outside that this is a race to the bottom.

I like to ask questions from those members on that side. No one has stood up and said that that isn't the case. What are the provisions in the bill that protect the integrity of the workers here? Alberta actually has gone way ahead of you folks — way ahead of you. They protected their industry. They protected the integrity of standards of their industry by government legislation.

Take some lead from your cousins from Alberta. They can teach you a thing or two. With less population, they are producing more apprentices — more Red Seal apprentices in Alberta. Shame on you guys. We should be the leading province to produce apprentices — in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

H. Bains: We haven't done that — through the Chair.

These members have failed the province, and they've failed the workers. Because I haven't asked all those questions and they haven't answered those questions, now I fear that the construction industry is under attack. They are under attack from this government.

How else can you actually look at this bill, if there's no protection coming? No one actually stood up and said that there is a protection, that there is no race to the bottom.

If it was such a great thing that we do need to move people around…. I agree with that, and I've said that before. I agree with that, but I have so many questions. I have so many questions, and you know what? Knowing these members, those answers will not be coming. They will not be coming. What a surprise to the ex–Minister of Health.

[1725]

I think that if they are serious, what they need to do is look at the Red Seal model created by a progressive government in the 1990s. Remember those 1990s? This was created back then. It has been accepted as such a great idea all across this country, and I think if this government has anything to learn from, that's where they need to go. They need to go and sit down with the workers in the construction industry, and they need to assure them that this is not a race to the bottom, that these standards will be maintained, that this government actually has plans to create national standards.

Interjection.

H. Bains: If I knew that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations had anything good to say, I would have ceded the floor to him, but I know he's going to follow the lead of the rest of his colleagues. He's going to just come up with the same rhetoric: "Just trust us. This is good for you. This bill is good for you."

We have seen his work in the Ministry of Health. His words aren't worth the paper that they're written on. Any given day you could take a look. He'll promise you one thing. Tomorrow they're gone, and he'll come up with all kinds of different excuses.

But I know that they will have their chance to stand up and assure the workers of this province and assure the industry of this province that these standards will not be lowered, that the integrity of the standards that we have created in this province through the Red Seal program…. That is something they need to preserve. That's something that they need to try to put together. What is wrong with that?

A member from the opposite side said that this will create a level playing field. Well, how do you create a level playing field? Who's going to decide that? Who's going to decide that? That's why, if I could do anything to convince those folks on the other side to at least look at the Red Seal program…. At least give some thought to creating national standards so that there is a level playing field.

But you know what? Mr. Hochstein and their friends will not agree with that, so it will not happen. That is not a surprise to me, but it is a disappointment that they are continuing to fail the working people of this province — the ordinary folks. Those are the people who actually create wealth in this province, and they continually dump on them, continually off-load more taxes on them,
[ Page 1172 ]
take their livelihood away from them by coming up with some legislation that is only to help their friends on one side — totally one-sided legislation.

That's what I worry about, not the title — great title. I agree with people moving back and forth. Somebody living in Ontario has every right to come and work in British Columbia. But that may not be the intent behind this, because we will be asking those questions in the next stage of debate.

You know what? We may not get those answers. I will continue to ask those questions. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations said that I should continue to ask those questions. You're right. I will continue to ask questions. We will continue to be the voice of those working people in this House. We'll continue to bring those issues right here, in this province, regardless of your total arrogant behaviour.

[1730]

I would just like to draw your attention to some of the concerns that are raised by many people. There are folks out there who actually question whether Bill 11 is needed. There are people who said it's not needed. This is not needed because virtually, according to them, all significant labour mobility issues have been addressed through interprovincial cooperations.

They go on to say that impediments to labour mobility are now addressed through mutual recognition agreements among regulatory agencies and the Red Seal program. So when the experts are saying whether this bill is needed, I have questions also. I have questions whether this bill is needed, whether this bill actually is going to talk about what they say it will, whether this bill actually will do what they say it will do.

The words on the paper don't mean much. It's the implementation — how it's going to affect our construction industry, who will benefit from it in our industries, who's going to be hurt by these changes. Those are legitimate questions, and it's incumbent upon the government side of the members, the minister, to stand up in this House and answer those questions.

Why not go to the Red Seal program? Why not? Why not adopt the Red Seal program? Why not have a national standard established first before you start to bring in these sorts of bills? Those are some of the concerns. And you know what? We are going to go through the exercise like we have done before.

We will stand up and raise those concerns on behalf of the people of this province. They will use their majority, and they will bamboozle this bill through like they have done before. They will continue to help their friends. We will continue to raise the voice of the people of this province.

The day will come. People will recognize what you're up to. They are going to throw you out. They are going to throw you out, and they're going to bring in a government who will actually represent every worker, every person in this province.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order.

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. This is great. I actually enjoy heckling, especially because, you know, when they are heckling, actually, they are paying attention. My next challenge is, actually, can they be convinced now that they are paying attention? I draw their attention. Now can I convince them? That's the next step. I have a few minutes left. I will try my best.

The Minister of State for Mining, I think…. He probably needs more convincing than anybody else on that end, I think, because he has already made up his mind. That minister has already made up his mind. Come hell or high water, he's going to do what the Premier's going to ask him to do. No matter who comes into this House, no matter if anybody speaks to him out there outside of these chambers, he has already made up his mind. He's going to vote the way his boss wants him to vote.

That's what he's going to do. That's why he's a minister. I understand that. I get that. You want to keep your ministry. I get that. That's what you have to do.

But you know, time comes. Time comes. Out of 100 percent of your time in here, perhaps 5 percent, maybe 4 percent, 2 percent, you should use to benefit the ordinary people of this province, and the rest of the time you can please your boss.

That would be acceptable. That would be acceptable, but that isn't going to happen. It's 110 percent, you know, pleasing the boss. Never mind the logic behind any arguments, never mind who this bill is going to benefit, never mind that this is going to hurt a lot of people. But you know, there are people out there whose only job is to please the boss.

[1735]

Well, that is not good for this province. No wonder good decisions aren't being made over there. No wonder we have the highest child poverty in the country. Six years in a row — highest child poverty. No wonder, because the pattern of everyone on that side is voting just to please the boss.

No wonder we have, since they took over, triple the homelessness in this province during times when there were record surpluses. That is a shameful record for anybody to stand and try to defend. That is a shameful record. That's the legacy that is going to be left by those members.

That's the question your children and their children will be asking you: "When we were raking in record profits, the economy of North America was booming, you had the record child poverty in the province. What were you doing, Grandpa?"

They will be asking that question. They will be asking the question: "When you took over and by the time you left, the people threw you out of this office, homelessness grew threefold, fourfold. What were you doing, Grandpa? What were you doing at that time? Instead of
[ Page 1173 ]
pleasing your boss, you should have stood up on behalf of the working people."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. Please take your seat.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, it is possible to oppose without resorting to personal attack. Please continue.

H. Bains: I would also draw attention here. The concerns that many people have raised before. The concern that this will be pressure to harmonize to a lower common denominator — that's the concern. Those are the questions that I want to ask.

I'll tell you, I myself, there are many of my friends, there are many British Columbians whose children are actually studying in different provinces and different countries. I agree that they need to come into their home province and exercise their right to use their skills to not only upgrade their career and work in their career but also to help society with their skills that they have acquired.

I am not opposed to labour mobility across provinces. I'm not. But the problem, like they said: "The devil is in the details." Once we have the details, we will know whether the suspicions that I have are going to come true…. The suspicions are that this government…. They are coming in a very nicely wrapped package. What's in the package? That's what my questions are going to be.

I need to know. Like many of the people out there in the building trades, many of the people who happen to be my neighbours, neighbours of people on the opposite side, they will be asking questions. Who is it actually going to benefit? Is it only going to benefit the industry? Is it only going to benefit the friends of this government, as has been the case in the previous legislations? Or is it going to help the ordinary working people?

Those are the questions that we need to ask, and I am not confident that this government is going to give those answers.

With that, I will take my chair. This is a serious issue. Like I said, the movement of labour among provinces or between provinces is not an issue. The issue is: what are the details, and how is it going to be implemented? Those questions need to be answered.

[1740]

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I stand today to speak in support of this bill. I have to say that in the time that I've been in this place this afternoon, it's been rather amusing.

You know, we've had members on the other side give us a history lesson of Alexander Mackenzie and how he was apparently the first polluter. We've heard another member opposite talk about the aggressive and lunatic left that protests the G8 and the APEC and other conferences and uses violence and terror and destruction of property as their methods of getting their message across. She embraced fully that methodology and suggested that that was the people, as she put it, speaking and that that was really the will of the majority.

That's simply not the case. When you have to resort to violence, when you have to resort to destruction of property to get your message across, obviously you're not representing the majority of people.

Coming back to the labour mobility bill currently before this place. With many British Columbians reaching and nearing retirement age, mobility and labour mobility is of extreme importance to us in British Columbia. We need to be able to attract skilled and trained professionals. We need to be able to have a strong workforce. This is extremely important to us as we try to grow and as we try to prosper here in British Columbia.

We have an absolutely fantastic place. British Columbia is the best place on earth, and as such, we are able to attract the greatest and best workers and the greatest skilled people around. We have to have the ability to be able to make sure that the training they receive and the skills they have are recognized.

As the member opposite mentioned, the Red Seal program that's been around for some time now is an example of how we can harmonize, how we can make sure that we recognize the skills and training of other jurisdictions.

One of the difficulties that was also mentioned earlier today was the fact that within our health care system there are many doctors who are trained abroad, and there are many other health care professionals.

We have difficulty, with our system today, recognizing that training, recognizing those skills, recognizing those who have that training and those skills from other places. Perhaps they've even grown up here in British Columbia. They need to be able to use those skills and to be able to have that education brought to bear and to be used for the betterment of us here in British Columbia.

You know, one of the things that seems to be lost oftentimes on those opposite is that in order to come to an agreement on labour mobility, obviously there has to be an agreement between parties. We have to be able to cooperate. We have to be able to find common ground, and we have to be able to actually come to an agreement as to how we put this into place.

This government is committed to doing that. This government is committed to moving that forward, and that's what this legislation represents. We need to be able to work together. We need to be able to cooperate. We need to be able to reach common ground, reach understanding.
[ Page 1174 ]

Several hours ago during question period in this place, many of the members talked about our labour code and claimed, if you would believe what they had to say, that we had some of the lowest standards in the country when it came to certain labour practices.

Then, hours later, they are concerned about the harmonization of that labour code, that labour practice, and the skills and that that we have, and that basically by bringing in this legislation we may lower that standard. Well, if they already think we have the lowest standard, which is what they were claiming two or three hours ago, how is it possible that we could come to a lower standard than the lowest?

Obviously, they don't believe what they themselves said three hours ago. So it's just more of the same. They say things that fit the moment and say things that meet the objectives of the case at hand and what they want to achieve at any given point.

[1745]

This legislation, this labour mobility, is extremely important for us all. As government and regulators work with trade professionals in order to support this mobility and in order to harmonize the skills and the training required, we all need to understand that only by being able to work internally and being able to have mobility within Canada can we then look to mobility in other parts of the world. If we can't even work with ourselves, if we can't even have mobility between Ontario and Quebec and British Columbia, how can we then move to try to create the ability to have mobility globally?

This is for ourselves in Canada of extreme importance — you know, the fact that we have such a small population but such a highly skilled population. The ability to allow that population to go out and to use those skills in other parts of the world is very, very important for us as a nation, and this is the first step. It's a very important step. It's something that we must do and must do well, but it's only the first step in something that is very important that we move forward to.

I will let my time end.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise in debate on Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act. As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, objecting to labour mobility would be like opposing apple pie. It would be like opposing being grandparents. It would be like opposing warm rooms on cold nights. It's just not on.

However, like much of what comes from the government, it's the same old test. They say, "Trust us"; we say: "Why?"

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have had the pleasure now of sitting in this Legislature, 4½ years on the government side and four-plus years in opposition, and the one thing I've learned is that governments of all stripes, but most particularly this government, consistently bring bills into this chamber that leave a broad regulatory power that enables cabinet to essentially decide the real effect and import of the legislation that's passed here. That is a consistent problem that I have seen in legislation that has been presented in this House, and this bill is exactly the same old thing.

It is, if you will, a bit of a Trojan Horse. We don't get to see what's inside. It supposedly looks fine on the outside. It's supposed to be welcome. It's supposed to be as endearing, as I said, as the concept of apple pie, but somewhere inside there's a problem. There's an issue. There's a concern. There is, I would argue, a threat. The threat quite simply is this. The threat is that this government is once again refusing to put all the cards on the table.

But I am conscious of the hour, and noting the hour, I would move adjournment of the debate.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until October 19 at 10 a.m. I hope everybody has a good Thanksgiving and spends their time with their family.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND LANDS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $82,634,000.

The Chair: Would you like to make opening remarks, Minister?

Hon. S. Thomson: It's an honour and a pleasure to be here today to participate in my first estimates as Minister of Agriculture and Lands. It's a great opportunity.
[ Page 1175 ]

I'm the MLA for Kelowna-Mission, a very important agriculture area in our province, in the Okanagan Valley, and it's a real honour to be able to do this for two reasons. One is, given my background in the industry, I really feel that this is a very important industry, a very important sector, for our province. The agricultural farmers and ranchers in this province are the great stewards of our land and our water resources.

Also, it's a very diverse industry — 225 different commodities. It's one of our great strengths, but it's also one of the challenges we face as a ministry in terms of dealing with that diversity and making sure that we have a range of programs and initiatives that support all components of the industry.

I will provide some welcoming comments to my critic, Lana Popham, when she arrives. She's new to this process, and I know that she and I share an interest and a background in the industry, and I do look forward to working with her as we address many of the issues facing the industry. I expect many of these issues will come out in the questions during the estimate process or the estimate discussion.

One of the key issues we have…. As you know, we're in very difficult economic times, and we've worked very hard within the ministry to make sure that we preserve the critical programs and the core programs and services of the ministry as we go forward. We want to continue to build the support of the community and the public for the awareness of the industry and the important economic contribution that this sector makes to our province in the primary agriculture side, both in the processing side and the value-added side.

[1445]

Additionally, we have responsibilities in this ministry for both aquaculture and for the Crown lands in the province — two other very important components that help contribute to the economic health of our province.

We'll continue to work with farmers, with the processors and all parts of the value chain to find innovative ways to support the industry in the middle of this current economic crisis that we don't have a lot of direct control over.

We have a number of initiatives in our ministry. We have the B.C. brownfield renewal strategy. We're providing assistance to communities to revitalize brownfield sites and return those lands to productive use. I was pleased earlier in the summer to be able to announce over $1 million in grants and assistance to communities to help revitalize these brownfield sites. This is a program…. We're being recognized as leaders in this area.

We're also leading by example in terms of remediating Crown contaminated sites through our Crown land restoration program. We're working very closely with our federal counterparts to take over delivery of the AgriStability program to B.C.

This will give us the improved ability to deliver business risk management programs to producers. It's going to improve the timeliness of the programs. It's going to improve client service to our producers. And it's going to allow those people that are being brought to British Columbia to be part of that — now our administration of the program — to deal with the diversity and the complexities of our industry. To have them on the ground here dealing directly with producers is going to be a significant advantage to our industry.

As you know, we have provincial initiatives for agriculture, but agriculture is also very much a shared federal-provincial responsibility. So we're working on advancing Growing Forward, which is a major federal-provincial agreement to support the industry — national agricultural framework. It's delivering a total of over $553 million over four years to the industry. This is providing programs in innovation and science and environmental management in food safety and financial management and education and in market development.

We know that we have some challenges within the industry. We've established a ranching task force to look at the critical challenges facing the ranching sector, and we'll be expecting to receive a report from that task force in the reasonably near future — towards the end of the month or the first part of November. We've got some great opportunities coming up for this industry.

I think that our industry can play a very important role in meeting the province's greenhouse gas reduction commitments and energy plan in terms of great opportunities in utilization of waste to energy — options for the industry, meeting both those objectives and assisting us with dealing with waste management environmental concerns in the industry.

I think that we've also got some great opportunities for our industry in terms of our industry being part of a solution provider for health, given the great high-quality, safe food that we produce and the growing awareness of local food production, growing your food close to home. We can be part of the health solution in doing that.

The land side of it. As I said, you know, over 12 percent of our gross domestic product is produced on Crown lands and 10 percent on tenured Crown land. This is a very, very important part of our economic activity in the province. Through our free Crown grant program, we're working with communities to assist in economic development in those communities. In many of the meetings I had at the recent UBCM convention, communities came in looking for those free Crown grants in order to build community development, fire halls — things that really support their local communities. That's a very, very important program for us.

On the aquaculture side of things, we're focused very much now, as you know, as a result of the court decision, to transition in an orderly manner the regulation and management of our finfish aquaculture industry to
[ Page 1176 ]
the federal government. We're working with industry companies, with first nations and with environmental groups in order to have an orderly transition in that process to meet the timelines as set by the court.

I'm very pleased, also, that our government was able to introduce a harmonized sales tax, which is of significant benefit to the agricultural industry. The estimate from the agricultural accounts on the industry is that this will provide somewhere between $15 million and $16 million direct benefit to the bottom line for primary producers. It's something they have been asking for, for a long time in terms of dealing with the old complexities of a very cumbersome PST exemption system. So this is a significant benefit to the industry.

[1450]

As I said, these are my first estimates, and I'm really looking forward to the discussion and the questions, and I see that the critic has joined. As I've indicated earlier, I wanted to indicate that I'm looking forward to working with her. She and I share a common interest in the industry in terms of our background, and I know that we both want to do things that help benefit this industry and help make it a more profitable, sustainable industry in the future, contributing to that important economic activity in all regions of the province.

The Chair: If I can remind all members to refer to other elected members by their riding only.

B. Ralston: I'd like to welcome the minister to the estimates. I'm acquainted with him in his previous professional life associated with the B.C. Agricultural Council. I think that his appointment, after his election, to this position in cabinet certainly would come as little surprise to anyone. I also know him as a passionate devotee of rugby, which may serve him well in some of the rough-and-tumble to come.

I want to begin. The member for Saanich South will address the broader questions in the portfolio, understandably. I do want to begin with some questions where the minister's jurisdiction over the Veterinarians Act falls. Under the act, in section 2, the British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association is designated as the professional self-governing body to regulate the admission to a status as a veterinarian in the province and to conduct discipline and maintain membership and membership standards.

I'm wondering if there has been over the years…. I'm sure that the minister might by now have been briefed about the very vexed and troubled history in the last several years of this professional body.

I'd just like to begin with a question. Can the minister advise the House whether he's satisfied that the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association is discharging its duties under the act in the best way possible, in a way that serves the public interest, and is he completely satisfied with that conduct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just before I respond to the question. I forgot, when I started my opening comments, to introduce the staff that are here directly with me. My deputy minister, Larry Pedersen; behind me is Denise Bragg, our executive finance officer; Jane Spackman, the executive director in the deputy minister's office; and Vanessa Thomson, who's the senior manager from performance strategies. One more behind is Allan Lidstone, with our aquaculture and fisheries branch.

Just to respond. Firstly, there's nothing in the legislation that allows me to officially judge the performance of the veterinary association. But as the member opposite points out, I am aware and have been briefed of the contentions that are currently in place within the association and those issues that revolve around that.

I think that what I can advise the member is that the veterinary association has come to us on a number of occasions and asked for us to engage in a process with them to modernize their legislation, to improve the effectiveness of their operations.

[1455]

At their recent annual meeting it was announced that we are going to cooperate and work with them in that process, that we are going to move into a consultation process with the industry to do that. We're committed to work with them to bring forward new legislation to modernize that legislation that has not been looked at for a significant period of time.

B. Ralston: I'm sure that that confirmation of what, in recent news reports, were described as secret talks…. I'm glad to hear that the minister has confirmed those have been taking place.

I'm sure the minister appreciates, and I'm sure that you'll get this advice, that in this rather highly charged atmosphere where there is ongoing litigation and a number of complaints before the B.C. Human Rights Commission, the prospect of legislative change and the manner in which the minister is announcing it does raise some questions and, indeed, in some quarters some suspicions about how the act might be changed and who might be perceived to benefit from that.

Certainly, I think one of the basic principles of a self-governing profession is that they are obliged to act in the public interest or else the Legislature, which gives life to them through the statute, is obliged to intervene. Beyond a simple and rhetorical description of modernizing the act, can the minister advise what kind of changes are contemplated in the operation of this particular organization?

Certainly many would agree that change is required. I suppose the issue arises of what kind of change is necessary.

I appreciate that the minister is at the beginning of this process, but given the atmosphere in which this announcement is taking place, can the minister give an
[ Page 1177 ]
outline of what kind of changes he's looking to make in the statute, the Veterinarians Act?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to provide a couple of further comments. First of all, the member opposite may have indicated that these were secret talks. This was certainly not the case.

Announcing the process at their annual meeting indicates that this process will be open and transparent. In the process, in terms of discussion, we're canvassing the association and the membership of the association in terms of addressing the need for modernizing the legislation.

In no way do we want this process to interfere with the ongoing litigation processes that are underway, and it would be inappropriate of me to speak specifically of those litigation processes. Those are underway.

[1500]

But we are committed to working in an open, transparent manner with the association and their membership on their request to look at the legislation.

B. Ralston: The reference to "secret" was talks that were apparently held prior to the announcement just recently at the annual general meeting.

As I say, I'm pleased to hear the minister confirm that talks were taking place and that there is an announcement at the beginning of a process of legislative change.

In order to assist that process, can the minister just advise of the following: what is the tentative timeline in the minister's workplan as to when this legislation might be ready for introduction? Is the minister looking to the spring session? Secondly, when he mentions consultation with the public, how is this to be formalized?

Again, I can anticipate, and I probably can advise with some certainty, that there will be intense public interest in proposed revisions to this act. Some direction, at this point, from the minister, I think, would be helpful and advisable so that there's an opportunity for a fairly full scope of public consultation, including either public meetings and meetings with interested parties, an opportunity to respond in writing and an opportunity to comment on the respective submissions of, perhaps, those who hold office in the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association.

I think the process would be well served if their proposals were tabled publicly and the minister's direction was tabled publicly, and that there be an extensive public process.

The Auditor General, in a recent report on public participation in decision-making, set out some benchmarks for effective public participation. I would recommend that report to the minister. Perhaps this consultation, given that we have a new minister who is new to the portfolio and without, I hope, any preconceptions about this issue, would engage in a full and effective public consultation in order to make the best changes possible that will serve veterinarians, the pet-owning public and the public at large.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm for the member opposite that the process…. We've only just recently indicated that the process will be getting underway. That occurred very recently at their annual meeting.

[1505]

The decision on timing has not been made. That will depend on the consultation process, but if the consultation process goes well and we're able to work through it, this legislation could be introduced as early as the spring session next year.

I think the important point is that the process will be open and transparent. It will be receptive to public input. At this point we're still working through exactly that process, but it will meet the principles of openness and transparency and full input from all parties.

H. Bains: My questions are around the same line. The minister must be aware that there were media reports in the Vancouver Sun last week. There was a story printed with allegations of unethical behaviour by the same members of the executive that are meeting with the minister and asking for changes. It's alleged in that story that these members have said that these are secret meetings. Other members of the executive didn't even know that they were meeting with the minister. That poses a serious concern to the members of that association.

So my question to the minister is this. Why are all these allegations running freely out there? We have 55 hearings already of the Human Rights Commission, a panel, and there are another 80 scheduled. Before we go through the process, before we say yes to the executive members of this association, will the minister do an independent investigation of their behaviour by taking input from their members and satisfy himself that whatever comes out of the investigation will lead to any changes to the Veterinarians Act?

Hon. S. Thomson: As the members opposite know, what the member was referring to are simply allegations. This is a subject of tribunal hearing processes and court processes, and it's not appropriate for me to comment further on those allegations.

The Chair: Member, please direct all your questions with regards to the vote and the budget estimates for 2009-10.

[1510]

H. Bains: Of course, Mr. Chair. My questions are leading to that, because there is money that is flowing through this vote to the veterinary association.

I hope that the minister understands the gravity of the situation. These are the members that are meeting
[ Page 1178 ]
with the minister, as they call it, in secret meetings, who are quoted also. These are recordings made with words to the effect that: "Gone are the days when we go out there and burn their homes and take them out." These are the same people involved with the association. This is how serious it is.

That's why it's appropriate for the minister, before you go any further and comply with the request of these members of this executive, to conduct your own independent investigations so that you at least understand what is going on. They may be wild allegations out there, but you need to be satisfied what the truth is behind it. The members of the same association are crying out for justice out there.

The ministry is paying…. As I mentioned, 55 hearings already and there are some 80 lined up — never heard of in the province of British Columbia, that length of hearings on human rights. My question is to the minister. How much money has the ministry paid to the veterinary association to defend them and their behaviour at the Human Rights Tribunal?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to make some further comments, I think. What I indicated earlier…. This was in a sense a courtesy to the members opposite in terms of letting them know that we've started and are in very early stages of the process in terms of looking through a process, following requests to review the legislation. Obviously, legislation and scope will have to be canvassed in the House, and that will be done in a full process. As I said, the consultation process in turn will be open and transparent and open to all.

[1515]

I think, at this point, we're moving into an area that is beyond the scope of our estimates debate, and I would ask that we move on. I have indicated that we are working with the association, and I've indicated to the members opposite that it will be an open and transparent process.

J. Brar: My line of questions also leads to the amendments, which are being proposed here, to the Veterinarians Act. I think, just to summarize what has been said before, the issue here is that there is an ongoing, complex, lengthy dispute between some Indo-Canadian vets and the British Columbia Veterinary Association.

If we look at the news which came just a few weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun, there are two very clear questions which, I think, are very serious ones. One is that during the secret telephone conversation between one of the officers of the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association and the other member, there are clear indications in that dialogue that they want to somehow initiate and get done some changes to the Veterinarians Act so that it's very easy for them to get rid of, in their language, some of the veterinarians if they don't want them as members.

On the other side, those members who are fighting with the association…. There's a fear that this whole process of amendments to the act will be used in a way that will, at the end of the day, work against them. So those are two things.

I would like to ask the minister very simple questions. One is: what steps will the minister take to ensure that those two things are kept in mind and that all the changes are completely fair, as the minister said, and neutral at the end of the day? The second one is that I would like to know how much money this ministry paid to the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association last year and this year.

Hon. S. Thomson: I think I've already addressed the questions of how the process will be open and transparent and fair and will take input from all. I've addressed that question.

[1520]

The questions around allegations in the Vancouver Sun. Those are allegations, as I've said. This is in a tribunal and a court process, and it's not appropriate for me to comment further on those allegations.

With respect to the scope of the estimates and funding, there is nothing in our estimates and our budgets in terms of funding for the veterinary association. That's beyond the scope of this estimates discussion.

R. Chouhan: My colleagues might have already asked this question. If they have, I apologize. My question is to the minister. Will the minister meet with the Indo-Canadian veterinary doctors in the near future to listen to their concerns?

They have serious allegations of racism, professional misconduct and misuse of funds provided by this ministry to the BCVMA. When that meeting takes place, would the minister take any action to act upon their concerns to resolve those issues that they have been talking about for the last many, many years?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've previously indicated, it's not appropriate for me to interfere or become involved in a process where there are allegations and court hearings and a tribunal process. But what I can say, as I've indicated earlier, is that all parties will have an opportunity to provide their input through the process that we'll have in terms of consultation and, at this point, proposed look at the legislation….

The Chair: The minister has made it clear that this is not part of Vote 13, and he's answered the questions. I would like you to move on to a different line of questioning, or we will be calling the vote.

R. Chouhan: Mr. Chair, it's important. My question was very simple. Are you willing to meet with these
[ Page 1179 ]
Indo-Canadian veterinary doctors in the near future? That's all I was asking.

Hon. S. Thomson: I've answered the question. I've said that all parties will have an opportunity to provide input during the process.

The Chair: Member for Fraser-Nicola, if I can remind you that the questions have been canvassed. The minister has made it clear what actions he can take. It does not relate to Vote 13, and that's the only item that we're discussing today.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair, but the minister has not answered the question. Before I ask my question…. The simple question that the hon. member just asked is: will the minister meet with the Indo-Canadian veterinarians? A simple yes or a no from the minister will suffice.

[1525]

The answer that the minister keeps giving relates to previous questions that other hon. members have asked. The minister has not — and the minister knows it — answered a simple question. There are allegations, by the association itself, that secret meetings have taken place with the minister.

My question and the hon. member's question is: will the minister — yes or no — meet at some time in the future with the Indo-Canadian veterinarians to hear their concerns?

The Chair: It would appear that this question has already been answered. The minister has responded.

H. Lali: The minister has not responded. He is waiting to respond.

The Chair: Member, please take your seat. The Chair is ruling that the question has been answered. It's out of order in regards to Vote 13. So now if the two members….

H. Lali: Point of order. Then I request that the…. I'd like to move that the Chair be removed from his position because he's making a biased opinion here.

The Chair: I'm going to ask for the member not to challenge the Chair. It's not part of the rules and regulations of how the House operates. We will….

H. Lali: The Chair can be challenged, hon. Chair, and if the division needs to be called, then I'll call division on it.

The Chair: The Chair cannot be challenged in this instance.

L. Popham: This is my first estimates since my election, and I want to say how happy I am to be here and how happy I am to be the Agriculture critic.

I want to express my disappointment with the budget. Every year I watch the budget for agriculture decrease. It really worries me for our future. But at the same time, I'm very hopeful, and I feel very lucky to be paired up with a new minister who is very pleasant to work with. I can see that we'll have a great working relationship over the next four years.

But that being said, I've got some tough questions today, and I want you to also know that I'm the Minister of Agriculture in training, so I'm watching what you do — just kidding. I'm going to work my way through Vote 13 as best as I've figured out to do, and I think that my questions will be appropriate.

I'm going to start with agriculture development and ask about the food safety, plant, animal and fish health budget. I see there's a decrease. I would like to know what came out of that budget and why there is a decrease.

[1530]

Hon. S. Thomson: The basis for those reductions that the member opposite is referring to are essentially…. As I indicated in my opening comments, we've worked hard within the ministry to preserve core programs and critical services. Those reductions are made up of, firstly, moving some operational staff, regional staff, over into business risk management, program operations — support for our role in that core program, that critical service, for which there is a cost recovery.

There are some general reductions in operating STOBs, as you call them, which is travel, contracts, those kinds of things. Then there was a portion of that reduction that is related to attrition through staff vacancies and hiring freezes and not filling staff positions, on the basis of contributing to our overall goal of making sure that we preserve those core programs that were so important to the industry.

L. Popham: One of the questions I had…. I was trying to figure out at what point the meat inspection regulations left the Ministry of Agriculture and ended up in Healthy Living and Sport. I'm wondering if you could tell me the date that happened or the year that happened and where that would fit within Vote 13, if it had still been there.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to advise. The meat inspection regulations were never in the Ministry of Agriculture. They were originally in the Ministry of Health, and then when the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport was formed, the regulations were transferred to that ministry. So those are not within the scope of our estimates.

L. Popham: When I'm reading through the agricultural plan and your statements, I see that part of the
[ Page 1180 ]
vision that we have for agriculture in B.C. includes developing our local markets. I'm wondering: is the minister concerned with the meat regulations being outside of the Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, no. But again, I want to reaffirm that this is outside the scope of the estimates discussion here. Those regulations are under, as I indicated, the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. We work closely with them, but they're outside the scope of these estimates.

[1535]

L. Popham: So what part of the budget is used up by working with the other ministry?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, again, the regulations and the responsibility for those regulations are under the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. I think it is fair to say that given that we work with the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport to a degree in terms of providing advice, there will be some amount of limited staff time involved in that discussion. But there's no specific budget estimates for that — other than part of some people's roles in their work within the ministry.

The Chair: Member, could I remind you to direct your comments towards Vote 13 and the budget estimates for 2009-10.

L. Popham: Thank you for the reminder. I thought that I was, because food safety falls into the category of Vote 13. There is a food safety issue with the meat regulations. That's why I was doing that.

I could just come back to food safety and ask: what falls under food safety?

[1540]

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: What the member opposite is referring to is the budget for the food safety branch which you're looking at in terms of roughly $6.3 million. That is the staff resources within that branch that support industry in terms of working with industry, with primary industry, with food processors, working on implementation of programs around traceability, around biosecurity, around plant and animal health.

There are initiatives through Growing Forward where industry is working. As you know, we provided, for example, $3 million to small-scale food processors as part of the Growing Forward agreement. That's not in those budgets. Those are separate agreements, but the budget there is the staff resources that support industry initiatives to adopt food safety practices on farm, in processors — HACCP-type programs.

L. Popham: I think for this next bit I'm going to go to the Crown land administration section. I'm going to start by asking: how much did the ministry make from selling Crown land last year, and how much is projected for this year?

[1545]

Hon. S. Thomson: Staff advises me that for '09-10, the number was $83 million, and for '08-09, I think you asked for, we have an estimate. We don't have the public accounts directly with us — and we can provide the exact number if you require — but the estimate is around $107 million.

L. Popham: When that land goes for sale, how does it go up for sale? I'm going to add another question as well, because you'll be conferring. Do they still have the Crown land for agriculture development support program in the works?

Hon. S. Thomson: There were two questions there. On the first one, I think, if I've got the question correctly: how does it go up for sale? Just to advise that these processes are application-driven in response to demand.

With respect to your second question, we do not currently have a Crown land agriculture development program.

L. Popham: Does the province have plans or programs that they're going to be putting into place to convert more Crown land to agriculture to grow our productive land base?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, not at this time.

L. Popham: I'd like to take a look at the land restoration programs. I note that the budget for that has decreased quite substantially, and I'd like to know why.

[1550]

Hon. S. Thomson: The reduction of $20 million — $10 million of that was a planned reduction. It was shown in previous estimates, so that was known. The other $10 million reduction is a result of our challenging economic times and the result of needing to work across ministries to make sure that we protected core programs and critical services.

L. Popham: The money that's used to restore and remediate contaminated sites…. How much did the government spend on this, and is there a cost recovery process involved?

Hon. S. Thomson: To date, since 2001, we've booked $260 million in this program. We have spent $130 million. There's $130 million for future specific site projects.
[ Page 1181 ]

In response to your question around cost recovery, as you may know with these sites, these are sites that are identified where there's no longer a responsible party, and these sites have defaulted to the province. They need remediation. There are no other responsible owners, so there are not the opportunities for cost recovery, but there is the need to remediate these sites.

L. Popham: How many sites are there right now?

Hon. S. Thomson: There are 72 sites either completed or underway.

[1555]

L. Popham: How much land base does this make up, and can you tell me what types of contamination are being cleaned up on these sites?

Hon. S. Thomson: These sites range in size anywhere from less than a hectare to maybe tens of hectares. In some cases the contaminated portion of a site may only be a portion of the total area of the property. So we don't have a specific, exact number that we would be able to provide. We might be able to do a little bit of work to get an estimate of that, but I think it's very fair to say that these are generally smaller pieces of property and in many cases are only a portion of the overall property.

In terms of the types of remediation or contamination that we're dealing with in these sites, it's a fairly significant range. For example, we're dealing with sites that have mine tailings, old landfills, old industrial mill sites that might have petrochemicals or hydrocarbons.

L. Popham: I'm wondering: is the Skeena mill in Prince Rupert one of these contaminated sites?

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer to the specific question is no.

L. Popham: Within the "Voted Appropriations Description" it says that this remediation and restoration can apply to Crown and "other lands that affect provincial interests." What are the other lands, and what are the other provincial interests?

Hon. S. Thomson: When we were talking about the Crown lands remediation program, those were specific to Crown lands. The other provincial interests that you reference there are referencing back to our brownfields program that I mentioned.

Under our brownfields program, these can cover private properties, properties owned by local government or another variety of ownership. For example, that's the program…. We were able to announce the grants — they're just over $1 million — earlier this summer, under that brownfields program. If you review the list of the grants that were provided there, you'll see a variety of ownerships. So that's what's referred to by the other provincial interests.

L. Popham: I would like to know if those are outside of the 72 sites. I would also like to know if it would be something that…. Could you give me the list of the 72 sites, the nature of the contamination and the former owner of the site?

[1605]

I also would like to ask: what makes the decision that the original polluter doesn't pay for that remediation?

Hon. S. Thomson: I apologize for the delay in responding. I was getting the list of the 72 sites to be able to read them to you. That would take the next hour, and it's very fine font — no, just kidding.

I think the answer to your first question is yes. We can provide that list to you, and we'll get it to you. I certainly won't attempt to read them all out here.

[1610]

With respect to your second question, the province endorses the polluter-pay principle, and if there is a liable party that could be identified and held responsible, then that would be pursued.

L. Popham: Does some of this land, once it's remediated, ever get added to our farmland base?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm advised that, to this point, there haven't been any of the completed remediated sites that have become farmland, or would be available for farmland. That's not to say that once this land is remediated and safe that it can be available for any number of opportunities. But to date we have not had one of those that has reverted to farmland.

L. Popham: I would like to move now to the "Strategic Industry Development" section, and I would like to talk about strategic policy, investment and innovation. So as far as the money that's allocated there, it has been decreased, and I would like to know exactly what that decrease was, because this seems to be a very important line item. We can start there.

[1615]

Hon. S. Thomson: The reductions that the member opposite is referring to are made up primarily of…. As I mentioned before in the response to the first question you asked on the previous area, in terms of general operating efficiencies, this is part of our governmentwide reduction in terms of travel sufficiencies, reduction in travel costs, contracts and general efficiencies.

There is a reduction in that amount, which was part of a transfer to the AgriStability account, for the
[ Page 1182 ]
AgriStability program. We are confident that that doesn't impact our ability to deliver fully on our obligations under the AgriStability program. We don't feel that we have put that at any risk.

There are some accounting adjustments to be more consistent with government accounting and, also, consistent with the answer to the previous area, some staff, a number related to staffing attrition and hiring freezes.

L. Popham: Okay. Thank you. I would like to know, as far as the money for research and innovation, how that's broken down, where that goes exactly.

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: The $4 million that the member opposite is referring to…. These are staff resources in our research innovation policy development branch. This covers industry specialists who work around the province supporting the industry in development initiatives. This is our policy development branch within the ministry that helps work on strategic policy in support of the industry.

L. Popham: Is there a way that the agriculture community has of applying for some of this money for innovation and research?

Hon. S. Thomson: There are research dollars available to industry through Growing Forward and through the Investment Agriculture Foundation and through the B.C. Innovation Council, which the province has invested in — not within this specific vote that you're referring to here. That's what the industry specialists and staff resources do, and that is assist industry in working with them to support their research needs through those programs.

There are resources in all of those agencies and programs available for that purpose. If there were any specific interests that you had to bring forward, then we could certainly have our industry specialists work on looking at where the most appropriate place to direct those research needs would be.

L. Popham: I'm wondering: in the research side of it, is there research being done right now on genetically modified seeds for British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: Not by the province of British Columbia.

L. Popham: Are there any companies that this money is supporting that are doing that research?

Hon. S. Thomson: Not to the best of our knowledge.

L. Popham: I think it's quite critical that as a province we take a stand on genetically modified seed. I'm wondering if the province would be going in that direction.

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: We have not contemplated a specific policy on that at this point, but I would be pleased to meet with the member opposite to discuss it and to hear her views on it.

L. Popham: Thank you. That sounds like a great offer. I would love to do that.

In the innovation section…. Can you give me an example of something that would be funded that would be considered an innovation?

Hon. S. Thomson: I can provide a couple of examples. There are probably many areas that would fit into this, but just as a couple of specific examples that the member opposite might be interested in….

The ministry is working with the B.C. Food Processors Association, the B.C. Agriculture Council, the B.C. Small Scale Food Processors Association and post-secondary institutions on the development of a commercialization and innovation centre that would help support a culture of innovation within the industry and help move things from early stage to commercialization. It would focus on new products and new product development.

Another example is the work that's being done in the industry on anaerobic digestion. That's one of the points I made in my opening comments around where I see some real opportunities for the industry, in terms of being able to move into the alternate energy field and looking at waste-to-energy initiatives. Anaerobic digestion is just one of those technologies that we feel has significant potential for the industry.

L. Popham: Is that an educational facility that you're describing?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, it's not. The concept or the vision that is being looked at in cooperation with those groups is a virtual hub that would link services and expertise together and chart paths forward for entrepreneurs who would like to bring those products forward and move them into a commercialization stage. It would link up those services and provide that opportunity to them.

It's a virtual centre that is being considered, not bricks and mortar. It's bringing all of those services and expertise together that would assist all those components of the industry — primary producers, food processors, small-scale food processors — together to provide them the expertise and the support that would help them do that.

[1630]

L. Popham: I'm wondering how the government, or how the ministry, determines its rate of success with the
[ Page 1183 ]
research and innovation money. Is it measured by return on investment at this point?

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of a specific answer to the question, return on investment is not one of the performance measures that is specifically applied. The performance measures that are used in these programs and funding primarily relate around rates of adoption — successful rates of adoption in terms of, you know, the demonstration of the technology and then the rate of adoption and takeup within the industry once successful feasibility is demonstrated.

Successful commercialization of new products is one of the performance measures. Partnerships — the rate of partnerships and alliances in working the programs, and successful leveraging of other partners and investment in the specific initiatives.

L. Popham: Within the research and innovation, how much of a driver is climate change initiative?

[1635]

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: It's certainly one of the areas of interest and focus in innovation, as you know. So is it a driver? Yes, it is, in terms of specific types of innovation. We have significant resources within the ministry dedicated to a climate action division, which is part of a climate action team.

We work with a multi-stakeholder industry committee called the climate action initiative committee, and they are looking at policies and programs and things that deal with both mitigation of climate change impacts and adaptation to those changes and looking at ways that the industry can contribute to the government's climate change objectives.

Just for example, the project that I mentioned earlier when we were talking about innovation in terms of the anaerobic digester initiative — the fees and the work that were invested in the feasibility study for that and demonstrating the application and the success of that technology….

We're going to be looking at that technology, actually, going on-farm very shortly. Rates of adoption takeup in the rest of the industry, as I said, will be one of the performance measures of the work that's being done in those areas.

So certainly, climate change, the folks on climate change within the industry…. They're working on it. We're interested in it. We have a significant division within our ministry that is focused on that.

L. Popham: I'd like to be on that committee.

I'm going to ask you one more question, and then I'm going to let my colleagues ask a few questions.

In the strategic industry development there's mention of youth development programs to facilitate leadership in the agrifood industry. When I travelled and did my agriculture tour this summer — and I know that the minister knows this because he is involved in agriculture — one of the main problems right now is getting youth involved in agriculture.

So I'm just wondering what the leadership…. Who's taking the leadership? What is the leadership role to get youth involved?

Hon. S. Thomson: A very good question. And I appreciate the reference to the fact that I know about and care about agriculture. I think the whole area of cultivating and generating interest in agriculture in youth is a very important area. I would be happy to continue those discussions with the member opposite on how we maybe do more in those areas. I'd like to hear her ideas.

[1640]

More specifically, we do have a division within the Ministry of Agriculture, a youth development division, which works very closely with the 4-H program, developing leaders for tomorrow. There's a careers-in-agriculture program within that 4-H program. We have dedicated staff there. We work with the 4-H community and groups in doing that.

We also work and have supported financially and support the initiatives of the Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation and work very closely with school programs developing a number of very new and exciting initiatives within the Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation.

We have programming and focus in those areas. But can more be done? I would certainly agree with you that there can be more. I'd be happy to have further discussions with you in that area. It is a very important area.

We have that area in developing the youth. We also have, as you are well aware, issues in terms of succession within the industry, in terms of farm and estate planning and through farm business management training and programming under Growing Forward. There is support for the industry to work on those.

Those are two key areas. One is youth and youth interest and development, and the other is succession planning and estate planning for farmers to be able to move the next generation into the farms.

But the key to all of that, as you know, is making sure we have a foundation that ensures that agriculture is profitable in the future. That's the way you attract youth in, and that's the way you'll deal with succession issues in the industry, as well.

M. Sather: We have had a real significant issue in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows this summer about a cranberry farmer who had diverted water from the North Alouette River. There was no water licence to do that. I'm sure the minister is aware of the conflicts on
[ Page 1184 ]
waterways such as in the Nicola between fish and agriculture and, of course, in the Okanagan, where there are big issues with water allocation.

I'm wondering if, from an agricultural perspective…. I'm a big booster of agriculture as well as the environment, as the minister knows, but what is the thinking of the ministry and of the minister around this issue of sharing water, particularly in rivers that have high fisheries values like the North Alouette? We have local stewardship groups that have brought that river back from a very low area to be a good salmon spawning river.

I would like to hear some of the minister's thoughts around how those issues can be resolved and what sorts of efforts are being made by his ministry to do so.

[1645]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think the specific issues of water allocation are best canvassed under the Ministry of Environment, which also has responsibility for the Parliamentary Secretary for Water.

In terms of the specific issue that the member mentioned, that is under investigation by the Ministry of the Environment — again, not appropriate for me to comment on. Our ministry, obviously, in terms of agriculture has a very significant interest in water for agriculture. It's the critical need in terms of the health of animals and livestock and irrigation for crops.

The industry has an agriculture environment partnership committee, a multi-stakeholder committee including all agencies, both at the provincial level and at the federal level, looking at agriculture and environmental issues. My ministry is a member and helps co-chair that committee, and that's the area where the industry, in cooperation with all those agencies, works on a whole range of environmental policy issues, including water.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister about another issue around home plates. In Pitt Meadows we had an initiative to try to get.… We've got a lot of smaller holdings in the ALR there — some of them ten acres or less — and there's been an initiative to try to get homes occupying the edges of properties rather than in the middle, because we're getting a lot of folks coming out from the city and wanting to have an estate home, and they want to plunk the monster home in the middle of a ten-acre lot, which doesn't go very well with agriculture. So I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on this — if he's supportive of that kind of an initiative, the home plate initiative.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. We certainly have an interest in that policy. Our ministry works with local governments and with the Agriculture Land Commission on those kinds of issues. I think our overall objective is to ensure productive use of agricultural land.

Again, this is one of the issues where I would be happy to have further discussions with the member. But as a general comment, this is a policy area that we're certainly interested in, and we do work with local governments in this area.

[1650]

M. Sather: My last question to the minister has to do with the regional growth strategy of Metro Vancouver, which is replacing the old livable region strategic plan. There is some concern of what's happening in Maple Ridge, and probably in other communities, that local governments are, well, maybe taking advantage of the move to expand the urban boundary into rural areas.

One individual involved in Maple Ridge has estimated that we're looking at about 285 hectares if this were to go through — if the local government were to have their way in Maple Ridge — that we would no longer have as agricultural or rural lands. Some of them are in the ALR; some of them aren't.

I am just wanting to know if the minister is aware of this issue, if they've had any discussions with Metro Vancouver about the regional growth strategy and, more specifically, about this kind of creeping urban sprawl through that process, the regional growth strategy process.

Hon. S. Thomson: Madam Chair, just before I respond to it, I'd seek a little direction, because this is starting to move into areas of questioning that are kind of beyond the scope of the estimates, although I'm quite happy to respond. But I think we do need to make sure that the focus is on the estimates.

Certainly, the point that the member opposite raises is a shared concern. I'm certainly aware of the strategy. We haven't initiated specific discussions, but we do work with our ministry. We have a strengthening farming program, a program that's managed by our staff in Abbotsford who work with local governments addressing the rural-urban interface issues and those kinds of issues. So that's certainly an area that I will take the member's concerns, and I will talk to staff about them.

Again, Madam Chair, I'm quite happy to discuss some of these policy issues, but I think that there are other forums to have those kinds of discussions, and the focus needs to be on the ministry estimates.

There are some very interesting areas that we need to continue to work together with in the overall policy areas.

The Chair: Member for Saanich South. Also, I guess, be mindful that we do keep things on topic and to the vote.

L. Popham: So my question is just for my own clarification. Within Vote 13 it says in the voted appropriations description: "…working in partnership with
[ Page 1185 ]
industry, local governments and others to manage land use planning." I'm just wondering: do I understand that as something else other than what my colleague was talking about?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: Following up on the comments I made to the previous question, what's contemplated in that note is our strengthening farming program and the work that we do with local governments and with the Agricultural Land Commission on addressing those issues. We work with agricultural advisory committees in local areas. We work with certain local governments that have been delegated under bylaw processes. So that's what that reference is to there.

H. Lali: Earlier in the day I had challenged the ruling of a Chair. I would like to withdraw those remarks and offer my apologies.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

M. Mungall: I'm bringing forward some questions after talking to farmers in my local area in the Creston Valley. My first question is about the AgriStability program. Now that that program has moved from the federal government to the provinces, people in my area are quite concerned that the staffing for this program is going to get caught up in some of the staffing freezes that they heard in the Speech from the Throne.

So if you could maybe answer that — again, if the staffing for the AgriStability program is going to get caught up in the staffing freezing.

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. It's a very important one. One of the objectives that we had in moving the AgriStability program to British Columbia was to ensure that we did provide that additional client support and direct contact with our producers here. We're working very hard to make sure we have those resources in place to do that.

We are in the process of completing an agreement with the federal government. Some of that involves an employee transfer agreement. We have filled a number of key positions already in terms of being in a position to be able to deliver that program directly as soon as those agreements are in place, as I indicated earlier in a question which involved some sort of a reallocation of staff resources within the ministry to support our need to deliver that program.

We're going to work to make sure that we have those resources in place to make sure that the objective that we had when we started out to bring this program's administration to British Columbia from the federal government and move it out of Winnipeg into British Columbia — that we meet those objectives of client service, understanding of our industry and timeliness in terms of dealing with producers. That's a focus that we'll continue to have.

M. Mungall: My second question comes from talking with many, many small farmers, particularly young farmers, in my area. They felt that they would be better supported in the work that they're trying to do, in producing food for us to eat, by having a district agriculturalist.

[1700]

Of course, we don't have that right now in British Columbia. It seems to me that a district agriculturalist would provide them not only with the knowledge resources that can make their holdings more productive, but it also seems that this would be essential for the strategic industry development, as outlined in your budget estimates. I'm wondering if this is something that you're going to be putting on the table — to start funding and delivering as a service to farmers in British Columbia.

The Chair: Just for the information of the member, once you've been recognized by the Chair, it's inappropriate to be using your computer as you ask a question. If you want me to clarify, to be relying on it for speaking notes and for asking questions is not in order.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: As you know, we're facing very significant challenges across government and within ministries, contributing to administrative cost reductions on those. So this is an area…. Again, we're focusing resources on the critical programs and services of the ministry.

In reference to your previous question around making sure we had the resources for AgriStability delivery and those core programs, we want to make sure that we do that. We do have industry specialists, and we do have staff in regions that are available to help producers.

We're working with our staff to make sure that the staff that we do have in those areas are knowledgable about all ministry programs and all supports and services available from the ministry so that if you go to a staff person and they're not necessarily district agriculturalists, they should be available to assist those producers in all aspects of the programs and services that the ministry might have.

[1705]

The Chair: Member for Saanich South. If I could just say something before you start.

For all members, the use of computers and electronic devices is not allowed when you have the floor. It's the same as a BlackBerry; you can't depend on it to read off of. You can use it in between for research and other things while you're waiting for an answer, but to actually
[ Page 1186 ]
do the question, you have to put the top of your computer down. So I'll leave that.

L. Popham: I wanted to get back to the topic of agriculture in the classroom. I wanted to talk about the importance of this program at early stages. I know that this program is not mandatory in the classroom. I'm wondering what the uptake is as far as the schools go, and I want to know if the ministry is considering making it a mandatory program.

Hon. S. Thomson: The Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation is not within the ministry. It's not part of our budget and our estimates. It's outside of ministry; it's a foundation. Issues around curriculum are the responsibility of the Ministry of Education.

I think what I could offer and perhaps the best thing to do here, given the interest and the scenario that I am interested in as well…. Perhaps I could facilitate a meeting for you with the Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation, with their executive director and board, in whatever way you'd like, so that you could get a full understanding of the programs and services they offer, the level of uptake that they have with their various programs and the types of initiatives they do. They are working in all levels of the school system. As I indicated earlier, there are some very, very exciting initiatives and programs.

So that might be the best thing to do, and then we could explore further those initiatives. But they are outside of our ministry. They have a separate board of directors, and the funding and resources they have are in a foundation.

L. Popham: Can you tell me if the fruit and vegetable program that is in the schools is part of the minister's ministry?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, it's not specifically within our ministry. That program is under the Ministry of Healthy Living, and the program itself is one of the programs that are administered by the Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation. So I think that if we can facilitate that discussion, then you could get a good understanding of what they are doing with that specific program as well.

L. Popham: I bring up the fruit and vegetable program in the schools for one reason, and I think that it is a concern to the Minister of Agriculture. The last couple of weeks I've been receiving letters that the fruit that's provided to this program…. I understand that there's no control at this point by the ministry, but they're using Washington apples. I'm just wondering if the Minister of Agriculture could show his support for B.C. apples by maybe sending a letter to that program stating that he's concerned that we're not using our own apples.

[1710]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. That's certainly an area…. Thanks for raising the concern. It's certainly something that I will follow up from here. I understand that on occasion, with the scope of the program, there's sometimes the inability to source all of the product they need, yet they still want to make sure they get the product available to the schools.

I certainly understand and agree with the concern that you've raised, and we can follow up from here.

L. Popham: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I don't think there's a lack of B.C. apples at this time of year, so it would be nice to have a further conversation.

I want to talk about gaming grants and if there are any programs within the ministry that have been cut due to gaming grant losses.

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is no. We don't have programs that depend on gaming grants.

L. Popham: Can you tell me where the gaming grant funding for the support for agricultural fairs comes from? Which ministry does that fall under?

Hon. S. Thomson: That question would be appropriately addressed to the Minister of Housing and Social Development.

L. Popham: Does the B.C. farmers market nutrition and coupon project fall under the Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, that program is not through our ministry.

L. Popham: I would like to talk a little bit about the Ranching Task Force. I did have a chance to meet with the Cattlemen's Association this summer. The information that we discussed was concerning to me, because I know that the cattle industry is suffering right now.

It seems to me, though, that the direction that they feel their market is taking — or it has been in the past, and they wish it to be continuing this way — is in the international market and not in our own local domestic market.

I'm wondering: is the Ranching Task Force working with them to try and perhaps bring in a new innovative business model?

[1715]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, thank you for the question. This is a very important initiative that we have undertaken with the Ranching Task Force. We recognize the challenges in the industry currently. That's why the task force was initiated. We are in the process, partway through that process, and I haven't seen the specific recommendations from the task force yet. They are
[ Page 1187 ]
working on it under our co-chair position with the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson.

But what I am advised…. I know they are discussing a whole range of topics and initiatives within the work of that task force, looking at regulatory initiatives, other areas that may assist the industry. I know they are looking, as part of their work — they've had productive discussions — at the issue of marketing, both from the international perspective and from the domestic perspective.

I don't want to prejudge what the task force may recommend. What I can say is that I'm looking very much forward to receiving their report, as I indicated earlier, some time towards the end of this month or early into November.

But I know that the issue in the area you raise is one that is part of the discussions that the task force is having, and I'm advised that they're having very productive discussions.

L. Popham: So, again, with the Ranching Task Force, I'm going to give you a bunch of questions that you can respond to at the same time rather than one at a time.

I guess I would like to see the terms of reference for the Ranching Task Force, and I would like to know how the stakeholders were invited to the table. I know that the initial invitation did not go to First Nations Agriculture, and they were wondering why. So I'd like to have that question asked on their behalf.

I would also like to know if, within the terms of reference, the review of the ALR was included in that.

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for putting a number of questions into one, or bundling them, so that I can respond to them directly.

First of all, the terms of reference are available. We can get them to you directly. They are on the ministry website.

In terms of the stakeholders, when we initially established the committee, we did have discussions around first nation participation in the task force. There are first nations representatives. There are first nations individuals who are members of the core organizations that form the task force: the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the Breeders and Feeders Association and the Association of Cattle Feeders. So initially that was the view — that first nations interests would come through those associations, as they are members of those associations.

When the issue was raised more specifically with us around direct First Nations Agricultural Association representation, the task force looked at that and agreed that that representation should be added directly. Chief Harold Aljam is a member of the task force and has been a very good and active participant in it.

The ALR issue, specifically. It's not specifically in the terms of reference, but it certainly…. As I mentioned, the task force is looking at a whole range of issues, regulatory and things that impact their industry, and the ALR discussions are part of the discussions that the task force is having.

But a specific reference to reviewing the ALR is not part of the terms of reference. The terms of reference were specifically to look at the range of issues and regulations and things that impact the industry and to bring forward recommendations about what we may look at and what we may be able to do to assist the industry to be sustainable in the future. So it's not specifically in the terms of reference.

L. Popham: This morning on the radio I heard the member for Kamloops–North Thompson discussing the problems with marginal ranching land around Creston. The implication was that there would be a review of the ALR. I'm concerned that that means we're going to be reviewing it to start removing that land out of ALR.

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: What I'm advised is that what you are referring to — the radio comments made by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — were referencing the request from the east Kootenay Livestock Association to address that issue.

This was not a…. That's where the, you know…. And they have, you know…. That's their initiative and a request that they made. It's not a commitment. There are going to be no commitments made. It's not policy of this government or of the member. But as I indicated, the overall issue of the agricultural land reserve and how that works with the cattle industry is part of the task force discussions.

L. Popham: Thank you for that clarification. As far as the recommendations that will be coming forward, I'm wondering if there will be any discussion on moving the cattle industry away from grain-finished beef on to grass-finished beef, which would be more suitable to our provincial landscape.

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, I'm advised that that is part of the discussions of the task force. As you know, grass and forage within the industry here in British Columbia are our advantage. That's one of the real advantages that B.C. has in terms of our cattle industry. I know that that is part of the discussions of the Ranching Task Force. Again, I don't want to prejudge what their recommendations may be, and I'm looking forward to the report.

The quick answer to the member opposite is that that is part of their discussions. As I mentioned, they're discussing marketing, both internationally and domestically, so that'll be part of those discussions.
[ Page 1188 ]

L. Popham: When I was travelling through the Cariboo, I did visit meat-processing plants that were interested in growing their businesses. I know we're not going to talk about the meat-processing regulations here today, but I just wanted to make sure I understood the chain of what happens to our cattle in B.C., as far as the main export chain.

I understand that cattle are started here in B.C. It is brought to, I guess, auction — maybe? It's brought to a cattle auction, and it's sold into a co-op, and then it's transported to Alberta, where it's finished off with grain in an area that has a lot of cattle living together in an unhealthy way.

[1730]

Then, in this one instance that I learned about, it goes to a meat-processing plant called Cargill, where it's then processed and sold back to us as Alberta beef. I guess the reason why I'm bringing this up is that that seems to me to be a problem for our B.C. producers.

We're losing money in the processing area. We're losing money in the finishing area. And the prices that I saw the cattle going for were so low that there could be nothing made on these cattle. I guess I'm wondering: is that being looked at? Is that way of business being looked at?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, like my previous answer where I mentioned that the approach to marketing, both domestically and internationally, is part of the discussions of the Ranching Task Force…. I think, again, I want to draw back to earlier comments. I'm having a little challenge in sort of connecting this directly to the estimates. But I'm happy to answer the questions, because these are important policy issues.

I think the short answer, again, is that the cattle are, you know, one chain that you talked about in the value chain and how you referenced it here. It's not the only way that cattle are marketed in British Columbia.

I think that the better answer is yes, that the value chain within the industry — all of that — is part of the Ranching Task Force discussions. That's why we've appointed the task force to look at all of those kinds of issues.

We recognize the real challenges within the industry and that they are not getting the return that they need currently. We need to look at how the regulations, the marketing — all those kinds of things — can be structured to make the industry profitable in the longer term.

That's the work of the task force. I think we should let that process work, and then government will be looking at the recommendations that the task force brings forward, in cooperation with the Cattlemen's Association.

L. Popham: Can you tell me which ministry pays for the task force?

Hon. S. Thomson: Our ministry is paying the basic expenses of the task force. We've estimated it to be about a $25,000 cost.

[1735]

We've tried to do things as efficiently as possible. We're using video conferencing technology for some of the meetings for the task force. We're trying to, given our fiscal challenges within the ministry…. This was a new initiative, and so we are working that way. But the very basic expenses of that task force are being paid by the ministry.

L. Popham: Where does that fall under in the vote?

Hon. S. Thomson: It's under "Strategic Industry Development," under the line item of "Sustainable agriculture management" in the ADM's office.

L. Popham: I'm going to try and touch on one last issue. It's a big issue to me, so we may run out of time. I know that I'm going to be directing this question to the minister, and it probably doesn't fall under his responsibility, but I really want to discuss the concern that I have about it.

We are showing that the budget for marketing our products in B.C. is going down. The discontinuation of the Buy B.C. program, the food miles program that was cut before it began are of great concern to me. When I think about the Olympics, I think about how much of an opportunity we have in this province to showcase what we have. I know that the minister, from his budget response, feels exactly the same way. He's looking at it as an opportunity to showcase our goods.

I'm concerned about the goods that we're marketing right now as Olympic products and showcasing. One of the items is wine, as I brought up in question period.

I am wondering if the minister is going to be making a statement about the wine industry in B.C. and how it is being reflected on because of these products that are being released before the Olympics as B.C. products.

[1740]

The Chair: Minister — and noting the time. So you can answer the question.

Hon. S. Thomson: Answer the question and then — right. Okay. Thank you. Get the procedures down here.

First of all, as you referenced the Buy B.C. program, it continues to exist. Due to the economic challenges that we currently face, we have not been able as a province to put specific funding into that program. It's one of the ones that, as we looked through all the programming in order to meet the administrative cuts, we weren't able to do.

But the branding program, as we call it — and whether that's Buy B.C. or some other form of branding — is
[ Page 1189 ]
something that I think is still very important and something that we're committed to continue to work on. We are working with both the B.C. Agriculture Council and the B.C. Food Processors Association in looking at how we do that.

The B.C. Agriculture Council continues to hold the licence for the program under a sublicensing agreement for the initiative. We have met recently with them in terms of how do we help them with some staffers, resource and support in continuing to use that sublicence effectively.

With respect to the Olympic opportunities, it is an important area to showcase our products. We have worked with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We facilitated 13 regional seminars on 2010 business opportunities in conjunction with both the B.C. Small Scale Food Processor Association and the B.C. Food Processors Association in terms of connecting B.C. food processors and small-scale food processors with the caterers and things that will be providing food and services to all the events and to B.C. House and all the events around the initiative.

I agree it's an important opportunity that we need to continue to work on to make sure that we focus B.C. food products and our industry at the Olympics. You and I share that as an important priority.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 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