Hey Folks,
This is a long one.
Below is the transcript of Michael’s marathon session dissecting the Liberals Labour Mobility Act.
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)
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 5, Number 2
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 11 — LABOUR MOBILITY ACT
—Debate Section 1—
M. Sather: On section 1, definitions. This Labour Mobility Act is, I think, the strangest piece of legislation I have ever seen presented to this House. It reminds me of Seinfeld, which was a story about nothing. This is a bill about nothing in and of itself. It’s a bill about another act.
As we go through the discussion of this bill, the definitions of terms, as vague and amorphous as they are, must be examined. So the “BC equivalent occupation.” Can the minister give a couple of examples of a B.C. equivalent occupation?
Hon. M. Stilwell: B.C. equivalent occupation is defined further to the principles that there will be automatic certification only when the occupation for which one is certified in another jurisdiction is substantially the same as that in British Columbia. An example would be potentially a podiatrist or possibly a nurse practitioner.
M. Sather: Well, we’ve got an example that we can perhaps go back to.
I don’t understand the wording of “measure” under the definitions. Measure is defined as “a practice, policy, standard and procedure.” Now, is a measure a practice and the procedure related to it, or is it a policy and the procedure related to it? Or is it a standard and the procedure related
[ Page 1307 ]
to it? Or is a measure a practice, policy and standard and the procedure related to it?
This is really unclear wording. Could the minister please elucidate what is meant by that definition?
Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that it can include any or all of those things in the context of certification.
M. Sather: In that case, I would submit that it should say “‘measure’ includes a practice, policy, standard or procedure.” Would she not agree?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I think the answer is that it could include any or all of them.
M. Sather: Obviously, it’s misworded. It’s certainly not simply a housekeeping matter, because none of these words — practice, policy, standard or procedure — are defined in Bill 11. This bill is all about deregulating “measures,” and we really need to know what these measures refer to.
Hon. M. Stilwell: I think the answer is that this is a drafting style that is meant to cover any or all of those particular aspects within the context of certification by a particular regulatory body.
Section 1 approved.
—More Debate Section 2—
M. Sather: On section 2, approved measures, it says: “An applicable BC regulator must not propose or apply, in relation to an occupation or an application for certification in relation to an occupation, a measure that
[ Page 1309 ]
constitutes an inconsistent measure referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 708 of the Agreement….” That’s the agreement on internal trade.
The agreement I’m looking at, article 708, says: “Subject to article 709, each party undertakes to mutually recognize the occupational qualifications required of workers of any other party and to reconcile differences in occupational standards in the manner specified in annex 708.” There’s no mention there in article 708 of inconsistent measures. Can the minister comment on that, please?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I just have to say this experience has certainly killed any idea that I might have enjoyed a career in law. [Laughter.]
I am advised that article 708 deals with exceptions to rules. So if the measure is otherwise inconsistent with chapter 7, you could seek legitimate objection.
I want to say that as a matter of policy, there will be few, if any, such measures approved by the two ministers. The section is intended to clarify that the proposal or application of such measures by regulators themselves is not permitted and that in practical fact we have found that the regulators have worked very well across the country and have not found huge difficulties or differences when they actually tried to articulate the like standards.
M. Sather: Well, the minister’s esteemed legal counsel will know that every word in law has to have meaning. Here we have a phrase, “inconsistent measures,” that is not defined in the agreement on internal trade. It’s not defined in Bill 11. So can the minister tell this House: what is an inconsistent measure?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I’m not sure if this is helpful, except to partly reiterate what I said. If the measure is otherwise inconsistent with chapter 7, you therefore have grounds, as I understand it, to seek a legitimate objection. The word “inconsistent” basically refers back to and is parroted in article 708.
M. Sather: Well, we need to talk a little bit about legitimate objectives. So that the viewing public understands, a legitimate objective in essence says that you have this piece of legislation that prescribes certain things. But if you have a legitimate reason to go beyond the scope of that legislation, you can do so. It’s been widely quoted already.
What we’re talking about in this case is article 709 of the agreement on internal trade. I’ll just quote one part of that article. Maybe I’ll have to say a little bit more. It says: “Where it is established that the measure is inconsistent…the measure is still permissible…if it can be demonstrated that (c) the measure is not more mobility restrictive than necessary to achieve that legitimate objective.”
In other words, one has to indicate, one has to demonstrate that going outside of the parameters of this agreement, although it might restrict mobility of labour, is not more restrictive than necessary. Now, “necessary” is a very qualitative word. It’s not a definitive word. One can have one’s own interpretation of what necessary means.
I’d like to ask the minister if she can tell me under what circumstances…. Has it ever occurred, and under what circumstances, within the agreement on internal trade, which has been around since the ’90s, that a measure has been defeated, shall we say, using that article (c)? In other words, has anyone ever been able to demonstrate the strength of that — that the mobility…? The AIT, of course, is more than labour mobility, but we’re sticking to labour mobility.
Has anyone ever been able to use this section to circumvent or go outside the provisions of the agreement on internal trade?
Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is: not to our knowledge. I won’t say “not to my knowledge.”
M. Sather: Precisely. That’s the case. No one has ever been able to use legitimate objectives, because it’s fatally flawed. You cannot possibly prove that the measure is not more labour restrictive than necessary. So we’re dealing with a real house of cards here, and I know what the intention of the government is with this legislation. It’s certainly not built on sound principles of law, and that’s maybe the way it was intended.
—More Debate Section 3—
M. Sather: The minister has referenced the essential nature of article 708 of the agreement on internal trade to this bill. Article 708 says that “Subject to article 709, each party undertakes to mutually recognize the occupational qualifications required of workers of any other party and to reconcile the differences in occupational standards in the manner specified in annex 708.”
Then it’s made clear that annex 708 is of the same essential quality or importance to this bill. I wanted to ask the minister about part 1, section 2 of annex 708, which talks about undertaking an assessment of occupations, identifying occupations, finding commonality. Then it says: “Parties also agree to invite other regulatory bodies to do the same.”
How does this work? Can the minister explain? You have two provinces, let’s say, that undertake an assessment. They would consult with regulatory bodies, I would have thought. What are the other bodies, and where do they fit into this process as outlined in that part of the annex?
Hon. M. Stilwell: Sorry, if I could just ask the member opposite to expand on his question, because I am not sure what exactly he would like to know.
M. Sather: It was more of a process question. But I could continue on with part 1, then, to ask the minister,
[ Page 1311 ]
looking at sections 3 and 5, which talk about a high level of commonality…. “Where a high level of commonality has been determined to exist in the territories of two or more parties” — at section 3. What occupations in B.C. have been found to have a high level of commonality of occupational standards? Can the minister tell me about some of those?
Hon. M. Stilwell: Two significant examples would be all of the Red Seal trades and professional engineers.
M. Sather: Well, section 5 talks about occupational analysis, comparing the standards and “assess and measure the extent of the differences, both in terms of scope and of required level of performance. Thresholds will be defined for comparability. By way of example only, 80 percent similarity might be considered a high level of commonality while 60 to 80 percent might be considered a moderate level of commonality.”
We’re trying to assess the commonality of occupations, but how do we assess it? I mean, it says here that 80 percent might be considered a high level of commonality. So 60 to 80 might be considered a moderate level.
How can we determine the degree of commonality, which is essential to this bill? How can we determine that based on these exceedingly loose guidelines?
Hon. M. Stilwell: Without getting into a specific occupation, I would just say that the regulating bodies basically will work to articulate standards to the best that they can. If the discordance related to the reasons for legitimate exceptions — namely, health, safety or significant consumer protection — then there would be a process to resolve it.
M. Sather: I think we’re going to be completely swimming in the dark here if we try to apply these measures, if you will, to occupations and trades in British Columbia.
Still under part 1 of annex 708, section 4 says: “If the parties” — that’s a couple provinces we’re talking about here — “determine that there is insufficient information currently available on which to make an initial assessment of comparability….”
How many occupations are we talking about here in terms of insufficient information currently available to make an assessment of comparability? Have we got huge numbers? Have we just got a couple in British Columbia where we don’t have this kind of information? It seems to me that if we don’t have that information and we can’t assess comparability, we get further…. How are you going to decide who’s who in the zoo if you have no way to determine whether they’re comparable?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I think the practical answer is that out of 225 defined occupations, four or five have not yet come to agreement. Practically speaking, this has not been as difficult as it might seem.
M. Sather: Thank the good Lord for that — that there aren’t more. Thank you to the minister for giving me a number there.
Continuing on to section 6 of part 1 of annex 708, it says: “The occupational analysis will not consider differences in training methods since it is recognized that competencies and abilities can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience.”
If I look, for example, at registered massage therapists in British Columbia — and they, as the minister will know, are regulated under the Health Professions Act — a registered massage therapist in British Columbia has to have taken 3,000 hours of training, including 330 hours of clinical practice. That’s seven semesters, 28 months of straight education with not more than a three-week break anywhere. In my eight years of post-secondary education, I never kept up a pace like that. They go to school nine to five every day, four to eight classes per day.
They are saying that competencies and abilities can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience. In the three other provinces that are considered to be comparable — Newfoundland, Ontario and Alberta — there’s a reciprocal agreement now with those provinces, and there are considerable differences. Before I ask specifically about the differences for that profession, I wanted the minister…. Could she confirm for me whether there actually is a reciprocal agreement for registered massage therapists in place with Newfoundland, Ontario and, recently, Alberta?
Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is I don’t know. I don’t know if there’s an agreement between those two provinces on massage therapists.
M. Sather: Well, the registered massage therapists understand that there is, but it hasn’t been really confirmed to them.
Alberta, which is now part of this reciprocal agreement that we can’t really confirm but registered massage therapists tell me is out there, can be certified with 2,200 hours of training. That’s more than one-quarter less than in British Columbia.
According to section 6 of this part of the AIT, it says that it is recognized that “competencies and abilities can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience.” Here we have one group that has only 75 percent of the training of the other group, yet they’re being harmonized apparently.
So what does that mean? What are we saying — that the training that the registered massage therapists of British Columbia took, which is certainly more in-depth than that which those folks in Alberta did, has no mean-
[ Page 1312 ]
ing, has no significance? So we can just wash it out and say, as it says here: “What the heck. Competencies can be acquired through different combinations of training and experience”?
We can’t have it both ways. Either training means something and we value it — I mean, certainly those students paid big money for it, worked really hard for it — or it has no meaning at all.
Can the minister comment on that? This is a significant part of this bill. Here’s a group of professionals who are mighty upset right now that they’re seeing people moving in from Alberta and going to take the same jobs that they got, with less than three-quarters of the amount of training that they have. Can the minister comment on that, please?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I actually think that example you just gave me is arguing my point that competency is not measured by hours. However, what I think we’re really doing here is saying that it’s up to the regulatory bodies to apply AIT. If they are certified to be a massage therapist in Ontario, then they will be certified here. Those two regulating bodies have worked that out or are working that out.
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
M. Sather: Well, with all due respect, what the minister just said is very troubling to me. She said I made her point that the amount of training doesn’t matter, that hours don’t matter. So what we are saying to this group of professionals and to others in the province of British Columbia is: “The training you took — that you worked hard for, that you paid big money for — doesn’t matter a whit because somebody else can come in and take the same job you’ve got, with a lot less training.”
In fact, the minister might want to know — based on the information I have, and she can tell me and correct me if I’m wrong — that registered massage therapists in Alberta, some of them, have 700 hours of training. I mean, they have been grandfathered with 700 hours. So are these folks with 700 hours of training going to be considered equivalent to our registered massage therapists with 3,000 hours of training?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I think we’re getting sidetracked. That is not exactly what I am saying. What I am saying is that competency has to be measured in more than hours and that for me to stand and discuss any particular occupation, outside of what the regulatory bodies themselves have collaborated on and articulated, doesn’t make sense.
All I’m saying is that to move to a competency-based framework allows anyone who thinks they are trained and has certification in Canada to practise to move to the province they wish to.
M. Sather: That’s the problem. So the high level of commonality, then, that we’re talking about…. Given everything the minister has said so far, it must in fact be dependent on ignoring significant differences in training. Is that not so?
Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is that if a person is certified by a regulatory body in another province, B.C. will accept that certification.
M. Sather: Notwithstanding any differences in training that they may have then?
Hon. M. Stilwell: That is correct.
M. Sather: That’s worse than preposterous. It’s downright dangerous. What message is that sending to the professionals and the tradespeople of our province? It’s saying that your advanced education is meaningless. It’s saying that you don’t have to go out and get a good education because what the heck, why should you have to?
Somebody in Saskatchewan, somebody in Alberta, can come in with way, way lower qualifications and, as the minister said, walk right into your job. That’s what she said, in essence. That’s why we’re so concerned about this bill.
The last thing I want to ask the minister under part 1 of annex 708 is under section 9. It says:
“In cases referred to in paragraph 8, each party shall also seek to make accommodations to its licensing, certification or registration requirements to give appropriate recognition to the training, skills, experience and education of out-of-province workers. Such accommodations may involve the development and implementation of alternate systems for the assessment of their qualifications, such as systems that allow workers of another party to reach the required qualifications through additional modular training or supervised work experience.”
I can understand saying that you have to bring up your qualifications through additional — what they’re calling here — “modular training,” but it says “or supervised work experience.” So in other words, all you have to be is supervised at work, and you become equivalent with the other occupation. Could I please have comment from the minister on that one?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I don’t think I have a complete answer, but I will say that I don’t interpret this as saying that there’s no value of education.
As a physician who trained in one province and moved to British Columbia, I see it as a way for me to take my qualifications to work where I want to work.
As for whether supervising somebody’s work is adequate, the fact is in medical residencies, that’s exactly what happens. So in my experience, that’s understandable.
To me, it just reinforces the point that this is the regulatory bodies that have the responsibility to apply the AIT. They have been able to work this out. For me to
[ Page 1313 ]
stand and talk about whether it’s massage therapy or another occupation, I don’t feel that we’re getting to where we want to get.
It’s up to the regulatory bodies to apply the AIT. They get together and try to articulate the standards, which so far, approximately 220 out of 228 have been able to do. The other ones continue to work on it. My understanding is they’re making progress, and if they can’t do it, there’s a way of resolving it.
M. Sather: Well, that’s simply not the case. The minister can’t simply say that it’s up to the regulatory bodies. Because as we’ll see as we look into this legislation further on, the minister and the government can override those bodies with considerable authority.
But it’s legislation — how badly construed and drafted — that’s being brought forth by this government and this minister. So to stand up and wash their hands of it and say that it’s up to the regulatory bodies, and that they’re getting along not too bad, really. I’d have to say that it’s quite missing the mark if we refuse to or don’t address those very considerable issues that are at play here.
One thing on part 2 of, again, the annex 708 of the agreement on internal trade, which says — and this is “Development of new occupational standards and changes to existing standards”:
“If occupational standards have not been established in the territory of a party” — a province — “in respect of a particular occupation but exist in the territory of any other party” — to the agreement — “the party without the standards will develop its standards in a manner that will facilitate future reconciliation, taking into account the existing standards in the territories and the other parties.”
So they’re to reconcile their differences “in a manner that will facilitate future reconciliation.” I would like the minister to explain to me how this one works. “In a manner that will facilitate future reconciliation” doesn’t say anything to me. How exactly will they do that?
They have to take into account the existing standards. Okay. But the bottom line, it seems to me, is that this is a Wild West show and that trades, occupations are really being given no significant direction here. Can the minister please comment on part 2 and on how these bodies are supposed to proceed with their business?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I just want to clarify that we’re reading off the same document. I have final text, chapter 7, “Labour Mobility,” approved December 5, 2008. I think I heard you refer to 708, subsection 9, and I don’t see one. Did I mishear?
M. Sather: Annex 708.
Hon. M. Stilwell: I’m still not sure that we’re reading off the same document. Do you have the document approved December 5, 2008?
M. Sather: I’m not sure. Can the minister tell me when that became public?
Hon. M. Stilwell: It was ratified January ’09 at the first ministers meeting.
The Chair: Member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, on section 2. We are talking about paragraph 1 of article 708. It’s what we’re referring to.
M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will complete my comments there.
—More Debate—
M. Sather: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to section 4 of Bill 11, which adds: “(d) may require the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of matters applicable to the practice of the regulated occupation in British Columbia.”
A couple things I’d like to say about this amendment. It’s clearly a flexible amendment, and I know the government is fond of flexibility. It says, simply, that there may be a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate knowledge. So if the government chooses, I suppose, not to invoke — the regulator or the government, whoever the case may be — that subsection, they could do so.
Clearly, this is a commonsense amendment suggesting that an applicant should be able to demonstrate knowledge of matters applicable to the practice of the regulated occupation in B.C.
Surely we can all agree that we want to have labour standards, labour practices, in our province that lead to not only higher productivity…. As I tried to allude to earlier in my comments, productivity is determined considerably by education and training. We want to know that our workforce is going to be productive; that when they get on the job, they do have knowledge of what they’re doing; and that, at least at a base level, they can demonstrate that knowledge to those who would want to and need to regulate it, if you will.
I know that regulation is a bit of a dirty word with this government, but I think it’s foolhardy to simply suggest that anybody can do various occupations. It’s a basic mistake, and I hear the government making this mistake, whether it’s about a professional authority or whether it’s a trade. I’ve heard horror stories from folks that train individuals to operate cranes on construction sites — about the lack of training that some of those individuals have.
We know, too, that we’ve suffered a lot of casualties in this province recently, over the last number of years, and that safety has to be a concern always when we engage someone in an occupation, when we ask them to do a job. It’s incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that we take great care to ensure that our workforce is not only trained but that they’re going to be safe.
So this is a very commonsense, not in any way heavy-handed, amendment to a piece of legislation that is…. Well, let’s say that it has a tremendous amount of flexibility. I would tend to call it weak and ineffective. Nonetheless, I think that the government side could help not us but the people of British Columbia, the workers of British Columbia, to pass this amendment so that
[ Page 1320 ]
there can be some greater level of protection for them than is encompassed in this bill as it is.
Hon. M. Stilwell: I just wanted to say that the amendment is not required, as in fact, flexibility is provided on interpretation by 706(3)(f). As well, there is a provision for conditional licenses.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 3 approved.
—More Debate Section 4—
M. Sather: I’m curious about the issue of TILMA, which this government passed, having no recourse to the Supreme Court. There’s a tribunal that rules, but in this case, with the AIT, as encompassed in this bill as well, there is recourse to the Supreme Court.
I would have thought that the government would have preferred the tribunal route. I’m wondering if there were discussions that took place with the other parties and the federal government to try to have the same route as was taken in TILMA as opposed to recourse to the Supreme Court.
Hon. M. Stilwell: To my knowledge there was no consultation with respect to that specifically, and this represents the British Columbia government’s drafting.
M. Sather: So I’m just wondering what to conclude from that — why there wouldn’t have been any discussions. Does the member and does the government feel that, in fact…. I know that the government tried to sell TILMA to other provinces unsuccessfully and now is going to add labour mobility at least — that part of it — through the AIT.
Has the government concluded, then, that in fact the AIT is going to be more effective and the mechanisms are more effective than those adopted by TILMA? Is that why there were no discussions?
Hon. M. Stilwell: TILMA was an inciting event that was successful between B.C. and Alberta and then led the other provinces to see the benefits of labour mobility and then enabled the wider agreement of the AIT.
M. Sather: That doesn’t make sense to me. If the other provinces saw the benefits of TILMA, why didn’t they embrace TILMA?
Hon. M. Stilwell: As you know, TILMA involves much more than labour mobility, so it’s sort of like comparing apples and oranges. This bill was simply selected as the best mechanism for the implementation of the AIT.
—More Debate Section 5 and 6—
M. Sather: On section 5(1), “authorizing enactment” means “an enactment, other than the Health Professions Act.” I just wanted to ask the minister why the Health Professions Act was excluded from that authorizing enactment definition.
Hon. M. Stilwell: The Health Professions Act is excluded as it already incorporates labour mobility provisions and a process whereby regulators’ bylaws can be ordered amended.
M. Sather: Does that mean, then, that the professions that are regulated by the Health Professions Act are in some way exempt in the provisions of Bill 11?
Hon. M. Stilwell: No. It’s simply not required because there are already provisions in the act.
M. Sather: Just a question and clarification on section (3)(a). It says: “may request the regulatory authority to
[ Page 1324 ]
amend the mobility provision to make it comply with one or more of this Act….” I don’t understand that phrase. Am I missing something there? One or more what of this act?
Hon. M. Stilwell: Through to the member, I think it’s just how you’re reading it. After the comma, where it says: “with one or more of this Act, the regulations and the Agreement….” So it’s all three. It’s a list, I think.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
—More Debate Section 7—
M. Sather: I’m sure I must be missing something here, so I’ll need some explanation. Section 7 is very short. It’s that the agreement does not become law. “Nothing in this Act renders the Agreement” — that’s the agreement on internal trade, of course — “an enactment or otherwise gives to the Agreement the force of law.”
Well, this is legislation. If it’s not law…. It’s all about the agreement on internal trade, so if it’s not law, what are we doing here? I’m missing something here.
Hon. M. Stilwell: This section is included in order to clarify that the act in itself does not serve to render the AIT an enactment or give it the force of law. This ensures that the AIT, for all purposes external to the Labour Mobility Act, remains to be interpreted on its own terms.
M. Sather: I can understand that the AIT should be free, notwithstanding this act, to be interpreted on its own. But how, then, when this act imports all these provisions of the AIT, can they have the…? Does this bill have the force of law? If it does, how can it if all the provisions that it’s importing don’t have the force of law? I still don’t understand.
Hon. M. Stilwell: What this bill does is serve to implement a trade agreement, which is in itself not a law.
—More Debate Section 23 -25—
M. Sather: These are amendments consequential to the Wildlife Act. It says: “(1) A regional manager” — that would be a regional manager of wildlife, of course — “(a) may issue a guide outfitter licence to a person if all of the following apply: (i) the person is a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident of Canada; (ii) the person has public liability insurance prescribed by regulation; (iii) the person has other qualifications prescribed by regulation.” How is this different than the provisions of the Wildlife Act as they currently stand?
Hon. M. Stilwell: The only change is currently in part (b). It now says “must issue” versus previously it was discretionary.
M. Sather: On subsection (b), then: “must issue a guide outfitter licence to a person if the person is a person to whom the regional manager is obliged under the Labour Mobility Act to issue a guide outfitter licence.”
I take it from what the minister said, then, that the references to the Labour Mobility Act were already there in the legislation. My question, then, is: what qualifications do they have to have now to be a licensed guide-outfitter that they didn’t have to have before this legislation?
Hon. M. Stilwell: I’m sorry. Can I ask you to repeat the question? I didn’t hear it this time.
M. Sather: Well, there are actually a couple of questions. Was the provision for the Labour Mobility Act in this act before, or is this new? I understood from what the minister said that it wasn’t, that it was already in there, because she said the only change was adding “must” to section (b). I’ll just ask that question first, then.
Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes, the only change is that now a regional manager must give the licence versus previously.
M. Sather: How does the Labour Mobility Act, then, have any bearing on a person getting a guide-outfitter licence?
Hon. M. Stilwell: The answer is because it is a regulated occupation and covered by AIT.
Section 23 approved.
On section 24.
M. Sather: This one says that:
“(1) The regional manager or the regional manager’s designate (a) may issue an assistant guide licence or an assistant angling guide licence to a person if both of the following apply: (i) the person is a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident of Canada; (ii) the person is 19 years of age or older, and (b) must issue an assistant guide licence to a person if the person is a person to whom the regional manager is obliged under the Labour and Mobility Act to issue an assistant guide licence.”
Is this the same effect, then? Is it just the changing of one word as in the last section that we’re looking at here — it’s “must” or “may”? Or are there additional ramifications for an assistant guide licence that there weren’t before?
Hon. M. Stilwell: Yes, you are correct.
Sections 24 and 25 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Stilwell: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved on division.
The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
