So, I guess that would then mean that any place where anyone is working, no matter what the size. I will take that, then, as a definition.

So the other part, I am looking at Section 4 again, and it says, “an Occupational Health and Safety Program or a work site as required by the regulations,” so can I get a confirmation? I heard you say these programs, these officers are required for businesses of more than 20 employees, so is that what is referenced here in number 7, that the regulations will make that statement so any work site that has less than 20 employees is not required to have an occupational health and safety committee, I guess, and a designated safety representative?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to Mr. Grundy for the explanation. My other two questions have to do with Section 4 in the act, but it states or uses the term “work site” and I don’t see that defined, certainly in this act. It may be defined elsewhere but it is not defined in these amendments.

To the concern that Mr. Dolynny expressed about small businesses being impacted, could I get a definition of what a work site is? I don’t know if it is in regulations already or if the department knows what they intend a work site to be. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of questions. I haven’t been party to the consideration of this bill, but in listening to the comments in the last few minutes, I heard Mr. Grundy say that there is a comprehensive review of the Safety Act being undertaken.

So, my first question is: Why do we have these amendments before us when the Safety Act is being reviewed, apparently now and in the near future? What is so urgent about these amendments that it couldn’t wait until the comprehensive review of the act? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a brief comment that I want to make. I’ve been pushing for eight years, not so much lately because we’ve had a change to the Motor Vehicles Act, but certainly in the 16thAssembly I pushed very hard to get some change to the Motor Vehicles Act relative to distracted driving and I’m very pleased to see that we are increasing the fines and adding suspensions. With the change that was originally made, it was almost as if people just totally ignored it and we had almost as many people driving distractedly as we had before we made the original amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. So, whatever we can do to bring it down the better, and I’m really pleased to see these amendments in here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that subclause 26(3) of Bill 64 be amended by deleting “bank” in proposed subsection 33(4) and substituting “bank or credit union”.

Okay, thank you. So maybe I’m confused, but it begs the question to me why are we making the amendment? I thought we were making the amendment to make it easier for people to work off their fines and their surcharges and if that’s the case, we’re opening it up so that more offenders can work off their fines and their surcharges. Am I incorrect in that? If we have more offenders working them off is that not more work for staff? Thank you.

Thank you. I’m not suggesting it’s not beneficial, but the question is are you not anticipating more offenders will be working off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program and they are going to be monitored and they’re going to be supervised by corrections services staff? So do you not see that there’s going to be an increase in the work involved by your corrections staff? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My concern when we discussed this act was similar to Mr. Dolynny and it was that there’s an anticipation that there would be a lot more people working off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program. We asked the question and we didn’t really… It was sort of the same question that was asked here already, but we didn’t really get a definitive answer. The answer to Mr. Dolynny suggested to me that there’s no expectation that the number of offenders working off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program is going to increase. I guess I’d like to get that confirmed. It would seem to me if we are making these amendments to the act that there’s going to be a lot more offenders who will be able to work off their surcharges through the Fine Option Program.

So I guess I would like to ask the Minister and the department, do you not expect that you’re going to get more people working off their surcharges and that there is going to be an impact on the correctional service? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of comments here. The powers of the coroner are increased quite a bit through these amendments. I and a couple of other members on the committee had some fairly serious concerns about whether or not the powers were going a little bit too far. In discussion during the public hearing and in discussion with the Minister and his officials, I certainly was reassured that these powers are necessary for the coroner to do her job, that they are not going over and above and beyond some of the concerns which I initially had when I first read the amendments to the act.

The other concern that was raised was the issue of privacy and transmission of information from one person to another as the coroner and his or her staff did their duty. Again, my concerns there were assuaged. I feel comfortable in passing this bill as it is.

So, I just wanted to point out that we did have some concern. I certainly am okay with the bill as it is now. Thank you.