2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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, MAY 6, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Transmission Corporation Act (Bill 39)

Hon. S. Hagen

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40)

Hon. S. Hagen

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Economic development in Delta South area

V. Roddick

Prevention of sex crimes against children

B. Belsey

Mental health funding and services

L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions

Delivery of services for children and families

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Hogg

Respite care beds at St. Paul's Hospital

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

B.C. Liberal Party fundraising letter

P. Nettleton

Hon. G. Collins

Mental health and addiction information plan

I. Chong

Hon. G. Cheema

Second Reading of Bills

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

P. Nettleton

M. Hunter

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

P. Sahota

P. Bell

R. Harris

Committee of the Whole House

Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33)

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 33)

[ Page 6523 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003

The

House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. A guest in the gallery today is Mr.

Harry Lewis, a teacher from Reynolds Secondary School. Mr. Lewis is in charge of

the flexible studies program at Reynolds by which the Victoria school district

61 has, for many years, provided students to work as Pages for the Legislative

Assembly.

Harry is

here to observe the work his students are doing on our behalf. I'm sure members

will agree that we have received excellent service from Reynolds Secondary

School. Please welcome Harry Lewis.

S. Orr:

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you mentioned Harry Lewis. I actually just wanted to

welcome Harry back from Australia, where he was teaching for a while. He was

president of the Tillicum-Gorge ratepayers association and a very active member

of the community. Welcome back, Harry, and we'll speak to you soon.

[1405]

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today the mayor of the

fifth-largest city in British Columbia: from the city of Abbotsford, Mayor Mary

Reeves. With her today is Mr. Gary Guthrie, the city manager. I ask the House to

please make them both welcome.

J. Kwan:

I have the great opportunity to introduce the two most significant people, two

most significant women, in my life, who are in the precincts today. Before I do

that, if you would indulge me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity

to thank everyone in this House — in fact, everyone who has sent Cee-Yan and

my family well wishes and warm thoughts for her arrival.

One

minister actually mentioned that 25 hours of labour is worse than the estimates

process. For the opposition caucus, let me tell you, it is actually worse than

the 24-hour emergency debates that this government would like to keep bringing

on. There's only one difference, though. The end result is much more gratifying.

Cee-Yan is wonderful. She is in the precincts today with my mother, downstairs

in my office. Would the House please make welcome the two most significant women

in my life.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I hope the House will join me in welcoming 21 grade 10 students from

St. George's Secondary School in Vancouver. They're here with their teachers,

Mr. Stephen Ziff and Mr. Neil Piller. Will the House please make them all very

welcome.

Mayencourt: It must be a day for students to visit us here in the precincts.

I'm very proud that I have 11 students from King George high school in my

constituency who are here visiting the Legislature. They're joined by Susan

Gerofsky, who is their teacher, and Teresa Goode and Janet Collette, who are

parents. These students are part of the city school program that's offered at

King George high school to students from around the city of Vancouver as an

alternative program, an enriched program, for kids that really do excel. I'm

very proud to have them here, so would the House please make them all feel

welcome.

Stewart: Today visiting the Legislature is the Bethany Chorale from Bethany

College in Saskatchewan. I had the immense pleasure, along with other members,

staff and visitors, to hear the majestic voices of this chorale raised in song

over the noon hour in the legislative rotunda. They are on a tour of various

B.C. communities and will be performing this evening in Victoria. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION ACT

Hon. S.

Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Transmission Corporation Act.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that Bill 39, Transmission Corporation Act, be read a first

time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 39, the Transmission Corporation Act.

The Transmission Corporation Act enshrines in legislation the British Columbia

Transmission Corporation. As part of our energy plan commitments, we are

creating this new corporation to efficiently manage B.C. Hydro's transmission

grid. The bill is a positive step forward in implementing the province's energy

plan, a plan designed to deliver the lowest-possible electricity rates, a secure

and reliable supply of energy and more private sector opportunities — all in

an environmentally responsible way.

Our

government made a new-era promise to the people of British Columbia that they

would continue to own and benefit from B.C. Hydro's core assets. Today I'm

pleased to announce we are delivering on that commitment. Today's legislation

establishes the British Columbia Transmission Corporation as a Crown-owned

corporation that will be regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission and that

cannot be sold. The historic investments and electricity assets have been

protected for British Columbians.

[1410]

Creating

this new publicly owned corporation helps achieve our energy plan goal of

keeping electricity rates low by ensuring that ratepayers continue to benefit

from electricity trade, and it will ensure that we continue to receive trade

revenues to help pay for the

[ Page 6524 ]

education and health care services that all British Columbians hold dear.

The

Transmission Corporation Act will encourage private sector investment in new

generation and energy industry growth. Mr. Speaker, this legislation helps

secure British Columbia's low-cost energy advantage to build on our strengths

and helps revitalize the economy and create jobs.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. S.

Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that Bill 40 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 40, the Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, 2003. These amendments modernize the Utilities Commission Act and are a

positive step forward in implementing the province's new energy plan, a plan

that will deliver low electricity prices, a secure and reliable supply of

energy, more private sector opportunities and environmental responsibility.

The act

will go a long way in ensuring efficient regulations of B.C. utilities, which is

necessary to ensure that public utilities deliver low-cost energy and are able

to reliably serve domestic needs. These amendments will also streamline the

existing regulations.

Bill 40

will facilitate the development of domestic energy sources. Electricity

distributors are required to acquire a new supply on a least-cost basis, with

regulatory oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The act has

been amended to encourage utility investment that supports environmentally

sustainable responsibility through conservation and energy efficiency. The act

modernizes British Columbia's regulatory structure, streamlines regulations and

introduces a framework for customer protection and choice.

These

legislative changes will benefit customers. By securing a low-cost energy

advantage, British Columbia can build on its strengths to help revitalize the

economy and create jobs through private sector participation. The bill I'm

introducing today demonstrates our government's commitment to strengthen the

British Columbia Utilities Commission to benefit all British Columbians.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

IN DELTA SOUTH AREA

Roddick: Delta South is the constituency through which everyone travels to

get where they're going. As a result, our community is faced with making plans

and decisions which will impact our neighbourhoods forever.

It is

imperative that everyone work together — volunteer community groups, business

associations, industrial parks and all three levels of government. Growing and

building a stronger community can only be achieved by working together

positively.

There are

excellent business opportunities which will gain the services and quality of

life that we strive for and of which we can be proud. Here are just a few of

those opportunities available to Delta: the B.C. Ferry terminal improvement

plans; Vancouver Port Corporation, Roberts Bank expansion; Tsawwassen first

nations treaty process and economic development; Ladner fishing harbour;

agriculture, Delta's largest single industry; Delta municipal bylaws; Boundary

Bay Airport; and, knitting all of this together, a traffic infrastructure

absolutely second to none.

[1415]

Individual,

neighbourhood, community and provincial thinking caps must be put on in order to

develop and ensure locally designed solutions. I will continue to work with the

community and to bring ideas forward to this Legislature and to this government.

As our community is doing with Delta Hospital, if we work together positively

and with determination, we can achieve great things. United, we will succeed.

PREVENTION OF

SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Belsey: I rise today to talk about a new advocacy group in Prince Rupert,

the Concerned Citizens Against Sex Crimes to Children, or CCASCC. This group of

ordinary community-minded citizens is working to find solutions to protect

children from sexual exploitation.

It has been

said that it takes a village to raise a child. However, it takes an entire

community to protect them. Not every family is in the position or has the

resources to protect their children during those most vulnerable years.

Therefore, society must be prepared to work together with these families that

cannot. It is

[ Page 6525 ]

only by working together that we can protect children from these social

problems. Too often the people who commit these crimes have been victims

themselves as children, and it is a vicious cycle that must be broken.

Two weeks

ago I met with the co-founder of CCASCC in my constituency office, where we

discussed the important role citizens and governments play in protecting

vulnerable children. I am looking forward to working with the organization and

know, through constructive dialogue with Concerned Citizens Against Sex Crimes

to Children, that our efforts will benefit those most in need.

In closing,

let me say the success in eliminating the exploitation of children in this or

any other community will be measured by the presence of justice and the absence

of fear.

MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING AND SERVICES

Mayencourt: A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a West End

Neighbours in Action meeting on mental health services in our community. I

wanted to take a few moments, since this is Mental Health Week, to highlight

some of the achievements of the government in dealing with this important issue.

In the past

year our government provided $15 million to strengthen community mental health

services, and this year we added another $18 million to our health plan

commitment. Our government has committed $138 million to upgrade facilities and

replace the aging Riverview facility in Coquitlam. As part of that project,

we've already opened facilities in Coquitlam, Prince George, Saanich and

Kamloops — with more to come in the next few years.

For the

first time in B.C. history, we have put mental health together with addiction

services, integrating those programs to serve patients in British Columbia more

effectively. The government has released several best-practices documents to

improve mental health planning, including peer support and support for families,

and our Premier announced several programs to deal with depression strategies

and anxiety disorders.

The

government released Canada's first comprehensive child and youth mental health

plan recently. This plan will go a long way to building a better capacity of

services to improve the lives of young people that live with mental illness.

On Sunday

the Minister of State for Mental Health announced the development of the B.C.

partners for mental health and addictions information. By prudent management of

all ministries, we are providing more dollars towards mental health services in

this province than ever before. We are strengthening community services, we are

creating networks of care, we are building modern and updated facilities, and we

are implementing best practices — all in the interest of serving this

vulnerable group of British Columbia citizens.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

DELIVERY OF SERVICES

FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

MacPhail: My questions follow up from the statement from the member for

North Coast.

[1420]

The

Minister of Children and Family Development has spent two years working on a

scheme to devolve child protection to regional governing authorities, but that

plan, as we're learning every day, is quickly spinning out of control. Service

providers, concerned parents and the outgoing children's commissioner have been

saying for months, along with the opposition, that it's impossible to implement

a 23 percent budget cut as part of this restructuring scheme. The opposition has

learned that the minister's own interim authorities are balking at the cuts,

refusing to implement the orders. The auditor general is investigating. As of

yesterday we received a memo from the service providers and advocates stating

that the ministry didn't meet its budget last year, that it's going to have to

redo the budget and that the legislation is on hold. That's as of today.

Can the

minister explain why funding for kids at risk is being cut as his grand plans

for a new child protection regime in B.C. unravel?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The ministry did meet its budget last year — in fact, met it and

provided funds to build on top of that in a number of areas. The ministry is

looking at and continues to look at the service plan and the targets that we

have within it. There are significant challenges in terms of the service

delivery model and the 23 percent cut, which the member made reference to.

We have

been involved in the most extensive consultative process that this ministry —

and, in fact, this government — has ever seen with respect to provision of

social services. People across this province have been active participants in

that. We met last weekend with a number of the chairs of the planning committees

across this province, and they have — to a person, aboriginal and

non-aboriginal — committed to the targets we have set in terms of the funding

models that we're working toward. We are continuing to go review those.

We've

learned a lot in the past two years. We've learned a lot about what we have

inherited from the past government and the focus and direction we have to go. We

are still going forward in a very positive way. We will meet those budget

targets. We will be able to have a plan that services and responds to the needs

of communities in a much more proactive way and that is responsive to the

nuances of the needs of various communities in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, the minister's right on one fact. Yes, his ministry

officials did meet with service provid-

[ Page 6526 ]

ers last weekend. Here's what his officials told them. The Ministry of

Children and Family Development did not meet its budget targets for '02-03

because the reductions of the number of children in care did not meet the

targets set by the government. Maybe they made their budget cuts, but they

didn't get their service cuts. Here's why: there are enough children who need

child protection, and therefore they couldn't make their targeted cuts.

The entire

scheme set up by this government was based on the premise that communities could

provide the same child protection services for 20 percent less with this new

regional model. That's the argument the minister has used over and over again

when he's confronted with how he can achieve his budget cuts.

Well, the

Finance minister has put this project on hold because of financial concerns, so

that argument's gone. This minister is going to have to come clean and admit,

finally, that a 23 percent budget cut in his ministry means lost services and

less protection for kids at risk — the very people the member for North Coast

is now advocating on behalf of.

Will the

minister finally stand up and tell us what services will be gone because his

reorganization of protection in kids services is in complete disarray? Who is

going to be further at risk now?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Firstly, this government's priority has been, is and will continue to

be the health and safety of children within this province. Secondly, there was

an increase of 60 percent in terms of the number of children that came into the

care of the state in this province over the past eight years — a 60 percent

increase, well above the national average of the number of children in care.

Every bit

of good social work practice tells us that the best way we can support children

is within the context of their families, their extended families and the

community — every bit of research. In fact, perhaps ironically — without

using any props — I have research that supports that, which has been done

around the world.

We are

moving in a very progressive way to a community-based response model, which will

allow us to respond more effectively to the nuances and needs within the context

of the community and provide protection within that context. That's the

direction and the way that all of the best evidence tells us we should be going,

and that's the direction and the focus that this government has taken.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

[1425]

MacPhail: Well, maybe the minister's own officials aren't telling him what's

going on. Here's the other news that's revealed in this e-mail. The legislation

to put in place the new authorities has been delayed for all of the authorities,

including the provincial community board, the regional authorities and the

aboriginal authorities — delayed. Here's what's that says.

Now, the

minister was forced to admit in estimates debate that he spent $25 million in

transition funding for this new scheme that's now delayed — $25 million that

could have gone to protect children at risk and support child and family

development programs. What does the minister have to show for it? Delay, having

to redo his budget, not meeting his targets. Everything possible has gone wrong,

and $25 million wasted. Resistance inside and out of government, massive

confusion and uncertainty, a ministry service plan that's under review and is

now going to be done, investigations by the auditor general, and more cuts still

to come.

If the

minister insists on pushing ahead despite this mess he's creating, can he tell

us how much more money that should go to treating kids, protecting kids, is

instead going to the botched transition process, to the new regime that's

already wasted $25 million?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the service plan the member made reference

to, there was a reduction of some 1,000 children in care in the past year, which

is consistent with the service plan as it was put forward. In terms of those

numbers, we were right on with respect to that.

With

respect to the transition process we've been involved in, we have focused and

continue to focus our dollars around the issues of health and safety. To that

end, we've increased by $10 million the amount of money going into family

development, which is to support those people who come into care. The member may

not be aware, but 65 percent of the children coming into the care of the state

have been coming in, under the past government, from single parents who were on

income assistance. In many instances, they need a bit of support rather than to

be taken into the care of the state. We're moving forward in terms of being able

to respond to the community response to that.

We're

meeting with people around this province and looking at the service plan. We've

learned a great deal in the course of the past two years, and we need to ensure

that we're applying what we've learned in a good, evidence-based way to ensure

that the focus and direction we go in is most appropriate. We've got to build

capacity in the community, and we're doing that through the dollars we're

putting into communities to build that capacity for them to respond to it.

RESPITE CARE BEDS

AT ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL

J. Kwan:

This week is National Hospice Palliative Care Week. Will the Minister of Health

Services use this opportunity to announce that he's going to reverse his

government's cold-hearted decision to close respite beds at St. Paul's Hospital

for persons with AIDS and others who are living with terminal illnesses?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am actually very proud of the work that's been done by my

colleague the Minister of

[ Page 6527 ]

State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care around palliative care

strategy. It is actually the first time in this province that we've ever been

able to move to a comprehensive approach that's provincewide instead of the

patchwork of palliative care initiatives we had seen up to two years ago. There

is certainly maintenance of the palliative care support that's in place. Also,

as the member will know, part of the increased federal funding that will flow is

being designated for palliative care. I see that over the years to come, we will

be able to expand that program in the context of a provincewide framework that

provides consistency throughout the province.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

The reality is this: respite beds at St. Paul's are a critical part of

continuing care for persons with AIDS. Advocates in the health care professions

say this decision to close beds — and that's what this government is doing:

closing beds — is catastrophic and is a direct result of budget cuts. They say

it's penny-wise and pound foolish. St. Paul's is being forced to cut some

$200,000 this year alone to meet its budget. How can this minister stand up

today, day after day, and say he's protecting health care? He said the beds are

coming, when at the same time what is happening right now is that he's cutting

the beds at St. Paul's for people with AIDS. Does he not consider these beds to

be part of the health care system?

[1430]

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think that the member…. Well, I was going to say she should

know. Maybe she doesn't know, but if she doesn't know, I'll inform her that this

government made a significant investment in the new Dr. Peter Centre in

Vancouver, which will actually provide for additional services for AIDS patients

in British Columbia.

I would

also like to point out to this member that this government added $1.1 billion to

the health budget in this province. We are seeing a reorganization of health

care in terms of how it can be delivered and where those services can be

delivered so that we can better meet the needs of patients, whether they're in

the middle of downtown Vancouver or whether they're in smaller communities in

the heartland regions of the province.

B.C. LIBERAL PARTY

FUNDRAISING LETTER

Nettleton: I remember a number of years ago at the Oscar awards ceremony

when an outsider at that time, Sally Field, was presented an Oscar. Overcome by

the shock of being accepted, she blurted out: "You like me. You really,

really like me."

Well, today

I also feel like I've been nominated for an Oscar, not for my acting —

although some of you may differ — but because in my mail this morning I

received a letter that demonstrates conclusively I'm still a part of the B.C.

Liberal team. The letter came from none less than Kelly Reichert, the executive

director of the B.C. Liberal Party, urging me "to make a financial

contribution to the B.C. Liberal Party today…"

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Will the member now please put his

question.

Nettleton: I will.

"…so

that the clock isn't turned back on the progress our team is continuing to

make." Yes, Kelly, I want to do my

part in fighting the special interest

groups too. Just show me where to sign up.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. Will the member put his question now.

Nettleton: Absolutely. You all know I'm a team player, and this letter

proves it. Perhaps the Minister of Finance….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order.

Nettleton: My question to the Minister of Finance is: perhaps he could tell

me where to make the cheque payable and how much. After this letter I'm feeling

really generous. And you like me; you really, really like me.

Hon. G.

Collins: I know that the party awaits the member's generous contribution.

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION

INFORMATION PLAN

Chong: This past Sunday I participated in the official launch for the

beginning of Rick Casey's bicycle ride across Canada, which is being called

"The Miles for Mental Health." The purpose of Mr. Casey's journey is

to raise awareness around the issues of mental health.

Recently

the government announced a development of an information plan for mental health

and addictions. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health explain why we need

such an information plan, what it is supposed to accomplish and how this

information will be available to serve all the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Cheema: On Sunday we announced the development of the B.C. partners for

mental health and addiction information. The goal of this information plan is to

establish a single reliable source for people in B.C. to consult for credible

and useful information on mental health and addiction issues. This partnership

includes representation from all provincial mental health organizations, the

Ministry of Health and UBC. It's truly groundbreaking to see all these

provincial

[ Page 6528 ]

agencies working together to bring their experience, expertise and community

ties to the table.

[1435]

The theme

of this year's Mental Health Week is mental health literacy, and this plan will

help to build mental health literacy. The primer is the first project of the

mental health and addiction plan. The information from this plan needs to reach

as many British Columbians as possible, and the partnership is presently looking

at translating the primer into other languages, including Chinese and Punjabi.

This is truly a remarkable achievement in this province.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued second reading debate of Bill 29.

Second Reading of Bills

FOREST (REVITALIZATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

(continued)

Hon.

M. de Jong: This is the continuation of a second reading debate that began a

couple of days ago. At that time I laid out for the House some of the rationale

behind this, which is one of a series of bills that represent the cornerstone of

our forest revitalization strategy. I spent some time talking about the

principles that underlie the entire strategy and how they are reflected in this

piece of legislation. I spoke about the objectives and the themes — the three,

actually, that relate to maximizing or creating new opportunities for British

Columbians to be involved in the forest sector. I spoke about getting the right

log to the right processing facility, maximizing the value of the fibre we

harvest and, lastly, ensuring that we create a structure in which British

Columbians who own the resource can be satisfied they are receiving an adequate

and fair market-based return for the resource they sell to operators, to

licensees, and that licensees can be confident they are paying a fair

market-based price for the timber they are purchasing access to.

Within the

bill I want to talk about two features that I think are important and that are

captured within the context of this bill, which, though not particularly lengthy

volume-wise, do in fact represent something of a seminal departure for the

management of our forest resource within British Columbia. I talked last day at

some length about the rationale behind altering the timber processing and

appurtenancy provisions that have historically been part of forest management

policy in British Columbia and captured within the provisions of the existing

Forest Act.

[1440]

Today I'd

like to spend just a few moments talking about two remaining features that are

dealt with in this legislation. One is cut control. For those British Columbians

who may be less familiar with some of the terminology, cut control in its basic

form speaks to the restrictions and requirements we place around those who are

granted harvesting rights in British Columbia. Maximum cut control is something

that everyone gets, because it is the mechanism — the tool we use — by which

we regulate against overharvesting. People will know that the chief forester,

based on the application of scientific methodology, sets a maximum annual

allowable cut. That occurs within the timber supply areas that exist within

British Columbia. That annual allowable cut is divided up amongst various

licensees.

Maximum cut

control ensures that when a licence is granted, people don't overharvest, and

that if they do, they pay very serious penalties, indeed, for so doing. It is

the mechanism by which we ensure that we have sustainable forestry in British

Columbia now, next week, next year and 100 years into the future, which is the

time frame one needs to apply when measuring sound forest management practices.

It is,

however, the flip side of that coin that has engaged much debate and attention

when we talk about cut control. That is minimum cut control. That is the

provision by which the Crown — the owner, on behalf of British Columbians, of

the resource — has said to licensees: "Not only are we going to ensure,

as we logically should, that you do not overcut the harvest rates that you have

been granted, we are actually, by virtue of statute and regulation, going to

require that you harvest a minimum amount." There are historical reasons

around which that policy has developed. I think you can make a sound argument

that there is a sound rationale behind the submission that says: "If you

are granted the right to harvest timber owned by the people of British Columbia

and you do not harvest that timber, then we are going to provide it to someone

who will exercise that option."

Something

else developed around the notion of minimum cut control, and that was a penalty

provision. The penalty provision said that if you do not exercise your right to

harvest, then you will be penalized — not by losing rights to the timber that

you chose not to harvest but by losing rights moving forward into the future. It

is that specific aspect of cut control that has puzzled me and troubled me. What

it says to people operating in this business is that we — "we" being

the state — are going to punish you for making decisions based on sound

economics.

It's not a

lot more complicated than this. The products that are produced as a result of

the harvesting of timber are sold on the market. If the person who harvests the

timber can't sell the logs or the product that those logs get turned into at a

price that recoups the cost of harvesting that timber in the first place,

they're going to lose money. Yet under the present regime — one that has been

in place for a number of years — we compel people, companies large and

small…. This isn't just a large licensee issue; this is an issue that touches

on everyone that enjoys the right to harvest timber in British Columbia. We

compel them to engage in that

[ Page 6529 ]

harvesting activity when we know full well — and they know full well —

that they will lose money. It doesn't make sense.

We have

signalled, in clear terms — and began signalling over a year and a half ago

when I began talking about this — that we are interested in making changes,

that we are interested in dealing with those provisions that — nonsensically,

in my view — would purport to penalize people for engaging in sound economic

management. I have looked far and wide to find another business and searched far

and wide to locate a business person who believes it makes sense to be compelled

to do things that lose money.

[1445]

Correcting

that anomaly, correcting or dealing with that issue is what lies at the heart of

the provisions of this bill that deal with cut control.

What we are

saying is that if you are provided with the right to harvest timber in British

Columbia…. Let's use some figures. If it is 50,000 cubic metres a year, then

at the end of the day you have to make some decisions around whether or not you

can harvest that amount economically, sell the product, recoup your costs. If

you can't, ultimately you risk going bankrupt. We are going to give you the

flexibility that heretofore has been denied you to make those decisions.

If you

decide at the end of the day that you cannot harvest those 50,000 — or 45,000,

as per the existing requirement that compels you to harvest 90 percent over a

cut control period…. If you decide on the basis of the application of sound

economic analysis that you can't harvest that product without losing a

significant amount of money, then we won't penalize you moving forward. You will

retain the right to harvest that volume moving forward as per the conditions of

your licence.

What you

will lose is access to that undercut volume, because in addition to the cut

control requirements, there have been provisions that allow companies to make

application for the carry forward. It happens today. Companies today make

economic decisions. If the market is so bad, no matter what the law says,

companies decide: "We're not going to harvest. We are going to run afoul of

our cut control requirements, and we will apply to carry forward that undercut

volume." All kinds of subjective considerations come into play when the

Crown has to then step in and decide whether or not to authorize that undercut

carry forward.

We're going

to change that. That option won't exist. The licensee will have a degree of

flexibility, but the consequences of exercising that flexibility are that if an

undercut volume results, that volume will be available for other participants in

forestry.

I think

it's an eminently defensible position to take and an eminently defensible

approach to ensuring that our industry is conducting itself in accordance with

basic, sound economic principles. If someone wants to alert me to another

business, another industry that has flourished by embracing unsound economic

principles, I'm all ears. But I haven't found one yet, and I haven't heard of

one yet. That represents a fundamental feature of what is captured within the

context of Bill 29.

The last

feature to this piece of legislation that I wanted to spend a little bit of time

on relates to something that hasn't attracted a huge amount of attention, but

that in the long run I think is going to have some profoundly positive

consequences and impacts on this industry.

[1450]

Part of the

reality of practising forestry and particularly being involved in the harvesting

sector of B.C.'s forest economy for certainly the last 50 years and perhaps even

longer is the fact that you are compelled to deal exclusively with the Crown.

There is a degree of logic in that; the Crown owns the timber on behalf of the

people of British Columbia. In addition to that, it has struck me that a number

of the regulations that are in place and that have evolved and developed over

the years have done a great deal to curtail what might otherwise be a very

healthy flow of fibre within British Columbia. I will say again, as I said when

we were involved in this debate several days ago, that none of what is contained

within the provisions of Bill 29 does anything to remove or alter the

restrictions that presently exist around the export of timber harvested off of

Crown lands.

It has

struck me as very odd that when two licensees — and again, I'm not necessarily

talking about two large corporations; they could be small licensees or

independent, family-owned businesses — decide they may wish to negotiate a

transaction for the purchase and sale of a licence they own, their ability to

conclude that transaction is put very much in doubt by the number of obstacles

the Forest Act and regulations presently place in their path.

I will say

and acknowledge up front that the provisions of this bill are designed to

facilitate the ability that licensees have within the province to buy and sell

directly licence interests. It goes further than that. It occurred to me when I

was discussing these matters with British Columbians over the last year and a

half that what they also sought was the ability to subdivide licences that are

presently held and sell a portion of those licences to someone who may be better

equipped to harvest in a particular area, may be better equipped or have a

greater demand for a particular species.

Of course,

what we're confronted with under the present legislative regime is that when you

think of all of the people that a purchaser and a seller might want to go and

talk to before completing or concluding a transaction of the sort that I'm

talking about — they might need to talk to their banker; they may need to talk

to their accountant; they may need to talk to their lawyer; they probably have

to talk to all of those people — the person that the existing legislation

requires them to talk to is the Forests minister, because the Forests minister

has to approve that transaction.

I'm not

certain what it is that qualifies any Forests minister, and I include myself in

that description, to render an opinion on the business or economic efficacy of

that transaction. Now, I do believe the Forests minister and the Forest Service

and the Crown have a legiti-

[ Page 6530 ]

mate interest in issues around forest health. That is preserved. That is

preserved within the context of these proposed statutory provisions. But this

notion that a basic transaction, selling a licence between a willing buyer and a

willing seller, must first pass economic scrutiny through the minister is, I

think, a flawed logic.

In addition

to that, of course we have built some additional disincentives into this

exercise, because over the last number of years previous governments have

developed a provision whereby if you want to engage in that kind of transaction

between a willing buyer and a willing seller, the Crown takes back 5 percent of

what's involved in the transaction. Well, there's a real incentive to develop

economic opportunities within the forest sector. If you're going to close the

deal, part of the price of so doing is that you've got to surrender 5 percent to

the Crown. Then a whole other bureaucratic process developed around

circumventing those provisions. Well, we are simplifying that component of

practising forestry in British Columbia.

[1455]

I have

heard expressions of concern, and the one that I think makes a degree of sense

relates to the fact that in parts of British Columbia, there are concerns around

the issue of concentration of ownership. If you are building a forest policy

around the notion of competition and an active market, in order to have an

active market, you've got to have competition. If the timber rights are all

owned in a particular region by a single licensee, you've got a problem.

That's why

we have included specific provisions within Bill 29 to allow the Crown to

maintain a review function with an eye to ensuring that there are adequate

levels of competition. That is a key feature to the fundamental changes that are

included within the provisions of Bill 29. You know, I think this is a provision

that over the longer term is going to reshape the forest sector in a hugely

positive way, because it provides another outlet for licensees who are seeking

to access timber and who heretofore have had no choice but to go deal with the

Crown.

Some people

have said to me: "Well, who's going to sell their timber rights?"

Well, in business sometimes you sell because you want to, because the price is

right. Sometimes you sell because you have to. One person's challenge is another

person's opportunity. The obstacles that have stood in the way of allowing

people to capitalize on those opportunities are disappearing. I think it is a

change that is going to provide significant new opportunities to people. I am

already aware, since the introduction of this bill, of discussions that are

taking place where licensees or people that might want to be licensees are

planning to take advantage and make offers. Who knows if those offers will come

to fruition? But people are planning around the use of this instrument to create

for themselves new opportunities within forestry. That is a fundamental guiding

principle to what this trilogy of legislation is designed to encourage and

foster on our way to revitalizing the forest sector.

We are, I

know, going to have a healthy debate and discussion around a number of the

provisions in this bill. We started that yesterday and earlier today with

respect to another one of the bills. They are, by any measure, significant

changes. They are the product of extensive discussions with stakeholders all

over the province, and they represent and they are and they have been shaped and

guided by those discussions. At the end of the day, they represent my belief and

the government's belief that if we are to once again see British Columbia's

number one industry firing on all eight cylinders, we have to be prepared, as we

are by virtue of this legislation, to deal with some fundamental issues.

[1500]

If we are

serious about wanting to create new opportunities for new entrants into the

forest sector, we have to be prepared to deal with those statutory impediments

that have historically prevented them from doing so, just as we, if we are

serious about wanting to create new opportunities for people like first nations,

have to be prepared, firstly, to acknowledge that it is impossible to do that

without addressing the current allocation of fibre. If we are serious about

wanting to ensure that the right log is getting to the right processing facility

such that we maximize the value of that stick of timber, we have to be prepared,

if that is our objective, to address longstanding policies that fundamentally

preclude that from happening.

There are

people who will say it is sound policy to require that a tree harvested here

must go to a mill to become a 2-by-4. I am not one of those people. I am one of

those people who believes that if that tree can realize a greater value by going

to another facility within British Columbia for which it is better suited as a

value-added product, that's where it should go, and that the jobs that creates

are important and will add to the security our forest-dependent heartland

communities need to have, want to have and deserve to have.

That, after

all, is why we do this. We didn't wake up one day and think to ourselves:

"Gee, wouldn't it be interesting and wouldn't it be fun to fundamentally

rewrite 50 years of forest policy management in British Columbia?" We're

doing it as a government because it has to be done. No matter where you go in

British Columbia, there is an acknowledgment that it has to be done. Yes,

there's a discussion about the individual features of the change, but in

meetings with thousands of British Columbians in public forums, when I ask this

question, "Who is satisfied with the status quo?" in all of those

meetings one person put up their hand.

People

understand in their hearts that change is required. People understand that

policies that were designed to address the situation that existed 50 years ago

are not accomplishing the job in 2003.

This

industry remains our backbone. The changes contained within Bill 29 are big

changes. They are a cornerstone to a revitalization plan that I think the

government believes will return a sense of hope, a sense of future, for all of

those heartland communities that rely on forestry. Of course, to all those

British Columbians who believe it is an issue for someone else's town, I hope

they understand — and I believe they

[ Page 6531 ]

understand — that without a forest industry firing on all eight cylinders,

all of us suffer. The services we expect, in whatever community we live, are

tied very much to the overall performance of that industry.

This is the

product of a great deal of consultation and a great deal of involvement by my

colleagues here in this House. They have helped to shape this legislative

approach to reform and revitalization. They have spent countless hours ensuring

that the views of their constituents are heard via any number of committees that

have been struck. They have brought those views to Victoria, as they should, to

help guide the development of this seminal change in forest management policy.

[1505]

This

industry has built British Columbia, and it will continue to build British

Columbia. Bill 29, which I am happy to commend to this House, represents a

catalyst that will accelerate that process and get the engine that drives B.C.'s

economy firing once again on all eight cylinders.

Nettleton: I'm pleased today to speak on second reading of Bill 29, the

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. There is a lot in this bill, just

as there is a lot to this whole set of changes, and I'll raise today a few

concerns relating to this bill that we have before us.

Bill 29, as

the minister has indicated, would end timber-processing requirements. This is,

as some describe, the social contract of forestry. This is what required timber

to be processed in designated sawmills, in local sawmills, for those of us who

live in communities that are forest dependent. The main industry, certainly in

many of these resource-dependent towns, in fact is sawmills. It protected jobs,

and not just any jobs but particular jobs in particular communities.

This

timber-processing requirement helps to keep some small towns alive, but that

does not appear to be the goal, at least in the short term, of Bill 29. There

has, because of this, been some talk about the impact of forest communities on

Vancouver Island, where numerous mills are expected to shut down. That will be

tough in those communities — tough for those workers and tough for those

families.

So, too,

the same could occur in the north. When you spread the $75 million or so in

transition assistance across the province, I don't expect it will go that far to

help displaced forest workers wherever they live. It could never equal the

benefits and, more important, the sense of worth of someone working in the

industry, of a forester being gainfully employed in the forest industry. That's

a major concern of mine.

As well,

there is a further possible impact of ending the timber-processing requirements.

If the timber doesn't have to be processed locally, where indeed will it be

processed? In British Columbia, hopefully, we will not see — and the minister

has made, again, some reference to this today — a deluge of raw logs headed

overseas to the detriment of local mills and value-added manufacturers.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

With this

big push in British Columbia and elsewhere to crack open the market for wood

products in places like China and all the efforts going toward that from the

federal and provincial governments here…. With this big push on to teach China

what to do with wood, how to build with wood and how to make things with wood,

then surely in the long term we can imagine that businesses in China would be

seeking, in fact, raw logs, not finished products. This indeed would hurt

British Columbians.

Also,

surely in the long term we can imagine that the Chinese companies would take our

raw logs, cut and hammer and glue them into a finished product and then sell

them back to us here in British Columbia. They would do this likely at a lower

price than we could offer ourselves. We would see no "Made in B.C."

imprint on the finished product. That would hurt B.C. as well, with Bill 29

ending timber-processing requirements.

[1510]

The bill

will also allow companies with forest licences to freely sell or subdivide those

licences as they choose. This would purportedly have the effect of providing

tenure holders with a new option in terms of accessing fibre instead of going to

the Crown. Fine. I am concerned, however, that by allowing the selling of these

licences, the opportunity would be created that would open the door to monopoly

— if not right across British Columbia, perhaps in a region of the province.

We have to wait and see, wait and hope, that provincial oversight will prevent

such a monopoly. The legislation before us provides no such assurances. We have

to hope that in doing this oversight, all those affected are consulted by this

government.

Let's

examine for a moment the track record on this. The forest package of reforms was

announced in a secret location. We have first nations in the north readying

their legal briefs to fight these changes because they feel they have not had

adequate input into these changes and these bills presently before us, including

Bill 29. We also have many front-line forest workers sitting down with their

families wondering and discussing what the future might hold for forestry in

this province and also, of course, for them, their families and their

communities. The uncertainty, as these examples show, remains.

Forestry is

complex. Perhaps it is a bit like rocket science. There may be unintended

consequences not foreseen by these proposed changes. There may be new

developments that require adjustments over time to these changes. There may be,

as I believe, a need for this government to get its hands a bit more dirty, to

roll up its sleeves and get into the northern communities, get onto the reserves

and talk with the people there to see what they have to say — regularly. This

means taking the time to get it right.

While the

government has the best of intentions with the forestry revitalization agenda, I

can conclude by saying that they can improve upon the way they

[ Page 6532 ]

have developed and realized those intentions. They can improve upon the way

they have developed their goals for what they would like forestry to look like

in this province. It's a two-way street that will bring the best forest industry

we can expect to have and benefit from.

Deputy

Speaker: Members, we're just going to take about a five-minute recess.

The member

for Nanaimo. Are you ready to speak on second reading?

Hunter: Sorry, a few technical glitches at this end of the chamber.

I rise to

speak in support of Bill 29. I'm speaking on this bill, recognizing that it is

part of a whole series of important reforms that this government has introduced

to bring new vitality to our most important industrial sector. I chose to speak

on this bill rather than its companions because I think this bill is perhaps the

one that introduces the most fundamental and far-reaching reforms around

forestry reform. I believe that this bill and its companions, taken together,

represent some of the more far-reaching and fundamental reforms that this

Legislature will undertake in its life span.

These

changes have been described by some as generational reform. I think that is a

very apt description, because as the minister himself has said in introducing

this bill, we are changing conditions around the business of forestry that have

been in effect for longer than most of us have been on this planet, let alone

been in British Columbia.

You know,

for a person like me who spent his working life before this profession in the

seafood business, I thought that the seafood business was complicated — as

indeed it is — but this business is even more complex. So forgive me if I kind

of skate over some rather difficult concepts. I am trying to learn as I go, and

I think in the last two years I have gained some insights about this industry

that can help this debate.

[1515]

It's almost

trite to say that forestry has a huge impact on the economy of British Columbia,

but, you know, it's a fact that ought to be repeated over and over again,

because people tend to forget. Even in my riding of Nanaimo, where forestry and

its associated service and support sectors provide about 30 percent of incomes,

the forest industry, because of its location in our community, tends to be taken

for granted, forgotten…. I don't know what it is. I don't think that even in

Nanaimo, a former resource community, the forest industry is really understood

or appreciated by my constituents. It's because of the importance of the

industry that I understand in my corner of B.C….. It makes it important that I

take this opportunity to speak on the reforms that this bill introduces and, as

I said, the others.

I talked

about learning things about forestry. I've learned a lot. Just in the last month

I've learned much about the enthusiasm of just one small woodlot owner in

Nanaimo — a man with a 30-acre piece of property, who I swear knows the name

of every tree and its life history in great detail. That kind of care and

husbandry is, I think, very valuable and irreplaceable. We need to make those

kinds of people — because I know my constituent isn't the only one who feels

that way about his trees — part of our industry in the future.

I've also,

in the last few months, learned a great deal about the determination of the

larger private land owners. We have a number of very large private land owners,

as you know, on southeast Vancouver Island. I've learned much about their

determination and the determination of tenure holders to turn our forests into a

new era of prosperity. I've learned about professional care and husbandry and

how important that is to the industry. Let it be very clear that those who would

argue that this industry is not environmentally sound simply haven't taken a

look.

I've also

learned about the tenacity, the determination, the business savvy and the

problems of the manufacturing sector. I think it's clear from all of those

people and the people who work in the forests and in the manufacturing

facilities — I think they would agree with the minister — we need new

prosperity in the forest industry.

I was

intrigued — I guess a little bit amused — when a week or so ago the

vice-president for British Columbia of Weyerhaeuser, Mr. Craig Neeser, was

meeting with a few MLAs, and he told us that he had been preparing for a speech.

He had gone back to a 1932 speech given by Mr. H.R. MacMillan, an icon of

British Columbia. Mr. MacMillan's speech talked about issues facing the forestry

industry 71 years ago. There were problems with trade issues. The United States

had imposed a $4-per-thousand-board-foot tax, I believe it was, on British

Columbia lumber products. The costs in the industry, according to Mr. MacMillan,

were too high. In terms of markets, he was very concerned about Russian imports

pushing Canadian–B.C. products out of the U.K. market.

Here we are

70 years later — a growth cycle in most parts of British Columbia — and one

could say we are facing the same problems that H.R. MacMillan identified so many

years ago. I think right now the reforms we are proposing are not only

fundamental, but they are critical. I say they are critical because I put a lot

of credit in the analysis that Dr. Peter Pearse gave us with respect to the

coastal forest sector in his report back in November of 2001. I think he laid it

out extremely clearly that we have some fundamental, critical problems that need

to be addressed. While his remarks were limited to the coastal industry, because

that was what he was asked to look at, I think that even in the interior some of

his conclusions probably applied.

He talked

about the aging capital stock that was employed in the business. He talked about

an aging workforce. He talked about low and inadequate returns on equity. These

are all indicators of an industry, an industrial sector, in trouble. Indeed, Dr.

Pearse said that the coastal industry had been in a long-term decline for a

quarter of a century.

[1520]

What we

have is more than a problem with U.S. protectionism. On the coast the industry

is high-cost.

[ Page 6533 ]

We have the highest costs of products, labour and fibre of any of our

competitors, especially in the pulp sector.

The market

has changed, as we all know, in recent years. There's not enough investment. I

would argue with those who say: "Let's leave this industry alone and just

carry on the way we are." I say — from what I have understood and what I

have learned and the people I've listened to — that is simply not an option.

We need to deal with these industry issues with some honesty. I think people who

work in the industry deserve no less.

I don't

want us to be like the last government, who put together the jobs and timber

accord, which I think gave false hope to thousands of our fellow citizens. I

don't think that's the right way to do things, and I think, quite frankly, the

former government probably wouldn't do that again either.

The truth

is that industry has shed 17,000 jobs in 26 manufacturing plants since 1997.

That's less than six years ago. When you look at all these factors and the

analyses, the expert opinion that has been sought as we move to these reforms,

it's important to understand that the status quo simply cannot continue. We

cannot expect, as a society, to have our forest industry and this valuable asset

that we own collectively turned into wealth and jobs in British Columbia on the

basis of the policy and the law as it exists before we introduce these reforms.

The reforms

that are coming in Bill 29, as other speakers have mentioned, in part, do a

couple of things. They remove the requirement for appurtenancy, and they amend

the cut controls that have been part of the landscape for so long. Critics talk

about tearing up a social contract, but to me a social contract that isn't

working, that is creating job losses and reducing investment and causing an

aging workforce — all the other things Peter Pearse talked about — is not

acceptable.

It seems to

me that the best social contract we can ask for and the best job protection we

can find is through a profitable industry — an industry that makes profits

that we'll plow back into our communities. That's how we are going to get this

social contract. That's how people are going to stay in the towns in which they

live and live the lifestyles they value, not by the kind of social engineering

our predecessors introduced for what I am sure were perfectly valid reasons at

the time.

We must now

move forward. We must let the industry adapt to and benefit from the new

situations that it faces. There are new market realities driving our industry

that we must let drive our industry. What are they? Talk to anybody in the

forest industry about what's happened in just the last half-dozen years in terms

of product substitutions. Go to one of the major stores like RONA or Home Depot

and see what is available in terms of product substitution. Look at where the

products come from.

I said a

moment ago that we are a very high-cost producer of fibre, and it's true. That's

why countries like Latvia and other countries in eastern Europe are gaining such

market share in the U.S.A. — in addition to the reason, of course, of the high

tariff that's been imposed on Canada. It seems to me that in these kind of new

circumstances and new market realities, for us to continue to force tenure

holders to cut timber when markets don't support it is a policy that has at

least, to say it kindly, outlasted its usefulness.

The bill

also provides some flexibility for the subdivision of tenures and private

business transactions where it makes sense. I think the fact that we are

removing government from judging business deals is indeed a major step forward.

It is through those kinds of moves that this bill will encourage investment in

community forests and will encourage new tenure holders to come forward. Taken

with the other reforms in other bills and other activities this government has

made to make B.C. more business friendly, this bill promises to the fresh minds

and the new people who will enter this industry to encourage their fresh ideas,

and it will bring new investment.

[1525]

At the same

time we must recognize that this amount of change — and it is broad, deep and

fundamental — creates a whole bunch of uncertainty in various quarters. How

the reforms are implemented is critical, as is the timing. I want to urge the

minister to move quickly to clarify the details that will fall from these pieces

of legislation so that long-term investors in our province and new investors can

build their new business plans around the new tenure taxation and marketing

initiatives we are introducing.

I want to

note, lastly, that the depth and breadth of consultations this minister

undertook with the assistance of fellow MLAs and professional people —

analysts, consultants — is unparalleled, as far as I'm aware, in the history

of this province. The fact that that kind of consultation took place gives me

considerable comfort that we have canvassed this issue extremely broadly. And,

yes, not everybody will agree. We can't expect that. But nobody can say they

didn't get a chance to give their opinion on these very important reforms, and

nobody can say this government didn't suggest that these kinds of reforms were

on the way.

I am

pleased to support this bill. I think it is one piece in a puzzle of significant

legislative and policy changes, including taxation changes, that will lead to a

revitalized forest industry in our province — an industry that will continue

to support those public services, like health and education, which this industry

has supported in the past and will continue to support into the future.

MacPhail: Bill 29, the Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003. Here we

are at second reading. It's the time when we discuss the general principles of

the legislation. As the minister has noted for us on several occasions, this

troika of bills — we've moved from trilogy to troika of bills: Bills 27, 28

and 29 — will dramatically change the way forest companies operate in this

province. It will also dramatically change the way government manages and

defends the public interest as these companies take public resources from public

land in order to make a private profit.

[ Page 6534 ]

It is

testament to the breadth and depth of these changes that outside of the Liberal

caucus there is anything but agreement on whether these changes are a good idea

or not, anything but agreement on whether they will produce the results the

minister claims or whether they will indeed move the industry from its current

malaise to a healthier future.

If in Bill

27 we had the nuts and bolts of this new vehicle and in Bill 28 the marketing

plan, here in Bill 29 we have the chassis. This is the platform from which the

cart will run. It is here that the government turns our public forests into a

real estate commodity, a commodity controlled by the forest companies, a

commodity that used to be controlled by the people of this province through this

Legislature.

The

government is asking British Columbians to believe that developers in the

forests will respect the public interest and do what is in the best interests of

all of us. Without actually transferring ownership, the government is going to

allow companies to trade and sell the tenures they have to put in our public

lands. The government is commodifying our public resource not for public benefit

but for private profit. It is taking what has been and will continue to be a

licence of access and turning it into a deed of ownership. Rather than tenure

forming the basis for investment in a community, tenure itself will become a

commodity that need not even be used at all, let alone employed to the benefit

of resource-dependent communities.

Mr.

Speaker, I pause, if I may, just for a moment to permit….

Hon. G.

Cheema: Can I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like to introduce a group of grade 5 students from Beaver

Creek Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers and their

parents.

[1530]

I had a

good exchange of ideas with them this afternoon. They asked me a number of

questions, and one of them was: what's my favourite team? So I told them we are

all hoping the Canucks will win. They had a number of other questions, and I

told them that they have to work hard, because one of them wants to run for

politics.

I just

wanted to welcome them, and I would like the House to make them very welcome in

this building.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: To carry on with Bill 29 debate, I would argue that this bill

makes tenures more like private property. It allows and, I would argue,

encourages tenure holders to consolidate their holdings. It allows — again, I

would argue that it encourages — tenure holders to subdivide and sell off a

publicly owned asset: our forests. All of this without meaningful provincial

oversight or approval.

Existing

tenure holders will be given the opportunity for even greater consolidation now.

They will be able to sidestep conflicts with communities, first nations or

environmentalists simply by selling off "problem" portions of their

tenures. It's never been permitted before, with good reason.

As well,

the removal of government approval to tenure transfers, combined with the

consolidation and subdivision provisions, will make it difficult, if not

impossible, for the province to live up to its fiduciary responsibilities to

first nations, leaving this new legislation open to constitutional challenge.

The last thing we need in this province is more court challenges that will

forever disallow certainty of land use. Certainty of land use is the only reason

that people will come and invest in this province. It's either that —

constitutional challenge in the court — or throw the whole process into

constant and replicating rounds of consultation. Consultation is the

constitutional right of first nations before anyone can derive any gain

whatsoever from the forests. In this case, the government has not done that.

The result

will not be better forest management or increased employment or higher

government revenues. There will, however, be a two-fold result: on one hand,

increased profits for the corporate giants; on the other hand, a further

distancing of the management of our public resource from those who own the

resource — us, the people of B.C.

We as

legislators need to ask ourselves if that is what we are here for. Is that what

we got elected to do — to increase the profits of private companies operating

on public lands? I didn't; my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant didn't.

I stand up and challenge the Liberal caucus to say that that is not what they

are here for as well. Or are we here to protect our public resource from those

who see it not as a public legacy but as a source of private profit?

What of the

communities that depend on this resource? What have they been saying? Well,

how's this for a ringing endorsement of the government plans? "You should

phone me back in about six months. It's problematic up here, because there's a

fear among some people that the raw logs will simply be shipped somewhere

else." That's from the mayor of Terrace.

Then

there's the industry itself. The Council of Forest Industries "cautioned

that the impacts have to be managed carefully." Secondary manufacturers are

also "cautious." Another group is also cautious, saying there will be

"huge impacts" — the logging contractors. Brian Zak of the Coast

Forest and Lumber Association expressed uncertainty and concern for how this

plan is to mesh with the global markets that they must compete in. Dan Garland,

of the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors, has expressed fears that

the changes in this bill will only favour the big companies, and that will occur

by forcing small specialty producers to compete on the same footing as the

multinationals.

[ Page 6535 ]

[1535]

Again,

we're talking about a publicly owned resource here. Doman Industries, the

mainstay of logging and processing on the Island, says these changes will

increase costs, reduce employment and result in mill closures. In fact,

according to Doman, what the government is doing is "rewarding the forest

companies that have high-graded their tenure by breaking the Forest Act and

taking all the good wood out and leaving the poor wood behind. They are

punishing companies who are trying to provide stable and sustainable employment

in coastal B.C. by practising proper forest practices in order to protect

current and future generations of forestry workers."

Rick Doman

goes on to ask this very important question, a key question. He asks: "Why

are we agreeing with the U.S. lumber coalition when the World Trade Organization

says we aren't subsidizing our industry?" It's a pretty good question.

Within

months of this government coming into office, they, the government, proposed

this gutting of our forest practices just to satisfy the powerful American

lumber lobby. Since those early days, nothing much has changed. Just the same

way that there's not been any impact on our economy from those massive tax cuts,

nothing has changed from those early days when the government proposed this as a

way to solve the softwood lumber dispute. We still have the dispute; our

industry is still hurting.

The

government is rolling over on cut control, rolling over on tying the cut to

communities and is effectively privatizing tenure. They're not getting anything

in return — nothing. The industry continues to suffer losses. Jobs continue to

disappear. The lumber lobby from the United States continues to demand more.

The

government, I admit, has not been in this process alone. However, it has simply

chosen to listen only to its own voice. First nations, environmentalists, the

IWA, the PPWC, the CEP, local communities and concerned citizens have come

together in common cause to ask — in fact, to plead with this government —

the government to bring them into the discussions and to listen to their

concerns and their ideas on how best we protect our most abundant and important

land-based resource — protect it not for the relatively few that work directly

in the industry, but protect it for our collective benefit. That's what we got

elected to do. I hope that's what everybody in this chamber got elected to do.

Protect it for the schools it builds, the hospital it funds and the communities

it supports.

The

government has chosen not to listen to those mayors and community leaders

seeking stability, chosen not to listen to those workers seeking a future for

themselves and their families. First nations, who have constitutional and

historical rights to the land, are not listened to, nor are everyday British

Columbians who value the incredible beauty and ecological diversity of our

province for the gift that it is.

No, this

government has chosen to listen to the demands of American protectionism and the

greed of corporate boardrooms. That shouldn't come as any surprise. Certainly,

it won't come as any surprise to people in this chamber. Increasingly, it won't

come as any surprise to the public, because, of course, those corporate

boardrooms provided over $3 million in donations to the B.C. Liberal Party. No

wonder the Premier doesn't want to have campaign finance reform. Where could he

get $3 million as easily as from those corporate boardrooms?

Let us not

get too carried away with blame. Sometimes governments make mistakes regardless

of who is paying the tab. Most tragically for those who depend on governments,

arrogant governments refuse to acknowledge their mistakes, refuse to take

corrective action, refuse to look beyond their narrow partisanship and insist

that their way is the only way; their vision, the only vision; and their

answers, the only answers.

That is

what we are seeing with this bill. It is the product not of extensive public

consultation and information-sharing but of kowtowing to the demands of big

business for easier and greater access to our public forests wrapped in a lovely

little public relations campaign.

[1540]

The bill

not only says tenure can be subdivided, sold and traded. It also says the annual

cut control requirement will be amended to allow companies to escape penalty for

over- or undercutting their annual allowable cut, and it will allow them to

restart their five-year annual allowable cut at any point. Isn't that

comforting? The impact of this change alone will be dramatic. What it does is

reinforce the liquidation-conversion mentality, the cut-and-run mentality, the

bull-of-the-woods mentality that has so characterized the history of this

industry in British Columbia. As a result, this bill is a backward step, a step

that only an arrogant, bull-headed government would take.

The

minister and his colleagues make the claim that this is the biggest change in

the forest management of our province in over 50 years. Unfortunately, he is

right. What the government is doing is surrendering to a debate that has been

going on in various forms and in various forums for generations.

It is

perhaps ironic that I should stand here and suggest that we remember B.C.'s

first chief forester, H.R. MacMillan, but I do so to note, as others such as

Jeremy Wilson have, that H.R. MacMillan was instrumental in establishing a

"weak advance guard of scientific managers in the province's new Forest

Service, where they faced and did rather poorly against a forest industry

determined to limit the scope of government efforts to conserve the resource,

extract rent and control speculative industry."

The Forest

Service set the battleground and grew to defend what is our natural legacy as

British Columbians and as Canadians, not always as vigorously as many wanted but

at least in a way that let us all debate how our forests should be managed.

People who work in the Forest Service take such unbelievable pride in their role

in allowing that debate to flourish. Here today we have the surrender. The

battle H.R. MacMillan started is over now, and he lost, and the people of

British Columbia will continue to lose.

[ Page 6536 ]

Despite the

fact that no company has ever been penalized for undercutting its annual

allowable cut due to market pressures, this government likes to perpetuate the

myth that trees were being cut down just to satisfy some bureaucratic

requirement. I hear it all the time from these Liberal MLAs. "Do you know

what companies had to do because of the stupid, silly law that was in

place?" Well, in fact, companies didn't have to do what this government

claims as being silly. They were never, ever penalized for any such

non-committal under the act. Now, as a result of this myth the government likes

to perpetuate, this government gives the companies the right to cut the

equivalent of 15 years' worth of annual allowable cut in ten years. It gives the

company the ability to move into an area, cut as much as it can in that area as

fast as it can and then sit idle.

[1545]

What are

the consequences of this action? For every action there is a reaction. What this

government likes to perpetuate, saying: "Oh, the rules were outdated and

harmful to the growth of the industry, harmful to the flourishing of this

industry in our province…." By now outlawing that requirement of a

company to cut every year, here's what the reaction is to that action. Well, if

a licensee is allowed to remain inactive for two or three years, workers in that

industry will lose all seniority and recall rights. That will cause a break in

service in their pension plan. They will lose extended medical and dental

coverage. That's what it means for the working people in the industry. Most,

before this happens, will have pressures mount in their families, on their

families, and most will simply move on. As a result of those forest workers

moving on, communities will suffer.

The first

act of this government, the very first act — some may not recall it, and lots

won't want to recall it — was to create a $4.5 billion deficit. Now every

action they take is an action to help them crawl out from under the creation of

that $4.5 billion deficit. Stumpage revenue, the amount of taxes collected from

the forest industry, plays a major

part in government revenues. By allowing the

companies to determine their own cut control, the government is adding even more

uncertainty to its ability to forecast revenues, because it won't have any

reliable base from which to project stumpage revenues.

What

happens to the budget of the province in the year the companies decide to sit

idle? What happens to all those great hospitals and schools that these Liberal

MLAs like to stand up about and say: "It's the forest revenues that pay for

those hospitals and schools"? You're darn right; it is the forest revenues

that pay for them. What happens in the years the companies sit idle and perform

no business in this province? For the Liberals, this is called flexibility. For

those who live in forest-dependent communities, what it really means is a return

to the boom-and-bust cycles that undermine community stability and community

coherence.

The

government members will call this fair, they will herald the triumph of the

marketplace, but those in the communities on the coast and in the interior will

wonder why they get to work only three years out of five while the company

continues to make profits five years out of five. When only the market decides,

the wealthiest and most powerful quickly gain advantage. That isn't an

ideological statement; that's a statement about the marketplace. Only the

wealthiest and the most powerful gain advantage. Workers, on the other hand,

face job loss and insecurity as companies bid one another out of business,

leaving only a few huge corporations in control.

Members

will have seen the first quarter report from Canfor last week, where it reports

a $1.3 million loss for the first three months of this year. It also reports how

its cost reduction–margin improvement program — that's David Emerson's, a

man for whom I have great respect, euphemism for closing two sawmills last year

— yielded a saving of $13 million. Good for David Emerson — I say that —

but not so good for the workers.

Of course,

those listening will have heard about the investment Canfor is making in its

Houston operation, an investment that will make it the largest sawmill in the

world. Again, good for David Emerson and good for the town of Houston, but what

does this foretell for the industry — supermills and consolidation?

What will

it mean to the workers, communities and government revenues if, as it is widely

anticipated, Canfor and Slocan should merge? That's not just gossip. That fuels

the business pages every week in this province. People are predicting that Jimmy

Pattison and David Emerson — Jimmy P. and David E. — will rule the woods.

What does that mean for the workers and the communities and government revenues?

[1550]

The

minister likes to talk about opportunity. He sees his reform of forest policy as

creating opportunities for those who have not had access to wood. But how much

access is the value-added sector going to get when the giants of the industry

continue to grow and need fibre and need wood? These changes the government

claims will bring new investors to the industry will do nothing of the sort. All

they will do is force the small mill, the value-added mill sector, and the first

nations to compete head-on with the giants. This is not about building capacity,

as the Minister of Forests claims. It's about building the bottom line of a very

few but very large companies.

B.C. wood

processors will face closure as raw logs are shipped across the border. If the

minister doesn't believe me, then perhaps he should take a walk some evening

along the Ogden Point causeway and look out onto the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and

he will see the barge loaded with logs from the Carmanah heading south. That's

happening as we speak.

That may be

good for the fallers, for the men in the woods who cut down the trees. It may

even be good for the longshore workers in Ladysmith. But again, it's not good

for British Columbians. Communities will face instability and insecurity as

mills close and companies consolidate. And most troubling of all, first nations

will again be shut out of the benefits. We will lose revenues that support

publicly funded health care and

[ Page 6537 ]

education as well as many other quality programs for British Columbians.

Perhaps the Ministry of Children and Family Development will have to make even

greater cuts than it's already making.

With the

exception of those constitutionally enshrined democratic rights that we enjoy,

there are very few, if any, areas of government that we should not all be trying

to improve. We are not opposed to reform in the way we manage our forests —

far from it. Most of the people who are critical of this government's backroom

plan are aware that the forest industry needs to constantly improve in order to

be competitive, and the countries with whom we compete grow every day. We're

aware of that. We also believe that government has a role in making sure that

opportunity is not lost.

Indeed,

several efforts have been made, separate and apart from the government's

backroom dealings, to have public discussions about how the Crown's forest

assets can be better managed to sustain communities across the province, to

provide into the future the economic activity that supports the hospitals and

schools that we all care about in those communities, and that gives security to

families and small businesses. These people should be commended for their

effort, committing their own resources and time, doing a job that many would

argue this government should have done right from the start. They should be

commended for working through some of the very difficult problems in a very

public way.

The

coalition of forest solutions, composed of environmental groups; municipal

leaders; first nations representatives; labour organizations, including the B.C.

Government and Service Employees Union, which represents workers who monitor the

use of this public resource; carpenters; pulp and paperworkers…. They all

grappled with the very difficult issue of the softwood lumber dispute and the

future of the forest industry. They then came to some pretty straightforward

principles upon which to base any change, including these principles: enhancing

public control and oversight of our forest resources; reconciling aboriginal and

Crown title; ensuring the public gets full value for forest resources through

transparent regional log markets, with linked pricing reforms and stronger

export restrictions; securing timber supply for current local processing needs

and the development of a strong value-added industry; creating, implementing and

enforcing forest practice standards that promote the long-term health of B.C.'s

forest ecosystems; keeping forest sector jobs in B.C. communities with the

revised social contract, thereby protecting existing workers and creating

greater opportunities for local communities and employment.

[1555]

That's a

pretty straightforward, comprehensive, thoughtful and commonsense set of

principles upon which to base change, I would say. These principles only came

about as the result of a lot of hard work, but in the end they resonate as true.

I wonder

what the government's response is to these principles. I'd like to hear the

opinion of the Minister of Forests on which of these principles he would

discard. I would also like to hear the minister tell us how his backroom plan

meets any of these tests.

The

government tries to belittle the outcry from communities about this backroom

forest policy, but they should pay heed to just how many people — how many

municipalities, for example — are expressing concern. Recently the Association

of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities met, and top of their list was

concern about where the government is going with this plan. They endorsed a

resolution that (1) endorsed forest policy reform that puts communities and

forests first and (2) called upon the government to conduct community hearings

to discuss the merits and implications of alternative forest policy change for

communities, workers and the environment before proceeding with the remaining

forest policy change legislation.

Now, just

to give everybody a sense of who that association represents and to perhaps not

let the government belittle them as special interest groups, here are the

communities that voted in favour of that motion: Courtenay, Duncan, Nanaimo,

Saanich, Sechelt, Zeballos, Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, the Indian

government district, Parksville, Port Alberni, Victoria, Campbell River, Central

Saanich, Esquimalt, Langford, Metchosin, North Cowichan, North Saanich, Oak Bay,

Port Hardy, Powell River, Sooke, Tofino, Ucluelet, Comox, Sidney, View Royal,

Alert Bay, Cumberland, Gold River, Port Alice, Sayward, Tahsis, the Central

Coast regional district, the capital regional district, Comox-Strathcona

regional district, Cowichan Valley regional district, Mount Waddington regional

district, Nanaimo regional district, Powell River regional district, Sunshine

Coast regional district, Islands Trust regional district, Gibsons, Ladysmith,

Lake Cowichan, Port McNeill and Qualicum Beach.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

Now, I

confess I don't represent any of those communities, and I think my colleague

from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant doesn't represent any of those communities, so I

would assume that the MLAs who do represent them will get up and make the case

for these communities on the record — will put on the record the request from

all of these dozens of communities that they want this legislation not to

proceed.

Governments

should help communities to maintain existing processing facilities, as any

attempt to close a mill or plant or shut down a harvesting operation should be

subject to a legislated mill closure review involving workers, government and

first nations in the affected communities. That should be a minimum.

Local

workers and employers must be given the opportunity to maintain the enterprises

that provide their livelihoods. It is simply unacceptable for the government to

say: "We're out of the business of worrying about those kinds of

things." Workers who lose their jobs must be assisted to find new ones.

They must be able to obtain training and retraining opportunities or retire with

dignity, without financial penalties to their union pension plans or to

themselves.

[ Page 6538 ]

[1600]

No one —

I say no one — doubts that the wood industry and the economy are changing and

that the industry must be able to accommodate that change. However, giving the

companies free rein to cut when and where they want and to mill what and where

they want undermines the nature of the social contract that exists between those

private companies who are accessing our public resource. As such, following the

failure of a mill closure review to find a workable solution, companies must be

required to outline proposals for new or expanded facilities in British Columbia

with the priority on the affected region.

It is not

acceptable for the government to say: "Oh, we don't care about that

anymore. Let the industry reorganize. We don't care what the consequences

are." I put those questions to the minister this morning, and he said:

"Sorry. We're out of the business of worrying about those kinds of

things."

In order to

continue to access Crown timber, companies would have to increase their

investment in our province's future. Under no circumstances should Crown timber

be granted without such a commitment. Logs must continue to be processed in

British Columbia, and companies must produce, to the satisfaction of cabinet, a

detailed plan. That plan should show how they would expand their investment in

our future by creating additional jobs, undertaking or sponsoring more research

and development, increasing the value-added component of their products, doing

more to improve yields and the quality of the timber they produce, training the

changing workforce and continuing to maintain a healthy and safe environment for

workers and communities as well as protecting our forests.

Forest

objectives and outcomes should be legislated. There is no sin in that. It is a

fair trade. Even in the private marketplace, it's a fair trade to have forest

objectives and outcomes legislated to provide clear and enforceable standards

with strong penalties to violators. These are not private lands. These are

publicly owned lands. Yet massive cutbacks in provincial ministries responsible

for the forests undermine the ability of government to carry out effective

enforcement.

We are

being told to trust the developers. We are being told not to worry because

professionals, paid for by the forest industry, will make sure everything is

done in the public interest. Perhaps members would do well to read the most

recent issue of Forum . That's the publication put out by the Association

of B.C. Professional Foresters. Judy Thomas writes, in an article, about this

experience she has had and how the changes introduced by this government will

impact on the job that foresters and other professionals will be called on to

do. She writes this in her own professional magazine. Here's what she said:

recently sealed the forest development plan for a woodlot client, but was

uncomfortable with one section. The undeclared land and resource management

plan" — the LRMP for those of us in the business — "covering my

woodlot client's area specified code plus harvesting restrictions upstream of

water licences. Under pressure from the licensee, I excluded these restrictive

clauses in their plan, rationalizing to myself that the land and resource

management plan is undeclared and that the ministry would catch it, if it was

an issue.

"This

is an example of foresters using the ministry as a shield for

their decisions. My client feels my more restrictive opinion is incorrect, as

evidenced by someone else's approved forest development plan, which also did

not follow these LRMP recommendations. As the LRMP is undeclared, the client

may be correct. It is a grey area. The end result is I'm leaving out more

restrictive clauses regarding protection for a water licensee.

"Because

the Ministry of Forests still ultimately approves the plan, my

professional reliance is backed up by the ministry. I'm glad this plan is

going through before the code changes. In grey decisions, genuine professional

reliance is difficult because the forester is too close to the client

financially. Resisting pressure is tough. Under the new results-based code, I

will say no to that pressure."

[1605]

That's from

a professional forester. But here we are. We're being told that the public

interests and the private interests of the industry will merge, but as this

example shows, our reliance on others to do the job we are supposed to do as

public servants, which is to protect the public interest, is now fraught with

problems — problems brought on by this government's decision to give control

of the forest to the companies and to gut the protective role of the Forest

Service.

I want to

conclude my remarks by returning to the question of consultation and advise

those who are listening to this debate that they should know there will be an

opportunity, in some communities at least, to participate in this debate. Forest

sector unions, supported by the B.C. Federation of Labour, will hold town hall

meetings in three B.C. communities to highlight their concerns about forest

policy proposals now before the B.C. Legislature. The meetings are going to be

held on May 8 in Prince George, May 12 in Port Alberni and May 13 in Kamloops.

They are urging attendance from representatives of local government, first

nations leaders, industry, small business operators, forest sector workers and

any and all citizens concerned about their jobs, their communities and their

futures.

These are

the people who work in the woods, the people who work in the mills — the very

people whom we should all look to for guidance about forest policy. I do. My

party does, because they have an interest in a sustainable forest industry. They

live in the communities most affected. They support those communities with their

tax dollars. Here's what they're saying, as recently as yesterday, about what

this government should be doing about forestry:

"B.C.'s

forests are vital to our province's economic and environmental well-being.

Future forest legislation and policy must include proper stewardship and

monitoring to ensure sustainable forests, the recognition of aboriginal title

and rights, the full participation of first nations and effective mechanisms

that develop long-term investments in jobs and the workers and communities

that depend upon them. Working together, British Columbians can develop

made-in-B.C. forest legislation

[ Page 6539 ]

that meets these goals. We believe the province must postpone the

passage of this forest legislation and policy changes until it establishes a

full process of consultation."

That was what was said yesterday by first nations, by community

activists and by forest workers.

Again, I

challenge the minister to do the right thing: hoist this bill; get out there;

talk to British Columbians. Don't give them a chance to not have their say. Give

them a chance to raise their voices and offer their views. Give them a chance to

speak. Don't be afraid, because there's a lot of goodwill out there. People want

to be part of a positive solution.

In order to

assist the minister in that, I move this motion. I have a copy for the minister

as well. I move this motion in my name:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill 29, Forest

(Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, be amended by striking out "now

read a second time" and adding "read six months hence".]

On the

amendment.

MacPhail: This is a motion that will allow a compromise solution. The

legislation stays. The legislation is here for all to examine, and it says six

months from now we'll be back to debate the legislation. In the meantime the

community can have a say; the community can meet with the minister; the

community can meet with their local MLAs — those very local MLAs who perhaps

will not stand up in the Legislature and represent their communities' concerns

on this legislation.

[1610]

It is not

saying: kill the legislation. This motion to delay passage for a mere six months

will allow us to be back in our regular autumn session, already scheduled, and

debate this legislation. But it will be an informed debate. It will be a debate

after the community has had a chance to have a say, after first nations have had

their legally required consultation. The government will have performed its

legally required duty to accommodate the interests of first nations. Workers

will be able to tell this government how they will be harmed by this

legislation.

And who

knows? We might even have movement on the softwood lumber dispute — good

movement. We might be close to settling. We might have a settlement, and

therefore we can, as British Columbians, have a made-in-B.C. legislation that's

not guided by the Americans in an effort to appease, but a made-in-B.C. solution

to change that everybody wants in the forest sector.

So I hope

that all in this Legislature will join with me in passing this amendment.

J. Kwan:

I rise to speak in support of the amendment that my colleague the Leader of the

Opposition has moved, and that is to call for the government to take a step

back, to get out there and consult with the community. It will allow for a

six-month period to hear from the community in terms of what they think about

this piece of legislation and, perhaps more importantly, to hear from the

community what they think the solutions are in the area of dealing with the

forestry issue.

I'll be the

first to admit that finding the right solution is not an easy one. It is a

complex issue. It demands a lot of attention from government but at the same

time a lot of innovation as well. It needs to bring partners together from

communities across British Columbia who have been hard hit because of the

forestry concerns and challenges we're faced with. It demands that those from

the environmental community come together with those in the industry to find

sustainable solutions — solutions that will build towards a forestry industry

that will last in time.

I know

this, and I say this not in a cliché kind of way; I say it and I really mean

it, having just had a newborn. You know, it hits you all the more now how

important the work we do is. Why is that? Because the work we do has

ramifications for the future. It is not just this generation for which we have

to be mindful about what happens in this Legislature, but rather what happens

for the next generation and the generations to come. That is vital. It's vital

for the health of our communities.

To allow

for time — a six-month delay, as in the amendment that's been put forward by

my colleague — does not, I would argue, throw out the government's agenda in

any way, shape or form. It only allows for a better process so that perhaps

we'll find better solutions for the problems and challenges we're faced with.

You have to ask the question: is our future worth that time and investment? And

I would argue yes. The answer is yes. Our community deserves that time and that

commitment from the government.

It is this

government, the Liberal government, who made a commitment that they will be open

and consultative, that they will go out there and talk to the community and

invite them to the table. Well, here's an opportunity. Here's an opportunity for

government to do exactly that on an issue they also campaigned on, and that's

for the economic revitalization of this province. We know that in British

Columbia, the forestry industry is central to the province's economy. We know it

is central. The government has an opportunity to do exactly that.

colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition, actually

mentioned a list of communities who asked for the government to step back, who

asked for the government to say: "Wait a minute. We have a lot of concerns

about this piece of legislation." And you know what? The list of

communities ranges from Courtenay to Alert Bay to Comox to Esquimalt to North

Cowichan to Oak Bay. All the communities that are impacted by the forestry

industry are impacted by this piece of legislation. The regional districts are

asking for the government to step back.

[1615]

This

government, and particularly the Premier, promised he would consult with the

community, promised he would listen to the public and promised he would listen

to elected officials. Well, here's an opportunity to do exactly that — for the

government to

[ Page 6540 ]

stop and step back and invite people to the table and to find a solution that

works for everyone. Not just a solution that would be great for the industry —

and when I say that, I mean the big businesses, the owners of the mills — but

for everyone. I mean for the workers. I mean for the communities. I mean for the

future, for our environment and for everyone concerned.

A joint

statement has just been put forward by the Federation of Labour, the First

Nations Summit, the CEP and the IWA. Here's what the statement says:

"The

provincial government recently tabled bills in the provincial Legislature that

would shred the social contract that has long guided forest policy in our

province. British Columbians and first nations still hold a view that our

forests should be managed sustainably for the benefit of all. In exchange for

jobs, long-term investment in sustainable forests and support for our

communities, forest companies have been granted tenure and harvesting rights.

"There

are diverse opinions as to the direction forest policy reform

in our province should pursue; however, there's consensus that the changes

proposed by the provincial government are clearly not the path to follow. The

province's proposals are shortsighted, do not provide a plan for sustainable

forests and do not reflect the values of the owners of our forests —

aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of B.C. We call on the government to not

proclaim Bills 27 and 29, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 and the

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003, respectively.

"The

future of the forest sector is too important to allow

implementation of these bills or regulations pursuant to them without full,

proper consultation with affected stakeholders and first nations. On a

critical issue of significance to our economy, particularly in rural B.C., the

province has failed in its constitutional obligation to consult and

accommodate first nations and has failed to adequately consult with forest

workers. Further, the province has failed to meet its moral obligation to

consult with communities that depend on sustainable forestry and has failed in

its ethical obligation to consult with stakeholders whose livelihoods depend

on sustainable forestry or who depend on sustainable forest practices.

"First

nations have legally and constitutionally recognized and

protected aboriginal and treaty rights. The B.C. Court of Appeal, in several

important decisions, has held that provincial governments and the forestry

industry have a legal duty to consult with and accommodate first nations'

interests. The B.C. government has not fulfilled this legal obligation and has

not consulted with or accommodated first nations' aboriginal rights.

"We

want to see these legal obligations fulfilled b y government and

implemented immediately. We support this. The future of forestry is too

important to see an ill-thought plan with brief, inadequate consultation be

rushed through our provincial Legislature. British Columbians want to

participate in an open, informed and thorough discussion on the future of

forestry in B.C.

"The

provincial government's proposed forest policy and lack of

strong public oversight is merely an attempt to appease American interests

negotiating the softwood lumber agreement and to allow companies to close

mills where and when they choose. We believe any forest reforms must be built

upon the principle that access to timber in British Columbia is a privilege

and not a right. It must not be granted unless there are tangible returns to

people in the forms of jobs, economic opportunities, investment and a

reasonable return to the Crown.

[1620]

"We

believe that managing and protecting our forests and ensuring a prosperous

forest industry is a key responsibility of the provincial government. The

government's role is to balance the health of our forests, first nations

rights, j obs, economic prosperity, Crown revenue and community

stability. The government's misguided forest policy fails on all counts.

"B.C.'s

forests are vital to our province's economic and environmental

well-being. Future forest legislation and policy must include proper

stewardship and monitoring to ensure sustainable forests, the recognition of

aboriginal title and rights, the full participation of first nations and

effective mechanisms that develop long-term investments in jobs and the

workers and communities that depend on them.

"Working

together, British Columbians can develop made-i n-B.C. forest

legislation that meets these goals. We believe the province must postpone the

passage of these forest legislation and policy changes until it establishes a

full process of consultation. This process must provide first nations in B.C.

and British Columbians with an adequate and meaningful opportunity to

participate and a responsibility for the provincial government to listen to

our concerns, all within the context of respect and recognition of first

nations rights and titles."

This joint

statement was signed by Dave Coles, representing the western region,

vice-president of the CEP; Ed John, the political executive member of the First

Nations Summit; Dave Haggard, president of the IWA-Canada; Jim Sinclair,

president of the B.C. Federation of Labour. People are coming together to urge

the government to do something very simple: listen to the voices of the people

— something that this government, this Liberal Party, had campaigned on and

committed to.

As the

statement had made very clear, it is a very important issue, much too important

an issue for the government to use their majority to bring through legislation

without due process — far too important, when this government promised that

they would want to settle aboriginal rights issues and want to advance in the

treaty-making process. Something that the aboriginal community has already

legally earned and has the right to is for the government to consult with them.

Yet these bills are being put through this House without that due process, and

it's wrong for the government to do so. It harms relations, and it harms the

future of our forestry industry for all British Columbians.

The

community also has other comments to make with respect to what they think about

this bill and why the Leader of the Opposition has put forward the motion, the

amendment, to say: "Hold up. Let's get out there and talk to people and

find the right solution that works for everyone."

There is an

op-ed piece that was put forward by the CCPA. It's called "Not the Year of

the Forest Community," and I'll quote parts of this op-ed piece, for the

members' information, onto the record. The

article is written by Dale Marshall.

It starts by saying:

"Premier"

— it uses the name — "announced in January that 2003 would be the

year of the forests. The

[ Page 6541 ]

reason is that the B.C. government's forest policy is

being squeezed between demands from two camps: B.C. forest companies and the

U.S. trade lobby. Neither is interested in social returns, jobs and economic

development, to forest communities. These social obligations that the

governments have responsibility for include a social contract that includes

restrictions on mill closures and raw log exports."

It goes on

to say:

"The

Minister of Forests has already endorsed most of the changes, so B.C. should

expect them in the year of the forest."

The

article continues to say:

[1625]

"We

should not be surprised if we see more orders-in-council like that introduced

in February which allowed the export of an additional three million cubic

metres of raw logs from the north coast, rather than a more transparent policy

change. Forest companies have already been granted weaker environmental

regulations. Now it looks like they'll have all their social responsibilities

to local communities removed and be allowed to process B.C.'s logs wherever

and whenever they want.

"The

Minister of Forests has also announced that companies will

receive compensation if any forest tenure is removed from the current licences

in order to establish a market-based stumpage system even though forest

companies didn't pay a cent for these cutting rights in the first place.

"Companies

may even be given greater rights over their remaining forestry

tenure, such as extending their licences beyond the present 25-year period.

Where exactly is their pain? What about workers and communities? Enter the

pain.

"These

policy changes will result in considerable consolidation in the

sawmilling and pulp sector. With tenures more easily transferable, forest

companies with capital will gobble up smaller, more indebted companies for

their cutting rights. Expect fewer but bigger mills and more ghost towns. For

mills that are not permanently closed, temporary closures will occur more

frequently due to the elimination of minimum cut control and the easing of

restrictions on mill closures. So expect less stability even for those

communities that hang onto a mill.

higher annual cut means our forests will be depleted even

faster. When there's no quality, accessible trees left, forest companies will

invest elsewhere. What will forest communities do then? For them, it's

short-term gain for long-term pain.

"The

bottom line is this is an end to the social contract that has

governed B.C. for half a century, unless the government sits down with

industry, communities and workers to figure out how to replace it. That would

be a true heartland strategy. Otherwise, forest companies will hold no social

responsibilities in exchange for being able to access B.C.'s most valuable

public resource."

Parts of the op-ed piece from the CCPA.

The motion

that the Leader of the Opposition put forward, as I mentioned, is a simple one.

We're not even saying throw the entire bill out — not at this time. Get out

there and talk to people. That's all we're asking.

Maybe

consultation is something members of this House will simply laugh at. I hope

not, because after all, the Liberals campaigned on the commitment to consult

with the public. That's what it says in the New Era document. The New

Era document promised a lot of things.

The

forestry industry impacts far too many people, far too many communities. The

social contract that's been mentioned in the CCPA

article includes…. It has

greater ramifications than just a short debate in this House. For members, we

need to get out there to talk to our community. We need to make sure their

voices are heard. We need to make sure a sustainable solution is found, one that

works for everyone.

The members

of this House from the communities that have been mentioned earlier, who were

asking for the government to step back, who are asking for the government to

come out and talk with them, who are saying, "We want you to stand up to

represent us…." Well, I want to hear from those members, and I anticipate

that their communities want to see that representation in this House.

In order to

ensure that the best representation takes place, what better way than for all

members of this House, upon the adjournment of this session at the end of May,

to get out there and talk with their constituents and invite them to put forward

their thoughts so a thoughtful solution can be found in addressing these

critical issues that are before us?

[1630]

Here are

other comments from someone that perhaps members of this House, the Liberal

government, would not anticipate. It is actually from the former Socred MLA

Howard Lloyd. Here's what he had to say: "Rather than revitalizing forestry

in B.C., the Liberals have further strengthened major licence's stranglehold on

public forest lands and resources."

Then he

goes on to say:

"Most,

if not all, TFLs have been gutted. TFL No. 48 near Prince George, owned by

Northwood, now Canfor, had a 300 percent overcut. Now the sawmill and upper

Fraser communities are all closed. TFL No. 48 is a typical TFL, yet Canfor

still has the quota cutting rights on public forest land, without competitive

bidding.

"Bill

28 will use public funds to compensate Canfor a takeback of AAC

— annual allowable cut. — not a takeback, a purchase of public timber that

was never purchased or paid for in the first place. Forest licensees, AAC

rights, quotas, similarly, were never bought. They were given for performance;

namely, investing in sawmills, pulp mills and providing employment and

community stability in towns and regions where those public forests existed.

"So

if the appurtenance requirement is removed, if local

manufacturing is removed, if selling is allowed of TFL quotas of public timber

made available without competitive bidding, if forest licences and TFLs may be

sold in part or whole, who said B.C.'s public timber is not for sale by

licensees? If this is allowed, well, then why take back 20 percent? Why not

100 percent of non-competitive tenure? Well, why not let the big guys also

compete? They've had 50 years to amortize their investment. Why continue the

corporate monopoly? Or isn't it really corporate socialism? Protect the big

guys and the speculators, not the workers or the loggers or the

communities."

This

is, as I mentioned, from Howard Lloyd, the former Socred MLA — not from a

New Democrat

[ Page 6542 ]

MLA, but a Socred MLA — a logger and a grandpa — someone, I anticipate,

who is making these comments because, again, it is not just for the here and now

that we need to find the solutions in the forestry sector, but it is for the

future. I suspect it means something that he signs this letter with the notation

that he is a grandpa. It means that we need to think about these issues in a

sustainable way, I would assume, for future generations — for his

grandchildren and for his grandchildren's children and the generations to come.

The

government is eager to move forward. I anticipate, perhaps, that they'll say

they have all the solutions — that they have already consulted. But I have to

ask the question: if that was the case, then why did everybody come forward —

who's talked to the opposition leader, who's talked to our staff, to us —

urging the government to say no to this legislation, saying we need to get out

there and talk with people?

Why would

local governments be coming forward to say to the government: "Talk to us.

This piece of legislation is not the answer"? Why are people coming forward

to say to the government: "Please stop and think for a moment"? Why

would the first nations community come forward and say: "You need to

consult with us"? It's a major issue within the aboriginal community. If we

want stability for the future, what we need today is consultation — something

that is legally bound, I would argue; rights that the aboriginal community has.

If we want

to move forward in the treaty-making process, then it is the government's

obligation to show their responsibility and to act on them and, at the minimum,

to get out there and talk with the aboriginal community around these changes.

[1635]

The

legislation is far-reaching, and it's not just one bill. It's several bills that

come together. It's several bills in a short period of time that this government

wants to push through in this House, but the ramifications are long-lasting and

far-reaching not only in the communities where the workers, loggers and their

families depend upon it but, I would say, for the whole of British Columbia for

economic development.

The

government talks about heartland strategy, some sort of heartland strategy that

they say is good for the heartlands. Yet, when we talk about the forestry

industry where it impacts the heartlands, where these communities want to say,

"Come and talk to us so that we, too, can have a say, so that we, too, can

provide you with what our thoughts are in terms of what the solutions are

towards the challenges we face in the forestry industry," the government

appears to not listen. They seem to think they have all the answers, even though

the communities who are impacted the most — and all of British Columbia would

be impacted — are saying: "No, these are not the answers, and it would

not address the concerns we have, and it would not provide for a sustainable

forestry industry for generations to come."

I would

urge members of this House, particularly those members representing the list of

communities and regional districts my colleague has read out, to rise in this

House, to support this amendment, to tell the government that we need to stop,

to hold up the ramming through of this legislation and to get out there and talk

with the community to ensure that the right solutions are found to ensure a

sustainable forestry industry for generations to come.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Firstly, welcome to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for

her first participation in the debate since returning to the House. It's good to

have her back. I am obliged to both members for their participation thus far.

Both have made comments that relate to the substantive provisions of the

legislation. I'll reserve my comment with respect to that commentary until the

conclusion of the debate.

Let me say

this, though, with respect to the specifics of the motion we are dealing with

today. I am first and foremost somewhat puzzled by the assertion that anything

is being rammed through. I understand that the members ha