2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 8

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Teachers Act

Hon. G. Abbott

Bill 8 — Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. I. Chong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Diwali

D. Hayer

H. Bains

Rotary Club of Burnaby Metrotown Coats for Kids campaign

R. Lee

150 th anniversary of New Westminster Fire and Rescue Services

D. Black

Scott Manjak

B. Bennett

Women’s History Month

K. Corrigan

Oral Questions

Compensation for former Woodlands School residents

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

C. Trevena

Hon. S. Bond

Government settlement with Boss Power Corp.

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

L. Krog

B. Ralston

Services for mothers of newborns

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Hammell

Petitions

L. Popham

Orders of the Day

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

K. Corrigan

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011 (continued)

L. Krog

M. Sather

H. Lali

D. Routley

Hon. S. Thomson

Bill 9 — Natural Resource Compliance Act

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

B. Bennett

B. Routley

Hon. T. Lake

B. Simpson

D. Donaldson

M. Sather

Hon. S. Thomson

[ Page 8397 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: It's an honour for me today to introduce members of the We Survived Woodlands group in this House. They met with MLAs earlier in the Ned DeBeck room, members on both sides of the House.

I'm very honoured to introduce Gregg Schiller; Arlene Schouten; Mark Chandler; Richard McDonald; Fay Sherlock; Gary Hill; Bill McArthur; Leonard Zimmer; Charles Stanyet; Marillia Neto; Barb Westfield; Shauna Carson, who is Barb's care attendant; Ken Milne; Sujit Mandell, who is Ken's care attendant; and Shauna Tucker, who's a lawyer representing Klein Lyons. I'd like the House to make all of our guests welcome.

If I may, I'd also like to introduce John and Cathy Howard from Hornby Island, who are joining us in the gallery today. They're the parents of my chief of staff, Stephen Howard.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a great honour for me to introduce today three exceptional leaders in the educational community in British Columbia here today. They are here to witness the introduction of a bill, very shortly, which will have some impact on that educational community.

They are Steve Cardwell, who is the president of the B.C. School Superintendents Association as well as being the superintendent for the Vancouver school district; Michael McEvoy, the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association as well as being a trustee for the Victoria school district; and Sherri Moore-Arbour, the director of communication for the B.C. School Trustees Association. I'd like not only for the House to make them welcome but to thank them for their exceptional service and leadership in the province of British Columbia.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today are the constituency assistants of the official opposition. Our assistants are here in town on their annual convention to learn more about the precinct, learn more about what we do in this place, and I think it's appropriate that we recognize that we are represented by hard-working men and women from Castlegar; Golden; Nelson; Vancouver; Burnaby; Surrey; Prince Rupert; Terrace; Smithers; virtually all of Vancouver Island, I have to say; and many, many other points in British Columbia.

Our CAs do a lot of hard work on both sides of this House. Without them, we couldn't do the job of representing the people of British Columbia. Would the House please make our CAs very, very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm very pleased to introduce His Worship Mayor Frank Leonard from the district of Saanich. Mayor Leonard has always put the interests of farmers on the south Island at the forefront of his vision for a strong and healthy agriculture community in Saanich and beyond. I know he is concerned about local food security. His advocacy and hard work will help solve some of the crises that farmers were faced with recently.

On behalf of government, I want to convey my appreciation for his efforts while he co-chaired, along with the member for Nechako Lakes, the farm assessment review panel, a panel that included elected local government officials and a cross-section of representation from B.C.'s agriculture community. I know he's here this afternoon to see the introduction of a bill. With that, I ask the House to please make him very welcome.

D. Black: I'd like to join with the Leader of the Official Opposition to welcome the Woodlands survivor group here to the Legislature. We had a lovely lunch with them today, and some very interesting stories were told. In fact, one of the very first all-candidates debates I attended as a candidate was at Woodlands school in New Westminster, and I've remained friends with many of those people these some 20 years later.

[1340]

I would like to particularly mention Richard McDonald, who's featured on the front page of the Royal City Record this week, and also Ken Young, who's part of the L'Arche community. I've known him for over 20 years as well. Would everyone please join in making them welcome at the Legislature today.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have Betty Xu from North Burnaby; John Bal, director of Vancouver Chinatown BIA; Jifeng Zhao, director of Agrokin, from Langley. Also, we have Nianxi Liang and Yuxin Guo from Tianjin Fuyen Century Biomass Technology, who are taking a business trip in B.C. exploring the feasibility of developing biomass energy with their patented technology in B.C. So may the House join me to welcome them.

G. Coons: I would like to recognize a constituent, a friend and a survivor of Woodlands. Shelly Starr from Prince Rupert was front and centre at the Woodlands demolition last week and is a strong and forceful advocate for justice and inclusion of all former residents of Woodlands School. So can the House and the hon. Speaker acknowledge my good friend Shelly Starr.

[ Page 8398 ]

P. Pimm: This has been a great week for me. Not only did my daughter Jennifer Pimm get engaged this week…. Certainly, I'm looking forward to some grandchildren to match up with the member for Chilliwack soon.

Interjection.

P. Pimm: It's going to take a little while, and I understand that, but that's all right.

I had a niece that was born yesterday. I'd like to welcome Elizabeth Lori Krahn into this world. In keeping with the House, we've got to talk about the different weights of these children, and this one definitely comes in at as lightweight at five pounds.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome and introduce a constituent from Vancouver-Kensington. In the gallery joining us today is a good friend and the former MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, David Chudnovsky. I ask everybody to please give him a warm welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I have the pleasure today of introducing a Canadian political legend. He was the founder of the Reform Party of Canada, and he became the leader of Canada's official opposition in 1997. He served as a Member of Parliament for eight years, and he truly helped to reshape the political landscape in Canada with his strong focus on fiscal responsibility and on open government. He changed the debate in our country.

It is difficult to think of many people who have made as much of a difference and had as much an impact on the national debate that we've had over the last 50 years as Preston Manning has. But when he left elected office, fortunately for us, he didn't leave public life all together. He released a book entitled Think Big describing his use of the tools and the institutions of democracy to change Canada's national agenda.

He is the president and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, where he continues to play a major role in ensuring government is connected to the citizens who elect us.

Mr. Speaker, would the House please give a big welcome to a man who has changed our country in more ways than we can count — Preston Manning. [Applause.]

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House the mayor of the best place on earth, the city of Cranbrook in my riding, Scott Manjak, who is here today with his beautiful wife, Raeleen, and, I think, Christopher. Christopher is not here today, but let's make Mayor Manjak and his wife, Raeleen, welcome.

N. Simons: Since Ken Milne was already introduced, I don't need to introduce him, but I'm glad he's here. He's a friend of mine from Powell River who lives in Burnaby now. I'm not allowed to introduce my CA, Maggie, either, but she's here. Just in the interest of time, we don't.

[1345]

But there is a constituent from Powell River who I'd like the House to join me in welcoming, and that's Don Krompocker. Welcome to the precinct.

Mr. Speaker: I think, Member, you can deal with your Whip.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Teachers Act

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teachers Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to introduce the Teachers Act, which will bring in a new system to certify, regulate and discipline teachers through shared responsibility between government and the education sector. The new act repeals the Teaching Profession Act and dissolves the B.C. College of Teachers.

The Teachers Act creates a new B.C. Teachers Council which will set standards for teacher certification, conduct and competence. It also sets up a new disciplinary and professional conduct board to investigate complaints against teachers and assign board members to conduct discipline hearings where appropriate. These responsibilities were formerly held by the B.C. College of Teachers.

I believe this legislation will raise the stature of the teaching profession, increase public confidence in the profession's disciplinary processes and strengthen accountability and transparency. Above all, these changes will ensure student safety. This must be, on both sides of this assembly, our overriding concern, and this legislation today gives voice to that objective.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Teachers Act, 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.

Bill 8 — Community, Sport and

Cultural Development Statutes

Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. I. Chong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community,

[ Page 8399 ]

Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to present the Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. Bill 8 addresses two areas within the ministry's responsibilities: the recommendations of the farm assessment review panel, and minor housekeeping and streamlining amendments on the local government side.

Bill 8 will implement two recommendations of the farm assessment review panel. It will also streamline and clarify regional district service review and withdrawal processes and make minor housekeeping amendments to ensure the legislation is up to date.

I move that Bill 8, the Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Community, Sport and Cultural Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, 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 25B)

DIWALI

D. Hayer: In gurdwaras, in temples and in churches across the world Hindus, Sikhs and many other cultural groups, especially today and this week, will celebrate Diwali, the festival of lights, lighting of diyas. In British Columbia Diwali is especially celebrated by the people of South Asian origin because it signifies and celebrates differences as well as similarities.

For many, it celebrates Rama's homecoming from exile after 14 years and his coronation as king. The Sikh community also celebrates Diwali in the memory of Sikh Guru Hargobind Ji's contribution in the releasing of 52 Indian kings from the prison of Mughal emperor Jahangir.

This festival also honours Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. For everyone, however, it signifies the renewal of light and the lighting of lamps. Diwali teaches us to end the ignorance that subdues humanity and to drive away the darkness that engulfs the light of knowledge, thus the term "festival of light."

Diwali symbolizes goodness, victory, enlightenment and justice. It projects the rich and glorious path of humankind and teaches us to uphold the true values of life, which are peace, harmony and understanding. Such is the way it is celebrated in my city of Surrey, where Diwali has always been much more than a religious festival.

[1350]

Throughout the world and in Surrey many businesses, community organizations, non-profit societies, Sikh temples, gurdwaras and many other groups come together to celebrate Diwali. The festival is truly people-oriented, where differences are forgotten and families and friends join together to celebrate Diwali. Diwali also brings together varying cultures and customs, making Diwali a happy occasion for all British Columbians.

I ask all members in the House and all British Columbians to join me in celebrating the wonderful and shining festival of lights, Diwali. Happy Diwali to everyone.

H. Bains: As always, I stand here today to say how proud I am to live in a city and province where we embrace cultural diversity. Every year in B.C., especially in Surrey, we celebrate many cultural events, beliefs and customs of the communities that make B.C. their home. In my constituency, Surrey-Newton, we celebrate Vaisakhi, Christmas, Dussehra, Diwali, Eid, lunar new year and many more. For the past four years my colleague from Surrey-Whalley and I have jointly hosted Eid and Diwali celebrations.

Today is a celebration of Diwali, the festival of lights. While rooted in the culture of India, Diwali is now widely celebrated and has become part of the diverse cultural fabric in British Columbia. Diwali provides with us with important lessons from the past such as celebrating the victory of virtue and truth over the dark forces of evil and ignorance. Education has been an essential link for the younger generation to maintain and preserve our customs, cultures and heritage.

My colleague the member for Saanich South has brought the celebration of Diwali into this House by wearing a very beautiful Indian suit today. I say thank you, Member.

These celebrations provide opportunities for us to come together in the spirit of peace and friendship and help us find unity in diversity. If you are in Surrey, Mr. Speaker or any member, this Friday between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. please stop by my office at 3780 King George Boulevard, where the member from Whalley and myself are hosting Diwali celebrations with our constituents. Happy Diwali to all.

ROTARY CLUB OF BURNABY METROTOWN

COATS FOR KIDS CAMPAIGN

R. Lee: I am sure we are all familiar with Rotary International, an organization of service clubs which

[ Page 8400 ]

bring people together to serve their communities. Rotary International has more than 1.2 million members worldwide and nearly 34,000 local chapters or clubs. In Burnaby we have the Rotary Club of Burnaby, the Rotary Club of Deer Lake and the Rotary Club of Metrotown.

These clubs are famous for their community service and the help they provide. Today I would like to highlight an initiative that the Rotary Club of Burnaby Metrotown is undertaking now and which runs until December 31.

With winter approaching, Rotary has kicked off their annual Coats for Kids campaign. Burnaby residents are being encouraged to donate new or gently used waterproof, hooded winter coats to help out Burnaby children and youth in need. Cash donations are also gratefully accepted. This winter is forecast to be one of the coldest in many years, and I am sure that the people of Burnaby will do what they can to help.

Coats can be dropped off to any Burnaby public library location, any Burnaby MP's office or any Burnaby MLA's office, including my own, as well as at some local businesses. Donations by cash or cheque can be dropped off at the South Burnaby Neighbourhood House or mailed to Rotary Club of Burnaby Metrotown, whose website is www.burnabymetrotownrotary.org.

I ask the members of this House to join me in thanking the Rotary Club of Burnaby Metrotown for their great campaign.

150 th ANNIVERSARY OF

NEW WESTMINSTER

FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

D. Black: Mr. Speaker, I've commented in this House on several occasions that New Westminster is a city rich in history and in heritage. This is again confirmed when we consider the proud history of the New Westminster Fire and Rescue Services, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year.

[1355]

When Hyack Company No. 1, as it was originally named, was formed on July 24, 1861, it was one of the first formalized brigades in western Canada. Its name is very appropriate because hyack means to hurry up in the Chinook language. The first fire hall was built the following year, and its company of 58 firefighters served 1,800 people living in the city.

Their first fire wagon, aptly named the Fire King, came from San Francisco in 1863 and cost $2,600. Imagine that this wagon was human-powered until 1898, when horses were brought in to help the hyacks get to fires faster.

The New Westminster fire department's first and perhaps biggest ever test occurred in the same year when the great fire swept through downtown and along the waterfront on September 10. It was a catastrophic event that is commemorated by old photos and plaques around the city to this day.

During the following centuries modern technology has transformed firefighters into professionals wearing the latest gear and using computerized equipment. As well as battling blazes they rescue victims from car crashes, administer first aid and deal with toxic spills. And they give back to our community through their charitable society, which raises funds to support many worthwhile causes.

On behalf of this House I am pleased to send congratulations to Fire Chief Tim Armstrong and all the men and women who make up the New Westminster Fire and Rescue Services. They have much to be proud of as they celebrate their 150th anniversary.

SCOTT MANJAK

B. Bennett: What does it take to be a good mayor? I have never been a mayor, personally, but I've worked the last three years very, very closely….

Interjections.

B. Bennett: The members say that I wouldn't cut it, Mr. Speaker.

I have worked closely with a very, very effective mayor for the past three years, and he happens to be in the gallery today.

Before becoming the mayor of Cranbrook in 2008, Scott Manjak was a forest worker who lost his job in the 1990s as a result of actions by a former government that I'm not permitted to explain under the rules of these short statements. I could be talking about the Socreds.

Rather than despairing in his fortunes, Scott got himself educated, found a very good job in Cranbrook, raised a family, sat on the regional district of East Kootenay board, chaired the East Kootenay Regional Hospital board and served as a city councillor.

For three terms on council Scott watched, listened, participated and learned before he took on the job of mayor. Scott inherited several big issues, not the least of which was an aging sewage treatment system under intense scrutiny by the provincial Ministry of Environment. Thanks to Scott's leadership, the city of Cranbrook is just now finishing a $17 million upgrade to an already innovative system.

We would not have expanded our emergency room at our new hospital in Cranbrook, our new diagnostic centre, our new ambulatory care centre if it wasn't for Scott Manjak's leadership as chair of the East Kootenay Regional Hospital board.

I have no doubt that Scott could get himself elected as mayor again. However, he has decided to move on to Sparwood with his wonderful wife, Raeleen, because

[ Page 8401 ]

she's embarking on a career change of her own. I'm certain that the next

chapter of Scott's life will include more time with his two grown children, Christopher and Moraya, and also Raeleen.

On behalf of all of my constituents in Kootenay East, particularly the citizens of our hometown of Cranbrook, but also on behalf of all the members of this assembly, thank you, Mr. Mayor, for all your efforts, all your sacrifice and all your commitment to the citizens of Cranbrook.

WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH

This year's annual theme is "Women in Canadian Military Forces: A Proud Legacy," which recognizes women's invaluable contributions to the military in Canada over the years.

Whether as serving members of the armed forces or as civilians, women have worked on every front — on the battlefield, in the air and on the sea — as pilots and peacekeepers, nurses and physicians, war artists and war correspondents, in espionage and in engineering.

[1400]

It is interesting that when you talk about women's history, often the cited milestones are progress in the long and often difficult fight for women's equality — reduction of working hours for women, forming of trade unions, achieving the right to vote, being recognized as a person. Many legislative changes have come after and I think are the result of increased women's voices in legislatures and parliament, which demonstrates the ongoing importance of greater female presence in government.

My hope for the future is that our understanding of women's history and history in general broadens to include a different and more holistic view of the world; that when we speak of history, we speak not just of landmarks, of war, of conflict or the fight for women's rights, but also that it includes a richer narrative about the often unheralded, sometimes unrecognized but equally important quiet achievements of women in shaping their communities and, thus, history.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. McRae: Today we have a tireless agricultural advocate visiting the Legislature. Garnet Etsell owns and operates a turkey farm in Abbotsford with his wife, Debbie, and two sons, Andrew and Nathan. The family has just started to venture into B.C.'s exciting wine industry by planting its first block of grapevines.

Garnet is actively involved in representing agricultural interests both provincially and federally. He's chair of the B.C. Ag Council, director of the B.C. Poultry Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the B.C. Bioenergy Network. Garnet also sat on the B.C. Small Business Roundtable and the farm assessment review panel and is past president of the B.C. Turkey Growers Association. Would this House please welcome Garnet, Debbie, Andrew and Nathan to these chambers.

Oral Questions

COMPENSATION FOR FORMER

WOODLANDS SCHOOL RESIDENTS

A. Dix: The Premier will know that hundreds of Woodlands survivors are being denied access to the government's compensation offer because they were at Woodlands prior to August 1, 1974. Essentially, the government is using a legal technicality to stop these people, who ought to be eligible for this compensation, who suffered greatly at the institution…. They're using a legal technicality to deny them access to the just compensation they deserve.

Does the Premier agree with me that all survivors of Woodlands should be treated equally and that all survivors of Woodlands should have access to the government's compensation package?

Hon. C. Clark: First, let me say this. One cannot fail to be moved by the stories of many residents of Woodlands. We all in British Columbia have heard them loud and clear, and we have all been profoundly moved by the stories we've heard coming out of people who lived in Woodlands for many, many years. Government has a duty to address that.

We reached the settlement process with the group of individuals who were eligible to receive compensation. That eligibility was set by the government in 1974 by then Attorney General Alex Macdonald. That eligibility has since been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in British Columbia.

We are proceeding to find a settlement, and a fair settlement, for the individuals who were harmed at Woodlands, some of them irreparably, as expeditiously as we possibly can. We're doing it on the basis of the law.

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

A. Dix: Surely the Premier is aware that in 1974 what the government did was give people and recognize their

[ Page 8402 ]

fundamental right to sue their government. It was an historic change. It was a remarkable change, one worthy of admiration. That's what happened in 1974.

There has been, since 2001…. The Premier talks about expeditious. In 2001 there was a report of the government of British Columbia by former Ombudsman Dulcie McCallum that said there was systemic abuse at Woodlands. In 2003 the government tried to stop Woodlands survivors from being recognized as a class. In 2005 the government here in this Legislature refused to offer and to deal with the We Survived Woodlands group when they offered to settle this out of court and ensure that everyone received compensation.

Two hundred and twenty-two community groups in B.C. supported them. The government said no. The government said: "Go to court." They wasted a lot of time and a lot of money on lawyers. I know a lot of these people. A lot of people in the class have died in the intervening period.

[1405]

This has not been dealt with expeditiously. We need change. We need the government to treat everyone the same, to treat everyone fairly. Surely that's what this House is about. I ask the Premier to change the position of the government and to give compensation to all survivors of Woodlands School.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, certainly, former residents of Woodlands have incredible stories, painful stories, to tell. They have been heard loud and clear by the government. That is why my predecessor issued an apology on behalf of the government, the first apology that they had ever received from the government, as a result of the harm that many of them endured at Woodlands. So I'll just say that.

Then let me say this. We are proceeding as expeditiously as we can to try and make sure that anyone who was eligible for compensation and was harmed is provided with compensation for that. But let me say this. I mean, for the member opposite to stand up and talk about how that was a historic moment in the House and then today to say, "But it was wrong," just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

We are proceeding on the basis of the law that was set by then Attorney General Alex Macdonald in 1974, a law that was confirmed by the court in 2005. We want to make sure that we provide compensation to people who were harmed, and we want to make sure that we do that as expeditiously as possible, because they deserve that.

Mr. Speaker: There's a further supplemental.

A. Dix: The people of British Columbia…. The members of this House have the power to offer compensation to all people that were harmed. The Premier talks about people's stories. Well, here's a story. Bill McArthur is here in the Legislature as well. Bill McArthur was at Woodlands School. Bill McArthur suffered, amongst other things, repeatedly being pushed down into cold water — for years, repeatedly. He left Woodlands School ten days before August 1, 1974. The decision by the government then to offer rights to citizens in the province didn't have anything to do with that.

Can the Premier honestly say in this House she agrees with the decision to deny Mr. McArthur access to compensation? Will she not change these rules today? Change them so that he and people like him have access to fair compensation from the government — a power that she has in her hands today.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I am pleased that we have reached a settlement process with eligible former residents who are participating in that class action proceeding. We do need to make sure that everyone eligible who was harmed as a result of their experience at Woodlands is properly compensated for the harm that they endured. Government has that duty. But I hear the member stand up and defend on one hand what the government did in 1974, when they were the ones who limited the liability period for the Crown Proceeding Act.

Our government is proceeding based on the law that was made in 1974 by then Attorney General Alex Macdonald. That law was confirmed in 2005 by the appeal court of British Columbia. We are proceeding with this. We want to make sure that anyone who was harmed, who was eligible for compensation, gets it as quickly as they can. We want to make sure we do that because those people deserve compensation.

C. Trevena: Gary Hill is also in the gallery. During his five years in Woodlands in the '60s he survived horrors — mental abuse, physical abuse — and trials that no one, let alone an 11-year-old boy, should face. He had his teeth pulled because he bit someone who was trying to abuse him.

This Liberal government says Mr. Hill isn't eligible for compensation because he suffered these abuses in the '60s. But if the Premier has heard — as she said she's heard, loud and clear — these stories, will she end this injustice? Will she extend to Mr. Hill, to Mr. McArthur and to all Woodlands survivors the right to compensation?

[1410]

Hon. S. Bond: As has been stated in this very Legislature, in 1974 the government of the day had a discussion about liability and about open-ended liability and about who should be compensated. In fact, in that discussion the then Attorney General proposed that 1974 be the year for the first time that people could actually hold claims against the government. In fact, on that day there was a discussion by the opposition that said: "Let's consider a period of time before 1974."

[ Page 8403 ]

Led by the then Attorney General and based on the principle of trying to find balance in those decisions, the then government of the day said no, the year would be 1974. That is the principle on which this government made the decision to enter a process of settlement for hundreds of residents of Woodlands.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: A government has the ability to change the law. The government of 2011 can change the law that was set in 1974.

I'd like to go back to the stories, the reasons why this law should be changed. Mr. Hill, who is listening to us today, didn't get an education. He was forced to work in jobs that we wouldn't contemplate. He's now learning to read and write, and the government's continued refusal to recognize and respond to these injustices places it as party to one of the darkest chapters in our province's history.

There is a motion in this Legislature, in this House, that all survivors have the right to compensation. So will the Premier finally do the right thing? Will she accept this motion and allow all the survivors of Woodlands to apply for compensation?

Hon. S. Bond: The Leader of the Opposition cites a series of dates but didn't tell the entire story. In 2003 this government stood on this side of the House and issued the first apology to the survivors of Woodlands that had happened in decades — the first apology. There were plenty of opportunities for the Leader of the Opposition in the 1990s to make that apology, and that did not occur.

These stories are beyond our ability to be able to respond to in terms of the profound impact that these lives have had as a result of the consequences at Woodlands, but there is also an inherent responsibility in terms of legislators in this building to look at unending liability issues. We clearly are looking at the principles laid down in this Legislature and supported by the Court of Appeal. It is a principled decision based on the history of that day in 1974, led by the government of that day.

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT

WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

J. Horgan: For the past two days we have seen the minister do a fairly extraordinary tap dance on the Boss Power boondoggle that has put us out $30 million, jeopardized the careers of public servants and, in fact, destroyed the career of one public servant.

The government in court documents admitted that they broke the law. The minister in the hallway yesterday admitted that his government botched the implementation of a moratorium on uranium exploration.

Will the minister today table the evaluations of the value of that claim so that the people of B.C. know just how much they lost because of your incompetence?

Hon. R. Coleman: In last couple of days I've confirmed for the member that there was a lawsuit, that we actually settled a lawsuit, that we take responsibility as a government for the decision to get out of uranium mining in British Columbia, which was a tough decision at the time. The decision was made. We knew at the time that there may be some liabilities. That's why Finance booked $50 million in the fiscal plan to deal with any legal liabilities that may come out of that decision.

[1415]

Over a period of the last few years we've been negotiating with Boss Power. We came to a settlement. The settlement was $30 million, and that was the end of the case with regards to Boss.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It's interesting, on this day, that we would hear that the government is prepared to compensate some classes of citizens and not others. The government is prepared to break the law to ensure that they can avoid an embarrassing situation for the former Minister of Mines, but when it comes to telling the public how they arrived on the courthouse steps to shut down yet another court case, just as they did with B.C. Rail…. That's reprehensible.

The government has in their possession two independent evaluations of the value of the claims from Boss Power. Will the minister do the right thing and demonstrate to the public the embarrassment of the difference between what they should have paid and what they ended up paying by tabling those documents in this House today?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite uses the word "reprehensible," so let me try and explain reprehensible to him on the Carrier Lumber deal, where millions of dollars…. Actually, I don't think I'll try. I think what I'll do…. We have to remember….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: It was the NDP government of the day that did the thing to Carrier Lumber. But let's go to former NDP Premier Ujjal Dosanjh's comment on the Carrier lawsuit in the Vancouver Sun of February 8, 2001. Let's remember that there was a family that owned this company that had invested in British Columbia for decades and created jobs — good, family-supporting jobs — in B.C.

[ Page 8404 ]

This is what he said: "It looks absolutely horrible. There's no question about that. I feel absolutely horrible about what has happened to this family."

That was as a result of you guys not being able to negotiate any deals, a deal in good faith with people, which we did. We negotiated with somebody in good faith. We came to a settlement. The settlement was agreed to by both parties — that, by the way, is what happens in lawsuits, hon. Member — and we settled.

L. Krog: Pretty clear that this government is afraid of hearing the truth. Obviously, they wanted to keep the facts in this case hidden. That's why they settled on the courthouse steps for $30 million, avoiding the sordid details coming out in court.

Yesterday the minister defended the $30 million settlement and said: "…we actually have pretty exceptional lawyers in the Attorney General's department that actually do that work for us." So will the minister, will the Attorney General let the sun shine in on this settlement and make that advice public?

Hon. R. Coleman: Even I as a layman understand lawyer-client privilege with regards to information on the law and lawsuits and decisions. I'm quite shocked at the question coming from the member opposite, who would have much more of an education on this particular type of thing than I would.

Let's remind the members opposite that in the 1990s two mines closed for every one that opened. The policies of the government of the day almost actually destroyed mining in British Columbia, to the point where the amount of money being invested in exploration at the end of the 1990s was under $30 million a year. Today the money in exploration is over $300 million a year.

You lost 5,000 mining jobs in the 1990s under the former government. We are actually building the mining industry in B.C. While we did that, we felt it was important, when we decided that we would let people.... What could be mined…. They did not have the gumption in the 1990s to stand up with regards to uranium. We did. We were prepared to pay the settlement in order to do that for British Columbians, and we did it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

L. Krog: If the government has got nothing to hide…. They know full well that taxpayers paid for the opinion. The taxpayers paid for this $30 million boondoggle. The B.C. Liberals have admitted in court documents that they broke the law. They've admitted to botching the implementation. They've admitted that it took 11 months to get the OIC and the paperwork out.

British Columbians deserve to know how much this cost them. They paid for the settlement. They paid for the legal opinion. So will the Attorney General or the Minister of Energy and Mines release the legal opinion and prove to British Columbians that they got a deal for their $30-million fiasco?

Hon. R. Coleman: For $30 million we bought back a tenure on uranium in order to protect the fact that we're not going to mine uranium in British Columbia.

As a friend of mine in the Okanagan said to me last night, "It's about time somebody stepped up and did this and made sure this happened so that people would understand that we're not going to mine uranium in my back yard" — where he lives. He says that it is environmentally scary to them up there. He thinks it was the right thing to do, to actually ban uranium. He also thought it was the right thing to do — if we had to buy tenure back because somebody had a legal tenure — that maybe the government should step up and settle the lawsuit, take the tenure back and pay for it. And that's what we did.

B. Ralston: Yesterday I asked the Premier if she would support my motion, which was on the order paper yesterday, to table this whole sordid mess and send it off to the Auditor General. Taxpayers deserve to know what happened to that $30 million of their money. The point is that there's a difference between what would have legitimately been paid to Boss energy and what the premium was that was paid to cover up B.C. Liberal mistakes.

Having the benefit of reflecting for 24 hours, will the Premier now agree to refer this matter to the Auditor General so that he can get at the truth for the citizens of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know whether the member opposite or the member for Nanaimo, in any of their dealings in the law, ever actually settled a case before it went to court or whether they went to trial every single time they had a case in their previous lives. I would suspect that most of the time they settled the case before it went to the expensive cost of trial and all the litigation piece that goes with it — that at some point in time in negotiations, the two parties decided that maybe they would talk. In this particular case, the point came. The offers were made. The settlement was done. It was agreed to by both parties, and it was dealt with.

SERVICES FOR MOTHERS OF NEWBORNS

M. Farnworth: Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: Actually, a moment ago the Minister of Health raised a question about the gumption defi-

[ Page 8405 ]

cit. So I'll see if he's got the gumption to answer this question.

This past week we saw that the Liberal government has decided to cut home visits for mothers with newborns — more evidence that the families-first agenda of this government is just straight rhetoric.

Mothers and parents need this service. It provides vital information to mothers and vital information to doctors, and it's a great support to families. If families really do come first with this government, then why is cutting this decades-old program good for families?

Hon. M. de Jong: There isn't a binder deficit in this ministry. That's for sure.

[1425]

I appreciate the question, because the member has made some comment publicly, I think. The healthy start program is a reflection of this government's desire to ensure that every single child gets the best start possible. It's why we've allocated the $23 million to ensure that the support is there, actually from the time before the child is born.

There is a change, however. The change is this. And I hope that members opposite will accept this as a fact. There are mothers who have an extensive support network. They have relatives. They have midwives. They have family physicians who are there for them on a regular basis. But there are others who do not, and we are not going to apologize. I am proud of the fact that healthy start is about focusing on those mothers and those families who don't have that support, and we are going to make sure that that support is there for them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: All mothers deserve supports — all mothers. Families-first starts with newborns. That's why the government's changes have drawn criticism from health care professionals, from midwives, from nurses, from physicians — right across the spectrum. They recognize what this government doesn't — that many mothers don't have those supports.

These cuts — and that's exactly what they are — will impact mothers right across this province. What this government fails to realize is that issues such as postpartum depression, such as jaundice, are not just restricted to one socioeconomic group but can affect mothers and children right across the spectrum.

Will the minister have the gumption to stand up, tell the Premier that these changes are not family-first and restore the home care visits to every single mother that needs one in this province?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope that amidst the political rhetoric that often characterizes these debates, the member and the opposition are not suggesting that there aren't mothers, that there aren't families who don't need a little more. They actually need a little bit more support than one visit. There are other families, other mothers, for whom the contact that they will receive…. They'll receive a contact. They'll certainly get a phone call. They don't require the same level of support.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. Hearing the members opposite purport, as they are today, to come rushing to the defence of a program that they spoke against, to hear them purport to care about this when they spoke against healthy start…. They spoke against StrongStart. They spoke against all-day kindergarten. They have spoken against every single initiative this government has taken to make sure that there is early intervention for families in British Columbia.

We're going to make sure that there's support there for the families that need it and for the families that want it. And the families that need it are going to get it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1430]

S. Hammell: Not only does this risk the health of newborns and isolate moms, but from a fiscal perspective, it's just plain foolish. The head of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Nasir Jetha, says: "Doctors will just keep mothers and newborns in the hospital longer." He says: "If that baby or the mother stays another couple of days in the hospital, that is a tremendous cost to the system."

It's bad for mothers, it's bad for babies, it's bad for families, and it will end up costing British Columbians more money. How can the Liberal government possibly justify such an appallingly bad decision?

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's the answer: because there are women and families for whom one visit isn't enough. They need more support.

The member wants to be held hostage and wants the government to hold itself hostage and, ultimately, wants women who need additional help held hostage to her ideological argument that everyone is the same. They are not the same.

If the member expects the government or the minister to be defensive about recognizing the fact that there are families who need more support we and are going to see to it that they get the support, she is going to keep on waiting. We are not going to apologize, and we are not going to be defensive, because it is precisely the right thing to do.

[ Page 8406 ]

[End of question period.]

L. Popham: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

L. Popham: I present this petition on behalf of the residents of Saanich in regards to fill dumping on agricultural land — in particular, Babe's Honey Farm — and the lack of leadership by the municipality of Saanich and the provincial government in protecting Saanich food security.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: We will continue second reading this afternoon of Bill 6, intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. Should we finish with that bill, we'll move on to Bill 9, which is intituled Natural Resource Compliance Act. Should we finish that, we will then move on to second reading, intituled Offence Amendment Act. If we get there, we'll get then to Bill 5, intituled the Personal Property Security Amendment Act.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

K. Corrigan: I'd like to reserve my right on a point of personal privilege, please. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations Statutes

Amendment Act, 2011

(continued)

L. Krog: We're ready to continue, hon. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

L. Krog: As I was discussing the other day, this government engaged in the great giveaway of the Jordan River lands. When this government came into power, it essentially gutted the forest land reserve, another opportunity for government to preserve land for forestry purposes, to ensure sustainable jobs, long-term jobs, jobs where children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren could look forward to working in the forest industry.

[1435]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Instead, this government chose to step back, give benefits to the big forest companies, the large private land owners and ensure they could use the land for development purposes, not for forestry purposes, notwithstanding that for decades they had received significant tax breaks that came out of the pockets of British Columbians year after year, decade after decade, enabling them to keep those lands with a very low rate of taxation.

It was a shameful episode, just as the giving away of the Jordan River lands was as well. Allowing those lands to come out of a tree farm licence was nothing short of awful. We know that there has never been a satisfactory explanation as to why that was important. The truth is that we didn't create jobs. We didn't do anything for the environment. We didn't do anything for forestry.

What the government is proposing to do today with Bill 6 is enable the alienation of further private lands from tree farm licences at the discretion, essentially, of the government. Now, the reason we have law in our society is to ensure that governments don't get to exercise their discretion willy-nilly, that governments don't get to exercise their discretion without regard to due process, to fairness, to transparency, to openness, to principles that govern behaviour in our society.

My concern with this bill…. I understand the purpose of it from the point of view of the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations. The purpose of this bill is to allow the alienation of lands that are covered by woodlots now to deal with situations involving divorce, for instance. Now, one can be sympathetic to that. One can understand that. Chances are this session that we'll be discussing a new family law that will have significant ramifications for property held by couples, whether they be common-law or married.

What the government is saying and what we've been assured…. The ministry is saying: "Look, it will be our policy not to allow the removal of lands, unless they've been part of the woodlot licence for at least ten years." I want to emphasize the word "policy."

Now, we know that governments can change regulation in a matter of minutes in a meeting of the executive council. We know that governments, if they wish and have a majority, can drive a bill in this House through in a matter of hours and days. At least if it comes before the Legislature, there is an opportunity for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to raise questions. With an order-in-council the opposition doesn't get to participate, but at least the government does. There is even less scrutiny when it comes to a matter of policy issues.

Why should the opposition believe for a moment that this policy will in fact govern the government's behaviour when it comes to withdrawal of these lands?

It is readily apparent to anyone who reads, who pays attention to media, that around the planet forests

[ Page 8407 ]

are being decimated in a dramatic way in parts of the planet that have before remained pristine. We know that significant portions of the Amazon rainforest are disappearing. We know that in what was part of the former Soviet Union they are attacking their forests with a vigour that is creating real problems in terms of competition for nations that have based substantial portions of their economic activity on forestry.

British Columbia, notwithstanding decades of overcutting and often buccaneer politics and policy, still has significant forestry, significant vast tracts of forest lands. But we understand and we acknowledge that subject to us disappearing from the face of the planet, and that's not likely to happen unless you believe Armageddon is around the corner, once forest land goes out of forest production, it is gone. We are not going to be returning subdivisions to forestry. We're not going to be tearing up roads to grow trees.

So every time we take forest land out of production, if we allow it to be alienated for other purposes, we are reducing, firstly, one of the great carbon sinks of the world, and we are also eliminating the potential jobs and the economic activity that would flow sustainably from that year after year after year.

[1440]

Why would we wish to believe that the government is going to do the right thing — if that is indeed, as I've described it, the public interest? Now, surely the public interest is based not just on present economic activity; it's based on future economic activity, and it's based on environmental considerations.

It was the public interest, supposedly, that the Minister of Forests, now the Minister of Energy, was supposed to have given when he allowed Western Forest Products to remove 28,000 hectares of tree farm licence lands near Jordan River. Where was the public interest when it counted? Why would British Columbians trust this government to exercise policy in a way that respects the public interest? Frankly, I guess it's one of the problems you face when you've been in power such a long time. Your credibility starts to wear pretty thin.

We have a tired, old government. It has run out of gas. Instead of a bill before us that would give some stimulus to the forest industry, that would give some assurance to all those mill owners that we want to preserve forest land so that we've got fibre for your mill in the future, instead of doing something dramatic like that, the best this government can come up with is a bill that in essence makes some technical changes and allows private forest lands to be removed from small woodlot licences at the minister's discretion.

It's kind of like the kid at Christmas who is expecting a real present, and somebody comes home and says: "You know what? We've decided we're going to give you a candy." A little candy, not a present, not something you could be excited about, not something that might even be useful. I mean, the value of this is to a limited number of woodlot owners.

I want to show no disrespect in my remarks for those woodlot owners. I think they are contributing in an enormously beneficial way to British Columbia. Indeed, most of the people in this chamber will have heard of the name Merv Wilkinson.

Now, Merv Wilkinson wasn't one of my constituents, even when my riding boundaries were somewhat different, but Merv Wilkinson, decade after decade, was able to take the same amount of timber off his woodlot, year after year, in a sustainable way. Indeed, when Merv, in

an act of gracious public charity, transferred his land to the conservancy, there was more fibre on that piece of property than when Merv had started, literally close to 60, 70 years prior. So the woodlot owners of this province contribute enormously to sustainability, to good forest practice.

I come back to my point about this bill. Why can't the government put it in legislation — very clear — instead of affording more discretion to the minister, and indeed, defending this by saying that it will be our policy to ensure that the land has to be in the woodlot for at least ten years? There's a joke in the legal profession: an oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.

What we have here is another empty promise. After all, it was this very government, going into the 2001 election, that promised: "Oh, my goodness, we would never sell B.C. Rail." Oh, what happened? They promised the Hospital Employees Union contract was sacrosanct. Oh, my goodness, what happened?

It was this government, going into the 2009 election: a $495 million deficit and not a penny more. Oh, my goodness, what happened? So forgive me. It's not a reflection of age; it's a reflection of experience that I've developed a tiny bit of cynicism when it comes to talking about the B.C. Liberal government.

[1445]

Now I'm not saying they're incapable of salvation. Particularly after the fiasco at Jordan River, I'm not saying they're not capable of salvation, but I think the chances grow slimmer and slimmer each day they're in office, each month that passes, each year that passes, and public policy and the public interest — good public policy — get sidelined again.

Where are we with this bill? Is this really going to be in the public interest? Is this really so important? When there are so many problems to address in the province of British Columbia, is it really so important that we proceed with this bill? Is the smallish number of people who will perhaps see some potential benefit from here — those poor woodlot owners whose marriages fall apart, those folks who pass on earlier than they anticipated and have to deal with the issue of winding up estates…? Is that really a priority for government? I suspect it has to be a priority for this government. Well, they've introduced the bill.

[ Page 8408 ]

I come back to my point. It's pretty clear they must have run out of gas, because that's what we're debating today. We're not debating new forest policy. We're not debating a bill that would see British Columbia's forest industry get a good kick-start. All we've heard from this government on forestry is: "Thank God for China." If it wasn't for China, we'd be in the soup — if it wasn't for China buying our raw logs.

I've got to tell you that in representing the city of Nanaimo as I do, and proud to do so, when I see those massive vessels loaded with raw logs headed for China — not even going south to Washington State anymore, although we're sending enough down there — and I see my own community with its high unemployment rates, I have to ask myself if this government is exercising what we used to refer to, and a word that doesn't get used very often: good stewardship.

Is this government exercising good stewardship over the public lands, particularly when here we are dealing with that wonderful historical mix of private and public lands being placed under a government regime? The scheme and purpose was designed to ensure employment.

I'm not satisfied, having looked through this bill, that I'm hearing any guarantees about employment. After all, isn't this government's agenda all about jobs and families first and giving people jobs to work so they can support their families? Is it in here? Maybe it is for a small number of families. But if the government, as I say, wished really to assure British Columbians their interests were being protected, we wouldn't be talking about policy and we wouldn't be talking about the further authority to make regulation.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. And don't jump in, hon. Members. Please, be kind. I'm beginning to sound a bit like a broken record, because I have said in this chamber over and over again that if ever there was a government that was guilty of putting more and more authority in cabinet and the power to make regulation instead of dealing with things in an upfront way in legislation that the average person could read and understand, it is this government.

You want to talk about openness and transparency? You know what? If they'd kept to their promise…. Oh, another small promise, not as big as B.C. Rail, of course, or the HEU contract or the deficit. But do you remember their promise of open cabinet meetings? That was really going to open up government in British Columbia.

Open cabinet meetings. Now, there's a pony that's trotted out of the barn and disappeared into the tall grass. You can't find that one anymore. It's just hiding out there in the political hay.

H. Lali: And gaming.

L. Krog: Oh, my friend the member for Fraser-Nicola mentions gaming. There's no need for me to bring up gaming. After all, we really don't want to raise the issue of gaming with this government, because we've seen such an incredible expansion of gambling in our communities, from a party….

I remember the member for Kamloops–South Thompson talking about the horrific things that would happen if there was an expansion of gambling. They went on, and they went on, and they went on, and as soon as they got into office, there we go. We've got expanded gaming across this province. We've got slot machines that make some of our communities look like a cheap Vegas North, without the warm sunshine.

[1450]

Why should we trust this government? They want to reserve more and more regulatory power to the closed confines of the west annex. That is not the way government in British Columbia should operate. If you want to be open and transparent, don't try and fool us with that ridiculous fiasco. As I say, the pony that is out there in the hay, in the tall grass now, about open cabinet meetings.

Put the legislation in front of this House, and let us debate it. Let it be clear. But don't keep reserving more and more regulatory power to cabinet, where there is no public debate, unless the B.C. Liberals honestly think they represent British Columbia as a whole instead of the narrow interests of Howe Street, who seem to fund their campaigns. After all, you only have to look at the public record to know where the money comes from.

It isn't coming from working people. It isn't coming from the folks in Fraser-Nicola. It's not coming from the folks in Golden. It's not coming from the folks in Port Coquitlam. It is coming from the people who have real money in this province. It's coming from major corporations, and boy, if you look at the Jordan River mess, you can sure see that money talks when it comes to donations and forest policy in the province of British Columbia.

What I want to say here is this. If this is the best this government can do, if this is the best they can manage after ten years in office….

J. Horgan: Heaven help us.

L. Krog: My friend from Juan de Fuca says: "Heaven help us." If I thought prayer would help this government, I would pray for them. But I don't think prayer could help this government.

The fact that we're debating this bill, the fact that we're not debating or even talking about a commission to study forestry or a round table to sit down with folks across the board, top to bottom — workers on the shop floor, the mill floor, up to the heads of the major corporations — talking to union pension funds, getting people together to talk about how to revitalize forestry to develop a true provincial or national policy around forestry….

[ Page 8409 ]

Even a motion from this government on the order paper that said to the federal government: "Look, the sale of raw logs off private lands and the coastal lands of British Columbia is a real problem." It contributes enormously to the destruction of our forest economy. It means that mills are shut that would otherwise be running. It means the big success story, indeed one of the only success stories of the last years, which is Harmac, wouldn't have to go begging for fibre week after week.

I want to give credit to the executive at Harmac. I'd hate to be the guy in charge of ensuring that fibre was there, available week after week to keep those two lines running, because right now in British Columbia there is not much of a hope that those lines can keep running in perpetuity unless this government does something significant about forest policy. Today, before us, I don't see anything that is significant, anything that is going to really benefit us.

I see a bill that harmonizes some forestry licences around gas and mining activities — good thing, fairly positive, can't complain about that. Some powers to the B.C. association of professional foresters — not a big deal. Removing some lands from small woodlot licences at the minister's discretion, giving more regulatory power to the cabinet. Is this the best we can do? Ten years in power. Is this the best we can do?

As I said, when I see those incredibly large vessels…. If you haven't had the privilege of seeing one, you should. It is shocking, the volume of timber that is leaving the Port of Nanaimo.

An Hon. Member: Millions of cubic metres.

L. Krog: Millions and millions and millions of cubic metres disappearing across the waters to fuel the Chinese economy. Now, I don't blame them for being smart and buying our timber. But I can sure blame a government that won't go to Ottawa and pound on the Prime Minister's table, even if it's just for a photo op.

They won't go to the Prime Minister's table and pound on it and say: "Look, you've got to do something about policy that allows lands, private lands, and the trees on them to be dealt with in this way, that allows the shipping of significant portions of coastal forest production to disappear in ships across the water instead of providing jobs for the very people whose lands they were until a government decided they would alienate them privately to build a railway up and down Vancouver Island."

[1455]

It was a public patrimony that allowed for the building of the E&N Railway, and the promise was a railway in perpetuity. We really don't have that anymore, but the private lands were gone. Public policy and jurisdictional legalities mean that unless this government demands of the federal government to do the right thing, we will continue to see millions and millions upon millions of cubic metres of coastal forest wood disappear in the form of raw logs across the Pacific.

It is shameful, utterly shameful. There are people in my community who are willing, ready and able to work, who have the skills, who would like to work. Harmac would love to be able to open up a third line. But with their fibre issues, can they risk that? Does anyone want to put money into a sawmill on the coast when its fibre supply can't be guaranteed? It is shameful.

So I want to say to this government today: "Step aside. Step aside, folks. You've had your opportunity. You've had ten years. This is the best you can do? Forget it. It's not good enough." It's not good enough for my constituents. It's not good enough for the constituents of North Island. It's not good enough for the constituents of Nanaimo–North Cowichan. It's not good enough for the constituents of Cowichan. "If this is the best you can do, step aside, because this will benefit some small woodlot owners, but it speaks volumes about a government that simply has lost its energy, its interests and its ability to govern."

The problems are too big. They can hide away in a closeted chamber and pretend they are in charge, but the fact is they are out of control. They have no control. They have no ability to address the serious problems in the forest industry. They have no plan. They have no scheme, and they don't have the guts to demand the federal government do the right thing. Let them step aside, because there is an opportunity that is being lost.

We have the great patrimony of the forests of British Columbia. We should be using them wisely, not just for ourselves and our present generation but for the children and grandchildren who follow us — and indeed for the planet. Let us do the wise thing here.

But this government is incapable of doing so. I just wish there was an election on the horizon. The Premier has already chickened out on one. We know we're not going to have one until May of 2013. Too bad for the people of British Columbia, and too bad for the forests.

M. Sather: I rise today to join the debate — I should have looked around to see if any of my colleagues opposite were getting up, but obviously they weren't — on Bill 6, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

Members of the public have seen a lot of changes in names of various ministries in this government and may not be familiar with this one. But it is, in fact, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations under which this statute is being launched.

The previous speaker or speakers have pointed out that in the past we always had a ministry solely devoted to forestry. Now we see it lumped in with a whole lot of things, including environmental issues, hunting regulations, even some fisheries management. So it's a grab-bag of responsibilities that I'm afraid is reflective of the state

[ Page 8410 ]

of forests in this province today. That's of concern to all of us, I think, certainly on this side of the House.

I remember in the '90s, the favourite decade of members opposite, when I was assisting the then MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and hearing the then members of the opposition say that when they got into power they were going to show British Columbians how forestry should be run in British Columbia. They didn't add the word "down" at the end or "out of business" at the end, but that is how it has been as we have seen the destruction of our forest industry under this government.

We have seen the demise of a once proud ministry, where it's relegated now to part of a grab-bag of responsibilities of government, and that's truly dismaying, I think, for all British Columbians.

[1500]

Not seeing forestry even highlighted in the throne speech, again, speaks volumes to, I think, the fact that the government has given up on the forest industry, other than to act as an agent for exporting increased numbers of logs to China.

That's not a job strategy that has any merit, in my view, and one that a lot of folks in the forest industry — currently and previously, those out of work that used to have jobs — would, I think, agree on. They would like to see jobs for their families here in British Columbia.

We know that when we have manufacturing…. Of course, manufacturing is disappearing from the developed world as we move through the wonders of free trade. Well, it's not free for the workers in British Columbia. It's costing the workers in British Columbia a lot,

whereas we just ship off our resources and we don't make any effort to get the maximum amount of manufacturing dollar out of those resources here in our province. It's a real shame.

I want to focus most of my remarks on this bill around one particular part of it, one that a number of speakers before me have addressed, and that's the issue of the removal of private lands from woodlots in British Columbia. The woodlots that we have in British Columbia grew out of the farm woodlots that previously came into place in 1948, which I want members to know was a very good year. Under those, farmers were able to acquire the use of forest lands adjacent to their farms, or they could go out and cut down wood for fence posts or building a barn or maybe helping to build a new home or the home.

That has evolved, until in the 1970s the Pearse commission did a voluminous report on forestry. The evolution of woodlots as we know them now arose from then. I had the pleasure of speaking to a former colleague the other day with regard to this — one Corky Evans, who some members will recall. Corky made submissions to that commission because he has a background working in small-scale forestry.

I see there are some members in the House that weren't here when the estimable Mr. Evans was in the House. They missed one of the finest speakers, I think, that has graced these halls and a person that I will always remember for having blown the lights of the Legislature out. That happened in an all-night debate we were having in these chambers. Corky was up waxing eloquent and actually singing a Woody Guthrie song about how some people will kill you with a pistol and others with a fountain pen. And boom! The lights went out. To me, it spoke to the spiritual power of the man and his connectedness. Even the electrons were paying attention.

So there has been a lot of input into the woodlot issue. Just a bit of facts and figures on woodlots: 65 percent of woodlot licences are held by individuals and partnerships, 25 percent by corporations and 6 percent by First Nations. So there's a very large…. It's really, basically, a family-based forestry operation, although there are others that have a stake in it as well. But it's family-based, it's community-based, and it's a very good program, which everyone on both sides of this House, I'm sure, supports.

Woodlots were seen to be particularly valuable in areas near civilization, where there would be increased emphasis on sustainable management.

[1505]

You know, if you fly over the province in an airplane you can see sometimes some very large clearcuts that bring howls of protest from some quarters. That could have included me at times. But when you are in close to communities, there's more scrutiny. There are more people watching out for what's going on in the forests next to their homes and next to their communities or in their communities.

So the woodlot licence program is a very good way of having a smaller-scale, oftentimes family-based operation where there's a strong emphasis on sustainability, including environmental sustainability, and that made it a very supportable program. I certainly do support the woodlot program in our province.

The woodlots require annual allowable cut in a management plan by which they operate, not that larger tenures don't have that as well, but just to be clear, they are managed and regulated in that respect. It's not that they just go out and do whatever they want — quite the opposite.

Harvest on woodlots increased from 1.1 million cubic metres in the year 2000 to 2.4 million cubic metres in 2006. That's attributed, in considerable measure as I understand it, to the increased harvest opportunities for beetle-killed wood, which obviously is a two-edged sword for all of us. A lot of our forests died and still are dying in some quarters as a result of the beetle kill. There are a lot more folks out there harvesting that timber.

But the other side of it is that the long-term viability of your woodlot is completely changed from what you…. You know, it's not a matter of harvesting 1 per-

[ Page 8411 ]

cent annual allowable cut or anything like that, because the trees are all dead in front of you — at least all the pine trees are — and they are falling down. There's lots of wind in some of these areas in the Interior, and they get blown down fairly quickly. So you're looking at a whole different ballgame.

The woodlot licence owners in many areas are very aware of that and concerned that the viability, or at least the…. For the next 40 years or so, it's just entirely different — what they are dealing with — than what they had before. So that may, in fact, have something to do with the genesis of this legislation.

Woodlots utilize 1.5 percent of the province's total annual allowable cut. That's not a large amount, but as I say, it's dedicated to handsawn resource management. So it's a really valuable tool. It's a really special deal, if you will, an opportunity for a very sustainable resource management in the forest industry.

There were 811 woodlot licences in 2003 and 826 in 2007, but the previous size limits were doubled to 800 hectares on the coast and 1,200 hectares inland. When you read Peter Pearse's report back in the 1970s, I think there were 30-some, and he was decrying the fact that it was very difficult to get people involved in these licences, these opportunities, and hoping for more. Well, certainly, we've seen a change in that regard, and a very positive change insofar as that goes.

There are now 875 woodlot licences today, and 85 percent of those licences of those woodlots — that's nearly 700 in total — in B.C. contain private land. It's about 130 hectares of private land on average, per woodlot, and 18 percent of the woodlot land is private. So the vast majority of them have private land attached, but the woodlot itself…. A lot of it is Crown land. The vast majority of it is Crown land.

[1510]

What we're looking at is smaller chunks of private land but significant parts of the whole process, as has been talked about in this House and that I will add a few more words about.

The private lands. Certainly, in parts of the province that are mountainous — which, as we know, is a large part of our province — the private lands tend to be in valley bottoms, which are flatter, obviously, and more productive. The soils are better in valley bottoms than up on the hillsides or, certainly, in subalpine areas, so they're very desirable places on which to have a woodlot. I also want to mention that they tend to grow about twice as much forest per hectare as Crown land — again, very productive.

Prior to the woodlots there was no annual allowable cut or a management plan for a lot of this high-quality forest land. What would happen is that people would come in and high-grade — take out the most valuable trees and generally degrade the site, sometimes clearcutting it and leaving the forest depleted for many years as a source of wood and local income. The woodlot licence program is really valuable in order to allow for far greater sustainability in forest practices, which we all strive for.

Crown land is often approved as part of the woodlot in return for putting private land in the woodlot. Bill 6 frees up the private land for development while allowing owners to keep the Crown land lease.

We're not talking about the buildings where the person lives. If they had a forest on their property that was private, that becomes part of the woodlot, along with, normally, a much larger part of Crown land. That changes the dynamic of a woodlot entirely, with this legislation, because once the private land is removed, as I think the member previously mentioned, it's not tending to go back into forestry.

According to the website of the Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations, the woodlot licences are "a form of area-based tenure which is unique to British Columbia. In effect, they are partnerships between the licence holder and the province of British Columbia to manage public land and private forest lands."

That puts it very well. It's a partnership — a public-private partnership of the type that our side can fully support, a very healthy relationship. This legislation is going to upset the balance of that healthy relationship. What we're saying is that, yes — and I'll get into it in a minute — there are obviously reasons why some woodlot owners…. I don't know the exact numbers, perhaps the majority. The minister, I'm sure, does have a better idea of that. Some want their land removed, but we have to look at the public interest.

There are good personal reasons why they want to do that, but we have to look at the interests of the public at large. This is a model that's working. It's a "not broke, don't try to fix it" kind of thing.

I think that the government would be wise to reflect on that. They've got a good model. We have a good model here in the province for many years. Why mess with it when it's working well?

In 2007 the government allowed large forest companies to remove their private lands from forest licences and sell them. We've seen a bit of this on a bigger scale already. Now, I'm not talking about woodlots. I'm talking about larger tenures held by forest companies. But the principle is much the same.

[1515]

On southern Vancouver Island, for example, 28,000 hectares of private land were removed from tree farm licences by Western Forest Products with the approval of the government. Of course, that land is not destined for future forestry. That's taken out of the collective forests that we have in the province for residential or other kinds of resort development.

So we're looking at a history of seeing the government move to privatization of forest lands, which is not

[ Page 8412 ]

surprising. Privatization is, of course, one of the themes of this government. And we're seeing a different ramification with the woodlot licence. But nonetheless, it's a removal from the public good into what is seen, at least by some of the owners, as a private good. Though I think we can all sympathize and understand the problems of succession and so on, of handing on your work to other members of your family, perhaps, we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the saying goes.

So the working forest, which has been spoken about over the years a lot in this province, has been seen as part of a social contract between private industry and the public lands that we're so blessed with in this province of having in abundance, and we want to keep it that way.

Those same forest companies — I do recall some of those same forest companies, anyway — very much were supportive of that social contract when it came to alienation of forest lands by the formation of parks. But now the shoe is on the other foot. It's not only southern Vancouver Island. It's happened in the Interior as well with the working forests.

So we need to keep that forest working such that when we decide that maybe shipping all our logs, or more and more of our logs, to China is not the best jobs policy in the world, we can have that working forest intact to continue to actually provide jobs for British Columbians in an industry that's synonymous with British Columbia — the forest industry.

With regard to the removal from tree farm licences, the Auditor General said that it wasn't in the public interest to do that. He said that at the time. We think the same principle applies now. What we're seeing in the Kootenays, in the north, for example, is that…. Another issue with the woodlot licence — woodlots and other than woodlots — is that individuals from outside the province sometimes, oftentimes, are buying large tracts like ranches for private hunting reserves. We don't want to see the taking over of woodlots in this way for other purposes.

I'm not a hunter now. I was a hunter. I hunted a lot when I was younger. I thought it was great. But I don't now. Nonetheless, I don't want to see our forest lands become private reserves, in effect. Peter Pearse, way back in the 1970s, talked about that as an issue we had to be aware of, that we couldn't let happen — that we need to keep our forest lands for forestry and not have them being used for other purposes in broad measure.

We're saying, I think, that the woodlots — certainly, we are — should stay under the current positive sustainable management requirements that we have. I have no doubt that members of the woodlot association want to proceed with this in a respectful way, because they're doing great, great work and always have done.

[1520]

The assurances that the minister makes and that the woodlot association has talked about, such as that before any land be taken out of a woodlot, private land be taken out; it would be advertised locally and public comment invited…. That's all well and good, but I don't see anything in there that would change the outcome, once the government gives the go-ahead to take their private land out of a woodlot. It's great the communities will be notified, but I don't see any sense that the outcome would be affected.

The other thing is that it's being said — the minister, I think, has also said this — that you'd have to have had your woodlot ten years before you could take the private part out. You know, that's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Eventually it's going to end up in the same way for those that want to remove the private portion of their woodlot.

The issue, though, of a family needing, like anyone, to have recompense for their assets — if they want to give it to their kids, for example, to carry on with — is a real one, and it's a problem, obviously, with agriculture as well. There are programs federally that assist young farmers in being able to borrow the money they need to help with that transition.

Maybe we need to be seeing — if the government is going to proceed with this, and I presume they will — if there isn't some kind of funding arrangements that could be made in this instance as well. It wouldn't actually have to be…. In fact, it could negate, if it worked, the necessity for — and we don't think it's necessary to do this — or the actuality of what Bill 6 contemplates.

Again, this is a similar, common theme that happens with agricultural lands. In Maple Ridge, for sure, we have a lot of smaller parcels in the agricultural land reserve. I hear, not uncommonly, from some of my constituents who own these lands, that they want them out of the agricultural land reserve so that they can sell them.

But this is a contract, the agricultural land reserve, that we've had from the '80s, many decades now, that governments of all political stripes have recognized as being in the broader social interest to maintain. So that's the understanding. There are some costs, obviously, with maintaining that social contract, but it's valuable, we believe, to do so. We are hoping that the government will reconsider it in this regard as well.

Another issue that I just want to bring up briefly that's come to my attention has similarities to this as well, in my view. In Bridge Lake — which is not far from 100 Mile House, between 100 Mile and Highway 5 on the other side — there's a land swap that's being contemplated where land that was set aside way back in 1945 for the enjoyment of the public…. It's waterfront, and that's valuable property up there. The idea is to cut a big chunk out of the middle of it and swap that for a piece of land on the island.

Of course, a piece of land on the island is much more difficult to develop. How do you get there, to your cabin, etc.? But it speaks again to the willingness of this government to go ahead with alienation of lands that are

[ Page 8413 ]

there for the public good in exchange for private interests. In all of these cases I think they are misguided, and I'm hoping that the government will see fit to reconsider. That, of course, is our purpose in having these debates.

With that, I thank you very much for the opportunity to respond, and I will pass the mike on to the next speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and recognize the member for Fraser-Nicola.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's great to see you back in the Chair again.

I rise and take my place on Bill 6, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

Interjections.

[1525]

H. Lali: I see the members are already heckling, and I haven't even started yet. Maybe what we need are some Liberals to actually stand up and defend this bill for a change. We haven't seen them do that, because there are not too many of the Liberals over there who actually believe in it. But as with everything else, those backbenchers over there — when the Premier says we're going to do something, they are going to shove it down everybody's throats. That's why they are all sitting there quietly and nobody wants to get up and defend themselves. So the member protests too much, and I haven't even started yet.

Anyway, this bill that is before the House is about private lands in the small woodlots. Woodlot licences are going to be removed at the minister's discretion. This is the power that the minister wants to grab on to, just like almost every other minister in the Liberal benches over the last almost 11 years has taken the opportunity in their respective ministries to grab on to more power.

We know they had a Premier in place, obviously, for ten years. He had a real big thirst for power — Gordon Campbell. I can say his name. He's not a member of the House anymore.

Gordon Campbell had this huge thirst for power. He concentrated so much power in his hands. He concentrated so much power into the hands of the people that worked around him in the Premier's office. I think he went from, in 2001, a budget of about $2½ million, and about 20 staff. Then he went up to — what was it? — almost $14 million and over 200, almost 300, staff, because he wanted to concentrate all of that kind of power.

Interjection.

H. Lali: The former Minister of Finance — I hear him. Finally he has woken up in this Legislature. I'm sorry I disturbed his slumber that he was in, but he has finally woken up.

That's what happened: the concentration of power, more and more power into the hands of all sorts of Liberal cabinet ministers. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — a new name here; boy, what a mouthful. He's now in lineup to grab more power into his hands. We've got minister after minister lining up, taking power away from the public servants or taking power away from the elected House of the people of British Columbia.

You know, it wasn't enough that out of the nearly 70 million cubic metres of wood that this province has historically cut for a number of decades, that the amount of concentration into the hands of corporations…. All of that and this former minister…. He's a former minister now. The small amount of wood in the land that's in these small, family-run operations, these woodlot licences…. The minister just couldn't keep his greedy little hands off that. He wants more power to be able to actually have the authority to take land out.

Well, you know, when the former Premier and the cabinet wanted to do all sorts of things, they said they were going to come in…. Forestry changes. As you know, every decade there's a cyclical industry. All governments of all stripes want to make certain changes to improve the way forestry is done, improve the public service, create a few more jobs, bring in some new programs, etc.

That's standard fare for governments to be able to do that. You make sure that companies are in existence, workers are working, communities have workers living in the communities, paying taxes for water, sewer and garbage and building sidewalks and roads. That's all part of life and also part of the economic life of British Columbia, especially in small-town, rural British Columbia.

The Liberals said: "Well, we want to make some changes." They said: "We have to do certain things." But one thing that was standing in the way was this Forest Act. I think it was in 2002. They had a whole bunch of things they wanted to do, because their buddies, the ones who financed their elections, those corporate buddies, wanted to have certain changes.

They weren't happy with the fact that they had 80 percent of the timber in their hands. They wanted it all. But this thing called the Forest Act, which had been there for decades before that, was standing in the way. It was standing in the way, so this Liberal government said, "Hey, that's okay. We're going to help you. What we're going to do is we're going to make changes to that Forest Act," which they did. They made changes.

[1530]

They made changes, and here we are today. For the last decade and then some what we've seen is the destruction of the forest industry and forestry-dependent towns in this province under that Liberal government as

[ Page 8414 ]

a result of those changes they made. We have seen not only the privatization of our forests and forest land, but we have also seen the politicization of the Forest Service under the B.C. Liberals.

We've seen the corporatization of our resource. Eighty percent of the lands and the wood that was in the hands of corporations wasn't enough. They wanted it all. That's what they wanted to do.

There are a whole lot of other things as a result of the changes in the Forest Act, things that stood in the way — regs and legs that stood in the way. That's regulations and legislation that stood in the way, that protected the public interest, that protected the land base, the forest. It helped create jobs. All of those things that stood in the way, and they had to get them out of the way. They couldn't do that unless they made those changes.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Here we are. We're talking about woodlots, as well, as a result of all of this and the changes that they're making. They got rid of — oh yes, they were going to try to save some money; that was their deal — the job protection commissioner. There is many a mill, many operations in this province over a period of decades that were saved, and jobs were saved because of the great work the job protection commissioner did.

There was a social contract. The company wanted timber. Well, yeah, it was in a neighbourhood of a community or a region or an area of this province. Great, you got access to the timber. You supplied the mill with the timber. You created jobs. You have workers that worked in communities, and they paid their taxes in communities. Mayors and councillors and regional districts and First Nations were all happy because they had workers working as a result of the social contact.

You want the timber? You create the jobs, and you kept the jobs, basically, within the timber supply area or within the community or even within the region to serve the greater good of the people. That's what the social contract was, but it was getting in the way of their master plan. That was happening. That was what was happening.

I talked a little earlier that it was about 20 percent of the wood that was going into the hands of the family-run operations, the small business forest enterprise program. That was there before the NDP got there, brought in under the Social Credit. You had small-scale salvage operations as well. They've been there for a long time, creating jobs. There's a whole lot of value-added remanufacturing. I know the Social Credit, when they were government, started promoting and started talking about it. We picked up the gauntlet from them and drove it during the 1990s.

The amount of wood that was in the hands of these small, family-run operations went from less than 10 percent to 20 percent within a period of ten years, and everybody was happy. Even the large corporations were happy, because they got credits for giving the kind of wood that the small operators needed, and they got credits when they applied for a forest licence anywhere in the province in subsequent years.

It worked well, and it created jobs all throughout the province. It kept people working in communities, even kept the folks who have the small woodlots happy as well.

We had all this, but it was all standing in the way of their master plan that they wanted. Here we are over ten years later and what have we got under the changes that they made to the Forest Act? Under this government 80 sawmills and pulp mills have closed by deliberate Liberal policy in this government, all under the guise of rationalization. It's a nice little word. Basically, it's corporate concentration. Shut down mills in small communities. Take the timber away wherever they wanted.

They could take it to Timbuktu if they wanted to, and that's basically what's happening. Right in the neighbourhood of Timbuktu our timber is going right now, creating jobs over there. As a result of this….

Interjection.

H. Lali: Timbuktu is in the same Eurasian-African land mass. I imagine the member needs a little bit of a geography lesson as to where it is.

Hon. Speaker, 42,500 jobs were eliminated, decimated, destroyed, kaput, gone up in smoke as a result of the master plan of this B.C. Liberal government. Those jobs are never coming back. They're never coming back under this Liberal government. As a result of this, there's the corporate concentration; there's the abandonment of small communities.

[1535]

The policy now, as it exists under this B.C. Liberal government…. Through deliberate policy the forest policies of this province are written in the boardrooms of the forestry giants in this province. Well, some of them have their corporate boardrooms outside of this province, in other parts of the world. They dictate policy to these guys.

What is it? Is it lemmings that kind of walk over the cliff in mass numbers?

Interjection.

H. Lali: Thank you very much.

Like lemmings, these Liberals — without question, without questioning what is happening here in British Columbia or the kinds of regulations and legislation that are being spoon-fed to them by the Premier's office — go over that cliff. They just get up in numbers and say: "Yeah, we're going to vote for it."

[ Page 8415 ]

Over 80 sawmills and pulp mills lost and 42,500 permanent, decent, family-supporting jobs on the coast and in rural B.C. lost as a result of their policy, and not a single Liberal on that side of the House has the gumption to stand up and question their own cabinet as to what it is they're doing and why they are forced to stand up one by one in this House, actually stand up and vote to support the destruction of the forest industry in this province. That's what's happening.

I'd like to ask how many of them actually do any research into the kinds of bills that come forward from their government when they're supporting yea to pass those bills — what it really means in terms of the impact it's going to have on families in British Columbia and workers in all of our communities across B.C.

We have a minister — not the present; the former Minister of Forests, the gentleman from Prince George. I forget his riding. But in any case, we all know. He's gone out for a number of years. He's gone out there, and he says: "Everything is fine in British Columbia's forest industry. It's in the best shape it's ever been."

He goes around and talks about how they've started up 27 mills, yet they won't produce the list of any of the mills that have started up, in this House. They just won't. I guess he's talking about the 27 sawmills they've started up in China because of all the raw logs that they're shipping off to China and to the United States and other parts of the world.

You know what we've had under the B.C. Liberals in this province? You've had sawmills that have closed in British Columbia as a result of neglect and the deliberate policy of the Liberals in this province. Business people from China and other parts of the world have come into B.C. and have bought up the steel — lock, stock and barrel — for sawmills.

Up in Terrace is a prime example. The last sawmill in the northwest was put into a container and shipped off — just like that — to China, where that disassembled steel that was in the box…. They opened the box when they got to China, and they took those pieces of steel — bolts and screws and whatever else — and they put it all together, and sure enough, the ship that was coming behind it was full of the raw logs from British Columbia that they are processing over there in China. Our mills shipped to China. Our logs shipped to China. Jobs for the people in China, but not for the people in British Columbia.

The former Minister of Forests, the member from the Prince George area, says that everything is great in this province. He says: "Look, the vast majority of our timber in this province is milled here." You know what he calls vast majority? Sixty percent of our timber. So he admits that 40 percent of our timber is going in the raw form and with the jobs.

He says: "Oh, it's creating jobs in B.C. It's keeping all sorts of…."

An Hon. Member: Nonsense.

H. Lali: The member says: "Nonsense." He's right. It's not creating jobs in B.C. Thank you very much. We have a member of the House who finally admits that the Liberals' forest policy is a sham and that the member from Prince George, the former Minister of Forests, is not creating the jobs. Finally, we have a member from the Liberals….

He's exporting 1,200 jobs in logging; 40 percent of timber goes elsewhere, outside of British Columbia, in raw form.

[1540]

But you know, there are operations in my riding, and I know in other ridings all across the province, who are dying for that timber. They're dying to get their hands on that timber that is put up in these huge ships and taken off to China and Oregon and wherever else. They want that timber to create jobs here.

If you left that timber in B.C., and if this government would put that timber that they're shipping off in the form of raw logs elsewhere into the hands of British Columbian operators, we wouldn't have 1,200 jobs. We'd have 12,000 jobs that would be created in B.C. But these guys, these Liberals, are shipping off all of this timber in the form of logs. I wonder what the former Minister of Forests, the member from Prince George…. I think he is lost sometimes.

There used to be a television show when we were growing up as kids. It was about a family. Their ship broke down somewhere in outer space, and they were on this planet somewhere. They kept sort of wandering and wandering and wandering, senselessly wandering all over the place. They didn't have a goal in mind. They didn't know where they were going. They didn't know where they were coming from, and they didn't know what they were going to do tomorrow, but they kept wandering and wandering.

I think the show was called Lost in Space. That's what that member from Prince George reminds me of when he makes these kinds of statements. I think sometimes he is lost in space when he talks about that.

But in any case, the woodlots…. This minister wants more power. There are some families, obviously…. When a divorce happens in the family or somebody dies before they actually get old and they need to be able to settle the estate, obviously there are some issues.

Instead of dealing with the issues and putting up a system in which there's a proper succession that takes place for that woodlot, what this Liberal government wants to do is to be able to take the timber out of the woodlots, just as they did with Western Forest Products on Vancouver Island and many other places around the province.

We have that as a part of the social contract in this province, where companies that own private lands had

[ Page 8416 ]

timber that had value, that was great for the environment. We made a deal as a provincial government a long time ago, decades ago, and said: "Look, we'll give you access to the Crown timber, the people's timber in this province, so you can create jobs locally within your locale and keep those mills and pulp mills going for generations. Just protect the private land because it's got environmental and ecological values, but we'll give you access to the Crown timber, the public's timber, to be able to do that."

With the stroke of a pen, a decision was made by cabinet without any input from the people of British Columbia, no consultation with the people in communities or the workers that it was going to affect in that locale. With the stroke of a pen, the minister allowed the operations of Western Forest Products to close and allowed that forest company that created jobs from that timber by milling that timber locally….

He said to them: "You know what you can do with the private land? It's all yours now. The social contract is all ripped up. Instead of growing trees on your private lands, you can go ahead and grow condominiums and subdivisions."

So they turned forest companies that actually created lumber and furniture and jobs, etc., into development companies, and it's basically just a blank cheque for them to be able to subdivide, divide and build condominiums instead of creating jobs here in British Columbia.

That's what they did, but that wasn't good enough. For the benefit of the member yacking away over there….

Interjection.

H. Lali: The member from Timbuktu. Thank you for reminding me of that.

That wasn't good enough. If you look at woodlots and the amount of forest land and timber that comes out of there compared to the tens of millions of cubic metres cut in this province today, it's not even a drop in the bucket.

[1545]

But it wasn't enough to take almost all of the timber out of public hands and try to privatize it. They want to get at the small woodlots as well by taking the power away from the people and putting it into the hands of one person — the minister. It is the minister who will say: "Oh yeah, that's okay, because we're saying to the woodlot operators, 'Once you've got a woodlot, you can't take land out of there for ten years.'" That's it. Ten years.

You're penalized for ten years, but after ten years it's a free go. Guess what. The minister makes that determination rather than the people of British Columbia by bringing that forward in this House where it can be debated. That's how policy is made under this Liberal government, and they just won't admit it, in every one of these instances. We're supposed to sit here and trust the Minister of Forests to uphold the public interest, hon. Speaker? We're supposed to trust the Liberal Minister of Forests to uphold the public interests?

Well, I'll tell you how much of a good job the B.C. Liberals have done holding up the public interest in the 11 years they've been in office. Hon. Speaker, I want to remind you and people in British Columbia whether they can really trust this Liberal minister or any one of the Liberals.

When they were running for election in 1996 and 2001 they made all sorts of promises. They said: "Oh yeah, we're going to sit there, and we're going to cut waste out of the system. No, we're not going to eliminate any jobs. We're not going to fire any people. We're not going to close any of the services that the province of British Columbia delivers on behalf of the people of B.C."

They said that they weren't going to do that. They were not going to touch HEU contracts, and they were not going to actually cut health services as well. Well, we know that didn't hold water, because they ripped up the contract for the HEU workers and actually laid off the largest number of women in the history of this country in one shot — over 9,000 employees, the majority of them women, the majority of them of visible minority background. They did that.

They've cut hospitals across the province, eliminated hospitals. They've turned them into diagnostic treatment centres, and they haven't appropriately funded health care in the regional hospitals as well. As a result, we have got these huge wait-lists.

They said they weren't going to touch schools or class sizes. We know what's happened with class sizes. They have gone way up again. They've closed over 200 schools in this province. They promised they wouldn't, but they did.

Then take a look at B.C. Rail. Oh, it's like taking an oath on their holy book. "We're not going to touch B.C. Rail. We're not going to privatize." Guess what. They sold B.C. Rail.

They said they were going to have open cabinet meetings. I know the member for Nanaimo talked about it. Well, whatever happened to open cabinet meetings? I haven't seen one. Where did they go? They went up into thin air just like that.

On gambling. When there was a modest increase in gaming and an NDP government in the 1990s, they howled, every one of them. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson at the time…. I guess he's South Thompson now. I remember that member for Kamloops–South Thompson standing up inside and outside of the Legislature, saying: "Oh, the NDP policy is a massive expansion of gambling, and there's going to be blood in the streets." He went on and on.

You know what happened after they got into office, the B.C. Liberals? They have expanded gambling in this

[ Page 8417 ]

province by 125 percent. They're addicted to gambling revenue in this province.

Interjection.

H. Lali: You know, I'm glad the member from Quilchena is heckling again, because he was getting a little upset that I wasn't talking about him. These next two points, I'm going to talk about the member.

He was the Minister of Finance just prior to the 2009 election. He stood up in a seat that was over there in the cabinet. Now he's outside the cabinet, but when he was sitting over there he said: "Our deficit is going to be $495 million and not a penny more." That's what he said. Not a penny more. That's what he said.

Well, guess what. Everybody in this House — on this side of the House, the NDP side of the House — and folks out there all knew that there was just no way that figure was going to hold water. Guess what. After the election — $3.7 billion.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I want to remind that you we're debating Bill 6.

H. Lali: Thank you.

We're talking about woodlots and whether we can trust the Minister of Forests to be able to actually say what he's going to do. We're supposed to actually believe that.

[1550]

This is why I was bringing in the Minister of Finance's assertion when the budget deficit went up to — what? — $3.6 billion, just like that. It was the same minister — we're talking about woodlots and making the comparison — who, when asked during the election in 2009, "Are you going to bring in the HST?" the answer was: "No, it's not on our radar." Well, either they knew something, the Liberals, and they didn't tell the people of British Columbia that they knew it, or their radar was telling them lies. It must have been the radar — right?

This is the record of this Liberal government. They cannot be trusted to keep a promise to stand up on behalf of the public interest in this province. We've seen that over and over again. Western Forest Products. We saw what happened at Jordan River there, and now they want to bring it into the woodlots as well.

The bottom line is they've destroyed the forest industry in this province. We saw the new Premier say there was going to be a new way of doing things, and she was going to make some major changes. She made an announcement about creating jobs, even though forestry was not even in the plan.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There was ample opportunity to come into this House and, instead of bringing in this wimpy little bill here, to actually bring in a bigger, better, more improved bill for doing forestry in this province — some major policy changes. But we're not seeing major policy changes in this Bill 6.

You'd think they might actually present a real plan for forestry in this House, where the people's representatives for both sides, including the members on the back bench on the other side, could fully debate that and see how we're going to create jobs, because she's talking about a so-called jobs agenda, but the Premier hasn't put forward any sort of a plan in this House for forestry's revitalization, its rejuvenation, after the destruction that they've wreaked on the province of B.C. in the last 11 years.

So 88 sawmills and pulp mills closed and 42,500 permanent forestry jobs, and they still don't have a jobs plan in the forest industry. I recall, I think it might have been the year 2007 or 2008…. It was 2008. You know, after working on a certain…. There was supposed to be a green paper, and then there was a white paper, and then there was going to be a policy paper, and then it was going to be delayed. It went on and on.

It started with the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove, I think it was, who was the Minister of Forests, and then it went on to the member from Prince George who became the Minister of Forests. They took seven years to produce a plan, and when it was finally introduced in the House and out to the public, guess how long it was, hon. Speaker. It was a grand total of — what? — seven pages. That was their panacea for forestry.

It took them seven years to do a seven-page plan. What a remarkable accomplishment. It took them a year to do one page, and for seven years they produced seven pages which basically said nothing — just to continue on the same destructive policies that were started by the massive changes that the B.C. Liberals made to the Forest Act in 2002.

Until this day all they've had to present since then, really, is this Bill 6 to take more land out of the public lands, more land out of the small woodlot operations, take them out of there under the guise of having to fix a problem. I feel badly for folks. You know, they end up getting divorced, or people prematurely die; they don't live to an old age.

Something has to be done, but this not the way to do it. This is not helping the people of British Columbia. It's not helping forest-dependent communities in rural B.C., which have been decimated by the Liberal government in terms of all the jobs lost and the dozens and dozens of sawmills in rural B.C. and on the coast that are lost.

All we've seen out of this Liberal government are raw logs being exported in order to support 1,200 jobs. That's it. But if those logs were kept in British Columbia and given to all of those family-run operations that want those logs, we'd create about 12,000 jobs.

Again, I would say that these folks have run out of gas and need to bring in a real forest policy.

[1555]

[ Page 8418 ]

D. Routley: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 6, although it is unfortunate that I have to add yet more voice to the dismal and failed record of B.C. Liberal forest policy. It is an absolute tragedy.

[D. Black in the chair.]

From 2001 to 2005 we saw a bulldozer approach to the infrastructure and relationships in an industry that had been developed over centuries. What we saw was highly intricate and complicated relationships in the harvesting, manufacturing and exporting arms of our industry just wiped out and replaced with 8½-by-11 sheets of paper that said: "Don't worry. Everything's going to be fine."

The people of Vancouver Island, where I come from — I represent Nanaimo–North Cowichan — know well that they can't trust the promises of the B.C. Liberal government when it comes to forest policy or anything else, for that matter. This bill asks for that trust yet again.

This bill provides the means for yet more forest land to be removed from TFL oversight and further reduces our capacity to recover a once proud industry, which should still be the most sustainable industry that this province can offer to its people and to the world. That is an absolute tragedy. It's an absolute tragedy.

This is a time when this province needs leadership in forestry. What we see is a tinkering. What we see are the small details around the edges being tweaked and more and more of that industry, and the oversight and the capacity to direct it to the benefit of British Columbians, reduced yet again. That is a tragedy.

What we see here is the B.C. Liberal government asking for trust once again — a government that has seen the loss of at least 35,000 jobs in the forest industry since 2001. They can blame the American economy now. But from 2005 to 2008, before the bubble burst in the American housing market, while the housing starts were at record highs…. This B.C. Liberal government oversaw the loss of over 17,000 jobs in that period. It was a tragedy.

It was a tragedy not only because of the jobs lost, but it had a human cost as well. The number of fatalities in the industry…. As it struggled to respond to the disruptive policies of the B.C. Liberals' deregulation, it cost lives — over 50 forest workers killed in one year alone.

I was in the courtroom for the coroner's inquest into the death of faller Ted Gramlich in 2007. I sat through that inquest, and I heard the conclusion.

Ted Gramlich was a logger, a faller. He came from a family of loggers. He came from a community of forest workers, a community asked to trust previous B.C. Liberal forest policies just like Bill 6.

Ted Gramlich died because of deregulation. That was the conclusion of the coroner. The coroner said that the deregulation and the lack of proper oversight and the breaking of the safety chain in the industry due to the deregulation policies of the B.C. Liberal government were contributing causes to Ted Gramlich's death. That is the definition of tragedy. That is the definition of how badly public policy can impact the lives not only of a whole community or a whole province but of individual people.

I spoke to Ted's widow outside the courtroom, who cried and said that what she would miss was dancing with Ted. That's the real human cost of what happens when a government refuses to listen and simply follows the dictates of an industry that it is beholden to and grants them whatever policies they want, without considering the outcomes, without considering what it really means in people's lives. That is what happened in this province.

Now we have not only a crisis in the forest industry in terms of manufacturing. The human tragedy and the community tragedy are obvious. The manufacturing-based tragedy is obvious. We've lost between 55 and 70 mills, depending on what you call a mill. That is unbelievable.

[1600]

Also, our forest health. This government has no idea what the state of the forest health is. The revenue that comes into the province now from forestry is less than what it costs to operate the Forests Ministry. So they are cutting back on the very jobs that would tell us exactly what we need to do to recover this industry. It has been reduced to a land swap.

What we saw on Vancouver Island the Auditor General described as a failure to protect and guard the public interest. What other purpose is there for this House? This House is meant to balance the many interests in our province, to find fairness, to find equitable solutions — not to favour one sector of our society over another the way that this Liberal government did with their previous forest policies and now will only augment.

Madam Speaker, this is more of the same. This is more of the same breaking down of relationships that have been structured and developed over decades, generations — in fact, centuries now. This bill seeks to restructure relationships that have been in place for over 60 years that originally started with farmers who had access to forest lands adjacent to their farms to be used for farm purposes. That developed over the years into these agreements on woodlots. Woodlots are meant to be sustainably managed and would continue to contribute to the forest industry production and resource of this province.

What we see here, I would suggest, is a deliberate dismantling of that. It's a deliberate abandonment of what this province can offer to this world — a proud, sustainable, vibrant industry that can support the kinds of programs that we need to deliver to British Columbians, the kinds of programs that the Premier and her caucus

[ Page 8419 ]

were laughing about in question periods recently, as we talked about the developmentally disabled people in this province who can't get services. They were laughing at the questions. That's how dismissive they are of the interests we're meant to protect in this House. This bill is a continuation of that absolutely abject failure to balance the interests of our society.

On Vancouver Island we know all too well what that means. We know. We see 40 percent of the logs from our constituencies exported to China as raw logs for production and processing in China or elsewhere. That is a failure. This bill does nothing to address that core problem. This bill, as the critic said, tinkers at the edge of the problem and offers no ideas, no solutions.

This is a tragedy that is only worsening. We now understand that raw log exports are increasing even more. So if it was 40 percent in 2010, what has it been in 2011? What will it be in 2012? What did this bill do to address that crisis in our communities?

I represent the community of Nanaimo, and in my constituency is Harmac pulp mill, formerly owned by Pope and Talbot, which went into bankruptcy. It was rescued from that bankruptcy by the workers, by the Sampson family and a few other private investors. It was a cooperative effort that now is turning a profit.

Do you know, Madam Speaker, that in its third year of operation it's about to pay a dividend to all those workers who invested? That is a fantastic display. In a terrible market circumstance, they have done it, and they've done it without the help of this government. I'll tell you, these kinds of policies represented in Bill 6 are exactly the same kinds of policies that have led to the fact that…. You know what? The breakdown of that intricate relationship….

Pope and Talbot, before bankruptcy, also owned a sawmill right beside Harmac pulp mill. It operated, cut wood and exported lumber, provided jobs in the community, and the by-products of sawmilling were used in the pulp mill to create paper and more jobs and more benefit for British Columbians. Well, the sawmill wasn't as lucky as the pulp mill. It was dismantled. It's gone. It's a bare lot.

Harmac is separated from that lot by a chain-link fence. Across that chain-link fence are mountains of raw logs that are being loaded onto freighters and exported to China, while Harmac, despite its profitability, despite its provision of benefit to our c