2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 26, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

L. Krog

Introductions by Members

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, second report

B. Bennett

Private Members' Statements

Climate change and I

J. Nuraney

L. Krog

Real leadership in a time of real crisis

B. Simpson

D. MacKay

Accelerating Surrey's future

D. Hayer

H. Bains

Forestry road safety

S. Fraser

R. Cantelon

Motions on Notice

Softwood lumber agreement (Motion 1)

J. Rustad

B. Simpson

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

B. Bennett

Motions on Notice

Softwood lumber agreement (Motion 1) (continued)

B. Bennett

H. Lali

R. Cantelon

C. Wyse

R. Hawes

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

B. Simpson

Motions on Notice

Softwood lumber agreement (Motion 1) (continued)

R. Hawes

[ Page 9713 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I rise to reserve the right to raise a

matter of privilege.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I'm welcoming to the precinct today a group of

people who, I believe, are out on the front steps right about now demonstrating

for awareness of their issue regarding bariatric surgery and the difficult

outcomes — but the very positive outcomes — of that process. A man named Foster

Johnnie, an elder from Cowichan Tribes, and his wife Gloria, as well as many

others, are in the precinct to bring our awareness to the issues of obesity and

bariatric surgery.

Can the House help me make them welcome.

Reports from Committees

B. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the

second report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services for the third session of the current parliament. This report summarizes

our annual review of the budgets in the eight independent offices of the

Legislative Assembly.

I move that the report be taken and read as received.

Motion approved.

B. Bennett: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. Bennett: I move that the report be adopted.

[1005]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

CLIMATE CHANGE AND I

J. Nuraney: I rise today to talk about climate change and

the part we can play to mitigate the damage. Climate change is likely to be the

defining environmental issue for the generation. The scientific debate about

whether climate change is happening is over. It is clear that there is an urgent

need to act. The impact of climate change goes beyond the environment and

affects security, health and the economy.

The time has come for a decisive action. The fourth assessment

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that the

Earth's rising temperatures are unequivocal and are almost certainly linked to

human activities. In British Columbia we are recognized for the quality of our

cities, towns and breathtaking scenery and back country. As our population

grows, we must find ways to maintain and improve air and water quality and

maintain our natural landscapes for future generations.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Our government has taken a very serious and affirmative role in

setting targets for the reduction of gas emissions by 33 percent below the

current level by the year 2020. Legislation to support this endeavour is in the

works. Business and industry are realizing their role in this initiative and are

bracing themselves for changes that may be needed to accomplish these goals. The

question now is: what are we as individuals doing to reduce our footprint on

this very sensitive issue?

It is simply not acceptable to hold the opinion that someone else

will come up with a solution. What am I doing in my day-to-day life to effect

change? That is the question. There has to be a strong public engagement

component to achieving our goal of reducing impacts on our environment.

Every single British Columbian can reduce their carbon footprint

by making simple, everyday choices — for example, leave your car at home. Take a

bus whenever possible. Make a policy to invest in energy-saving electronics and

household appliances. Switch to CFL and LED lightbulbs wherever possible. Ensure

that your garbage is separated in recyclable bins. Use fuel-efficient cars, and

reduce speed when driving. Check your tire pressure, and get the engines tuned

up. Wash clothes in cold water, and reduce the use of hot water. Use water

sparingly. Turn off electronic devices when not in use. Turn down the heat in

the night. Avoid plastic bags, and bring your reusable bags when shopping. These

are some of the ideas that are easy to implement but that can have a powerful

effect in reducing impacts on our environment.

[1010]

Malcolm Gladwell stated that on playing fields and battlegrounds,

challenges that would be daunting and impossible if faced alone are suddenly

possible when tackled in a close-knit group. People haven't changed. It is the

way the task appears to them that has.

In our efforts to reduce environmental impact, it is also

necessary to bring our neighbourhood together. Working as a team can motivate

individuals to become more aware of their individual consumption and emissions.

This can lead to achieving citizen behaviour change, which is the most

challenging

part in advancing the environmental protection. If people work

together and notice their accomplishment, they are likely to reach out and

encourage others to do the same. Smart living

[ Page 9714 ]

and smart communities will be the lifestyles of the future.

It is interesting to note that the world around us and most

countries have now embraced the concept of mitigating impact on our environment.

Countries like India, which has huge environmental concerns, deal with the

problem at the grass-roots level. Thousands of civil society groups and

individuals spread across the country are responding to this challenge without

any government legislation. Their efforts are bearing fruit and are testimony to

the difference one can make.

Livable communities initiatives require cooperation and support of

the municipal level of government to implement plans and strategies to ensure

the development of future citizens, and expansion of current ones needs to

incorporate essential elements of conservation and sustainability.

Madam Speaker, I would like to end my remarks by reiterating the

title of my statement, "Climate Change and I," and leave that thought with the

House as to what we as individuals are going to do to avert this looming

catastrophe.

L. Krog: I'm tempted this morning to take a few jibes at

someone from the government benches, but quite frankly, recognizing that the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I think, has always spoken respectfully on most

topics in this House, I'm going to resist most of that. He's absolutely right,

because the changes that are required are all about us.

The first thing we can do is stay put; that's the primary thing.

No bigger airports, no more expansion of transportation routes for automobiles.

Try and stay close to home; work close to home; live close to home. That's one

of the first things we can do, and that's going to be very difficult.

As an example of how you encourage that, you ensure, for instance,

that communities have schools. My colleague the member for Saanich South pointed

it out to me this morning. If you close schools, then you force parents to drive

their children, or you force them to be bused. Generally speaking, it's going to

mean a consumption in fuel and extra transportation.

That is a simple example of how the decisions governments make

impact on the communities in which we live. We are talking about facing a brave

new world, if you will, a world in which many of the patterns of existence that

have been enabled by the automobile will be gone forever, and quite rightly so.

I think there are many who think that there will be a great fix, that if we can

just find a substitute fuel, we'll continue to be able to rely on the

automobile, build suburbs, expand beyond city limits — to do exactly what we've

done, which we in North America have come to understand is just a short period

of our history coming close to an end.

In my own community of Nanaimo the city has a proposal before it

for a massive development at Cable Bay, well outside the urban containment

boundary, with strong support in some of the business community and some strong

support in city council, but it's bad planning. It's not the way to go, and it's

all based on the concept of automobiles to get people back and forth from that

centre into the community. At the same time, as the member for

Nanaimo-Parksville has proudly noted in this House, the city is completing a

magnificent new conference centre designed to revitalize the downtown.

One hand, revitalize the downtown; other hand, build outside the

city, if you will. Not logical. Those are the kinds of choices we have to make.

[1015]

The second most important choice we're going to have to make is

entirely about consumption. I come from a home where I heard so much about the

Depression that I sometimes used to complain, in language that I won't use in

this House, that it's like I lived through it. It is ultimately about making do.

We do not have to have a gadget for every task nor the perfect tool for every

piece of work, nor the perfect furniture, nor everything designed specifically

for the simplest things we do each day.

M. Karagianis: Or the latest trends.

L. Krog: Or the latest trends, the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin points out.

It is about doing with less and stopping consumption, but stopping

consumption has profound impact on the way we've organized our society to

produce goods. The reason China is polluting is because we buy so much of what

they produce. We believe we need it. We transport those goods across half the

globe to get here to consume them, because they're made cheaply in China.

We make all of those choices every day by what we do. I thank the

hon. member opposite for his remarks this morning and for raising this topic. It

courage as citizens and as legislators to say to governments: "We're going to

have to encourage a reduction in consumption."

That's going to be really tough for our economy to take. That's

going to be the great deciding factor for our generation. Every generation has

faced great challenges, and I'm thinking particularly of the western world,

whether it was two world wars or a great depression. This is the challenge of

our times. The knowledge is irrefutable. The task is before us.

I sincerely hope we have the courage to do it. I'm not convinced

we do have the courage to do it. Nor are we prepared as a society to accept the

incredible implications of what it means to actually reduce consumption, to

change our lifestyle, to live in communities where we work, to not move out into

suburbia. Those things are the challenges of our time.

I'd like to think our generation and the generations that follow

are up to it, because if we don't do it now, they won't have much of a life to

look forward to.

J. Nuraney: I am very happy to listen to the remarks of the

member for Nanaimo. Basically, I believe that he does concur with my view that

action needs to be

[ Page 9715 ]

taken, whether it is on an individual basis or whether it is on a

community-level basis. Action needs to be taken.

Less consumption, I believe, is the right thing to do. How do we

go about attaining that goal? Changes in people's lives are very difficult to

make. We are accustomed to a certain level of lifestyle; we are accustomed to a

certain standard of living. I believe that it is time that education of our

people be undertaken so that they understand the effect of a very large

amount of consumption of unnecessary goods that they perhaps do not need, but

they have to have it because somebody else has got it. That concept of "Let's do

as the Joneses do" has to stop at some point.

I think it is very important that this education about knowledge

of the impact that we are making on our environment is very essential. As our

member says, very rightly so, the time has now come that we need to act.

Government will do what it does in normal circumstances, and the impact of

legislation, of leadership, is certainly there for this government to take.

What is more important is that the people, the citizens, need to

understand and educate themselves on what they need to do to reduce the impact

on our environment. I'm very happy to raise this issue in the House today, and I

hope that it will resonate among not only the members in this House but the

public at large.

[1020]

REAL LEADERSHIP IN

A TIME OF REAL CRISIS

B. Simpson: On November 26 the opposition called in this

House for an emergency summit on the forestry crisis. It's an interesting debate

to go back and reflect on now that that crisis has deepened, now that more and

more communities have had their mills close — more indefinite closures, more

permanent closures.

As a reflection on the government's position, the MLA for Prince

George–Omineca, who responded to that debate, made the following comments. He

thanked the member for Yale-Lillooet for bringing forward the issue, and then he

stated: "I think the drama that seems to be worked into this might be a little

bit overstated." Now, of course, hopefully, that member has rethought that,

because in his area we saw, over November, December and January, a meltdown of

the forest industry and mill closures and people losing their jobs.

He also stated that he believed we were calling this an emergency

crisis but that he was looking into his crystal ball. He was seeing the highest

prices we could have ever seen in lumber, and if that type of prediction going

forward comes true, then calling this an emergency crisis was overly dramatic.

The member called for $600 pricing for lumber by 2010. Now, I have

searched every analyst's report that I can find, and I cannot find anybody who's

that bullish on the lumber market way out until 2012, 2015, even 2020. There's a

fundamental problem in the Liberal government's research in feeding that member.

More particularly, I want to point out a statement that that

member made on behalf of the government. He stated: "I cannot support the

direction that the member for Yale-Lillooet was proposing. I do not believe it

would be healthy for the industry to have a debate about its future. I do not

believe it would be an effective way for being able to allow for that public

input and for those discussions." Then he said: "I believe that there are better

ways, that the process is in place and that we have initiated those processes."

Oops. January 18, 2008. The Premier stands in front of the truck

loggers convention, and what he says is that the industry is in the deepest

crisis that it has ever experienced and that what we need is a seismic shift. He

at that point offered British Columbians two things: yet another round table on

forestry and more deregulation of the industry, which I will speak about

momentarily. I think that seismic shift, hopefully, in the government

backbenchers has already occurred as well.

I question, of course, another piece of information that came

forward in that debate, and that is the measure of the efficacy of forest policy

— the value of forest policies and the number of jobs lost. A number of members

during that debate pointed out that 13,000 jobs were lost in the 1990s from the

industry and, therefore, that that was indicative of bad forest policy.

Well, if that's the measure of bad forest policy, let me put some

things on the record. There's a FERIC study just released that says between 2000

and 2005 we lost 13,900 jobs just from the logging and forestry sectors alone

from the land base — 13,900 jobs lost from the land base. Now that is a pretty

damning indictment if forest policy is supposed to be measured by job loss.

Next, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers stated that between

January 2003 and April 2007 — this is a briefing to the ministers of forests —

30 major processing facilities closed in B.C. and thousands of manufacturing

jobs have been lost. Now, January 2003 is a good benchmark for us, because in

2003 we got the government's forest revitalization strategy. Since then, I have

to say, there's not one forest worker or one community in the province that

feels revitalized by that plan.

Since 2001 we have seen the collapse of the value-added and

remanufacturing sector. It's all but disappeared as a result of government

policy. A key supplier to secondary manufacturing stated recently that 70

value-added companies have disappeared from their client list in the last two

years alone. That's a scathing indictment, again, of Liberal forest policy.

In the last few months alone we've lost over 4,000 workers, who

have either been indefinitely or permanently closed.

[1025]

R. Hawes: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I want to read

something from the standing orders.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you've not been recognized.

Member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

[ Page 9716 ]

Point of Order

R. Hawes: Madam Speaker, from the standing orders…. I'll

read this quote:

"In reviewing the practice of this House, highly partisan

remarks that negatively reflect on individual members or groups of members in

the House have not been regarded as falling within the spirit and intent of

Standing Order 25a" — which is what we are now operating under.

"Subject always to Standing Order 40, other

opportunities for such debate are available to members as, for instance, during

debate on estimates or, depending on content, debate during bills."

I would suggest that the remarks we're hearing here are

highly partisan and do reflect negatively on groups of members in this House. As

such, I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that this is not within the spirit of the

standing orders.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. One second.

Members, during private member's statements, members are not

precluded from expressing a party's position on political issues or policy. What

the issue is, is attacks on persons.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: Just a point of clarification, if I could. Does

my time restart, or do I continue on the same time?

Deputy Speaker: Carry on, Member….

B. Simpson: I think we had injury time before.

That's how I understood the nature of my comments and the freedom

that I had today. I thank the member for trying to clarify that, and I thank the

Speaker for stating the opinion of the Speaker on that. I will continue in the

same vein that I was on.

Again, the point I'm making is that if the measure of forest

policy, the measure of the success of forest policy, is the number of jobs lost,

then the current government has failed on all counts. More importantly, the real

question is: how do we advance real leadership in this time of crisis?

Every job lost is a family hurt. Every mill closed is a community

that has to go through a painful transition. Again, in a previous debate the MLA

for Prince George–Omineca stated that he understands — this is the statement

from him — that it is the industry's role, as part of this restructuring, to be

able to support communities and to be able to support their workers to get

through this tough patch so that when we come out of it, the forest industry

will be strong.

We dispute that. That's the fundamental difference between the

government side and this side. We dispute that, because we believe that it is

the government's role to make sure that the industry is repositioned to do the

necessary things.

D. MacKay: I'm pleased to stand today and respond to the

notion that was brought forward by the member for Cariboo North of an emergency

summit because of the forestry crisis we have in the province of British

Columbia.

The forest crisis that we are facing in the province is not a

simple one to address. First of all, I think that what we have to look at is the

fact that the American market has basically dried up. If you stop and realize

the amount of wood we ship south to the American lumber market, it's actually

quite staggering.

The fact that the sub-prime rate has collapsed in the American….

We've seen one million fewer housing starts this past year, and the Canadian

dollar has risen to an unprecedented rate compared to the U.S. dollar. All of

those three things go together to account for a part of the problem that is

being faced by the forest industry today.

However, to suggest that the province, the government that's in

place today, is responsible for those three items is totally irresponsible, in

my view, based on the fact that we don't control the Canadian dollar. We don't

control the number of houses being built in America south of the 49th parallel.

The sub-prime rate that has collapsed down there has been a remarkable challenge

for the Americans, let alone the Canadian lumber industry.

[1030]

We have to go back further and look at the softwood lumber

agreement that expired under the watch of the previous government in April of

2001. When the softwood lumber agreement collapsed and we were into a series of

litigation expenditures for the lumber industry, we should remember that 30

percent was the duty that was being collected by the American lumber

manufacturers by people who were producing wood in Canada. That was a total loss

of about $4.3 billion to our forest industry throughout Canada. That was a huge

sum of money that could have gone back into retooling plants throughout the

province of British Columbia and throughout Canada generally, but that didn't

happen.

When the softwood lumber was signed off on, we actually saw the

Canadian government start collecting the revenues at 15 percent, which is half

the rate that was being charged by the Americans. After the signing of the

softwood lumber agreement we saw a good sum of money come back to British

Columbia sawmills. Canfor, as an example, realized $554.1 million in money that

was directed back to Canfor. West Fraser saw $284 million come back. Interfor

received $70 million, and Western Forest Products received $103 million from

that money, which normally was going down to the States.

I suggest today that because of the problems in the forest

industry and the price of lumber, what's keeping some of these sawmills going

today is, in fact, the money that has now been redirected back to those forest

companies by the federal government.

I should remind everybody in this House that the softwood lumber

agreement is not a provincial negotiation. That's a federal negotiation. The

province supported the federal government in its attempt to reach an agreement —

the softwood lumber agreement — and we got there.

[ Page 9717 ]

We did get there, and thank goodness we did, because some of that

money that is now coming back is keeping these sawmills going. It's keeping jobs

in those sawmills throughout our province, and that's what's keeping these

families together. It's keeping these families together because they actually

have jobs they can go to.

Just to touch on the fact about the softwood lumber agreement

being a federal issue, the province has no say in that other than to either get

on side or argue against the federal government. We can't unilaterally terminate

the softwood lumber agreement.

However, under the softwood lumber agreement — which the

opposition members have an opportunity to pursue down the road, if they wish —

there is an 18-month agreement coming into effect in April 2008 that would allow

the parties to terminate the softwood lumber agreement, but either party must

give six months' notice. I don't think getting rid of the softwood lumber

agreement is going to do anything to enhance our forest industry in the province

of British Columbia today.

When I talked about the Canadian dollar being where it is today —

on par with the U.S. dollar…. I'd like to remind everybody that years ago our

dollar was pegged at 85 cents, and for every penny increase in our Canadian

dollar as it reaches par with the….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member, before you stand, I just would like to review the ruling

of the Speaker on private members' statements. While the jurisprudence of this

House does not preclude members from expressing a party's position on political

issues or policy, it is also contrary to the intent or spirit of statements to

use these as a vehicle to criticize or rebut another member's words spoken

during other proceedings of this House.

In that spirit, we'll proceed.

B. Simpson: Thank you for the clarification. I will

restrict my remarks, then, to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine and some

closing comments.

I think the member is actually debating the motion that's coming

up and not my comments, with his emphasis on softwood lumber agreement. I would

hope that between now and then, he'll go and examine where the 15 percent border

tax is actually going, because it's not going to mills and communities. It's

going to general revenue, so they get no direct benefit.

[1035]

In fact, we agree with the member. It should flow back to

communities. We've been calling on that for two years now. So I think the member

better do a little bit of homework to clarify that before he responds to the

motion coming up.

The member made a couple of interesting comments that I want to

speak to, because it goes to the heart of what I'm pointing out. The member

mentioned that it's not the government's fault that the dollar is up, that the

markets collapsed, and that we have a situation in our forest sector where

they're producing for a market that does not exist and the price isn't there for

them.

Well, that is exactly what I'm saying. Liberal forest policy has

driven the industry to collapse to a few remaining dimension lumber producers

who are producing dimension lumber for a market that no longer exists.

The value-added and remanufacturing industries have gone. A lot of

our forest health activities have been undermined. So the rest of the industry

has disappeared at the worst possible time. Policy has made this situation worse

than it needs to be. We fundamentally believe that the government has an

obligation to take things like the softwood lumber border tax and turn it back

into those communities that have been hurt by that forest policy and help those

communities through the transition.

I am pleased to say that a few weeks ago we did put forward a

forestry agenda that we believe addresses this. We put forward five points, and

we believe that if the government starts to move in that direction, we will see

a revitalized industry in the true sense of that word.

We need to understand what's happening on our land base. Our data

is not good enough to manage. We are operating blind as a result of cuts to the

Forest Service. We need to have information about climate change and the

implications for forest management, and we need a large green plan — a plan for

restoring our forests to health so that we can maximize the value from those

forests.

We need to restructure the industry so that it is in the 21st

century, not in the 19th century — so that it's not solely producing dimension

lumber for the North American market. We need to recognize ecosystem services —

the whole range of values, non-timber and timber; engineered wood products — and

restore the value-added and remanufacturing sector.

We believe that you do that through competitive tax regime and

through the third point — tenure reform. We need to reform our tenure system.

Under this government, our tenure system has collapsed so that five companies

effectively control the land base. That's the beginning of real leadership.

ACCELERATING SURREY'S FUTURE

D. Hayer: A few weeks ago our Premier and the Minister of

Transportation announced one of the biggest transportation infrastructure

programs in the history of British Columbia, if not the biggest program in

Canada. This vision, based on an investment of $14 billion, will change the way

we live today and will set the bar for how we get around in our communities for

decades to come.

The investment and the infrastructure that it will provide are

necessary to achieve what everybody has been calling for, has been talking about

and has been concerned about for years: global warming, greenhouse gas

production, vehicle emissions, air pollution. This massive plan for

transportation will get people out of their cars. It will speed up the current

transportation system. It will make life much easier for my constituents as well

as those people who live in the lower mainland.

[ Page 9718 ]

Since I was first elected in 2001, I have lobbied tirelessly for

transportation projects to improve the lives of my constituents, the lives of

Surrey residents, the lives of everyone who uses the Port Mann Bridge and the

lives of people in the lower mainland. This incredible plan by the Premier and

the minister addresses my concerns, answers my pleas and, when completed, will

make the lives of millions of people much better.

This plan creates four new rapid transit lines and provides

energy-efficient, high-capacity rapid bus service and 1,500 new clean-energy

buses. That is particularly good news for Surrey residents, since they will be

the beneficiaries of much of this transportation infrastructure. In fact, the

addition of these new clean-energy buses means that the number of buses

currently serving Surrey will double. SkyTrain expansions will definitely assist

my constituents of Surrey-Tynehead and the rest of Surrey.

This investment in our future will be a boon to commuters,

shoppers and students. As well, it will assist our seniors to travel about the

community, giving them much easier access to recreational facilities, social

centres and shopping. The extension of SkyTrain from King George station up to

Guildford and beyond is excellent, as it will vastly improve access, will

eliminate many cars and will be very good for business as well. In fact, it will

open up the shopping centre area to many other parts of the lower mainland.

[1040]

The current program will see the SkyTrain run all the way down

168th Street to Fraser Highway in my riding, providing excellent services to

Surrey's major recreation centre in the Tynehead-Fleetwood area.

That line is eventually slated to continue on to downtown Langley

to give tremendous connectivity to the fastest-growing area of the Fraser

Valley. But that plan doesn't just serve Guildford, Tynehead and Fleetwood.

Another SkyTrain line is slated to run south of the King George station and down

the King George Highway to about 64th Avenue.

These rapid transit options will save time and money for all

Surrey residents as well as their children. It will also allow the children to

attend school, attend university, go to work or go shopping quickly and

conveniently. This will eliminate the need for students having to borrow the

family car to attend classes or having to purchase their own vehicle to get them

back and forth. It will simplify shopping for consumers. It will enable people

from the Tynehead area, Guildford and Fleetwood to jump on SkyTrain to get to

work faster to downtown Vancouver or other surrounding areas.

That means people can get to work quicker and back home to their

families without the hassle of traffic. Best of all, it will get them out of

their cars and greatly reduce vehicle emissions. Most importantly to my

constituents and to everybody else living south of the Fraser, this tremendous

SkyTrain system, this tremendous transit plan, is in addition to the twinning of

the Port Mann Bridge, doubling the lanes on Highway 1, the building of the South

Fraser perimeter road and upgrading the interchanges, the overpasses and

underpasses throughout the Surrey-Tynehead area.

One of the biggest contributors to the vehicle emissions entering

our air space is the almost constant traffic jam leading up to the Port Mann

Bridge. These vehicles, thousands and thousands of them, sit idle for hours on

end, spewing dangerous emissions into the air, seriously affecting our air

quality and contributing tonnes of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. Twinning

the Port Mann Bridge will get those vehicles moving faster. It will greatly

reduce our contribution to global warming.

In addition to the twinning of the bridge, the four-laning of the

freeway and construction of the South Fraser perimeter road, the currently

under-construction widening of 176th, Pacific Highway, and the widening of the

Fraser Highway and Highway 10 will greatly enhance the speed and efficiency of

commercial traffic and the daily commuter traffic, thus literally saving

billions of dollars in lost revenues and income for everyone.

Highway 1 is the route from our ports to the rest of Canada and

the rest of North America. Its importance to national and international commerce

will only grow as Asia-Pacific trade becomes more and more the lifeblood of our

economy.

It is not just Surrey or those of us who live south of the Fraser

River who benefit from this impressive transportation plan. Those living in the

northeastern suburbs will be getting the Evergreen rapid transit line, North

Fraser perimeter road and link to Surrey, Highway 1 and the Pacific Highway

border crossing with the now under-construction Golden Ears bridge.

Plus, in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, we will have opened

the Canada line SkyTrain from Vancouver International Airport to Richmond to the

downtown area. This link will help my constituents get to and from the airport

as well, and most importantly, it will serve the incredible volume of passenger

traffic that Vancouver International Airport generates. In addition, Canada line

will provide commuter access to and from the airport for thousands of people who

work there each and every day.

Madam Speaker, the transit plan is exceptional. When I turn this

over to the opposition member to respond, let me leave you with this challenge:

how can the opposition not support this vision, a vision for the future? How can

the NDP MLAs who represent Surrey not support this and not make it clear to

their leader that this is an important plan and that the twinning of the Port

Mann Bridge and widening Highway 1 is in the best interests of their

constituents and all of Surrey?

I hope to hear positive support for this entire program in the

reply from the opposition. Otherwise, they are not representing the wishes of

their constituents. Now I will allow the opposition to respond.

[1045]

H. Bains: I'm honoured to stand here and talk about issues

that are really important to Surrey, the residents of Surrey-Newton in

particular, and all of the Surrey residents.

The member talked about the transportation announcement that the

government made. Let me say that the title of this statement is "Accelerating

Surrey's Future." I was actually very intrigued by that statement.

[ Page 9719 ]

I thought there would be something new coming to Surrey — some new idea where

we could provide the tools to the Surrey residents, who could upgrade their

skills and utilize those skills to the fullest of their potential.

What I've seen is another catchy slogan and hardly any substance.

It's a repeat of the government's statement that was there before.

When you talk about getting people out of their cars, you need to

make it cheaper for them to use the transit system. In fact, what has happened

is that we have raised the transit fare in Surrey. Coming from Surrey to

Vancouver — $10 now. It's hardly a help to those people who are at the lower end

of the spectrum to pay for that transit and to use the transit, coming out of

their cars. It's an impediment.

On top of that, the park-and-ride fees were also increased. So on

the one hand, we are talking about moving people out of their cars into transit

while making transit out of reach. In addition to that, I must say that in order

to get into transit, we need a transit system. We need 500 buses in Surrey now.

That's what the Surrey city council has identified. We're not getting those.

We need infrastructure. There's no announcement about the Pattullo

Bridge. Pattullo Bridge is old, dilapidated and dangerous. It's killing people,

and no action from this government to improve or replace the Pattullo Bridge and

no announcement to have those 500 buses that we need there now — none.

I believe that the biggest asset of any community or any country

is its people. Those people need to have support to upgrade their skills,

support to have a communication and transportation infrastructure, and support

to have a training centre, research and development. Are we getting that in

Surrey and providing that support to the Surrey people? We're not. We're not

doing that at all.

If you take a look at the overall programs of this government,

they have dismantled the apprenticeship program. This would have been a tool for

our young people coming out of school who wanted to upgrade their skills and get

into the trades category. That thing is totally dismantled. Very few people are

actually completing the apprenticeship program.

We need to provide them healthy and crime-free communities. Are we

doing that in Surrey? We're not. I have talked to the folks in Surrey at

different community meetings out there. They are afraid in their own homes. They

can't sleep. Two o'clock in the morning, Wednesdays, Thursdays, all days during

the week…. They need to go to work in the morning. They need to take their kids

to school in the morning, but they can't sleep because of all of the hooligans,

all of the drug deals that are going on in their neighbourhoods. Is this

government providing any leadership in that area? No.

We need to provide help to the businesses, make sure that the

businesses are secure and make sure that we are giving them the opportunity to

the bigger government projects available to them so that they can provide

services and products to those big projects, such as the Olympics and the

convention centre.

I'm hearing more and more Surrey business people telling me that

they are basically bypassed unless you have a friend or an insider with the

government that will get you in there so that we could get those businesses in

there.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Bains: We need to provide those services, and we need to

provide the support to the businesses and to the people. We're not getting that.

I think if we want to show some leadership, that's what we need.

Now, we talked about many of the issues that we need to talk about

and provide support to our folks in Surrey. If we are really serious about it,

then we need to start to think seriously in providing that kind of support that

our businesses need, our parents need and the public at large needs in that

particular area.

This government, in my view, has failed to provide that type of

service and support that we need in Surrey. So I think in order for this member

to stand up and keep on repeating statement after statement made by the

government is not serving the people of Surrey.

[1050]

D. Hayer: Well, I thank the member for Surrey-Newton for

his comments.

I was expecting that he was going to come back and say: "Thank you

for this government that has turned this economy into the best economy in Canada

from the worst economy. Thank you to this government that is investing $14

billion in transportation programs, a transit plan. Thank you to this government

that is investing almost $4 billion for twinning the Port Mann Bridge and the

Gateway program, widening Highway 1."

This person, this member, failed to realize what our government is

doing. Somehow this member doesn't realize that when his party was in

government, they took this economy from the best economy and turned it into the

worst economy. That allowed us to make sure that we don't have enough programs

available….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

D. Hayer: What I am trying to say is that this member

should support the government's vision that is creating more jobs than anywhere

else in Canada, support the government's vision, the government's plan, that is

going to allow us to invest $14 billion in the transit plan. That is needed for

British Columbians. That is good for my constituents. That is good for his

constituents. That is good for everybody. That is good for our economy. That

will allow our things to move.

This member sometimes talks about the political rhetoric when he

should be really standing up for the constituents, standing for what is right

and what is needed.

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. The standing orders say

that you do not attack another person across the way.

[ Page 9720 ]

D. Hayer: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm trying to say: doesn't this member care about global warming?

Shouldn't all members of this House be caring about global warming? Shouldn't

they be caring about the quality of our air? Shouldn't all members of the House

be caring about the environment? Don't they care about getting the goods and

services moving, getting workers to jobs and back home to their families quicker

and making sure we have an efficient, effective and safe transportation system?

This plan is great news. It's going to be helping British

Columbians. In future British Columbians will say that this was a very visionary

plan, and the plan will help many other British Columbians, not just for today

but for the long term.

This plan is good for the environment. It's a future plan. It will

have a positive role in reducing vehicle emissions and in encouraging our

contribution to global warming. I support this plan. I support the twinning of

the Port Mann Bridge. I acknowledge that the Highway 1 widening from Langley to

Surrey is very important.

I hope all members of the House, all the MLAs in Surrey, will

support that. These programs are needed. They are in the good interest of

British Columbians. As our economy is growing, as our prosperity is continuing,

we must make sure our transportation keeps up with it. This transportation is

good not just for British Columbia; it's good for the whole of Canada.

FORESTRY ROAD SAFETY

S. Fraser: I rise today to speak on the important issue of

forest road safety. It is very appropriate to be speaking to the issue. It is

the number one killer of forest workers in the province, because of forest

policies brought in by this government. This year the Auditor General's report

came out citing the serious injuries in the forest industry on forestry roads.

That has been followed last week by the B.C. forest safety ombudsman's report.

No Longer the Road Less Travelled , it is entitled.

I've raised the issue a number of times in the House — in

estimates, in members' statements and in question period — regarding the safety

of the Bamfield road, which is the main forestry road used by communities within

my constituency.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I note that in the B.C. forest safety ombudsman's report the

ombudsman affirms what I have been saying repeatedly in the House: "The province

should establish a new public highway designation for resource roads that serve

as the primary or secondary access roads for communities. The new designation

would have clearly defined standards for construction, maintenance, enforcement

and be funded and resourced similarly to the public highway system."

That's the number 1 recommendation of the report. This is the

Forest Safety Council ombudsman report released just last week. That's one of 17

recommendations. Every appearance now is that the government is not going to

take these recommendations seriously. That is cause for great concern.

[1055]

In my constituency the Bamfield road is the lifeline to the

community of Bamfield and the Huu-ay-aht First Nation. It's also the lifeline

for travellers to the world-famous Bamfield Marine Centre, the West Coast Trail,

which attracts people from all over the world, and of course, the best sports

fishing and nature viewing probably anywhere on the planet. So comments made by

ministers suggesting that the maintenance is fine because it is little travelled

causes concern for me as an MLA who has invited ministers to come on this road.

There's not a small amount of the travelling public travelling

this road. The region attracts thousands of visitors every year. At a recent

meeting in Bamfield it was noted that 3,500 students travelled that road which

is not even up to basic public safety standards — a condition that should be

addressed, according to the Auditor General and to the Forest Safety Council

ombudsman. We must, because the 3,500 students travelling back and forth aren't

university students. Those are middle school and high school students. They

certainly deserve a road that is safe to travel. Also, that doesn't include the

numerous scientists and post-secondary students who travel that road.

All of the residents of Huu-ay-aht First Nation and of Bamfield

must commute on that road from time to time. Thousands of hikers, nature

watchers, sports fishers all have to travel that road too. The Ministry of

Transportation sends the public to this road to travel to the west coast, to the

communities of Bamfield and to Huu-ay-aht First Nation.

The government must notice when a board — an independent,

arm's-length board — reports out that they must address and fix the situation.

To not do so would make them culpable in future injury and death. That shouldn't

be what it takes for a government to act when it comes to public safety.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I attended a community meeting in Bamfield last fall. It was a

full house. The entire community of Bamfield came out. It was standing room

only, and it was a call to action to fix the road. It is unsafe and not up to

basic public safety standards. The Premier and this government promised to

radically reduce, certainly, forestry fatalities and injuries back in 2003, yet

we have reports saying that forest roads are the number one killer of forest

workers. The general public is being faced with the same hazards as forestry

workers, and that is simply unacceptable to anyone on any side of this House.

This is not political. This is public safety — 3,500 students

travelling that road. That's expected to rise in the next few years to 5,000

students. Children and their parents need to know that the government will

ensure that they can travel safely — to basic public safety standards — on the

only access road.

[ Page 9721 ]

The Auditor General's report that came out in January was scathing

of this government's policies, saying that cutting of red tape, deregulation,

union busting — you name it; essentially, catering to corporate friends — has

led to death and injury on forest roads in this province. The Auditor General

also stated: "We found no evidence of those responsible for planning being

required to make safety the primary consideration." That's the Auditor General.

Safety must be the primary consideration. It must be above

profits. Forest workers' safety is essential, and so is the public safety and

the safety of the children travelling to Bamfield in an attempt to improve their

education by going to the Bamfield marine station. It is fundamental that they

should be able to travel that road with safety and to know that it is up to

basic public safety standards.

The ombudsman report says that in all of its 17 recommendations in

so many ways. I urge government ministers and members to read these reports

before making comments they do not know about, and to address public safety as

the priority that it must be.

[1100]

R. Cantelon: It gives me pleasure to rise and respond to

the member from Alberni-Qualicum. I want to say that I appreciate his comments

were very objective and not directed personally at any members on this side of

the House, and likewise, I intend to do the same. I appreciate him raising the

concerns for his constituents.

I'm not going to stand here and address the condition of the road

specifically and try to tell him that his comments about the condition of the

road are overstated, misstated or misguided in any way. Indeed, it isn't a good

road, and it is used largely as a public road now to service the Bamfield area

for a wide variety of personal and corporate needs out in Bamfield. It's a

growing community.

However, I would back up a bit initially and say that to suggest

that the ministry doesn't take safety seriously is certainly a misstatement.

Obviously, to everyone concerned on both sides of this House, the safety of the

forestry workers is of paramount importance. The minister has indicated that,

though I don't stand to be here as an apologist for him. He fully supports the

B.C. Safety Council — which represents loggers, truckers, the industry and the

government — and the work that they're doing to improve safety in the forest.

Indeed, while the number of fatalities has reduced in recent years, zero is the

acceptable goal. They're working hard to get to that.

Let me come back briefly to the road. It is a common usage of the

road that private roads would be used for public purposes. Under this agreement

— this one specifically — the forestry company receives $200,000 from the

government to maintain and upgrade the road to a usable condition. There's

certainly some argument — and I won't disagree — that it is not being kept in a

serviceable way. Where I think the member opposite and I may disagree is the

approach.

The approach that this side of the House would take is to work

positively towards solutions to see if we can't develop alternate mechanisms to

negotiate and work with the parties concerned to develop workable solutions. I

want to tell the House and assure the House that that indeed is the case. That

is now happening.

Robert Dennis recently, as we all celebrated, signed major

treaties with Huu-ay-aht First Nations. Five different treaties were signed

through his direction and leadership to establish their first nations treaties.

Of course, this leads to greater economic expectations and expansions in their

area.

Which comes to the road. We're very well aware that negotiations

are in progress with first nations and with the forest company and with

government to work toward positive solutions to develop and improve that road. I

do not disagree that it needs to be done. They have great economic potential,

and a road is a key to that. To stand here and say that the road is adequate

would be flying in the face of the most obvious facts to anyone who has ever

tried to use that road. I'm sure the member would agree.

Our approach is to look positively, to work for creative

solutions, to work with partnerships, to work with Huu-ay-aht First Nations, to

work with and through the private company, Western Forest Products, who owns the

road — it is their road — and to work with them and through them, with the

Ministry of Highways, to find ways to improve the road to a standard that is

acceptable to all the citizens in the area and the economic aspirations of all

those who work out there.

I appreciate and understand the current frustration that the

member for Alberni-Qualicum expresses, having met his constituents. But I want

to tell him that things are moving, that solutions are underway. We can look to

that road being maintained in a new, creative partnership that we would hope

would involve the Huu-ay-aht First Nations to maintain the road in a

first-class-use condition.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the comments made by the member for

Nanaimo-Parksville. But it doesn't give me any comfort, and it won't give the

residents of Bamfield or anyone who has to travel that road any comfort.

The member suggested that I made a misstatement and says that this

government does support the Forest Safety Council. No, they don't. The Minister

of Forests stated that in the press. He rejected the report — summarily rejected

it — and said: "It costs too much." The Minister of Transportation has said that

the road is fine.

[1105]

That's not what the Huu-ay-aht First Nations have said. That is

not what the people of Bamfield said. Working together, yes, is appropriate. The

only people that aren't at that table is this government. Huu-ay-aht is at the

table. The committee has been struck already. Bamfield is at the table. The

regional district is at the table.

The director for the region at Bamfield, at the regional district

of Alberni-Clayoquot, stated: "We are hostages at the end of this road, and we

just have to grin and bear it. Vehicle-damaging potholes, blind corners and

blind one-way bridges are just some of the obstacles

[ Page 9722 ]

residents face in getting to Port Alberni." The 80-kilometre trip takes two

and a half hours.

Two ministers of the Crown have rejected the report, so the

member's statements are not of any comfort at all. A quote from the meeting I

attended in Bamfield where…. This is the inception of the committee. The

cooperation that the member for Nanaimo-Parksville suggested should be happening

is happening without this government at the table.

This was quoted at the meeting from the Forest Safety Council

ombudsman: "Bamfield is no longer a logging town. We have over 3,500 students

participating in marine programs and 16,000 man days used by researchers at the

marine institute. It scares me — the thought of those school and tour buses on

the road each day." This comment was made at a town hall meeting in Bamfield and

is not unique to this community.

As with many communities' relationships with their logging roads,

the Bamfield logging road is far more important, valuable and useful now to the

community than it was when it was first constructed for its original purposes.

We know that the purposes have changed, and we know that any changes for safety

have gone in the opposite direction based on policies of this government or

inaction of this government.

The reason to have an ombudsman and a forest safety council is to

address safety issues. So I'm hoping that the member's comments that there will

be support for the Forest Safety Council will be reflected by future comments

and actions by this government and government ministers.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call private members' Motion 1.

Motions on Notice

SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

J. Rustad: It's my pleasure to move:

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes the importance of

the Softwood Lumber Agreement.]

Forestry has always been a backbone of B.C. It's been a backbone

of the economy. It's been a backbone of many of the communities around this

province, and it represents about 7.4 percent of the total provincial economy.

It employs 81,600 direct dependent jobs as of the 2006 stats, and forestry

exports total $13.6 billion, representing over 50 percent of the total value of

goods exported by B.C. industries in 2006.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The forest industry does face some significant challenges at

current. The high price of the Canadian dollar and the housing crisis that we're

facing in the States have added unprecedented challenges to the forest industry.

But through this it is the softwood lumber agreement that has really helped to

save many communities, many jobs and many companies throughout this province.

Is this deal perfect? No, I don't think it's perfect. No deal is

perfect. But I can tell you this: in 2002 there was a 30 percent duty on

Canadian lumber's exporting in the States. Could you imagine the state of our

forest industry today if we had a 30 percent export tax? More than $4.3 billion

has returned to Canadian companies, and much of that has come directly to B.C.

A lot of those revenues have been used to help support companies

to do some renovations and expansions, and to help these companies get through

these tough times. Yes, we do have some companies that are down. But when you

look across Canada, B.C. companies were some of the last to go down and some of

the last to take downtime. That's because of the strength and certainty that we

have in this province and, in particular, because some of the direct benefits

that have come from the softwood lumber agreement.

[1110]

I'd like to quote something from CBC news on line from August 23

of 2006 that said: "The trade war took a toll on Canadian jobs. Thousands in the

industry lost their jobs, including about 15,000 forestry workers who were laid

off in British Columbia." That was during the trade war that went on.

At this time, when you look at the benefits that have come from

that softwood lumber agreement…. I just want to talk a little bit in particular

about some of the companies in B.C. So $554 million back to Canfor, $284 million

back to West Fraser, $70 million back to Interfor and $103 million returned back

to Western Forest Products. Those companies have used those dollars directly to

help keep mills open, to help transition through this period.

They've done it, of course, in the best way they can from an

economical perspective. They've had to take downtime. There is too much wood on

the market. The housing market in the United States has collapsed back to 1990

levels. There are those challenges that we need to work through, but without

that money being returned, without that certainty, there's no question the

forest industry in B.C. would be in even worse shape.

One of the reasons why I brought this forward, of course, is that

just recently the NDP released their forestry plan through the leader of the

NDP. The NDP's forestry plan, when you look at it…. I wouldn't wave the two

pages here in front, as the NDP have used in terms of props. Clearly, it's a

thinly veiled attempt and fails to understand the complexities of the industry.

At one point the plan suggests that revenues that are collected

through the export tax on the softwood lumber agreement should go towards a

community support plan. Then on the next hand, they're saying that they're going

to look at the abrogation of the softwood lumber agreement and that they'd like

to get rid of this softwood lumber agreement. How do you square that equation?

Clearly, the NDP have not thought through their plan when they rushed to put

this stuff forward.

The member for Cariboo North said, when the deal went through:

"This is a bad deal and ultimately hurts B.C.'s resource-dependent communities."

That was from September 13, 2006. Once again, from the B.C. Almanac on

August 21, 2006, the member for Cariboo North said: "I believe this deal will

start falling apart very

[ Page 9723 ]

quickly." Again in Hansard , April 17, '07: "This deal is a silly deal.

It was an unnecessary deal, and it has done nothing for the industry. It has

brought about uncertainty."

Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The benefit of

having this opportunity to debate this motion today is for the member for

Cariboo North, who can now stand up and actually talk about the thousands of

jobs that have benefited directly — the families that have benefited directly

from the softwood lumber agreement.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Think about a 30 percent…. The member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast says: "Can you provide an example?" Let me provide you with

many examples. I can tell you right now….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Take your seat, please.

When all members are ready to resume and allow the speaker having

the floor to speak, it would be appreciated.

Please continue, Member.

J. Rustad: When you look at what would happen to the forest

industry under a 30 percent tax, you would see literally not a mill in this

province that would be able to function. You would also see that money being

held on the other side of the border. You would see millions of dollars being

spent on litigation. You would see an incredible amount of uncertainty.

You would not have seen the reinvestment in the industry. You

would not have seen the revenues coming to our province, but rather, they would

have been left on the other side of the border.

It is clear that the softwood lumber agreement, although not

perfect, has brought certainty to the industry. It has brought a framework that

the industry can work under. It has allowed for some reinvestment. It has

allowed many companies to be able to have some cash reserves to help them go

through these challenging times.

[1115]

It's clear that the softwood lumber agreement has been a huge

benefit for this province. It has brought about a rudder, I guess you could say.

It has put a rudder in the waters of uncertainty that have come with the high

Canadian dollar and the housing crisis in the States.

I look forward to both sides of this House recognizing the value

of that softwood lumber agreement and recognizing that without it, our industry

would be in far worse shape than it is today. We have a chance to be able to

build a bright future, and the softwood lumber agreement is one of the tools

that is helping us to get there.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Alberni-Qualicum. Cariboo North

— sorry.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, you're just keeping with the great

tradition that has started since I came here of repositioning me on Vancouver

Island. I've had many talks with my wife about that. She still wants to stay in

Quesnel.

I appreciate the member raising this issue. I find the motion

rather nebulous, though — that the House supports the importance of the softwood

lumber agreement. I'm thankful that the member raised some points of

clarification so that we know the context for the debate.

I have to say, though, that I find the member's comments

troubling. I will state categorically that I believe the member and the

government need to bring forward data to substantiate what the member has said

today.

First of all, I find it curious that the tax that's used as a

counterbalance to the 15 percent we have just now is 2002, when it was 30

percent. Right before we signed the deal, it was 10.1 percent — not 30 percent,

but 10.1 percent — and we were waiting for some final rulings. Those final

rulings could have effectively made that tax go away.

We were in the end-game of the legal proceedings — in fact, to the

point that the softwood lumber coalition in the United States had only one

recourse, and that was to challenge the constitutionality of NAFTA. That was

their only recourse because we were in the end-game. We were in the final wins.

What did this government do? It sided with Prime Minister Harper,

who was ramming a political deal down our throats at the time and who was giving

us a deal that he would then be in the good books of President Bush. This became

a political deal, not a business deal. The proof of that is in the structure of

the deal.

The member says that I was wrong to say that it created certainty.

Well, tell that to the shareholders of West Fraser and Canfor, who right now are

holding $16 million for Canfor in a potential incremental tax liability because

we're disputing the surge mechanism in arbitration — $16 million of uncertainty

in Canfor's operations and $15 million of uncertainty in West Fraser's books.

We are waiting for an arbitration ruling on how to calculate the

volume going across the border and calculate the tax charged to British

Columbians. It may not be 15 percent. It may have actually gone from 10 percent

and declining, to 22½ percent, if the Americans win the surge arbitration — 22½

percent tax.

The fallacy in the argument that the member puts forward is that

when we were crafting this deal, when it was being jammed down our throats, we

knew the market was collapsing. All the signs were there that the housing bubble

was about to collapse and about to collapse big-time. Instead of continuing and

staying the course and winning the court cases and making this thing go through

the legal process, what did we do? We signed a bad deal that remains a bad deal

to this day.

We introduced uncertainty as to whether the tax was 15 percent or

22½ percent, which remains to this day. We left a billion dollars on the table

in the U.S. — $500 million to go to our competitors. That's smart business

sense. Give our competitors $500 million to

[ Page 9724 ]

invest in their mills so they could outcompete us in the same marketplace.

We left money on the table to pay for all arbitration. So the

Americans can arbitrate everything we do in this province with impunity. Why?

Because Canadians are paying for it.

[1120]

Then to add insult to injury, we left almost half a billion

dollars on the table for communities and forest health activities — things that

we can no longer do in this country and in this province without arbitration by

the United States. I said it then, and I'll say it now: we gave up our

sovereignty to get this deal, and it is now hurting us.

At a time when we have to fundamentally change the structure of

the industry, where we have to have tenure reform, where we have to change our

stumpage rates, where we have to do the positioning and repositioning of the

industry that we need to do, what do we have? We have a softwood lumber deal

that means we have to go first to the federal government and then to Washington

to see if we can do it.

All you have to do is ask Ottawa. Ask Ontario. Ask Quebec. They

attempted to intervene and to restructure their industry, and they're in

arbitration under the softwood lumber agreement. That's certainty.

Lost our sovereignty, gave a billion dollars, wasted all of our

money that we spent on legal challenges. Now we have uncertainty in the surge

mechanism, and companies are forced to carry tens of millions of dollars in

potential tax liabilities that are accruing.

More insidious is the member's statement and the member before him

in the previous private members' debates that the money from the softwood border

tax went back in to stabilize the industry. I challenge that. I believe

fundamentally that if a member stands up in this House, provide the data — put

the data on the table — because that is wrong. That is wrong.

The companies that are running today are running today because the

mountain pine beetle stumpage is at 25 cents, and they're driving it there.

That's why they're running today. If you look at the investment history in

British Columbia, the vast majority of the investments were pre-softwood, not

post-softwood. Pre-softwood. In fact, West Fraser took its softwood money and

invested — no question. I don't dispute that. They invested. Where? They bought

International Paper Products down in the southeast United States. That's where

they invested.

Canfor. Really, we haven't seen any results to British Columbia

from their refunds, and they got the largest refund. Western Forest Products has

done some debt repatriation, but they continue to close mills. Where is that

investment? Where is this magical investment and the benefit we got? I challenge

the member to table that in this House today. Where is the government's proof

that that happened? Because it didn't.

Instead, at the worst possible time in the marketplace, which

looks like it's down for a long time, we're paying 15 percent border tax that we

might never have had to pay if we'd stayed the course. That border tax may be 22½

percent, not 15 percent. That uncertainty remains.

A member opposite on the government's bench, in his own words,

stated that aside from the dollar, aside from the market, there's a major

problem in the structure of the industry in this province. This is the member

for East Kootenay: "The last but most important factor that's troubling the

industry just now is the duty payable under the Canadian softwood agreement."

B. Bennett: That's not what I said at all.

B. Simpson: It's a direct quote from the member's own

writing. This is an op-ed by the member that I'm reading directly into the

record. "The last but most important factor is the duty payable under the

Canadian softwood agreement. Companies collectively chose an option under the

Canada softwood agreement that is now looking like the wrong choice."

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

B. Simpson: That's the member for East Kootenay. "Tembec

was one of the few companies that opposed the choice, and it turns out they were

right."

What happened to the Forests Minister? What happened to the

Premier? What happened to the guy who really negotiated the deal, Ken Dobell, on

behalf of British Columbia?

Tembec was right. "Canadian forest companies are now paying a 15

percent duty on all softwood exported to the U.S., rather than the 5 percent

duty they were paying when the lumber price was up."

That same member goes on in the same op-ed and asks for changes to

our stumpage system. That member knows that we can't change our stumpage system

because it would be arbitrated under the softwood lumber agreement.

Is this a deal we can support? No, not on your life. Is this a

deal that benefits communities? No, not on your life. Is this a deal that has

driven investment into British Columbia? Not a penny. Is this a deal that has

kept jobs and mills open? No. This is a deal that we should have never signed.

This is a deal that was done at the wrong time in the market. This is a deal

that still continues to hurt British Columbia at the worst possible time.

We're not supporting this motion.

[1125]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Bennett: Before I speak, I'd like to reserve a point of

privilege.

Debate Continued

B. Bennett: I'm speaking in support of the motion. The

softwood agreement is the best deal possible for Canada and for the people of

B.C., and the alternative

[ Page 9725 ]

to this deal is more pain and more uncertainty for B.C. families who depend

on forestry.

As with any agreement between nations or between individuals or

companies, no party got everything they wanted, including the Americans. But

with this agreement, Canada and B.C. got tariffs removed from lumber going to

the U.S. We got billions of dollars in duties returned. We got a seven-year term

with a possible two-year extension. We got a ban on the U.S. launching new trade

actions and neutral trade arbitrators to provide final and binding settlements

of disputes.

The test for any party in a negotiated transaction is whether what

they have negotiated is reasonable. As my neighbour from the riding of Columbia

River–Revelstoke said after the deal was signed, no doubt to the consternation

of his friend the opposition Forests critic: "This deal works for Downie street

mill. Downie mill is a critically important part of Revelstoke's economy, and

this deal protects the mill's employees. It is my obligation to speak for the

mills in my area, and flawed or not, this deal is a good resolution for them."

Even the opposition Forests critic, never one to miss an

opportunity to degrade anything this government is involved in, admitted in the

House in a weak moment that the softwood agreement, like any agreement, was with

strengths and weaknesses. This is a quote from the opposition Forests critic: "I

didn't say this is a good deal or a bad deal. A deal's a deal. It has good and

bad aspects to it."

This side of the House wanted a fair deal for British Columbia.

Our government pushed for and received sufficient assurances that B.C.'s

concerns with the softwood lumber agreement were addressed. That includes

acceptance of B.C.'s independent ability to establish forest policy in our own

province — for example, the market-based stumpage that we implemented after the

deal. It also includes assurances around important issues, including six months'

notice of termination, a one-year standstill clause after the agreement is

terminated or expires, review of lumber produced on privately owned land and

review of day-to-day operations by a binational panel.

I think it's worth taking a look back to see what British

Columbians actually had at the time this agreement was entered into. The

U.S.-Canada softwood agreement expired in April 2001 while the NDP was still in

government. They had made no progress in terms of negotiating a new agreement

prior to the expiration of that softwood agreement. Twelve months later, of

course, the U.S. imposed duties of 30 percent on Canadian softwood lumber, and

the war started.

I'd like to read a quote from CBC in 2006: "The trade war took a

toll on Canadian jobs. Thousands in the industry lost their jobs, including

about 15,000 forestry workers who were laid off in British Columbia." It wasn't

only the media who were saying those kinds of things. The industry was pleading

with our government to not do what the NDP had done, which was nothing.

John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, February

2003: "Canadian companies cannot withstand the impacts on the market until legal

cases are resolved."

To the member's point, the opposition Forests critic, who would

like to have us in court spending millions and millions of dollars on lawyers….

I thank him very much — I'm a member of the bar — for the support, but I really

don't think that's what British Columbians want us to spend our money on.

As John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, said:

"Canadian companies cannot withstand the impacts on the market until legal cases

are resolved." That's the industry saying that, not the government.

On October 12, 2006, the new softwood agreement came into place.

The agreement ended years of litigation and finally brought some operational

certainty to forest companies who were begging for that. The agreement also

returned billions in lost revenue to Canadian softwood producers, and that money

has gone a long ways towards helping them survive the present difficulties in

the forestry sector.

The opposition Forests critic seems to agree with the government

that the return of this money was a good thing. So I'm going to quote him again.

"I know that one of the drivers for the minister in getting a softwood

settlement was getting that cash back for some of those mills there. Without it,

those companies are in trouble, and there's no way to sugar-coat that." That's a

quotation from the opposition Forests critic.

On January 11, 2008, the federal government returned $372 million

to B.C. We were able to anticipate this refund, because we had the good sense to

support a fair deal. This agreement signified the end of the instability in the

relationship with our largest trading partner. That's good business.

Now this brings us to the present. The NDP recently said: "We will

take the softwood lumber agreement to hearings to determine what steps should be

taken, up to and including abrogation." Surely the NDP isn't arguing that we

should return to the days when twice the amount of current export tax was

collected by the Americans and they got to keep it.

[1130]

As for abrogating the agreement, the opposition should know that

international trade agreements are signed by the federal government and are law

while they're in effect. The province cannot unilaterally enter the

negotiations, nor can we unilaterally terminate them. But of course, that

doesn't stop the NDP from going around B.C. and telling people that they can.

The B.C. forest industry has asked this government not to take any

steps to terminate the agreement. They do not want to go back to the 30 percent

duties and endless litigation to try to get that money back. Millions of dollars

were spent on lawyers, and nobody out there, no taxpayer, wants to return to

that.

Our forest industry believes the agreement provides stability —

very important, particularly at this time. The industry is facing the highest

Canadian dollar since the 1970s. Every penny increase in the Canadian dollar

means about $130 million a year to the B.C. forest industry. Now, that wouldn't

be so bad if the U.S. housing market were healthier, but oversupply of new

houses, sub-prime mortgages and their inevitable de-

[ Page 9726 ]

faults have created the worst softwood market in the U.S. in decades. U.S.

housing starts are at their lowest level since 1991.

We have a triple whammy. We have an extremely high Canadian

dollar. It comes off directly from the bottom line of the B.C. forest companies.

We have a lousy softwood lumber market in the U.S., which means that there are

few sales in any case, and a 15 percent duty, which is still only half the 30

percent it was before we had a deal.

Here is what the opposition will never want the public to know.

This is what they will never say about this perfect storm of negative factors.

Adding yet another extreme uncertainty, the termination of the softwood

agreement, to the already crippling factors of a high Canadian dollar and a

terrible housing market would just make things much, much worse for everybody —

for the companies, for the communities, for the people who work in the industry.

It's cynical politics but, unfortunately, very typical of this political party

over the several decades.

There's a saying that we cannot know where we are going if we

don't know where we've been. I know the opposition cringes in question period

every time the Health Minister harkens back to the 1990s. Of course, they claim

irrelevancy, hoping that people will not remember their history of mistakes.

The history of the opposition when they were government for ten

years illustrates what they would do if they were ever to form government again.

Forestry is replete with as many examples of their mismanagement as health care

is. They had eight Forests Ministers in ten years. Now, there's stability for

you. That's what they would do. Thirteen thousand forestry jobs disappeared; 27

mills permanently closed. The wood product–manufacturing sector shrunk by 3.9

percent, almost 4 percent, between 1997 and 2001, and the coastal forest

industry became the highest-cost producer of timber in the world.

There are three reports: the Pearse report in 2001, the

PricewaterhouseCoopers report in 2000 and the Restoring British Columbia's

Economic Heartland report by the B.C. Progress Board in December 2002. All

three of these reports said the same thing. They said that the NDP forest

policies decimated the forest industry from Port Alberni to Cranbrook to Fort

St. James to Dawson Creek. That's the truth, and the people of this province

know bloody well that that's the truth.

Jobs and timber accord — a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. No

new jobs to show for that.

The start of the pine beetle epidemic. They ought to be

embarrassed about this. They had an ideological aversion to doing what was

necessary in Tweedsmuir Park. Think of how things could be different if the NDP

had taken action.

The Carrier debacle. The forest renewal shell games they played.

The NDP is simply disconnected from economic realities and prefers to believe

they can levy taxes and implement burdensome regulation without killing the

goose that lays the golden egg.

Now they want to rip up the softwood agreement and add yet another

layer of pain and uncertainty to an already difficult time for forest companies

and families and communities who depend on forestry. The softwood agreement

between Canada and the U.S. is by no means perfect, but it is the one thing that

is stable in the forest industry today.

To those in the opposition who so cavalierly say they would rip up

this agreement: they ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are putting cynical

politics ahead of the families and communities, particularly of rural British

Columbia.

I'm proud of the Premier of this province, who puts the people of

the province ahead of petty bickering with the federal government, which is the

history of the party across the way. That's how they deal with the federal

government. They like to bicker and fight and get on the front page of the

newspaper rather than get things done.

I'm proud to stand here today in support of the softwood

agreement.

[1135]

H. Lali: I rise to actually state my position, which is

that this softwood lumber agreement is not a supportable deal, not by any

stretch of the imagination.

I just want to point out, Members across the way, that in the last

couple of years, as the Canadian economy has turned around and due to forces

beyond the control of this Liberal government, the economy of British Columbia

has turned around. There isn't a single item that they can point to that would

help to turn the economy around, but when it comes to forestry, you hear members

opposite say: "Oh, the downturn in the forest industry…. It's not our fault.

It's something that is beyond our control. It's the Canadian dollar; it's this

and that and the other thing."

But they will not take any share of responsibility to say that

they are actually sinking the forest industry in British Columbia. This softwood

lumber agreement is a prime example of the abrogation of their responsibility as

the government to look after the forest industry in this province. But they're

not going to stand up. When there's something good going on: "Oh, yeah. It's us.

We did it." But when something bad is going on: "Oh, no. It's circumstances and

forces beyond our control." It's shameless when members across the way can't

even take the responsibility for their own actions.

I'll tell you, the member across the way is talking about…. "We

don't want to pay lawyers," he says. "We don't want to pay lawyers to fight the

legal challenge" — a legal challenge that we were winning. He doesn't want to do

that, but he's prepared to throw away a billion dollars, leave it on the table

so that money could go to our competitors across the border to fight against us.

That hon. member wants to leave that billion dollars on the table that our

communities could have used on this side of the border in terms of the

transition that is needed for small forestry towns.

They want to sit there, they want to thump the desk, and they want

talk about how great they are. But the fact of the matter is that 45 sawmills

have closed in this province under the rule of the B.C. Liberals in the

[ Page 9727 ]

last seven years. That is the largest number of sawmill closures in the

history of this province, and that government is responsible directly for the

failure of their policies. That's the reality in this province.

You know, there's an old adage that when you're going to war with

an enemy, never withdraw from the field of battle when you know you're winning.

But that's exactly what this Liberal government has done when they actually

supported Stephen Harper in the middle of the battle when we were winning those

legal fights in the courts. They withdrew in the middle. They capitulated right

in the middle, because this Liberal government sided with Stephen Harper, the

Prime Minister, who was trying to get his own Brownie points with George Bush at

the time. It's a real shame that they would actually do that right in the middle

of the battle.

So instead of a real softwood lumber agreement that would help our

industry on this side of the border, they participated in the sellout of our

forest industry to the Americans. They participated in that. One has to wonder

why it was that in the middle of the battle they would actually withdraw. But

when you look at it, at the same time we had this government in British

Columbia, which had been going along with Stephen Harper, sell out to the

Americans just so they could get a few more dollars for Gateway and for the

Olympics here in British Columbia. That's the real deal.

They abandoned rural British Columbia yet again. They abandoned

rural British Columbia, all of those dozens and dozens of sawmill towns across

rural B.C. who are dependant for their livelihoods on those sawmill jobs, jobs

in the forest industry. This government, by signing out with this bad deal — the

softwood lumber agreement — has capitulated to the Americans and abandoned rural

British Columbia. And they leave a billion dollars on the table.

We could have used that money. Our forest companies could have

used that money to upgrade their machinery, but instead this government left

that billion dollars — our portion of it — on that table. So we've got all these

communities that are now suffering at the hands of these bad policies, the

punitive policies by the Liberals. The small communities are suffering. They

can't even get any transition help from this government to help plan for the

future of those communities in those dozens of small towns, throughout this

province.

[1140]

I also want to talk about the social contract that this government

has broken. Over the last seven years they were able to do that. You know, they

removed the appurtenancy clause that actually kept sawmill jobs — those forestry

jobs — open in those small communities. When they cut that tie, they allowed

companies to arbitrarily shut down sawmills and take the timber with them to

wherever and actually eliminate jobs all throughout the province.

They also did away with a 90-day mill closure review process where

communities, government, workers and the company were all able to sit down and

work out some sort of agreement whereby if the mill was going to be pulled out,

there would be some jobs left behind or there'd be a transition strategy that

was in place. The minister had 90 days. The government had 90 days where they

could work with the government.

But they got rid of that and the 5 percent takeback that was there

as well. When the company pulled out of town, they left 5 percent of that

behind. That went to small operators in communities. Here we have all

remanufacturing outfits in the province, the small business forest enterprise

program — which they have gutted — the small-scale salvage operators who

depended on that 5 percent takeback or the small amounts of wood. They can't

even get that right now.

I was in a meeting about a year and a half ago in Merritt with the

small-scale operators and the forestry officials from the region that were

there. When the small-scale operators raised the question of why they were not

able to get access to wood, the forestry officials admitted that they would

actually fall in trouble with the softwood lumber agreement and some countervail

from the United States.

So what did this government do?

The Premier, at the Truck Loggers convention, admitted that our

sovereignty is at stake in terms of our sovereignty to make our forest policies

— now being dictated to in the boardrooms of the United States.

This agreement has left us at a huge disadvantage. The Americans

have the right to abrogate this treaty if they want to, but we don't share the

similar on this side of the border.

This is supposed to be the government who tries to pride itself on

how we can do business and on how we are the big negotiators. They sell us out

by being in cahoots with Stephen Harper's master plan, capitulating to the

United States and leaving all these communities out in the cold.

What has happened is that this Liberal government has worked out a

bad deal. They know it's a bad deal. Their folks in the industry are telling

them that it's a bad deal. Their supporters are telling them that it's a bad

deal. Workers, mayors, councillors and regional district reps are all telling

them that it's a bad deal. First nations are telling them that it's a bad deal.

But they stand here in this House representing not the interests

of British Columbians but the interests of Ottawa and the United States. They

are also looking after the interests of those big companies who pay for their

election bills. They are not looking after the interests of average British

Columbians or forestry workers in this province.

This is a bad deal, and it's not a deal that this side of the

House is prepared to support.

R. Cantelon: I appreciate hearing the unbounded enthusiasm

of the member for Yale-Lillooet — unbounded, certainly, by any reference to

facts or about the issue.

The softwood lumber agreement is something that apparently members

opposite would like to tear up. I'm happy to hear that the member for

Yale-Lillooet at least acknowledged that it is a federal agreement, negotiated

internationally.

But all members on the opposite House that spoke to this issue

seem to prefer legal battles in the court. We

[ Page 9728 ]

had that for many years, where millions and millions of dollars were spent

towards no specific conclusion. Certainly there's no question that the

industries and the lobby groups in the United States have very deep pockets and

were prepared to and did continue to carry on litigation ad nauseam through

whatever courts of appeal they were able to access — and there were many — and

they would continue to do it.

[1145]

I would like to raise a couple of points, though, that were

mentioned by the member for Cariboo North. He mentioned that Western Forest

Products…. All they did with it was to reduce their debt. Apparently, that isn't

positive in their thinking. Well, all I can tell you is that if you had any

knowledge of how corporations work…. The cost of debt certainly impinges on

their ability to operate, which is something the member for Cariboo North

perhaps could consider if he were able to do so in considering how corporations

work.

Certainly by reducing your debt, you're able to then, Member,

divert some of your resources towards keeping things operational. That is

absolutely critical, and that is what Western Forest Products has done as much

as they can and extended the life of mills. I believe they've opened up another

mill south of my area.

These are things that needed to be done. He also mentioned that….

There's a convenient juxtaposition. If the story doesn't fit the circumstances,

change the time line so it works. Certainly, in 2005 the industry in the United

States was humming along. The member opposite for Yale-Lillooet indicated that:

"Oh, the Canadian dollar doesn't have any effect." Are you kidding? The Canadian

dollar, of course…. Every point that it moves up costs millions of dollars. It's

a significant factor.

So we preferred, apparently, to have the uncertainty of spending

millions of dollars in endless litigation to the certainty of the forest lumber.

In fact, the other point that I would come to is that at the time it was

negotiated, there was only a 10 percent tariff. As a matter of fact, if the

agreement had been in effect at that time, there would have been no tariff,

because the price per cube was at $355, and at that point it would be zero.

The member opposite also indicates that: "Oh, there is uncertainty

because it might go to 22 percent." I think if he clearly understood the

agreement…. And I know that he does and was extemporizing and taking licence

with it. There's an arbitration mechanism in place which was not in place

before. So there now is certainty in resolving these issues and coming to

agreement.

The United States, as well as Canada, is bound by arbitration

mechanisms which were not in place. We simply had an open-ended, endless

litigation process going on that would probably still continue.

I could go on, but noting the time, I would at this point move

adjournment of the debate.

Interjections.

R. Cantelon: Well, in that case — if I'm too early — I'll

proceed, because I have some other significant points that I'd like to make. I

think I'd like to comment further that if we don't like an agreement, let's just

tear it up. I think we've had leadership from the Premier of this province and

reached a very, very positive way in which we can negotiate with the federal

government to negotiate terms that are favourable to us so that we can proceed

with the federal government in concert and partnership with them to develop

treaties.

These treaties, once of course signed by international agreements,

can't be casually torn up as indicated by the members opposite. "We don't like

an agreement. Tear it up."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now I'm getting fairly good signs which indicate that while they

approve of my rhetoric, perhaps it's carried on long enough. I would now like to

move adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, there was a motion.

Do you withdraw that motion, Member?

R. Cantelon: Yes.

C. Wyse: For a while I wasn't quite certain what was

happening here in the House. When I've listened to some of the debate that I've

heard from my colleagues from the other side, I can understand the confusion

that abounds on their side with where things are going with this particular

discussion.

In coming back to the actual motion that was put on the table that

this House recognize the importance of the softwood lumber agreement, I couldn't

agree more with the importance of discussing that particular motion put on the

floor. It needs to be put into the context of how the Liberal government had in

actual fact been setting the table for the backbone industry of British

Columbia, as one of my colleagues from the side opposite had mentioned earlier.

[1150]

We had that social contract that had been put into place looking

after our industry for decades — the individual that we all recognize as W.A.C.

Bennett. That particular social contract protected the integrity and the

communities here within British Columbia. It looked after them. It provided

things like appurtenancy, removed by the Liberals; cut control, removed by the

Liberals. Tenure became a tradable commodity. The requirement for mill closure

reviews or the 5 percent takeback of tenure and changes in corporate ownership.

Replaced the Forest Practices Code with the self-policing. Took 20 percent of

the allowable annual cut and paid huge compensations to the companies. We have

now evolved into a situation here in which we have got the corporate

concentration in a few large industries and the collapse of an industry.

The environment within the softwood lumber agreement is now in

place. It ended up being put into place, with agreement with the province, when

the court cases were moving along and Canada was winning them. The court cases

in the United States, in actual fact, had ruled that all the moneys would be

returned

[ Page 9729 ]

to Canada. In the agreement agreed to here in British Columbia a billion

dollars was left on the table in the United States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you and I were to count to a billion one

dollar at a time, seven days a week for 24 hours, it would take us 47 years to

count that billion dollars, to count that sum of money that was left on the

table to support the American industries.

My colleague from opposite made reference about the deal being

good for Downie in Revelstoke. Sure, that statement was made, but what was left

out was that in actual fact a loan guarantee or other supports in lieu of the

bad softwood lumber agreement would have been preferred.

When we return to evaluate this softwood lumber agreement, given

the environment that has been contributed here by policies, by decisions made by

the government opposite, we have ended with a situation where in the interior of

British Columbia, rural British Columbia, these communities are in a very, very

difficult set of circumstances. No longer are we dealing here simply with the

normal rollercoaster of the ups and downs of the economic situation that affects

forestry. We receive comments that this rollercoaster has simply become a

downward slide. That is within the context that we are discussing the softwood

lumber agreement and whether it in actual fact is beneficial.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time, and I turn it

over to the next speaker.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery this morning are

students from Bench Elementary. They are here to meet with the Minister of

Environment and push their crusade to reduce the use of plastic bags in stores

in and around our community, in and around our province and right across the

world. Would the House please make the kids from Bench Elementary most welcome.

Debate Continued

R. Hawes: While time is short here, I'll just get a few

brief comments.

Interesting debate. One of the most interesting characteristics of

this debate, in my view, is the fact that when you are in opposition, you can

say anything and not have to do anything to bring your words to action. It's

real easy in opposition to speak with a bunch of empty rhetoric, but when it

comes time to deliver, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it's a whole different

matter. These folks in opposition with their interesting comments, frankly, have

absolutely no grounding in reality.

The industry has told us clearly not to interfere with this

agreement at this time. The industry knows that it's providing some certainty at

a very uncertain time in forestry.

[1155]

I listened closely to the comments of the critic for Forests. I

think he is very, very similar in a lot of ways to his leader, who doesn't seem

to have any positions either, who jumps from one position to another and has to

corrected. I notice that the same characteristic seems to hold true for the

opposition critic.

He was and has been quoted — and there were quotes attributed to

him earlier today — saying that the softwood deal is a bad deal. Then he goes

and says that maybe it's not bad: "I didn't say this is a good deal or a bad

deal. A deal's a deal. It has good and bad aspects to it." He said that in the

House here on May 2, 2006.

Then he goes on and he says, on the other side of the deal: "It's

my obligation to speak for the mills in my area, and flawed or not, this deal is

a good resolution for them."

It's a bad deal; maybe it's not a bad deal. Oh, and that was said

in the Revelstoke Times .

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Simpson: I reserve a right of privilege.

Debate Continued

R. Hawes: The quote I'm attributing here to him came from

the Revelstoke Times Review on August 30, 2006. That might help the

member as he researches when and where he said that. So unless the Revelstoke

Times is quoting, and I notice that it is in quotation marks…. Unless the

media has it wrong…. God forbid that the media would ever get something wrong.

B. Simpson: I think the member is actually referring to

another member of this House, not the Forests critic, and I ask him to withdraw

his remarks.

R. Hawes: Well, Mr. Speaker, the comment that I have here

does attribute it to the MLA for Cariboo North. Unless on August 30, 2006, there

was a different member for Cariboo North…. I'm suspecting that that's not so.

Were this to be something that wasn't quoted in the Revelstoke

Times Review , I would certainly withdraw my comment, but the quote that I

have here certainly stands in terms of having been attributed to that member.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that that member, along

with other members of the opposition, have been on both sides of this deal. One

day it's a bad deal. The next day it's a good deal. Another day it's maybe,

maybe not.

It's very similar to the Leader of the Opposition's position on

things like the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, where it's a good deal; it's a

bad deal; it's maybe not a deal. We shouldn't do it; we should do it. There's no

position on things that come from these people. The fact is that at some stage

they need to at least advance some actual alternatives rather than just

criticism.

Noting the hour, I would move adjournment of debate.

[ Page 9730 ]

R. Hawes moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175